12 Years into TANF: Now What? A Discussion of the Current System and What Must Change - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

12 Years into TANF: Now What?A Discussion of the Current System and What Must Change

Liz Schott and DaniloTrisi

schott@cbpp.org, trisi@cbpp.org

California Symposium on Poverty

Sacramento, California

October 15, 2009

• Dramatic caseload declines
• Increased employment of single mothers
• Share with job rose from 62% to 73%
• Drop in poverty, context of strong economy, expanded work supports
• Increased child care funding, EITC expansion, SCHIP, child support collection improvement

• States had “excess” TANF dollars due to sharp and quick caseload declines
• States found other programs in state budget for using TANF or MOE funds and/or built reserves
• State flexibility to design work programs
• Heavy “Work-First” approach used
• Work participation rate not so big an issue because of caseload decline and state flexibility

• Caseload decline continued despite 2001 downturn in economy
• Employment of single mothers lost 1/3 of gains and child poverty rose
• Work program innovation stalled in many states amidst reauthorization delays
• Funding continuing to be used in range of state programs; reserves dwindling

• DRA made work rates effectively higher and harder for states to meet
• Program changes often more about meeting work rates than improving outcomes
• States respond to DRA with technical and structural changes and harsher program requirements
• TANF caseloads continued to decline (by another 20% for 2005-2007)

• State fiscal shortfalls led to proposed cuts to TANF programs; some did not happen (yet)
• ARRA Emergency Fund helped support increased assistance costs and reduced state incentives to cut basic assistance
• TANF response to recession is slow and late and varied across states

Source: Census Bureau

Source: Census Bureau

CBPP analysis of CPS. Medical and work expenditures are from formulas supplied by Census and BLS staff. Thresholds are what Census refers to as the “MIT-GA-CE” version of the NAS thresholds. Geographic adjustment and housing assistance values calculated using HUD FMRs. “Stable” unmarried partners are those present in household 12 months earlier.

Source: CBPP analysis of the Current Population Survey; additional data from HHS TRIM model.

Number of states whose ratio of TANF child recipients to poor children was…

Disconnected Single Mothers and

Their Children, 1996-2005.

Source: CBPP calculations of 1996, 2001, and 2004 Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Percent Increase

March 2008 - March 2009

Note: This graph is based on data we collected for 44 states + DC.

Percent Increase

March 2008 - March 2009

Between March 2008 - March 2009, number of states whose caseloads…

Note: This graph is based on data we collected for 44 states + DC.

• Fixed federal funding
• declining in real dollars by nearly 30%
• Work Participation Rate
• Lowering the denominator (e.g. caseload) is a way to achieve higher rate of participation
• Caseload reduction credit: same amount of credit whether family is employed or disconnected
• Political and ideological environment also big part of the push for caseload decline

• How to make TANF more effective as a safety net for families?
• How to make TANF a more effective work program?
• Are we measuring the right things?
• “If you don’t measure the right thing, you don’t do the right thing.” (Joseph Stiglitz, NY Times)
• How to use any new federal dollars?

• TANF structure gives states incentives for serving fewer families, not more families
• ARRA TANF Emergency Fund is exception
• Could we add a performance measure whereby states are evaluated on how effective TANF is in providing a safety net for poor families?
• What specific achievement to measure?
• What are the consequences for poor performance?

• Possible measures could include:
• Take up rates: What share of poor children (or of a proxy group) are served by TANF cash aid?
• Measuring extent to which TANF reduces poverty, deep poverty, or poverty gap?
• Considerations include:
• What measure could a state or county monitor in real (or near real) time, and impact?
• How to minimize administrative tracking burden?

• States are measured on a very narrow set of activities that increasingly drives program design and limits state flexibility
• States do not get credit for many activities
• Limited credit for education or addressing barriers
• No partial credit even if substantial effort
• Resulting program focus often does not serve those with disabilities or other barriers well

• How to measure outcomes over time and whether family is on aid or exits?
• Eliminate caseload reduction credit?
• How to improve measure of engagement of current recipients in work-related activities?
• How to increase (restore) state flexibility for program innovation?
• Should states be able to use different measures of progress for families with disabilities?

• New federal dollars will be limited, hard to get
• Use new funds for specific initiatives rather than simply increase block grant amount?
• Limit new money to certain poverty-alleviation activities?
• Use new money as reward rather than adding penalties?
• Consider how to distribute new dollars
• Allocate based on # of children in poverty?