Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Enrollment and the Recession

 A new report from the United States Census Bureau’s Current Population Reports on Household Economic Studies addresses how the recession has affected those enrolled in social programs.  The report includes a comparison of program participation of families who use the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) both before and during the recent recession. TANF is a federally funded assistance program which, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, states allocate in

“ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: ‘(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.’”

The report analyzed multiple factors affecting participation in TANF by examining whether participation increased and employment decreased as a result of the recession, comparing family enrollment in other assistance programs based on welfare and poverty status before and during the recession, and exploring whether or not there were different reasons for a reduction in welfare benefits before and after the start of the economic recession. The Bureau’s report also researched the increased percentage of employed welfare beneficiaries after the employment requirement was instated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PWORA) that created TANF in 1996. The three groups compared in the study were TANF recipients, poor non-TANF participants and other non-TANF families.  

The study reported multiple valuable findings, examining racial enrollment, full and part time employment statistics, labor force participation rates, and TANF recipient enrollment in other social assistance programs. While the recession increased participation in other social support programs, such as energy assistance, SNAP, and clothing assistance, there was no significant change in the TANF participation rate of poor families between 2006 and 2009. The increase seen in other programs was directly correlated to the rise in unemployment, which was not necessarily seen in TANF. However, married-couple families, who generally have the lowest overall rates of TANF participation, grew in proportion to the overall TANF recipient pool. TANF recipients were also more likely to receive other sources of assistance than both poor and non-TANF study participants.  

The report included information about the reasons for participating and exiting the TANF program.  The study found that one-eighth of former recipients no longer received benefits due to exceeding the enrollment time limit. Few families appeared to leave TANF for failing to fulfill the employment requirement and the report did not find that families receiving TANF only worked in order to continue to receive their benefits even though TANF enrollee employment rates have increased since the implementation of the work requirement. Conversely, the most common reason for families to stop receiving benefits is because their income exceeded the income eligibility limit (about one-third of former recipients surveyed). Yet they still needed some form of welfare assistance which indicates that families are not receiving the income necessary to provide for their families with low-pay work alone. Only one-fifth of former TANF beneficiaries left the program because they no longer needed TANF assistance.  

In reference to the PWORA employment requirement, the report showed that TANF families were more likely to participate in job training and education programs than poor non-TANF families and all other non-TANF families. These programs can touch on job searching and resources, interviewing skills, proper work etiquette and attire, or even self-esteem building workshops. TANF family participation in these programs increased from 11.5 percent in 2006 to 25.0 percent in 2009, while poor non-TANF families increased from 3.0 percent to 7.1 percent and other non-TANF families from 0.8 percent to 2.1 percent. This not only shows the affect the recession has had on the ability for lower income families to maintain a steady job, but also shows that many TANF families are highly motivated and committed to seek employment. Educational programs, including programs for basic literacy skills; GED and college certificate and degree attainment; and English as a Second Language, did not have significant increases in participation between 2006 and 2009. 

A strong safety-net, including programs like TANF, is essential to supporting low income families with children, particularly in a struggling economy. The research in this report shows that TANF beneficiaries are likely to utilize professional development and work support opportunities.  Policymakers should consider new ways of supporting families in their efforts to improve their work opportunities while also helping to provide work supports that enable families to be engaged in the workforce.  For more information on how to support TANF beneficiaries and low income families, see policyforesults.org.  

What Strategies Work for the Hard-to-Employ?

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) recently released a report on strategies that work for the hard-to-employ.

The report includes findings from a 10-year study evaluating groups of people that face barriers to employment. The groups include; long-term welfare recipients, people with disabilities, those with mental or physical health problems, and former prisoners. Three of the eight models considered in this report and conducted by the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), Transitional Work Corporation (TWC), and Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment Evaluation (PRIDE) have proven to increase employment gains. A control group was used in each model to compare the success of the different programs.

The Center for Employment Opportunities observed former prisoners located in New York City in support services, job placement assistance, and transitional jobs.  The main goals of the evaluation were to improve long-term employment outcomes and reduce recidivism rates. After the completion of this three-year experiment, findings show CEO was able to increase employment early in the follow-up period when the participants were working in CEO transitional jobs; however, employment gains lessened as participants left those jobs. Although long-term employment was not attained, CEO’s transitional job programs were able to impact recidivism rates. Over the three-year period, only 67 percent of CEO participants experienced some type of recidivism compared to 71 percent of the control group.

The next model, based in Philadelphia by the TWC, provided temporary jobs for the hard-to-employ while providing assistance with job searching, job readiness instruction, and preparation for the General Educational Development Exam and other similar classes. The program required participants to attend a mandatory two-week orientation before being placed in a transitional job, usually within the government or a nonprofit agency at minimum wage. These individuals were required to work 25 hours a week while participating in 10 hours of professional development activities. After participants were able to secure a permanent job, TWC provided bonus payments for up to nine months.  Sixty-two percent of those randomly placed in the program enrolled and completed the two-week orientation, but only half actually worked in TWC transitional jobs. The participants that entered into a transitional job only worked for about 30 days over roughly eight weeks on average. While this model did not achieve long-term employment, TWC model was able to provide temporary relief through income and short-term employment to the disadvantaged.

The last evaluation conducted through Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment Evaluation (PRIDE) in New York City proved to be the most successful in increasing employment. The model tested the effects of an employment strategy aimed at public assistance recipients with medical or mental health conditions that prevented them from participating in regular welfare-to-work activities and who are also ineligible for federal disability benefits. Initially, more than 2,600 single parents were assigned to participate in either the PRIDE group or the control group. PRIDE was able to increase employment throughout the four-year follow-up period by 5 percent in comparison to the control group. The data also suggests the PRIDE group was able to increase earnings for the participants involved by 22 percent in comparison to the control group. The major accomplishments of PRIDE was that it served more than 30,000 people, increased participation in both work experience and job search activities, and increased employment.

For state policymakers, the findings of this report suggest that programs aimed at improving the model of transitional jobs and other subsidized employment initiatives could serve not only to increase the success of programs aimed at increasing long-term employment but could also provide other needed assistance to the often hard to employ. Policymakers can help ensure more long-term employment by combining work-focused strategies with treatment or services since evidence supports these benefits more than using either strategy alone and can increase the opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals, especially those with disabilities and other medical conditions.

For results-based public policy strategies for reintegrating ex-offenders into the workforce visit PolicyforResults and read our report, Workforce Strategies for Reintegrating Ex Offenders. 

University of Pennsylvania Report on Black Male Achievement in Higher Education

What Works: “Messaging. Mentoring. Monitoring. Ministering. Money.” – Dr. Robert M. Franklin, President of Morehouse College

The University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education’s Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education released a report highlighting the success stories of 219 black youth from 42 campuses who graduated from colleges and universities. It is worth noting that out of the 221 nominees, only two declined participating in the interviews conducted for the study, showing the high interest in and the need for encouraging future minority student enrollment. The paper focuses not on the already widely discussed disparities of educational achievements between Black male students compared to  other students but on how these successful participants gained admission into competitive institutions and became actively involved on their campuses.

The interviews address pre-college experiences and the influences that family members, peers, and significant others had on the developing college aspirations of the participants interviewed. The study then questions which interventions and support mechanisms aided these aspirations and what compelled the students to become engaged both academically and extracurricularly once on campus. While pre-college socioeconomic factors often contribute to disparities in college enrollment and campus involvement, 56.7% of the participants came from low-income and working class families, providing a large sample of success stories that are important to consider in relationship to  the dominant discourse on Black male disengagement. Additionally, the study navigates how these participants became successful in “environments that were sometimes racist and often culturally unresponsive” on college campuses that were predominantly White, revealing valuable lessons that, if changes are made, could impact future students both on and off campus.   

The report briefly cites compelling statistics that speak both to cultural and economic barriers; demonstrating the need for studies examining the success of Black males rather than only focusing on demographic failures. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in comparison to Black female students, Black male students consistently had lower graduation rates at all higher educational levels. A publication entitled “They (Don’t) Care about Education: A Counternarrative on Black Male Students’ Responses to Inequitable Schooling” found that Black male students have the lowest college completion rate among both the sexes and all racial groups in higher education, with only 33.3% of students graduating baccalaureate degree programs at public colleges and universities within six years against 48.1% of students graduating overall. And rates of college enrollment for Black males have remained stagnant since 1976 at 4.3%, found in another report analyzing trends in Black make status in flagship public universities in all 50 states. These statistics both prove the noteworthy nature of the successes of the participants interviewed and the critical need for reforms aimed at supporting Black male achievements.

The study found that all the participants had strong family support systems with the assumption that, even in families with no background of higher education, there was never question of whether or not to go to college. Instead, the question was where to go. Other key findings suggested that parental knowledge of the college process was a key factor for college entry, including how to enroll students in college preparatory programs, how to select colleges and how to apply for scholarships. Secondary and postsecondary school teachers and guidance counselors were often found to maintain practices that negatively affected Black male students’ opportunities, and so, the study recommends professional development programs that will help those counselors focus energies on alleviating educational disparities and learn how to better work with minority students.    

Other recommendations included connecting teens to effective college preparatory experiences, removing financial barriers to college enrollment, building summer programs to facilitate the high school to college transition, assuming institutional responsibility for black male achievement, supporting ethnic student organizations, developing peer support venues, addressing campus racial issues, solving masculinity and gender relationship misperceptions within the Black male student population,  and creating affirming spaces for gay, bisexual, and questioning Black students, if not just improving LGBT programs overall. The recommendations in this report suggest there is a strong role for policymakers.  Lifting barriers and creating opportunities through policy is an essential role in ensuring equitable outcomes and supporting black male students on their path to success.

For more information on how to reduce disparities in education, see our Policy for Results reports on Increasing College Completion, Increasing High School Completion, and Improving Early Grade-Level Reading.

Net Migration from Mexico to the United States Now Zero

With the Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States in full momentum last week, it is helpful to review the current state of immigration in the United States. The Pew Hispanic Center recently released a report entitled “Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less,” which suggests that the weak domestic economy has resulted in reduced immigration to the United States. The report also touches on demographic changes that have contributed to reduced emigration from Mexico, including a stabilizing economy in Mexico and a declining birth rate.

This new report emphasizes trends previously predicted by the Mexican Migration Project, highlighting zero net migration from Mexico to the United States in 2008. It also echoes 2010 Pew research which supported the claim that overall illegal immigration to the United States dropped, with illegal Mexican immigration falling 70% in 2007 to 2009 in comparison to rates from the first half of the decade.

Emigration from Mexico serves as an important marker for immigration trends due to the significant numbers of migrant movement between the two countries. The United States has 12 million immigrants from Mexico, more than any other country in the world has from all countries of the world, with 30% of current United States immigrants born in Mexico. Putting this into perspective, the next largest immigrant demographic in the United States is from China, accounting for only 5% of the total 40 million immigrants in the country. Half of Mexican immigrants are unauthorized, comprising 58% of the overall undocumented immigrant population of the United States estimated to be 11.2 million. However, it is important to recognize that all these demographics, regardless of legal status, contribute to the American economy. The Immigration Policy Center, using data from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), released findings that illegal immigrants collectively pay $11.2 billion in state and local taxes, including $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in sales taxes. With three-fifths of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States for over a decade (and paying taxes with little use of social services), immigrant integration into the country is essential for aiding economic stability.

The Pew study is careful to mention how current immigration trends are not new or unique, and in fact, parallel historical immigration trends: “When measured not in absolute numbers but as a share of the immigrant population at the time, immigration waves from Germany and Ireland in the late 19th century equaled or exceeded the modern wave from Mexico.” Immigration has traditionally and still continues to function as a mechanism of where the most available jobs are located for the migrants seeking a new start in another country. When economic or social situations shift relative from parent country to destination country, immigration decreases. Immigrant-unfriendly legislation such as the current Supreme Court case and the decrease of available jobs in the United States both could have contributed to the current stagnation of the Mexican immigrant wave.

However, the Pew study may not speak to larger immigration trends. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, the United States’ immigrant population has continued to grow from all other countries except Mexico, reaching 39.6 million in 2011. The study highlights economic and demographic trends in Mexico that may explain this change in migration as a special case study rather than representative of global immigration. For example, the demographics research in the report, including statistics showing a declining birth rate, suggests that there are fewer people of working age completing for jobs in the Mexican economy This further reinforces the claim that job availability is the main attraction for both documented and undocumented immigrants to migrate to the United States: When there are available jobs in one’s home country, one is less likely to emigrate elsewhere.

The study also evaluates other statistical factors that emphasize this trend of decreased migration. Mexican GDP per capita grew by 5.5% in 2010 and 3.9% in 2011 - above comparable rates in United States. Poverty rates in Mexico have significantly decreased, from 69% in 1996 to 51% in 2010. While this poverty rate is still significantly too high to be acceptable, it does suggest that the Mexican economy is improving.  Characteristics of Mexican-born immigrants living in the United States and an outline of Mexico’s current economic and population statistics are also provided in the report to provide a fuller picture of all the mechanisms which might also account for Mexican migration to the United States reaching zero after decades of consistently increasing migration.  

Most importantly, this report proves that the most common reason immigrants leave their home country is to seek employment and to create better living circumstances for their families. Policymakers supporting immigrant communities by providing access to needed services and supports and promoting policies that ensure immigrant families feel welcome and integrate successfully into work, school and community ensure that their states are economically and socially healthy places for all residents to live.  For more information on how policy can influence social trends and positively impact diverse populations, visit policyforesults.org

Tax Breakdown Shows Who Really Pays the Most

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), a research organization advocating for the development of a fair tax system, recently released an aggregate view of Who Pays Taxes in America. The report corrects the common misconception that many lower income Americans do not pay taxes while higher income earners shoulder the burden of taxes. While it is true that the federal personal income tax is a form of progressive tax, meaning that those with a higher income pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, the overall tax system is barely progressive. Once federal payroll taxes, federal excise taxes, and state and local taxes are taken into account, a harsh reality is revealed: “The share of total taxes paid by the poorest fifth of Americans (2.1 percent) is only slightly less than this group’s share of total income (3.4 percent).” Even more revealing is that the taxes paid by the nation’s highest income earners are not “dramatically higher” than taxes paid by the middle class, as “the total effective tax rate for the richest one percent (29.0 percent) is only about four percentage points higher than the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth of taxpayers (25.2 percent).” When accounting for total taxes paid by middle income earners and the top 5% of Americans, the overall tax rate hovers equally around 29-30 percent. 

The inequities created by the current tax system is demonstrate the need for comprehensive tax reform, and at the very least, reinforces the argument to maintain current income tax exemptions to balance the other regressive elements of the United States tax system. A regressive tax system is one in which tax rates decrease as income levels rise. For example, since state sales tax becomes a smaller proportion of total income as one’s income levels rise, this can be considered a regressive tax that places a higher burden on those with lower incomes than those with more disposable income able to pay the tax on everyday items, like household products or gasoline.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan research organization, has a clear breakdown of who pays what, state by state. To see how taxes are distributed in your state, read their report that finds that, on average, the poorest earners pay the highest effective tax rates as a result of local tax policy - regardless of federal tax exemptions that exist to aid this population. 

This report, however, does not address that some of the highest income earners in the country pay significantly less than the average American due to loopholes in the United States tax system. The CTJ has a wide array of educational materials regarding current tax reform proposals, including how to implement the so-called “Buffett Rule,” and other suggestions to implement a tax system that fairly distributes tax burdens.

To better understand why we need a tax system that does not disproportionately affect the poor, visit PolicyforResults.org to learn more about economic and social disparities that impact low-income children and their families.  

A Resource: Basic Facts about Low Income Children

There are a number of factors associated with children experiencing economic insecurity - for example both race and ethnicity and parental educational attainment are associated with the likelihood a child experiencing poverty. In order for policymakers to ensure that in the future all children grow up in economically secure and stable families – it is important to understand the facts about children in low-income households. The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) recently released, Basic Facts about Low Income Children, 2010. This fact sheet includes the most current data available on children living in low income households in the United States. The fact sheet includes geographic and demographic information regarding low income children as well as general facts about poverty and rates of low income households in the United States.

For results-based state policy strategies for ensuring children grow up in safe supportive and economically successful families visit PolicyforResults.org.

April is National Minority Health Month

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is commemorating National Minority Health Month by encouraging Town Halls and hosting events throughout the month to raise awareness of the disparities that exist in health care. While the average quality of health care has risen over the past few decades, disparities to health care access and quality of care have not improved. In a press release, HHS highlights how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has already improved health disparities by providing coverage to previously uninsured minorities and eliminating co-pays or deductibles for some essential preventative services.

During last year’s Minority Health Month, HHS announced its first initiative solely focused on resolving disparities to health care access. The HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities builds on the Affordable Care Act and other existing strategies, such as Healthy People 2020, to reduce health disparities among minorities. The report outlines where and why health disparities exist and carries five policy goals to remove those disparities: Transform Health Care; Strengthen the Nation’s Health and Human Services Infrastructure and Workforce; Advance the Health, Safety, and Well-Being of the American People; Advance Scientific Knowledge and Innovation; and Increase Efficiency, Transparency, and Accountability of HHS Programs. Under these five goals, HHS highlights specific actions useful to policy makers at every level of government. The report provides comprehensive strategies that policymakers can take to improve quality of care not only for minorities, but ultimately for everyone who needs health care.  

Following the message behind their Action Plan, the theme for this year’s Minority Health Month is “Health Equity Can’t Wait. Act Now in Your CommUnity” to emphasize the importance of community-based initiatives in improving access to and quality of health care.  For more information on events for this month, visit the HHS Office of Minority Health’s website.

The National Institute of Health is also celebrating the month through its first NIH Minority Health Promotion Day, sponsored by the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities, on April 19^th. Various exhibits and speakers will present how social and economic factors contribute to and maintain health disparities in our health care system.

For state policymakers, Minority Health Month provides a great opportunity to raise awareness around the importance of quality health care access and a good time to promote efforts to improve that access in communities across the states.  For results based policy solutions to ensure that all children are healthy, visit PolicyforResults.org.  

New on Policy for Results! Promoting Workforce Strategies for Reintegrating Ex-offenders

When ex-offenders are productively engaged in their communities - working and supporting their families - the community is safer and their families are more economically secure.

As a part of its commitment to ensuring that all children grow up in safe, supportive and economically successful families, the Center for the Study of Social Policy has developed a new section on PolicyforResults and a corresponding report that focus specifically on promoting workforce strategies for reintegrating ex-offenders.

The information in this section is designed to support policymakers in their efforts to ensure that all families have access to the supports they need to be successful and economically secure. In addition to facts about the issue, the new section includes policy strategies that states can use to promote successful transitions to work for ex-offenders and in doing so reduce recidivism rates – leading to safer communities for all children.

Visit PolicyforResults.org to learn more.

Child Nutrition All-Year Round

Springtime means that many schools across the country will soon break for the summer. When school lets out, millions of low-income children lose access to the school breakfasts, lunches and afterschool snacks they receive during the regular school year. Summer Nutrition Programs are designed to address this problem by providing those needed meals - often times along with educational and recreational activities. The Food Resource Action Center (FRAC) provides a number of useful resources about Summer Nutrition Programs, including highlights of model summer meal programs, a summer food site locator, and a summer nutrition tool kit.

The federal government provides two sources of support for summer meals including – the Summer Food Service Program and the National School Lunch Program. For state policymakers – considering policy options to support children during their out of school time and to ensure that children do not go hungry is an important responsibility. State policymakers can help ensure that an increased number of children are served by the Summer Nutrition Programs by growing the programs through site recruitment and family outreach and passing mandates requiring that some schools operate the Summer Nutrition Programs. According to FRAC, Florida and Ohio recently passed such mandates.

For results-based policy strategies to ensure that children are healthy visit PolicyforResults.org.

Full Day Kindergarten

The Children's Defense Fund created an interactive map to provide a snapshot of kindergarten across the states. As noted by CDF, there is a wide variety in the provision of kindergarten;

• 10 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to provide publicly funded full-day kindergarten through state statute, which guarantees annual funding.
• 34 states (not including those with Full-Day K) require school districts to provide half-day kindergarten.
• Six states do not require districts to provide kindergarten at all.

Where school districts provide opportunities for full-day kindergarten - there are also significant differences in the ways that it is funded, which has an additional impact on families. Some schools publicly fund full-day kindergarten, in others parents pay tuition for the second half of the day, and some schools provide tuition assistance based on income or risk of school failure.

Kindergarten is an important step in a child's education. Ensuring that policy promotes equitable opportunities for children to strengthen the social and foundational skills needed to be successful in school is important to ensuring positive life outcomes.

Click here to review the interactive map and the full-day kindergarten fact sheet by CDF.

Visit PolicyforResults to learn more about results-based policy strategies to ensure children enter school ready to learn and prepared to succeed.