Albuquerque Journal

Welfare work regulation­s don’t work

State loopholes can lower participan­t rates, make more people idle than should be

- BY RACHEL SHEFFIELD THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION Rachel Sheffield is a Policy Analyst in the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunit­y at The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachuse­tts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org. Informati

It’s been 20 years now since the 1996 welfare reform, a rare bipartisan triumph, was signed into law. Critics predicted gloom and doom, but it soon proved to be a success. Why?

Simply put, it was because of the law’s work requiremen­ts. But how those work requiremen­ts, well, worked is less well understood — and that leaves us poorly prepared to maintain and build on that reform to help more Americans achieve self-sufficienc­y.

The ‘96 reform inserted work requiremen­ts for able-bodied adults into one of the largest cash-assistance welfare programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC was transforme­d into Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and for the first time, ablebodied adult welfare recipients were required to work or prepare for work in exchange for receiving benefits.

The welfare-reform law required that 50 percent of work-eligible TANF recipients work or perform some type of work preparatio­n, such as job training, job search, or community service. Between 1996 and 2002, the number of families on welfare dropped from 4.3 million to about 2 million. Today, about 1.6 million families are receiving TANF.

Initially, welfare reform was successful. Employment rates among lowincome households increased, and child poverty plummeted. Today, however, most states’ TANF work programs are at best mediocre.

The work rate for TANF recipients is low. On average, only 33.5 percent of adults in TANF fulfilled the work requiremen­t in fiscal year 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. This means that only one-third of adults receiving TANF engage in work or work preparatio­n that meets the work standard of between 20 to 35 hours per week, depending on the age of children and number of parents in the household.

TANF’s rolls are filled with many adults who are doing little if any work at all. In FY 2013, 56 percent of TANF recipients were completely idle, performing zero hours of work or work preparatio­n in an average month.

Missouri ranked highest in “idleness” with 77 percent of its workeligib­le TANF caseload performing zero hours of work or work preparatio­n per month. A few states are doing well in engaging their TANF recipients: Idaho (only 6 percent of work-eligible TANF recipients idle in a given month); Illinois (10 percent); Maine (16 percent); and Wyoming (18 percent).

One of the reasons why so many states have low work participat­ion is loopholes in the law. States can lower their work participat­ion rate requiremen­t by contributi­ng extra state funds to TANF or by simply counting money spent by other organizati­ons on lowincome families rather than actually requiring people to work or prepare for work. Some states have artificial­ly boosted the number of working TANF recipients by providing TANF checks to working individual­s on other welfare programs.

The biggest problem, however, is that the original 50 percent work participat­ion rate is simply too low: 50 percent of TANF recipients can be doing no work at all, and a state can fulfill its work requiremen­t. The main reason why the work rate was set at 50 percent was pressure from governors at the time the law was passed; for the most part, they sought to keep required work participat­ion as low as possible.

The goal of welfare should be to promote self-sufficienc­y for able-bodied adults, and work requiremen­ts play a critical role in achieving that aim. A work requiremen­t establishe­s reciprocit­y between the individual who receives assistance and the taxpayers who provide it. Most important, a work requiremen­t makes assistance available to those who need it while ensuring that individual­s are encouraged toward self-sufficienc­y.

Today’s policymake­rs have been idle for too long. They should build on the ‘96 law by insisting on more of what made it a success in the first place: work.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States