P o l i c y R e s e a R c h i n s t i t u t e f o R t h e R e g i o nRobertson Hall, Princeton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08544(609)258-9065http://region.princeton.edu

tanf at ten:a Retrospective on Welfare Reform

Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International AffairsWWS

The Policy Research Institute for the Region was established

by Princeton University and the Woodrow Wilson School of

Public and International Affairs to bring the resources of the

University community to bear on solving the increasingly

interdependent public policy challenges facing New Jersey,

Metropolitan New York, and southeastern Pennsylvania.

With a full-time staff augmented by project coordinators and

guided by faculty associates and an advisory board, the institute

reflects an understanding that the issues facing our region

cut across not only state and municipal borders, but also across

a range of traditional academic disciplines. Our mission is to

bring together the University’s greatest resources—its faculty

and students, its research expertise, and commitment to public

service—to find solutions across boundaries that improve the

quality of civic life in our dynamic, multi-state region.

essays and commentary sponsored by the Policy Research insti-

tute for the Region at the Woodrow Wilson school of Public and

international affairs at Princeton university and the Rescue Mis-

sion of trenton.

TANF at Ten Po

lic

y Resea

Rc

h in

stit

ute

fo

R th

e Reg

ion, P

Rin

ceto

n u

niv

eR

sit

y

PrincetonUniversity

A N T H O N Y S H O R R I S , D I R e c T O R

e D I T e D b Y K e I T H S . G O l D f e l D

Pol i cy Re s eaRch in s t i tuteF o r T h e r e g i o n

164

TANF at 10: A Retrospective on Welfare Reform

A collection of essays and commentary sponsored by the

Policy Research Institute for the Region at the Woodrow

Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton

University, and the Rescue Mission of Trenton.

Keith S. Goldfeld, Editor

Copyright © 2007 by The Trustees of Princeton University.

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, reposted,

distributed, republished, sold, modified, stored in a document

management system, or transmitted in any form or by any means

without the prior written consent of Princeton University.

The Policy Research Institute for the Region was established by

Princeton University and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public

and International Affairs to bring the resources of the University

community to bear on solving the increasingly interdependent

public policy challenges facing New Jersey, Metropolitan New York,

and southeastern Pennsylvania.

The Policy Research Institute for the Region

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

Princeton University

Robertson Hall

Princeton, NJ 08544

Cover design by Leslie Goldman

Printed by PrintMedia Communications, Anaheim, CA

Produced by the Office of Communications, Princeton University

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors

and are not necessarily the views of Princeton University or its

Policy Research Institute for the Region.

Contents

Preface 1

Introduction 5

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: 9 The World of Welfare from the Perspective of 2006

Peter Edelman

An Examination of the First 10 Years Under TANF in Three States: 19 The Experiences of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Robert G. Wood and Justin Wheeler

Ten More Years: The Future of Welfare Reform 47Olivia Golden

Attitudes Toward Poverty and Welfare in New Jersey, 67 New York, and Pennsylvania

Global Strategy Group, LLC

Appendices

Appendix A 81Keynote Address: Charles B. Rangel

Closing Remarks: Mary Gay Abbott-Young

Appendix B 91Summaries of Panel Discussions

Appendix C 101Conference Agenda

Participant Biographies

Appendix D 115Detailed Survey Results

Publications from the Policy Research Institute for the Region

BEYOND POST-9/11: The Future of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Edited by Keith S. Goldfeld

STATES AND STEM CELLS: The Policy and Economic Implications of State-Funded Stem Cell Research

Edited by Aaron D. Levine

JUSTICE AND SAFETY IN AMERICA’S IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIESEdited by Martha King

THE RACE FOR SPACE: The Politics and Economics of State Open Space Programs

Edited by Keith S. Goldfeld

FROM CAMPAIGNING TO GOvERNING: Leadership in Transition

Edited by Udai Tambar and Andrew Rachlin

CONSENT AND ITS DISCONTENTS: Policy Issues In Consent Decrees

Edited by Andrew Rachlin

THE POLITICS OF DESIGN: Competitions for Public Projects

Edited by Catherine Malmberg

NEW DOWNTOWNS: The Future Of Urban Centers

Edited by Jonathan R. Oakman

MAKING EvERY vOTE COUNT: Federal Election Legislation in the States

Edited by Andrew Rachlin

1

Anyone who has marked an anniversary knows that these com-

memorations have value only insofar as they force us to take some

stock of where we’ve come from, where we are, and where we

hope to go. The 10th anniversary of welfare reform was the focus of

a recent event hosted by the Policy Research Institute for the Region

in conjunction with the Rescue Mission of Trenton. This event was

really just a chance for us to force a conversation about something

very important to the meaning of America today: how it treats the

most vulnerable of its citizens, the poor left behind by the giant

roaring engine of the free market that has created the wealthiest

society the world has ever known. It is a conversation with many

parts and with many perspectives, reflecting the Institute we have

built here at Princeton.

To understand the life of the poor in America today is of course

impossible—it is as variegated as the lives of the rich and the vast

middle class—but we can understand a little better the effects the

choices we have made as a society about to how we treat the poor

among us. Over the past decade or so, we have made profound

changes in how we deal with America’s poor. Some of those changes

were the product of the national welfare reform of 1996 that led

to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), others the

results of actions taken by the 50 states in response to that law, and

many others the product of the shifting nature of the increasingly

global American economy.

The aim of our conference was to begin to get our arms around the

effect of these simultaneous changes. In order to understand what

has been happening in this country, and in particular around our

region, we applied a host of tools. The Woodrow Wilson School is

built around the notion of creating sound policy using the academic

Preface

2

disciplines of economics, sociology, and political science—and so our

conference was organized to include some of the nation’s leading

scholars in each of these fields. We were able to bring together

researchers and policy makers who were closely involved with cre-

ating and evaluating the TANF legislation and its long lasting effects

on the lives of millions of welfare recipients.

More importantly, I also believe that any discussion about welfare

policy must begin and end with the real lives of real people—com-

plicated, heart-breaking, inspiring, and whatever else, real. We called

upon a young filmmaker, Ted Alcorn of the Maurice Kanbar Institute

of Film and Television at New York University, and paired him with

a leading writer in the field—journalist and professor at The Journal-

ism School of Columbia University, my friend LynNell Hancock—to

help use the tools of film and journalism to ground the conference,

to make sure we heard the voices and saw the faces of the people

we were talking about. The video can be seen on our website at

http://region.princeton.edu, and a copy is included with this volume.

By partnering with the Rescue Mission of Trenton, we ensured that

more of those real voices would be heard. Universities like Princeton

usually partner for big events with other research institutions, some-

times with foundations or even government agencies, but in this

case we understood that the best way to ensure we stay grounded

in the real world of poverty and the lives of the poor was to work

with a direct service provider in one of the most troubled cities in

our region.

We also wanted to hear from the broader public, and so we sought

out one of the country’s a leading public opinion research firms to

perform a unique piece of research, testing perceptions of poverty

and welfare among those on welfare, the near-poor and the middle

class in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The results are

included in this publication.

Finally, we asked one of the nation’s leading political figures,

Congressman Charles B. Rangel, Representative of New York’s 15th

Congressional District, to offer us a political perspective from the

national level. Congressman Rangel is about to assume the position

�

of chair for the United States House of Representatives Committee

on Ways and Means, which has full charge of this issue in the Con-

gress. His keynote address completed a cycle of perspectives that

began with individuals and ended with the national policy-makers.

I hope that the perspectives of these additional voices, which are all

reflected in this publication, have enriched the insightful papers that

formed the basis for the conference and this book.

On a more personal note, I’d like to add that this conference and

publication, just like my own career working in government and

public policy, were guided by my father’s 40 years of struggle to

use words as weapons for social justice. These words are reflected

through more than a dozen books and hundreds of articles,

everyone one of which echoes his fierce belief in our potential for

decency.

This conference and publication also bear the influence of my wife

Maria who, as a journalist and author, has spent her career help-

ing me and many others understand how social justice must be

grounded in that most profound source of humanity, love for our

families, and love for those in pain. From both my father and my

wife I have learned, and continue to learn, that all that matters come

down to those two simple words—love and justice.

With that, I encourage you to explore these pages, so that we

continue to transform this tenth anniversary of TANF into a more

meaningful, ongoing discussion about how best to wrestle with the

challenges of poverty and welfare in the years to come.

Anthony ShorrisDirectorPolicy Research Institute for the RegionPrinceton University

4

5

Introduction

Keith S. GoldfeldPolicy Research Institute for the Region, Princeton University

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF), the federal welfare program created

by the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 just

marked its 10th anniversary. At the time the

act was signed into law by President Clinton,

he hailed it as a big step forward to “end wel-

fare as we know it.” TANF replaced traditional

funding streams with more flexible state-level

block grants, added work requirements and

established time limits. At the time, it was

clear that this new funding mechanism would

dramatically change the way public assistance

is provided in this country. It was less clear

what those changes might be, and how they

would affect the lives of millions who relied

on public assistance. Indeed, the true goals of

welfare reform and what might constitute a

successful program were still hotly debated

even as states started to implement the new

federal law.

Today, after 10 years, many of those questions

have still not been resolved. The most striking

effect of TANF was the swift decline in the

number of families nationwide receiving cash

assistance, from 4.4 million families in 1996 to

2.0 million in 200�. That decline is the primary

focus of the current debate. What caused

this drop? The improving economy and the

reconfigured welfare program that encouraged

people to find work each played a role, though

how much can be attributed to each factor is

not clear. Further complicating the picture is

that the trend has not been consistent over

the first 10 years of TANF. Between 1996 and

2001, the caseloads dropped 52 percent. Since

then, there has been little change. Under-

standing what caused the declines and why it

has stopped will help us think about changing

policies in the future.

Who has benefited from welfare reform

and who hasn’t? The population on public

assistance in 1996 was hardly homogenous.

Some people were ready to work and the

push provided by TANF got them out into the

workforce. Others were far from ready, either

because they lacked even the most basic skills,

were weighed down by addiction or mental

illness, or were simply overwhelmed by the

burdens of poverty. Many from this harder-to-

serve population may no longer be on public

assistance, but that does not mean they are

better off. The effects of TANF, then, likely had

different impacts on different groups. Again,

understanding this will help us shape policy.

6

And most important, is reducing the welfare

caseload the same as reducing poverty? Most

would agree that it is not. Many people were

required to leave public assistance and seek a

job. Whether that job is enough to pull some-

one out of poverty depends on the wages that

job pays, but it also depends on a lot of things

beyond that—their access to child care, health

care, housing support, and other public assis-

tance programs like the Earned Income Tax

Credit (EITC) or Food Stamps. And for those

were not able to find a job, or were unable to

hold onto a stable job, it is quite unlikely they

have been able to escape poverty. So, as we

think about the first 10 years of TANF, and

the next 10 years, we must continue to ask

ourselves just what we expect to accomplish

by reforming welfare.

These questions, and many others, were the

focus of a recent conference organized by

The Policy Research Institute for the Region

to commemorate the 10th anniversary of

welfare reform. As part of this conference,

the Institute commissioned a set of papers

from leading researchers and policy makers to

tackle some of these questions, questions that

are unlikely to be resolved but still need to be

aired. This book, then, documents at least a

piece of the current debate, a debate that will

not end even as TANF embarks on its next

10 years.

Peter Edelman, Professor of Law at George-

town University who worked in the Clinton

Administration under Donna Shalala at the

Department of Health and Human Services,

argues that welfare reform in the 1990s

emanated from the ongoing battle between a

vision created by Robert Kennedy and conser-

vatives. Kennedy argued that since welfare was

degrading to everyone involved—recipients

and providers alike—it should be replaced

by a system that could address the real need,

which is “decent, dignified jobs for all.” The

conservatives, who blamed welfare for a

wide range of social ills, simply wanted to end

welfare, period. The compromise in the 1990s

of these two visions was TANF. Edelman, one

of the vocal opponents of the reforms before

they were enacted, proposes a framework

for evaluating the first 10 years that suggests

that the picture is a complicated one, and

much that was debated 10 years ago is still

unresolved.

Robert Woods and Justin Wheeler of Mathe-

matica are long-time students of the state-level

experience with TANF. They provide us with

numbers and, more importantly, with descrip-

tions of policies of the three states in our

immediate region—New Jersey, New York,

and Pennsylvania. Their paper underscores

the notion raised by Edelman that one of the

stories of TANF is that it is really 51 different

stories, one for each state.

And Olivia Golden, also a veteran of the Clin-

ton Administration, and now a researcher at

the Urban Institute, was asked to consider the

future of TANF. Her paper looks forward by

trying to glean some key positive lessons from

the first 10 years of TANF—most important

are public programs that support work—as well

as to acknowledge some of the most intractable

challenges—notably families who are not work-

ing as well as low-income working families. The

key to making progress in the future, taking up

7

a point also raised by Edelman, is to stop think-

ing about TANF, but to start thinking about

poverty. As they both make clear, the two are

by no means the same thing.

This book includes results from a survey of

people who live in the three-state region—

New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania—that

was conducted in order to gauge the

perceptions and opinions about welfare. A

sentiment that seems to be shared by a strong

majority of the population is that we have a

moral obligation to help the poor. But, at the

same time, people believe there is a path to

self-reliance and getting ahead for those who

work hard, and ultimately the best social

program is a job. It is this ambivalence about

how, and how much, to help the poor that gets

reflected in our government policies. The

challenge for the next 10 years is to clarify what

the priorities are, and then to figure out the

best way to get there.

8

9

Peter EdelmanGeorgetown University Law Center

YESTERDAY—THE HISTORY Where does one start in recounting the

events that led to the enactment of the

Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-

tunity Reconciliation Act in 1996? Relevant

facts, myths, and attitudes go back to Biblical

times. The Elizabethan poor laws, 19th century

American charity, and the state-by-state

adoption of mothers’ pensions in the early

20th century all figure in the story. The Social

Security Act of 19�5 included for the first time

a program of federal cash assistance to needy

single parents and children—Aid to Depen-

dent Children as it was called then. This is

the program that was replaced by Temporary

Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 1996.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY’S vISION OF WELFARE

For me, and I think objectively as well, the

run-up to the 1996 law began with the welfare

amendments that President Lyndon Johnson

signed into law in early 1968. That was when

I first encountered welfare issues, through my

work as a legislative assistant to Senator Rob-

ert F. Kennedy. Kennedy had been interested

in poverty at least since becoming Attorney

General in 1961. One of his first acts then

was to convene a working group on juvenile

delinquency—the work of which led to the

War on Poverty—four years before I went to

work for him. Welfare was not much on his

mind that I know of. He was much more inter-

ested in helping young people find their way

to successful adulthood, and in empowering

neighborhoods and communities to achieve

greater economic success and full inclusion

in the larger society. (Of course he was also

deeply immersed in the civil rights struggles of

the time.)

In 1966 Senator Kennedy gave a speech to

the New York State Society of Newspaper

Editors, the theme of which was issues he

believed had not been dealt with candidly

in public discourse. Welfare was his first

example. He said that welfare was “degrading,

both to the giver and the recipient,” and that

we had “ignored the real need—which was,

and remains, decent, dignified jobs for all.”

The speech received scant coverage. Evidently

the newspaper editors saw no news in

his comments. A year later, invited to talk

specifically about welfare to a conference in

New York City, he said much the same thing,

although at greater length. We spent relatively

little time working on the speech, because we

saw it as mainly a reiteration of previous state-

ments. His list of public institutions that he

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: The World of Welfare from the Perspective of 2006

10

thought had failed in their missions to help the

poor went well beyond welfare, and included

public housing, urban renewal, public hospitals,

and the public schools. His proposed remedies

included his familiar calls for “the involvement

of the community” and for “jobs with possibili-

ties for further education and advancement.”

This time somebody at the New York Times

saw news in his comments, and put the story

on the front page. “Kennedy Assails Welfare

System,” the headline said. The subhead was

“Says It Is Threat to Family Life Because It Fails

to Meet Basic Needs.” It quoted Kennedy’s

critique of welfare and related programs as

a “system of handouts, a second-rate set of

social services, which damages and demeans

its recipients.”

Surprised by the attention, Kennedy wanted

to follow up. President Johnson had sent to

Congress a modest reform bill mainly directed

at increasing the abominably low level of

welfare payments in some states. However,

the conservative-dominated Ways and Means

Committee in the House—even during that

era of ostensible commitment to end pov-

erty—changed LBJ’s thrust completely. The

House imposed a freeze on federal welfare

appropriations and instituted the first-ever

work requirement for welfare recipients. A

group of Senators led by Kennedy was able

to ameliorate some of the harsher aspects of

the bill, but the House-Senate Conference,

controlled by conservatives, removed all of

the improvements. Kennedy was appalled. He

called the idea that “the Government is now

going to decide . . . what mothers are going

to have to leave their children . . . a step back

200 years . . . a congressional authorization of

virtual peonage.”

I did not realize it then, but I was witnessing

the beginning of what I call the Thirty Years’

War on welfare. There were fits and starts, to

be sure. President Nixon actually proposed a

guaranteed annual income to replace welfare,

which was even passed by the House of

Representatives albeit in somewhat less gener-

ous form, and President Carter tried a similar

proposal. But with the advent of President

Reagan, the very definition of “welfare reform”

changed completely, responding to a buildup

of anti-welfare advocacy that had been devel-

oping throughout the 70s.

To reformers of the 60s and 70s, welfare

reform meant getting a decent income to

families in need, regardless of whether they

were headed by one parent or two. To Robert

Kennedy welfare reform meant even more—a

decent income, yes, but also major efforts to

help recipients obtain training and find work

so they could get off welfare and investment

in creating meaningful public jobs for people

unable to find work on their own.

THE 70s AND 80s

But even as President Nixon was pursuing a

more-or-less liberal version of welfare reform

(which became less liberal with each itera-

tion until it finally lost liberal and moderate

support and died), conservative activists on

the outside were mounting a frontal attack

on welfare. Kennedy’s critique of welfare

was for him a take-off point for proposals to

help people find work, and to have a decent

11

and dignified cash assistance program for the

residual group left when all the positive efforts

had been made. The new conservative attack

was also an attack on welfare, but that was

the end of any commonality with Kennedy’s

position. The conservatives blamed welfare for

causing and perpetuating inner-city poverty,

out-of-wedlock births, and a long list of other

social ills and destructive behaviors—and the

remedy they proposed was to end welfare,

not improve it.

The attack gained full force with the appear-

ance of Charles Murray’s highly publicized

book, Losing Ground, in 198�. But even before

that, with the election of President Reagan,

welfare reform had come predominantly to

mean getting people off welfare, period. The

rhetoric was one of compulsory work for

welfare recipients, and the strong overtone

was to get people off welfare by any means

available. And Mr. Reagan’s repeated evocation

of the “welfare queen” in her Cadillac coming

to the grocery store with her food stamps

suggested, inescapably to many, that the new

politics of welfare was more than coinciden-

tally connected to the politics of race.

The Draconian view was not unanimous, of

course, and a bipartisan compromise based on

the experience of state-by-state demonstra-

tions during the 80s was embodied in the

Family Support Act of 1988, which (for the

conservatives) featured compulsory work and

(for the liberals) offered an investment in child

care and job training to help people find and

keep jobs.

WELFARE REFORM UNDER CLINTON

President Clinton as Governor Clinton (and

chair of the National Governors Association)

had a major hand in crafting the 1988 law.

As a candidate for President in 1992, he was

especially aware of the spike in the welfare

rolls associated with the weak economy of the

time (and possibly with a leniency in street-

level welfare eligibility decisions stimulated by

a perception that the 1988 law had eased the

Reagan-era push for a tougher stance). Per-

haps stirred up by the local press, welfare was

a particular concern to voters in New Hamp-

shire. Campaigning as a new kind of Democrat

and desperately looking for ways to divert

attention from allegations of past personal

misbehavior, Clinton proposed to “end welfare

as we know it.” The fine print was far less

stark, but the bumper sticker version captured

voters’ attention and, partly as a consequence,

Clinton did far better than expected in New

Hampshire.

Clinton as President turned to health care

reform as his first priority, and convened a

task force to draft a welfare proposal, which

was not sent to Congress until 1994. This

ordering of priorities (both bills were under

the jurisdiction of the same committees on the

Hill, and would have been difficult to pursue

simultaneously) has been questioned by some,

but the merit of Clinton’s decision seems obvi-

ous. Health coverage is of direct concern to far

more people than welfare. In any event, there

was no time to get Clinton’s welfare bill con-

sidered before the mid-term elections in 1994.

(Nor was the bill tremendously consequential.

It was essentially an incremental tinkering with

the 1988 law, designed to leverage more ener-

12

getic state efforts to push welfare recipients to

find jobs.)

The 1994 elections were a watershed time

for Clinton’s Presidency. The loss of Congress

to the Republicans—led by a new, far more

actively conservative strain of Republican

in the person of Newt Gingrich—changed

everything. Clinton—miraculously, one might

even say—regained his balance over the ensu-

ing two years, but 1995 and 1996 were a bleak

time for him. Overnight he had to move from

playing offense to playing defense, and to do so

from a position of sudden and quite pervasive

marginalization.

Welfare played a major role in his political res-

urrection. The Republicans, in control, eagerly

picked up the mantle of ending welfare as it

was then configured. Clinton did not reject

their approach out of hand, and in September

1995 he let it be known that he would sign

a bill which would end the legal entitlement

to welfare, turn the program into a block

grant, and impose a lifetime time limit on the

number of years a given family with children

could receive cash assistance. This was a prime

example of the “triangulation” which critics

said was characteristic of his politics—tak-

ing a position which served his purposes but

left other members of his party at risk if they

refused to join him.

Until mid-1996 the Republicans saved him

from reaping political benefit from his stand—

first by sending to his desk two extreme

versions of welfare dismantlement that they

knew he would veto, and then by joining their

welfare block grant in a bill that also converted

Medicaid into a block grant, which was a

nonstarter even for many Republicans. In late

June 1996 freshman and sophomore Repub-

lican House members concluded that their

re-election was being jeopardized by failure

to enact welfare changes, and convinced their

leadership to remove the Medicaid block grant

from the bill and send Clinton the kind of bill

he had said nearly a year earlier that he would

sign. He signed it, thereby helping to assure

the Republicans continued control of the

House and shoring up his own re-election bid

(although the Republican decision to let him

sign a bill was based in significant part on their

conclusion that their presidential candidate,

Senator Dole, was already doomed to lose).

The bill that President Clinton signed was

radically different from what he had proposed

in 1994, and even more different from what

he had proposed in his 1992 campaign. Yet,

ironically, there was such power in Clinton’s

campaign slogan of “end welfare as we know

it” that many people thought he was keeping

a campaign promise when he signed the bill in

1996.

His 1992 proposal, contained in his book

Putting People First and in other campaign

materials, contemplated a “time limit” of

two years by which time a welfare recipient

would need to have found employment, but

also contemplated the provision of public

jobs for those who could not find an existing

job and the continuance of cash assistance

if the necessary investment in public jobs

would turn out not to be forthcoming. His

1994 proposal offered no publicly funded

jobs, but also contained no hard and fast time

1�

limit, assuming in effect that cash assistance

could continue if all help and pressure to find

an existing job turned out to be unavailing.

The 1996 law ended any legal entitlement to

help and, in addition to imposing a five-year

lifetime time limit for the provision of feder-

ally financed assistance, restructured it as a

block grant, in effect permitting states to set

a time limit of one minute if they so chose.

The definition of “welfare reform” underwent

major change between the time Clinton began

talking about it as a candidate and the time he

signed the bill called The Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(PRWORA).

TODAY—THE ExPERIENCE UNDER TANF It has become routine for editorial writers

and columnists to buy the line that those of us

who made dire predictions about the damage

TANF would do were horribly wrong. The

facts are more complicated. Some people

are better off and some are worse off. A

major factor as to those who are better off

is that the economy was far more robust in

the second half of the 90s than was generally

foreseen. Those who crow now about the

marvelous success of TANF had no basis in

1996 for believing that jobs would be as plenti-

ful in the ensuing years as they turned out to

be. Some of the widespread self-congratu-

lation goes back to the story of President

Clinton’s triangulation discussed above. Not

only Republicans, but most Democrats, have

a major political stake in claiming that TANF is

a fabulous success. Clinton’s capitulation in the

fall of 1995 caught in its net all but a few hand-

fuls of the most liberal Democrats in Congress.

The late Paul Wellstone was the only Senator

up for re-election in 1996 who voted against

the legislation. Not surprisingly, anyone who

voted for the legislation has strong reasons for

saying it has worked out just fine.

Did it? There are four stories here: one

about those who found work; another about

those who lost their welfare or were turned

away when they tried to apply, and did not

find work; a third about the large differences

among the states—there is no one overall

national story but 51 different state stories

(and in many states, stories differ county by

county); and a final one which tells us that

what happened from 1996 through 2000,

mixed as that history is, is quite different from

what has happened since—at best, the TANF

construct is (in general) a policy for times of

prosperity, and is far more dicey when a reces-

sion comes and more people are in need of a

decent safety net.

THE FIRST STORY—SINGLE MOTHERS WHO WENT TO WORK

The most positive story is of the single moth-

ers who went to work. The number of single

mothers having jobs rose from 62 percent

in 1995 to 7� percent in 2000 (although it

fell back to 69 percent by 2005). There are

three reasons for the increase. The biggest

is that jobs were available. Businesses were

desperate for workers. Placards on the sides of

buses in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the

unemployment rate was under � percent, read

something like “welfare recipients make good

workers.” Second, the Earned Income Tax

Credit operates as an incentive to work—take

a minimum wage job and if you have two

14

children you get an income bump of $4,000.

Third, the new welfare policy applied heat to

the seat of the pants. Time limits, sanctions,

and diversion of applicants at the time they

sought help pushed people to seek work.

Experts of all stripes agree that these were the

three operative factors, although they disagree

on the relative weight. (And I believe the push

from the new welfare policy was punitive in

too many places. Many states pushed people

off the rolls or would not let them on, regard-

less of whether they would be able to find and

hold a job.)

Nor did getting a job mean that a family

escaped poverty. Generally speaking, studies

show that only about half of those who found

jobs, full- or part-time, got out of poverty. And

finding a job was not the same as keeping it.

Of course not all of the reasons why people

lose jobs or quit are sympathetic, but we

know, depending on the study, that a quarter

to a third of those who left welfare were back

on the rolls within a year (with the time clock

ticking again), and we know anecdotally that

many of those are stories of child care break-

ing down, chronically ill children who caused

their mother to be absent from work too

often, and people with little work experience

and low self-esteem who needed more coach-

ing and support to succeed in a job.

THE SECOND STORY—NO JOB, NO WELFARE

The second story—seldom discussed but

acknowledged by the more responsible cheer-

leaders for the 1996 law—is the large number

of people who left the rolls and have neither a

job nor welfare when we look at them down

the road. About 60 percent of leavers have

jobs on any given day. This means 40 percent

do not. More than 9 million people (about

� million women and 6 million children) have

left the rolls since 1994, when the rolls were at

their peak of 14.� million people. Extrapolat-

ing from the studies, this means that roughly

1.2 million former welfare recipients (and their

2.4 million children) are hardly success stories,

and many are clearly worse off.

Researchers at the Urban Institute found that

in the early years of implementation about

one in six former recipients, or more than

one in three of those just mentioned, were

completely “out.” They not only had no wel-

fare and no job, but they had not married, had

not moved in with a partner or with family,

and had not qualified for disability benefits.

More recent data suggest that this number

has risen, to more than one in five former

recipients. We simply do not know how all of

these people are coping. Again extrapolating

and applying these study outcomes to the total

decline in the number of people on welfare,

this would mean we are talking about close to

two million people who are in markedly worse

shape as a result of the 1996 law.

We do know that the number of people in

“extreme poverty”—with incomes below half

the poverty line, or below $8,000 annually

for a family of three—has risen alarmingly,

especially since 2000, with the total going from

12.25 million people in that year to 15.6 million

in 2005, well over 40 percent of the poor and

5.25 percent of all Americans. Some of that

increase undoubtedly reflects the signifi-

cant number of former or would-be welfare

15

recipients who have no work or only casual

or intermittent work. Putting the issue more

broadly, the percentage of poor children on

welfare dropped from 62 percent in 1995 to

�1 percent in 200�. The widespread unavail-

ability of welfare to pick up the slack after the

economy soured in 2001 is surely a factor in

the increase in extreme poverty.

Those of us who prophesied deleterious

effects from the 1996 law are derided for a

prediction based on statistical analysis that the

law would drive a million more children into

poverty. The Urban Institute study implies

that by 2002, even after the unforeseen heat-

ing up of the economy, well over a million

children were in fact worse off because of the

new welfare policy. By 2005 the number was

undoubtedly higher. We were not so wrong.

THE THIRD STORY—51 UNIqUE STATE ExPERIENCES

The third story is that the whole experience

is widely diverse across the country. What is

involved is not one policy but 51 policies, and

with many states having devolved the details

down to the counties, it is in fact hundreds of

different policies. This is extremely important.

The 1996 law is a block grant. The overall mes-

sage was a strong push to get people off the

welfare rolls in whatever way would produce

the greatest reduction in caseloads, and in

the early years states competed for bragging

rights over who had reduced their caseload the

most. Still, there is room for widely differing

policies. There are good states and bad states.

If national policymakers cared to, they could

learn from what the good states did, and adjust

national policy to reflect that experience.

What would a good state do?

I have believed for nearly 40 years, since my

time working for Robert Kennedy, that we

needed to reform our welfare system. We

needed to base reform on three principles:

one, there were large numbers of people on

the rolls—mainly women, of course—who

could succeed in the labor market with proper

help and support; two, there are others, not

legally disabled, who because of their personal,

family, or geographic situation are not in a

position to work and should receive a decent

level of support for themselves and their

children; and three, there are people in tem-

porary need for one reason or another who

should receive a decent level of support.

The welfare system we had did none of those

things. It was not work-oriented, and there

was never a single state in which welfare (or

welfare and food stamps combined, which is

the better way to look at it) sufficed to get

people out of poverty. That was what Robert

Kennedy was saying in 1967, and it was still

true in 1996 when the country finally lost

patience and enacted PRWORA. The best

thing that can be said about the 1996 law is

that it left the door open for states to have

good policies if they wanted to.

So, what would a good state do? Basically,

help people find and keep jobs, and provide

a decent safety net for those not in a position

to work. Basically, treat people as individuals

with differing circumstances and figure out

what help they need to find and keep a job,

or whether for one reason or another they

should not be pushed to work outside the

16

home. Basically, make welfare an integral part

of a much larger strategy to end poverty and

make sure that people have incomes adequate

to make ends meet, with other policies, like

the minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax

Credit, health coverage, child care, and good

employment and training strategies, applied to

create a real antipoverty commitment.

There were states that did as many of those

things as they could, consistent with the

resources available to them, both federal and

state. And there were states that did the

opposite—eight that chose lifetime time limits

shorter than five years (even though the fund-

ing for benefits up to five years would have

been 100 percent federal), and six that chose

sanctions for noncompliance with rules (failing

to show up for an appointment, being late for

a work assignment, and so on) that included

full-family lifetime disqualification for repeat

infractions.

Thus the third story is that there is no single

TANF history. There are 51-plus such histories.

Most of what we read in the press would

lead us to believe that the experience was

the same or roughly the same across the

country. Not so, not even within states. It is

most unfortunate that TANF as reauthorized

reflects so little of what that diverse experi-

ence teaches.

THE FOURTH STORY—SLIPPING BACKWARDS

This brings us to the last story, which again is

one that has received relatively little attention.

This story is one of the slippage backward,

reflected in the data since 2000, and the nega-

tive turn in the federal statutory framework

when the law was reauthorized by Congress in

early 2006.

The available funding has been deteriorat-

ing steadily—eroded by inflation—since the

moment the law was enacted in 1996. The

total of the federal appropriation and the

required state maintenance of state effort

was about $27 billion a year. It still is. For the

first few years the effect of the slippage in

purchasing power was not especially notice-

able, because caseload numbers dropped so

precipitously, for good reasons and bad. For

a while states found that they had increasing

amounts of money to spend on child care and

other services over and above the cost of pay-

ing out benefits. But caseloads have now been

roughly stable for the past five or six years and

the $27 billion is worth 22 percent less than

it was in 1996, so states have had to cut child

care and other services as time has passed.

PRWORA enthusiasts argue that the stability

of the rolls through the recent recession is a

mark of success. It is nothing of the kind. It is

a reflection of diversion at the welfare office

door, saving of time-limited eligibility for an

even rainier day, expired eligibility due to

the time limits, and sanctioning policies. As

indicated previously, the percentage of single

mothers with jobs has fallen from its peak in

2000. What does not add up is that while the

welfare rolls have not risen nationally, food

stamp receipt has increased by more than 50

percent and Medicaid utilization has risen sub-

stantially as well. These, of course, are benefits

to which people are legally entitled.

17

Instead of improving TANF based on experi-

ence in the states and flaws revealed by the

recession that began in 2001, the reauthori-

zation finally enacted in early 2006 went in

the other direction. Its most highly publicized

feature is funding for states to adopt marriage-

promotion programs. This is more rhetorical

than substantive, but it will no doubt be applied

punitively in some locales. More broadly nega-

tive is a beefed up set of requirements for

current welfare recipients to work while on

welfare. This will likely require states to adopt

expensive work programs, driving funding out

of current, much more constructive welfare-

to-work initiatives and actually making it more

difficult for recipients to find time to look for

jobs so they can get off the rolls.

TOMORROW—A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTUREWe need a new framework, with a broader

focus and perspective. The vision must not be

confined even to ending poverty, as important

as that is. The vision must be the achievement

of a living income for everyone in the United

States. Welfare is a small issue in that context.

Those who have succeeded in framing the

debate as one primarily about welfare have

diverted attention from the broader challenges.

I think a book about TANF@10 will contribute

little if we leave it having discussed only TANF.

TANF itself can be improved. That is certain.

But even if we limit our discussion to how we

can help single-parent families with children

obtain as much income as possible from work,

with cash support for those who earn too

little or are unable to work, and even if we

add an objective of maximizing the number

of two-parent families, we cannot carry on

that discussion productively without discussing

health coverage, child care, housing, education

and training, transportation, the criminal justice

system, and much, much more. Nor could our

discussion be productive without a focus on

issues of race, gender, disability, immigration,

and more. And of course our discussion could

not be limited to public policy, but would

include issues of community and personal

responsibility.

TANF cannot be separated from a multitude

of policies and actions that we will have to

undertake to minimize the number of people

with children who receive cash assistance,

because they are not working or do not

receive enough income from their work. In

other words, we cannot talk TANF without

talking poverty, and we cannot talk poverty

without realizing that the number of people

in America who cannot make ends meet is far

larger than the number we call poor.

Not everyone can be involved in every aspect

of what needs to be done, but all of us need

to do what we can while retaining our full

vision of a society that is economically just.

And some of us need to devote ourselves

to articulating and publicizing the vision in its

entirety.

So let’s make a deal. Let’s make sure we do

not have a book on TANF@Twenty. Let’s

make a vow to cut American poverty in half

over the next 10 years. And our next book

can be called, “Reviewing Our vow: How Did

We Do?”

18

19

Robert G. Wood Justin WheelerMathematica Policy Research, Inc.

INTRODUCTIONSpurred on by President Clinton’s promise “to

end welfare as we know it,” Congress passed

the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor-

tunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996.

This federal welfare reform legislation made

sweeping changes to federal welfare policy,

imposing work requirements on recipients as a

condition for cash assistance, as well as lifetime

limits on benefit receipt. The legislation also

gave states much greater flexibility in setting

their specific welfare policies. It established

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) program, which provides a block

grant to states—or a fixed, guaranteed level

of funding regardless of the number of families

eligible for cash assistance. Under this funding

arrangement, states have a great deal of lati-

tude in choosing how they spend their federal

TANF dollars and can spend these funds on a

wide variety of programs, as long as they are

consistent with the broad goals of TANF set

out in the federal legislation.

In the 10 years since federal welfare reform,

states have chosen a variety of approaches to

implementing their TANF programs. Because

of the greater flexibility offered to states by

PRWORA, there is now substantially more

state-to-state variation in welfare programs

than there was in the years leading up to

TANF. This paper takes a close look at the

implementation of TANF in three states—

New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. We

begin with a brief overview of the charac-

teristics of the three states and their TANF

caseloads. Next, we examine their basic TANF

policies and how these policies compare to

other states. We then describe their experi-

ences with implementing these policies and

provide more detail about the programs and

services they offer TANF recipients in their

states. We end the paper with a discussion of

their TANF-related outcomes and how these

compare to the rest of the United States.

CONTExT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WELFARE CASELOADS IN THE THREE STATESIn spite of the geographic proximity of the

three states that are the focus of this paper,

the basic characteristics of both their general

An Examination of the First 10 Years Under TANF in Three States: The Experiences of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

20

populations and their TANF populations vary

considerably. New Jersey, New York, and

Pennsylvania are all states with large popula-

tions, each ranking in the top 10 nationally

(Table 1). However, New York and Pennsylva-

nia each contain one of the largest cities in the

country, while New Jersey’s largest city, New-

ark, has fewer than �00,000 residents and is

a city that does not even rank among the top

50 in population nationwide. In addition, the

welfare caseloads of New York and Pennsylva-

nia are very much concentrated in their largest

cities—with approximately 70 percent of New

York’s caseload residing in New York City and

more than 40 percent of Pennsylvania’s case-

load living in Philadelphia. In contrast, in New

Jersey, residents of no single city represent

more than a quarter of the TANF caseload.

Similarly, the overall mix of urban, suburban,

and rural areas in New Jersey is very different

from the other two states. In general, New

York and Pennsylvania have a mix of people

living in very large cities, small cities, suburbs,

and more rural areas. In contrast, New Jersey

is largely a suburban state, with relatively

small populations living in cities or rural areas.

Consistent with being a largely suburban state,

New Jersey is also an affluent state, having

one of the highest median household incomes

among the 50 states, as well as one of the

lowest rates of poverty (Table 1). In contrast,

Pennsylvania and particularly New York have

substantially higher rates of poverty that are

more typical of the nation as a whole and that

reflect their more urban (as well as their more

rural) populations.

New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United States

Total population (2005) 8,717,925 19,254,6�0 12,429,616 296,410,404

Population rank among the 50 states (2005) 10 � 6 NA

Largest city (2005) Newark New York Philadelphia New York Population 280,666 8,14�,197 1,46�,281 8,14�,197 Population rank among all U.S. cities 65 1 5 1

Persons per square mile (2005) 1,175 408 277 80

Median household income (200�) $56,�56 $44,1�9 $42,952 $4�,�18

Percent below poverty (200�) 8.9 14.� 10.6 12.5

Percentage of population (2004) White, non-Hispanic 64 61 8� 67 African American, non-Hispanic 14 16 10 12 Hispanic 15 16 4 14 Other 7 7 � 7

Percent speaking language other than English at home (2000)

26 28 8 18

Percent born outside the U.S. (2000) 18 20 4 11

TABLE 1Selected Characteristics of the Populations of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov).NA = not applicable.

21

In terms of ethnic diversity, it is New York and

New Jersey that are more similar and Pennsyl-

vania that is more distinct. New York and New

Jersey each have substantially higher percent-

ages of Asians and Hispanics than does the

nation as a whole. In contrast, Pennsylvania has

a less diverse population than the rest of the

country, with a population that is substantially

whiter and more likely to be English-speaking

and native born than is true nationally (Table

1). Their TANF populations generally reflect

these cross-state differences in the racial and

ethnic distribution of their general population.

In particular, Pennsylvania’s welfare caseload

is whiter and less Hispanic than the national

welfare caseload, while New York and New

Jersey have welfare caseloads that are more

Hispanic and African American than is typical

nationwide (Table 2). In addition, New York

has a large proportion of welfare recipients

who are not U.S. citizens, consistent with the

high percentage of immigrants in the state’s

population.

Finally, New York and Pennsylvania have

particularly large welfare caseloads. In terms of

size, their caseloads rank second and third in

the country nationally, behind only Califor-

nia (Table 2). New Jersey in contrast has a

substantially smaller caseload than the other

two states, reflecting both its smaller overall

population, as well as its relative affluence.

OvERvIEW OF THE TANF POLICIES IN THE THREE STATESFederal welfare reform imposed important

new requirements on how states ran their

welfare programs. However, it also gave states

increased flexibility to set their basic welfare

policies. For this reason, welfare rules and pro-

grams now vary substantially state by state. In

this section, we review the basic TANF policies

of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

and describe how these policies compare

to the policies other states have adopted

(Table �).

New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United StatesNumber of TANF cases 46,944 188,096 97,186 2,068,140

Rank of caseload size among the 50 states 14 2 � NAPercentage of caseload White, non-Hispanic 15 21 �6 �� African American, non-Hispanic 58 41 49 �8 Hispanic 26 �6 12 24 Other 1 � � 5

Percentage of adult recipients who are not U.S. citizens

� 10 � 5

TABLE 2Selected Characteristics of TANF Caseloads of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families website.Note: Caseload sizes refer to 2005 and include child-only cases, as well as cases in separate state programs funded through maintenance-of-effort funds. Other characteristics refer to 2004, with the exception of race/ethnicity statistics for Pennsylvania, which are from 2002.NA = not applicable.

22

BENEFIT LEvELS AND COMPUTATIONS

Even before TANF was launched in 1996, basic

benefit levels varied widely by state. In fact,

prior to PRWORA, the maximum cash benefit

level was the primary dimension on which

welfare policies varied state to state. In 1996,

the maximum benefit level for a family of three

ranged from $92� per month in Alaska to

$120 per month in Mississippi. This large cross-

state variation has persisted under TANF.

Relative to other states, New York offered

fairly high welfare benefits prior to TANF

implementation and has continued to offer

relatively high benefits under TANF. New

York’s maximum benefit amounts vary by state

region. In 1996, the maximum benefit level

in the state region with the highest benefit

level—Suffolk County—was $70� for a family

of three. This maximum benefit level ranked

the third nationwide (behind only Alaska and

Hawaii). New York City, the largest state

region, had a maximum benefit level of $577 in

1996 for a family of three. A state providing this

level of benefits would have been ranked sixth

nationally at the time that TANF was launched.

These rankings have changed relatively little in

the years since TANF implementation.

New Jersey and Pennsylvania, by contrast, offer

benefits that are neither relatively high nor rel-

atively low compared with those other states.

In 200�, the maximum benefit for a family of

three was $424 in New Jersey and $421 in

Pennsylvania. These benefit levels ranked them

24th and 25th respectively in terms of benefit

generosity—just above the median state of Illi-

nois with a median benefit of $�96. New Jersey

and Pennsylvania ranked at very similar points

in the benefit generosity rankings by state in

the period leading up to welfare reform—with

maximum benefit levels very close to the ben-

efit levels for the median state.

As part of federal welfare reform, states were

also given greater flexibility in setting their

earned income disregards, or the amount

by which cash benefits are reduced for each

State

Maximum monthly benefit level for family of three

Minimum hours required in work activities each week Sanctioning policy

Lifetime limit on benefit receipt (months)

New Jersey $424 �5 Gradual, full-family sanctions

60

New York $70�* �0 Partial sanctions only None**Pennsylvania $421 20*** Gradual, full-family

sanctions60

Median State $�96 �0 Gradual, full-family sanctions

60

TABLE �Basic TANF Policies of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Source: Rowe and Versteeg, 2005.* Benefit varies by region. Maximum benefit for a family of three in New York City is $577.** TANF recipients reaching 60 months of benefit receipt can transition onto the state-funded Safety Net Assistance program, which is not time limited.*** Work requirement does not apply until recipient has received TANF for 24 months.

2�

dollar a recipient earns. In an effort to encour-

age work, most states adopted policies that

lowered the rate at which TANF benefits

were reduced as earnings rose. New Jersey,

New York, and Pennsylvania all adopted similar

earned income disregard policies under TANF.

Each of the three states generally disregards

half of earned income when calculating TANF

benefit amounts.

WORK REqUIREMENTS AND SANCTIONS

Under TANF, states must require recipients

to participate in work activities after two

years’ of benefit receipt. However, most states

require recipients to participate in work-

related activities before this two-year point.

States must enforce these work requirements

through sanctioning—or a reduction in the

cash benefit amount. States have flexibility in

determining the minimum hours of work activ-

ity required each week, who is exempt from

this policy, what work activities will be allowed,

and how these requirements will be enforced

through sanctions.

Each state’s work requirement policies are

complex and have many dimensions. In this

section, we focus on three key elements of

these policies: (1) minimum hours of work

activity required each week; (2) exemptions

from work requirements; and (�) enforcement

of work requirements through sanctioning.

Minimum Hours Requirement

States have imposed different minimum

hours requirements for work activities under

TANF—ranging from 20 to 40 hours per

week. As of 200�, most states—including

New York—required their TANF recipients

to participate in work activities for a minimum

of �0 hours each week (Rowe and versteeg

2005). At this point, nine states—including

New Jersey—had higher minimum hours

requirements. New Jersey requires its TANF

recipients to participate in work activities

for �5 hours each week. As is true in most

states, in both New York and New Jersey,

these work requirements begin as soon as

recipients begin receiving TANF. In 200�,

five states—including Pennsylvania—had

minimum hours requirements below �0 hours

per week. Pennsylvania’s requirement is 20

hours of work each week. In addition, unlike

most states, Pennsylvania does not impose

this requirement on recipients until they have

been receiving TANF for two years. Prior to

this point, although recipients are expected

to participate in some work-related activity,

there is no minimum hours requirement for

participation.

Exemptions

States offer a variety of exemptions from

these requirements. For example, most

states—including New Jersey, New York, and

Pennsylvania—exempt from work require-

ments recipients who are disabled or caring

for a disabled family member. In addition,

most states exempt recipients from work

requirements if they are caring for very young

children. The specific age cutoff to qualify for

an exemption varies by state. As of 200�, 28

states—including New York and Pennsylva-

nia—exempted TANF recipients from work

requirements if they were caring for a child

who was less than 12 months old. However,

24

New York’s policy is more restrictive than

many other states in this regard. New York

limits the length of this exemption to three

months for any one child and 12 months

total over the recipient’s lifetime.2 Sixteen

states—including New Jersey—had lower age

cutoffs to qualify for an exemption from work

requirements. In New Jersey, recipients are

exempt if they are caring for a child younger

than three months of age. Six states offer

no exemptions for recipients caring for very

young children.

Sanctioning Policy

States enforce their work requirements

through benefit reductions or sanctioning.

States take three basic approaches to sanc-

tioning policy: (1) partial sanctions only; (2)

gradual full-family sanctions; and (�) immedi-

ate full-family sanctions. The most common

sanctioning policy—used in 26 states, including

New Jersey and Pennsylvania—is a policy of

gradual full-family sanctions. Under this policy,

recipients who do not comply with work

requirements first receive a reduction in their

cash grant. After repeated months of noncom-

pliance, this partial sanction progresses to case

closure. However, Pennsylvania’s sanctioning

policy is different from those of many other

states using gradual full-family sanctions. In

Pennsylvania, TANF recipients cannot receive

a full-family sanction for noncompliance with

work requirements until they have been

receiving benefits for at least two years.

Under a “partial sanctions only” policy—used

in 10 states, including New York—benefits are

reduced for noncompliance with work require-

ments; however, this partial reduction never

progresses to case closure. At the other end

of the spectrum, 14 states impose immediate

full-family sanctions, closing the TANF case in

the first month of noncompliance with work

requirements.

Overall Stringency of Work Requirements

Where do these states fall on the spectrum of

stringency of TANF work requirement policies

and sanctions? The most stringent state poli-

cies offer relatively few exemptions from work

requirements and impose immediate full-family

sanctions for noncompliance. None of these

three states fall in this group. Although they

all incorporate a strong emphasis on work in

their TANF programs, in general, relative to

other states, they fall either in the middle or

toward the “less stringent” end of the work

requirement spectrum.

Among the three states themselves, New Jer-

sey has the most stringent work requirement

policies. The state requires new mothers to

enter work activities once their child is three

months old; it mandates more hours of work

activities than most states do (�5 hours per

week); and it imposes full-family sanctions after

repeated months of noncompliance with work

requirements (even during the first two years

of benefit receipt). Further, the state appears

to use sanctions fairly regularly. According

to a recent study of sanctions in three states

(including New Jersey), 29 percent of adult

TANF recipients in New Jersey received a par-

tial sanction over a 10-month period in 2001,

and 12 percent received a full-family sanction.

These rates were considerably higher than

25

those in the other states studied, Illinois and

South Carolina (Pavetti et al. 2004).

In contrast, Pennsylvania may be considered

the least stringent of the three in terms of

work requirements. The state has no mini-

mum hours requirement until recipients have

received TANF for two years. After this point,

it requires only 20 hours of work activities

each week. In addition, the state was initially

extremely cautious in imposing sanctions for

noncompliance with these requirements. To

avoid imposing a sanction in error, the state

put in place detailed procedures that required

multiple layers of approval by more senior staff

members before a sanction could be imposed

(Michalopoulos et al. 200�). As a result,

few Pennsylvania TANF recipients received

sanctions in the first few years after TANF

implementation. The state has since begun

sanctioning cases for noncompliance with work

requirements more regularly. Since 2002, the

state has been sanctioning TANF recipients at

a rate that is similar to the national average, as

well as the specific sanctioning rates in New

Jersey and New York (ACF 2006).

New York falls in between the other two states

in terms of the stringency of its work require-

ments. The state requires �0 of work activity

each week, compared with 20 in Pennsylvania

and �5 in New Jersey. Although New York

does not impose full-family sanctions, it has

used its partial sanctions fairly regularly under

TANF. In New York City, throughout the first

five years of TANF implementation, about �0

percent of adult TANF recipients were either

under sanction or in the sanction process

(Nightingale et al. 2002). Sanction rates for

more recent years were similar (New York

City Human Resources Administration 2006).

TIME LIMITS

A time limit on benefit receipt was a central

component of federal welfare reform. Under

PRWORA, states are barred from using

federal TANF funds to provide assistance for

cases that include an adult and that have been

receiving benefits for more than 60 months.

However, certain exceptions apply and states

have substantial flexibility in how to imple-

ment their specific time limit policies (Bloom

et al. 2002). For example, states are allowed

to impose limits on benefit receipt that are

less than 60 months. In addition, states can

offer recipients temporary extensions of their

benefits beyond the 60-month point, as long

as no more than 20 percent of the caseload is

extended in this way. Moreover, states can also

use state funds to assist families beyond the

60-month federal limit.

New Jersey and Pennsylvania—like �� other

states—imposed a 60-month time limit as part

of their state TANF program. Both states offer

extensions beyond the 60-month limit. For

example, New Jersey has a program known

as Supportive Assistance to Individuals and

Families (SAIF), under which families can con-

tinue to receive benefits for an additional two

years—as long as they comply with TANF work

requirements. Pennsylvania has a similar pro-

gram known as Extended TANF that imposes

no explicit limit on the length of the benefit

extension. In addition, the state established a

separate state program, known as Time Out,

under which recipients can stop their 60-month

26

TANF clock for up to one year by mixing

welfare and work. These programs and policies

allowed both New Jersey and Pennsylvania to

avoid closing cases because of time limits in

the first few years after their first TANF cases

reached the 60-month point. Although their

first cases reached 60 months of benefit receipt

in the first half of 2002, neither state had closed

a case due to time limits by September 2004

(ACF 2006). In contrast, more than two-thirds

of states nationwide had closed cases because

of time limits by this point.

New York took a somewhat different approach

to TANF time limits. The state established a

separate state program, Safety New Assistance

(SNA), funded through its TANF “maintenance

of effort” funds. TANF families reaching the

five-year federal limit on benefits are placed

in the SNA program which, because it is state

funded, is not subject to the federal time limit.

TANF families who transition onto SNA after

60 months receive most of their benefit as

vouchers for specific expenses such as housing

or utilities. Therefore, welfare receipt in New

York is not time limited, since families reaching

the federal limit on TANF benefits can transi-

tion onto the state funded SNA program.

However, the nature of the benefit changes

substantially after 60 months, since welfare

recipients go from receiving all their benefit

in cash to receiving most of their benefit as

vouchers for specific expenses.

In terms of overall stringency of time limit

policies, each of these three states fall on the

less stringent end of the spectrum. New York

explicitly avoids the federal five-year limit

through its separate state program for those

families reaching this limit. New Jersey and

Pennsylvania have avoided closing TANF cases

because of time limits through state programs

that offer extensions to most families reaching

the five-year limit. In contrast, many other

states have closed a substantial number of

TANF cases that have reached time limits.

DIvERSION PROGRAMS

Since federal welfare reform legislation was

passed in 1996, more than half the states—

including all three that are the focus of this

paper—have implemented programs designed

to divert welfare applicants from enrolling

in TANF (Rowe and versteeg 2005). These

programs may involve an upfront job search to

help applicants secure employment, provide

applicants a lump-sum payment to help them

weather a short financial crisis without enter-

ing the welfare rolls, or assist them in accessing

other sources of support besides TANF.

Diversion programs vary substantially across

states on a variety of dimensions, including

the conditions under which they allow diver-

sion payments, the amount and form of the

payment (cash or voucher), and how often

payments can be received.

Among the three states examined here, New

Jersey was the first to implement a diversion

program at the state level. In July 1998, the

state initiated an Early Employment Initiative

(EEI) requiring all prospective applicants who

are able to work and not in immediate need

to conduct an intensive 15 to 20 day job

search. Eligible applicants receive a lump-sum

payment prior to their search and a second

lump-sum payment if they obtain employment

27

and withdraw their TANF application. The

sum of these two payments may be as large

as $750 for a family of three. The program is

distinctive, and differs from those in New York

and Pennsylvania, in that it is mandatory; all

non-exempt TANF applicants must participate

in the program before proceeding to WFNJ.

New Jersey is also one of only four states

that do not specify a limit on the number of

diversionary payments an applicant can receive

(Rowe and versteeg 2005).

In contrast to New Jersey’s work-oriented

program, New York’s diversion program,

which began in January 2000, provides

emergency assistance diversionary payments

without any work-related requirements.

These payments may be in the form of cash

or vouchers and, unlike those in most other

states, are targeted toward different needs—

for crisis assistance, for transportation to work,

or to meet a housing payment. New York lim-

its diversion payments to a single instance for

each type of payment—crisis, transportation,

and housing (Rowe and versteeg 2005).

Pennsylvania only recently initiated its own

diversion program—launching the program

in August 2005. The program is intended to

assist applicants who are experiencing a tem-

porary interruption in their earned income. It

differs from both New York and New Jersey

in its relatively narrow eligibility requirements.

TANF applicants in Pennsylvania who meet the

program’s eligibility requirements are currently

or recently employed, and are “awaiting the

receipt of verified, self-sustaining income” may

receive a lump-sum payment equivalent to up

to three-months worth of the benefit they

would be eligible for under the state’s TANF

program (DPW 2005). These criteria reflect

an effort to avoid diverting applicants who are

not in fact work-ready and are considerably

more cautious in this respect than diversion

programs in many other states. Applicants may

receive a diversion payment only once every

12 months (DPW 2005).

POLICY AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION IN THE THREE STATESAs important as understanding the formal

policies that New Jersey, New York and

Pennsylvania adopted in response to TANF is

understanding the particular programs through

which the three states applied these policies,

their implementation on the ground, and their

evolution over time. In this section, we provide

an overview of the development of welfare

programs in the three states since 1996, sum-

marizing results from previous evaluations of

their implementation. More specifically, we

summarize the states’ experiences in the initial

implementation of TANF, describe their early

experiences and challenges, and highlight their

responses to the increasing concentration of

clients with barriers to work within the case-

load and the arrival of the federal time limit,

the two related factors that have most shaped

the evolution of their welfare programs.

NEW JERSEY’S TANF PROGRAM

Initial Implementation

New Jersey implemented its TANF program,

Work First New Jersey (WFNJ), in July 1997.

As in other states, the program heralded in a

new emphasis on work, as well as a reduced

28

emphasis on education and training. New

Jersey was an early mover in making structural

reforms designed to improve the delivery of

job-related services to welfare recipients. In

1995, the state unified all employment and

training activities into a comprehensive Work-

force New Jersey system under the purview of

the Department of Labor. As part of launch-

ing WFNJ, the state made other structural

reforms designed to make the welfare system

more efficient, consolidating the state’s previ-

ously separate Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC), General Assistance, and

Emergency Assistance programs under WFNJ.

Though New Jersey’s TANF program was,

and remains, decentralized on paper—admin-

istered by counties and supervised by the

state—in practice, the state allowed local

agencies fairly limited flexibility in operating

WFNJ, with the result that the program was

implemented fairly consistently across the

state (Koralek et al. 2001).

Early Experiences and Challenges

A study of the early implementation of WFNJ

suggests that, to a large degree, the strong

emphasis on work at the state level in New

Jersey had translated down to local welfare

agency staff. Though some staff questioned

whether a work first approach was appropri-

ate for all clients, on the whole they supported

both the emphasis on quick attachment to

work and the policy of sanctioning noncom-

pliant clients (Rosenberg et al. 2000). The

relatively high rates of sanctioning in the state

discussed earlier are consistent with this quali-

tative finding.

The challenges to early implementation of

WFNJ were coordinating service delivery

between welfare and workforce agencies,

communicating eligibility requirements and

benefits to clients, and providing intensive

case management and support services to

hard-to-employ clients. Though collaboration

between welfare agencies and vendors of

employment services increased under WFNJ,

in the early years of the program, clients’ tran-

sitions into work activities were sometimes

delayed because of lack of available referrals

to vendors and minimal cash reserves among

vendors as a result of performance-based con-

tracts. Studies also found that large numbers of

clients were often misinformed about eligibility

requirements and benefits and that they were

underutilizing post-TANF transitional services

for which they were eligible (Legal Services

of New Jersey 1999; Rangarajan and Wood

2000, Rosenberg et al. 2000). In addition,

though caseworkers appear to have generally

been supportive of the use of sanctions from

the beginning of WFNJ’s implementation,

evidence suggests that their attitudes were less

affected by the 60-month time limit. Indeed,

many county welfare agency staff believed—

rightly, as it turned out—that the state would

extend welfare for clients who reached the

limit (Rosenberg et al. 2000). Moreover, the

near universal granting of extensions once the

limit was reached was reflected in a decline in

the proportion of clients believing that TANF

benefits were time limited—from 82 percent

among those participating in WFNJ in the first

year of the program to 67 percent among

those participating three years later (Wood,

Rangarajan, and Deke 2004).

29

Programmatic Changes Since Initial Implementation

Mid-course changes and additions to New

Jersey’s TANF programs have followed pat-

terns similar to those in other states, for similar

reasons. As caseloads in the state declined, the

share of remaining TANF recipients with sig-

nificant barriers to work—particularly health

problems—increased (Wood, Rangarajan, and

Deke 2004). In addition, small but significant

portions of TANF leavers were returning to

the rolls or failing to advance into stable long-

term employment (Wood, Rangarajan and

Gordon 2004).

The state responded to these challenges by

allowing local agencies more flexibility in the

programs they offer clients and initiating new

programs consistent with the goal of self-suf-

ficiency. These efforts have included, among

others, a faith- and community-based col-

laborative to publicize support programs and

benefits available to TANF leavers; a Com-

prehensive Social Assessment for all clients

after 12 months of TANF receipt to identify

barriers to employment; a state earned

income tax credit; an Individual Development

Account (IDA) program to help clients save

to buy a house, start a small business, or pay

for higher education; a Career Advancement

voucher Program for employed former TANF

recipients to pursue additional training while

they are working; and a Supplemental Work

Support Program providing monthly payments

to working TANF recipients who are will-

ing to close their cases (Koralek et al. 2001;

Rangarajan et al. 2005). These programs have

increased the intensity and breadth of support

services provided to high-need clients, as well

as the extent to which the state addresses

the challenge of employment retention and

advancement among former TANF recipients

(Wood, Rangajaran, and Deke 200�).

NEW YORK’S TANF PROGRAM

Initial Implementation

New York began reshaping its welfare

programs to be more work focused in the

mid-1990s—prior to the passage of federal

welfare reform legislation. Beginning in 1995,

Governor George Pataki made a series of

proposals to the state legislature to trim and

reform welfare dramatically. Though most of

these proposals did not pass into law, those

that did restricted eligible work activities for

welfare recipients and expanded the work

requirements placed on them.

The state’s final welfare reform legislation

passed in August 1997. This state response to

the federal welfare legislation was shaped in

important ways by the provision in New York’s

constitution requiring the state to provide

support for the needy (Lurie 1998). Article

xvII of the constitution states that, “The aid,

care and support of the needy are public

concerns and shall be provided by the state

and by such of its subdivisions, and in such

manner and by such means, as the legislature

may from time to time determine.” Because

of this constitutional provision, the state chose

not to use full-family sanctions for those who

did not comply with work requirements. In

addition, from the outset of TANF, the state

planned not to place a time limit on benefits,

since such a limit was deemed to be a violation

of the constitutional mandate to support the

�0

needy. Instead, as described earlier, the state

complied with the federal requirement to limit

benefits to 60 months by establishing Safety

Net Assistance (SNA), a state funded program

that was not time limited. TANF recipients

reaching the federal five-year limit could transi-

tion into the SNA program.

As in New Jersey, the implementation of

TANF also ushered in significant structural

changes, including the creation of a new

agency—the Department of Family Assis-

tance—to oversee the new Family Assistance

(FA) and SNA programs.� In addition, author-

ity for all welfare employment programs

was shifted to the state Department of

Labor (Fender et al. 2002). These structural

changes did not, however, alter the decentral-

ized nature of New York’s welfare system.

Localities in the state continued to provide 25

percent of the funding for the state’s TANF

program (formerly AFDC, now FA)—one of

the highest local match rates among the 11

states in which local funding exists—and to

receive in return considerable autonomy in

their implementation of state policies.

EARLY ExPERIENCES AND CHALLENGES

As a result of the latitude that New York

allows its 58 local social service districts (57

counties and New York City), it is somewhat

difficult to generalize about the experience of

welfare reform in the state. New York City,

where approximately 70 percent of the state’s

TANF recipients reside, pursued work attach-

ment aggressively on the ground, coupling a

willingness to use sanctioning in the effort to

transition welfare recipients to work with its

Work Experience Program (WEP), the larg-

est “workfare” program in the country, with

a peak enrollment of �5,000 in 1999. This

program featured assignment to public- and

nonprofit-sector jobs in exchange for welfare

benefits. As in many states, the primary chal-

lenges New York faced after welfare reform

were in coordinating service delivery with a

large variety of new providers, developing new

staff skill sets, and, increasingly, serving hard-

to-employ clients (Fender et al. 2002).

However, as described earlier, New York dif-

fered from the other two states in its response

to the 60-month federal limit on benefits.

From the outset of its TANF program, the

state planned to allow recipients to continue

to receive benefits through the state funded

SNA program. However, in spite of this plan,

local welfare agencies appear to have made

use of the five-year federal limit to motivate

clients and, in some cases, move recipients off

the rolls as this time limit approached (Fender

et al. 2002). An analysis of the implementation

of time limits in New York City found that, as

the five-year limit approached, welfare staff

often did not inform FA recipients that they

faced no time limit on their assistance or dis-

cuss with them the transition to SNA (Bloom

et al. 2002). Instead, agencies frequently

publicized the federal limit, posting signs

reading “The clock is ticking” and “Welfare

is time-limited.” Clients approaching the 60-

month limit who were complying with TANF

requirements were automatically transferred

to SNA. However, noncompliant clients were

required to complete a multi-stage application

process. Successful applicants were assigned to

a subsidized job or work experience position.

�1

One factor that may have influenced the

behavior of local welfare agencies was the

increased cost they faced when FA recipients

transitioned to the SNA program. Local gov-

ernments pay 50 percent of the costs for SNA

clients, compared with only 25 percent for FA

recipients. These additional costs may have

contributed to their desire to discourage these

transitions in some instances.

When the federal five-year limit began to hit

for the first cohort of FA recipients, some

of these recipients did not transition into

the SNA program and instead had their

cases closed. In New York City, of the first

�6,000 FA cases to reach the federal time

limit, approximately 6,000 were exempted

and allowed to remain on FA, 14,000 were

deemed compliant and transferred auto-

matically to SNA, while 16,000 were deemed

noncompliant and required to apply to SNA.

Of the 16,000 required to apply, about �,000

had their cases closed because they did not

complete this application process successfully

(Bloom et al. 2002).

Programmatic Changes since Initial Implementation

In the years since TANF was initially imple-

mented, the state has pursued innovations

within the system, including upgrading staff

skills, restructuring services and developing

new programs, largely through the New York

Works Block Grant awards to local social

service districts rather than through new

state programs (Fender et al. 2002). These

innovations have focused, as in other states,

on preparing clients with barriers to employ-

ment for the workforce and providing support

to TANF leavers to maintain job stability and

advance their careers. Notably, within New

York City, in response to the large proportion

of TANF recipients who were not engaged

by the system, the city adopted a policy of

“universal engagement” whereby it expanded

its work requirements to clients with special

needs and initiated a series of programs to

enable them to attain self-sufficiency through

work (Nightingale et al. 2002).

PENNSYLvANIA’S TANF PROGRAM

Initial Implementation

Pennsylvania’s welfare reform legislation, Act

�5, was passed in May 1996 and implemented

in March 1997. It replaced the state’s AFDC

program with a work-focused TANF program,

known as the “Road to Economic Self-Suf-

ficiency Through Employment and Training,”

or RESET. Unlike those in some others states,

policymakers in Pennsylvania did not devolve

administration of welfare to localities follow-

ing welfare reform, nor did the passage of

PRWORA result in the fundamental restruc-

turing of welfare administration at the state

level that it had in New Jersey and New York.

Administration remained in the hands of the

Department of Public Welfare (Weishaupt

and Mentzer 2006). The state also differs from

New Jersey and New York in that it did not

make use of waivers in advance of the federal

legislation. Therefore, welfare reform in Penn-

sylvania did not begin prior to TANF, as it did

in many other states.

Early Experiences and Challenges

Like welfare reform in most states, RESET

was characterized by an increased emphasis

�2

on quick attachment to work and decreased

reliance on education and training programs.

While this shift in emphasis was common in

many states, it was particularly pronounced

in Pennsylvania. Monthly reports from the

Department of Public Welfare (DPW) indi-

cated that the number of TANF recipients

enrolled in education and training dropped by

more than 90 percent following implemen-

tation of RESET (Weishaupt and Mentzer

2006). Further, the initial eight-week job

search that was required of all new TANF

recipients was followed by 90 days of DPW-

contracted programs in which job search was

a prominent component (Michalopoulos et

al. 200�; Weishaupt and Mentzer 2006). As

staff adapted to the new policies, they better

communicated education and training options

to clients (Michalopoulos et al. 200�). Also

reducing the use of education and training

programs was the fact that after 24 months,

education and training did not count toward

the 20 hours of required participation (Micha-

lopoulos et al. 200�).

Pennsylvania experienced some of the same

early difficulties as New Jersey and New York

in developing and sustaining an effective sys-

tem of contractors to provide newly needed

services. An implementation evaluation of

the state’s early program for increasing job

retention among TANF recipients, Community

Solutions, noted insufficient experience among

contractors, falling demand for their services

as rolls decreased, and hindrances in tracking

and reporting as challenges to the effective

implementation of the program (Paulsell and

Stieglitz 2001).

The state had its own distinctive experience

with time limits. The state did not require 20

hours of work activity until after clients had

received TANF for 24 months and it did not

impose full-family sanctions until this point.

Therefore, this two-year limit on receiv-

ing TANF without substantial work activity

became very significant in Pennsylvania, while

comparatively little attention focused on the

60-month limit. High anxiety surrounded the

approach of the two-year mark, which arrived

for the first recipients in March 1999. In one

example of this high-level of attention and

concern, Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell placed

a full-page advertisement in the Philadelphia

Inquirer anticipating a “train wreck” if the work

requirement was enforced with sanctions.

Similarly, as part of a study of the implemen-

tation of the Pennsylvania TANF program, a

caseworker commented that “When this first

started . . . the 24th month was doomsday”

(Michalopoulos et al. 200�).

One effect of the 24-month limit’s approach

was to prompt some early programmatic

innovations designed to move the hard-to-

employ clients into jobs. An indication of the

increasing focus on securing work participa-

tion for these individuals—and of the earlier

reliance on relatively inexpensive quick attach-

ment strategies—is the dramatic increase in

state spending on the RESET welfare-to-work

program that occurred in 1999 (Michalopoulos

et al. 200�). Some of these funds went toward

the support and expansion of work experi-

ence programs in Philadelphia that had met

with success in finding employment for clients

with barriers to work—most notably the Tran-

sitional Work Corporation (TWC), which had

��

opened its doors in 1998. The state launched

a large employment retention initiative in

2000, the Retention, Advancement, and Rapid

Reemployment program, which was designed

to help TANF recipients and other low-income

families sustain their employment and increase

their earnings (Paulsell and Stiglitz 2001).

A second effect of the 24-month limit may

have been to reduce the effectiveness of the

60-month time limit in motivating clients.

When the former limit passed with little

consequence and few clients being removed

from the rolls for noncompliance, the force of

the federal five-year limit was blunted. As in

New Jersey, caseworkers expressed doubts as

to their ability to use it effectively, since clients

would not believe that the time limit was real

(Michalopoulos et al. 200�).

Programmatic Changes since Initial Implementation

In Pennsylvania, system-wide responses to

high-need clients began as early as 2001,

when the state implemented the Maximizing

Participation Program (MPP), which specifically

targeted recipients exempt from work require-

ments due to mental or physical disability

(Michalopoulos et al. 200�). More recently, in

its proposed TANF plan submitted to the fed-

eral government in 2005, Pennsylvania signaled

its adoption of four new policies consistent

with the growing emphasis on addressing the

needs of clients with barriers to work. First,

the state established the diversion program

previously described. Second, it adopted a

policy of granting of “good cause for educa-

tion” according to which TANF applicants

engaged in education or training at the time of

initial application are allowed to postpone the

job search process, and recipients in education

or training programs are exempted from the

full hourly requirement for participation in

work activities. Third, the state exercised the

option to use maintenance-of-effort funds to

initiate a separate state program for families

with individuals exempt from RESET due to

mental or physical disability. Finally, the state

implemented a “universal engagement” policy

of the sort that was earlier implemented in

New York City. The policy entails not only

additional efforts to engage mandatory RESET

participants, but also new efforts to broaden

the group of engaged individuals to include

those with serious barriers to employment

and to expand the activities that constitute

engagement (DPW 2005).

THE TANF-RELATED OUTCOMES OF THE THREE STATESAs described earlier, each of the three states

examined in this paper—New Jersey, New

York, and Pennsylvania—has pursued a

somewhat different set of TANF policies and

has had somewhat different experiences in

implementing these policies. What outcomes

have each of these states achieved in the 10

years since their TANF programs began? To

consider this question fully, we would ideally

examine not only TANF caseload trends and

characteristics, but also a detailed set of out-

comes documenting the well-being of current,

former and would-be TANF recipients. Unfor-

tunately such detailed information measured

consistently across states is not available.

�4

Sour

ce:

Adm

inist

ratio

n fo

r Chi

ldre

n an

d Fa

milie

s w

ebsit

e.N

ote:

Cas

eloa

d fig

ures

inclu

de c

hild

-onl

y ca

ses,

as w

ell a

s th

ose

in s

epar

ate

stat

e pr

ogra

ms

fund

ed th

roug

h m

aint

enan

ce-o

f-effo

rt fu

nds.

NA

= n

ot a

pplic

able

.

TABL

E 4

Tren

ds in

the

Size

of t

he T

ANF

Case

load

s in

New

Jers

ey, N

ew Yo

rk, a

nd P

enns

ylvan

ia: 1

996–

2005

Year

New

Jers

eyN

ew Yo

rkPe

nnsy

lvani

aU

nite

d St

ates

Perc

ent

size

chan

ge in

sin

cePe

rcen

t siz

ech

ange

in

since

Perc

ent

size

chan

ge in

sin

cePe

rcen

t siz

ech

ange

in

since

Num

ber o

f fa

milie

s re

ceivi

ng

TAN

F19

96Pr

evio

us

year

Num

ber o

f fa

milie

s re

ceivi

ng

TAN

F19

96Pr

evio

us

year

Num

ber o

f fa

milie

s re

ceivi

ng

TAN

F19

96Pr

evio

us

year

Num

ber o

f fa

milie

s re

ceivi

ng

TAN

F19

96Pr

evio

us

year

1996

102,

777

NA

NA

422,

557

NA

NA

185,

�19

NA

NA

4,4�

4,16

0N

AN

A

1997

92,0

55-1

0-1

0�7

8,81

6-1

0-1

015

5,80

8-1

6-1

6�,

740,

179

-16

-16

1998

72,5

89-2

9-2

1�5

4,74

5-1

6-

612

7,51

8-�

1-1

8�,

050,

��5

-�1

-18

1999

59,2

56-4

2-1

8�0

9,80

0-2

7-1

�10

0,62

2-4

6-2

12,

554,

069

-42

-16

2000

51,�

76-5

0-1

�24

9,78

8-4

1-1

9 8

7,67

8-5

�-1

�2,

�02,

780

-48

-10

2001

45,9

22-5

5-1

122

0,09

8-4

8-1

2 8

1,98

8-5

6-

62,

191,

506

-51

- 5

2002

4�,�

80-5

8-

620

0,85

0-5

2-

9 8

0,01

2-5

7-

22,

186,

571

-51

0

200�

44,6

29-5

7

�19

5,71

1-5

4-

� 8

2,18

4-5

6

�2,

180,

250

-51

0

2004

47,�

76-5

4

619

6,99

8-5

�

1 9

0,7�

9-5

1 1

02,

154,

�72

-51

- 1

2005

46,9

44-5

4-

118

8,09

6-5

5-

5 9

7,18

6-4

8

72,

068,

140

-5�

- 4

�5

Therefore, in this section, we examine a small

set of outcomes that can be measured consis-

tently across states. In particular, we examine

the following two outcomes during the years

since TANF was first implemented: (1) the size

of the TANF caseload and (2) the propor-

tion of TANF recipients in work activities. We

examine both cross-state differences in the

levels of these outcomes as well as differences

in the trends in these outcomes in the 10 years

since TANF implementation. We also discuss

possible explanations for cross-state variation

in these patterns.

SIzE OF THE TANF CASELOAD

We begin by examining trends in the size

of TANF caseload in the three states since

federal welfare reform legislation passed in

1996. Table 4 presents the average monthly

TANF caseload size in New Jersey, New York,

and Pennsylvania, as well as the nation as a

whole.4 Each of these states has experienced

substantial declines in the size of their welfare

caseloads in the 10 years since implementing

TANF. Similar to national trends, 2005 TANF

roles in each of the three states were roughly

half what they were in 1996. However, the

timing of these declines differs somewhat

across these states in ways that may be tied to

their specific TANF policies.

In particular, in the years immediately after

TANF implementation, the size of New York’s

TANF caseload fell much more slowly than

it did in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and many

other states. From 1996 to 1999, New York’s

TANF caseload declined in size by 27 percent

(Table 4). In contrast, the decline in New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the nation as a whole

during this period was more than 40 percent.

Many factors may have contributed to this

slower initial caseload decline in New York.

One potential contributing factor is the state’s

sanctioning policy. New York is one of only

10 states that uses only partial sanctions to

enforce work requirements. Therefore, New

York welfare recipients who do not comply

with work requirements can remain on TANF,

although their cash benefits will be reduced.

In contrast, both New Jersey and Pennsylvania

enforce work requirements through gradual

full-family sanctions. New Jersey began using

these full-family sanctions immediately after

implementing TANF. In contrast, Pennsyl-

vania does not impose full sanctions until a

family has received TANF for 24 months and

therefore did not close TANF cases for non-

compliance during the first few years under

the new program. However, much was made

in Pennsylvania during the first two years of

TANF implementation of this approaching

two-year point—when sanctions could first be

applied for noncompliance with work require-

ments. Therefore, in both New Jersey and

Pennsylvania (and in contrast to New York),

there was a very strong message during this

initial period that those who did not comply

with work requirements could not remain on

TANF—a message that undoubtedly contrib-

uted to the large caseload declines in these

two states during the early years of TANF

implementation.

This pattern changed substantially in later

years—with larger caseload declines occurring

in New York than in other states. In each year

�6

from 2000 to 200�, caseload declines were

larger in New York than they were in New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the nation as a whole.

These larger declines in New York during

this period caused the state to “catch up”

with other states in terms of overall caseload

declines. From 1996 to 200�, the caseloads of

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the

nation as a whole, all declined by just over 50

percent (Table 4).

Why did New York experience unusually large

caseload declines from 2000 to 200�? The

state’s use of the five-year federal limit on

benefits may have played a role. As described

earlier, the state does not have a time limit on

benefits. Instead, it transitions recipients from

the federally funded Family Assistance (FA)

program to the state funded Safety Net Assis-

tance (SNA) program at this point. However,

as described in the previous section, studies

of the program’s implementation suggests that

local welfare agencies often used the five-year

limit on federally funded benefits to motivate

clients to comply with work requirements or

to leave the welfare rolls. The five-year limit

presented them with the opportunity to cre-

ate a sense of urgency among long-term and

noncompliant clients, raising for the first time

the possibility of their benefits ending (since

the state does not have full-family sanctions).

Moreover, the nature of the benefit itself

changes substantially at the five-year point in

New York in ways that may make it less attrac-

tive to recipients. In particular, after 60 months

of benefit receipt, recipients transition from FA

to SNA. Under FA, they receive a cash benefit,

while under SNA they mostly receive benefits

in the form of vouchers for specific expenses

such as housing and utilities. These policies and

practices most likely contributed to the large

declines in New York’s welfare caseload in the

period leading up to and immediately after the

five-year limit on federally funded benefits tak-

ing effect in the state.

Finally, in the most recent period (200� to

2005), we observe increases in the size of the

TANF caseloads in both New Jersey and Penn-

sylvania—with the increase in Pennsylvania

being particularly pronounced. TANF casel-

oads in both states reached their smallest size

in 2002 (Table 4). Over the next three years,

the caseload sizes increased by 8 percent in

New Jersey and by 21 percent in Pennsylvania.

In contrast, in New York and in the nation as a

whole, caseloads have continued to decline.

Why have the TANF rolls in New Jersey and

particularly Pennsylvania begun to increase in

recent years, in contrast to the pattern in the

nation as a whole? One contributing factor

may be the approach these two states have

taken to implementing time limits. Both states

extend clients’ benefits once they reach the

five-year limit, as long as they are comply-

ing with TANF requirements. Through these

extensions, the states have avoided closing

large numbers of TANF cases for reaching

time limits. In contrast, many other states have

closed a substantial number of cases that have

reached time limits. Another contributing

factor in Pennsylvania may be the state’s fairly

limited use of diversion of TANF applicants.

As described earlier, the state only began

its diversion program in 2005—consider-

ably later than New Jersey, New York, and

�7

many other states. In addition, Pennsylvania’s

diversion program is optional and very nar-

rowly targeted to clients who are currently

or recently employed and “awaiting receipt

of verified, self-sustaining income” (DPW

2005). In contrast, in many other states with

diversion programs, these programs serve a

much broader set of applicants and are more

explicitly aimed at discouraging applicants from

entering the TANF rolls.

TANF WORK PARTICIPATION RATES

Finally, we examine the TANF work participa-

tion rates in each of these three states. In

particular, we examine the success of these

states in meeting federal benchmarks for the

proportion of TANF families in allowable work

activities. To be counted toward this federal

participation benchmark, families must meet

a minimum hours requirement that varies

with their particular circumstances. For single

parents, the minimum requirement is 20 hours

per week for those with a child under age six

and �0 hours per week for those with older

children. Two-parent families face higher hours

requirements.

Under the original federal welfare reform

legislation, the work participation rate require-

ments were gradually increased—reaching a

maximum level of 50 percent for all families

in fiscal year 2002 (and 90 percent for two-

parent families). States that do not meet

these targets face reductions in their TANF

funding. States receive credits toward this

work participation requirement for reductions

in the size of their welfare caseload. Because

caseloads dropped so substantially in the first

few years of TANF implementation, these

caseload reduction credits were very large and

virtually eliminated the need for most states

to be concerned about meeting federal work

participation requirements. With these credits

factored in, these work participation targets

were reduced to very low levels and even zero

in many cases. For this reason, states rarely

faced penalties for not meeting these federal

participation benchmarks.

Source: Administration for Children and Families website.Note: Figures represent monthly averages of the proportion of TANF families participating in allowable work activities for the number of hours required to meet federal participation standards. For single parents, this represents 20 hours per week for those with children under age six and 30 hours per week for those with older children. Two-parent families must meet higher work participation standards.

TABLE 5TANF Work Participation Rates: 1998–2004 (in percentages)

New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United States

2004 �4.6 �7.8 7.1 �2.2

200� �5.0 �7.1 9.9 �1.�2002 �6.4 �8.5 10.4 ��.4

2001 �9.0 41.4 10.8 �4.4

2000 �7.8 ��.2 11.2 �4.01999 �0.� �6.� 16.2 �8.�

1998 26.5 �7.5 19.� �5.�

�8

However, as part of TANF reauthorization,

the federal government has changed the way

it calculates these caseload reduction credits,

and these changes will make the federal work

participation requirement much more relevant

and meaningful to states. The base year for

calculating caseload reductions has changed

from 1995 to 2005. Since TANF caseloads

were at historically low levels by 2005, it will

likely prove much more challenging for states

to achieve large caseload reductions that will

substantially reduce the federal participation

requirements.

Table 5 presents the percentage of TANF

families in New Jersey, New York, Pennsyl-

vania, and the nation as a whole that met

the federal work participation benchmarks

during the period 1998 to 2004. In no year did

any of these three states reach a 50 percent

participation rate. New Jersey and New York

reached their peak participation rate for this

period in 2001—with rates of �9.0 percent

and 41.4 percent respectively. Pennsylvania

has fallen particularly short of this 50 percent

participation benchmark. Its highest participa-

tion rate during this period was 19.� percent in

1998. By 2004, this rate had fallen to only 7.1

percent. Since all of these states experienced

substantial caseload declines during this period,

none of them were penalized for having a low

work participation rate.

Why were Pennsylvania’s work participation

rates so low during this period? Several factors

were likely to have contributed. First, unlike

New Jersey, New York, and most other states,

Pennsylvania does not require participa-

tion in work activities until recipients have

received TANF for 24 months. Pennsylvania

TANF recipients are expected to partici-

pate in a work activity during these first two

years; however, no explicit minimum hours

requirement is imposed. Second, Pennsylva-

nia’s minimum hours requirement after two

years—20 hours per week—is lower than

most other states and below the federal

requirement for many families. Therefore, a

substantial number of families may be meeting

the state minimum hours requirement but not

meeting the federal requirement and thus are

not counted toward official TANF participation

rate figures. In addition, Pennsylvania has more

exemptions from these requirements than

some states do—exempting, for example, all

recipients who are caring for a child who is less

than one year old. Many other states (including

New Jersey) require new mothers to work by

the time their baby is three months old. Finally,

Pennsylvania and other states may not have

always strived to document every recipient in

an allowable work activity, since prior to fed-

eral TANF reauthorization legislation adopted

in 2006 these work participation rates had

little consequence.

These low work participation rates in

Pennsylvania and other states have not been

an issue until recently, because of the large

caseload declines during the early years under

TANF. However, with TANF reauthoriza-

tion and the new federal rules that change

the way these caseload reduction credits are

calculated, Pennsylvania and other states face

new pressures to increase these participa-

tion rates or face substantial cuts in federal

funding. Pennsylvania appears already to be

responding to these new pressures to increase

�9

participation in work activities. A recent DPW

press release indicates that work participation

rates have increased dramatically since 2004.

According to DPW, their participation rate

reached �2 percent in July 2006—more than

four times their 2004 participation rate (DPW

press release dated September 8, 2006). In

addition, according to policy analysts in the

state, Pennsylvania is moving toward increasing

its minimum hours requirements from 20 to

�0 hours per week and requiring participation

in work activities as soon as recipients enter

TANF—policy changes that may help the state

maintain this rapid progress.

CONCLUSIONSNew Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York

have chosen substantially different policy

responses to federal mandates to require

welfare recipients to participate in work activi-

ties and to place time limits on their benefits.

Pennsylvania, for example, does not require

participation in work activities until recipients

have received benefits for two years, while the

other two states require work immediately.

Unlike New Jersey and Pennsylvania, New

York does not impose full-family sanctions

and has no explicit limit on welfare benefits,

policies adopted in response to the state’s

constitutional mandate to support the needy.

New York complies with federal requirements

to place a time limit on benefits by placing

recipients who have received cash assistance

for five years into a state-funded program that

is not time limited.

In spite of these policy differences, the states

have achieved similar caseload declines in the

years since TANF was implemented, although

the timing of these declines has varied some-

what across the states—with New York’s

declines coming later than the declines in New

Jersey and Pennsylvania. These similarities in

caseload declines in spite of differences in poli-

cies suggest that, in some instances, messages

communicated to clients can be as important

as actual policies and practices. For example,

the strong significance placed on the two-

year point in Pennsylvania may have played

an important role in early caseload declines

in that state, despite the fact that the state

imposed few sanctions during these early years

and did not require recipients to work imme-

diately. Similarly, the five-year limit on federal

benefits appears to have contributed to later

caseload declines in New York, even though

clients were eligible at this point to transition

into the state funded SNA program that was

not time limited.

In terms of work participation rates, however,

outcomes vary more substantially across these

three states in ways that most likely reflect

cross-state policy differences. In particular,

throughout the period since TANF was imple-

mented, Pennsylvania has had much lower

percentages of families meeting federal work

participation rates than did the other two

states. This most likely reflects Pennsylvania’s

policy not to require participation in work

activities during the first two years of TANF

receipt and to require only 20 hours of work

at this point—rather than �0 hours or more,

as is required in most other states (includ-

ing New Jersey and New York). It may also

reflect, in part, less careful tracking of TANF

recipients’ work activities in Pennsylvania than

in many other states.

40

Administration for Children and Families. “Char-acteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients.” Available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs /ofa/character/indexchar.htm. Washington, D.C.: ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices, July 2006.

Administration for Children and Families. “Tempo-rary Assistance to Needy Families, Separate State Program—Maintenance of Effort, Aid to Families with Dependent Children Caseload Data.” Avail-able at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm. Washington, D.C.: ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 2006.

Bloom, Dan; Farrell, Mary; Fink, Barbara; and Ad-ams-Ciardullo, Diana. “Welfare Time Limits: State Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families.” New York, NY: MDRC, July 2002.

Fender, Lynne; O’Brien, Carolyn; Thompson, Terri; Snyder, Kathleen; and Bess, Roseana. “Recent Changes in New York Welfare and Work, Child Care, and Child Welfare Systems.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 2002.

Korelek, Robin; Pindus, Nancy; Capizzano, Jeffrey; and Bess, Roseana. “Recent Changes in New Jersey Welfare and Work, Child Care, and Child Welfare Systems.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, August 2001.

Legal Services of New Jersey and the New Jersey Poverty Research Institute. “Assessing Work First:

What Happens After Welfare?” Report 1 from the Assessing Work First Series, June 1999.

Lurie, Irene. “Welfare Reform in New York State.” Poverty Research News. Chicago, IL: Joint Center for Poverty Research, Winter 1998.

Michalopoulos, Charles; Edin, Kathryn; Fink, Bar-bara; Landriscina, Mirella; Polit, Denise F. ; Polyne, Judy C.; Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn; Seith, David; and verma, Nandita. “Welfare Reform in Philadel-phia: Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of Poor Families and Neighborhoods.” New York, NY: MDRC, September 200�.

New York City Human Resources Administration. “Public Assistance—Caseload Engagement Status.” Available at www.nyc.gov/html/hra/downloads/pdf/citywide.pdf. August 2006.

Nightingale, Demetra Smith; Pindus, Nancy; Kramer, Frederica D.; Trutko, John; Mikelson, Kelly; and Egner, Michael. “Work and Welfare Reform in New York City During the Guiliani Administration: A Study of Program Implementation.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, July 2002.

Paulsell, Diane and Ali Stieglitz. “Implementing Employment Retention Services in Pennsylvania: Lessons from Community Solutions.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 2001.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. “TANF State Plan.” Available at www.dpw.state.pa.us/Low-Inc/Cash/00�67�645.htm. November 2005.

REFERENCES

New federal requirements imposed as part

of TANF reauthorization have placed new

pressures on states to increase the percentage

of TANF recipients who are in work activities.

Each of the states examined in this paper will

need to make substantial progress to avoid

these financial penalties. Pennsylvania faces a

particularly substantial challenge in this regard,

since its recent work participation rates were

far below the federal standard. However, the

state is apparently making rapid progress in

this area—with sharp increases in the percent-

age of its caseload working since 2004. As

these new federal participation rates begin to

take effect, all three states will face continued

pressure to make progress in this area to avoid

reductions in their federal TANF funding.

41

Pavetti, LaDonna; Derr, Michelle K. ; Kirby, Gretch-en; Wood, Robert G.; and Clark, Melissa. “The Use of TANF Work-Oriented Sanctions in Illinois, New Jersey, and South Carolina.” Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April, 2004.

Rangarajan, Anu; Haimson, Joshua; Rosenberg, Linda C.; Strong, Debra A.; Wood, Robert G.; and zippay, Alison. “Moving Clients into Self-Sufficiency: Summary of Findings from the WFNJ Evaluation.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 2005.

Rangarajan, Anu and Robert G. Wood. “Current and Former WFNJ Clients: How Are They Faring �0 Months Later?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., November 2000.

Rosenberg, Linda; Roper, Richard; and Stieglitz, Ali. “Reshaping Welfare in New Jersey: Lessons from the Implementation of Work First New Jersey.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 2000.

Rowe, Gretchen and Jeffrey versteeg.. “Welfare Rules Databook: State Policies as of July 200�.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April 2005.

U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County quick-Facts.” Available at quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. June 2006.

Weishaupt, Richard and Anne Mentzer. “The Allo-cation of TANF and Child Care Funding in Pennsyl-vania.” Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, August 2006.

Wood, Robert G.; Rangarajan, Anu; and Deke, John. “WFNJ Clients under Welfare Reform: How Is an Early Group Faring Over Time?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., September 200�.

Wood, Robert G.; Rangarajan, Anu; and Deke, John. “Early and Later WFNJ Clients: Are Their Ex-periences Different?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April, 2004.

Wood, Robert G.; Rangarajan, Anu; and Gordon, Anne. “WFNJ Clients and Welfare Reform: A Final Look at an Early Group.” Princeton, NJ: Math-ematica Policy Research, Inc., September 2004.

1. See Appendix Table A.1 for more details on this and other TANF policies.

2. The three-month exemption for a child can be extended to the full 12 months at the discretion of the social services official (Rowe and versteeg 2005).

�. Two offices were created within DFA—the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) and the Office of Children and Family Ser-vices (OCFS). The former administers FA and SNA.

4. These caseload figures include child-only TANF cases, as well as cases in separate state programs funded through state maintenance-of-effort funds.

Notes

42

Category of rules New Jersey New York PennsylvaniaFormal diversion payments

Early Employment Initiative requires all applicants able to work and not in immediate need to conduct an intensive 15 to 20 day job search before receiving benefits. Eligible applicants receive a lump-sum payment prior to their search and are eligible to receive a second lump-sum payment if they obtain employment and withdraw their application.

NY provides diversionary payments for crisis items such as moving expenses, diversion job-related transportation payments, and diversion rental payments. No job search is required at application by the state.

PA initiated a diversion program for families who qualify for TANF to pay for financial needs that have occurred due to loss of job or reduction in earnings. The family must verify that income will be received by the end of the Diversion period that will make it unnecessary for the family to apply for ongoing TANF benefits.

Asset test Applicants with more than $2,000 in assets are not eligible. $9,500 of market value of vehicle owned by unit excluded from asset test.

Applicants with more than $2,000 in assets are not eligible ($�000 in units including an elderly person). $4,650 of market value of vehicle owned by unit excluded from asset test.

Applicants with more than $1000 in assets are not eligible. One vehicle owned by unit excluded from asset test.

Income eligibility/counting

Applicants must have gross income below 150 percent of maximum benefit payment schedule. Income of the parents of applicants who are minors is included in calculation of gross income even if minor is not living with parents.

Maximum monthly income for initial eligibility for family of three: $6�6. Maximum recipient can earn monthly and still remain eligible: $848.

Applicants must have gross income below 185 percent of a state-set need standard and net income (income after income disregards are applied) below the standard monthly welfare payment. Earned income disregard is $90.

Maximum monthly income for initial eligibility for family of three: $677. Maximum recipient can earn monthly and still remain eligible: $1067.

Applicants must have gross income below 185 percent of a state-set need standard and net income (income after income disregards are applied) below the standard monthly welfare payment. Earned income disregard is $90.

Maximum monthly income for initial eligibility for family of three: $677. Maximum recipient can earn monthly and still remain eligible: $806.

Other eligibility rules

No special eligibility rules for two-parent applicant units.**

Pregnant women with no other children are not eligible.

No special eligibility rules for two-parent applicant units.**

Pregnant women with no other children are eligible, as is the father of the child.

The principal earner in a two-parent unit must furnish proof of having worked in 6 out of 1� previous quarters.**

Pregnant women with no other children are eligible.

APPENDIx TABLE A.1Basic Rules Governing TANF Programs in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, 200�a

4�

Category of rules New Jersey New York PennsylvaniaBenefit computation

Earned income disregard. 100% in first month, 50% thereafter.

Currently (2006), maximum monthly benefit is $424. In 200�, this was the 24th most generous level in the country.

Earned income disregard. $90 and 51% of remainder.

The amount of assistance varies across social service districts. Currently (2006), maximum monthly benefit for a family of three with no income living in New York City is $691. In 200�, the maximum benefit of $577 specified by Ware and versteeg (2005) was 7th most generous in the country.

Earned income disregard. 50% of earned income disregarded.

Benefit level differs across four groups of counties. Currently (2006), maximum monthly benefit for a family of three with no income living in the largest group of counties is $40�. In 200�, this was the 25th most generous level in the country.

Work requirements

All non-exempt recipients 20 and older are required to work �5 hours a week. Non-exempt recipients under 20 who have completed high school/GED, and non-exempt recipients ages 16–18 who have dropped out of school are required to work �5 hours a week. Education and training count toward work hours for both groups. All non-exempt recipients under 20 years of age who have not completed high school and have not dropped out are required to complete 20 hours of education per week.

Non-exempt recipients who have completed high school or equivalent and have no child under age 6 are required to a minimum of �0 hours a week. Non-exempt recipients who have not completed high school or equivalent and have no child under age 6 are required to “work” full-time as defined by their educational institution at basic or remedial education, high school/GED, or English as 2nd language. Non-exempt recipients with a child under six years old must work 20 hours a week if they are able to find child-care for their child.

All non-exempt recipients over age 22 and non-exempt recipients between ages 18 and 22 who have (1) completed high school/GED or (2) choose not to participate in educational activities must conduct a job search for up to 8 weeks if not already employed at least 20 hours a week. No hourly requirement is specified for the first 24 months, though recipients must make a good faith effort to find work. Non-exempt recipients between the ages of 18 and 22 who have not completed high school/GED and who choose to participate in educational activities may do so in place of work during the first 24 months. Non-exempt recipients under 18 may attend high school or work at an unsubsidized job. After 24 months, recipients must work 20 hours/week.

Activities exemptions

Ill or incapacitated heads of unit and those caring for ill or incapacitated persons are exempt from work activities. In addition, heads of unit who are 60 or older, who are 7 months pregnant or more, or who are caring for a child under � months of age are exempt. The latter two exemptions may be extended if determined to be medically necessary by a physician.

Ill or incapacitated heads of unit and those caring for ill or incapacitated persons are exempt from work activities. In addition, heads of unit who are 60 or older, who are 9 months pregnant or more, or who are caring for a child under 12 months of age are exempt. This last exemption for care of a very young child is typically limited to � months in duration for any one child and 12 months total over the lifetime of the client.

Ill or incapacitated heads of unit are exempt from work activities. Those caring for ill or incapacitated persons are not specified as exempt, but may meet the state’s criteria for “good cause” for deferral or noncompliance. In addition, heads of unit who are 60 or older or who are caring for a child under 12 months of age are exempt. The exemption for care of a very young child is limited to 12 months total over the lifetime of the client. There is no specific exemption for pregnant women.

44

Category of rules New Jersey New York PennsylvaniaSanctions At the time of first noncompliance

with requirements: The benefit amount is reduced by a per capita share for the sanctioned individual for one month or until compliance, whichever is longer. If compliance is not demonstrated after three months, the entire assistance unit is determined ineligible for benefits and must reapply.

Worst sanction: Entire assistance unit receives no benefit for three months. If compliance is not demonstrated after three months, the case will be closed and the unit will need to reapply.

At the time of first noncompliance with requirements: The assistance unit’s benefit is reduced pro rata by the sanctioned individual’s share until compliance; however, their income (after standard disregards) and assets are still included for eligibility and benefit calculation purposes. If unit head sanctioned, benefits are issued to protective payee.

Worst sanction: The assistance unit’s benefit is reduced pro rata by the sanctioned individual’s share, as above. The individual is sanctioned for 6 months or until compliance, whichever is longer.

At the time of first noncompliance with requirements: If sanction occurs within the first 24 months of assistance, the needs of sanctioned individuals are not included for benefit calculation; however, their income (after standard disregards) and assets are still included for eligibility and benefit calculation purposes. If sanction occurs after 24 months of assistance, the entire assistance unit is ineligible. Sanction continues for �0 days or until compliance, whichever is longer.

Worst sanction: Same as above, except that if repeated sanction occurs after 24 months of assistance, the entire assistance unit is permanently ineligible.

Time limits All non-exempt recipients are subject to the federal 60-month lifetime limit, after which point the entire unit’s benefits are terminated unless exemptions/extensions apply.

Months in which the head of household is ill or incapacitated, caring for an ill or incapacitated person, a minor parent, an individual 60 or older, a victim of domestic violence, or receiving diversion payments are exempted from the lifetime time limit. Extensions to the limit are granted for months in which the head of household is working 40 hrs. a week but still eligible by income, cooperating with requirements but unable to find employment, ill or incapacitated, caring for an ill or incapacitated person, caring for a child under 12 months old, one month or more pregnant, a victim of domestic violence, or likely to suffer extreme hardship were benefits terminated. In general, extensions are limited to two 6-month extensions for a total of 12 cumulative months.

Once individuals have reached the 60-month time limit, they are eligible to receive non-cash assistance through the state’s Safety Net Assistance program.

No months are exempted from inclusion in the 60-month time limit. Extensions to the limit are granted for months in which the head was ill or incapacitated, caring for an ill or incapacitated person, a victim of domestic violence, or in drug treatment.

All non-exempt recipients are subject to the federal 60-month lifetime limit, after which point the entire unit’s benefits are terminated unless exemptions/extensions apply.

Months in which the head of household is working �0 hrs. a week but still eligible by income, ill or incapacitated, caring for an ill or incapacitated person, a victim of domestic violence, or under sanction are exempted from the lifetime time limit, to a total of 12 months. Extensions to the limit are granted for months in which the head of household is working �0 hrs. a week but still eligible by income, cooperating with requirements but unable to find employment, ill or incapacitated, caring for an ill or incapacitated person, caring for a child under 12 months old, or a victim of domestic violence.

45

Category of rules New Jersey New York PennsylvaniaTransitional benefits

Provides transitional child care for 24 months to units that received assistance in � of last 6 months prior to ineligibility.

Provides transitional Medicaid coverage for 24 months to units that received assistance in � of last 6 months prior to ineligibility.

Additional transitional benefits that former recipients may receive include treatment through the Substance Abuse Initiative for six months, up to six months of transitional transportation benefits through Extended WorkPass Program, and educational or occupational training through Career Advancement voucher Program.

Provides transitional child care for 12 months to units that received assistance in � of last 6 months prior to ineligibility.

Provides transitional Medicaid coverage for 12 months to units that received assistance in � of last 6 months prior to ineligibility.

Additional transitional benefits that former recipients may receive include uniform allowances, disability or payroll insurance, tools, license fees, or other items needed to enable the recipient to maintain employment.

Although the state has provided no transitional child care targeted to TANF leavers since 1998, TANF leavers have largely been and continue to be eligible to receive child care support through the state’s Child Care Works program (Weishaupt and Mentzer 2006).

Provides transitional Medicaid coverage for 12 months to units that received assistance for any duration.

Sources: Welfare Rules Database (http://anfdata.urban.org/WRD); state social service agency websites.* Data in the table are all current as of 2003. When possible, we have updated policies to 2006 based on state TANF plans, published regulations and agency websites. ** Under AFDC, two-parent units faced three additional eligibility requirements that single-parent units did not: (1) the principal earner could not be employed for more than 100 hours per month, (2) he or she had to furnish proof of having worked in 6 out of 13 previous quarters, and (3) the unit had to wait 30 days from the time of last employment.

46

47

Olivia GoldenThe Urban Institute

The purpose of this paper is to build on the

lessons of the last 10 years to plan for the

next 10—and, in particular, to offer reflections

about the most promising directions forward

to reduce poverty and hardship and promote

economic security among low-income families.

The paper draws on my personal experi-

ences as Assistant Secretary for Children and

Families at the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services from 1997 to 2001,

with responsibility for implementing the 1996

welfare reform legislation, and on the body of

research about the effects of the legislation,

particularly several important papers by my

colleagues at the Urban Institute.

Even though the goal is to offer insights for the

future, the paper begins by looking backwards,

at the lessons that stand out from the 10 years

since welfare reform—lessons both about suc-

cess and about remaining challenges. Based on

these lessons, the paper argues that the future

agenda for improving the economic security

and wellbeing of low-income families2 is not

primarily about welfare—that is, Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF—but

rather demands multiple strategies. To make

a difference to struggling families, we need

to fill critical gaps in the current array of

programs that support work and income and

to tailor existing programs like Unemployment

Insurance (UI) so that they actually work for

low-income families. The paper then offers a

framework for thinking about these broader

strategies, and it closes with a brief look ahead

at the political context for implementing them.

TANF 10 YEARS LATER: WHERE ARE WE AND WHAT HAvE WE LEARNED?

LESSONS FROM SUCCESS

Three lessons about success stand out from

the TANF experience. First, during the 1990’s,

parental employment increased, particularly

for the least educated single parents, and

child poverty dropped dramatically, including

persistent challenges such as poverty among

black children. Researchers consistently iden-

tify three causes for these shifts, although they

disagree on the proportion due to each: the

strong economy, welfare reform, and other

public programs that support work (Golden

2005). To me, one important implication of

these large improvements in the previous

trends is that policy discussions should set the

bar high, rather than assuming that poverty

and economic insecurity among families will

inevitably remain at past levels.

Ten More Years: The Future of Welfare Reform

48

Second, public programs to support work are

a key part of any strategy. Along with welfare

reform and a strong economy, public invest-

ments in these programs, such as the Earned

Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child care

subsidies, contributed to the major increase

in employment among single parents during

the 1990’s. An Urban Institute analysis of

four key work support programs—the EITC,

Food Stamps, child care, and Medicaid/

State Children’s Health Insurance Program

(SCHIP)—found that spending on these four

core work support programs increased in

real terms by 27 percent between 1996 and

2002, reaching $1�1 billion in federal and state

spending in 2002. Expansions of Medicaid

and SCHIP coverage and higher medical costs

accounted for the lion’s share—$22 billion

or 48 percent—of the spending increase, but

spending on child care subsidies also tripled

over this period ($4 billion in 1996 to $12

billion in 2002). Yet despite this increase, one

third of low-income families receive none of

the three non-tax benefits (Medicaid, Food

Stamps, or child care subsidies), one-third

receive just one of the benefits, and only 5

percent report receiving all three (zedlewski,

Adams, Dubay, and Kenney 2006).

Third, Americans broadly believe in supporting

work and in giving parents a hand if they are

working and living up to their own responsi-

bilities. I consistently heard this message from

state officials and legislators, as well as busi-

nesses and community leaders, when I traveled

around the country after the enactment of

welfare reform seeking support and com-

mitments to help working poor families. Less

subjective evidence also supports this conclu-

sion, including Congressional support for the

major expansions in work support programs

described above as well as the behavior of

state legislatures after welfare reform. Rather

than engaging in a “race to the bottom”, as

some observers had feared, state strategies

after welfare reform generally focused on

work, and not only on requirements and sanc-

tions but also on investments. For example,

all but three states changed their income

disregard policies to increase the amount of

income recipients may earn without lowering

their TANF benefits. Sixteen states enacted

state Earned Income Tax Credits modeled on

the federal EITC by 2001. Between 2002 and

2006, five more states implemented a new

EITC, and nine states with an existing EITC

increased the credit (Maag 2006).

REMAINING CHALLENGES/LIMITS TO SUCCESS

At the same time that these successes are part

of the story of welfare reform, there are also

important remaining challenges. Despite the

improvements in employment and for some

families in income, low-wage working parents

continue to try to raise children with inadequate

wages and benefits; parents with major and

persistent barriers to employment are increas-

ingly isolated from both work and income

support programs (Loprest and zedlewski

2006); low-income children continue to lag far

behind better-off children in their developmen-

tal progress and opportunities; improvements

in mothers’ employment have not reached

fathers; and even the most promising trends of

the 1990’s appear to have stagnated or in some

cases gotten worse after 2000.

49

First, low-wage workers who are also parents

face many struggles in meeting the family’s

basic needs (food, housing, health care) and

in raising children. This is true whether or not

these parents were ever on welfare. This group

of families—low-income families where at least

one parent worked regularly—accounts for

about one quarter of America’s children, or 16

million children.� This is about 70 percent of

low-income children—60 percent with a par-

ent who worked full-time, full-year and another

10 percent who worked at least half-time all

year. These families have low incomes mostly

because of low wages, with the median hourly

wage for the primary worker in these families

about $9 (Acs and Loprest 2005).

Many of these families experience difficulty

in making ends meet. Over one-quarter of

low-income families with a full-time worker

experience hardships related to food and

housing (for example, failed to pay the rent,

mortgage, or utilities in the past twelve

months). Almost one in 10 of high-work, low-

income families report postponing needed

medical care at least once in a 12-month

period for lack of health insurance or money

(Acs and Loprest 2005).

Unfortunately, basic job benefits are less likely

to be in place for these families than for better

off families. For example, low-income working

families are less likely to have employer-

provided health insurance than comparable

middle-income families (about 49 percent of

low-income families with a full-time worker

compared to 77 percent of middle-income

families with a full-time worker) (Acs and

Loprest 2005). Until 2005, the decrease in

employer coverage was being partially offset

by increases in public coverage (Medicaid

and SCHIP) for children, but not for parents,

whose coverage is decreasing (Golden 2005).

The latest census figures showed that public

coverage is no longer offsetting the loss for

children either (Bureau of the Census 2006).

Another example of a work support program

that is severely limited for low-wage parents

is Unemployment Insurance. Only about one

third of those who are unemployed in a given

week currently receive unemployment insur-

ance, and research suggests that coverage is

worse for low-wage workers and low-income

parents. Within the Policy Research Institute’s

region, Pennsylvania (covering 47 percent of

unemployed workers) and New Jersey (45

percent) are substantially above the national

average, though still clearly with many unem-

ployed workers not receiving benefits. New

York (�5 percent) is close to the average.

(vroman 2005).

Second, the safety net has eroded completely

for a small number of “disconnected” families

who are neither on welfare, receiving cash

disability payments, nor working. In a recent

study, my Urban Institute colleagues Pamela

Loprest and Sheila zedlewski found that in

2002, one in five welfare leavers and about 12

percent of a comparable group of families who

had never been on welfare were disconnected.

Loprest and zedlewski find that the families

who had never been on welfare face levels of

disadvantage similar to disconnected welfare

leavers, including similar barriers to work, low

incomes, and material hardships. However,

fewer disconnected families without welfare

50

experience receive food stamps, housing assis-

tance, and Medicaid than disconnected former

welfare families. Lacking any connection (cur-

rent or past) to a welfare system that might

provide assistance, these families may face the

greatest risk. (Loprest and zedlewski 2006)

Typical barriers to work for these families

include poor physical and mental health, at

least two years without work, and less than a

high school education. More than half of the

disconnected families have multiple barriers

(Loprest and zedlewski 2006).

Third, the research suggests a continuing and

persistent gap in wellbeing and development

for low-income children compared to middle-

income children. At the enactment of welfare

reform, opponents feared that the conse-

quences would be devastating to children

while proponents hoped that having a parent

go to work every day would in itself improve

children’s outcomes. But the results have not

confirmed either the fear or the hope: the

general theme of the research is that there

was not much change for children as a result

of welfare reform (Beadle 2006). Looking

specifically at families on welfare compared to

families who have left, Loprest and zedlewski

find that most measures of children’s behavior

and emotional problems remain constant

(Loprest and zedlewski 2006).

Unfortunately, that leaves the country

with large gaps between the wellbeing and

developmental status of low-income and

higher-income children, a threat to our future

that requires a more aggressive strategy to

address. For example, low-income children

are more than twice as likely than better-off

children to be in poor or fair health, twice

as likely to live with parents who have poor

mental health (Macomber 2006), and more

likely to live in stressful home environments, to

have low levels of school engagement, and to

have emotional and behavioral problems (The

Urban Institute 2005).

Fourth, the improvement in employment

rates for low-income women in the 1990’s

was not accompanied by similar progress for

low-income men. The employment rates for

low-income married women also did not

improve commensurately with low-income

single women (Lerman and Ratcliffe 2000, Acs,

Holzer, and Nichols 2005).

Finally, in a number of key areas where there

was positive movement in the 1990’s, such as

child poverty, the years since 2000 have seen

negative trends or stagnation. The share of low

income single-adult households with no work

rose to 16.4 percent in 200� from 11.2 percent

in 2000 (Acs et al. 2005). Child poverty and

black child poverty in particular have turned

up, with black children losing ground relative

to white children (and doing so “at a faster

rate than in years following past recessions”)

(Nichols 2006). While the gains of the 1990’s

have not been erased, the trends are now

moving in the wrong direction.

THE FUTURE OF THE ANTI-POvERTY AGENDA: LOOKING BEYOND WELFAREThus, we have not yet achieved the goal of

economic security for struggling families:

families who do their part will be able to make

51

ends meet and raise children who thrive.

How might we build on the successes and

turn around the remaining failures of welfare

reform in order to achieve this goal? The first

lesson I want to propose is that despite the

title of this conference and the focus on look-

ing back at welfare reform, the future of the

anti-poverty agenda is not about welfare.

First, TANF now serves too few people to be

an effective lever for change, and the people

who are not supported by this funding include

some of those that public policies most need

to reach. This is in part because of two trends

already noted: many families are working

regularly and thus often not eligible for TANF,

and a smaller but still significant group of

families are disconnected from both welfare

and work, presumably in at least some cases

because the employment-focused expecta-

tions of TANF are too difficult for them to

meet. A sharp decrease in the TANF caseload

has led to a program that served 48 percent

of those eligible (2.1 million families) in 2002,

down from 80 percent (4.6 million families)

in 1996 (The Urban Institute 2006). And the

families who are not on TANF include many

who are in the deepest trouble. For example,

Loprest and zedlewski find that deep pov-

erty—family income under 50 percent of the

poverty level, or about $9,500 for a family

of four—decreased substantially for single

parents on welfare from 1997 to 2002, though

it remained above 50 percent. However, for a

comparable group not on welfare, deep pov-

erty increased over those years, from 19.5 to

25.8 percent (Loprest and zedlewski 2006).

More broadly, the problems with TANF as a

vehicle for improving the economic security of

low-income families are both substantive and

political. First, it isn’t designed to provide long-

term support to families who are working. Yet

the very large group of low-income working

families needs exactly that: help in raising chil-

dren while working low-wage jobs, whether

that help takes the form of a supplement to

earnings, subsidies to make expensive neces-

sities like health insurance, housing, or child

care more affordable, or access to on-the-job

training or part-time community college pro-

grams so they can advance at work. Second, it

isn’t designed to provide long-term services to

families with major barriers to work—even if

those families can work erratically or part-time.

For example, a parent with major depression

as well as chronic physical problems such as

diabetes or back pain might be able to work

regularly and raise her children if she had

good, uninterrupted health and mental health

care, help in caring for the children, access to

a steady part-time job, and some supplement

to her earnings. But without that long-term

support, she may well drop out of welfare

programs and work erratically, leaving or being

fired whenever her chronic problems flare up.

Third, both of these limits are made worse by

TANF’s budget limitations and its political con-

text, as a welfare program that is available only

to the poorest people (known as a “means-

tested” program). The TANF budget is based

on the amount the state and federal govern-

ments used to spend on families receiving cash

assistance—not on the needs of the far larger

group of families who are now working at low-

wage jobs, not entering the welfare office, and

52

still unable to meet their families’ basic needs.

As a result, trying to meet broader and more

long-term needs through TANF—whether

the needs are access by low-income families to

community college, or help for parents who

have chronic mental or physical illness—typi-

cally prompts the concern that parents in similar

circumstances who do not go on welfare will

not have access to the benefit. Thus, to many it

feels deeply unfair to fund (for example) com-

munity college for a parent on welfare but not

for a parent who works at the same low-wage

job and lives next door but has never gone on

welfare. For a brief period, there was momen-

tum in the TANF program to reach out and

address the needs of low-income working fami-

lies much more broadly, but that was a period

in the late 1990’s when the federal government

was increasing funding for key work support

programs like child care subsidies and health

insurance for children, so states could expand

services without having to trade off the needs

of equally deserving families. Today, the pos-

sibilities of creating large-scale change through

TANF are much bleaker.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE: BEYOND TANFIf the next step is not to reform welfare once

again, what is it? Remember that the success of

the late 1990’s in improving families’ economic

condition was driven not by welfare alone,

nor even welfare plus the economy alone,

but also by a plethora of investments in work

support programs. In other words, a range of

policies directed at the same goal—such as

supporting work by low-income parents—has

the potential for a major impact. Looking for a

single policy—a single magic bullet—may seem

appealing but may not have the same capacity

to drive major change.

Therefore, I offer a framework for next steps

that is grounded in the list of remaining chal-

lenges and specifically in the particular needs

of families—the underlying reasons that par-

ents struggle to balance work, raising children,

and meeting their families’ basic economic

needs. The proposed framework groups pos-

sible policies under six goals, each of which

corresponds to a specific challenge that strug-

gling families face.

Challenge 1: Address the needs of families with major and persistent barriers to work, such as chronic problems with physical and mental health

For disconnected families, whether on welfare

or not, the evidence suggests that quite seri-

ous problems with mental and physical health,

substance abuse, family violence, and caring

for a child with a disability often contribute

to the family’s distress. These are problems

worth tackling directly, both to help a family

become more economically independent and

secure and to improve children’s odds of later

success—since many of these problems affect

parenting as well as employment chances.

TANF is just one small piece of the puzzle

for these families, and it is not big enough or

closely enough tied to medical, mental health,

or vocational rehabilitation expertise to

become the solution alone.

Challenge 2: Make work pay—that is, enable families to get by without excessive hardship while working in low-wage jobs

5�

Even after the expansion of work support

programs like the EITC, child care subsidies,

public health insurance, and Food Stamps in

the 1990’s, a relatively large proportion of low-

income working parents cannot stretch their

paychecks to cover food, mortgage or rent,

and utility bills, and a smaller but still significant

proportion postpone needed health care

because of not having the money to pay for

it. A key principle of welfare reform avowed

that parents who do their part by working

should not have to sacrifice their children’s

wellbeing, a value that the polls completed for

this conference suggest remains strong (Global

Strategy Group, LLC 2006). Thus, a key goal

for the next anti-poverty agenda should be

making sure that parents who work regularly

in low-wage jobs are able to afford their fami-

lies’ basic needs.

Challenge 3: Enable families to weather gaps in employment

Low-wage work is uncertain and associated

with spells of unemployment. In addition,

low-wage workers who are also parents have

responsibilities to their families as well as to

their job and may need spells away from work

for family-related reasons, such as birth or the

serious illness of a family member. Finally, as

sketched earlier, the existing program intended

to cover gaps in employment for regular

workers—unemployment insurance—is

fraying severely in its coverage for the whole

workforce and particularly for low-wage work-

ers and low-income families. For example,

my Urban Institute colleagues Holzer, Acs,

and Nichols found that from 2000 to 200�,

single parent households bore �7 percent

of the loss in full-time, full-year employment

while receiving only 8 percent of the increase

in unemployment insurance. Thus, another

key goal in the anti-poverty agenda is to help

low-income working parents make it through

temporary gaps in employment, avoiding crises

like eviction that will make re-employment

even harder and continuing to meet their

families’ basic needs.

Challenge 4: Support parents’ advancement at work to better-paying jobs

Parents in “high-work” low-income working

families are currently earning very low wages,

an average of $9 per hour, compared to $14

per hour for comparable middle-income

working families (Acs and Loprest 2005). So

another goal is to help parents get on track

for better jobs, so that they can do better for

their families.

Not surprisingly, researchers differ in their

analyses of the reasons behind low wages

and therefore in their preferred solutions, but

many would agree that some combination of

parents’ own skills and education, individual

employer practices (such as the presence or

absence of career ladders at the workplace),

and the broader context of globalization all

play a part in advancement or its absence. For

an anti-poverty agenda focused on families, the

solutions will need to be tailored to low-wage

workers who are also parents and therefore

are juggling multiple responsibilities.

Challenge 5: Enable parents to combine work and child-rearing so as to support employment retention and steadier work patterns

Combining work and child-rearing poses

obstacles not only to advancement on the job

54

but also to employment retention and stability.

Middle-class parents also experience these

obstacles—often summarized as work-family

challenges—but they are far more extreme

for low-wage workers who have the fewest

resources to handle the balance and the least

flexibility and fewest benefits at work. For

example, low-income working families are more

likely to have non-standard work schedules

(that is, evening, night, or weekend working

hours) than middle-income families and also

more likely to have no paid leave at all, even

sick leave (The Urban Institute 2005). Together

with the lack of control over schedules common

in low-wage work, along with schedules that

change from day to day or week to week, these

constraints pose major challenges to child care

arrangements and to parenting—challenges that

in turn can force a parent to leave a job or to

miss work and risk termination.

Ethnographic evidence suggests that the

impact on employment stability and family

wellbeing can be compounded by the interac-

tions among the low-wage labor market with

its rigid expectations and limited benefits,

the child care market, and the structure of

public programs like child care subsidies. For

example, suppose a change in a parent’s job

schedule requires a child to leave a child care

center where she was happy. The parent then

improvises a child care arrangement with a

neighbor, the improvised arrangement falls

through because of the child’s or caregiver’s

reluctance, the parent takes days off to try to

fix it and is fired, and the child care subsidy

that supported the original center care is no

longer available because the parent is not

working (Golden et al. 2006). Thus, a fifth goal

for the anti-poverty framework is identifying

policies to change this cycle and enable low-

income parents to balance raising children with

steady employment.

Challenge 6: Improve children’s wellbeing and development, consistent with parents’ employment

Finally, I have already suggested that improving

the opportunities and wellbeing of low-income

children represents an unfulfilled promise

of welfare reform. Fulfilling this promise,

by improving low-income children’s health,

wellbeing, and development and reducing the

large and persistent gaps between lower- and

higher-income children, is a final key goal of

the anti-poverty agenda. Improvements in

children’s development can potentially pay off

in the next generation, extending the reach of

the agenda beyond today’s adults.

Because the bulk of the evidence suggests

that parents with sufficient support—such as

good child care and health insurance—can

both work and raise thriving children, I take

the goal to be advancing children’s devel-

opment in ways that are consistent with

parents’ work—not in general reducing work.

However, the evidence does suggest some

limited times in a child’s life—most notably

early infancy—when work should temporar-

ily come second and low-income parents,

like higher-income parents, ought to have the

chance to focus on the baby for some period

of time (Ehrle, Adams, and Tout 2001). More

broadly, the evidence suggests expanded and

intensive investments of the kind that we know

work, such as investments in early childhood

education; special attention not only to infants

55

but also to adolescents, who in some of the

welfare reform studies appear to be suffering

when low-income parents work long hours;

and attention to policies that both raise family

income and directly address wellbeing, such as

policies to promote children’s health insurance

and affordable housing in safe communities.

APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK: SOME ExAMPLESTo illustrate how this framework might guide

the development of an agenda, I offer exam-

ples of policies for each of the goals. The label

of “examples” rather than “recommendations”

is deliberate: the set of policies I have chosen is

not intended to be the right set and certainly

not a comprehensive set but rather illustrative,

meant to stimulate the thinking of policy-mak-

ers at the state level in particular.

Goal #1: Address the needs of families with large and sustained barriers to work

Example: New approach to temporary and

partial disability (including physical health and

mental health problems, substance abuse).

Based on what we know about disconnected

families, as well as families who are receiving

TANF but having a hard time getting a job

or using state employment services, a future

anti-poverty agenda will have to respond to

parents who have chronic problems with

mental health, physical health, and substance

abuse. Even with multiple and severe chronic

problems, these parents are often not eligible

for disability assistance under the rules in the

United States, because they are not perma-

nently unable to work at all. They can and do

work intermittently but then leave or are fired,

spending long periods of time unemployed and

disconnected when a condition flares up or

when the pressure of the job becomes over-

whelming. Unable to meet the rules for TANF,

to hold down a steady job, to receive disability

payments, or to maintain health insurance—

extremely unlikely to be available through

low-wage jobs, and much less available for

adults than for children under state Medicaid

programs—these families risk deep poverty

and deep damage for their children.

Researchers are studying alternative national

approaches to partial and temporary disability

that offer one approach to helping these fami-

lies. For example, an approach modeled on the

United Kingdom would allow for temporary

and partial disability payments, combined with

health care and rehabilitative services, for

people who cannot work until a disability is

under control or who cannot work full-time

(Wittenburg and Loprest 200�).

But there are also more immediate choices

available to states. For example, states could

provide intensive and continuing services to

low-income parents with chronic physical and

mental health and substance abuse problems

using a combination of Medicaid and state

funds. Some jurisdictions (including New York

City) have explored such services for TANF

parents with substance abuse and other major

challenges, but I do not know of a state that

has focused intensively on a broader group of

low-income parents including those who are

disconnected or working sporadically and not

on TANF. A benefit of a broader program is

that it could have important positive effects on

children’s wellbeing, since untreated parental

56

mental health problems and substance abuse

can hinder children’s development and con-

tribute to abuse and neglect.

Goal #2: Make work pay, and enable families to get by without excessive hardship while working in low wage jobs

Example: Major investment in child care subsidy

Even if a parent’s wages are low, she still

must pay for the family’s basic needs—hous-

ing, food, health care, transportation. Among

the policies that could help her make ends

meet—each with its own set of advantages

and disadvantages—are expanded housing

subsidies, expanded access to health insurance,

expansions in Food Stamps or the Earned

Income Tax Credit, or an increase in the mini-

mum wage.

The example I have chosen to describe at

more length here, however, is a major expan-

sion in child care subsidies for low-income

working families. Without a subsidy, child

care can take a large chunk from the family

budget—and in fact low-income families that

I met when I did focus groups around the

country during my years as Assistant Secretary

reported skipping utility bills and food to make

sure they could pay the child care bill. Nation-

ally, low-income families who work regularly

and pay for child care spend $�,1�5 per year

on average, or 12 percent of their income (Acs

and Nichols 2005).

Beyond making work pay, child care is espe-

cially important to the agenda for struggling

families because it is two-generational. It

addresses at least two of the other goals in this

framework: enabling parents to work more

steadily (Goal #5) and, if the investments

are in high quality and stable care, improving

children’s development (Goal #6) (zaslow,

Acs, McPhee, and vandivere 2006).

To achieve these two-generational advantages,

though, policy-makers need to pursue the

goals of work and high quality child care at the

same time. During the 1990’s, for example, the

Clinton Administration sought and achieved

expansion, improvement in quality, and greater

use of extended day arrangements for working

families in Head Start, at the same time tripling

child care subsidies and seeking to provide

technical assistance and research support for

a child care quality agenda. A small number

of states have similarly sought to pursue both

goals, by extending the availability of child care

subsidies while also strengthening quality.

However, since 2001, the federal funding

streams for both Head Start and child care

have remained approximately flat (or

decreased when inflation is factored in), leading

to a grim picture on both the work support

and quality fronts. Most states today neither

meet the need nor achieve standard

expectations for quality. In 2004, almost half

the states had waiting lists among eligible

families for child care subsidies (Edie 2006).

One potentially positive step is that some

states have invested in pre-kindergarten

programs intended to provide quality care for

four-year-old children, but many programs are

part-day and therefore unlikely to be accessible

to working families, particularly those with low

incomes (Giannarelli, Adelman, and Schmidt

200�). A two or three-hour program is unlikely

57

to be accessible to many low-income working

families, who cannot afford time away from

work to pick up and drop off children and quite

possibly cannot find or afford part-time

arrangements for the rest of the work day and

the summer (Edie 2006).

For the future, the agenda at both the state

and the federal level needs to return to

investment in high quality settings for children

that can also support parents’ work. The key

is complementary investments in child care

subsidies, in quality across child care settings

so that parents can have a choice of differ-

ent options, and in work-friendly variants

of programs that already have a high quality

design, such as Head Start, Early Head Start,

and strong state preschool programs. A work-

friendly strategy will also need to invest in high

quality care for children of all ages, not just

4-year-olds, since working parents have even

more trouble maneuvering around arrange-

ments that fit just one child and leave out his

or her siblings. Trading the goals of parents’

work and children’s development against each

other is short-sighted, because in the end, the

nation needs both parents who are able to

work regularly and children who are develop-

ing on track and able to succeed in school.

Goal #3: Enable Families to Weather Gaps in Employment

Example: Unemployment Insurance reform

It is hard to see how a work-based safety net

can succeed when one of its basic compo-

nents, income support to help regular workers

through periods of job loss, reaches only

one-third of the unemployed. State variations

around this average are considerable: between

1994 and 200�, UI receipt averaged less than

25 percent of the unemployed in 1� states and

exceeded 45 percent in 7. The reasons for this

difference include both differences in specific

UI policies, such as whether a parent can

qualify for assistance after leaving a job for a

family reason, and administrative practices (for

example, how likely a state is to throw out a

worker’s eligibility in cases where an employer

contests the claim).

One approach to strengthening the safety net

for families is for states to fix specific UI poli-

cies that limit eligibility for low-wage workers

or, particularly, for parents. For example, most

states (all but eight) will compensate a quit

only if it has a work-related good cause. But

allowing quits for good personal reasons such

as caring for a sick child can potentially make

UI more accessible to parents. Of the three

states in the Policy Research Institute’s focus

area, New York has made the change while

Pennsylvania and New Jersey have not (vro-

man 2005).

Yet in addition to the policy reasons why

low-wage workers in general and low-wage

parents in particular are likely under-

represented in UI, there remains a great deal

that is not known about the procedural and

administrative reasons. States could make an

important contribution to struggling families

and at the same time to national knowledge

about the best next steps by examining the

detailed implementation of Unemployment

Insurance to identify barriers to coverage and

potential solutions. For example, a state could

focus on tracking the experiences of low-

58

income working families served by Medicaid

and SCHIP, or low-income families who leave

welfare for work, or low-income working

families receiving child care subsidies, when

they lose jobs and need UI. Do they know

what to do to get UI, what happens to their

claims, and are there improvements in referral

or administrative process, as well as policy, that

could increase the proportion who are

helped? A bold step for a state might be to set

a target for UI coverage of these struggling

families well above its current levels, identifying

barriers and developing policy and administra-

tive solutions to achieve the target.

Goal #4: Support parents’ advancement at work to better-paying jobs

Example: Scholarships and support services to

expand access to community college

The last two ideas address the economic

instability of low-income working families by

subsidizing their expenses (child care subsidy)

and seeking to compensate them during gaps

in employment (UI). But another important

goal is to help them raise their low wages—

the biggest reason that they are low-income.

A review of the research by Karin Martinson

and Harry Holzer of the Urban Institute has

identified four broad strategies for improving

advancement at work for low-income parents:

• Financial incentives;

• Case management and service provision;

• Skill development; and

• Employer-focused efforts.

The paper found that the evidence in sup-

port of all of these strategies is limited, largely

because research is scant rather than because

findings have been negative. For that reason,

the paper suggested that the right next step is

to expand experimentation by states and local

governments, focusing on a number of promis-

ing possibilities. For example, the research does

suggest a large pay-off to employer-provided

training, but there has been little large-scale

focus on targeting employer-provided train-

ing to low-wage workers, implying that this

might be a fruitful area for attention. Similarly,

research has shown that training that leads to

credentials recognized by employers can be

particularly valuable, suggesting a possible focus

on community college programs that meet the

needs of a group of employers in a particular

industry (Holzer and Martinson 2005).

Among the many possibilities suggested by this

paper, I highlight here the potential for state

policy that would expand access to community

colleges for low-income working parents,

through scholarships, stipends, and agreements

with employers. The reasons for highlighting

community college strategies in an agenda

for struggling families are three. First, ongo-

ing random assignment research by MDRC

through its Opening Doors Initiative provides

considerable information on the obstacles to

community college success for low-income

workers and the strategies that are show-

ing early, promising results. Early results

from Louisiana, for example, suggest that a

scholarship program improved achievement,

retention, and enrollment in college full-time.

The Opening Doors program specifically

targets low-income parents, who are uniquely

burdened with the responsibilities of work,

providing child care, and attending school

59

(Brock and Richburg-Hayes 2006).

The second reason for choosing this example

is that access to community college comes up

in some states as part of the TANF debate—

but in fact the greatest impact for low-income

families, as well as the most politically sustain-

able way to advance the agenda, may be for

states to address it separately, not as part of

the welfare discussion. Choosing to support

community college attendance through limited

TANF dollars forces choices about who can

attend that may feel intrinsically unfair, possibly

offering opportunities to parents on welfare

that other low-wage parents do not have. And

given the number of low-wage parents who

never walk in the door of a TANF office, it is

of limited substantive as well as political appeal

to make that a criterion for getting onto a path

to advancement. One promising alternative is

for states to consider developing separate pro-

grams that assist low-income working parents

in returning to school.

The third reason for choosing this example is

that it illustrates the way programs need to be

tailored to the specific circumstances of low-

income working parents, who must balance

commitments to both their work and their

children. For example, parents will need finan-

cial support through a scholarship or support

from their employer in order to meet family

needs, not just assistance with tuition. They

are also likely to need schedules and child

care that accommodate both work and school

demands—rather than child care subsidy pro-

grams that limit care to the hours worked, for

example—and employer cooperation is likely

to be important to a parent’s success.

Goal #5: Enable parents to combine work and child-rearing so as to support employment retention and steadier work patterns

Example: Paid sick leave legislation

Existing policy examples that support this goal,

enabling low-income parents to weather the

strains of balancing work and family, are fewer

and less well-developed than for the other

goals, at least in the United States. Tradition-

ally, Americans have expected families to

negotiate this balance themselves, without as

much government regulation of job condi-

tions like sick days and schedules, as great a

likelihood of union representation, or as well-

developed an array of job benefits as parents

in other developed countries can count on.

Nonetheless, there are limited examples of

important policy steps that have been taken

nationally or in individual states, including two

that are discussed here under other goals

but also contribute to this one: expanded

investment in child care subsidies, described

above under Goal #2, and paid parental leave,

described below under Goal #6.

Other examples of public action to sup-

port the balance of work and family are just

beginning to emerge. For example, a recent

publication for state and municipal legislators,

by CLASP (the Center for Law and Social Pol-

icy), offers options for designing legislation to

require employer provision of paid sick leave

for all or many employees (for example, only

full-time employees) (Levin-Epstein and Boyd

2006). Paid sick leave for full-time employees

may seem a modest goal, representing a basic

minimum expectation, yet it is by no means

trivial to the low-wage workers who are now

60

without it: about one quarter of high work

(roughly, full-time, full-year) low-income fami-

lies and one half of moderate-work (roughly, at

least half-time or half-year) low-income families

have no days of paid leave at all, including sick

leave (The Urban Institute 2005). If sick leave

is available to workers for the illness of other

family members, as suggested by the legislative

guidelines, it will be especially helpful to stabi-

lize work for low-income parents.

In this month’s elections, San Francisco

enacted a mandated sick leave requirement

through referendum, making it the first munici-

pality in the country to mandate the benefit

for all employees (Parks 2006). Similar legisla-

tion is being considered in Madison, Wisconsin,

Maine, and Massachusetts (Levin-Epstein and

Boyd 2006).

Goal #6: Improve children’s wellbeing and development, consistent with parents’ employment

Example: Paid parental leave

The literature on children’s development

suggests a range of investments that could

pay off for low-income families, including the

investments in high quality child care and early

childhood programs mentioned already. Here,

I focus on paid parental leave because of the

opportunity it offers to make a difference

both to children’s development and to family

economic stability.

As an investment in children’s development,

paid parental leave responds to a serious

concern raised by welfare reform evaluations

and by the broader research literature on

out-of-home care for children: that infants may

suffer developmental damage from too-early

child care and too many hours in child care,

and that the risks of damage are greater when

infant care is substandard as it too often is for

low-income families (zaslow et al. 2006 and

Capizzano and Main 2005)). Our policy goal

for young children should be to strengthen the

development of low-income children, not to

undercut it by forcing parents to work during

an infant’s first months.

The policy gap between the United States and

the rest of the world is particularly stark when

it comes to paid leave for parents at the birth

of a child. As many have pointed out, the U.S.

is one of the few industrialized nations that

provide none. Nationally, the Family and Medi-

cal Leave Act made an important contribution

by guaranteeing unpaid leave to many workers,

yet the evidence suggests that some families

cannot afford to take it. A survey of employees

in 2000 found that “more than half of leave-

takers worry about not having enough money

for bills . . . some cut their leave short due to

financial constraints. In addition, a substantial

share of those who need, but do not take,

leave say that they did not take the leave they

needed because they could not afford it.”

(Waldfogel 2001).

Besides the risks to infant well-being when

parents are forced to return to work, another

concern is that there may be longer-term

consequences for family economic security. If

parents return to work without taking leave

because they need the check, do they risk being

fired during the difficult period of early infancy,

when the baby’s needs and unstable child care

61

options may force a parent to be late or to miss

work unpredictably? Are there some families

for which a birth followed by an immediate

return to work leads to spiraling set of bad con-

sequences just at the moment the child is most

vulnerable? Future work by the Urban Institute

will look in more detail at the consequences

over time of a birth in low-income families,

but Ratcliffe and McKernan have already found

that the addition to a family of a child under

six (likely a birth or adoption) increases by 2.5

to �.5 percentage points the likelihood that a

family will move into poverty the following year

(Ratcliffe and McKernan 2002).4

In the U.S., five states including New Jersey

and New York provide some paid leave for

disability related to pregnancy and childbirth

through Temporary Disability Insurance. These

programs provide workers with some wage

replacement for a limited period (up to 26

weeks in New York and New Jersey), and

they compensate a considerable proportion of

new births—25 percent in New Jersey for the

2000–0� period.

In 2002, California (which also has a TDI

program) enacted the nation’s first paid family

leave program, to partially replace the wages

of parents who leave the labor force to care

for young children (or ill family members

or for their own illness). The program was

implemented in the summer of 2004 and is

funded through a mandatory payroll tax on all

employees. A number of other jurisdictions

(including Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

Washington, and the District of Columbia)

have introduced paid family leave legislation in

the past few years. This is an area where state

innovation today can potentially provide lessons

and models for national action in the future.

LOOKING AHEAD: THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPEThe charge for this paper asks not only for

what should happen to advance the policy

agenda for low-income families but also for

an assessment of what will happen, given the

actual political climate. This is of course a dif-

ficult assignment at any time, let alone at the

time this paper was drafted, just before the

elections of November 2006. I have left the

predictions as I made them in October, adding

only two annotations in light of those elections.

I see three major obstacles blocking substantial

forward movement of this agenda. First, the

problem that drove the political urgency of

welfare reform was high welfare caseloads—

and that problem has been solved. So it is not

clear whether there is still a problem important

to the American public that these suggestions

respond to. Even if many people might think

these suggestions are good ideas, where would

the energy and sense of urgency come from to

drive them forward?

Second, the federal budget deficit is a con-

straint on solutions that require public sector

funding, as many (but not all) of these do.5

Looking at the record of budgets in the past

few years, though, suggests that this constraint

is not the whole story: expenditure increases

and tax cuts have been enacted despite their

budget effects, so the right question may be

what in this climate would create a strong

enough reason for funding. In her remarks for

the Urban Institute’s Working Families round-

62

table in 2005, Isabel Sawhill argued that this

is a time for big ideas, because only big ideas

will generate enough traction to bring budget

resources with them (Golden et al. 2006).

And third, children and families with children

are becoming less like the rest of the adult

population demographically—less white,

more Hispanic and African American, more

likely to be children of immigrants, less likely

to be in well-educated and higher-income

families—a change that could affect support

for the agenda. For example, Americans typi-

cally believe in the primary role of parents

compared to government in ensuring that

children have a fair chance at school and life

success. As families change demographically,

the public might be more inclined to see their

struggles as failures of parenting rather than as

challenges that any parent in the same circum-

stances would experience.

Yet as an optimist, I see important reasons

for hope. Even if reducing welfare caseloads

brought the initial sense of urgency to the

welfare reform agenda, the ensuing legislative

record in statehouses and Congress demon-

strates a widespread consensus that parents

who work ought to be able to provide for

their children. That consensus is an important

asset, even if it does not solve the problem of

urgency and demand for change.

What might lead to urgency? Several fascinat-

ing developments of the past several years

could answer that question. First, the perspec-

tives of employers about public investment

in low-income families may be changing as a

result of worries about global competitive-

ness—most notably in the case of health

insurance. If employers join the argument

for public investment in low-income families

because of worries about their own competi-

tiveness, that transforms the public debate.

Second, to the extent that middle income

Americans are experiencing growing inse-

curity—about health insurance, retirement

prospects, lay-offs, their standard of living, the

economic damage done to whole communi-

ties as higher-wage jobs leave—they may see

a common set of issues with struggling families

who are just like them in many ways but have

even less to build on. The same is true of the

stress that middle-income families experi-

ence regarding work and family, a stress that is

accentuated for middle-income families as it is

for lower-income families in a less secure eco-

nomic position. A middle-income mother who

fears her baby will suffer if she returns to work

soon after birth may also be concerned that

if she stays home, the family will be unable to

pay the mortgage. As a result, she could have a

great deal in common with someone just a few

rungs down the ladder who has even fewer

options. This judgment, that widely perceived

economic insecurity could add energy to this

agenda, is certainly consistent with the results

of November’s election, and in particular with

the widely noted thread of economic populism

in a number of winning campaigns.

And finally, while children are more different

from adults demographically than they used to

be, the other important demographic trend is

that there are fewer of them, relative to the

number of aging baby boomer adults who will

need to be supported. Over time, this could

6�

add urgency to an agenda of valuing each child

more and ensuring that each child grows up

healthy, well-educated, and able to compete in

the global labor market.

Where does this leave the agenda? When I

first presented the paper, I argued that the

next two years are an especially important

time for innovation and bold initiatives at

the state level. Just as AFDC came after

many states had adopted mothers’ pension

programs and TANF after states had experi-

mented with welfare reform through waivers,

so the future federal agenda for low-income

families is likely to depend on emerging state

models. State enactment and implementation

of new policies like universal health insurance

in Massachusetts and paid parental leave in

California could make a substantial difference

whenever the federal government is again able

to focus on domestic policy. The message for

the three important states targeted by the

Policy Research Institute for the Region is

clear: this is a particularly important time to

move ahead on an agenda that promotes fami-

lies’ economic security and children’s wellbeing.

In the light of the November election, I would

make only one amendment. If the election is a

sign that the federal government will be ready

to pay serious policy attention earlier than we

supposed, then the urgency for strong and

effective state action only increases.

REFERENCESAcs, Gregory, and Austin Nichols. 2005. Working to Make Ends Meet: Understanding the Income and Expenses of America’s Low-Income Families. Washing-ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Paper No. 2.

Acs, Gregory, and Pamela Loprest. 2005. Who Are Low-Income Working Families? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Paper No. 1.

Acs, Gregory, Harry J. Holzer, and Austin Nichols. 2005. “How Have Households with Children Fared in the Job Market Downturn?” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Policy Brief A-67.

Beadle, Michelle. 2006. Children in Low-Income Families. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Children. Paper No. 2.

Bureau of the Census. 2006. “Income Climbs, Poverty Stabilizes, Uninsured Rate Increases.” www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/

archives/income_wealth/007419.html (accessed 11/20/2006).

Bureau of the Census. 2004. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004–05. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Borck, Thomas, and Lashawn Richburg-Hayes. 2006. “Paying for Persistence: Early Results of a Louisiana Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents Attending Community College.” New York City, NY: MDRC.

Capizzano, Jeffrey, and Main, Regan. 2005. “Many Young Children Spend Long Hours in Child Care.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Snapshots of America’s Families, No. 22.

Edie, David. 2006. “Toward a New Child Care Policy.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Policy Brief 2.

Ehrle, Jennifer, Gina Adams, Kathryn Tout. 2001. Who’s Caring for our Youngest Children? Child Care Patterns of Infants and Toddlers. Washington, D.C.:

64

The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Occasional Paper No. 42.

Giannarelli, Linda, Sarah Adelman, and Stefanie Schmidt. 200�. Getting Help with Child Care Expenses. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Occasional Paper No. 62.

Global Strategy Group, LLC. 2006. “Welfare in the Public view.” Presentation at “TANF @ Ten”, Princeton, NJ, Oct. 6.

Golden, Olivia, Pamela Loprest, Sheila zedlewski, and Roundtable Moderators. 2006. Parents and Children Facing a World of Risk: “Next Steps Toward a Working Families’ Agenda” Roundtable Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Paper No. 5.

Golden, Olivia. 2005. Assessing the New Federalism: Eight Years Later. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism.

Holzer, Harry, and Karin Martinson. 2005. Can We Improve Job Retention and Advancement Among Low-Income Working Parents? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Paper No. �.

Lerman, Robert I., and Caroline Ratcliffe. 2000. “Did Metropolitan Areas Absorb Welfare Recipi-ents without Displacing Other Workers?” Wash-ington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Policy Brief A-45.

Levin-Epstein, Jodie, and Laura Boyd. 2006. “Paid Sick Days Legislation: A Legislator’s Guide.” Wash-ington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy and Women’s Legislator’s Lobby.

Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila zedlewski. 2006. The Changing Role of Welfare in the Lives of Low-Income Families with Children. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Occasional Paper No. 7�.

Maag, Elaine. 2006. “Analyzing Recent State Tax Policy Choices Affecting Low-Income Working Families: The Recession and Beyond.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Policy Brief No. �.

Macomber, Jennifer. 2006. An Overview of Selected Data on Children in Vulnerable Families. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Children. Paper No. 1.

Nichols, Austin. 2006. “Understanding Recent Changes in Child Poverty.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Policy Brief A-71.

Parks, James. 2006. “San Francisco First to Require Paid Sick Leave.” AFL-CIO. http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/11/09/san-francisco-first-to-require-paid-sick-leave/. (accessed 11/20/20006).

The Urban Institute. 2005. “Low-Income Working Families: Facts and Figures.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Fact Sheet.

The Urban Institute. 2006. “A Decade of Welfare Reform: Facts and Figures.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Fact Sheet.

vroman, Wayne. 2005. “An Introduction to Unemployment and Unemployment Insurance.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Policy Brief No. 1.

Waldfogel, Jane. 2001. “Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from the 2000 Surveys.” Monthly Labor Review. September: 17–2�.

Wittenburg, David, and Pamela Loprest. (Draft). The Ability or Inability to Work: Challenges in Moving Towards a More Work-Focused Disability Definition for Social Security Administration (SSA) Disability Pro-grams. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

zaslow, Martha, Greg Acs, Cameron McPhee, and Sharon vandivere. 2006 (Draft). Children in Low-Income Working Families: Change and Continu-ity in Family Context and Measures of Well-being. Washington, D.C.: Paper prepared for The Urban Institute and Child Trends Roundtable on Children in Low-Income Families.

zedlewski, Sheila, Gina Adams, Lisa Dubay, and Genevieve Kenney. 2006. Is There A System Support-ing Low-Income Working Families? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Paper No. 4.

65

1. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. In ad-dition to the colleagues whose research is cited in this paper, the author would like to acknowledge Dr. Pamela Winston for her thoughtful sugges-tions regarding the framework for thinking about economic security for families and Daniel Kuehn for able research assistance.

2. Throughout this paper, I use the term “low-income families” to refer to families whose income is below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, or about $�8,000 for a family of four. As explained in the text, many of these families work long hours for low wages and are much more likely to experience hardship than the families above them on the income ladder. For a fuller discussion of the characteristics of one large group of low-income families, those who work regularly, and the rationale for focusing on them, see Acs, Greg, and Pamela Loprest. 2005. Who are Low-Income Working Families? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families Occasional Paper 1. and Golden, Olivia, Pamela Loprest, Sheila ze-dlewski, and Roundtable Moderators. 2006. Parents

and Children in a World of Risk, “Next Steps toward a Working Families’ Agenda” Roundtable Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low Income Working Families, Occasional Paper 5. In this paper, I also discuss non-working families.)

�. As noted earlier, low-income is defined here as income less than twice the federal poverty level, or about $�8,000 for a family of four.

4. For some families whose prior income was just above the poverty line, this could be a consequence of increasing family size even if income is stable, since the poverty line is adjusted to increase with family size. (For example, a family that was just above poverty as a family of three might be below it when a new baby arrives and it becomes a family of four.) More detailed research planned for the future will help to distinguish among different pos-sible patterns.

5. California enacted a specific per-employee tax to fund parental leave, and the mandated sick leave provisions in San Francisco are funded by employ-ers—a potential political challenge and perhaps an economic burden but not a public expenditure.

NOTES

66

67

Global Strategy Group, llcIn September 2006, the Global Strategy

Group conducted a telephone survey on

behalf of the Policy Research Institute for the

Region in an attempt to gauge the regional

attitudes toward the issues of poverty and

welfare. The results of this survey, which

included responses from 1,5�6 residents of

New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania,

provides some insight into how different

groups of people within the region perceive a

wide range of issues related to poverty, such

as social responsibility, inequality, personal

responsibility and specific government polices.

The survey also offers a window into the

general public awareness about the actual

programs in place and how they have evolved

over the past 10 years with the beginning of

TANF and welfare reform.

METHODOLOGYThe survey focused on the opinions and

knowledge of four groups: (1) the entire

population of the three-state region, (2) those

currently receiving any form of public assis-

tance, (�) those categorized as the working

poor, who are earning less than 200 percent

of the Federal poverty level, and (4) those

that are considered middle class and above,

earning more than 200 percent of the Federal

poverty level. Out of the total sample of 1,5�6

people interviewed, �71 were categorized as

working poor, 192 were current recipients of

public assistance, and the remaining 97� were

categorized as middle class or above.

THE STORY THAT EMERGESOn the following pages, we present selected

data that reflects the views of the surveyed

population. (Detailed survey questions and

responses can be found in Appendix D of this

publication.) There is a story that emerges

from these data:

Poverty is a problem and government should play

a role in addressing it …

People in the region believe that poverty is a

serious problem, and they are very supportive

of “ensuring that no one goes without food,

clothing and shelter,” while at the same time

acknowledging that government currently

favors the rich. Two other findings indicate

beliefs that might lead to support for some

sort of government intervention: 45 percent

believe that people are poor largely for

reasons out of their control compared to

�5 percent who believe people are poor for

reasons under their own control. (Nationally,

the opposite view prevails—47 percent say

Attitudes Toward Poverty and Welfare in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

68

the blame falls on the poor.) And most people

in the survey tend to believe that poor people

generally share their values. (At the same

time, far fewer individuals believe that Fortune

500 CEOs (�6 percent), Donald Trump (�0

percent), or even President Bush (47 percent)

share “most” or “some” of their values.)

Knowledge about actual welfare reform is limited

while perceptions of it are positive …

By large margins, individuals believe there are

more people on welfare in the last 10 years.

There is little agreement that Bill Clinton did

“end welfare as we know it.” But when told

that there were in fact large declines, a majority

says the welfare rolls have dropped because

laws have forced people to work, while one-

in-five believe it is because the economy has

created jobs. While most tend to believe that

individuals who have been removed from

the welfare have had mixed results, overall

respondents still believe that changes in welfare

have been beneficial. So in general, individu-

als believe (“somewhat” but not “strongly”)

that Bill Clinton’s welfare reform had a positive

effect.

The government should be involved, but how?

Nearly everyone agrees: the best social

program is a job, we have a moral obliga-

tion to help the poor, and there is a path to

self-reliance and getting ahead for those who

work hard. Along these lines, there is strong

support for increasing the minimum wage (in

line with national surveys). And beyond jobs,

low-cost child care (with 89 percent saying it

is a good idea), reducing taxes, expanding the

EITC, allowing recipients to attend two/four

year colleges, and training/counseling are all

ideas that people support. In the end, individu-

als surveyed tend to believe that most people

need the help they get from welfare. While

there is solid momentum behind the idea of

requiring recipients to submit to drug testing,

and support (if somewhat less “intense”)

for requiring welfare recipients to perform

community service, those surveyed reject the

notion that government should stop providing

welfare services of some kind.

69

Charts

CHART 1

Very serious

No

64%

73%

89%

89%

88%

78%

Not at all serious

Yes

How big a problem is poverty in America today? Is it a very, somewhat, not very, or not at all serious problem?

Do you think poverty will ever be done away with in America?

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

National (Gallup, 1998): No – 91%, Yes – 8%

50%

46%

38% 2% 2%

43% 2% 8%

28% 2% 5%

20% 1% 3%

2%

2%

9%

7%

8%

2%

1%

3%

10%

9%

10%

15%

CHART 2

% “Most” + “Very” important issue All Middle class 2x poverty WelfareEnsuring that no one in America goes without food, clothing, and shelter

85 84 90 9�

Promoting economic development and creating new jobs

84 82 87 92

Guaranteeing affordable health care for all Americans 8� 81 89 92

Ending poverty in America 74 72 80 89

Balancing the federal budget 66 64 74 80

Lowering taxes 57 5� 72 82

Increasing government aid to the poor 54 50 68 80

70

CHART �

CHART 4

Don’t know

Middle class

Favors the rich

Favors the poor

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Which comes closest to your view? Government favors the rich, government favors the middle class, or government favors the poor?

All Middle class 2x poverty Welfare

9%

12%

73%

5%

9%

12%

73%

4%7%

13%

75%

5%9%

15%

71%

7%

Do you think poor people in this country are mostly poor because of...

Reasons that are largely under their own control

Reasons that are largely out of their control

Don’t know

Middle class 2x poverty Welfare

Out of theircontrol

45%

Out of theircontrol

52%

Out of theircontrol

57%

Under owncontrol

36%

Under owncontrol

31%

Under owncontrol

28%

Don’t know18%

Don’t know16%

Don’t know14%

71

CHART 5

Don’t know

Some

Most

None (vol.)

Hardly any

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I‘m going to mention some individuals and groups in public life. For each, I want you to tell me whether you think this individual or group generally shares most of your moral and ethical values, some, or hardly any.

All Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare All Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

9%

58%

17% 16%

10%

11%

Poor people People on welfare

59%

4%8%

13%

51%

24%

4%7%

10%

41%

38%

5% 12%

18%

54%

10%

6%

13%

18%

54%

10%

6%

10%

20%

53%

10%

7%

9%

13%

46%

26%

6%

12%

3%

CHART 6

Don’t know

Some

Most

None (vol.)

Hardly any

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I’m going to mention some individuals and groups in public life. For each, I want you to tell me whether you think this individual or group generally shares most of your moral and ethical values, some, or hardly any.

All Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare All Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare All Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

4%

29%

19% 18%

4%

20%

President Bush Donald Trump Fortune 500 CEOs

31%

26%

3%

29%

23%

18%

27%

7%

26%

21%

14%

32%

12%

32%

25%

5%

26%

12%

30%

25%

6%

26%

11%

36%

21%

5%

27%

15%

27%

19%

6%

33%

14%

27%

31%

5%

23%

13%

26%

36%

4%

22%

17%

37%

17%

5%

25%

18%

26%

23%

9%

24%

22%

27%

72

CHART 7

CHART 8

17% 22% 26%

19% 22% 25%

13% 21% 25%

19%

13%

11%

13%

7% 14% 27%

5% 17%

6% 17%

4% 24%

5% 29%

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Decreased greatly Increased greatly

In the last 10 years, would you say the number of Americans receiving welfare has increased or decreased, or remained about the same?

Decreased greatly

21% 8% 24%

21% 7% 24%

19% 11% 27%

21% 9% 17%

15% 30%

12% 32%

19% 22%

30% 20%

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Strongly disagree

“In President Clinton’s first State of the Union address he promised to end welfare as we know it and to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life. Do you agree or disagree that Clinton ended welfare as we knew it?”

7�

CHART 9

In the past decade, the number of Americans on welfare has dropped from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. Do you think this is mainly because the strong economy has created lots of new jobs in the past few years, because changes in the welfare laws have forced more people to go to work, or something else?

Law forced to work Economy created jobs

55%

64%

56%

56% 22%

23%

20%

29%

All

0% 20% 40% 60%20%40%60%80%

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

CHART 10

All

40% 60%50% 20%0%20%40%

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Worse off Better off

Do you think that most people who have been removed from welfare rolls are now better off than they were when they were receiving welfare?

8%

8%

5%

8%

18%

15%

13%

14% 14%

14%

15%

18%

39%

39%

39%

38%

Much betterSomewhat positive

Much worseSomewhat negative

74

CHART 12

All

40% 60%60% 20%0%20%40%

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Negative Positive

“As you may know, 10 years ago, in 1996, Congress and President Clinton passed a law to change the welfare system, end the federal guarantee of public assistance for the poor, require able-bodied recipients to work after two years, cut off benefits after five years, and cut back on food stamps.”On balance, do you think the changes have had a negative or positive effect on America?

11%

9%

3%

5%

27%

24%

16%

18% 10%

11%

9%

17%

44%

48%

35%

31%

Very positiveSomewhat positive

Very negativeSomewhat negative

CHART 11

What do you think has become of those who were removed from the welfare rolls?

Most are still poor Some are still poor butsome are no longer poor

Most are no longer poor Don’t know

Middle classAll 2x poverty Welfare

Some poor,some not

51%

Some poor,some not

52%

Some poor,some not

51%

Some poor,some not

48%

Still poor36%

Still poor34%

Still poor32%

Still poor36%

Don’t know8%

Don’t know8%

Don’t know9% Don’t know

6%

Not 10%Not 8%Not 5%Not 6%

75

CHART 1�

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

“The best social program is a job.”

“America has a moral obligation to help the poor.”

“If you work hard, you can get ahead in America.”

“A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works full-time.”

“Government programs to reduce poverty only make the problem worse by creating a culture of dependency.”

49%

63%

65%

65%

31% 3% 11% 7%

25% 2% 8% 3%

22% 2% 8% 3%

22% 2% 9% 3%

53%

54%

50%

52%

27% 3% 12% 5%

31% 1% 8% 6%

34% 1% 10% 5%

33% 2% 9% 5%

37%

43%

48%

47%

30% 2% 16% 16%

29% 1% 12% 15%

33% 12% 6%

32% 1% 12% 8%

37%

37%

23%

26%

23% 4%

4%

19% 17%

22% 4% 19% 19%

21% 28% 24%

22% 3% 26% 23%

34%

26%

29%

29%

32% 5%

3%

13% 17%

29% 9% 23% 13%

31% 22% 15%

29% 4% 22% 15%

DKStrongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagreeSomewhat disagree

76

CHART 14 Responders were asked about various policy options

51%

49%

45%

46%

39% 3% 5% 2%

42% 7% 2%

44% 2%

1%

7% 2%

43% 2% 7% 2%

1%

1%

58%

44%

36%

39%

36% 1% 2% 2%

43% 3% 6% 3%

46% 12%3% 3%

45% 2% 10% 3%

43%

37%

34%

34%

44% 3%

2%

8% 2%

49% 5% 7% 2%

42% 16% 5%

44% 3% 14% 4%All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Provide low cost child care so parents can work full-time.

Reduce taxes for low-income people who work and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Allow welfare recipients to attend two- or four-year college programs, so people can get out of poverty, not just off welfare.

Provide training in marriage and relationship skills, couple counseling, and conflict resolution.

48%

44%

37%

38%

41% 4% 4%

46% 3% 5%

48% 4% 8% 2%

49% 3% 8% 1%

DKStrongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagreeSomewhat disagree

Very good idea Very bad idea

77

CHART 14 (continued) Responders were asked about various policy options

45%

49%

35%

40%

31% 2% 14% 6%

37% 9% 3%

36% 4%

2%

18% 6%

36% 4% 15% 5%

10%

10%

9%

9%

28% 6%

5%

31% 23%

26% 9% 37% 18%

23% 40% 21%

25% 6% 38% 21%

DKStrongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagreeSomewhat disagree

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

All

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Very good idea Very bad idea

Require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing.

Require welfare recipients to perform community service.

Get government out of the business of providing welfare and let private charities, community and religious groups do the job.

29%

31%

30%

30%

45% 3% 17% 6%

47% 4% 15% 2%

44% 5% 17% 3%

45% 4% 17% 3%

78

CHART 16

Which comes closer to your view? Most people on welfare need the help, or most people on welfare could get by without it?

Could get by Need the help

19%

24%

26%

24% 63%

63%

60%

63%

All

0% 20% 40% 60%20%40%

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

CHART 15

All

70%50% 90%10% 30%0%10%30%30%50%

Middle class

2x poverty

Welfare

Oppose Support

Do you support or oppose increasing the minimum wage?

4%

2%

7%

6%

3%

2%

6%

5% 65%

61%

76%

78%

20%

22%

15%

15%

Strongly supportSomewhat support

Strongly opposeSomewhat oppose

79

Appendices:The preceding papers were first presented at a conference on

October 6, 2006, at Princeton University. Contained in the

following appendices are materials from that conference.

80

81

Appendix A: Keynote Address

Charles B. RangelRepresentative, 15th Congressional District of New York, United States House of Representatives

When Tony Shorris first asked me to appear

here, I thought that I needed all of the aca-

demic credit possible to be able to say, “I

spoke at Princeton.”

The Ways and Means Committee is the most

powerful committee in the House of Repre-

sentatives, even as it relates to the Senate.

As determined by the Constitution, all tax

issues have to be initiated in the House, and

therefore, the Ways and Means Committee.

In fact, the entire tax structure comes out of

the Ways and Means Committee, including

corporate and private taxes. This means the

committee determines who isn’t required to

pay taxes and who gets the tax incentives. The

committee has jurisdiction over international

trade. It also controls the Social Security

system, which is under severe attack from

the Administration. And, we have jurisdiction

over Medicare, the healthcare system for our

seniors. What the Ways and Means Commit-

tee has to deal with in the United States is the

fundamental difference between the parties.

This is not political, This is academic: the

Republican Party basically believes that a small

government is best for the American people.

They believe that it is not the government’s

money, it’s the taxpayers’, and the taxpayer

knows how to use that money better than

the Federal government. Republicans believe

the only reason that we have a Congress is

to raise the funds for national defense and to

deal with those issues relegated to the Federal

government under the Constitution. Anything

else, they believe, should remain in the hands

of local and state governments.

So, as it relates to Social Security, Medicare,

and other Federal programs, Republicans do

not believe that one size fits all and that the

local government should have the responsibil-

ity. One might ask how the local governments

can pay for all this. Republicans say the Federal

government pays only because constituents

are not paying enough local taxes to support

these services. But Republicans argue that

it should be up to the local government to

establish its own priorities. If constituents want

their local governments to pay for health care,

Social Security, or any other social programs,

they should demand that from their mayors

and other local government officials. If they

refuse to do it, constituents can vote them

out. But these services should not be the

responsibility of the Federal government.

82

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that

our government should not force people to go

it alone. We believe, as President Roosevelt

believed, that the government should be there

as a cushion between your pension and your

retirement, not only to make you more com-

fortable, but also to provide the opportunity

for you to be a productive American. When

you suffer a disability that keeps you from

working, the government should be there. We

believe the government should be there when

a wage-earner dies and her kids need support

and need to go to school. We believe that

health care should be a universal right, not a

privilege, as is too often the case.

And so, the fear I have is that when it comes

to the budget, we find the Republicans anxious

to slash revenues. This is not because wealthy

people are asking for it, but because they

want to “starve the beast.” If they succeed,

they’ll get rid of the money to fund Social

Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And if they

do succeed, what happens to these services?

You make the transformation, as Republicans

would say, through privatization. Once you

destroy the Social Security system by private

accounts, Medicare by health savings accounts,

or the prescription drug benefit of Medicare

by allowing drug companies to run the pro-

grams, then all these programs will be a thing

of the past. And it will take significant efforts

to restore the programs, as it would require

dramatically unpopular, yet responsible, tax

increases to provide adequate funding to sup-

port them.

Well, I’m 76 years old. I can’t change the think-

ing in Washington, but I understand that most

everyone believes that what’s important today

is preserving our national security. And so,

rather than talk today about social workers,

bleeding hearts, and helping the poor, I stand

before you as an advocate for strong national

security, and make the argument that poor

people are a threat to our national security.

The reality is that poor people are uneducated.

Poor people don’t have the means to take care

of themselves. Poor people get sick earlier.

Poor people get in trouble earlier. Poor people

are not competitive. Poor people are costing

us billions of dollars: by being in our jails, eating,

accessing healthcare, and producing absolutely

nothing. Consider for a moment that putting

someone in jail costs on average over $22,000

a year, or that health care for the uninsured

costs our nation about $�5 billion a year, or

that drug abuse costs society $14� billion a

year in lost productivity. Wouldn’t investment

in positive outcomes be cheaper than covering

the cost of negative outcomes?

To me, it seems that if you saw what hap-

pened in Katrina, it really wasn’t a question of

whether God was racist. It was poverty that

put so many black folks on the death line with

so many poor, uneducated white folks. Many

politicians know what I’m talking about—it’s

the question of life and death. And with

Katrina, poverty was the question of life and

death. And so, I ask my Republican friends,

“Can we afford that?”

There’s a fellow from Mississippi, Representative

Gene Taylor, a Congressman who represents

the affected area. He cried on the House floor,

and he said, “If only that flood, that hurricane

8�

had come only three days later, my people

would have been saved.” And I asked him,

“What is the connection between three days

and what would have happened?” He said,

“Three days later, most or all of my people

would have received either their welfare checks

or their Social Security checks, and they would

have had the money to get some gasoline, to

get some trucks, to get out of town.”

Now, I know a lot of people believe it’s our

responsibility to bring peace and democracy

to all parts of the world: Baghdad, Iraq, North

Korea, and Iran. But if we really want to show

the strength of democracy, we have to explain

what happened in Katrina. We have to let

the world know that no matter how great we

think we are, that poverty and a lack of educa-

tion in our communities is not even on our

agenda. In fact, a recent UNICEF report ranks

the United States second from the bottom in

terms of child poverty rates in the industrial-

ized world.

And so in going back to the Congress, we will

have an opportunity to get beyond the ques-

tions of what Republicans or Democrats would

do for the poor. When you are uneducated,

lacking self-esteem, without skills, and unable

to take care of your family, you do not care if

it’s a Republican or Democrat that’s making

decisions. But one thing is abundantly clear:

there is going to be a breath of fresh air in

Congress as we can now look at the Executive

Branch, the House, and the Senate, and say

there must be a better way for Americans to

show our light to the people of the world who

are dreaming and aspiring for a higher quality

of life— to show them how we run it here.

Poverty is a luxury that this great country,

politically, cannot afford. We need the trust of

friends all over the world to say that here, that

no matter how poor you are, for your kids,

at least, there is an opportunity. This is what

America is all about.

If you take World War II, and take the GI bill,

and see how people who were discharged

from the service were able to realize their

dreams, not because of who they were or

who their family was, but because of what they

knew they could be. What did we give them?

Education—because most of those who went

into the Army did not have the means to do

it for themselves. Instead, most of them went

into the Army, had children and got married.

To be able to get by with no money for a

mortgage, to get a house—what happened

out of this? The GI bill developed the middle

class of America. It took people out of poverty

and it enabled their children to be all that

they could be; it was that bridge that allowed

us to create the greatness of America which

should be the objective of all the developing

countries: to have that middle class. The GI bill

provided educational opportunities to over

21 million Americans, and between 1945 and

1966, one-fifth of all homes built in the U.S.

were financed by GI loans.

And what do we have today? A squeeze that

grows even greater because of a worsening tax

structure for the middle class. So many people

who work every day are unable to afford health

care, cannot afford rising gas prices or mortgage

prices, and will not see the day when their

children will be able to afford their own home.

Since 2001, income for America’s families has

84

not kept pace with inflation, declining in real

terms by nearly $1,�00. Is it any wonder that

poverty is simultaneously increasing—with over

five million more Americans falling into poverty

over the last five years?

Instead of things getting better for the middle

class, the heart of America, we’re watching an

economic boom for those on the highest end

of the income spectrum. And every year more

people are falling into poverty—people who,

economically, cannot take advantage of global-

ization, which is based on finding subsidized

workers—with Republicans and the CEO class

struggling against it.

I know as a fact that education really works in

eliminating or alleviating poverty. I was born

and raised on the streets of Lenox Avenue; I

did not know anybody who attended college,

much less graduated. It didn’t bother me at all,

because I hung out on the street with young

people who thought they were better than

young people who were even talking about

going to college. But at the end of the day, I

went off into the Army. I got that uniform. I

had that brass. I was feeling good, and I had

self-esteem. I had no idea that when I would

go to Korea that the Chinese hated me so

much that they would shoot me, try to kill me,

and I told Jesus that if I get out of that, he’d

have no problem with me.

And between you and me, I haven’t had a bad

day since I got out of there.

I got out with a pocketful of money and look-

ing good with self-esteem, but the one thing

that was missing was that I didn’t have a high

school diploma. I thought that I didn’t need

it. I was a crackerjack rifle shotsman. I was a

sergeant. I could take a 75-pound artillery shell

and have it directed on the enemy seven miles

away through the fire direction center. I was

somebody important. When I went down to

get a job, they asked what I could do. And you

know how that ended. I ended up right back

in the garment center where I started. So, one

day, they loaded me up with a hand truck with

all of these boxes. It was raining. The boxes

were old, and they spilled out into the middle

of the street—onto �6th Street and 6th Ave-

nue. Cops were cursing me out, telling me to

get off the street or they were going to arrest

me. I said, “I’m Sergeant Charles Rangel!” He

said, “Get off the street.”

I went straight to the veterans Administra-

tion and said, “Sir, there’s something wrong,

they must not know who I am.” I looked at all

these faces, and as it turned out, everybody

at the vA was a World War I1 veteran and

had no idea what the hell I was talking about.

It took a long time and then finally, I won.

They gave me an aptitude test and they said

I should be an undertaker or an electrician. I

said, “You’ve got the wrong test here!” I mean,

I took my rosaries —Catholic Charities gave

the test—so I said, “Something’s wrong.” And

they said, “No, you’re a high school dropout,

you cannot go to college, and you don’t have

enough time.” I said, “I’m staying here until we

find some time.”

So finally, after six months, they asked me,

“What is it you want, Rangel? What is it you

want to be?” I was crushed. For a young man,

not even to know enough be able to say what

85

he or she wants to be happens to be the

greatest sin of all. I had nothing even to dream

about. And I stood absolutely bewildered in

trying to get some answer to catch up to my

aggressive desire to work.

My grandfather was an elevator operator in

the criminal court building. He worked there

for �� years, and he survived automation. He

was important. He wore that uniform going

to work, off to the job. He had seniority, and

he had the elevators that took up the district

attorneys and the judges. And he wasn’t the

kind of guy who said, “I love you,” but you

know, I understood. I didn’t ask for a whole

lot of love, I just wanted to get out of Lenox

Avenue. Now, he wasn’t the kind of guy who

appeared to like people, but those judges,

and lawyers, and DAs would come in, and

you would think Jesus Christ appeared—all

the excitement in the world! So I told one of

them that I wanted to be a lawyer. And he told

me how much time we had, what I had to do,

and I digested it. So I went home, and told my

grandfather that I wanted to be a lawyer and

I don’t know when he stopped laughing. But I

know one thing. Before he died I was assistant

district attorney in that damn building.

Why do I tell these stories? I knew what I

wasn’t when I went to the Army. I knew what

I didn’t know when I went out of school. But

the difference—not only with me but every

guy on the block I was raised with—is having

access to an education. I am saying that if the

Army can take you and teach anything, there

is no reason why—with a national commit-

ment—that we can’t take every child we

have and make them better than they are, to

make them productive, to make them believe

in themselves and therefore, to make them

believe in this country.

When I accepted this invitation, I knew that

it’s going to take more than political will; it’s

going to take people to understand that this

Federal government will only do what they

are mandated to do. If you bring the politi-

cians, the goodwill, and those in the academic

fields, and those who have the responsibility

together—we don’t need any welfare system

in this country. If we say that every child, and

every family, and every community is going

to have opportunity, they don’t have to fail. If

we can tell all the developing countries that

you don’t have to read our Constitution but

rather see what we do with our people, see

what they are able to do for themselves, their

community, and their country—you don’t

need a Constitutional government; you need a

government that cares.

And so, as Chairman of the Ways and Means

Committee some would say, “What exactly

can you do?” I’m saying, if you’re looking for an

economic incentive, if you’re looking for a tax

credit, you have to tell me what you are doing

to help get people out of poverty or to help

prevent them from getting into poverty. Do

you advocate educational programs? Do you

advocate that Americans should be as healthy

as they can be? Do you advocate that education

should not be something that children pay for?

They should get it and pay back for the fact that

we gave it to them by being more productive.

This could truly be a revolutionary period,

because some of you may have heard that

86

I’m an advocate for the draft. But being an

advocate for the draft means that I’m advocat-

ing that just being poor, and unemployable,

and hopeless should not make you the only

people that are being placed in harm’s way. It

is immoral for a President to have an elective

war knowing that nobody in this Administra-

tion—or this Cabinet and the Pentagon—not

only will they never have to serve, but they will

never have to go to a funeral of anybody who

served because they don’t know anybody.

But when those youngsters are trained, they

don’t have the political choice. They have to do

what they are told, and they are the courageous

among us. But why don’t we apply this belief to

patriots throughout America? 1f being at war

means that the nation is in danger, then every-

body—I, my son, my grandson—should be

saying, “I want to make some type of sacrifice

to protect the country that’s been good to me.”

And the whole idea is that if we really believe

that we were going to war and would lose

those in our community, we would think twice

about whether or not Saddam Hussein is really

a threat to the United States of America. We

would not make the mistake that there were

no weapons of mass destruction, no con-

nection to A1 qaeda, no connection to 9/11.

We would not be rattling swords with North

Korea. We would not be prepared to put

the military option on the table in Iran. And

when it reaches the point that our country

is in danger, everybody should do something

instead of just giving tax cuts to the rich. But, if

you’re poor, what other options do you have?

What political strength do you have? And just

as in 1948, September 15, the Army was the

best employment hopes that I had, believe me,

in the rural United States and the inner cities,

poverty drives the number of people who

are drawn to the military, and that is immoral

and unpatriotic. Especially when they see that

$40,000 bonus dangled in front of them.

And so, what I’m asking is this: let us try push

for a draft—it has to start somewhere. The

Civil Rights movement and the racism and

the lynchings that took place in this country

in the 20s and the �0s—the priests, and

ministers, and rabbis spoke up against it. One

day a woman in the back of the bus spoke up

and said, “I will not move.” As a result they

formed a boycott, and along came Martin

Luther King Jr. And then, all of America said

that this can’t keep going on. And maybe this

is the time for us to move on, time for all of

these people in this great country—blacks and

whites, Jews, and Gentiles—to step together.

And collectively, they were not only able to

stop the murders, but they changed the vot-

ing laws. Even though I marched with them, I

never even thought that I could ever become a

public servant. In the Congress I joined, there

were nine blacks. We became 1� blacks, and

now we have 42 blacks.

We’ve got a black in the Senate and 20 Hispan-

ics. In other words, this revolution took place,

and people had to ask themselves, “What were

they doing before the revolution?”

I’m suggesting to you that the period of time

that we are living here today is one of the

most dangerous times that our country has

ever faced. We are involved in a war that has

no end and the people that are suffering are

87

those that are poor. Not one person here

can even make up what victory looks like. If I

told the President tomorrow that the enemy

wanted to surrender, he wouldn’t have a clue

as to who to go to sign the papers.

We don’t know. We are involved in a mess

and the only question is: can we admit it and

get the hell out? The opportunity to change is

here, not only for peace, but for poverty, lack

of health care, lack of jobs, lack of self-esteem,

and lack of the stuff that makes Americans

so proud of themselves. We should never be

ashamed with any foreigner for who we are or

what we’re not doing. We should be so proud,

that the rest of the world would say, “I only

wish that my country could be like yours.”

We have that opportunity. And you are the

ones that are on the ground. And we need

you, not only in dealing with academic classes

or dealing with your clients, but we need you

at the polls because voting is just as much a

part of being an American as anything else

you can think of. And if at the end of the day,

things remain the same and you did your

part, at least you can explain that you love

this country—and all of its people—and you

lost. Because losing isn’t the worst thing; lack

of participation is. If we lose and you didn’t

participate, it’s not just how you feel about

yourselves, but it’s that you didn’t say anything

when the war was going on or the corruption

was going on. These things were happen-

ing—did you participate? Were you part of

the problem or part of the solution?

I hope that this is the beginning of a partner-

ship - with whatever power I may get in the

Ways and Means Committee. That we bring

it together to create a national program, to

be able to say, there is another way. That

people don’t deal with this war; that they deal

with peace; that they deal with people; that

they deal with aspirations; that they deal with

dreams; and that they deal with making Ameri-

cans one. I just want to be the politician who is

on that side.

Now back home on the streets of Lenox Ave-

nue, people are asking me—people who used

to call me Charlie—that if I become the Chair-

man of the Ways and Means Committee, “Do

we really have to call you “Mr. Chairman?” And

I haven’t given that a lot of thought because I

don’t care too much. But, no, you don’t have to

call me Mr. Chairman because I wouldn’t really

want to be treated any differently than any

other world leader.

So with that being said, I’ve really enjoyed

being here. Thank you so much.

88

89

Mary Gay Abbott-YoungRescue Mission of Trenton

What a day this has been for those we serve,

for the Rescue Mission—in fact for all non-

profits—and for Princeton University! I was

delighted to hear the congressman challenge

us to ask ourselves what we are all really

doing. Lots of folks have asked how the Rescue

Mission was able to partner with Princeton

University. It was easy. Princeton University

was walking down Route 1 looking for some

poor people, and they found us. It is frankly

how we get our clients. Seriously, the credit

goes to the University’s Policy Research

Institute for the Region who responded so

enthusiastically to our approach for a confer-

ence on welfare and poverty.

From that phone call on it has been quite

exciting. First they said we’ll make a video.

Then they said we’ll conduct some research.

Then they said we’ll get the new Commis-

sioner of the Department of Human Services.

Then they said we’ll get national experts and

a congressman. And then they asked us if

we could get some people. Well, we got the

people here, because it is such an important

issue.

This day brought Tony Shorris, Udai Tambar,

and Andy Rachlin into our lives for one reason:

they wanted a fair understanding of how policy

affects people’s lives. Despite their name, they

are not interested only in policy. They are

interested in people as well. And I salute you

gentlemen for that, and thank you.

Working on the video was a highlight for the

Rescue Mission. Lynnell asked how I managed

to work for 28 years at this job. I think the real

question is why would anyone leave a job like

this? I have the honor and privilege of repre-

senting some of the finest people in the world.

I have the pleasure of working with truly caring,

committed, and talented individuals.

As I watched the video and heard the stories,

I wondered if what I do, if what the Rescue

Mission does, and in fact if this conference has

any purpose or any meaning. The answer is

no, unless you’re the one life that’s changed by

something like this. Watching the video, I also

feel you cannot do this work without getting

angry at the seeming endless hurdles that need

to be overcome. It’s not just the substance

abuse, it’s not just the mental health issues,

and it’s not just the poverty. It is the sum, the

multiple, and the divide of those things. It is

life that beats our folks down and at the same

time gives them an incredible strength.

Appendix A: Closing Remarks

90

I have learned that the Rescue Mission does a

few things right in our approach: (1) we accept

the differences in people, their strengths and

their weaknesses, and we use their strengths

to build our community, (2) we understand

that it’s about jobs—jobs that you can live on,

and most importantly (�) we give multiple

chances. What does it mean to give “multiple

chances?” I can only explain it to you from the

eyes of our clients—which takes us back to

where we started this morning:

There’s a man who went to work this morning

from the Rescue Mission. He’s on his third

admission to the Rescue Mission. He came

back in September 2005 and by January he

was driving a truck for us. He worked at the

Rescue Mission for six months. In the middle

of the summer, he said, “I’m going to go out

to get a job but I want to live here, because

I know if I leave I’ll have problems.” And he

stayed at the Rescue Mission while he worked

at an outside job. He had made it! He had a

job, a car, a girlfriend.

In August he found me and said, “My job isn’t

working for me. I have to work near this hot

oven. I keep passing out. I want to come back

and be a truck driver.” I told him it was okay.

He came back as a truck driver and was sched-

uled for a routine urine analysis. He told me he

couldn’t take it and ran out the door. Let me

be real clear—we would never have thrown

him out, he ran out. I didn’t hear from him for

a day, but the next morning his mother called

me to tell me he had been shot. He was in

the hospital. Fortunately he recovered, came

back to the Rescue Mission, and as I said, has

returned to employment. But my point is this:

in �6 hours—36 hours—he had completely

undone the entire year’s worth of struggle.

And we are so far removed from his world that

we believe rules and programs—things like an

arbitrary five-year cut-off period, sanctions,

inflexible work requirements—will motivate

him to change his life. He tries every single day

to do the right thing. Honestly, not everyone at

the Rescue Mission makes it—but denying ben-

efits or services based on an arbitrary period

of time defies rational thinking. Can we afford

to dismiss so many lives? I think not.

So, thank you for making this conference pos-

sible and bringing this discussion to a new level.

The solution is not just about TANF or GA or

training programs—each can be only a part

of the answer. Today we showed a willingness

to broaden the discussion, and to think about

policies that refuse to accept economic pov-

erty as a part of our society.

The speakers were truly inspirational. Ted and

Lynnell are blessings in our lives. But for me,

the ladies from HomeFront, Mustard, Tyrone,

Jonathan, and in absence, Jokes—wherever

you get your courage from—please continue

to share it with us so that we may have the

courage to do the right thing.

God Bless You!

91

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION FROM PANEL 1In his welcoming remarks at the conference,

Anthony Shorris, Director of the Policy

Research Institute for the Region, said, “This

is more than just another academic confer-

ence, because understanding the lives of those

affected by TANF requires tools beyond those

of the academy.” Shorris said that the goal of

the conference was to “look at the issue from

a variety of perspectives.” Those who rely on

TANF offer the most important perspective, of

course. As Mary Gay Abbott-Young, the Chief

Executive Officer of the Rescue Mission of

Trenton, asked, “Can people outside this world

ever really know it?” In an effort to familiarize

others with this world, the Institute com-

missioned Welfare as We Know It, a film that

captures the complexities of life on welfare.

The film, which opened the conference, chron-

icles the struggles of Sonia, a formerly abused

single mother with five children who struggled

to complete her high school degree in her 40s

and hopes to buy a house; Leroy, a former fos-

ter child who spent time in prison; Rhonda, a

mother and refugee from Sudan; and Nancy, a

young single mother with bipolar disorder, who

was homeless during part of her pregnancy

and who has not completed her high school

degree. All four were working hard to rebuild

their lives. All four had also received support

from the Rescue Mission of Trenton, a Trenton

agency that since its founding in 1915 has pro-

vided refuge, services and counseling to “the

homeless, the hungry, the transient, and the

addicted,” or from HomeFront, a Trenton-area

non-profit organization with a food pantry that

provided families with temporary housing and

other services. In the film, Abbott-Young said,

“Welfare is not an adequate living expense.

What’s needed is a simplified, individualized

system.” As Nancy pleaded, “Work with me.”

A panel discussion following the film was

led by LynNell Hancock, a professor at the

Columbia University School of Journalism

whose book Hands to Work: The Stories of

Three Families Racing the Welfare Clock docu-

ments the experiences of families navigating

New York City’s welfare system for five years.

Hancock noted that she “always thought it

would be more effective to have the voices of

real people in the academic debate,” because

the issues they face are as complex and varied

as the individuals. Unfortunately, according to

Hancock, TANF “created a fairly rigid welfare

system for a population with a wide range of

needs.” The panel represented some of these

needs. It included Mary Gay Abbott-Young,

who was featured in the film; Connie Mercer,

founder and executive director of HomeFront;

Sonia Navarro, food pantry coordinator at

HomeFront, who was also featured in the film;

Appendix B: Summaries of Panel Discussions

92

and Anthony Harris, a resident of the Rescue

Mission of Trenton and also a truck driver at

the Mission.

Connie Mercer and Mary Gay Abbott-Young

spoke about how the welfare population has

changed in the years they have been working

with it. Young said that previous residents of

the Mission primarily were World War II vets

who had work skills, but who were alcoholics.

Today, she described her clients as “people

with fine principles, but less skills and abilities.

While everyone who comes here desires a

better life, these people find it hard to survive

in society.” Mercer said that at HomeFront, the

issue used to be affordable housing and skills

acquisition. “Now we deal with huge mental

health and addiction problems,” she said. She

noted that the average reading level of moth-

ers at her center was lower than 6th grade.

In light of these challenges, “Sonia’s struggle is

even more heroic,” said Hancock.

Sonia Navarro concurred, “Education is key.

Sending someone to a job without a diploma

or skills sets them up for failure,” she said. But

the cycle is not easy to break. Navarro spoke

about her hopes for life after welfare, but of

the struggles the working poor have juggling

the various demands of life. “Welfare holds

you up halfway, and then let’s you go,” she

said. Navarro recounted a talk she gave six

years ago to the Board of Education, in which

she explained that once someone starts on

drugs or having children at a young age, he

or she stops growing mentally. “That doesn’t

mean you can’t make it,” she said. “It means

you need support to make it.” Asked where

we go from here, Navarro replied, “Where

Sonia goes is to keep learning new things. I

have ambitions. Maybe I can work my way

up—maybe even be a lawyer someday.”

Anthony Harris, also known as Mustard,

recounted his struggles with addiction, and

the support he received from the Mission.

According to its mission statement, the Mission

provides services “regardless of how many

times an individual has fallen down.” Harris

expressed his appreciation for the Mission tak-

ing him in repeated times. “Life on the street

was getting rocky. I did a lot of bad things—it

wasn’t me, it was the addiction. I needed a safe

haven from the streets of Trenton. I owe the

Rescue Mission my life.”

An audience question-and-answer period fol-

lowed the discussion. Some of the highlights:

A questioner noted that Sonia Navarro said that

she grew up thinking it was normal to have kids

at a young age. What kind of program could

change the idea of what’s normal?

Connie Mercer answered that teaching about

birth control is not enough. “Give folks some

joy, hopes and dreams and they won’t get

pregnant. Our young ladies have no dreams.”

Navarro said, “The question is how to take

what happens and learn from it.”

A questioner asked Navarro and Anthony Harris

what sort of policies they recommend to make

it easier to make transitions to housing or to get

more education, such as subsidies or child care.

Harris noted that he is no longer on welfare,

and proud of that fact. “Everything depends on

9�

me, I don’t depend on the state.” But he sug-

gested improving access to specific programs,

such as Medicaid. Navarro said that the past

shadows the possibilities for the future, “I’d

love to buy a house,” she said, but old debt

from a trip to the emergency room when she

didn’t have Medicaid means that she has been

unable to get a credit card, despite obvious

efforts to try to pay the debt. “It’s not easy

for past mistakes to be overlooked,” she said.

Similarly, she described how being in trouble

with the law one time at age 28 has hampered

job opportunities. Also, when she gets a raise,

Section 8 [federally subsidized housing] takes

it. “I’m paying $600 a month now—I could

pay a mortgage. But every time I step up, I get

pushed back down. I’m trying to get to another

level, but it’s damn hard,” she said.

Mercer noted that she has clients “who are

working 40 hours a week, making $12 an hour

at jobs we don’t want, yet still need services,

because they cannot put a roof over their

heads.” She concluded, “We made a promise

as a society that if you go out and get a job,

you’ll be okay. Lots of folks on welfare did their

part of the bargain, but society hasn’t done its

part.”

An audience member, noting that an annual

income of $40,000 a year is needed to pay the

average rent of $1,000 a month, said, “We have

not designed a society where people with mini-

mum skills can live a decent life on or off welfare.”

If raising the minimum wage isn’t going to help,

what can be done?

“The key thing needed is affordable housing,”

said Mercer. She noted that some progress

was made in New Jersey’s last legislative ses-

sion with rental assistance programs, but that

overall the commitment to affordable housing

has stopped. Abbott-Young said, “We need to

challenge ourselves to stop looking at welfare

recipients as ‘bad,’ and instead as people with

problems who need help.”

94

SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF PANEL 2A panel discussion followed “What We

thought and What We’ve Learned,” the

presentations by Peter Edelman, Professor of

Law at Georgetown University and Health and

Human Services Assistant Secretary for Plan-

ning and Human Services during the Clinton

administration, and Robert Wood, Senior

Researcher at Mathematica. The presenta-

tions examined TANF from the perspective of

those making policy. Edelman, who is critical of

TANF, noted that the film Welfare as We Know

It sums up the problem, which is that “one size

doesn’t fit all.” While welfare should both help

people find work and leave dependency, Edel-

man maintains that it should also provide them

with a safety net. What we’ve learned, he said,

is that finding this balance is tricky, and one

that plays out differently in different states. “At

best, TANF is a program for prosperous times.

The real issue is how to get everyone out of

poverty and on a living wage,” he concluded.

Wood presented data showing how New

York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania took very

different approaches to TANF, but ended up

with similar caseload declines. He noted that

the TANF reauthorization presents challenges

because of new federal rules requiring an

increased percentage of TANF recipients be

working for states to receive funding.

Sara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology and

Public Affairs at Princeton University and

Director of Princeton’s Bendheim-Thoman

Center for Research on Child Wellbeing,

moderated the panel. It included Linda Gibbs,

Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Ser-

vices in New York City; Feather Houstoun,

President of the William Penn Foundation; and

Lawrence Mead, Professor of Politics at New

York University.

Linda Gibbs said she agreed that more talk is

needed about the broader issue of poverty,

and that welfare needs to be individualized.

She focused on the New York experience,

which has had “tremendous success in moving

TANF recipients into jobs,” and also at using

other programs such as food stamps and Med-

icaid as work support.” Gibbs said that in New

York City, the welfare program has always

focused strongly on employment, and features

tailored employment support. However, she

noted that the safety net aspect of the pro-

gram continues beyond 60 months.

New York’s success has led to a 66 percent

decline in caseloads since TANF began, while

work rates for single, never-married women

with kids rose from 41 percent in 1995 to

65 percent in 2004. At the same time, child

poverty declined from 4� percent in 1995 to

95

�1 percent in 2004. However, the remaining

poor population has multiple barriers to work,

Gibbs said, noting that despite the gains over

the past decade and the reduced caseload,

more than 1.5 million residents of New York

City still live in poverty. “The poverty rate

in New York City is stunningly higher than

in the rest of the nation,” she said. “Helping

this population, which must be the program’s

focus, requires a multivariate approach that

involves thinking beyond TANF.”

In what Gibbs called a “bold step,” Mayor

Bloomberg has directly taken on the issue of

poverty, which is usually only dealt with at a

state and national level because of funding.

Gibbs said the mayor believes the City can

decrease its poor population, but “we need to

make tough decisions that focus on the sub-

populations where we have the tools to help

and can have an impact.” In New York, those

populations are the working poor; young,

unemployed adults; and children. Gibbs said

it is notable that there has been a dramatic

increase in the percentage of those in poverty

who have a working adult in the family, which

rose from 29 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in

2005.

The Mayor’s idea is “to invest in the poor

so they can invest in themselves,” and his

approach is to focus on how to boost employ-

ment. The strategies the City is using are:

promoting career paths, increasing access to

work supports, building assets and financial

literacy among the poor, and increasing the

stock of affordable housing. It is also looking

at innovative solutions from other parts of the

world. For example, New York is consider-

ing “conditional cash transfers,” in which

cash incentives are offered for investments in

human capital, such as health and education.

“These measures build shared responsibility,”

she said. “The monies are conditional, and

depend on certain targets being achieved.”

Feather Houstoun said that at the time TANF

was passed in 1996, she was confident that

welfare recipients could engage with the

workforce. However, the caseloads turned out

to include subgroups of people with multiple

problems who were not capable of entering

the workforce, as well as clients who cycle in

and out of the program. “The caseload is not

simply one group of people that exist over

time. And this indicated that the program

really needed to be customized.” In light of

the decade’s experience with welfare reform,

Houstoun was opposed to the way that the

program was reauthorized. In particular, she

believes that the loss of flexibility regarding

work requirements will constrain the ability of

states to customize their programs and hence

compound the failures. One strategy used in

Pennsylvania was to analyze implementation

success by county, which suggested what might

be best for a large-scale program. “These are

large-scale programs with millions of small sto-

ries that are forced to fit into a bureaucracy,”

Houstoun said. “What’s needed are training

programs with a pervasive message about

work, balanced with work programs with a

pervasive message about training.”

Nonetheless, Houstoun said a lot has been

learned in 10 years of TANF. While the good

economy proved to be an important element

in the early success, the labor market at the

96

entry level remains highly fluid, and TANF

recipients have opportunities to find jobs.

“Once they get in there, if they have the

proper supports to keep them engaged in the

workforce, such as child care, they can hold on

and move up,” she said. And for those staying

in the workforce longer, the result is a progres-

sive increase in income. “The frustration is that

TANF started out as a program to get people

into the work force, but it rapidly became

the way of moving people out of poverty,”

said Houstoun. “And we learned very quickly

that we couldn’t do that, because that entails

a much broader set of issues, such as training

programs.”

Lawrence Mead said he had two reactions to

Edelman’s and Wood’s papers, and welfare

reform in general. “First, welfare reform

succeeded,” he said. “And second, it is incom-

plete.” In terms of success, Mead said that the

reform “did what it was designed to do”—it

required recipients to go to work as a condi-

tion of aid. “This is a dramatic transformation

that led to a significant drop in caseloads and

a rise in recipients who are working,” Mead

said. While the good economy at the time

of reform helped, as did benefits such as the

Earned Income Tax Credit, the new work

requirement, which helped people change

how they were actually living, was the essence

of the transformation.

The film Welfare as We Know It suggests that

the basis of welfare is empathy, Mead contin-

ued. That was the attitude that prevailed until

the 1990s, and many economists believed that

welfare recipients simply wouldn’t be able

to work on the level demanded. However,

empathy, by itself, was not enough to help

people, because giving aid did not lead to

changes in people’s lives. “The help and hassle

combination is what did the job,” said Mead.

“Welfare recipients have obligations as well as

society has obligations.” The welfare recipients

in the film Welfare as We Know It affirm the

idea of this shared approach, Mead said. He

also contends that there is no research to

show that the disconnected group of welfare

recipients who are not engaging with the work

force are any worse off than before TANF. In

contrast, research does show that states with

the most stringent work enforcement require-

ments have had the greatest gains in welfare

recipients’ income. In light of these findings,

Mead supports the work requirement changes

made in the TANF reauthorization.

Mead also noted that welfare reform was a

real triumph for government, bringing liberals

and conservatives together at the federal, state

and local levels. It required bipartisan support

for spending on such things as EITC, health

care and child support. “The reform is popular,

and comes from a combination of liberal and

conservative impulses that produced a new

welfare system where work is expected,

but we also provide a lot of support that

we didn’t do before,” he said. “Ironically, this

conservative reform actually had the effect of

expanding the idea of what government might

do to help the needy,” he said.

Addressing his second point, that welfare

reform is incomplete, Mead said that work-

force participation needs to be improved,

which is what the reauthorization is designed

to address. He recommends extending the

97

system of service and supports to fathers,

who are largely left out of the system. And,

he said the incomes of those on welfare must

rise. “If you work, you shouldn’t be poor,” he

said. “I agree that we need to move beyond

welfare reform and shift the focus to poverty.”

In addition to getting more men to work, he

recommends improving benefits, particularly

for those who are employed. “Those who

want to do more for the poor should try to

attach benefits to families who are employed,”

he said. This will require changing certain

attitudes. For example, states need to give up

the idea of uncontested benefits, and require

something in return for welfare. “We have to

give up the idea that the poor are victims,”

he concluded. “The recipients themselves,

including those in the film, affirm the idea that

responsibility for poverty is shared between

the poor and society.” Mead encouraged the

poor to mobilize and generate political pres-

sure—noting that, historically, the best way

to do this is through unions and groups of

employed people.

98

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION FOR PANEL �A panel discussion followed the presentation

by Olivia Golden, a senior fellow at the Urban

Institute. Golden concluded that, “the future

of reducing poverty is not in TANF, but in

more tailored approaches.” She predicted that

the federal government would look at new

approaches after five to 10 states pilot innova-

tive, successful programs.

Douglas Massey, Henry G. Bryant Professor

of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton

University’s Woodrow Wilson School moder-

ated the panel. It included Gordon Berlin,

president of MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan

social policy research organization; Clarke

Bruno, Commissioner of the Department

of Human Services in New Jersey; Irwin

Garfinkel, Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of

Contemporary Urban Problems at the Colum-

bia University School of Social Work; and

David Jones, President of Community Service

Society in New York.

Gordon Berlin said he was “wearing the

hat of the region” in his response to the

presentations. He said that welfare reform

has four goals—reducing dependency, reduc-

ing poverty, promoting work and containing

costs—but that these goals are not always

compatible. These conflicting goals explain

“how we got here,” Berlin said. But going for-

ward requires deciding on which goal should

dominate. Berlin said that neither poverty

reduction nor saving money were goals of

TANF. It was about reducing dependency and

promoting work. However, reducing poverty

was a major consideration in many states,

including New York, New Jersey, and Pennsyl-

vania, where welfare recipients were allowed

to retain some of their benefits when they

went to work.

“TANF is not a program like AFDC, which it

replaced,” explained Berlin, “but is a remark-

ably flexible funding source.” However, the

2006 reauthorization was very backward look-

ing. It focused on worker participation rates

and obligations—the same issues debated in

1996—but it did not take into account how

different the situation was, with caseloads

down and a dramatic increase in the percent-

age of people working. There were two new

problems that needed more consideration:

the problems of the hard-to-employ and

the working poor who have only a fragile

economic foothold. According to Berlin, “That

leaves the question, will the new bill be flexible

and durable enough to support reforms over

the next 10 years?”

99

Along those lines Berlin laid out a vision for

what welfare administrators need to think

about going forward, when there are fewer

people on the rolls. Using the block grant

wisely requires thinking clearly about three

tasks:

• Supporting the working poor, who have a precarious foothold in the work force. Up to �0 percent of this group have cycled on and off welfare. To keep them off the rolls, they need a package of supportive benefits. These benefits exist—such as food stamps and the earned income tax credits—but there is no institutional structure for deliv-ering them.

• Assisting the hard to employ. Working with this group requires close working relation-ships with partner agencies, such as mental health services (Berlin noted that up to �0 percent of female welfare recipients are depressed) and substance abuse agencies.

• Managing a temporary work-condition welfare system for the poor, so that people understand the concept that “welfare is a temporary place to be as they move on to the future.”

Clarke Bruno, who had been in his job for

only two weeks, called the conference “a

great tutorial.” He discussed the importance

of support systems that impact welfare, such

as housing, childcare and child support—and

the difficulty of securing them. He noted

that housing costs in New Jersey could be an

enormous barrier. They are the highest in the

nation, with 40 percent of renters paying more

than �0 percent of their income, and there is a

shortage of affordable housing. Between 2004

and 2005, the demand has risen �0 percent.

In terms of child support, Bruno cited a Math-

ematica study that found that fewer than one

in five New Jersey children live with their bio-

logical father, and of these, two-thirds of them

have received no financial support from their

father in the past month. In light of this, he is

embarking on an aggressive plan to increase

child-support collection rates. As for childcare,

the waiting list is up to 4,400 families.

Bruno said countering these problems is

extremely difficult. He cited the situation in

Camden, which has a $140 million municipal

budget, but the budget “is so out of whack,”

because the city collects only a fraction of the

taxes needed to sustain it. Forty-four percent

of the city’s residents are on pubic assis-

tance and half are under age 25. “Camden is

increasingly disconnected from the economy,”

he concludes. “While a focus on the working

poor is right, it’s still not clear what it is pos-

sible to do.”

Irwin Garfinkel said that childcare and universal

pre-K reinforce work and reduce poverty,

and should be a component of welfare’s

future. While TANF helped decrease welfare

caseloads, he said the reality is that welfare is

a program for those who for some reason are

unable to work. “The real credit for TANF’s

success goes to poverty reduction programs,”

according to Garfinkel. In keeping with this,

funding universal pre-K will not only reduce

poverty but also be a good state investment.

He noted that UPK is costly, but research shows

that the benefits far exceed the costs. He cited

a Rand study showing a $2.60 benefit for each

dollar spent on UPK. “We can reduce poverty

for this generation and the next,” he concluded.

“UPK is a good investment for states.”

David Jones said his focus is on the reduction

of urban poverty, which overwhelmingly afflicts

blacks and Latinos, who have the highest rate

100

of those not in school or working, or living

at 200 percent below poverty. He said that,

despite TANF and other support programs,

there is essentially no movement out of pov-

erty for these groups. The kinds of challenges

they face—getting health insurance, getting

time to go to PTA meetings—are insurmount-

able when added to the other challenges they

face in daily life. “We’re generating a class of

young people who cannot compete,” said

Jones.

To address these grim realities, his group has

“started to do some non-traditional things”

that will provide the poor with auxiliary bene-

fits, such as earned-income tax credits and

health insurance. He is working with unions

who are interested in low-wage members,

such as New York City’s 6�,000 security

guards. This group makes, on average, less

than $10 an hour, and one-third of them are

in and out of homelessness. “Mere morality

will not move masses,” he said. “The situation

is not going to change without political power,

which is why we need organizations to help

the poor assert their rights. The only way to

get anyone to listen and generate a political

will is if there is a political cost.”

101

Appendix C: Conference Agenda

TANF @ TEN: A Retrospective on Welfare Reform

OCTOBER 6, 2006

Sponsored by The Policy Research Institute for the Region at Princeton University, The Rescue Mission of Trenton

Opening SessionWelcoming Remarks

Anthony Shorris, Director, Policy Research Institute for the Region

Welfare as We Know It: An Original Documentary Film, Premiere and DiscussionModerator

LynNell Hancock, Professor, Columbia University School of JournalismDiscussants

Mary Gay Abbott-Young, Chief Executive Officer, Rescue Mission of TrentonAnthony Harris, Resident Truck Driver, Rescue Mission of TrentonConnie Mercer, Executive Director, HomefrontSonia Navarro, Food Pantry Coordinator, Homefront

What We Thought and What We’ve LearnedPresentation

Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown UniversityRobert Wood, Senior Researcher, Mathematica

ModeratorSara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs; Director, Bendheim-Thoman

Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton UniversityDiscussants

Linda Gibbs, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services, City of New YorkFeather Houstoun, President, William Penn FoundationLawrence Mead, Professor of Politics, New York University

102

Lunch SessionKeynote Address

Hon. Charles Rangel, Representative, United States House of RepresentativesSurvey Presentation

Jeffrey Plaut, Partner, Global Strategy Group

Ten More Years: The Future of Welfare ReformPresentation

Olivia Golden, Senior Fellow, The Urban InstituteModerator

Douglas Massey, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wil-son School, Princeton University

PanelistsGordon Berlin, President, MDRCClarke Bruno, Commissioner, Department of Human Services, State of New JerseyIrwin Garfinkel, Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems, Columbia

University School of Social WorkDavid Jones, President, Community Service Society

Closing RemarksMary Gay Abbott-Young, Chief Executive Officer, Rescue Mission of Trenton

10�

Mary Gay Abbott-YoungChief Executive Officer, Rescue Mission of Trenton

Mary Gay Abbott-Young has been employed

by the Rescue Mission of Trenton since 1976,

becoming executive director in 1986, and chief

executive officer in 2000. She holds a master’s

degree in education from Temple University,

Philadelphia, and a bachelor’s degree in social

work from California State College, California,

Pennsylvania. Abbott-Young is a New Jersey

State licensed alcohol and drug abuse coun-

selor, a New Jersey State certified criminal

justice counselor, and a New Jersey State

certified social worker. She has received the

Citizen of the Year Award from the Trenton

Council of Civic Associations and the Women

of Achievement Award from the YWCA of

Trenton. Abbott-Young has appeared in The

Times of Trenton “Market Leader” and The New

York Times Metro Section Public Lives.

Gordon BerlinPresident, MDRC

Gordon Berlin became president of MDRC

on September 1, 2004. Previously, he served

as MDRC’s chief operating officer, oversee-

ing its activities in the work, community,

and economic security policy area and in

the education, children, and families policy

area. His responsibilities included planning,

developing, and managing new projects and

directing the organization’s ongoing work

related to the hard-to-employ, low-income

workers, community employment initiatives,

child development, marriage, whole-school

reform, and instructional improvement. Before

joining MDRC in 1990, he was executive

deputy administrator for management, budget,

and policy at the New York City Human

Resources Administration. He also worked as

a program officer and deputy director of the

Ford Foundation’s Urban Poverty program

and as a program analyst and project officer

in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employ-

ment and Training Administration. Throughout

his career, Berlin has developed and managed

programs to address problems associated with

welfare dependency, homelessness, teenage

pregnancy, early childhood development,

poverty, health, and unemployment, and other

issues of concern to low-income families and

communities. He founded and, for seven years,

served as the executive director of the Social

Research and Demonstration Corporation, a

Canadian nonprofit formed at the request of

the Canadian government to test innovative

employment-focused programs. He has written

and co-authored numerous publications on

employment and social welfare issues.

Participant Biographies

104

Clarke BrunoCommissioner, New Jersey Department of Human Services

Nominated in July 2006 by Governor Jon Cor-

zine to be commissioner of the Department

of Human Services, Bruno leads a department

with 16,000 employees and an annual budget

of more than $9 billion that serves almost one

million New Jersey residents annually. The

department administers New Jersey’s Medicaid

and TANF programs and operates the state’s

five psychiatric hospitals and seven residential

centers for people with developmental disabili-

ties. The department also provides many other

services in the community for people with a

range of social service needs through contracts

with nonprofit agencies and organizations.

Before coming to the Department of Human

Services, Bruno was general counsel at the

New York City Department of Homeless

Services. There, he directed legal affairs and

spearheaded new policies that addressed the

needs of homeless men, women, and children.

He was a key member of the management

team that transformed the historically troubled

agency into one of the highest performing

agencies in city government.

Before joining the Bloomberg administration,

Bruno was an attorney in private practice. He

served on the board of directors of four not-

for-profit agencies with missions ranging from

economic development to health care. He

began his legal career by working for a federal

judge.

Before becoming a lawyer, Bruno served

as director of a street outreach program, a

special assistant for New York City’s largest

social service agency, and as executive director

of a housing and educational agency in East

Harlem. He also worked as a consultant for

Catholic Relief Services in Brazil.

Bruno received his B.A. with honors from

Swarthmore College and his J.D., cum laude,

from New York University School of Law.

Peter EdelmanProfessor of Law, Georgetown University

Peter Edelman has been on the faculty of

Georgetown University since 1982. He took

leave during President Clinton’s first term to

serve as counselor to HHS Secretary Donna

Shalala and then as assistant secretary for plan-

ning and evaluation.

Edelman has been associate dean of the

Law Center, director of the New York State

Division for Youth, and vice president of the

University of Massachusetts. He was a legisla-

tive assistant to Senator Robert F. Kennedy

and was issues director for Senator Edward

Kennedy’s Presidential campaign in 1980.

Earlier, he was a law clerk to Supreme Court

Justice Arthur J. Goldberg and before that

to Judge Henry J. Friendly on the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He also

worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as

special assistant to assistant attorney general

John Douglas.

105

Edelman’s book, Searching for America’s Heart:

RFK and the Renewal of Hope, was published

by Houghton-Mifflin in 2001. He is the author

of many articles on poverty, constitutional law,

and issues about children and youth. His article

in Atlantic Monthly titled “The Worst Thing Bill

Clinton Has Done” received the Harry Chapin

Media Award.

Edelman has chaired and been a board mem-

ber of many organizations and foundations.

He is currently the board president of the

New Israel Fund, and is a board member of

the Center for Community Change, the Public

Welfare Foundation, Americans for Peace

Now, the Center for Law and Social Policy,

and a half dozen other nonprofit organizations.

He has been a United States-Japan Leader-

ship Program Fellow, was the J. Skelly Wright

Memorial Fellow at Yale Law School, and has

received numerous honors and awards for

his work.

Irwin GarfinkelProfessor, Columbia University School of Social Work

Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg

Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems

and the chair of the Social Indicators Survey

Center at the Columbia University School of

Social Work. He was the director of the Insti-

tute for Research on Poverty (1975–1980) and

the School of Social Work (1982–84) at the

University of Wisconsin. Between 1980 and

1990, he was the principal investigator of the

Wisconsin child support study.

Garfinkel has authored or co-authored over

100 scientific articles and 11 books on pov-

erty, income transfers, program evaluation,

and child support, including Single Mothers

and Their Children: A New American Dilemma,

Assuring Child Support: An Extension of Social

Security, Social Policies for Children, and most

recently, Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in

Child Support Enforcement. His research on the

old child support system and proposal for a

new child support assurance system helped

shape Wisconsin’s pioneering child support

reforms, which in turn helped to shape the

Child Support Act of 1984, the Family Support

Act of 1988, and the Personal Responsibil-

ity and Work Opportunity Act [sic] of 1996.

He also has consulted with numerous other

state governments in the United States and

the governments of Great Britain, Austra-

lia, and Sweden. Current research projects

include “Fragile families and child well-being,”

“Child support and welfare in fragile families,”

and “the American welfare state: laggard or

leader?”

Garfinkel earned his Ph.D. from the University

of Michigan.

Linda GibbsDeputy Mayor for Health and Human Services, City of New York

Linda Gibbs was appointed deputy mayor for

health and human service by Mayor Bloomberg

in January 2006. In this position, she oversees

the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,

Human Resources Administration, Administra-

tion for Children’s Services, Department of

106

Homeless Services, Department for the Aging,

Health and Hospitals Corporation, Depart-

ment of Correction, Department of Probation,

Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of

Health Insurance Access, and the HIv Health

and Human Services Planning Council.

Previously, Gibbs had served as commissioner

of the New York City Department of

Homeless Services (DHS).

During her tenure, DHS embarked on aggres-

sive strategies to shift the City’s response

to those with housing crises from shelter to

prevention, rental assistance, and housing.

Gibbs brokered a settlement with legal advo-

cates which gave DHS its first respite from

active litigation in a generation and during

which time the agency reformed the family

intake center and helped record numbers of

homeless families achieve permanent housing.

She also served as the chief administrator of

the mayor’s ambitious strategy to end chronic

homelessness.

During the Giuliani Administration, Gibbs

served as the deputy commissioner for man-

agement and planning for the Administration

for Children’s Services (ACS). With then ACS

commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, she worked

on successful strategies to implement funda-

mental reform of a deeply troubled agency, to

one that achieved historic reductions in the

foster care caseload and helped to develop

what would become a national model for

neighborhood-based service delivery to at-risk

children and families.

Since her graduation from SUNY–Buffalo

School of Law in 1985, Gibbs has served in

various positions in New York City’s govern-

ment. She was a staff attorney at the Charter

Revision Commission that dissolved the Board

of Estimate and put in place sweeping changes

in the structure of City government. Her

responsibilities there included revisions to the

budget, procurement, and ethics laws. She has

also served in the New York City Council as

special adviser to the director of the finance

division and at the Mayor’s Office of Manage-

ment and Budget as deputy director for social

services.

Olivia GoldenSenior Fellow, The Urban Institute

Olivia Golden is an expert in child and family

programs at the federal, state, and local levels

with a special interest in the way services are

delivered on the front lines, and her career has

combined senior positions in government, the

advocacy world, and academia. From 2001 to

2004, she served as director of the Child and

Family Services Agency of the District of

Columbia, leading the agency out of federal

court receivership and making critical

improvements in services to children. From

199� to 2001, she served in two presidentially

appointed positions within the U.S. Depart-

ment of Health and Human Services, first as

commissioner for children, youth, and families

and then as assistant secretary for children and

families. In these roles, she was responsible for

over 60 federal programs, including Head Start;

Early Head Start, which was created during her

tenure to extend the benefits of Head Start to

babies and toddlers from birth to age three;

federal child care programs, which were greatly

107

expanded during those years; child abuse and

neglect programs, including the implementation

of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997;

and the implementation of welfare reform and

major changes in the nation’s child support

program. She was also director of programs

and policy at the Children’s Defense Fund

(1991–9�), lecturer in public policy at the

Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

University (1987–91), and budget director for

the Executive Office of Human Services in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (198�–85).

Golden’s book, Poor Children and Welfare

Reform, was published in 1992 and draws

lessons from welfare programs around the

country that tried to make a difference to

families by serving two generations, both

parent and child. More broadly, her

publications focus on the service delivery,

leadership, and political strategies that human

services programs use to achieve successful

results for children and families.

Keith S. GoldfeldProgram Director, Policy Research Institute for the Region

Before joining Princeton University’s Policy

Research Institute for the Region as program

director, Goldfeld worked as a policy and data

analyst for a number of organizations spanning

the government, not-for-profit, and private

sectors. Just before coming to the Policy

Research Institute, he was a health care con-

sultant at Gold Health Strategies, Inc. in New

York City. His experience in the government

includes working as a policy analyst in various

departments at the Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey, as a senior budget and

policy analyst at the New York City Indepen-

dent Budget Office, and as a consultant for the

New York City Board of Education. And while

at HealthFirst, a not-for-profit, hospital-owned

managed care organization in New York, he

served as the organization’s director of analy-

sis. Goldfeld received his B.A. in computer

science from Williams College and his master’s

in public affairs and urban and regional plan-

ning from the Woodrow Wilson School of

Public and International Affairs at Princeton.

LynNell HancockProfessor, Columbia University School of Journalism

LynNell Hancock is a reporter and writer

specializing in education and child and family

policy issues who has taught journalism at the

Columbia School of Journalism since 199�. In

addition to contributing to Newsweek, Colum-

bia Journalism Review, and The New York Times,

she covered education for The Village Voice,

the New York Daily News, and Newsweek, and

has served on the National Advisory Board

for Journalism Fellowships in Child and Family

Policy. She is author of Hands to Work: The Sto-

ries of Three Families Racing the Welfare Clock

(2002), the upcoming Prairie Fires (2007), and

contributed to The Public Assault on America’s

Children: Poverty, Violence, and Juvenile Injustice

(2000), and to America’s Mayor (2005). Han-

cock holds an M.A. in East Asian languages and

literature and an M.S. in journalism, both from

Columbia.

108

Anthony HarrisResident Truck Driver, Rescue Mission of Trenton

Anthony Harris (AKA Mustard) was born and

raised in Trenton, New Jersey. He is highly

regarded for his knowledge of the community

and friendly demeanor.

Currently, Harris is a resident truck driver for

the Rescue Mission of Trenton. He is proud

of his recent accomplishments and believes he

can “achieve the impossible.”

Feather O. HoustounPresident, William Penn Foundation

On March 1, 2005, Feather O. Houstoun

became president of the William Penn Foun-

dation. She is responsible for the foundation’s

$59 million grant-making budget, as well as

its external affairs, finances, and administra-

tion. Houstoun previously served on the

foundation’s board of directors as part of the

team overseeing grant making related to the

environment and community development.

Prior to joining the foundation, she was an

executive with AmeriChoice, a United Health

Group company serving Medicaid clients in 1�

states, and was a senior visiting scholar at the

University of Pennsylvania teaching and con-

ducting research on public management issues.

Perhaps best known for her distinguished

career in the public sector, Houstoun has

worked at every level of government, serving

as Pennsylvania’s secretary of public welfare

during Governor Tom Ridge’s administration,

treasurer of the State of New Jersey under

Governor Tom Kean, chief financial officer of

the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation

Authority, and in a number of senior positions

with the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

Houstoun has had a diverse range of experi-

ences related to the foundation’s work,

including the development of the State

Planning Commission in New Jersey, helping

to launch the New Jersey Performing Arts

Center in Newark, and service on the boards

of Philadelphia’s Center City District, the

New Jersey State Aquarium, the New Jersey

Network, and the Housing Finance Agencies

of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. She was

elected a Fellow of the National Academy of

Public Administration in 1991. Houstoun has

published articles on growth management,

gubernatorial leadership, housing, and linkages

between business districts and transportation.

David R. JonesPresident and CEO, Community Service Society

David R. Jones has been president and chief

executive officer of the Community Service

Society of New York since 1986. Prior to join-

ing CSS, Jones served as executive director of

the New York City Youth Bureau, and from

1979 to 198�, as special adviser to Mayor

Koch. Jones was a member of the transition

committee of New York’s mayor-elect Michael

Bloomberg.

109

Jones received a B.A. from Wesleyan Univer-

sity and a Juris Doctor degree from the Yale

Law School. He clerked for Judge Constance

Baker Motley of the Federal District Court for

the Southern District of New York and was

a member of the law firm of Cravath, Swaine

& Moore, where he specialized in corporate

antitrust cases and contract litigation.

Douglas S. Massey Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University

Douglas S. Massey received his Ph.D. in 1978

from Princeton University and has served on

the faculties of the University of Chicago and

the University of Pennsylvania. His research

focuses on international migration, race and

housing, discrimination, education, urban

poverty, and Latin America, especially Mexico.

He is the author, most recently, of Beyond

Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an

Age of Economic Integration, and Source of the

River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America’s

Selective Colleges and Universities. He is a mem-

ber of the National Academy of Sciences and

the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

and past president of the American Sociologi-

cal Association and the Population Association

of America.

Sara McLanahanProfessor of Sociology and Public Affairs; Director, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child and Family Wellbeing, Princeton University

Sara McLanahan is a professor of sociology and

public affairs at Princeton University. She is a

faculty associate of the Office of Population

Research and is the founder and director of

the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research

on Child Wellbeing. She currently serves

as editor-in-chief of The Future of Children, a

journal dedicated to providing research and

analysis to promote effective policies and pro-

grams for children.

She is the past president of the Population

Association of America, and has served on

the National Academy of Sciences-Institute

of Medicine Board on Children, Youth, and

Families and the boards of the American

Sociological Association and the Population

Association of America. She currently serves

on the Advisory Board for the National

Poverty Center, the Board of Trustees for the

William T. Grant Foundation, and the selection

committee for the William T. Grant Young

Scholars Award.

She is the author of many articles and books

including Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in

Child Support Enforcement (1998); Social Policies

for Children (1996); Growing Up with a Single

Parent (1994); Child Support and Child Wellbeing

(1994); Child Support Assurance: Design Issues,

Expected Impacts, and Political Barriers, as Seen

110

from Wisconsin (1992); and Single Mothers and

Their Children: A New American Dilemma (1986).

McLanahan has received numerous awards

and honors including the James S. Coleman

Fellow of the American Academy of Political

and Social Sciences, Distinguished Scholar

Award from the American Sociological

Association Family Section, the Pro Humani-

tate Literary Award for Parenting and Child

Development in Nontraditional Families from

the North American Resource Center for

Child Welfare, the Duncan Distinguished Book

Award, and the Goode Distinguished Book

Award for Growing Up With a Single Parent.

She is an elected member of the Sociological

Research Association and has been a visiting

fellow at the Russell Sage Foundation and the

Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral

Sciences at Stanford.

McLanahan earned her Ph.D. in sociology from

the University of Texas–Austin in 1979.

Lawrence M. MeadProfessor of Politics, New York University

Lawrence M. Mead teaches public policy and

American government at New York University.

He has been a visiting professor at Harvard,

Princeton, and the University of Wisconsin,

and a visiting fellow at Princeton and at the

Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Mead is an expert on the problems of poverty

and welfare in the United States. Among aca-

demics, he was the principal exponent of work

requirements in welfare, the approach that now

dominates national policy. He is also a leading

scholar of the politics and implementation of

welfare reform. He has written seven books

and many articles and other publications on

these subjects. These works have helped shape

welfare reform in the United States and abroad.

Government Matters, his study of welfare reform

in Wisconsin, was a co-winner of the 2005

Louis Brownlow Book Award, given by the

National Academy of Public Administration.

Mead has consulted with federal, state, and

local governments in this country and with

several foreign countries. He testifies regularly

to Congress on poverty, welfare, and social

policy, and he often comments on these sub-

jects in the media.

He is a native of Huntington, New York, and

a graduate of Amherst College. He received

his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard

University.

Connie MercerExecutive Director, HomeFront

Connie Mercer began her social services career

with the Canadian Mental Health Association

where she created a network of 19 group

homes for disturbed youth. She then headed

the Interstate Consortium on Residential Child

Care that drafted licensing standards that were

adopted in 27 states. In 1984 she was made

deputy director of the Illinois Department of

Children and Family Services, responsible for

oversight of all state child welfare services, and

with guardianship of �0,000 children and an

111

annual budget of $205 million. In 1988, she cre-

ated The Mercer Group, which provided social

service consulting and established an outpatient

treatment center at Mt. Sinai Medical Center.

She founded HomeFront 16 years ago, and

serves as its executive director. She received

her B.A. from the University of Chicago, and

her M.A. in psychology from York University

in Toronto.

Sonia NavarroFood Pantry Coordinator, HomeFront

In 2002, Sonia Navarro proudly walked with

her son as they both earned their high school

diploma from Daylight/Twilight in Trenton,

New Jersey. She served three years as a

volunteer in Service to America (vISTA)

through AmeriCorps, and is currently working

as a pantry supervisor at HomeFront. While

Navarro has many goals that she would like to

accomplish, she is working towards her child

care provider certification through Child Care

Connection. In spite of the many obstacles

that she has faced, she is determined to be a

positive role model to her family, friends, and

community.

Jeffrey PlautPartner, Global Strategy Group

Jeffrey Plaut has served as a strategist on

numerous political and public interest

campaigns in the New York area and beyond.

Plaut was honored as a “Rising Star of Politics

2000” by Campaigns and Elections magazine

and is a frequent talking head on public affairs

news shows. His clients include New York

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, U.S.

Representatives Charles Rangel and Nydia

velázquez, the New York State Democratic

Party, the Service Employees International

Union (SEIU/1199), the National Association

of Police Organizations, the Campaign for

Tobacco Free Kids, and Redbook magazine.

Plaut also has taught at New York University

as an adjunct professor.

Charles B. RangelRepresentative, 15th District of New York, United States House of Representatives

Congressman Charles B. Rangel is serving his

18th term as the Representative from the 15th

Congressional District, comprising East and

Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and

Washington Heights/Inwood. Rangel is the

Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways

and Means, Chair of the Board of the Demo-

cratic Congressional Campaign Committee,

and Dean of the New York State Congress-

ional Delegation.

He is the principal author of the $5 billion

Federal Empowerment zone demonstration

project to revitalize urban neighborhoods

throughout America. He is also the author of

the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which

is responsible for financing 90 percent of the

affordable housing built in the U.S. in the last

10 years. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit,

which Rangel also championed, has provided

thousands of jobs for underprivileged young

people, veterans, and ex-offenders.

112

As the former chair of the Select Commit-

tee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, Rangel

continues to lead the nation’s fight against drug

abuse and trafficking. In his efforts to reduce

the flow of drugs into the United States and

to solve the nation’s continuing drug abuse

crisis, he serves as chair of the Congressional

Narcotics Abuse and Control Caucus.

Rangel is a founding member and former chair

of the Congressional Black Caucus; he was

also chair of the New York State Council of

Black Elected Democrats and was a member

of the House Judiciary Committee during the

hearings on the articles of impeachment of

President Richard Nixon.

Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948–52,

during which time he fought in Korea and was

awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

He has authored several pieces of legislation to

benefit minority and women veterans, includ-

ing a successful bill that established the Office

of Minority Affairs within the Department of

veterans Affairs.

Rangel is a graduate of New York University

and St. John’s University School of Law. He has

spent his entire career in public service, first

as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern

District of New York, and later in the New

York State Assembly. He was elected to the

92nd Congress on November �, 1970, and has

been re-elected to each succeeding congress.

Anthony ShorrisDirector, Policy Research Institute for the Region; Lecturer, Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University

Before joining the Woodrow Wilson School

faculty, Anthony Shorris served as deputy

chancellor for operations and policy at the

New York City Board of Education, the

nation’s largest school system. Shorris has

more than 25 years of experience in public

and nonprofit management. He was appointed

by the mayor as New York City’s commis-

sioner of finance and its deputy budget

director, as well as by two governors as the

first deputy executive director of the Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey, the

nation’s oldest and largest public authority.

In the nonprofit sector, Shorris has served as

executive vice president and chief operating

officer of a billion-dollar health-care organiza-

tion operating in New York and Pennsylvania,

as well as been chair of the boards of organiza-

tions focused on areas as diverse as leadership

development, prisoner re-entry, and the deliv-

ery of local social services. He has consulted

on management and policy issues for national

and international foundations and nonprofit

organizations on topics including education,

public finance, health care, tax policy, economic

development, housing, and infrastructure.

Shorris holds a B.A. from Harvard College and

an MPA from the Woodrow Wilson School at

Princeton University.

11�

Robert G. WoodSenior Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research

Robert G. Wood is a senior researcher at

Mathematica Policy Research and has been

studying welfare policy for more than 14 years.

Wood served as principal investigator for

the Work First New Jersey evaluation, which

tracked the economic and other outcomes

of an early group of the state’s Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families recipients over a

five-year follow-up period. Through this exten-

sive study, he examined many aspects of the

experiences of TANF recipients, including their

employment stability and their likelihood of

returning to welfare. Through other research,

Wood has examined employment retention

initiatives for TANF recipients in Pennsylva-

nia. His other welfare-related research has

examined child-only TANF cases, as well as

programs and policies for teenage parents on

welfare. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the

University of Michigan.

114

115

1. For classification purposes, are you over the age of 18?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Yes 100% 100% 100% 100% No - - - - Don’t know/refused - - - -

2. Thinking about the country as a whole, would you say that things in the United States are headed in the right direction or would you say things in United States are on the wrong track?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Right direction 24% 25% 19% 16%Wrong track 62 62 64 69

vOL: (Neither/mixed) 11 11 10 10 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) � 2 7 5

Next I want to read a list of issues some people have mentioned as important for our country to address. They may or may not be important to you. For each one, please tell me if it is the most important issue for our country to address, a very important issue, somewhat important to you, or not all that important to you personally?

Important Not important(Ref.)(Ref.)

NET

Most Very Some Not ImportantNot

important

• Ensuring that no one in America goes without food, clothing and shelter ��% 52 12 � * 85% 15

Middle Class �1% 5� 12 � * 84% 16 2xPoverty 40% 50 9 1 - 90% 10

Welfare 49% 44 5 1 1 9�% 6

• Promoting economic development and creating new jobs 24% 60 14 2 * 84% 16

Middle Class 22% 61 14 2 * 8�% 16 2xPoverty �2% 55 9 � 1 87% 12

Welfare ��% 58 7 1 1 92% 8

• Guaranteeing affordable health care for all Americans �5% 49 12 4 1 8�% 16

Middle Class ��% 49 14 4 1 82% 18 2xPoverty 40% 49 7 � 1 89% 10

Welfare 45% 47 6 2 1 92% 7

• Ending poverty in America 25% 49 20 5 1 74% 25 Middle Class 22% 50 21 5 1 72% 27

2xPoverty ��% 46 15 4 1 80% 19 Welfare 42% 47 9 1 1 89% 10

• Balancing the federal budget 17% 49 28 5 1 66% �� Middle Class 15% 50 29 5 1 65% �4

2xPoverty 25% 49 19 6 1 74% 25 Welfare 26% 54 16 4 1 80% 19

Appendix D:Detailed Survey Results

116

Next I want to read a list of issues some people have mentioned as important for our country to address. They may or may not be important to you. For each one, please tell me if it is the most important issue for our country to address, a very important issue, somewhat important to you, or not all that important to you personally?

Important Not important(Ref.)(Ref.)

NET

Most Very Some Not ImportantNot

important

• Lowering taxes 18% 40 �0 12 1 57% 41 Middle Class 15% �9 �1 1� 1 54% 44

2xPoverty 27% 44 19 7 2 72% 26 Welfare �2% 49 12 5 2 82% 17

• Increasing government aid to the poor 1�% 41 �5 10 1 54% 45Middle Class 11% 40 �8 10 1 50% 48

2xPoverty 20% 47 25 6 1 68% �1Welfare �2% 47 15 5 1 80% 19

10. Do you support or oppose increasing the minimum wage?

IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say you strongly or somewhat support/oppose increasing the minimum wage?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Strongly support 65% 61% 76% 78%Somewhat support 20 22 15 15Somewhat oppose 5 6 � �Strongly oppose 6 7 2 4

vOL: (Neither support nor oppose) � � 2 2vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 1 1 2 -

SUPPORT (NET) 85 8� 91 92OPPOSE (NET) 11 1� 5 6

11. How big a problem is poverty in America today? Is it a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, a not very serious problem or not at all serious problem

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

very serious problem 51% 46% 64% 7�%Somewhat serious problem �8 42 28 20Not very serious 8 8 5 �Not at all serious 2 2 1 �

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 2 2 1

PROBLEM (NET) 88 88 91 9�NO PROBLEM (NET) 10 10 6 6

12. Do you think poverty will ever be done away with in America?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Yes 10% 9% 9% 15%No 89 90 88 78

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 2 � 7

13. Which comes closest to your view?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Our government favors the poor 5% 4% 5% 7%Our government favors the rich 7� 72 75 71 Our government favors the

middle class 12 12 1� 15 vOL: (None of these) 6 7 � 4 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 5 5 4 4

117

14. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your personal financial situation at this time?

IF CHOICE, ASK: Are you very satisfied/dissatisfied or somewhat satisfied/dissatisfied?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

very satisfied 25% 28% 12% 12%Somewhat satisfied 44 47 �7 28 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 1� 2� 18 very dissatisfied 15 10 28 42

vOL: (Don’t Know/refused) 1 1 1 1

SATISFIED (NET) 68% 76 48 40 DISSATISFIED (NET) �1 2� 51 60

Now I’m going to read a series of statements. After I read each one, please tell me whether you personally agree or disagree with the statement.

Agree Disagree (Ref.)(Ref.)

NET

Strong Some Some Strong Agree Disagree

• The best social program is a job. 65% 22 9 � 2 87% 11 Middle Class 66% 21 8 � 2 87% 11

2xPoverty 6�% 25 8 � 2 87% 11 Welfare 49% �1 11 7 � 80% 18

• America has a moral obligation to help the poor. 52% �� 9 5 2 85% 14

Middle Class 50% �4 9 5 1 85% 14 2xPoverty 54% �1 6 8 1 85% 14

Welfare 5�% 27 12 5 � 80% 17

• If you work hard, you can get ahead in America. 47% �2 12 8 1 79% 20

Middle Class 48% �� 12 6 1 81% 19 2xPoverty 4�% 29 12 15 1 72% 27

Welfare �7% �0 16 16 2 67% �1

• Government programs to reduce poverty only make the problem worse by creating a culture of dependency. 29% 29 2� 15 4 58% �8

Middle Class 29% �1 2� 14 � 60% �7 2xPoverty 26% 29 2� 1� 9 55% �6

Welfare �4% �2 1� 17 5 66% 29

• A pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works full-time. 26% 22 26 2� � 48% 49

Middle Class 2�% 22 29 2� � 45% 52 2xPoverty �7% 22 19 19 4 58% �8

Welfare �7% 2� 19 17 4 60% �6

20. Do you think poor people in this country are poor because of ROTATE—reasons that are largely under their own control or because of reasons that are largely out of their control?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Reasons that are largely under their own control �5% �6% �1% 28%

Reasons that are largely out of their control 45 44 52 57

vOL: (Don’t know) 18 18 16 14 vOL: (Refused) 2 1 1 2

118

21. Should legal immigration into the United States be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Kept at its present level �4% �6% 29% �0%Increased 18 17 17 20 Decreased 40 40 47 �9

vOL: (Don’t know) 7 7 7 10 vOL: (Refused) 1 1 1 2

Let’s talk for a moment about the American Dream

22. How many Americans living today do you think will be able to achieve their idea of the American Dream?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

All �% 2% �% 4%Most 20 2� 14 11 Some 48 50 46 41 Only a few 25 21 �4 40 None at all 1 1 2 �

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 � 1 2

23. Did your parents achieve their idea of the American Dream?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Yes 61% 64% 44% 4�%No �2 �0 46 49

vOL: (Does not apply) 4 � 4 � vOL: (Don’t know/refused) � � 6 5

24. How likely do you think you, personally, are to achieve the American Dream in your lifetime, or have you already reached it?

IF NECESSARY, ADD: And by American Dream, I mean, as you, personally define it.

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Have already reached it �7% 4�% 2�% 14%very likely to achieve it in my

lifetime 20 20 14 25 Somewhat likely to achieve it in

my lifetime 24 22 27 29 Not very likely 12 10 20 16 Not at all likely 5 � 11 1�

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) � 2 4 4

Thinking about another topic

25. In the last 10 years, would you say the number of Americans receiving welfare has increased or decreased, or would you say the number has remained about the same?

IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say it has increased/decreased greatly or somewhat?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Increased greatly 17% 17% 24% 29%Increased somewhat 26 26 25 27 Remained about the same 22 22 21 14 Decreased somewhat 17 18 1� 19 Decreased greatly 5 6 4 5

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 12 11 1� 7

INCREASED (NET) 4�% 4� 49 56 DECREASED (NET) 2� 24 17 2�

119

26. Which comes closer to your view [ROTATE]. Most people on welfare need the help, or most people on welfare could get by without it?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Most people on welfare genuinely need the help. 6�% 62% 60% 6�%

Most people on welfare could get by without it. 24 26 24 19

vOL: (Both) 5 5 8 9 vOL: (Neither) 2 2 2 2 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 6 5 6 7

27. In President Clinton’s first State of the Union address, he promised to, “end welfare as we know it,” and to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life. Do you agree or disagree that President Clinton ended welfare as we knew it?

IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: Is that strongly agree/disagree or just somewhat?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Strongly agree 5% 1�% 19% �0%Somewhat agree 21 21 19 21 Somewhat disagree 24 2� 27 17 Strongly disagree �0 �1 22 20

vOL: (Neither agree nor disagree) � 4 � � vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 8 7 11 9

AGREE (NET) �5% �4 �8 51

DISAGREE (NET) 54 55 49 �7

28. Which comes closer to your view?

[STATEMENT A] We need to provide more child care and better job training, so poor Americans can work their way off of welfare and out of poverty. [STATEMENT B] We spend too much on welfare already, we need to spend less. People should work, not be on welfare .

IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say you agree with that statement strongly or somewhat?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Statement A strongly 5�% 52% 5�% 61%Statement A somewhat 16 16 16 17 Statement B strongly 17 16 19 10 Statement B somewhat 8 9 4 4

vOL: (Neither) 2 2 2 2 vOL: (Both) 2 � � 4 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 1 � 2

STATEMENT A (NET) 69% 69 69 78 STATEMENT B (NET) 25 25 24 14

29. As you may know, 10 years ago, in 1996, Congress and President Clinton passed a law to change the welfare system, end the federal guarantee of public assistance for the poor, require able-bodied recipients to work after two years, cut off benefits after five years and cut back on food stamps.

On balance, do you think the changes had a positive or negative effect on America?

IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say they had a very positive/negative effect, or just a positive/negative effect?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

very positive 10% 11% 9% 17%Positive 44 47 �5 �1 Negative 18 16 24 27 very negative 5 � 9 11

vOL: (Did not change very much) 7 8 6 9 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 15 15 16 5

POSITIvE (NET) 55% 58 44 48 NEGATIvE (NET) 2� 19 �� �8

120

30. In the past decade, the number of Americans on welfare has dropped from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. Do you think this is mainly because [ROTATE] the strong economy has created lots of new jobs in the past few years, or because changes in the welfare laws have forced more people to go to work, or something else?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

The strong economy has created lots of new jobs in the past few years 22% 22% 20% 29%

Changes in the welfare laws have forced more people to go to work 56 55 64 55

vOL: (Something else SPECIFY) 2 2 2 6 vOL: (Neither) 4 4 4 � vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 10 9 9 7

31. Do you think that most people who have been removed from the welfare rolls are now better off or worse off now than they were when they were receiving welfare?

IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say they are much better/worse off or somewhat better/worse off?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Much better off 14% 14% 15% 18%Somewhat better off �9 �8 �9 �8 Somewhat worse off 14 1� 15 18 Much worse off 6 6 8 8

vOL: (No difference) 5 5 6 7 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 22 2� 18 11

BETTER OFF (NET) 5�% 52 54 56 WORSE OFF (NET) 20 19 2� 26

32. What do you think has become of those who were removed from the welfare rolls? Would you say that most are still poor, some are still poor but some are no longer poor, or most are no longer poor?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Most are still poor �4% �5% �2% �6%Some are still poor but some are

no longer poor 52 51 51 48 Most are no longer poor 6 6 8 10

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 8 8 9 6

Now I am going to read you some things the state and federal government might do. After each, please tell me if you think it is a very good idea, a good idea, a bad idea or a very bad idea.

Good idea Bad idea

(DK/CR)(DK/CR)

(Ref.)(Ref.)

NET

Very good Good

Bad idea

Very bad

Good idea

Bad idea

• Provide low-cost child care, so parents can work full-time 46% 4� 7 2 2 * 89% 9

Middle Class 44% 45 8 1 2 * 89% 9 2xPoverty 49% 42 6 2 1 - 91% 8

Welfare 51% �9 5 2 � 2 89% 7

• Reduce taxes for low-income people who work, and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit �8% 49 8 1 � 1 87% 9

Middle Class �6% 50 9 2 4 1 85% 10 2xPoverty 44% 46 5 1 � 1 90% 6

Welfare 48% 41 4 1 4 2 90% 5

• Allow welfare recipients to attend two- or four-year college programs, so people can get out of poverty, not just off of welfare �9% 45 10 � 2 1 84% 1�

Middle Class �6% 47 12 � 2 * 8�% 15 2xPoverty 44% 4� 6 � � 1 87% 9

Welfare 58% �6 2 2 1 2 94% 4

121

Now I am going to read you some things the state and federal government might do. After each, please tell me if you think it is a very good idea, a good idea, a bad idea or a very bad idea.

Good idea Bad idea

(DK/CR)(DK/CR)

(Ref.)(Ref.)

NET

Very good Good

Bad idea

Very bad

Good idea

Bad idea

• Provide training in marriage and relationship skills, couples counseling and conflict resolution �4% 44 14 4 � 1 78% 18

Middle Class �4% 42 16 5 � 1 75% 21 2xPoverty �7% 49 7 2 5 * 85% 9

Welfare 4�% 44 8 2 � 1 86% 9

• Require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing �9% �7 16 5 � * 75% 21

Middle Class �7% �6 18 5 4 * 7�% 2� 2xPoverty 49% �7 9 � 2 * 85% 12

Welfare 45% �1 14 6 2 2 76% 20

• Require welfare recipients to perform community service 28% 46 17 4 5 * 74% 21

Middle Class 29% 44 18 4 4 1 7�% 22 2xPoverty �1% 47 15 2 4 1 78% 17

Welfare 29% 45 17 6 � 1 7�% 2�

• Get government out of the business of providing welfare and let private charities, community and religious groups do the job 9% 2� 41 20 6 1 �2% 61

Middle Class 9% 2� 42 20 5 1 �2% 62 2xPoverty 10% 26 �7 18 9 * �6% 56

Welfare 10% 28 �1 2� 6 2 �9% 54

I’m going to mention some individuals and groups in public life. For each, I want you to tell me whether you think this individual or group generally shares most of your moral and ethical values, some of your moral and ethical values, or hardly any. How about...

Shares most

Shares some

Hardly any

(Shares none) (DK/Ref.)

• President George W. Bush 19% 29 22 27 4 Middle Class 19% �1 19 26 4

2xPoverty 18% 2� 29 27 � Welfare 14% 21 26 �2 7

• Poor people 17% 58 12 � 9 Middle Class 15% 60 12 4 10

2xPoverty 24% 51 1� 4 8 Welfare �8% 41 10 5 7

• People on welfare 10% 54 18 6 12 Middle Class 9% 54 19 6 12

2xPoverty 10% 5� 20 7 10 Welfare 26% 46 1� 6 9

• Donald Trump 5% 25 �2 26 12 Middle Class 6% 26 �1 26 12

2xPoverty 5% 21 �6 27 11 Welfare 6% 19 27 �� 15

122

• Fortune 500 CEOs 5% �1 27 2� 14 Middle Class 4% �5 26 22 1�

2xPoverty 5% 17 �7 25 17 Welfare 9% 2� 26 24 18

Now I would like to ask you a few final questions for statistical purposes only.

D101. What is your age? Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

18–24 6% 5% 9% 8%25–�4 1� 1� 10 21 �5–44 20 20 11 19 45–54 19 20 14 20 55–64 18 19 18 1� 65+ 20 19 �6 14

vOL: (Refused) � � 1 5

D102. What is the last grade that you completed in school?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Some grade school 1% * �% 5%Some high school 6 4 1� 21 Graduated high school 2� 19 40 �8 Technical/vocational � 2 4 � Some college 18 17 22 17 Graduated college �1 �4 15 8 Graduate professional 17 20 4 4

vOL: (Refused) 2 2 1 �

45. How often do you volunteer in your community for a not-for-profit, religious, or charitable organization?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Daily 7% 7% 9% 10%Weekly 20 22 16 17 Monthly 14 14 1� 12 Several times a year 20 21 15 11 Rarely 18 18 16 17 Never 19 17 28 28

vOL: (Refused) 2 2 2 5

46. If you were asked to use one of these five names for the economic class you belong to, which would you say you belong in? Would you say you belong in [READ LIST]

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Upper class �% �% 1% �%Upper middle class 18 2� � 7 Middle class 44 47 �� 24 Working class 25 21 40 26 Lower class 8 � 22 �6

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 � 2 5

Shares most

Shares some

Hardly any

(Shares none) (DK/Ref.)

12�

47. In terms of your job status, are you employed, unemployed but looking for work, retired, a student, or a homemaker?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Employed 51% 54% �2% �0%Unemployed but looking for work 5 4 7 19 Retired 26 27 �8 20 Student � � 2 2 Homemaker 8 8 8 10

vOL: (Disabled) 4 2 11 11

vOL:(Unemployed, but not looking for

work) 1 1 1 4 vOL: (Refused) 2 � 1 4

48. Have you ever worked a job that paid minimum wage or less?

IF YES, ASK: Do you hold that job now, or was the last time you held a minimum wage job within the last five years, five to 10 years ago, or more than 10 years ago?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Yes—Hold a minimum wage job now 4% �% 6% 11%

Yes—Have held a minimum wage job within the last 5 years 10 7 1� 22

Yes—Have held a minimum wage job 5–10 years ago 7 6 8 15

Yes—Have held a minimum wage job more than 10 years ago 52 55 46 29

No—Have never held a minimum wage job 26 26 25 19

vOL: (Refused) � � 1 5

49_PA. [IF GENERAL POP PA] Do you receive cash assistance from any of the following government programs?

Total

Welfare 2%Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TAN-if ) * Pennsylvania TANF (TAN-if ),

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -

General assistance � No 94

vOL: (Refused) 1

49_NJ. [IF GENERAL POP NJ] Do you receive cash assistance from any of the following government programs?

Total

Welfare 1%Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TAN-if ) * Work First New Jersey TANF

(TAN-if ) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -

Work First New Jersey General Assistance 1

Supportive assistance to individuals and families, the cash assistance benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare 1

No 96 vOL: (Refused) 1

124

49_NY. [IF GENERAL POP NY] Do you receive cash assistance from any of the following government programs?

Total

Welfare 1%Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TAN-if ) 1 F.A., or Family Assistance 1 Safety Net Assistance cash 1 Safety Net Assistance non-cash,

the benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare *

No 9� vOL: (Refused) �

50. [IF NO CASH ASSISTANCE] Have you ever received welfare or other cash assistance from any of those programs?

IF NECESSARY, REPEAT STATE-APPROPRIATE CHOICES FROM LIST IN q. ABOvE When was the last time you received it? Was it within the last five years, five to 10 years ago, or more than 10 years ago?

Total MidClass 2xPov

Yes—Within the last 5 years �% 2% 4%Yes—Between 5–10 years ago 2 1 � Yes—More than 10 years ago 7 5 12 No—Have never received welfare 8� 86 75

vOL: (Refused) 6 6 5

51. [IF NO CASH/WELFARE] Do you, personally, have a close relative or personal friend who is or has been on welfare?

Total MidClass 2xPov

Yes 41% �8% 4�%No 56 58 55

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 4 4 2

52. Are you registered to vote?

IF YES, ASK: When it comes to politics, do you generally think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or something else?

[IF INDEPENDENT ASK] Do you think of yourself as closer to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Democrat �5% �4% 45% 61%Independent closer to Democratic

Party 5 5 � � Independent 1� 14 10 4 Independent closer to Republican

Party 5 5 2 2 Republican 24 26 18 10

vOL: (Something else/other) 5 4 4 4 vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 14 11 18 16

D110. What is your current marital status?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Married 59% 66% �9% 27%Not married, but living with

partner � 2 4 8 Single, never married 18 15 2� �6 Divorced or separated 8 6 14 16 Widowed 9 8 19 9

vOL: (Refused) � � 1 5

125

53. [IF GENERAL POPULATION] Do you currently have health insurance?

If yes, which of the following best describes the kind of medical coverage you, or members of your household [HOUSEHOLD INCLUDES CHILDREN, SPOUSES OR PARTNERS LIvING IN THE SAME HOME] have?

READ CHOICES ACCEPT BUT DO NOT PUSH FOR MULTIPLE RESPONSES

Total MidClass 2xPov

Private insurance provided through your employer or your spouse. 57% 64% �0%

Private insurance that you purchased yourself from an insurance company. 15 15 19

Medicare 16 15 �4 Medicaid 4 1 12 A government program such as (IF NEW

YORK: Child Health Plus or Family Health Plus) (IF NEW JERSEY: N.J. Family Care) (IF PENNSYLvANIA: CHIP, Pennsylvanias Children’s Health Insurance Program) 2 1 �

vOL: (Other coverage) � 2 5 You do not currently have any type of

medical insurance. 8 5 11 vOL: (Don’t Know/refused) 4 4 2

54. How many children, below the age of 18, do you have living at home with you?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

None 61% 62% 65% 46%vOL: (RECORD ExACT NUMBER) * * 15 41 vOL: (Refused) 1 1 1 6

55. [IF GENERAL POPULATION] Please tell me, including yourself, how many family members, including adults and children, live in your home?

Please count anyone who is temporarily away, for example in the hospital, in a nursing home or away at school.

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Live alone, One person in household 18% 18% 2�% �9%

Two people in the household �� �5 �6 20 Three people in the household 16 16 12 22Four people in the household 16 17 12 10Five people in the household 8 7 9 7 Six people in the household � � 4 - Seven people in the household 1 1 1 - Eight people in the household * - 1 - Nine or more people in the

household * - 1 - vOL: (Refused) � 5 - 2

D200. And may I ask your religious background; is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or something else?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Protestant 26% 25% �4% 27%Catholic �8 �9 �� 27 Jewish 5 7 � 1 Muslim * * 1 �

vOL: (Mormon/Latter Day Saints) - - - 1 vOL: (Christian Scientist) * - * 1 vOL: (Christian) 6 6 8 15 vOL: (Spiritual) 1 * 1 1 vOL: (Other) 10 11 11 1� vOL: (None/Atheist) 5 4 4 5 vOL: (Refused) 8 8 4 9

126

D203. When it comes to attending religious services, do you attend services every week, a few times a month, about once a month, a few times a year, rarely or never?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Every week �4% �4% �7% 28%A few times a month 1� 14 12 16About once a month 6 6 6 9 A few times a year 2� 2� 22 2� Never 20 19 20 17

vOL: (Refused) 4 5 2 7

D300. And for statistical purposes only, could you please tell me your race? [IF WHITE/BLACK/OTHER] D�01. Do you consider yourself a Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish-speaking American?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Black/African-American 9% 9% 21% �9%White/Caucasian 75 79 6� 29 Hispanic/Latino 7 � 10 24 Asian-American � 2 2 2 Other (SPECIFY) � 2 4 �

vOL: (Refused) 4 4 2 4

D900. [IF GENERAL POPULATION] Just for statistical purposes, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it less than $20,000, $20,000 to $�0,000, more than $�0,000 but less than $40,000, more than $40,000 but less than $50,000, more than $50,000 but less than $75,000, more than $75,000, but less than $100,000, or more than $100,000?

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Less than $20,000 11% * 51% �7%$20,000–$�0,000 11 � �6 17 $�0,001–$40,000 9 8 8 5 $40,001–$50,000 8 9 5 7 $50,001–$75,000 1� 17 - 10 $75,001–$100,000 9 1� - - $100,001–$150,000 10 1� - 7 More than $150,000 6 8 - 2

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2� �0 - 15

D400. Region [CODE FROM SAMPLE] Total

Pennsylvania �1%New Jersey 22 New York 48

D100. Gender [BY OBSERvATION; DO NOT ASK]

Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare

Male 48% 48% �7% �0%Female 52 52 6� 70

SCREENING qUESTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME OvERSAMPLES

X1. [IF LOW INCOME] Please tell me, including yourself, how many family members, including adults and children, live in your home? Please count anyone who is temporarily away, for example in the hospital, in a nursing home or away at school.

2xPov Welfare

Live alone, One person in household 29% 25%Two people in the household 24 20 Three people in the household 15 26 Four people in the household 14 11 Five people in the household 11 8 Six people in the household 2 6 Seven people in the household 1 2 Eight people in the household 1 1 Nine or more people in the household � 2

127

X2. [IF LOW INCOME] Do you currently have health insurance? If yes, which of the following best describes the kind of medical coverage you, or any members of your household [HOUSEHOLD INCLUDES CHILDREN, SPOUSES OR PARTNERS LIvING IN THE SAME HOME] have?

[READ CHOICES ACCEPT BUT DO NOT PUSH FOR MULTIPLE RESPONSES]

2xPov Welfare

Private insurance provided through your employer or your spouse. 29% 1�%Private insurance that you purchased yourself from an insurance company. 1� 5 Medicare 25 25 Medicaid 14 �0 A government program such as (IF NEW YORK: Child Health Plus or Family Health Plus) (IF NEW JERSEY: N.J. Family Care) (IF PENNSYLvANIA: CHIP, Pennsylvania’s Children’s Health Insurance Program) 10 16

vOL: (Other coverage) 6 8 You do not currently have any type of medical insurance 1� 5

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 2

X3_PA. [IF LOW INCOME PA] Do you receive cash assistance from any of the following government programs?

Welfare

Welfare 48%Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if ) 8 Pennsylvania TANF (TAN-if ), Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families 9 General Assistance �5 No -

vOL: (Refused) -

X3_NJ. [IF LOW INCOME NJ] Do you receive case assistance from any of the following government programs?

Welfare

Welfare ��%Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if ) �� Work First New Jersey TANF (TAN-if ) Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families 8 Work First New Jersey General Assistance 8 Supportive Assistance to individuals and families, the cash

assistance benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare 17

No - vOL: (Refused) -

X3_NY. [IF LOW INCOME NY] Do you receive case assistance from any of the following government programs?

Welfare

Welfare 64%Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if ) 14 F.A., or Family Assistance 5 Safety Net Assistance cash 8 Safety Net Assistance non-cash, the benefit for individuals and

families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare 8 No -

vOL: (Refused) -

X900A. [IF ONE PERSON HH/LOW INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, and so we can ensure that we speak to everyone, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it…

2xPov Welfare

Less than $10,000 49% 62%$10,000 to 20,000 51 �5 $20,001 to �0,000 - � More than $�0,000 - -

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) - -

128

X900B. [IF TWO PERSON HH/LOW INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, and so we can ensure that we speak to everyone, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it…

2xPov Welfare

Less than $12,800 50% 67%$12,800 to $25,600 50 27 $25,601 to $�8,400 - 7 More than $�8,400 - -

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) - -

X900C. [IF THREE PERSON HH/LOW INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, and so we can ensure that we speak to everyone, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it…

2xPov Welfare

Less than $15,800 �8% 75%$15,800 to $�1,600 62 20 $�1,601 to $47,400 - 5 More than $47,400 - -

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) - -

X900D. [IF FOUR PERSON HH/LOW INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, and so we can ensure that we speak to everyone, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it…

2xPov Welfare

Less than $20,000 �7% 56%$20,000 to $40,000 6� �1 $40,001 to $60,000 - 1� More than $60,000 - -

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) - -

X900E. [IF FIvE PERSON HH/LOW INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, and so we can ensure that we speak to everyone, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it…

2xPov Welfare

Less than $2�,700 67% 58%$2�,700 to $47,400 �� 8 $47,401 to $71,100 - �� More than $71,100 - -

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) - -

X900F. [IF SIx PERSON HH/LOW INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, and so we can ensure that we speak to everyone, can you tell me what you would you say is your total annual family income before taxes? Is it…

2xPov Welfare

Less than $26,700 ��% 89%$26,700 to 55,400 67 11 $55,401 to $82,100 - - More than $82,100 - -

vOL: (Don’t know/refused) - -

164

P o l i c y R e s e a R c h i n s t i t u t e f o R t h e R e g i o nRobertson Hall, Princeton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08544(609)258-9065http://region.princeton.edu

tanf at ten:a Retrospective on Welfare Reform

Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International AffairsWWS

The Policy Research Institute for the Region was established

by Princeton University and the Woodrow Wilson School of

Public and International Affairs to bring the resources of the

University community to bear on solving the increasingly

interdependent public policy challenges facing New Jersey,

Metropolitan New York, and southeastern Pennsylvania.

With a full-time staff augmented by project coordinators and

guided by faculty associates and an advisory board, the institute

reflects an understanding that the issues facing our region

cut across not only state and municipal borders, but also across

a range of traditional academic disciplines. Our mission is to

bring together the University’s greatest resources—its faculty

and students, its research expertise, and commitment to public

service—to find solutions across boundaries that improve the

quality of civic life in our dynamic, multi-state region.

essays and commentary sponsored by the Policy Research insti-

tute for the Region at the Woodrow Wilson school of Public and

international affairs at Princeton university and the Rescue Mis-

sion of trenton.

TANF at Ten Po

lic

y Resea

Rc

h in

stit

ute

fo

R th

e Reg

ion, P

Rin

ceto

n u

niv

eR

sit

y

PrincetonUniversity

A N T H O N Y S H O R R I S , D I R e c T O R

e D I T e D b Y K e I T H S . G O l D f e l D

Pol i cy Re s eaRch in s t i tuteF o r T h e r e g i o n