How TANF time limits affect recipient families and poverty outcomes

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.

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.

A major problem is that many politicians and advocacy groups refuse to accept (or at least admit) that a lot of the reason (but certainly not all) that people end up on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is because of bad choices but they should also realize and accept that fixing said situations takes time and there are always new people that end up in these situations either through upbringing, bad luck or bad choices. There are plenty of people, of all races and colors, that need the help that the government can provide and they should not be turned away as long as they are willing to put in the work and better their lives through the receiving and use of the funds. The playing field needs to be tilted in the favor of people on hard times until they can get things straightened out (Rawls, 1985). Many speak of personal responsibility and accountability (Sheffield, 2011).

While it is easy to say that, the fact remains that even people that make mistakes should be assisted and afforded the opportunity to redeem themselves and a lot of the people that condemn single mothers on TANF have no standing or knowledge to act like they know what is really going on, keeping true with the words of Alcoff referenced elsewhere in this report. Also, not everyone that is a single mother is in that situation due to poor choices that they could have foreseen as being poor. Sometimes fathers get locked up or killed, condoms break and fathers may just skip out on their responsibility. Single mothers who are in a bad situation because of the actions or inactions of a deadbeat father or another third part should not be kicked while they're down. While many may denigrate and otherwise disparage the ideas of collectivism and compassion, it is not something that most people are party to given the fact that the social safety net has expanded much more than it has contracted, but the AFDC to TANF evolution was certainly an exception that needs to be undone, especially as it pertains to single mothers.

The term "welfare babies" has been a pejorative, often directed at minority parents/recipients to boot, and it is disgusting and stereotypical to engage in such banter. It is a true statement to point out that government programs have to be constructed in a way so that the greatest amount of people are helped and money is not wasted on a grand scale. No single configuration is going to appease and help all situations and families but not policing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program at all is just as much of a non-starter as gutting the program would be and all sides have to recognize that. However, looking at TANF through bottom-line terms only is inherently insipid and the wrong way to look at things. In a country with the wealth and resources of the United States, people being left to destitution and squalor when they truly do wish to do better is not right in any way. It is true that there is a finite amount of resources out there but the overall spending for TANF is a drop in the bucket compared to the larger United States budget. While Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are huge shares of the problem and a cause of future deficits, this is simply not true about TANF.

Conclusion

In short, programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families need to be in place as shutting down the program is a non-starter as far as that goes. There are many people that greatly need Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money and people in such dire straits need to be allowed to have use of the funds while they get educated and otherwise get on their feet. Most people that use the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds are using them appropriately and for the intended purpose and not everyone that uses the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a "welfare mom" that is doing little to nothing to escape their predicament. People that have no realistic or fact-based perspective on just how behind the curve some people are financially and resource-wise should not cast judgments on those that live in squalor every day and have all their life.