Temporary Assistance for Needy Families time limits

TANF Time Limits

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF for short, is one of the more controversial and maligned or one of the most lauded and touted social safety net programs in the United States. Whether it is praised or denigrated depends a lot on who is doing the talking and what their motivations are. TANF has turned in a political football on a scale that dovetails quite nicely with the words of Rawls (1985) when it was noted in an essay of that author that there are sometimes periods (some of them quite long in duration) that are bereft and full of political divisiveness and vitriol (Rawls, 1985).

History of TANF & its Predecessor

A bulk of the TANF program is to provide cash-based payments to needy families who are living in destitution or are otherwise in stark financial peril and how those funds are allocated, to who, for how long and in what amounts is the major issue at hand. This report will focus on the time horizon constraints place on individual recipients and how these limits can be very arbitrary and unfair at times. Regardless, the current benefit amounts and structures are based on the number of people in the household that are eligible, income that is currently available to the household members, allowable work and childcare expenses and other relevant factors like cost of living (TANF, 2013).

TANF is not meant strictly as a means to remove people from poverty but it certainly gets people out of poverty quicker than they could if they did not have the money and it also prevents the depths to which people fall financially, hence the term "social safety net." The amount of benefits may or may not be enough to get by and survive depending on the geography and situation involved. Taxpayers do not suffer because of the funding level of TANF being as low as it is and it is clear, especially with single mothers, that the benefits can be lacking given the cost of education, childcare and transportation in some areas of the country. Areas like California and much of the Northeast, where cost of living is hire, are full of people where TANF amounts do not go nearly as far as they would in areas like Kansas or Texas, where cost of living is lower. The system is not remotely perfect and stands to be perfected and honed in many ways. Very few people are suggesting a full gutting of the system but there are stark differences in views as to how much or how little total outlays should be and who exactly should get them, even as it pertains to the subject of single mothers (Burns, 2010).

TANF actually had a precursor in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which was actually part of the Social Security Act in the 1930's. Both TANF and AFDC were meant to be part of the "social safety net" whereby people in dire financial straits would be able to receive cash assistance to help meet their needs and pay their fixed bills until they could get employed or otherwise fend for themselves. The AFDC program was sunset in 1997 in favor of the TANF program that replaced it. This changeover is often referred to as in political vernacular as "welfare reform" and the aforementioned cash benefits are often referred to as "welfare." The "welfare reform" package was the result of a triangulation between Democrat President Bill Clinton and a Congress that was largely controlled by Republicans. Many hold that this legislation was a pet project of Republicans and Bill Clinton acquiesced, after prior vetoing the bill for TANF twice, to signing the bill as a way to "reach across the aisle" to Republicans (Payne, 2012). The pattern of Republicans focusing on bottom-line expenditures, perhaps to excess a lot of the time, is nothing new (Spitzer, 2012).

There are four major guidelines that pertain to TANF recipients. First, people receiving TANF are supposed to get a job as soon as they can but must do so within two years of first receiving benefits. There are sometimes exceptions provided to this but this is rare. Single parents must work 30 hours a week. Failure to comply with this guideline can lead to a reduction in benefits or even expulsion from the program. Fourth, and last, states are responsible for enforcement and their funding can be reduced if they do not enforce compliance with the directives above (TANF, 2013).

There has been much action and debate as it pertains to the time limits that should be allowed for in terms of how long a person on the TANF program can reap benefits and the conditions they must meet while they do so. This report will explain what the real issue is, policy alternatives that may work in its place, an introduction to the overall issue at hand, situate the policy issue within a historical context, will include an extensive literature review of the aforementioned policy alternatives (as cited and discussed throughout the report and recommendations) will be explained in the context of projections and the criteria that led to the same. Finally, some recommendations will be offered for the TANF landscape by the author of this report.

The Issue

Many advocates that are curious and vigilant about the social safety net in the United States are quick to point out that as recently as the 1930's, there was little to nothing in terms of financial safety nets for United States citizens in terms of retirement security and short-term job and other financial challenges. Since that point, many laws have been enacted to counteract that dynamic being what it is including the Social Security Act, Medicare, unemployment assistance and short-term financial support mechanisms such as Women with Infant Children (WIC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, 2013)(SSA, 2013)(WIC, 2013).

Many say the benefits of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are numerous and that it is the "right thing to do" but the support for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families framework is by no means unanimous. The issue that some people push, whether it is borne ignorance or supposed informed opinion, is that some people ostensibly make it a point to take advantage of every last dollar that they can extract from the United States in the form of welfare. This report shall focus mostly on the plight of single mothers who are receiving TANF and how the current time constraints for TANF are not fair or reasonable when applied against single mothers who lack the means to get educated and/or find a job that will allow them to extricate themselves from poverty (Burns, 2010).

For example, some may suggest that two years is the most that a single mother. However, while some career colleges and other short-length institutions of learning may allow for this to be sufficient, it is by no means recognizing of how long it takes to get a real college degree. For example, an associate's degree is 2 years by itself. Also missed is that a high school diploma is a bare minimum and many TANF single and/or poor mothers do not even have that in their column. The author of this report would use this as just one example of why setting a hard and fast deadline before benefits are to be exhausted for a given single mother and thus no longer available is simplistic, unfair and is obscenely ignorant of the tough road these poor mothers face to be self-sufficient and able to stay out of the social welfare system (Burns, 2010).

The exact same back-and-forth happens all the time relative to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and any other program like it. The argument of critics of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are quick to suggest that people on the program are actively and intentionally abusing it. Prior to the welfare reform of the 1990's in which Congress and then-President Bill Clinton signed reforms into the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families framework, there were accusations of people having children, often referred to as "welfare babies," in the name of getting more Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. Some states are pushing drug tetss for TANF recipients (Sulzberger, 2010) However, a criticism that is levied against that line of thought, and as noted in the proposal for this research, is that a lot of the talking heads and politicians that are casting aspersions towards single/working mothers have no realistic perspective as to what single mothers and other people in dire financial straits face as far as getting out of said problems and staying out of said problems Burns, 2010)(Sheely, 2012).

Policy Alternatives

As for policy alternatives, there is no great need to re-invent the wheel. The existing program just needs to be refined and re-crafted a bit but at the same time not cutting people off at the knees that truly deserve and need assistance. Before getting into those recommendations, the author of this report would again consult Rawls and point to the four stage sequence that leads to justice as it relates the crafting and codification of legislation. Rawls stipulated that that very basic principles of justice must be set, the constitution to codify these guidelines must be put in place, laws will then be enacted based on this constitution and then judges/administrators will then implement these laws as enacted by duly elected Congress-people and signed into law by the President (Rawls, 1985).

A lot of that framework is already in place in the United States but some of the execution and interpretations that are being done relative to TANF and other simply programs sometimes border on the atrocious. However, as it relates to needy mothers being abused by the system, there is entirely too much top-down and simply ignorant rules being made. It is noble to make sure that rules and guidelines are easy to follow and as basic as possible but there is such a thing as making things too simple and too basic in a way that leads to people being cutoff when they should not be under the laws of ethics and morality (Rawls, 1985)

In a historical context, it is clear that absence of programs like unemployment insurance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families was a blight on the history of the United States and it's unthinkable in a more modern context NOT to have programs like Social Security, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and unemployment insurance. While it is not unreasonable to expect TANF and other programs to allocate and spend their money wisely, it is unconscionable to cut off needy mothers because when years of damage are not undone in less than the usual two-year limit for TANF benefits (Burns, 2010).

The institutions that are involved with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are mostly federal in nature but many state and local jurisdictions are in play as well. Stakeholders include the people that need the benefits, the taxpayers that are funding said benefits and the politicians that ostensibly have an interest in the program "working," or at least does not subject them to vitriol from people that are unhappy about how the program is run even if the complaints are based on deficient logic and equity theory for all the parties involved including the taxpayers (CDSS, 2013). Even so, many of the concerns voiced by advocacy groups are genuine and real and the "veil of ignorance" mentioned in the proposal prior to this report should be attacked head on if and when it reveals itself (Vermeule, 2001).

Author Linda Alcoff also made a very salient point when she said that speaking for others often means speaking "for" others and when there is a clear disconnect between the true thoughts and opinions of a mother or other person affected by TANF cutoffs and what is coming out of the mouth of a politician who says they represent said perspective, it rings hollow to the people that know they are being marginalized and discarded through ignorant, if not arrogant, perspectives (Alcoff, 1992).

There is a limit to how far the enforcement can go because if a person is getting a regular paycheck, even if it's smaller, there is no limitation (nor should there be) as to where they can spend THAT money, but this is where the education and skills creation comes in. In short, there needs to be a balance between going too cheap and cutting off people before they are ready and educating them as to how to prevent the vicious cycles of poverty and desperation. There needs to be a more holistic and heart-filled approach and a lot less bureaucracy and ignorant people crafting rules and public policy (Burns, 2010).

Contrary to the advice of many, gutting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a bad idea but something that can and should be done is condensing programs that clearly overlap. Rather than taking the simplistic and mindless approach of just looking at bottom-line expenditures and cost to the taxpayers, there also needs to be some consultation the single mother recipients themselves, social welfare/service workers, and so forth because these are the folks that are on the "front line" either through direct witnessing of what is going on and/or the people are themselves going through it. These front line people should not be unapologetically and blindly treated like taxpayer money gluttons. This is not to say that there doesn't need to be some sort of analysis or forethought paid to what they have to say. However, treating single mothers receiving TANF money like leeches on the government dole or those that enable the same is not helpful or fair and can sometimes border on sexist (Kaufman & Nelson, 2012)

One tactic that can keep expenditures lower while at the same time helping all those that really need it is to cut down on duplicate programs and expenditures that do much the same thing. For example, many of the people on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families would be a lot of the same people that are on Women and Infant Children (WIC). It begs the question why there is (or must be) two different programs that seem to address the same general group of people. WIC and other programs that clearly overlap with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families should be melded into the same program so that money and resources are administered from a single source. This will prevent waste at the governmental level as well as abuse from recipients that use all of the programs at the same time. This is clearly an example where government bureaucracy should be pared down and the programs made more efficient and well-running and this can be done without cutting off single mothers who really do need TANF money (Burns, 2010)(Toft, Hollister & Martin, 2013).

Recommendations

It is clear that many people actively need and require Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money and those people should not be forsaken. Treating welfare recipients like second-class citizens just enables arrogant and heartless views that help no one. It is true that TANF is funded by the largesse of the United States and its taxpayers but the Difference Principle, as forwarded by Rawls, stipulates that this is as it should be as the people that are disadvantaged should have the deck stacked in their favor for as long as is needed to allow them to have a good life without the government giving them a healthy nudge in the right direction both monetarily and in other ways. Rawls' principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity is not realized when the people that are disadvantaged are not in public office and the people that are act like they speak for the downtrodden when they either do not know better or otherwise care about the people they claim to advocate for (Rawls, 1985).

As for single mothers and college money, the colleges that can be used are wide and varied and there are plenty of funds in other programs for college attendance and the loans extended for said college are usually not credit-based and the interest rates are very low. There is a ton of overlap in governmental programs and just because a person is poor does not mean that they should be getting college course money free. Perhaps an exception can be made for single mothers in very tough situations but if a person is truly interested and motivated to get educated, then they should be using the customary programs. However, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or some other regular program perhaps can be used to provide child care so that the person can attend college (Burns, 2010).

Even so, the ability to attend college online in whole or in part may negate the need for that in the first place. In short, people that are doomsday-esque and say that such suggests are foolish need to be honest and open about what they are really saying. Even with all of the above, the TANF cutoffs need to be relaxed if a single parent is trying to better themselves and they truly need extra funds for daycare or other noble expenses. These are the kind of people that will turn into productive and fruitful members of society and a little money up front will lead to a healthy taxpayer with a strong family unit in the near future (Wilson, 2011)(Burns, 2010).

Any Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipient needs to be educated about the best ways to get ahead in life in general including parenting classes, college classes, and being responsible with money and general behavior and this truly takes time which is why TANF time limits should be looked at very intensely. Unless new and unique situations are kicking the proverbial can down the road (unlikely, but possible), then the time the person is on the benefits should be fleeting and not perpetual in nature but it should be allowed to be as long as it needs to be based on the specific situation at hand. A hard and fast time limit that applies to all family and monetary situations is less than wise and it hits single mothers on TANF the hardest (Wilson, 2011).

If there is a major recommendation that should be drawn from this report, it is that TANF time limits should be based on the individual case at hand. Treating a mother that has a high school diploma the say way as another mother that has no diploma is exceedingly unwise. Treating an under-educated mother with three children the same way as a woman with one child is also just silly. The depth and breadth of the benefits at hand should be based on general guidelines based on the educational level, cost of living and number of children involved but there should never be an across-the-board hard cap on how long someone should be on benefits. Mothers on TANF that have the intelligence, motivation and means to attain college-level degrees should be given extra time as well as the returns on such an investment will be much greater than a person that just gets career college training or just a GED/high school diploma.