September 7, 2004, Update: Talking Points on TANF for this Election Season

Given everything else that Congress has to deal with before the elections (budget, appropriations, homeland security, etc.), it seems unlikely that there will be any definitive action on TANF this year. The most likely scenario is that there will be another six month extension of the current program (through next March), although it is possible there will be a Lame Duck session of Congress after the elections where TANF might (but probably won't) be considered.

If action is postponed until 2005, there may be an additional problem to face. The growth of the federal deficit may very well lead to pressure to cut all social programs, including the funding for TANF. Now would be a good time to start telling your legislators that the current level of funding must be maintained if TANF is to achieve its goals even minimally. Taking a few billion dollars from TANF's current annual funding of $16.5 billion would cripple the program without making a meaningful contribution to deficit reduction.

You might also want to raise the issue of continued TANF funding, along with other concerns about TANF, with candidates for Congress and the White House through letters and questions at candidate public appearances.

Below are talking points on TANF, citing studies that support the positions of the religious community. Please use these in any way that would be helpful to you.

TALKING POINTS IN SUPPORT OF FAITH COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES ON TANF REAUTHORIZATION

The faith community supports reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) that would:

* PROVIDE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE

The absence of child care is one of the primary reasons that mothers either cannot go to work or have to leave jobs. Over 20 states have waiting lists of eligible low-income working families who do not have child care subsidies because the states have no more resources available. Some states have no waiting lists only because they have stopped taking applications for assistance. Others restrict eligibility by limiting assistance to only the very poorest families, so that those who get jobs with decent salaries lose eligibility for child care subsidies. In addition, many states have increased co-payments for child care charged to recipients, making the cost unmanageable, while others have reduced the rates paid to caregivers, which forces them out of the business. (Children’s Defense Fund and the National Women’s Law Center)

The Administration claims that additional money is not needed for child care because states have surplus TANF funds which they can use for that purpose because welfare caseloads have fallen sharply while the block grant for TANF has not been reduced. The fact is that, after dropping significantly between 1996 and 2000, the welfare rolls in over half of the states began to grow again in 2001, as the economy stagnated and jobs began to disappear. State TANF surpluses are gone in many states, and over 30 states have cut the work-enabling programs supported with those funds. (Center on Law and Social Policy, “Myths about the Adequacy of Current Child Care Funding” by Jennifer Mezey, March 29, 2004, available at www.clasp.org).

* EXPAND EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Current TANF law allows up to 30% of program participants to count time spent in vocational education and training as complying with the work requirement for up to 12 months. The House-passed TANF bill would reduce this to three months in each 24, while the Senate Finance Committee bill would retain the current 12-month provision and allow up to 10% of a state’s caseload to continue in vocational education beyond 12 months. Many vocational education programs, including associate degrees, require 24 months for completion.

U.S. Census data from 1999 shows that women with associate degrees earn more than double the salaries of women without high school diplomas. Clearly, earned income is linked to educational attainment. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 42% of all new jobs created between 2000 and 2010 will require postsecondary education (up from 29% of all jobs in 2000). Yet the growth in workers with postsecondary education during that period will be only about 19%. Only one in six TANF recipients has any postsecondary education.

People with college educations or with substantial postsecondary education find jobs more easily, keep them longer, earn more, lose their employment less often, and are unemployed for shorter periods of time than those who have not finished high school. If heads of TANF families are expected to leave welfare and support their families through work, they must have an opportunity to acquire the education and skill training that will enable them to earn adequate wages and make a contribution to society. (CLASP, “Why Congress Should Expand, Not Cut, Access to Long-Term Training in TANF” by Julie Strawn, February 2004).

* MAINTAIN THE CURRENT WORK REQUIREMENT

Current TANF law requires parents of children under age six to work 20 hours a week and those with older children to work 30 hours a week. The House-passed bill would increase the work requirement to 40 hours for all parents, while the Senate Finance Committee bill would raise it to 24 hours for parents of preschoolers and 34 for those with older children.

A major concern about increasing work hours stems from the shortage of child care, especially for infants and toddlers. The House bill does not add enough funding even to keep pace with current need. The Senate bill would increase funding sufficiently to cover the increased work requirement for the current caseload but would not provide for any additional child care services for TANF recipients newly entering the labor force or for any other equally low-income workers.

Another problem is finding ways to expand jobs from 20 to 24 or 30 to 34 hours. If employers are not willing to pay for more hours of work, recipients will be forced to find new jobs in a very tight labor market. Finally, there is no reason to believe that TANF workers who could work more than the current 20 or 30 hours are choosing to work less. They would obviously welcome additional income. If their hours are limited now to less than fulltime, it is probably because either their employers will only pay for part-time work (thus avoiding the cost of benefits) or their family situation requires that they not work more, probably because of caregiving responsibilities.

* FLEXIBILITY FOR STATES TO EXTEND TIME LIMITS FOR FAMILIES FACING SEVERE BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT

The 2002 National Survey of America’s Families shows that, six years after enactment of the TANF law, about half of all adult recipients who have received benefits for two years or more face multiple barriers to employment. Only 14% of those with multiple barriers were working in 2002, compared to 51% of those with no barriers.

Among barriers studied were several related to work readiness (poor mental or physical health, education less than high school, lack of recent work experience, and lack of English-language proficiency). Two others (having a child less than one year and having a handicapped child) were also included. Other barriers of concern to the religious community include lack of child care for preschool children and those whose parent works at night, lack of before- and after-school care, absence of employment opportunities in the community, mental and physical abuse, substance abuse, and care giving responsibilities for aged or handicapped relatives.

States can now waive time limits on eligibility for TANF benefits for a small number of families who cannot work because of multiple barriers. The religious community supports giving states increased flexibility to waive time limits for multiple barrier families and for those who need more time to complete education and training programs. (Brookings Institution, Work and Barriers to Work among Welfare Recipients in 2002.)

* ENABLING FAMILIES TO RECEIVE MORE OF THE FUNDS COLLECTED THROUGH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Current law requires families receiving TANF to cooperate with states by providing information about the fathers of recipient children so that they can be made to contribute to the support of their families. Mothers have to sign over to the state the right to funds secured from noncustodial parents, and the states keep most of the funds, sharing them with the federal government to offset welfare costs.

The religious community contends that low-income families, not the government, should benefit from child support collections. Fathers are more likely to pay child support if they know it is going to their children and also more likely to be involved in their children’s lives if they help to support them. Families that receive child support have increased income and therefore leave welfare sooner and are more likely not to return to TANF (CLASP. Vicki Turetsky, May 13, 2004).

* THE RESTORATION OF BENEFITS FOR IMMIGRANTS

The TANF law enacted in 1996 deprived legal immigrants of federal welfare benefits for their first five years of residence in the U.S. Subsequent congressional action reinstated their eligibility for food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (federal aid for the aged, blind and disabled). Medicaid and TANF benefits, however, are still denied nearly all legal immigrants in their first five years.

The religious community contends that the common good would be served by reinstating TANF and Medicaid benefits for immigrants without regard to length of residency. Many legal immigrant adults meet the requirements for TANF participation by having jobs and paying taxes. These hard-working people often are able to get only such low-wage jobs that they are still poor enough to qualify for TANF and Medicaid. Protecting the health of these families and enabling them to achieve a stable, though minimal, income would allow them to join the economic mainstream, participate in education and training, and become part of the workforce of the future. It is also a fact that immigrant families are more likely than other families receiving TANF to include married couples and grandparents.

Click here for more information on TANF