This paper presents a legislative advocacy position opposing H.R. 890, the Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013, which would prohibit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from granting Section 1115 waivers of TANF mandatory work requirements. The paper argues that HHS waivers are a lawful and necessary mechanism for testing innovative employment strategies for needy families. It outlines a coalition-building approach involving the Administration for Children and Families and university-based model programs, proposes an op-ed framing of current TANF policy as overly restrictive, describes a legislator-targeted advocacy gimmick, and concludes with a one-page brief summarizing the opposition position.
H.R. 890 is a bill to prohibit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from granting a waiver relating to compliance with the work requirements of the provisions of welfare. The most recent bill title is the Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013. This paper stands in opposition to this bill and provides a detailed basis for that position in the following discussion. In brief, the opposition to H.R. 890 is derived from the endorsement that more effective ways to meet TANF goals are and can be developed and effectively implemented, and that much of the current legislation derives from a deeply ingrained suspicion of the poor and of needy families — a suspicion this nation must outgrow in order to be truly innovative and to effectively achieve the honorable objectives of TANF.
The catalyst for this bill was an Information Memorandum issued on July 12, 2012, by HHS to the state-level welfare plan administrators regarding waiver considerations and expenditure authority under Section 1115 that address the mandatory work requirements of Section 407.1 In consideration of the prevailing labor and economic situation in the United States, HHS rightly put forth the idea that new methods and approaches for addressing the long-term unemployment issues of welfare recipients need to be explored. The memorandum language that has proven most politically inflammatory is as follows: HHS "is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully to prepare for, find, and retain employment." The underlying purpose of the waivers from TANF requirements is to improve the employment outcomes of needy families by testing innovative alternative strategies, policies, and procedures directed at accomplishing this goal.
Through the Section 1115 waiver authority, compliance waivers of Section 407 would provide states the opportunity to define work activities and work engagement differently, specify different limitation and verification procedures, and calculate participation rates accordingly. Conservatives object to these waivers on the grounds that any dilution of the mandatory employment requirements will directly result in a dilution of personal responsibility.
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act grants authority to the Secretary of HHS to "consider and approve experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects which, in the Secretary's judgment, are likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Title IV-A," under Section 402 of the Social Security Act, sufficient to enable implementation of an approved project. The purposes of Part A are central to the overarching strategies of improving outcomes for needy families, specifically calling for flexibility on the part of states in operating programs. They are listed here in full:
"(1) Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families" (Social Security Act, Title IV-A).
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is a logical agency to affiliate with those opposing this legislation, as efforts to promote entry, advancement, and retention of employment are a key concern of the organization. Moreover, ACF is focused on increasing access to jobs with sufficient advancement opportunity and earnings potential to enable needy families to establish independence from government benefits. As a federal agency, ACF may be constrained by conventional practice, which means that professional affiliations would need to engage participants with sufficient vision, innovative capacity, and political clout to circumvent or overcome the agency's institutional limitations.
Utilizing federally funded grants, universities regularly develop model programs in areas such as education and healthcare. Naysayers often argue against such programs by citing established program failures as evidence against innovative approaches — a position that is neither rational nor logical, and that typically lacks empirical support. For example, programs that train community healthcare workers have proven to be remarkably effective in settings where conventional healthcare cannot gain a foothold. These initiatives rely on the layers of medical providers building confidence in native community healthcare workers — a hurdle that medical policymakers and providers had to overcome in order to establish and implement demonstration projects.
"TANF rules criticized as rigid and outdated"
"Box-based mailer gimmick targeting legislators"
"Summary brief opposing H.R. 890 and final argument"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.