TANF at Ten: P International Affairs at Princeton University and the Rescue Mis- Olicy a Retrospective on Welfare Reform

PrincetonUniversity TANF at Ten at TANF

Essays and commentary sponsored by the Policy Research Insti-

tute for the Region at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and

TANF at Ten: P International Affairs at Princeton University and the Rescue Mis- olicy A Retrospective on Welfare Reform

sion of Trenton. R esea r The Policy Research Institute for the Region was established ch

by Princeton University and the Woodrow Wilson School of nstitute Public and International Affairs to bring the resources of the University community to bear on solving the increasingly

interdependent public policy challenges facing New Jersey, fo r

Metropolitan New York, and southeastern Pennsylvania. the

With a full-time staff augmented by project coordinators and R

guided by faculty associates and an advisory board, the institute egion reflects an understanding that the issues facing our region ,

cut across not only state and municipal borders, but also across P o l i c y e s e a r c h n s t i t u t e r P R I a range of traditional academic disciplines. Our mission is to inceton F o r T h e R e g i o n bring together the University’s greatest resources—its faculty and students, its research expertise, and commitment to public

service—to find solutions across boundaries that improve the nive A nthony S horris , D ir e c tor quality of civic life in our dynamic, multi-state region. r

sity e D I T e d b y K e ith S . G o l d f e l d

P o l i c y R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e f o r the Region Robertson Hall, Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 WWS Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs (609)258-9065 http://region.princeton.edu 164 TANF at 10: A Retrospective on Welfare Reform

Keith S. Goldfeld, Editor

A collection of essays and commentary sponsored by the Policy Research Institute for the Region at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, and the Rescue Mission of Trenton. Copyright © 2007 by The Trustees of Princeton University. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, reposted, distributed, republished, sold, modified, stored in a document management system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of Princeton University.

The Policy Research Institute for the Region was established by Princeton University and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs to bring the resources of the University community to bear on solving the increasingly interdependent public policy challenges facing New Jersey, Metropolitan New York, and southeastern Pennsylvania.

The Policy Research Institute for the Region Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University Robertson Hall Princeton, NJ 08544

Cover design by Leslie Goldman Printed by PrintMedia Communications, Anaheim, CA Produced by the Office of Communications, Princeton University

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of Princeton University or its Policy Research Institute for the Region. Contents

Preface 1 Introduction 5 Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: 9 The World of Welfare from the Perspective of 2006 Peter Edelman An Examination of the First 10 Years Under TANF in Three States: 19 The Experiences of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania Robert G. Wood and Justin Wheeler Ten More Years: The Future of Welfare Reform 47 Olivia Golden Attitudes Toward Poverty and Welfare in New Jersey, 67 New York, and Pennsylvania Global Strategy Group, LLC Appendices Appendix A 81 Keynote Address: Charles B. Rangel Closing Remarks: Mary Gay Abbott-Young Appendix B 91 Summaries of Panel Discussions Appendix C 101 Conference Agenda Participant Biographies Appendix D 115 Detailed Survey Results Publications from the Policy Research Institute for the Region

Beyond Post-9/11: The Future of the Making Every Vote Count: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Federal Election Legislation in the States Edited by Keith S. Goldfeld Edited by Andrew Rachlin

States and Stem Cells: The Policy and Economic Implications of State-Funded Stem Cell Research Edited by Aaron D. Levine

Justice and Safety in America’s Immigrant Communities Edited by Martha King

The Race for Space: The Politics and Economics of State Open Space Programs Edited by Keith S. Goldfeld

From Campaigning to Governing: Leadership in Transition Edited by Udai Tambar and Andrew Rachlin

Consent and Its Discontents: Policy Issues In Consent Decrees Edited by Andrew Rachlin

The Politics of Design: Competitions for Public Projects Edited by Catherine Malmberg

New Downtowns: The Future Of Urban Centers Edited by Jonathan R. Oakman Preface

Anyone who has marked an anniversary knows that these com- memorations have value only insofar as they force us to take some stock of where we’ve come from, where we are, and where we hope to go. The 10th anniversary of welfare reform was the focus of a recent event hosted by the Policy Research Institute for the Region in conjunction with the Rescue Mission of Trenton. This event was really just a chance for us to force a conversation about something very important to the meaning of America today: how it treats the most vulnerable of its citizens, the poor left behind by the giant roaring engine of the free market that has created the wealthiest society the world has ever known. It is a conversation with many parts and with many perspectives, reflecting the Institute we have built here at Princeton.

To understand the life of the poor in America today is of course impossible—it is as variegated as the lives of the rich and the vast middle class—but we can understand a little better the effects the choices we have made as a society about to how we treat the poor among us. Over the past decade or so, we have made profound changes in how we deal with America’s poor. Some of those changes were the product of the national welfare reform of 1996 that led to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), others the results of actions taken by the 50 states in response to that law, and many others the product of the shifting nature of the increasingly global American economy.

The aim of our conference was to begin to get our arms around the effect of these simultaneous changes. In order to understand what has been happening in this country, and in particular around our region, we applied a host of tools. The Woodrow Wilson School is built around the notion of creating sound policy using the academic

disciplines of economics, sociology, and political science—and so our conference was organized to include some of the nation’s leading scholars in each of these fields. We were able to bring together researchers and policy makers who were closely involved with creating and evaluating the TANF legislation and its long lasting effects on the lives of millions of welfare recipients.

More importantly, I also believe that any discussion about welfare policy must begin and end with the real lives of real people—complicated, heart-breaking, inspiring, and whatever else, real. We called upon a young filmmaker, Ted Alcorn of the Maurice Kanbar Institute of Film and Television at New York University, and paired him with a leading writer in the field—journalist and professor at The Journal- ism School of Columbia University, my friend LynNell Hancock—to help use the tools of film and journalism to ground the conference, to make sure we heard the voices and saw the faces of the people we were talking about. The video can be seen on our website at http://region.princeton.edu, and a copy is included with this volume.

By partnering with the Rescue Mission of Trenton, we ensured that more of those real voices would be heard. Universities like Princeton usually partner for big events with other research institutions, sometimes with foundations or even government agencies, but in this case we understood that the best way to ensure we stay grounded in the real world of poverty and the lives of the poor was to work with a direct service provider in one of the most troubled cities in our region.

We also wanted to hear from the broader public, and so we sought out one of the country’s a leading public opinion research firms to perform a unique piece of research, testing perceptions of poverty and welfare among those on welfare, the near-poor and the middle class in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The results are included in this publication.

Finally, we asked one of the nation’s leading political figures, Congressman Charles B. Rangel, Representative of New York’s 15th Congressional District, to offer us a political perspective from the national level. Congressman Rangel is about to assume the position

of chair for the United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, which has full charge of this issue in the Con- gress. His keynote address completed a cycle of perspectives that began with individuals and ended with the national policy-makers.

I hope that the perspectives of these additional voices, which are all reflected in this publication, have enriched the insightful papers that formed the basis for the conference and this book.

On a more personal note, I’d like to add that this conference and publication, just like my own career working in government and public policy, were guided by my father’s 40 years of struggle to use words as weapons for social justice. These words are reflected through more than a dozen books and hundreds of articles, everyone one of which echoes his fierce belief in our potential for decency.

This conference and publication also bear the influence of my wife Maria who, as a journalist and author, has spent her career helping me and many others understand how social justice must be grounded in that most profound source of humanity, love for our families, and love for those in pain. From both my father and my wife I have learned, and continue to learn, that all that matters come down to those two simple words—love and justice.

With that, I encourage you to explore these pages, so that we continue to transform this tenth anniversary of TANF into a more meaningful, ongoing discussion about how best to wrestle with the challenges of poverty and welfare in the years to come.

Anthony Shorris Director Policy Research Institute for the Region Princeton University

Introduction

2.0 million in 2003. That decline is the primary Keith S. Goldfeld focus of the current debate. What caused Policy Research Institute for the this drop? The improving economy and the Region, Princeton University reconfigured welfare program that encouraged Temporary Assistance for Needy Families people to find work each played a role, though (TANF), the federal welfare program created how much can be attributed to each factor is by the Personal Responsibility and Work not clear. Further complicating the picture is Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 just that the trend has not been consistent over marked its 10th anniversary. At the time the the first 10 years of TANF. Between 1996 and act was signed into law by President Clinton, 2001, the caseloads dropped 52 percent. Since he hailed it as a big step forward to “end wel- then, there has been little change. Under- fare as we know it.” TANF replaced traditional standing what caused the declines and why it funding streams with more flexible state-level has stopped will help us think about changing block grants, added work requirements and policies in the future. established time limits. At the time, it was Who has benefited from welfare reform clear that this new funding mechanism would and who hasn’t? The population on public dramatically change the way public assistance assistance in 1996 was hardly homogenous. is provided in this country. It was less clear Some people were ready to work and the what those changes might be, and how they push provided by TANF got them out into the would affect the lives of millions who relied workforce. Others were far from ready, either on public assistance. Indeed, the true goals of because they lacked even the most basic skills, welfare reform and what might constitute a were weighed down by addiction or mental successful program were still hotly debated illness, or were simply overwhelmed by the even as states started to implement the new burdens of poverty. Many from this harder-to- federal law. serve population may no longer be on public Today, after 10 years, many of those questions assistance, but that does not mean they are have still not been resolved. The most striking better off. The effects of TANF, then, likely had effect of TANF was the swift decline in the different impacts on different groups. Again, number of families nationwide receiving cash understanding this will help us shape policy. assistance, from 4.4 million families in 1996 to

And most important, is reducing the welfare vision created by Robert Kennedy and conser- caseload the same as reducing poverty? Most vatives. Kennedy argued that since welfare was would agree that it is not. Many people were degrading to everyone involved—recipients required to leave public assistance and seek a and providers alike—it should be replaced job. Whether that job is enough to pull some- by a system that could address the real need, one out of poverty depends on the wages that which is “decent, dignified jobs for all.” The job pays, but it also depends on a lot of things conservatives, who blamed welfare for a beyond that—their access to child care, health wide range of social ills, simply wanted to end care, housing support, and other public assis- welfare, period. The compromise in the 1990s tance programs like the Earned Income Tax of these two visions was TANF. Edelman, one Credit (EITC) or Food Stamps. And for those of the vocal opponents of the reforms before were not able to find a job, or were unable to they were enacted, proposes a framework hold onto a stable job, it is quite unlikely they for evaluating the first 10 years that suggests have been able to escape poverty. So, as we that the picture is a complicated one, and think about the first 10 years of TANF, and much that was debated 10 years ago is still the next 10 years, we must continue to ask unresolved. ourselves just what we expect to accomplish by reforming welfare. Robert Woods and Justin Wheeler of Mathe- matica are long-time students of the state-level These questions, and many others, were the experience with TANF. They provide us with focus of a recent conference organized by numbers and, more importantly, with descrip- The Policy Research Institute for the Region tions of policies of the three states in our to commemorate the 10th anniversary of immediate region—New Jersey, New York, welfare reform. As part of this conference, and Pennsylvania. Their paper underscores the Institute commissioned a set of papers the notion raised by Edelman that one of the from leading researchers and policy makers to stories of TANF is that it is really 51 different tackle some of these questions, questions that stories, one for each state. are unlikely to be resolved but still need to be aired. This book, then, documents at least a And Olivia Golden, also a veteran of the Clin- piece of the current debate, a debate that will ton Administration, and now a researcher at not end even as TANF embarks on its next the Urban Institute, was asked to consider the 10 years. future of TANF. Her paper looks forward by trying to glean some key positive lessons from Peter Edelman, Professor of Law at George- the first 10 years of TANF—most important town University who worked in the Clinton are public programs that support work—as well Administration under Donna Shalala at the as to acknowledge some of the most intractable Department of Health and Human Services, challenges—notably families who are not work- argues that welfare reform in the 1990s ing as well as low-income working families. The emanated from the ongoing battle between a key to making progress in the future, taking up

a point also raised by Edelman, is to stop think- majority of the population is that we have a ing about TANF, but to start thinking about moral obligation to help the poor. But, at the poverty. As they both make clear, the two are same time, people believe there is a path to by no means the same thing. self-reliance and getting ahead for those who work hard, and ultimately the best social This book includes results from a survey of program is a job. It is this ambivalence about people who live in the three-state region— how, and how much, to help the poor that gets New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania—that reflected in our government policies. The was conducted in order to gauge the challenge for the next 10 years is to clarify what perceptions and opinions about welfare. A the priorities are, and then to figure out the sentiment that seems to be shared by a strong best way to get there.

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: The World of Welfare from the Perspective of 2006

was to convene a working group on juvenile Peter Edelman delinquency—the work of which led to the Georgetown University Law Center War on Poverty—four years before I went to work for him. Welfare was not much on his Yesterday—The History mind that I know of. He was much more inter- Where does one start in recounting the ested in helping young people find their way events that led to the enactment of the to successful adulthood, and in empowering Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor- neighborhoods and communities to achieve tunity Reconciliation Act in 1996? Relevant greater economic success and full inclusion facts, myths, and attitudes go back to Biblical in the larger society. (Of course he was also times. The Elizabethan poor laws, 19th century deeply immersed in the civil rights struggles of American charity, and the state-by-state the time.) adoption of mothers’ pensions in the early 20th century all figure in the story. The Social In 1966 Senator Kennedy gave a speech to Security Act of 1935 included for the first time the New York State Society of Newspaper a program of federal cash assistance to needy Editors, the theme of which was issues he single parents and children—Aid to Depen- believed had not been dealt with candidly dent Children as it was called then. This is in public discourse. Welfare was his first the program that was replaced by Temporary example. He said that welfare was “degrading, Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 1996. both to the giver and the recipient,” and that we had “ignored the real need—which was, Robert F. Kennedy’s Vision and remains, decent, dignified jobs for all.” of Welfare For me, and I think objectively as well, the The speech received scant coverage. Evidently run-up to the 1996 law began with the welfare the newspaper editors saw no news in amendments that President Lyndon Johnson his comments. A year later, invited to talk signed into law in early 1968. That was when specifically about welfare to a conference in I first encountered welfare issues, through my New York City, he said much the same thing, work as a legislative assistant to Senator Rob- although at greater length. We spent relatively ert F. Kennedy. Kennedy had been interested little time working on the speech, because we in poverty at least since becoming Attorney saw it as mainly a reiteration of previous state- General in 1961. One of his first acts then ments. His list of public institutions that he

thought had failed in their missions to help the 200 years . . . a congressional authorization of poor went well beyond welfare, and included virtual peonage.” public housing, urban renewal, public hospitals, and the public schools. His proposed remedies I did not realize it then, but I was witnessing included his familiar calls for “the involvement the beginning of what I call the Thirty Years’ of the community” and for “jobs with possibili- War on welfare. There were fits and starts, to ties for further education and advancement.” be sure. President Nixon actually proposed a guaranteed annual income to replace welfare, This time somebody at the New York Times which was even passed by the House of saw news in his comments, and put the story Representatives albeit in somewhat less gener- on the front page. “Kennedy Assails Welfare ous form, and President Carter tried a similar System,” the headline said. The subhead was proposal. But with the advent of President “Says It Is Threat to Family Life Because It Fails Reagan, the very definition of “welfare reform” to Meet Basic Needs.” It quoted Kennedy’s changed completely, responding to a buildup critique of welfare and related programs as of anti-welfare advocacy that had been devel- a “system of handouts, a second-rate set of oping throughout the 70s. social services, which damages and demeans its recipients.” To reformers of the 60s and 70s, welfare reform meant getting a decent income to Surprised by the attention, Kennedy wanted families in need, regardless of whether they to follow up. President Johnson had sent to were headed by one parent or two. To Robert Congress a modest reform bill mainly directed Kennedy welfare reform meant even more—a at increasing the abominably low level of decent income, yes, but also major efforts to welfare payments in some states. However, help recipients obtain training and find work the conservative-dominated Ways and Means so they could get off welfare and investment Committee in the House—even during that in creating meaningful public jobs for people era of ostensible commitment to end pov- unable to find work on their own. erty—changed LBJ’s thrust completely. The House imposed a freeze on federal welfare The 70s and 80s appropriations and instituted the first-ever But even as President Nixon was pursuing a work requirement for welfare recipients. A more-or-less liberal version of welfare reform group of Senators led by Kennedy was able (which became less liberal with each itera- to ameliorate some of the harsher aspects of tion until it finally lost liberal and moderate the bill, but the House-Senate Conference, support and died), conservative activists on controlled by conservatives, removed all of the outside were mounting a frontal attack the improvements. Kennedy was appalled. He on welfare. Kennedy’s critique of welfare called the idea that “the Government is now was for him a take-off point for proposals to going to decide . . . what mothers are going help people find work, and to have a decent to have to leave their children . . . a step back

10 and dignified cash assistance program for the Welfare Reform under Clinton residual group left when all the positive efforts President Clinton as Governor Clinton (and had been made. The new conservative attack chair of the National Governors Association) was also an attack on welfare, but that was had a major hand in crafting the 1988 law. the end of any commonality with Kennedy’s As a candidate for President in 1992, he was position. The conservatives blamed welfare for especially aware of the spike in the welfare causing and perpetuating inner-city poverty, rolls associated with the weak economy of the out-of-wedlock births, and a long list of other time (and possibly with a leniency in street- social ills and destructive behaviors—and the level welfare eligibility decisions stimulated by remedy they proposed was to end welfare, a perception that the 1988 law had eased the not improve it. Reagan-era push for a tougher stance). Per- haps stirred up by the local press, welfare was The attack gained full force with the appear- a particular concern to voters in New Hamp- ance of Charles Murray’s highly publicized shire. Campaigning as a new kind of Democrat book, Losing Ground, in 1983. But even before and desperately looking for ways to divert that, with the election of President Reagan, attention from allegations of past personal welfare reform had come predominantly to misbehavior, Clinton proposed to “end welfare mean getting people off welfare, period. The as we know it.” The fine print was far less rhetoric was one of compulsory work for stark, but the bumper sticker version captured welfare recipients, and the strong overtone voters’ attention and, partly as a consequence, was to get people off welfare by any means Clinton did far better than expected in New available. And Mr. Reagan’s repeated evocation Hampshire. of the “welfare queen” in her Cadillac coming to the grocery store with her food stamps Clinton as President turned to health care suggested, inescapably to many, that the new reform as his first priority, and convened a politics of welfare was more than coinciden- task force to draft a welfare proposal, which tally connected to the politics of race. was not sent to Congress until 1994. This ordering of priorities (both bills were under The Draconian view was not unanimous, of the jurisdiction of the same committees on the course, and a bipartisan compromise based on Hill, and would have been difficult to pursue the experience of state-by-state demonstra- simultaneously) has been questioned by some, tions during the 80s was embodied in the but the merit of Clinton’s decision seems obvi- Family Support Act of 1988, which (for the ous. Health coverage is of direct concern to far conservatives) featured compulsory work and more people than welfare. In any event, there (for the liberals) offered an investment in child was no time to get Clinton’s welfare bill con- care and job training to help people find and sidered before the mid-term elections in 1994. keep jobs. (Nor was the bill tremendously consequential. It was essentially an incremental tinkering with the 1988 law, designed to leverage more ener-

11 getic state efforts to push welfare recipients to Medicaid into a block grant, which was a find jobs.) nonstarter even for many Republicans. In late June 1996 freshman and sophomore Repub- The 1994 elections were a watershed time lican House members concluded that their for Clinton’s Presidency. The loss of Congress re-election was being jeopardized by failure to the Republicans—led by a new, far more to enact welfare changes, and convinced their actively conservative strain of Republican leadership to remove the Medicaid block grant in the person of Newt Gingrich—changed from the bill and send Clinton the kind of bill everything. Clinton—miraculously, one might he had said nearly a year earlier that he would even say—regained his balance over the ensu- sign. He signed it, thereby helping to assure ing two years, but 1995 and 1996 were a bleak the Republicans continued control of the time for him. Overnight he had to move from House and shoring up his own re-election bid playing offense to playing defense, and to do so (although the Republican decision to let him from a position of sudden and quite pervasive sign a bill was based in significant part on their marginalization. conclusion that their presidential candidate, Senator Dole, was already doomed to lose). Welfare played a major role in his political res- urrection. The Republicans, in control, eagerly The bill that President Clinton signed was picked up the mantle of ending welfare as it radically different from what he had proposed was then configured. Clinton did not reject in 1994, and even more different from what their approach out of hand, and in September he had proposed in his 1992 campaign. Yet, 1995 he let it be known that he would sign ironically, there was such power in Clinton’s a bill which would end the legal entitlement campaign slogan of “end welfare as we know to welfare, turn the program into a block it” that many people thought he was keeping grant, and impose a lifetime time limit on the a campaign promise when he signed the bill in number of years a given family with children 1996. could receive cash assistance. This was a prime example of the “triangulation” which critics His 1992 proposal, contained in his book said was characteristic of his politics—tak- Putting People First and in other campaign ing a position which served his purposes but materials, contemplated a “time limit” of left other members of his party at risk if they two years by which time a welfare recipient refused to join him. would need to have found employment, but also contemplated the provision of public Until mid-1996 the Republicans saved him jobs for those who could not find an existing from reaping political benefit from his stand— job and the continuance of cash assistance first by sending to his desk two extreme if the necessary investment in public jobs versions of welfare dismantlement that they would turn out not to be forthcoming. His knew he would veto, and then by joining their 1994 proposal offered no publicly funded welfare block grant in a bill that also converted jobs, but also contained no hard and fast time

12 limit, assuming in effect that cash assistance The late Paul Wellstone was the only Senator could continue if all help and pressure to find up for re-election in 1996 who voted against an existing job turned out to be unavailing. the legislation. Not surprisingly, anyone who The 1996 law ended any legal entitlement to voted for the legislation has strong reasons for help and, in addition to imposing a five-year saying it has worked out just fine. lifetime time limit for the provision of federally financed assistance, restructured it as a Did it? There are four stories here: one block grant, in effect permitting states to set about those who found work; another about a time limit of one minute if they so chose. those who lost their welfare or were turned The definition of “welfare reform” underwent away when they tried to apply, and did not major change between the time Clinton began find work; a third about the large differences talking about it as a candidate and the time he among the states—there is no one overall signed the bill called The Personal Responsibility national story but 51 different state stories and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (and in many states, stories differ county by (PRWORA). county); and a final one which tells us that what happened from 1996 through 2000, Today—The Experience mixed as that history is, is quite different from under TANF what has happened since—at best, the TANF It has become routine for editorial writers construct is (in general) a policy for times of and columnists to buy the line that those of us prosperity, and is far more dicey when a reces- who made dire predictions about the damage sion comes and more people are in need of a TANF would do were horribly wrong. The decent safety net. facts are more complicated. Some people are better off and some are worse off. A The First Story—Single Mothers major factor as to those who are better off who Went to Work is that the economy was far more robust in The most positive story is of the single moth- the second half of the 90s than was generally ers who went to work. The number of single foreseen. Those who crow now about the mothers having jobs rose from 62 percent marvelous success of TANF had no basis in in 1995 to 73 percent in 2000 (although it 1996 for believing that jobs would be as plenti- fell back to 69 percent by 2005). There are ful in the ensuing years as they turned out to three reasons for the increase. The biggest be. Some of the widespread self-congratu- is that jobs were available. Businesses were lation goes back to the story of President desperate for workers. Placards on the sides of Clinton’s triangulation discussed above. Not buses in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the only Republicans, but most Democrats, have unemployment rate was under 3 percent, read a major political stake in claiming that TANF is something like “welfare recipients make good a fabulous success. Clinton’s capitulation in the workers.” Second, the Earned Income Tax fall of 1995 caught in its net all but a few hand- Credit operates as an incentive to work—take fuls of the most liberal Democrats in Congress. a minimum wage job and if you have two

13 children you get an income bump of $4,000. the road. About 60 percent of leavers have Third, the new welfare policy applied heat to jobs on any given day. This means 40 percent the seat of the pants. Time limits, sanctions, do not. More than 9 million people (about and diversion of applicants at the time they 3 million women and 6 million children) have sought help pushed people to seek work. left the rolls since 1994, when the rolls were at Experts of all stripes agree that these were the their peak of 14.3 million people. Extrapolat- three operative factors, although they disagree ing from the studies, this means that roughly on the relative weight. (And I believe the push 1.2 million former welfare recipients (and their from the new welfare policy was punitive in 2.4 million children) are hardly success stories, too many places. Many states pushed people and many are clearly worse off. off the rolls or would not let them on, regardless of whether they would be able to find and Researchers at the Urban Institute found that hold a job.) in the early years of implementation about one in six former recipients, or more than Nor did getting a job mean that a family one in three of those just mentioned, were escaped poverty. Generally speaking, studies completely “out.” They not only had no wel- show that only about half of those who found fare and no job, but they had not married, had jobs, full- or part-time, got out of poverty. And not moved in with a partner or with family, finding a job was not the same as keeping it. and had not qualified for disability benefits. Of course not all of the reasons why people More recent data suggest that this number lose jobs or quit are sympathetic, but we has risen, to more than one in five former know, depending on the study, that a quarter recipients. We simply do not know how all of to a third of those who left welfare were back these people are coping. Again extrapolating on the rolls within a year (with the time clock and applying these study outcomes to the total ticking again), and we know anecdotally that decline in the number of people on welfare, many of those are stories of child care break- this would mean we are talking about close to ing down, chronically ill children who caused two million people who are in markedly worse their mother to be absent from work too shape as a result of the 1996 law. often, and people with little work experience and low self-esteem who needed more coach- We do know that the number of people in ing and support to succeed in a job. “extreme poverty”—with incomes below half the poverty line, or below $8,000 annually The Second Story—No Job, No for a family of three—has risen alarmingly, Welfare especially since 2000, with the total going from The second story—seldom discussed but 12.25 million people in that year to 15.6 million acknowledged by the more responsible cheer- in 2005, well over 40 percent of the poor and leaders for the 1996 law—is the large number 5.25 percent of all Americans. Some of that of people who left the rolls and have neither a increase undoubtedly reflects the signifi- job nor welfare when we look at them down cant number of former or would-be welfare

14 recipients who have no work or only casual What would a good state do? or intermittent work. Putting the issue more broadly, the percentage of poor children on I have believed for nearly 40 years, since my welfare dropped from 62 percent in 1995 to time working for Robert Kennedy, that we 31 percent in 2003. The widespread unavail- needed to reform our welfare system. We ability of welfare to pick up the slack after the needed to base reform on three principles: economy soured in 2001 is surely a factor in one, there were large numbers of people on the increase in extreme poverty. the rolls—mainly women, of course—who could succeed in the labor market with proper Those of us who prophesied deleterious help and support; two, there are others, not effects from the 1996 law are derided for a legally disabled, who because of their personal, prediction based on statistical analysis that the family, or geographic situation are not in a law would drive a million more children into position to work and should receive a decent poverty. The Urban Institute study implies level of support for themselves and their that by 2002, even after the unforeseen heat- children; and three, there are people in tem- ing up of the economy, well over a million porary need for one reason or another who children were in fact worse off because of the should receive a decent level of support. new welfare policy. By 2005 the number was undoubtedly higher. We were not so wrong. The welfare system we had did none of those things. It was not work-oriented, and there The Third Story—51 Unique State was never a single state in which welfare (or Experiences welfare and food stamps combined, which is The third story is that the whole experience the better way to look at it) sufficed to get is widely diverse across the country. What is people out of poverty. That was what Robert involved is not one policy but 51 policies, and Kennedy was saying in 1967, and it was still with many states having devolved the details true in 1996 when the country finally lost down to the counties, it is in fact hundreds of patience and enacted PRWORA. The best different policies. This is extremely important. thing that can be said about the 1996 law is The 1996 law is a block grant. The overall mes- that it left the door open for states to have sage was a strong push to get people off the good policies if they wanted to. welfare rolls in whatever way would produce the greatest reduction in caseloads, and in So, what would a good state do? Basically, the early years states competed for bragging help people find and keep jobs, and provide rights over who had reduced their caseload the a decent safety net for those not in a position most. Still, there is room for widely differing to work. Basically, treat people as individuals policies. There are good states and bad states. with differing circumstances and figure out If national policymakers cared to, they could what help they need to find and keep a job, learn from what the good states did, and adjust or whether for one reason or another they national policy to reflect that experience. should not be pushed to work outside the

15 home. Basically, make welfare an integral part tive turn in the federal statutory framework of a much larger strategy to end poverty and when the law was reauthorized by Congress in make sure that people have incomes adequate early 2006. to make ends meet, with other policies, like the minimum wage, the Earned Income Tax The available funding has been deteriorat- Credit, health coverage, child care, and good ing steadily—eroded by inflation—since the employment and training strategies, applied to moment the law was enacted in 1996. The create a real antipoverty commitment. total of the federal appropriation and the required state maintenance of state effort There were states that did as many of those was about $27 billion a year. It still is. For the things as they could, consistent with the first few years the effect of the slippage in resources available to them, both federal and purchasing power was not especially notice- state. And there were states that did the able, because caseload numbers dropped so opposite—eight that chose lifetime time limits precipitously, for good reasons and bad. For shorter than five years (even though the fund- a while states found that they had increasing ing for benefits up to five years would have amounts of money to spend on child care and been 100 percent federal), and six that chose other services over and above the cost of pay- sanctions for noncompliance with rules (failing ing out benefits. But caseloads have now been to show up for an appointment, being late for roughly stable for the past five or six years and a work assignment, and so on) that included the $27 billion is worth 22 percent less than full-family lifetime disqualification for repeat it was in 1996, so states have had to cut child infractions. care and other services as time has passed.

Thus the third story is that there is no single PRWORA enthusiasts argue that the stability TANF history. There are 51-plus such histories. of the rolls through the recent recession is a Most of what we read in the press would mark of success. It is nothing of the kind. It is lead us to believe that the experience was a reflection of diversion at the welfare office the same or roughly the same across the door, saving of time-limited eligibility for an country. Not so, not even within states. It is even rainier day, expired eligibility due to most unfortunate that TANF as reauthorized the time limits, and sanctioning policies. As reflects so little of what that diverse experi- indicated previously, the percentage of single ence teaches. mothers with jobs has fallen from its peak in 2000. What does not add up is that while the The Fourth Story—Slipping welfare rolls have not risen nationally, food Backwards stamp receipt has increased by more than 50 This brings us to the last story, which again is percent and Medicaid utilization has risen sub- one that has received relatively little attention. stantially as well. These, of course, are benefits This story is one of the slippage backward, to which people are legally entitled. reflected in the data since 2000, and the nega-

16 Instead of improving TANF based on experi- of two-parent families, we cannot carry on ence in the states and flaws revealed by the that discussion productively without discussing recession that began in 2001, the reauthori- health coverage, child care, housing, education zation finally enacted in early 2006 went in and training, transportation, the criminal justice the other direction. Its most highly publicized system, and much, much more. Nor could our feature is funding for states to adopt marriage- discussion be productive without a focus on promotion programs. This is more rhetorical issues of race, gender, disability, immigration, than substantive, but it will no doubt be applied and more. And of course our discussion could punitively in some locales. More broadly nega- not be limited to public policy, but would tive is a beefed up set of requirements for include issues of community and personal current welfare recipients to work while on responsibility. welfare. This will likely require states to adopt expensive work programs, driving funding out TANF cannot be separated from a multitude of current, much more constructive welfare- of policies and actions that we will have to to-work initiatives and actually making it more undertake to minimize the number of people difficult for recipients to find time to look for with children who receive cash assistance, jobs so they can get off the rolls. because they are not working or do not receive enough income from their work. In Tomorrow—A Strategy for other words, we cannot talk TANF without the Future talking poverty, and we cannot talk poverty We need a new framework, with a broader without realizing that the number of people focus and perspective. The vision must not be in America who cannot make ends meet is far confined even to ending poverty, as important larger than the number we call poor. as that is. The vision must be the achievement of a living income for everyone in the United Not everyone can be involved in every aspect States. Welfare is a small issue in that context. of what needs to be done, but all of us need Those who have succeeded in framing the to do what we can while retaining our full debate as one primarily about welfare have vision of a society that is economically just. diverted attention from the broader challenges. And some of us need to devote ourselves to articulating and publicizing the vision in its I think a book about TANF@10 will contribute entirety. little if we leave it having discussed only TANF. TANF itself can be improved. That is certain. So let’s make a deal. Let’s make sure we do But even if we limit our discussion to how we not have a book on TANF@Twenty. Let’s can help single-parent families with children make a vow to cut American poverty in half obtain as much income as possible from work, over the next 10 years. And our next book with cash support for those who earn too can be called, “Reviewing Our Vow: How Did little or are unable to work, and even if we We Do?” add an objective of maximizing the number

17 18 An Examination of the First 10 Years Under TANF in Three States: The Experiences of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

In the 10 years since federal welfare reform, Robert G. Wood states have chosen a variety of approaches to Justin Wheeler implementing their TANF programs. Because Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. of the greater flexibility offered to states by PRWORA, there is now substantially more Introduction state-to-state variation in welfare programs Spurred on by President Clinton’s promise “to than there was in the years leading up to end welfare as we know it,” Congress passed TANF. This paper takes a close look at the the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor- implementation of TANF in three states— tunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996. New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. We This federal welfare reform legislation made begin with a brief overview of the charac- sweeping changes to federal welfare policy, teristics of the three states and their TANF imposing work requirements on recipients as a caseloads. Next, we examine their basic TANF condition for cash assistance, as well as lifetime policies and how these policies compare to limits on benefit receipt. The legislation also other states. We then describe their experi- gave states much greater flexibility in setting ences with implementing these policies and their specific welfare policies. It established provide more detail about the programs and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families services they offer TANF recipients in their (TANF) program, which provides a block states. We end the paper with a discussion of grant to states—or a fixed, guaranteed level their TANF-related outcomes and how these of funding regardless of the number of families compare to the rest of the United States. eligible for cash assistance. Under this funding arrangement, states have a great deal of lati- Context and tude in choosing how they spend their federal Characteristics of the TANF dollars and can spend these funds on a Welfare Caseloads in the wide variety of programs, as long as they are Three States consistent with the broad goals of TANF set In spite of the geographic proximity of the out in the federal legislation. three states that are the focus of this paper, the basic characteristics of both their general

19 TABLE 1 Selected Characteristics of the Populations of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United States Total population (2005) 8,717,925 19,254,630 12,429,616 296,410,404 Population rank among the 50 states (2005) 10 3 6 NA Largest city (2005) Newark New York Philadelphia New York Population 280,666 8,143,197 1,463,281 8,143,197 Population rank among all U.S. cities 65 1 5 1 Persons per square mile (2005) 1,175 408 277 80 Median household income (2003) $56,356 $44,139 $42,952 $43,318 Percent below poverty (2003) 8.9 14.3 10.6 12.5 Percentage of population (2004) White, non-Hispanic 64 61 83 67 African American, non-Hispanic 14 16 10 12 Hispanic 15 16 4 14 Other 7 7 3 7 Percent speaking language other than 26 28 8 18 English at home (2000) Percent born outside the U.S. (2000) 18 20 4 11

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov). NA = not applicable. populations and their TANF populations vary Similarly, the overall mix of urban, suburban, considerably. New Jersey, New York, and and rural areas in New Jersey is very different Pennsylvania are all states with large popula- from the other two states. In general, New tions, each ranking in the top 10 nationally York and Pennsylvania have a mix of people (Table 1). However, New York and Pennsylva- living in very large cities, small cities, suburbs, nia each contain one of the largest cities in the and more rural areas. In contrast, New Jersey country, while New Jersey’s largest city, New- is largely a suburban state, with relatively ark, has fewer than 300,000 residents and is small populations living in cities or rural areas. a city that does not even rank among the top Consistent with being a largely suburban state, 50 in population nationwide. In addition, the New Jersey is also an affluent state, having welfare caseloads of New York and Pennsylva- one of the highest median household incomes nia are very much concentrated in their largest among the 50 states, as well as one of the cities—with approximately 70 percent of New lowest rates of poverty (Table 1). In contrast, York’s caseload residing in New York City and Pennsylvania and particularly New York have more than 40 percent of Pennsylvania’s case- substantially higher rates of poverty that are load living in Philadelphia. In contrast, in New more typical of the nation as a whole and that Jersey, residents of no single city represent reflect their more urban (as well as their more more than a quarter of the TANF caseload. rural) populations.

20 TABLE 2 Selected Characteristics of TANF Caseloads of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United States Number of TANF cases 46,944 188,096 97,186 2,068,140 Rank of caseload size among the 50 states 14 2 3 NA Percentage of caseload White, non-Hispanic 15 21 36 33 African American, non-Hispanic 58 41 49 38 Hispanic 26 36 12 24 Other 1 3 3 5 Percentage of adult recipients who are not 3 10 3 5 U.S. citizens

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families website. Note: Caseload sizes refer to 2005 and include child-only cases, as well as cases in separate state programs funded through maintenance-of-effort funds. Other characteristics refer to 2004, with the exception of race/ethnicity statistics for Pennsylvania, which are from 2002. NA = not applicable.

In terms of ethnic diversity, it is New York and Finally, New York and Pennsylvania have New Jersey that are more similar and Pennsyl- particularly large welfare caseloads. In terms of vania that is more distinct. New York and New size, their caseloads rank second and third in Jersey each have substantially higher percent- the country nationally, behind only Califor- ages of Asians and Hispanics than does the nia (Table 2). New Jersey in contrast has a nation as a whole. In contrast, Pennsylvania has substantially smaller caseload than the other a less diverse population than the rest of the two states, reflecting both its smaller overall country, with a population that is substantially population, as well as its relative affluence. whiter and more likely to be English-speaking and native born than is true nationally (Table Overview of the TANF Policies 1). Their TANF populations generally reflect in the Three States these cross-state differences in the racial and Federal welfare reform imposed important ethnic distribution of their general population. new requirements on how states ran their In particular, Pennsylvania’s welfare caseload welfare programs. However, it also gave states is whiter and less Hispanic than the national increased flexibility to set their basic welfare welfare caseload, while New York and New policies. For this reason, welfare rules and pro- Jersey have welfare caseloads that are more grams now vary substantially state by state. In Hispanic and African American than is typical this section, we review the basic TANF policies nationwide (Table 2). In addition, New York of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania has a large proportion of welfare recipients and describe how these policies compare who are not U.S. citizens, consistent with the to the policies other states have adopted high percentage of immigrants in the state’s (Table 3). population.

21 TABLE 3 Basic TANF Policies of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

Maximum monthly Minimum hours benefit level for family required in work Lifetime limit on benefit State of three activities each week Sanctioning policy receipt (months) New Jersey $424 35 Gradual, full-family 60 sanctions New York $703* 30 Partial sanctions only None** Pennsylvania $421 20*** Gradual, full-family 60 sanctions Median State $396 30 Gradual, full-family 60 sanctions

Source: Rowe and Versteeg, 2005. * Benefit varies by region. Maximum benefit for a family of three in New York City is $577. ** TANF recipients reaching 60 months of benefit receipt can transition onto the state-funded Safety Net Assistance program, which is not time limited. *** Work requirement does not apply until recipient has received TANF for 24 months.

Benefit Levels and Computations level of benefits would have been ranked sixth Even before TANF was launched in 1996, basic nationally at the time that TANF was launched. benefit levels varied widely by state. In fact, These rankings have changed relatively little in prior to PRWORA, the maximum cash benefit the years since TANF implementation. level was the primary dimension on which welfare policies varied state to state. In 1996, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, by contrast, offer the maximum benefit level for a family of three benefits that are neither relatively high nor rel- ranged from $923 per month in Alaska to atively low compared with those other states. $120 per month in Mississippi. This large cross- In 2003, the maximum benefit for a family of state variation has persisted under TANF. three was $424 in New Jersey and $421 in Pennsylvania. These benefit levels ranked them Relative to other states, New York offered 24th and 25th respectively in terms of benefit fairly high welfare benefits prior to TANF generosity—just above the median state of Illi- implementation and has continued to offer nois with a median benefit of $396. New Jersey relatively high benefits under TANF. New and Pennsylvania ranked at very similar points York’s maximum benefit amounts vary by state in the benefit generosity rankings by state in region. In 1996, the maximum benefit level the period leading up to welfare reform—with in the state region with the highest benefit maximum benefit levels very close to the ben- level—Suffolk County—was $703 for a family efit levels for the median state. of three. This maximum benefit level ranked the third nationwide (behind only Alaska and As part of federal welfare reform, states were Hawaii). New York City, the largest state also given greater flexibility in setting their region, had a maximum benefit level of $577 in earned income disregards, or the amount 1996 for a family of three. A state providing this by which cash benefits are reduced for each

22 dollar a recipient earns. In an effort to encour- New York—required their TANF recipients age work, most states adopted policies that to participate in work activities for a minimum lowered the rate at which TANF benefits of 30 hours each week (Rowe and Versteeg were reduced as earnings rose. New Jersey, 2005). At this point, nine states—including New York, and Pennsylvania all adopted similar New Jersey—had higher minimum hours earned income disregard policies under TANF. requirements. New Jersey requires its TANF Each of the three states generally disregards recipients to participate in work activities half of earned income when calculating TANF for 35 hours each week. As is true in most benefit amounts. states, in both New York and New Jersey, these work requirements begin as soon as Work Requirements and Sanctions recipients begin receiving TANF. In 2003, Under TANF, states must require recipients five states—including Pennsylvania—had to participate in work activities after two minimum hours requirements below 30 hours years’ of benefit receipt. However, most states per week. Pennsylvania’s requirement is 20 require recipients to participate in work- hours of work each week. In addition, unlike related activities before this two-year point. most states, Pennsylvania does not impose States must enforce these work requirements this requirement on recipients until they have through sanctioning—or a reduction in the been receiving TANF for two years. Prior to cash benefit amount. States have flexibility in this point, although recipients are expected determining the minimum hours of work activ- to participate in some work-related activity, ity required each week, who is exempt from there is no minimum hours requirement for this policy, what work activities will be allowed, participation. and how these requirements will be enforced through sanctions. Exemptions States offer a variety of exemptions from Each state’s work requirement policies are these requirements. For example, most complex and have many dimensions. In this states—including New Jersey, New York, and section, we focus on three key elements of Pennsylvania—exempt from work require- these policies: (1) minimum hours of work ments recipients who are disabled or caring activity required each week; (2) exemptions for a disabled family member. In addition, from work requirements; and (3) enforcement most states exempt recipients from work of work requirements through sanctioning. requirements if they are caring for very young children. The specific age cutoff to qualify for Minimum Hours Requirement an exemption varies by state. As of 2003, 28 States have imposed different minimum states—including New York and Pennsylva- hours requirements for work activities under nia—exempted TANF recipients from work TANF—ranging from 20 to 40 hours per requirements if they were caring for a child week. As of 2003, most states—including who was less than 12 months old. However,

23 New York’s policy is more restrictive than ments; however, this partial reduction never many other states in this regard. New York progresses to case closure. At the other end limits the length of this exemption to three of the spectrum, 14 states impose immediate months for any one child and 12 months full-family sanctions, closing the TANF case in total over the recipient’s lifetime.2 Sixteen the first month of noncompliance with work states—including New Jersey—had lower age requirements. cutoffs to qualify for an exemption from work requirements. In New Jersey, recipients are Overall Stringency of Work Requirements exempt if they are caring for a child younger Where do these states fall on the spectrum of than three months of age. Six states offer stringency of TANF work requirement policies no exemptions for recipients caring for very and sanctions? The most stringent state poli- young children. cies offer relatively few exemptions from work requirements and impose immediate full-family Sanctioning Policy sanctions for noncompliance. None of these States enforce their work requirements three states fall in this group. Although they through benefit reductions or sanctioning. all incorporate a strong emphasis on work in States take three basic approaches to sanc- their TANF programs, in general, relative to tioning policy: (1) partial sanctions only; (2) other states, they fall either in the middle or gradual full-family sanctions; and (3) immedi- toward the “less stringent” end of the work ate full-family sanctions. The most common requirement spectrum. sanctioning policy—used in 26 states, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania—is a policy of Among the three states themselves, New Jer- gradual full-family sanctions. Under this policy, sey has the most stringent work requirement recipients who do not comply with work policies. The state requires new mothers to requirements first receive a reduction in their enter work activities once their child is three cash grant. After repeated months of noncom- months old; it mandates more hours of work pliance, this partial sanction progresses to case activities than most states do (35 hours per closure. However, Pennsylvania’s sanctioning week); and it imposes full-family sanctions after policy is different from those of many other repeated months of noncompliance with work states using gradual full-family sanctions. In requirements (even during the first two years Pennsylvania, TANF recipients cannot receive of benefit receipt). Further, the state appears a full-family sanction for noncompliance with to use sanctions fairly regularly. According work requirements until they have been to a recent study of sanctions in three states receiving benefits for at least two years. (including New Jersey), 29 percent of adult TANF recipients in New Jersey received a par- Under a “partial sanctions only” policy—used tial sanction over a 10-month period in 2001, in 10 states, including New York—benefits are and 12 percent received a full-family sanction. reduced for noncompliance with work require- These rates were considerably higher than

24 those in the other states studied, Illinois and more recent years were similar (New York South Carolina (Pavetti et al. 2004). City Human Resources Administration 2006).

In contrast, Pennsylvania may be considered Time Limits the least stringent of the three in terms of A time limit on benefit receipt was a central work requirements. The state has no mini- component of federal welfare reform. Under mum hours requirement until recipients have PRWORA, states are barred from using received TANF for two years. After this point, federal TANF funds to provide assistance for it requires only 20 hours of work activities cases that include an adult and that have been each week. In addition, the state was initially receiving benefits for more than 60 months. extremely cautious in imposing sanctions for However, certain exceptions apply and states noncompliance with these requirements. To have substantial flexibility in how to imple- avoid imposing a sanction in error, the state ment their specific time limit policies (Bloom put in place detailed procedures that required et al. 2002). For example, states are allowed multiple layers of approval by more senior staff to impose limits on benefit receipt that are members before a sanction could be imposed less than 60 months. In addition, states can (Michalopoulos et al. 2003). As a result, offer recipients temporary extensions of their few Pennsylvania TANF recipients received benefits beyond the 60-month point, as long sanctions in the first few years after TANF as no more than 20 percent of the caseload is implementation. The state has since begun extended in this way. Moreover, states can also sanctioning cases for noncompliance with work use state funds to assist families beyond the requirements more regularly. Since 2002, the 60-month federal limit. state has been sanctioning TANF recipients at a rate that is similar to the national average, as New Jersey and Pennsylvania—like 33 other well as the specific sanctioning rates in New states—imposed a 60-month time limit as part Jersey and New York (ACF 2006). of their state TANF program. Both states offer extensions beyond the 60-month limit. For New York falls in between the other two states example, New Jersey has a program known in terms of the stringency of its work require- as Supportive Assistance to Individuals and ments. The state requires 30 of work activity Families (SAIF), under which families can con- each week, compared with 20 in Pennsylvania tinue to receive benefits for an additional two and 35 in New Jersey. Although New York years—as long as they comply with TANF work does not impose full-family sanctions, it has requirements. Pennsylvania has a similar pro- used its partial sanctions fairly regularly under gram known as Extended TANF that imposes TANF. In New York City, throughout the first no explicit limit on the length of the benefit five years of TANF implementation, about3 0 extension. In addition, the state established a percent of adult TANF recipients were either separate state program, known as Time Out, under sanction or in the sanction process under which recipients can stop their 60-month (Nightingale et al. 2002). Sanction rates for

25 TANF clock for up to one year by mixing families reaching this limit. New Jersey and welfare and work. These programs and policies Pennsylvania have avoided closing TANF cases allowed both New Jersey and Pennsylvania to because of time limits through state programs avoid closing cases because of time limits in that offer extensions to most families reaching the first few years after their first TANF cases the five-year limit. In contrast, many other reached the 60-month point. Although their states have closed a substantial number of first cases reached 60 months of benefit receipt TANF cases that have reached time limits. in the first half of 2002, neither state had closed a case due to time limits by September 2004 Diversion Programs (ACF 2006). In contrast, more than two-thirds Since federal welfare reform legislation was of states nationwide had closed cases because passed in 1996, more than half the states— of time limits by this point. including all three that are the focus of this paper—have implemented programs designed New York took a somewhat different approach to divert welfare applicants from enrolling to TANF time limits. The state established a in TANF (Rowe and Versteeg 2005). These separate state program, Safety New Assistance programs may involve an upfront job search to (SNA), funded through its TANF “maintenance help applicants secure employment, provide of effort” funds. TANF families reaching the applicants a lump-sum payment to help them five-year federal limit on benefits are placed weather a short financial crisis without enter- in the SNA program which, because it is state ing the welfare rolls, or assist them in accessing funded, is not subject to the federal time limit. other sources of support besides TANF. TANF families who transition onto SNA after Diversion programs vary substantially across 60 months receive most of their benefit as states on a variety of dimensions, including vouchers for specific expenses such as housing the conditions under which they allow diver- or utilities. Therefore, welfare receipt in New sion payments, the amount and form of the York is not time limited, since families reaching payment (cash or voucher), and how often the federal limit on TANF benefits can transi- payments can be received. tion onto the state funded SNA program. However, the nature of the benefit changes Among the three states examined here, New substantially after 60 months, since welfare Jersey was the first to implement a diversion recipients go from receiving all their benefit program at the state level. In July 1998, the in cash to receiving most of their benefit as state initiated an Early Employment Initiative vouchers for specific expenses. (EEI) requiring all prospective applicants who are able to work and not in immediate need In terms of overall stringency of time limit to conduct an intensive 15 to 20 day job policies, each of these three states fall on the search. Eligible applicants receive a lump-sum less stringent end of the spectrum. New York payment prior to their search and a second explicitly avoids the federal five-year limit lump-sum payment if they obtain employment through its separate state program for those

26 and withdraw their TANF application. The would be eligible for under the state’s TANF sum of these two payments may be as large program (DPW 2005). These criteria reflect as $750 for a family of three. The program is an effort to avoid diverting applicants who are distinctive, and differs from those in New York not in fact work-ready and are considerably and Pennsylvania, in that it is mandatory; all more cautious in this respect than diversion non-exempt TANF applicants must participate programs in many other states. Applicants may in the program before proceeding to WFNJ. receive a diversion payment only once every New Jersey is also one of only four states 12 months (DPW 2005). that do not specify a limit on the number of diversionary payments an applicant can receive Policy and Program (Rowe and Versteeg 2005). Implementation in the Three States In contrast to New Jersey’s work-oriented As important as understanding the formal program, New York’s diversion program, policies that New Jersey, New York and which began in January 2000, provides Pennsylvania adopted in response to TANF is emergency assistance diversionary payments understanding the particular programs through without any work-related requirements. which the three states applied these policies, These payments may be in the form of cash their implementation on the ground, and their or vouchers and, unlike those in most other evolution over time. In this section, we provide states, are targeted toward different needs— an overview of the development of welfare for crisis assistance, for transportation to work, programs in the three states since 1996, sum- or to meet a housing payment. New York lim- marizing results from previous evaluations of its diversion payments to a single instance for their implementation. More specifically, we each type of payment—crisis, transportation, summarize the states’ experiences in the initial and housing (Rowe and Versteeg 2005). implementation of TANF, describe their early experiences and challenges, and highlight their Pennsylvania only recently initiated its own responses to the increasing concentration of diversion program—launching the program clients with barriers to work within the case- in August 2005. The program is intended to load and the arrival of the federal time limit, assist applicants who are experiencing a tem- the two related factors that have most shaped porary interruption in their earned income. It the evolution of their welfare programs. differs from both New York and New Jersey in its relatively narrow eligibility requirements. New Jersey’s TANF Program TANF applicants in Pennsylvania who meet the program’s eligibility requirements are currently Initial Implementation or recently employed, and are “awaiting the New Jersey implemented its TANF program, receipt of verified, self-sustaining income” may Work First New Jersey (WFNJ), in July 1997. receive a lump-sum payment equivalent to up As in other states, the program heralded in a to three-months worth of the benefit they new emphasis on work, as well as a reduced

27 emphasis on education and training. New The challenges to early implementation of Jersey was an early mover in making structural WFNJ were coordinating service delivery reforms designed to improve the delivery of between welfare and workforce agencies, job-related services to welfare recipients. In communicating eligibility requirements and 1995, the state unified all employment and benefits to clients, and providing intensive training activities into a comprehensive Work- case management and support services to force New Jersey system under the purview of hard-to-employ clients. Though collaboration the Department of Labor. As part of launch- between welfare agencies and vendors of ing WFNJ, the state made other structural employment services increased under WFNJ, reforms designed to make the welfare system in the early years of the program, clients’ tran- more efficient, consolidating the state’s previ- sitions into work activities were sometimes ously separate Aid to Families with Dependent delayed because of lack of available referrals Children (AFDC), General Assistance, and to vendors and minimal cash reserves among Emergency Assistance programs under WFNJ. vendors as a result of performance-based con- Though New Jersey’s TANF program was, tracts. Studies also found that large numbers of and remains, decentralized on paper—admin- clients were often misinformed about eligibility istered by counties and supervised by the requirements and benefits and that they were state—in practice, the state allowed local underutilizing post-TANF transitional services agencies fairly limited flexibility in operating for which they were eligible (Legal Services WFNJ, with the result that the program was of New Jersey 1999; Rangarajan and Wood implemented fairly consistently across the 2000, Rosenberg et al. 2000). In addition, state (Koralek et al. 2001). though caseworkers appear to have generally been supportive of the use of sanctions from Early Experiences and Challenges the beginning of WFNJ’s implementation, A study of the early implementation of WFNJ evidence suggests that their attitudes were less suggests that, to a large degree, the strong affected by the 60-month time limit. Indeed, emphasis on work at the state level in New many county welfare agency staff believed— Jersey had translated down to local welfare rightly, as it turned out—that the state would agency staff. Though some staff questioned extend welfare for clients who reached the whether a work first approach was appropri- limit (Rosenberg et al. 2000). Moreover, the ate for all clients, on the whole they supported near universal granting of extensions once the both the emphasis on quick attachment to limit was reached was reflected in a decline in work and the policy of sanctioning noncom- the proportion of clients believing that TANF pliant clients (Rosenberg et al. 2000). The benefits were time limited—from 82 percent relatively high rates of sanctioning in the state among those participating in WFNJ in the first discussed earlier are consistent with this quali- year of the program to 67 percent among tative finding. those participating three years later (Wood, Rangarajan, and Deke 2004).

28 Programmatic Changes Since Initial as the extent to which the state addresses Implementation the challenge of employment retention and Mid-course changes and additions to New advancement among former TANF recipients Jersey’s TANF programs have followed pat- (Wood, Rangajaran, and Deke 2003). terns similar to those in other states, for similar reasons. As caseloads in the state declined, the New York’s TANF Program share of remaining TANF recipients with significant barriers to work—particularly health Initial Implementation problems—increased (Wood, Rangarajan, and New York began reshaping its welfare Deke 2004). In addition, small but significant programs to be more work focused in the portions of TANF leavers were returning to mid-1990s—prior to the passage of federal the rolls or failing to advance into stable long- welfare reform legislation. Beginning in 1995, term employment (Wood, Rangarajan and Governor George Pataki made a series of Gordon 2004). proposals to the state legislature to trim and reform welfare dramatically. Though most of The state responded to these challenges by these proposals did not pass into law, those allowing local agencies more flexibility in the that did restricted eligible work activities for programs they offer clients and initiating new welfare recipients and expanded the work programs consistent with the goal of self-suf- requirements placed on them. ficiency. These efforts have included, among others, a faith- and community-based col- The state’s final welfare reform legislation laborative to publicize support programs and passed in August 1997. This state response to benefits available to TANF leavers; a Com- the federal welfare legislation was shaped in prehensive Social Assessment for all clients important ways by the provision in New York’s after 12 months of TANF receipt to identify constitution requiring the state to provide barriers to employment; a state earned support for the needy (Lurie 1998). Article income tax credit; an Individual Development xvii of the constitution states that, “The aid, Account (IDA) program to help clients save care and support of the needy are public to buy a house, start a small business, or pay concerns and shall be provided by the state for higher education; a Career Advancement and by such of its subdivisions, and in such Voucher Program for employed former TANF manner and by such means, as the legislature recipients to pursue additional training while may from time to time determine.” Because they are working; and a Supplemental Work of this constitutional provision, the state chose Support Program providing monthly payments not to use full-family sanctions for those who to working TANF recipients who are will- did not comply with work requirements. In ing to close their cases (Koralek et al. 2001; addition, from the outset of TANF, the state Rangarajan et al. 2005). These programs have planned not to place a time limit on benefits, increased the intensity and breadth of support since such a limit was deemed to be a violation services provided to high-need clients, as well of the constitutional mandate to support the

29 needy. Instead, as described earlier, the state Work Experience Program (WEP), the larg- complied with the federal requirement to limit est “workfare” program in the country, with benefits to 60 months by establishing Safety a peak enrollment of 35,000 in 1999. This Net Assistance (SNA), a state funded program program featured assignment to public- and that was not time limited. TANF recipients nonprofit-sector jobs in exchange for welfare reaching the federal five-year limit could transi- benefits. As in many states, the primary chal- tion into the SNA program. lenges New York faced after welfare reform were in coordinating service delivery with a As in New Jersey, the implementation of large variety of new providers, developing new TANF also ushered in significant structural staff skill sets, and, increasingly, serving hard- changes, including the creation of a new to-employ clients (Fender et al. 2002). agency—the Department of Family Assis- tance—to oversee the new Family Assistance However, as described earlier, New York dif- (FA) and SNA programs.3 In addition, author- fered from the other two states in its response ity for all welfare employment programs to the 60-month federal limit on benefits. was shifted to the state Department of From the outset of its TANF program, the Labor (Fender et al. 2002). These structural state planned to allow recipients to continue changes did not, however, alter the decentral- to receive benefits through the state funded ized nature of New York’s welfare system. SNA program. However, in spite of this plan, Localities in the state continued to provide 25 local welfare agencies appear to have made percent of the funding for the state’s TANF use of the five-year federal limit to motivate program (formerly AFDC, now FA)—one of clients and, in some cases, move recipients off the highest local match rates among the 11 the rolls as this time limit approached (Fender states in which local funding exists—and to et al. 2002). An analysis of the implementation receive in return considerable autonomy in of time limits in New York City found that, as their implementation of state policies. the five-year limit approached, welfare staff often did not inform FA recipients that they faced no time limit on their assistance or dis- Early Experiences and Challenges cuss with them the transition to SNA (Bloom As a result of the latitude that New York et al. 2002). Instead, agencies frequently allows its 58 local social service districts (57 publicized the federal limit, posting signs counties and New York City), it is somewhat reading “The clock is ticking” and “Welfare difficult to generalize about the experience of is time-limited.” Clients approaching the 60- welfare reform in the state. New York City, month limit who were complying with TANF where approximately 70 percent of the state’s requirements were automatically transferred TANF recipients reside, pursued work attach- to SNA. However, noncompliant clients were ment aggressively on the ground, coupling a required to complete a multi-stage application willingness to use sanctioning in the effort to process. Successful applicants were assigned to transition welfare recipients to work with its a subsidized job or work experience position.

30 One factor that may have influenced the to TANF leavers to maintain job stability and behavior of local welfare agencies was the advance their careers. Notably, within New increased cost they faced when FA recipients York City, in response to the large proportion transitioned to the SNA program. Local gov- of TANF recipients who were not engaged ernments pay 50 percent of the costs for SNA by the system, the city adopted a policy of clients, compared with only 25 percent for FA “universal engagement” whereby it expanded recipients. These additional costs may have its work requirements to clients with special contributed to their desire to discourage these needs and initiated a series of programs to transitions in some instances. enable them to attain self-sufficiency through work (Nightingale et al. 2002). When the federal five-year limit began to hit for the first cohort of FA recipients, some Pennsylvania’s TANF Program of these recipients did not transition into the SNA program and instead had their Initial Implementation cases closed. In New York City, of the first Pennsylvania’s welfare reform legislation, Act 36,000 FA cases to reach the federal time 35, was passed in May 1996 and implemented limit, approximately 6,000 were exempted in March 1997. It replaced the state’s AFDC and allowed to remain on FA, 14,000 were program with a work-focused TANF program, deemed compliant and transferred auto- known as the “Road to Economic Self-Suf- matically to SNA, while 16,000 were deemed ficiency Through Employment and Training,” noncompliant and required to apply to SNA. or RESET. Unlike those in some others states, Of the 16,000 required to apply, about 3,000 policymakers in Pennsylvania did not devolve had their cases closed because they did not administration of welfare to localities follow- complete this application process successfully ing welfare reform, nor did the passage of (Bloom et al. 2002). PRWORA result in the fundamental restructuring of welfare administration at the state level that it had in New Jersey and New York. Programmatic Changes since Initial Implementation Administration remained in the hands of the In the years since TANF was initially imple- Department of Public Welfare (Weishaupt mented, the state has pursued innovations and Mentzer 2006). The state also differs from within the system, including upgrading staff New Jersey and New York in that it did not skills, restructuring services and developing make use of waivers in advance of the federal new programs, largely through the New York legislation. Therefore, welfare reform in Penn- Works Block Grant awards to local social sylvania did not begin prior to TANF, as it did service districts rather than through new in many other states. state programs (Fender et al. 2002). These innovations have focused, as in other states, Early Experiences and Challenges on preparing clients with barriers to employ- Like welfare reform in most states, RESET ment for the workforce and providing support was characterized by an increased emphasis

31 on quick attachment to work and decreased The state had its own distinctive experience reliance on education and training programs. with time limits. The state did not require 20 While this shift in emphasis was common in hours of work activity until after clients had many states, it was particularly pronounced received TANF for 24 months and it did not in Pennsylvania. Monthly reports from the impose full-family sanctions until this point. Department of Public Welfare (DPW) indi- Therefore, this two-year limit on receiv- cated that the number of TANF recipients ing TANF without substantial work activity enrolled in education and training dropped by became very significant in Pennsylvania, while more than 90 percent following implemen- comparatively little attention focused on the tation of RESET (Weishaupt and Mentzer 60-month limit. High anxiety surrounded the 2006). Further, the initial eight-week job approach of the two-year mark, which arrived search that was required of all new TANF for the first recipients in March 1999. In one recipients was followed by 90 days of DPW- example of this high-level of attention and contracted programs in which job search was concern, Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell placed a prominent component (Michalopoulos et a full-page advertisement in the Philadelphia al. 2003; Weishaupt and Mentzer 2006). As Inquirer anticipating a “train wreck” if the work staff adapted to the new policies, they better requirement was enforced with sanctions. communicated education and training options Similarly, as part of a study of the implemen- to clients (Michalopoulos et al. 2003). Also tation of the Pennsylvania TANF program, a reducing the use of education and training caseworker commented that “When this first programs was the fact that after 24 months, started . . . the 24th month was doomsday” education and training did not count toward (Michalopoulos et al. 2003). the 20 hours of required participation (Micha- lopoulos et al. 2003). One effect of the 24-month limit’s approach was to prompt some early programmatic Pennsylvania experienced some of the same innovations designed to move the hard-to- early difficulties as New Jersey and New York employ clients into jobs. An indication of the in developing and sustaining an effective sys- increasing focus on securing work participa- tem of contractors to provide newly needed tion for these individuals—and of the earlier services. An implementation evaluation of reliance on relatively inexpensive quick attach- the state’s early program for increasing job ment strategies—is the dramatic increase in retention among TANF recipients, Community state spending on the RESET welfare-to-work Solutions, noted insufficient experience among program that occurred in 1999 (Michalopoulos contractors, falling demand for their services et al. 2003). Some of these funds went toward as rolls decreased, and hindrances in tracking the support and expansion of work experi- and reporting as challenges to the effective ence programs in Philadelphia that had met implementation of the program (Paulsell and with success in finding employment for clients Stieglitz 2001). with barriers to work—most notably the Tran- sitional Work Corporation (TWC), which had

32 opened its doors in 1998. The state launched engaged in education or training at the time of a large employment retention initiative in initial application are allowed to postpone the 2000, the Retention, Advancement, and Rapid job search process, and recipients in education Reemployment program, which was designed or training programs are exempted from the to help TANF recipients and other low-income full hourly requirement for participation in families sustain their employment and increase work activities. Third, the state exercised the their earnings (Paulsell and Stiglitz 2001). option to use maintenance-of-effort funds to initiate a separate state program for families A second effect of the 24-month limit may with individuals exempt from RESET due to have been to reduce the effectiveness of the mental or physical disability. Finally, the state 60-month time limit in motivating clients. implemented a “universal engagement” policy When the former limit passed with little of the sort that was earlier implemented in consequence and few clients being removed New York City. The policy entails not only from the rolls for noncompliance, the force of additional efforts to engage mandatory RESET the federal five-year limit was blunted. As in participants, but also new efforts to broaden New Jersey, caseworkers expressed doubts as the group of engaged individuals to include to their ability to use it effectively, since clients those with serious barriers to employment would not believe that the time limit was real and to expand the activities that constitute (Michalopoulos et al. 2003). engagement (DPW 2005).

Programmatic Changes since Initial The TANF-Related Outcomes Implementation of the Three States In Pennsylvania, system-wide responses to As described earlier, each of the three states high-need clients began as early as 2001, examined in this paper—New Jersey, New when the state implemented the Maximizing York, and Pennsylvania—has pursued a Participation Program (MPP), which specifically somewhat different set of TANF policies and targeted recipients exempt from work require- has had somewhat different experiences in ments due to mental or physical disability implementing these policies. What outcomes (Michalopoulos et al. 2003). More recently, in have each of these states achieved in the 10 its proposed TANF plan submitted to the fed- years since their TANF programs began? To eral government in 2005, Pennsylvania signaled consider this question fully, we would ideally its adoption of four new policies consistent examine not only TANF caseload trends and with the growing emphasis on addressing the characteristics, but also a detailed set of out- needs of clients with barriers to work. First, comes documenting the well-being of current, the state established the diversion program former and would-be TANF recipients. Unfor- previously described. Second, it adopted a tunately such detailed information measured policy of granting of “good cause for educa- consistently across states is not available. tion” according to which TANF applicants

33 Previous Previous year NA -16 -18 -16 -10 5 - 0 0 1 - 4 - change in since size 1 3 3 Percent Percent 1996 NA -16 - -42 -48 -51 -51 -51 -51 -5 United States Number of receiving families TANF 4,4 3 4,160 3 ,740,179 3 ,050, 33 5 2,554,069 2, 3 02,780 2,191,506 2,186,571 2,180,250 2,154, 3 72 2,068,140 3 3 Previous Previous year NA -16 -18 -21 -1 6 - 2 - 10 7 change in since size 1 3 3 Percent Percent 1996 NA -16 - -46 -5 -56 -57 -56 -51 -48 Pennsylvania Number of receiving families TANF 185, 3 19 155,808 127,518 100,622 87,678 81,988 80,012 82,184 90,7 3 9 97,186 3 3 Previous Previous year NA -10 6 - -1 -19 -12 9 - - 1 5 - change in since size 3 Percent Percent 1996 NA -10 -16 -27 -41 -48 -52 -54 -5 -55 New York New Number of receiving families TANF 422,557 3 78,816 3 54,745 3 09,800 249,788 220,098 200,850 195,711 196,998 188,096 3 3 Previous Previous year NA -10 -21 -18 -1 -11 6 - 6 1 - change in in change since size Percent Percent 1996 NA -10 -29 -42 -50 -55 -58 -57 -54 -54 New JerseyNew Number of receiving families TANF 102,777 92,055 72,589 59,256 51, 3 76 45,922 4 3 , 80 44,629 47, 3 76 46,944 3 Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200 2004 2005 TABLE 4 TABLE 1996–2005 and Pennsylvania: York, New Jersey, Caseloads in New TANF of the in the Size Trends website. Children and Families for Administration Source: funded through state programs as well those in separate Caseload figures include child-only cases, Note: maintenance-of-effort funds. NA = not applicable.

34 Therefore, in this section, we examine a small Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the nation as a whole set of outcomes that can be measured consis- during this period was more than 40 percent. tently across states. In particular, we examine the following two outcomes during the years Many factors may have contributed to this since TANF was first implemented: (1) the size slower initial caseload decline in New York. of the TANF caseload and (2) the propor- One potential contributing factor is the state’s tion of TANF recipients in work activities. We sanctioning policy. New York is one of only examine both cross-state differences in the 10 states that uses only partial sanctions to levels of these outcomes as well as differences enforce work requirements. Therefore, New in the trends in these outcomes in the 10 years York welfare recipients who do not comply since TANF implementation. We also discuss with work requirements can remain on TANF, possible explanations for cross-state variation although their cash benefits will be reduced. in these patterns. In contrast, both New Jersey and Pennsylvania enforce work requirements through gradual full-family sanctions. New Jersey began using Size of the TANF Caseload these full-family sanctions immediately after We begin by examining trends in the size implementing TANF. In contrast, Pennsyl- of TANF caseload in the three states since vania does not impose full sanctions until a federal welfare reform legislation passed in family has received TANF for 24 months and 1996. Table 4 presents the average monthly therefore did not close TANF cases for non- TANF caseload size in New Jersey, New York, compliance during the first few years under and Pennsylvania, as well as the nation as a the new program. However, much was made whole.4 Each of these states has experienced in Pennsylvania during the first two years of substantial declines in the size of their welfare TANF implementation of this approaching caseloads in the 10 years since implementing two-year point—when sanctions could first be TANF. Similar to national trends, 2005 TANF applied for noncompliance with work require- roles in each of the three states were roughly ments. Therefore, in both New Jersey and half what they were in 1996. However, the Pennsylvania (and in contrast to New York), timing of these declines differs somewhat there was a very strong message during this across these states in ways that may be tied to initial period that those who did not comply their specific TANF policies. with work requirements could not remain on In particular, in the years immediately after TANF—a message that undoubtedly contrib- TANF implementation, the size of New York’s uted to the large caseload declines in these TANF caseload fell much more slowly than two states during the early years of TANF it did in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and many implementation. other states. From 1996 to 1999, New York’s This pattern changed substantially in later TANF caseload declined in size by 27 percent years—with larger caseload declines occurring (Table 4). In contrast, the decline in New in New York than in other states. In each year

35 from 2000 to 2003, caseload declines were in the form of vouchers for specific expenses larger in New York than they were in New such as housing and utilities. These policies and Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the nation as a whole. practices most likely contributed to the large These larger declines in New York during declines in New York’s welfare caseload in the this period caused the state to “catch up” period leading up to and immediately after the with other states in terms of overall caseload five-year limit on federally funded benefits tak- declines. From 1996 to 2003, the caseloads of ing effect in the state. New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the nation as a whole, all declined by just over 50 Finally, in the most recent period (2003 to percent (Table 4). 2005), we observe increases in the size of the TANF caseloads in both New Jersey and Penn- Why did New York experience unusually large sylvania—with the increase in Pennsylvania caseload declines from 2000 to 2003? The being particularly pronounced. TANF casel- state’s use of the five-year federal limit on oads in both states reached their smallest size benefits may have played a role. As described in 2002 (Table 4). Over the next three years, earlier, the state does not have a time limit on the caseload sizes increased by 8 percent in benefits. Instead, it transitions recipients from New Jersey and by 21 percent in Pennsylvania. the federally funded Family Assistance (FA) In contrast, in New York and in the nation as a program to the state funded Safety Net Assis- whole, caseloads have continued to decline. tance (SNA) program at this point. However, as described in the previous section, studies Why have the TANF rolls in New Jersey and of the program’s implementation suggests that particularly Pennsylvania begun to increase in local welfare agencies often used the five-year recent years, in contrast to the pattern in the limit on federally funded benefits to motivate nation as a whole? One contributing factor clients to comply with work requirements or may be the approach these two states have to leave the welfare rolls. The five-year limit taken to implementing time limits. Both states presented them with the opportunity to cre- extend clients’ benefits once they reach the ate a sense of urgency among long-term and five-year limit, as long as they are comply- noncompliant clients, raising for the first time ing with TANF requirements. Through these the possibility of their benefits ending (since extensions, the states have avoided closing the state does not have full-family sanctions). large numbers of TANF cases for reaching time limits. In contrast, many other states have Moreover, the nature of the benefit itself closed a substantial number of cases that have changes substantially at the five-year point in reached time limits. Another contributing New York in ways that may make it less attrac- factor in Pennsylvania may be the state’s fairly tive to recipients. In particular, after 60 months limited use of diversion of TANF applicants. of benefit receipt, recipients transition from FA As described earlier, the state only began to SNA. Under FA, they receive a cash benefit, its diversion program in 2005—consider- while under SNA they mostly receive benefits ably later than New Jersey, New York, and

36 many other states. In addition, Pennsylvania’s children. Two-parent families face higher hours diversion program is optional and very nar- requirements. rowly targeted to clients who are currently or recently employed and “awaiting receipt Under the original federal welfare reform of verified, self-sustaining income” (DPW legislation, the work participation rate require- 2005). In contrast, in many other states with ments were gradually increased—reaching a diversion programs, these programs serve a maximum level of 50 percent for all families much broader set of applicants and are more in fiscal year 2002 (and 90 percent for two- explicitly aimed at discouraging applicants from parent families). States that do not meet entering the TANF rolls. these targets face reductions in their TANF funding. States receive credits toward this TANF Work Participation Rates work participation requirement for reductions Finally, we examine the TANF work participa- in the size of their welfare caseload. Because tion rates in each of these three states. In caseloads dropped so substantially in the first particular, we examine the success of these few years of TANF implementation, these states in meeting federal benchmarks for the caseload reduction credits were very large and proportion of TANF families in allowable work virtually eliminated the need for most states activities. To be counted toward this federal to be concerned about meeting federal work participation benchmark, families must meet participation requirements. With these credits a minimum hours requirement that varies factored in, these work participation targets with their particular circumstances. For single were reduced to very low levels and even zero parents, the minimum requirement is 20 hours in many cases. For this reason, states rarely per week for those with a child under age six faced penalties for not meeting these federal and 30 hours per week for those with older participation benchmarks.

TABLE 5 TANF Work Participation Rates: 1998–2004 (in percentages) New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United States 2004 34.6 37.8 7.1 32.2 2003 35.0 37.1 9.9 31.3 2002 36.4 38.5 10.4 33.4 2001 39.0 41.4 10.8 34.4 2000 37.8 33.2 11.2 34.0 1999 30.3 36.3 16.2 38.3 1998 26.5 37.5 19.3 35.3

Source: Administration for Children and Families website. Note: Figures represent monthly averages of the proportion of TANF families participating in allowable work activities for the number of hours required to meet federal participation standards. For single parents, this represents 20 hours per week for those with children under age six and 30 hours per week for those with older children. Two-parent families must meet higher work participation standards.

37 However, as part of TANF reauthorization, received TANF for 24 months. Pennsylvania the federal government has changed the way TANF recipients are expected to partici- it calculates these caseload reduction credits, pate in a work activity during these first two and these changes will make the federal work years; however, no explicit minimum hours participation requirement much more relevant requirement is imposed. Second, Pennsylva- and meaningful to states. The base year for nia’s minimum hours requirement after two calculating caseload reductions has changed years—20 hours per week—is lower than from 1995 to 2005. Since TANF caseloads most other states and below the federal were at historically low levels by 2005, it will requirement for many families. Therefore, a likely prove much more challenging for states substantial number of families may be meeting to achieve large caseload reductions that will the state minimum hours requirement but not substantially reduce the federal participation meeting the federal requirement and thus are requirements. not counted toward official TANF participation rate figures. In addition, Pennsylvania has more Table 5 presents the percentage of TANF exemptions from these requirements than families in New Jersey, New York, Pennsyl- some states do—exempting, for example, all vania, and the nation as a whole that met recipients who are caring for a child who is less the federal work participation benchmarks than one year old. Many other states (including during the period 1998 to 2004. In no year did New Jersey) require new mothers to work by any of these three states reach a 50 percent the time their baby is three months old. Finally, participation rate. New Jersey and New York Pennsylvania and other states may not have reached their peak participation rate for this always strived to document every recipient in period in 2001—with rates of 39.0 percent an allowable work activity, since prior to fed- and 41.4 percent respectively. Pennsylvania eral TANF reauthorization legislation adopted has fallen particularly short of this 50 percent in 2006 these work participation rates had participation benchmark. Its highest participa- little consequence. tion rate during this period was 19.3 percent in 1998. By 2004, this rate had fallen to only 7.1 These low work participation rates in percent. Since all of these states experienced Pennsylvania and other states have not been substantial caseload declines during this period, an issue until recently, because of the large none of them were penalized for having a low caseload declines during the early years under work participation rate. TANF. However, with TANF reauthorization and the new federal rules that change Why were Pennsylvania’s work participation the way these caseload reduction credits are rates so low during this period? Several factors calculated, Pennsylvania and other states face were likely to have contributed. First, unlike new pressures to increase these participa- New Jersey, New York, and most other states, tion rates or face substantial cuts in federal Pennsylvania does not require participa- funding. Pennsylvania appears already to be tion in work activities until recipients have responding to these new pressures to increase

38 participation in work activities. A recent DPW the timing of these declines has varied some- press release indicates that work participation what across the states—with New York’s rates have increased dramatically since 2004. declines coming later than the declines in New According to DPW, their participation rate Jersey and Pennsylvania. These similarities in reached 32 percent in July 2006—more than caseload declines in spite of differences in poli- four times their 2004 participation rate (DPW cies suggest that, in some instances, messages press release dated September 8, 2006). In communicated to clients can be as important addition, according to policy analysts in the as actual policies and practices. For example, state, Pennsylvania is moving toward increasing the strong significance placed on the two- its minimum hours requirements from 20 to year point in Pennsylvania may have played 30 hours per week and requiring participation an important role in early caseload declines in work activities as soon as recipients enter in that state, despite the fact that the state TANF—policy changes that may help the state imposed few sanctions during these early years maintain this rapid progress. and did not require recipients to work immediately. Similarly, the five-year limit on federal Conclusions benefits appears to have contributed to later New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York caseload declines in New York, even though have chosen substantially different policy clients were eligible at this point to transition responses to federal mandates to require into the state funded SNA program that was welfare recipients to participate in work activi- not time limited. ties and to place time limits on their benefits. In terms of work participation rates, however, Pennsylvania, for example, does not require outcomes vary more substantially across these participation in work activities until recipients three states in ways that most likely reflect have received benefits for two years, while the cross-state policy differences. In particular, other two states require work immediately. throughout the period since TANF was imple- Unlike New Jersey and Pennsylvania, New mented, Pennsylvania has had much lower York does not impose full-family sanctions and has no explicit limit on welfare benefits, percentages of families meeting federal work policies adopted in response to the state’s participation rates than did the other two constitutional mandate to support the needy. states. This most likely reflects Pennsylvania’s New York complies with federal requirements policy not to require participation in work to place a time limit on benefits by placing activities during the first two years of TANF recipients who have received cash assistance receipt and to require only 20 hours of work for five years into a state-funded program that at this point—rather than 30 hours or more, is not time limited. as is required in most other states (including New Jersey and New York). It may also In spite of these policy differences, the states reflect, in part, less careful tracking of TANF have achieved similar caseload declines in the recipients’ work activities in Pennsylvania than years since TANF was implemented, although in many other states.

39 New federal requirements imposed as part far below the federal standard. However, the of TANF reauthorization have placed new state is apparently making rapid progress in pressures on states to increase the percentage this area—with sharp increases in the percent- of TANF recipients who are in work activities. age of its caseload working since 2004. As Each of the states examined in this paper will these new federal participation rates begin to need to make substantial progress to avoid take effect, all three states will face continued these financial penalties. Pennsylvania faces a pressure to make progress in this area to avoid particularly substantial challenge in this regard, reductions in their federal TANF funding. since its recent work participation rates were

REFERENCES

Administration for Children and Families. “Char- What Happens After Welfare?” Report 1 from the acteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Assessing Work First Series, June 1999. Recipients.” Available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs /ofa/character/indexchar.htm. Washington, D.C.: Lurie, Irene. “Welfare Reform in New York State.” ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser- Poverty Research News. Chicago, IL: Joint Center for vices, July 2006. Poverty Research, Winter 1998.

Administration for Children and Families. “Tempo- Michalopoulos, Charles; Edin, Kathryn; Fink, Bar- rary Assistance to Needy Families, Separate State bara; Landriscina, Mirella; Polit, Denise F.; Polyne, Program—Maintenance of Effort, Aid to Families Judy C.; Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn; Seith, David; with Dependent Children Caseload Data.” Avail- and Verma, Nandita. “Welfare Reform in Philadel- able at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/ phia: Implementation, Effects, and Experiences of caseloadindex.htm. Washington, D.C.: ACF, U.S. Poor Families and Neighborhoods.” New York, NY: Department of Health and Human Services, August MDRC, September 2003. 2006. New York City Human Resources Administration. Bloom, Dan; Farrell, Mary; Fink, Barbara; and Ad- “Public Assistance—Caseload Engagement Status.” ams-Ciardullo, Diana. “Welfare Time Limits: State Available at www.nyc.gov/html/hra/downloads/pdf/ Policies, Implementation, and Effects on Families.” citywide.pdf. August 2006. New York, NY: MDRC, July 2002. Nightingale, Demetra Smith; Pindus, Nancy; Fender, Lynne; O’Brien, Carolyn; Thompson, Terri; Kramer, Frederica D.; Trutko, John; Mikelson, Kelly; Snyder, Kathleen; and Bess, Roseana. “Recent and Egner, Michael. “Work and Welfare Reform in Changes in New York Welfare and Work, Child New York City During the Guiliani Administration: Care, and Child Welfare Systems.” Washington, A Study of Program Implementation.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 2002. D.C.: The Urban Institute, July 2002.

Korelek, Robin; Pindus, Nancy; Capizzano, Jeffrey; Paulsell, Diane and Ali Stieglitz. “Implementing and Bess, Roseana. “Recent Changes in New Jersey Employment Retention Services in Pennsylvania: Welfare and Work, Child Care, and Child Welfare Lessons from Community Solutions.” Princeton, NJ: Systems.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 2001. August 2001. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. “TANF Legal Services of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Plan.” Available at www.dpw.state.pa.us/Low- Poverty Research Institute. “Assessing Work First: Inc/Cash/003673645.htm. November 2005.

40 Pavetti, LaDonna; Derr, Michelle K.; Kirby, Gretch- U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County Quick- en; Wood, Robert G.; and Clark, Melissa. “The Use Facts.” Available at quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index. of TANF Work-Oriented Sanctions in Illinois, New html. June 2006. Jersey, and South Carolina.” Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April, 2004. Weishaupt, Richard and Anne Mentzer. “The Allo- cation of TANF and Child Care Funding in Pennsyl- Rangarajan, Anu; Haimson, Joshua; Rosenberg, vania.” Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Linda C.; Strong, Debra A.; Wood, Robert G.; and Metropolitan Policy Program, August 2006. Zippay, Alison. “Moving Clients into Self-Sufficiency: Summary of Findings from the WFNJ Evaluation.” Wood, Robert G.; Rangarajan, Anu; and Deke, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., John. “WFNJ Clients under Welfare Reform: How May 2005. Is an Early Group Faring Over Time?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., September Rangarajan, Anu and Robert G. Wood. “Current 2003. and Former WFNJ Clients: How Are They Faring 30 Months Later?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Wood, Robert G.; Rangarajan, Anu; and Deke, Policy Research, Inc., November 2000. John. “Early and Later WFNJ Clients: Are Their Ex- periences Different?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Rosenberg, Linda; Roper, Richard; and Stieglitz, Ali. Policy Research, Inc., April, 2004. “Reshaping Welfare in New Jersey: Lessons from the Implementation of Work First New Jersey.” Wood, Robert G.; Rangarajan, Anu; and Gordon, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Anne. “WFNJ Clients and Welfare Reform: A Final July 2000. Look at an Early Group.” Princeton, NJ: Math- ematica Policy Research, Inc., September 2004. Rowe, Gretchen and Jeffrey Versteeg.. “Welfare Rules Databook: State Policies as of July 2003.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April 2005.

Notes

1. See Appendix Table A.1 for more details on this 3. Two offices were created within DFA—the and other TANF policies. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) and the Office of Children and Family Ser- 2. The three-month exemption for a child can be vices (OCFS). The former administers FA and SNA. extended to the full 12 months at the discretion of the social services official (Rowe and Versteeg 4. These caseload figures include child-only TANF 2005). cases, as well as cases in separate state programs funded through state maintenance-of-effort funds.

41 APPENDIX TABLE A.1 Basic Rules Governing TANF Programs in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, 2003a

Category of rules New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Formal diversion Early Employment Initiative NY provides diversionary PA initiated a diversion payments requires all applicants able to payments for crisis items program for families who work and not in immediate such as moving expenses, qualify for TANF to pay for need to conduct an intensive diversion job-related financial needs that have 15 to 20 day job search transportation payments, and occurred due to loss of job before receiving benefits. diversion rental payments. or reduction in earnings. The Eligible applicants receive a No job search is required at family must verify that income lump-sum payment prior to application by the state. will be received by the end of their search and are eligible the Diversion period that will to receive a second lump- make it unnecessary for the sum payment if they obtain family to apply for ongoing employment and withdraw TANF benefits. their application. Asset test Applicants with more than Applicants with more than Applicants with more than $2,000 in assets are not $2,000 in assets are not $1000 in assets are not eligible. $9,500 of market eligible ($3000 in units eligible. One vehicle owned by value of vehicle owned by unit including an elderly person). unit excluded from asset test. excluded from asset test. $4,650 of market value of vehicle owned by unit excluded from asset test. Income Applicants must have gross Applicants must have gross Applicants must have gross eligibility/ income below 150 percent income below 185 percent income below 185 percent counting of maximum benefit payment of a state-set need standard of a state-set need standard schedule. Income of the and net income (income and net income (income after parents of applicants who after income disregards are income disregards are applied) are minors is included in applied) below the standard below the standard monthly calculation of gross income monthly welfare payment. welfare payment. Earned even if minor is not living with Earned income disregard is income disregard is $90. parents. $90. Maximum monthly income Maximum monthly income Maximum monthly income for initial eligibility for family for initial eligibility for family for initial eligibility for family of three: $677. Maximum of three: $636. Maximum of three: $677. Maximum recipient can earn monthly recipient can earn monthly recipient can earn monthly and still remain eligible: $806. and still remain eligible: $848. and still remain eligible: $1067. Other eligibility No special eligibility rules for No special eligibility rules for The principal earner in a two- rules two-parent applicant units.** two-parent applicant units.** parent unit must furnish proof of having worked in 6 out of Pregnant women with no Pregnant women with no 13 previous quarters.** other children are not eligible. other children are eligible, as is the father of the child. Pregnant women with no other children are eligible.

42 Category of rules New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Benefit Earned income disregard. Earned income disregard. $90 Earned income disregard. 50% of computation 100% in first month, 50% and 51% of remainder. earned income disregarded. thereafter. The amount of assistance Benefit level differs across four Currently (2006), varies across social service groups of counties. Currently maximum monthly benefit districts. Currently (2006), (2006), maximum monthly benefit is $424. In 2003, this was maximum monthly benefit for a family of three with no the 24th most generous for a family of three with income living in the largest group level in the country. no income living in New of counties is $403. In 2003, this York City is $691. In 2003, was the 25th most generous level the maximum benefit of in the country. $577 specified by Ware and Versteeg (2005) was 7th most generous in the country. Work All non-exempt recipients Non-exempt recipients All non-exempt recipients requirements 20 and older are required who have completed high over age 22 and non-exempt to work 35 hours a week. school or equivalent and recipients between ages 18 and Non-exempt recipients have no child under age 6 22 who have (1) completed high under 20 who have are required to a minimum school/GED or (2) choose not to completed high school/ of 30 hours a week. Non- participate in educational activities GED, and non-exempt exempt recipients who have must conduct a job search for recipients ages 16–18 not completed high school or up to 8 weeks if not already who have dropped out equivalent and have no child employed at least 20 hours a of school are required to under age 6 are required to week. No hourly requirement is work 35 hours a week. “work” full-time as defined by specified for the first 24 months, Education and training their educational institution at though recipients must make a count toward work hours basic or remedial education, good faith effort to find work. for both groups. All non- high school/GED, or English Non-exempt recipients between exempt recipients under as 2nd language. Non- the ages of 18 and 22 who have 20 years of age who have exempt recipients with a not completed high school/GED not completed high school child under six years old must and who choose to participate in and have not dropped out work 20 hours a week if they educational activities may do so in are required to complete are able to find child-care for place of work during the first 24 20 hours of education per their child. months. Non-exempt recipients week. under 18 may attend high school or work at an unsubsidized job. After 24 months, recipients must work 20 hours/week. Activities Ill or incapacitated heads Ill or incapacitated heads of Ill or incapacitated heads of exemptions of unit and those caring unit and those caring for ill unit are exempt from work for ill or incapacitated or incapacitated persons are activities. Those caring for ill or persons are exempt from exempt from work activities. incapacitated persons are not work activities. In addition, In addition, heads of unit who specified as exempt, but may meet heads of unit who are are 60 or older, who are 9 the state’s criteria for “good cause” 60 or older, who are 7 months pregnant or more, for deferral or noncompliance. In months pregnant or more, or who are caring for a child addition, heads of unit who are 60 or who are caring for a under 12 months of age are or older or who are caring for a child under 3 months of exempt. This last exemption child under 12 months of age are age are exempt. The latter for care of a very young child exempt. The exemption for care two exemptions may be is typically limited to 3 months of a very young child is limited to extended if determined to in duration for any one child 12 months total over the lifetime be medically necessary by a and 12 months total over the of the client. There is no specific physician. lifetime of the client. exemption for pregnant women.

43 Category of rules New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Sanctions At the time of first noncompliance At the time of first At the time of first with requirements: The benefit noncompliance with noncompliance with amount is reduced by a per capita requirements: The requirements: If sanction share for the sanctioned individual assistance unit’s benefit occurs within the first 24 for one month or until compliance, is reduced pro rata months of assistance, the whichever is longer. If compliance by the sanctioned needs of sanctioned individuals is not demonstrated after three individual’s share until are not included for benefit months, the entire assistance unit compliance; however, calculation; however, their is determined ineligible for benefits their income (after income (after standard and must reapply. standard disregards) and disregards) and assets are assets are still included still included for eligibility Worst sanction: Entire assistance for eligibility and benefit and benefit calculation unit receives no benefit for three calculation purposes. If purposes. If sanction occurs months. If compliance is not unit head sanctioned, after 24 months of assistance, demonstrated after three months, benefits are issued to the entire assistance the case will be closed and the unit protective payee. unit is ineligible. Sanction will need to reapply. continues for 30 days or until Worst sanction: The compliance, whichever is assistance unit’s benefit longer. is reduced pro rata by the sanctioned Worst sanction: Same as individual’s share, as above, except that if repeated above. The individual is sanction occurs after 24 sanctioned for 6 months months of assistance, the or until compliance, entire assistance unit is whichever is longer. permanently ineligible. Time limits All non-exempt recipients are Once individuals have All non-exempt recipients subject to the federal 60-month reached the 60-month are subject to the federal lifetime limit, after which point the time limit, they are 60-month lifetime limit, after entire unit’s benefits are terminated eligible to receive non- which point the entire unit’s unless exemptions/extensions apply. cash assistance through benefits are terminated unless the state’s Safety Net exemptions/extensions apply. Months in which the head of Assistance program. household is ill or incapacitated, Months in which the head caring for an ill or incapacitated No months are of household is working 30 person, a minor parent, an individual exempted from hrs. a week but still eligible by 60 or older, a victim of domestic inclusion in the 60- income, ill or incapacitated, violence, or receiving diversion month time limit. caring for an ill or payments are exempted from the Extensions to the limit incapacitated person, a victim lifetime time limit. Extensions to are granted for months of domestic violence, or under the limit are granted for months in which the head was ill sanction are exempted from in which the head of household or incapacitated, caring the lifetime time limit, to a is working 40 hrs. a week but still for an ill or incapacitated total of 12 months. Extensions eligible by income, cooperating with person, a victim of to the limit are granted for requirements but unable to find domestic violence, or in months in which the head employment, ill or incapacitated, drug treatment. of household is working 30 caring for an ill or incapacitated hrs. a week but still eligible person, caring for a child under 12 by income, cooperating with months old, one month or more requirements but unable pregnant, a victim of domestic to find employment, ill or violence, or likely to suffer extreme incapacitated, caring for an ill hardship were benefits terminated. or incapacitated person, caring In general, extensions are limited to for a child under 12 months two 6-month extensions for a total old, or a victim of domestic of 12 cumulative months. violence.

44 Category of rules New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Transitional Provides transitional child care Provides transitional child Although the state has benefits for 24 months to units that care for 12 months to units provided no transitional child received assistance in 3 of last that received assistance in care targeted to TANF leavers 6 months prior to ineligibility. 3 of last 6 months prior to since 1998, TANF leavers have ineligibility. largely been and continue to Provides transitional Medicaid be eligible to receive child care coverage for 24 months to Provides transitional Medicaid support through the state’s units that received assistance coverage for 12 months to Child Care Works program in 3 of last 6 months prior to units that received assistance (Weishaupt and Mentzer ineligibility. in 3 of last 6 months prior to 2006). ineligibility. Additional transitional benefits Provides transitional Medicaid that former recipients may Additional transitional coverage for 12 months to receive include treatment benefits that former units that received assistance through the Substance Abuse recipients may receive for any duration. Initiative for six months, up include uniform allowances, to six months of transitional disability or payroll insurance, transportation benefits tools, license fees, or other through Extended WorkPass items needed to enable Program, and educational or the recipient to maintain occupational training through employment. Career Advancement Voucher Program.

Sources: Welfare Rules Database (http://anfdata.urban.org/WRD); state social service agency websites. * Data in the table are all current as of 2003. When possible, we have updated policies to 2006 based on state TANF plans, published regulations and agency websites. ** Under AFDC, two-parent units faced three additional eligibility requirements that single-parent units did not: (1) the principal earner could not be employed for more than 100 hours per month, (2) he or she had to furnish proof of having worked in 6 out of 13 previous quarters, and (3) the unit had to wait 30 days from the time of last employment.

45 46 Ten More Years: The Future of Welfare Reform

to fill critical gaps in the current array of Olivia Golden programs that support work and income and The Urban Institute to tailor existing programs like Unemployment The purpose of this paper is to build on the Insurance (UI) so that they actually work for lessons of the last 10 years to plan for the low-income families. The paper then offers a next 10—and, in particular, to offer reflections framework for thinking about these broader about the most promising directions forward strategies, and it closes with a brief look ahead to reduce poverty and hardship and promote at the political context for implementing them. economic security among low-income families. The paper draws on my personal experi- TANF 10 Years Later: ences as Assistant Secretary for Children and Where Are We and What Families at the U.S. Department of Health Have We Learned? and Human Services from 1997 to 2001, Lessons from success with responsibility for implementing the 1996 Three lessons about success stand out from welfare reform legislation, and on the body of the TANF experience. First, during the 1990’s, research about the effects of the legislation, parental employment increased, particularly particularly several important papers by my for the least educated single parents, and colleagues at the Urban Institute. child poverty dropped dramatically, including persistent challenges such as poverty among Even though the goal is to offer insights for the black children. Researchers consistently iden- future, the paper begins by looking backwards, tify three causes for these shifts, although they at the lessons that stand out from the 10 years disagree on the proportion due to each: the since welfare reform—lessons both about suc- strong economy, welfare reform, and other cess and about remaining challenges. Based on public programs that support work (Golden these lessons, the paper argues that the future 2005). To me, one important implication of agenda for improving the economic security these large improvements in the previous 2 and wellbeing of low-income families is not trends is that policy discussions should set the primarily about welfare—that is, Temporary bar high, rather than assuming that poverty Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF—but and economic insecurity among families will rather demands multiple strategies. To make inevitably remain at past levels. a difference to struggling families, we need

47 Second, public programs to support work are sion, including Congressional support for the a key part of any strategy. Along with welfare major expansions in work support programs reform and a strong economy, public invest- described above as well as the behavior of ments in these programs, such as the Earned state legislatures after welfare reform. Rather Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child care than engaging in a “race to the bottom”, as subsidies, contributed to the major increase some observers had feared, state strategies in employment among single parents during after welfare reform generally focused on the 1990’s. An Urban Institute analysis of work, and not only on requirements and sanc- four key work support programs—the EITC, tions but also on investments. For example, Food Stamps, child care, and Medicaid/ all but three states changed their income State Children’s Health Insurance Program disregard policies to increase the amount of (SCHIP)—found that spending on these four income recipients may earn without lowering core work support programs increased in their TANF benefits. Sixteen states enacted real terms by 27 percent between 1996 and state Earned Income Tax Credits modeled on 2002, reaching $131 billion in federal and state the federal EITC by 2001. Between 2002 and spending in 2002. Expansions of Medicaid 2006, five more states implemented a new and SCHIP coverage and higher medical costs EITC, and nine states with an existing EITC accounted for the lion’s share—$22 billion increased the credit (Maag 2006). or 48 percent—of the spending increase, but spending on child care subsidies also tripled Remaining challenges/limits over this period ($4 billion in 1996 to $12 to success billion in 2002). Yet despite this increase, one At the same time that these successes are part third of low-income families receive none of of the story of welfare reform, there are also the three non-tax benefits (Medicaid, Food important remaining challenges. Despite the Stamps, or child care subsidies), one-third improvements in employment and for some receive just one of the benefits, and only 5 families in income, low-wage working parents percent report receiving all three (Zedlewski, continue to try to raise children with inadequate Adams, Dubay, and Kenney 2006). wages and benefits; parents with major and persistent barriers to employment are increas- Third, Americans broadly believe in supporting ingly isolated from both work and income work and in giving parents a hand if they are support programs (Loprest and Zedlewski working and living up to their own responsi- 2006); low-income children continue to lag far bilities. I consistently heard this message from behind better-off children in their developmen- state officials and legislators, as well as busi- tal progress and opportunities; improvements nesses and community leaders, when I traveled in mothers’ employment have not reached around the country after the enactment of fathers; and even the most promising trends of welfare reform seeking support and com- the 1990’s appear to have stagnated or in some mitments to help working poor families. Less cases gotten worse after 2000. subjective evidence also supports this conclu-

48 First, low-wage workers who are also parents employer coverage was being partially offset face many struggles in meeting the family’s by increases in public coverage (Medicaid basic needs (food, housing, health care) and and SCHIP) for children, but not for parents, in raising children. This is true whether or not whose coverage is decreasing (Golden 2005). these parents were ever on welfare. This group The latest census figures showed that public of families—low-income families where at least coverage is no longer offsetting the loss for one parent worked regularly—accounts for children either (Bureau of the Census 2006). about one quarter of America’s children, or 16 million children.3 This is about 70 percent of Another example of a work support program low-income children—60 percent with a par- that is severely limited for low-wage parents ent who worked full-time, full-year and another is Unemployment Insurance. Only about one 10 percent who worked at least half-time all third of those who are unemployed in a given year. These families have low incomes mostly week currently receive unemployment insur- because of low wages, with the median hourly ance, and research suggests that coverage is wage for the primary worker in these families worse for low-wage workers and low-income about $9 (Acs and Loprest 2005). parents. Within the Policy Research Institute’s region, Pennsylvania (covering 47 percent of Many of these families experience difficulty unemployed workers) and New Jersey (45 in making ends meet. Over one-quarter of percent) are substantially above the national low-income families with a full-time worker average, though still clearly with many unem- experience hardships related to food and ployed workers not receiving benefits. New housing (for example, failed to pay the rent, York (35 percent) is close to the average. mortgage, or utilities in the past twelve (Vroman 2005). months). Almost one in 10 of high-work, low- income families report postponing needed Second, the safety net has eroded completely medical care at least once in a 12-month for a small number of “disconnected” families period for lack of health insurance or money who are neither on welfare, receiving cash (Acs and Loprest 2005). disability payments, nor working. In a recent study, my Urban Institute colleagues Pamela Unfortunately, basic job benefits are less likely Loprest and Sheila Zedlewski found that in to be in place for these families than for better 2002, one in five welfare leavers and about 12 off families. For example, low-income working percent of a comparable group of families who families are less likely to have employer- had never been on welfare were disconnected. provided health insurance than comparable Loprest and Zedlewski find that the families middle-income families (about 49 percent of who had never been on welfare face levels of low-income families with a full-time worker disadvantage similar to disconnected welfare compared to 77 percent of middle-income leavers, including similar barriers to work, low families with a full-time worker) (Acs and incomes, and material hardships. However, Loprest 2005). Until 2005, the decrease in fewer disconnected families without welfare

49 experience receive food stamps, housing assis- are more than twice as likely than better-off tance, and Medicaid than disconnected former children to be in poor or fair health, twice welfare families. Lacking any connection (cur- as likely to live with parents who have poor rent or past) to a welfare system that might mental health (Macomber 2006), and more provide assistance, these families may face the likely to live in stressful home environments, to greatest risk. (Loprest and Zedlewski 2006) have low levels of school engagement, and to have emotional and behavioral problems (The Typical barriers to work for these families Urban Institute 2005). include poor physical and mental health, at least two years without work, and less than a Fourth, the improvement in employment high school education. More than half of the rates for low-income women in the 1990’s disconnected families have multiple barriers was not accompanied by similar progress for (Loprest and Zedlewski 2006). low-income men. The employment rates for low-income married women also did not Third, the research suggests a continuing and improve commensurately with low-income persistent gap in wellbeing and development single women (Lerman and Ratcliffe 2000, Acs, for low-income children compared to middle- Holzer, and Nichols 2005). income children. At the enactment of welfare reform, opponents feared that the conse- Finally, in a number of key areas where there quences would be devastating to children was positive movement in the 1990’s, such as while proponents hoped that having a parent child poverty, the years since 2000 have seen go to work every day would in itself improve negative trends or stagnation. The share of low children’s outcomes. But the results have not income single-adult households with no work confirmed either the fear or the hope: the rose to 16.4 percent in 2003 from 11.2 percent general theme of the research is that there in 2000 (Acs et al. 2005). Child poverty and was not much change for children as a result black child poverty in particular have turned of welfare reform (Beadle 2006). Looking up, with black children losing ground relative specifically at families on welfare compared to to white children (and doing so “at a faster families who have left, Loprest and Zedlewski rate than in years following past recessions”) find that most measures of children’s behavior (Nichols 2006). While the gains of the 1990’s and emotional problems remain constant have not been erased, the trends are now (Loprest and Zedlewski 2006). moving in the wrong direction.

Unfortunately, that leaves the country The Future of the Anti- with large gaps between the wellbeing and Poverty Agenda: Looking developmental status of low-income and Beyond Welfare higher-income children, a threat to our future Thus, we have not yet achieved the goal of that requires a more aggressive strategy to economic security for struggling families: address. For example, low-income children families who do their part will be able to make

50 ends meet and raise children who thrive. More broadly, the problems with TANF as a How might we build on the successes and vehicle for improving the economic security of turn around the remaining failures of welfare low-income families are both substantive and reform in order to achieve this goal? The first political. First, it isn’t designed to provide long- lesson I want to propose is that despite the term support to families who are working. Yet title of this conference and the focus on look- the very large group of low-income working ing back at welfare reform, the future of the families needs exactly that: help in raising chil- anti-poverty agenda is not about welfare. dren while working low-wage jobs, whether that help takes the form of a supplement to First, TANF now serves too few people to be earnings, subsidies to make expensive neces- an effective lever for change, and the people sities like health insurance, housing, or child who are not supported by this funding include care more affordable, or access to on-the-job some of those that public policies most need training or part-time community college pro- to reach. This is in part because of two trends grams so they can advance at work. Second, it already noted: many families are working isn’t designed to provide long-term services to regularly and thus often not eligible for TANF, families with major barriers to work—even if and a smaller but still significant group of those families can work erratically or part-time. families are disconnected from both welfare For example, a parent with major depression and work, presumably in at least some cases as well as chronic physical problems such as because the employment-focused expecta- diabetes or back pain might be able to work tions of TANF are too difficult for them to regularly and raise her children if she had meet. A sharp decrease in the TANF caseload good, uninterrupted health and mental health has led to a program that served 48 percent care, help in caring for the children, access to of those eligible (2.1 million families) in 2002, a steady part-time job, and some supplement down from 80 percent (4.6 million families) to her earnings. But without that long-term in 1996 (The Urban Institute 2006). And the support, she may well drop out of welfare families who are not on TANF include many programs and work erratically, leaving or being who are in the deepest trouble. For example, fired whenever her chronic problems flare up. Loprest and Zedlewski find that deep poverty—family income under 50 percent of the Third, both of these limits are made worse by poverty level, or about $9,500 for a family TANF’s budget limitations and its political con- of four—decreased substantially for single text, as a welfare program that is available only parents on welfare from 1997 to 2002, though to the poorest people (known as a “means- it remained above 50 percent. However, for a tested” program). The TANF budget is based comparable group not on welfare, deep pov- on the amount the state and federal govern- erty increased over those years, from 19.5 to ments used to spend on families receiving cash 25.8 percent (Loprest and Zedlewski 2006). assistance—not on the needs of the far larger group of families who are now working at low- wage jobs, not entering the welfare office, and

51 still unable to meet their families’ basic needs. single policy—a single magic bullet—may seem As a result, trying to meet broader and more appealing but may not have the same capacity long-term needs through TANF—whether to drive major change. the needs are access by low-income families to community college, or help for parents who Therefore, I offer a framework for next steps have chronic mental or physical illness—typi- that is grounded in the list of remaining chal- cally prompts the concern that parents in similar lenges and specifically in the particular needs circumstances who do not go on welfare will of families—the underlying reasons that par- not have access to the benefit. Thus, to many it ents struggle to balance work, raising children, feels deeply unfair to fund (for example) com- and meeting their families’ basic economic munity college for a parent on welfare but not needs. The proposed framework groups pos- for a parent who works at the same low-wage sible policies under six goals, each of which job and lives next door but has never gone on corresponds to a specific challenge that strug- welfare. For a brief period, there was momen- gling families face. tum in the TANF program to reach out and address the needs of low-income working fami- Challenge 1: Address the needs of families lies much more broadly, but that was a period with major and persistent barriers to work, in the late 1990’s when the federal government such as chronic problems with physical and mental health was increasing funding for key work support For disconnected families, whether on welfare programs like child care subsidies and health or not, the evidence suggests that quite seri- insurance for children, so states could expand ous problems with mental and physical health, services without having to trade off the needs substance abuse, family violence, and caring of equally deserving families. Today, the pos- for a child with a disability often contribute sibilities of creating large-scale change through to the family’s distress. These are problems TANF are much bleaker. worth tackling directly, both to help a family become more economically independent and Where To Go From Here: secure and to improve children’s odds of later Beyond TANF success—since many of these problems affect If the next step is not to reform welfare once parenting as well as employment chances. again, what is it? Remember that the success of TANF is just one small piece of the puzzle the late 1990’s in improving families’ economic for these families, and it is not big enough or condition was driven not by welfare alone, closely enough tied to medical, mental health, nor even welfare plus the economy alone, or vocational rehabilitation expertise to but also by a plethora of investments in work become the solution alone. support programs. In other words, a range of policies directed at the same goal—such as supporting work by low-income parents—has Challenge 2: Make work pay—that is, enable families to get by without excessive hardship the potential for a major impact. Looking for a while working in low-wage jobs

52 Even after the expansion of work support while receiving only 8 percent of the increase programs like the EITC, child care subsidies, in unemployment insurance. Thus, another public health insurance, and Food Stamps in key goal in the anti-poverty agenda is to help the 1990’s, a relatively large proportion of low- low-income working parents make it through income working parents cannot stretch their temporary gaps in employment, avoiding crises paychecks to cover food, mortgage or rent, like eviction that will make re-employment and utility bills, and a smaller but still significant even harder and continuing to meet their proportion postpone needed health care families’ basic needs. because of not having the money to pay for it. A key principle of welfare reform avowed Challenge 4: Support parents’ advancement that parents who do their part by working at work to better-paying jobs should not have to sacrifice their children’s Parents in “high-work” low-income working wellbeing, a value that the polls completed for families are currently earning very low wages, this conference suggest remains strong (Global an average of $9 per hour, compared to $14 Strategy Group, LLC 2006). Thus, a key goal per hour for comparable middle-income for the next anti-poverty agenda should be working families (Acs and Loprest 2005). So making sure that parents who work regularly another goal is to help parents get on track in low-wage jobs are able to afford their fami- for better jobs, so that they can do better for lies’ basic needs. their families.

Challenge 3: Enable families to weather gaps Not surprisingly, researchers differ in their in employment analyses of the reasons behind low wages Low-wage work is uncertain and associated and therefore in their preferred solutions, but with spells of unemployment. In addition, many would agree that some combination of low-wage workers who are also parents have parents’ own skills and education, individual responsibilities to their families as well as to employer practices (such as the presence or their job and may need spells away from work absence of career ladders at the workplace), for family-related reasons, such as birth or the and the broader context of globalization all serious illness of a family member. Finally, as play a part in advancement or its absence. For sketched earlier, the existing program intended an anti-poverty agenda focused on families, the to cover gaps in employment for regular solutions will need to be tailored to low-wage workers—unemployment insurance—is workers who are also parents and therefore fraying severely in its coverage for the whole are juggling multiple responsibilities. workforce and particularly for low-wage workers and low-income families. For example, Challenge 5: Enable parents to combine work my Urban Institute colleagues Holzer, Acs, and child-rearing so as to support employment and Nichols found that from 2000 to 2003, retention and steadier work patterns single parent households bore 37 percent Combining work and child-rearing poses of the loss in full-time, full-year employment obstacles not only to advancement on the job

53 but also to employment retention and stability. for the anti-poverty framework is identifying Middle-class parents also experience these policies to change this cycle and enable low- obstacles—often summarized as work-family income parents to balance raising children with challenges—but they are far more extreme steady employment. for low-wage workers who have the fewest resources to handle the balance and the least Challenge 6: Improve children’s wellbeing flexibility and fewest benefits at work. For and development, consistent with parents’ example, low-income working families are more employment likely to have non-standard work schedules Finally, I have already suggested that improving (that is, evening, night, or weekend working the opportunities and wellbeing of low-income hours) than middle-income families and also children represents an unfulfilled promise more likely to have no paid leave at all, even of welfare reform. Fulfilling this promise, sick leave (The Urban Institute 2005). Together by improving low-income children’s health, with the lack of control over schedules common wellbeing, and development and reducing the in low-wage work, along with schedules that large and persistent gaps between lower- and change from day to day or week to week, these higher-income children, is a final key goal of constraints pose major challenges to child care the anti-poverty agenda. Improvements in arrangements and to parenting—challenges that children’s development can potentially pay off in turn can force a parent to leave a job or to in the next generation, extending the reach of miss work and risk termination. the agenda beyond today’s adults.

Ethnographic evidence suggests that the Because the bulk of the evidence suggests impact on employment stability and family that parents with sufficient support—such as wellbeing can be compounded by the interac- good child care and health insurance—can tions among the low-wage labor market with both work and raise thriving children, I take its rigid expectations and limited benefits, the goal to be advancing children’s devel- the child care market, and the structure of opment in ways that are consistent with public programs like child care subsidies. For parents’ work—not in general reducing work. example, suppose a change in a parent’s job However, the evidence does suggest some schedule requires a child to leave a child care limited times in a child’s life—most notably center where she was happy. The parent then early infancy—when work should temporar- improvises a child care arrangement with a ily come second and low-income parents, neighbor, the improvised arrangement falls like higher-income parents, ought to have the through because of the child’s or caregiver’s chance to focus on the baby for some period reluctance, the parent takes days off to try to of time (Ehrle, Adams, and Tout 2001). More fix it and is fired, and the child care subsidy broadly, the evidence suggests expanded and that supported the original center care is no intensive investments of the kind that we know longer available because the parent is not work, such as investments in early childhood working (Golden et al. 2006). Thus, a fifth goal education; special attention not only to infants

54 but also to adolescents, who in some of the spending long periods of time unemployed and welfare reform studies appear to be suffering disconnected when a condition flares up or when low-income parents work long hours; when the pressure of the job becomes over- and attention to policies that both raise family whelming. Unable to meet the rules for TANF, income and directly address wellbeing, such as to hold down a steady job, to receive disability policies to promote children’s health insurance payments, or to maintain health insurance— and affordable housing in safe communities. extremely unlikely to be available through low-wage jobs, and much less available for Applying the Framework: adults than for children under state Medicaid Some Examples programs—these families risk deep poverty To illustrate how this framework might guide and deep damage for their children. the development of an agenda, I offer examples of policies for each of the goals. The label Researchers are studying alternative national of “examples” rather than “recommendations” approaches to partial and temporary disability is deliberate: the set of policies I have chosen is that offer one approach to helping these fami- not intended to be the right set and certainly lies. For example, an approach modeled on the not a comprehensive set but rather illustrative, United Kingdom would allow for temporary meant to stimulate the thinking of policy-mak- and partial disability payments, combined with ers at the state level in particular. health care and rehabilitative services, for people who cannot work until a disability is under control or who cannot work full-time Goal #1: Address the needs of families with large and sustained barriers to work (Wittenburg and Loprest 2003). Example: New approach to temporary and partial disability (including physical health and But there are also more immediate choices mental health problems, substance abuse). available to states. For example, states could provide intensive and continuing services to Based on what we know about disconnected low-income parents with chronic physical and families, as well as families who are receiving mental health and substance abuse problems TANF but having a hard time getting a job using a combination of Medicaid and state or using state employment services, a future funds. Some jurisdictions (including New York anti-poverty agenda will have to respond to City) have explored such services for TANF parents who have chronic problems with parents with substance abuse and other major mental health, physical health, and substance challenges, but I do not know of a state that abuse. Even with multiple and severe chronic has focused intensively on a broader group of problems, these parents are often not eligible low-income parents including those who are for disability assistance under the rules in the disconnected or working sporadically and not United States, because they are not perma- on TANF. A benefit of a broader program is nently unable to work at all. They can and do that it could have important positive effects on work intermittently but then leave or are fired, children’s wellbeing, since untreated parental

55 mental health problems and substance abuse framework: enabling parents to work more can hinder children’s development and con- steadily (Goal #5) and, if the investments tribute to abuse and neglect. are in high quality and stable care, improving children’s development (Goal #6) (Zaslow, Goal #2: Make work pay, and enable families Acs, McPhee, and Vandivere 2006). to get by without excessive hardship while working in low wage jobs To achieve these two-generational advantages, Example: Major investment in child care subsidy though, policy-makers need to pursue the goals of work and high quality child care at the Even if a parent’s wages are low, she still same time. During the 1990’s, for example, the must pay for the family’s basic needs—hous- Clinton Administration sought and achieved ing, food, health care, transportation. Among expansion, improvement in quality, and greater the policies that could help her make ends use of extended day arrangements for working meet—each with its own set of advantages families in Head Start, at the same time tripling and disadvantages—are expanded housing child care subsidies and seeking to provide subsidies, expanded access to health insurance, technical assistance and research support for expansions in Food Stamps or the Earned a child care quality agenda. A small number Income Tax Credit, or an increase in the mini- of states have similarly sought to pursue both mum wage. goals, by extending the availability of child care subsidies while also strengthening quality. The example I have chosen to describe at more length here, however, is a major expan- However, since 2001, the federal funding sion in child care subsidies for low-income streams for both Head Start and child care working families. Without a subsidy, child have remained approximately flat (or care can take a large chunk from the family decreased when inflation is factored in), leading budget—and in fact low-income families that to a grim picture on both the work support I met when I did focus groups around the and quality fronts. Most states today neither country during my years as Assistant Secretary meet the need nor achieve standard reported skipping utility bills and food to make expectations for quality. In 2004, almost half sure they could pay the child care bill. Nation- the states had waiting lists among eligible ally, low-income families who work regularly families for child care subsidies (Edie 2006). and pay for child care spend $3,135 per year One potentially positive step is that some on average, or 12 percent of their income (Acs states have invested in pre-kindergarten and Nichols 2005). programs intended to provide quality care for four-year-old children, but many programs are Beyond making work pay, child care is espe- part-day and therefore unlikely to be accessible cially important to the agenda for struggling to working families, particularly those with low families because it is two-generational. It incomes (Giannarelli, Adelman, and Schmidt addresses at least two of the other goals in this 2003). A two or three-hour program is unlikely

56 to be accessible to many low-income working around this average are considerable: between families, who cannot afford time away from 1994 and 2003, UI receipt averaged less than work to pick up and drop off children and quite 25 percent of the unemployed in 13 states and possibly cannot find or afford part-time exceeded 45 percent in 7. The reasons for this arrangements for the rest of the work day and difference include both differences in specific the summer (Edie 2006). UI policies, such as whether a parent can qualify for assistance after leaving a job for a For the future, the agenda at both the state family reason, and administrative practices (for and the federal level needs to return to example, how likely a state is to throw out a investment in high quality settings for children worker’s eligibility in cases where an employer that can also support parents’ work. The key contests the claim). is complementary investments in child care subsidies, in quality across child care settings One approach to strengthening the safety net so that parents can have a choice of differ- for families is for states to fix specific UI poli- ent options, and in work-friendly variants cies that limit eligibility for low-wage workers of programs that already have a high quality or, particularly, for parents. For example, most design, such as Head Start, Early Head Start, states (all but eight) will compensate a quit and strong state preschool programs. A work- only if it has a work-related good cause. But friendly strategy will also need to invest in high allowing quits for good personal reasons such quality care for children of all ages, not just as caring for a sick child can potentially make 4-year-olds, since working parents have even UI more accessible to parents. Of the three more trouble maneuvering around arrange- states in the Policy Research Institute’s focus ments that fit just one child and leave out his area, New York has made the change while or her siblings. Trading the goals of parents’ Pennsylvania and New Jersey have not (Vro- work and children’s development against each man 2005). other is short-sighted, because in the end, the nation needs both parents who are able to Yet in addition to the policy reasons why work regularly and children who are develop- low-wage workers in general and low-wage ing on track and able to succeed in school. parents in particular are likely under- represented in UI, there remains a great deal that is not known about the procedural and Goal #3: Enable Families to Weather Gaps in Employment administrative reasons. States could make an Example: Unemployment Insurance reform important contribution to struggling families and at the same time to national knowledge It is hard to see how a work-based safety net about the best next steps by examining the can succeed when one of its basic compo- detailed implementation of Unemployment nents, income support to help regular workers Insurance to identify barriers to coverage and through periods of job loss, reaches only potential solutions. For example, a state could one-third of the unemployed. State variations focus on tracking the experiences of low-

57 income working families served by Medicaid because research is scant rather than because and SCHIP, or low-income families who leave findings have been negative. For that reason, welfare for work, or low-income working the paper suggested that the right next step is families receiving child care subsidies, when to expand experimentation by states and local they lose jobs and need UI. Do they know governments, focusing on a number of promis- what to do to get UI, what happens to their ing possibilities. For example, the research does claims, and are there improvements in referral suggest a large pay-off to employer-provided or administrative process, as well as policy, that training, but there has been little large-scale could increase the proportion who are focus on targeting employer-provided train- helped? A bold step for a state might be to set ing to low-wage workers, implying that this a target for UI coverage of these struggling might be a fruitful area for attention. Similarly, families well above its current levels, identifying research has shown that training that leads to barriers and developing policy and administra- credentials recognized by employers can be tive solutions to achieve the target. particularly valuable, suggesting a possible focus on community college programs that meet the Goal #4: Support parents’ advancement at needs of a group of employers in a particular work to better-paying jobs industry (Holzer and Martinson 2005). Example: Scholarships and support services to expand access to community college Among the many possibilities suggested by this paper, I highlight here the potential for state The last two ideas address the economic policy that would expand access to community instability of low-income working families by colleges for low-income working parents, subsidizing their expenses (child care subsidy) through scholarships, stipends, and agreements and seeking to compensate them during gaps with employers. The reasons for highlighting in employment (UI). But another important community college strategies in an agenda goal is to help them raise their low wages— for struggling families are three. First, ongo- the biggest reason that they are low-income. ing random assignment research by MDRC through its Opening Doors Initiative provides A review of the research by Karin Martinson considerable information on the obstacles to and Harry Holzer of the Urban Institute has community college success for low-income identified four broad strategies for improving workers and the strategies that are show- advancement at work for low-income parents: ing early, promising results. Early results • Financial incentives; from Louisiana, for example, suggest that a • Case management and service provision; scholarship program improved achievement, • Skill development; and retention, and enrollment in college full-time. • Employer-focused efforts. The Opening Doors program specifically targets low-income parents, who are uniquely The paper found that the evidence in sup- burdened with the responsibilities of work, port of all of these strategies is limited, largely providing child care, and attending school

58 (Brock and Richburg-Hayes 2006). Goal #5: Enable parents to combine work and child-rearing so as to support employment The second reason for choosing this example retention and steadier work patterns is that access to community college comes up Example: Paid sick leave legislation in some states as part of the TANF debate— Existing policy examples that support this goal, but in fact the greatest impact for low-income enabling low-income parents to weather the families, as well as the most politically sustain- strains of balancing work and family, are fewer able way to advance the agenda, may be for and less well-developed than for the other states to address it separately, not as part of goals, at least in the United States. Tradition- the welfare discussion. Choosing to support ally, Americans have expected families to community college attendance through limited TANF dollars forces choices about who can negotiate this balance themselves, without as attend that may feel intrinsically unfair, possibly much government regulation of job condi- offering opportunities to parents on welfare tions like sick days and schedules, as great a that other low-wage parents do not have. And likelihood of union representation, or as well- given the number of low-wage parents who developed an array of job benefits as parents never walk in the door of a TANF office, it is in other developed countries can count on. of limited substantive as well as political appeal Nonetheless, there are limited examples of to make that a criterion for getting onto a path important policy steps that have been taken to advancement. One promising alternative is nationally or in individual states, including two for states to consider developing separate pro- that are discussed here under other goals grams that assist low-income working parents but also contribute to this one: expanded in returning to school. investment in child care subsidies, described above under Goal #2, and paid parental leave, The third reason for choosing this example is described below under Goal #6. that it illustrates the way programs need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of low- Other examples of public action to sup- income working parents, who must balance port the balance of work and family are just commitments to both their work and their beginning to emerge. For example, a recent children. For example, parents will need finan- publication for state and municipal legislators, cial support through a scholarship or support by CLASP (the Center for Law and Social Pol- from their employer in order to meet family icy), offers options for designing legislation to needs, not just assistance with tuition. They require employer provision of paid sick leave are also likely to need schedules and child for all or many employees (for example, only care that accommodate both work and school full-time employees) (Levin-Epstein and Boyd demands—rather than child care subsidy pro- 2006). Paid sick leave for full-time employees grams that limit care to the hours worked, for may seem a modest goal, representing a basic example—and employer cooperation is likely minimum expectation, yet it is by no means to be important to a parent’s success. trivial to the low-wage workers who are now

59 without it: about one quarter of high work out-of-home care for children: that infants may (roughly, full-time, full-year) low-income fami- suffer developmental damage from too-early lies and one half of moderate-work (roughly, at child care and too many hours in child care, least half-time or half-year) low-income families and that the risks of damage are greater when have no days of paid leave at all, including sick infant care is substandard as it too often is for leave (The Urban Institute 2005). If sick leave low-income families (Zaslow et al. 2006 and is available to workers for the illness of other Capizzano and Main 2005)). Our policy goal family members, as suggested by the legislative for young children should be to strengthen the guidelines, it will be especially helpful to stabi- development of low-income children, not to lize work for low-income parents. undercut it by forcing parents to work during an infant’s first months. In this month’s elections, San Francisco enacted a mandated sick leave requirement The policy gap between the United States and through referendum, making it the first munici- the rest of the world is particularly stark when pality in the country to mandate the benefit it comes to paid leave for parents at the birth for all employees (Parks 2006). Similar legisla- of a child. As many have pointed out, the U.S. tion is being considered in Madison, Wisconsin, is one of the few industrialized nations that Maine, and Massachusetts (Levin-Epstein and provide none. Nationally, the Family and Medi- Boyd 2006). cal Leave Act made an important contribution by guaranteeing unpaid leave to many workers, yet the evidence suggests that some families Goal #6: Improve children’s wellbeing and development, consistent with parents’ cannot afford to take it. A survey of employees employment in 2000 found that “more than half of leave- Example: Paid parental leave takers worry about not having enough money for bills . . . some cut their leave short due to The literature on children’s development financial constraints. In addition, a substantial suggests a range of investments that could share of those who need, but do not take, pay off for low-income families, including the leave say that they did not take the leave they investments in high quality child care and early needed because they could not afford it.” childhood programs mentioned already. Here, (Waldfogel 2001). I focus on paid parental leave because of the opportunity it offers to make a difference Besides the risks to infant well-being when both to children’s development and to family parents are forced to return to work, another economic stability. concern is that there may be longer-term consequences for family economic security. If As an investment in children’s development, parents return to work without taking leave paid parental leave responds to a serious because they need the check, do they risk being concern raised by welfare reform evaluations fired during the difficult period of early infancy, and by the broader research literature on when the baby’s needs and unstable child care

60 options may force a parent to be late or to miss innovation today can potentially provide lessons work unpredictably? Are there some families and models for national action in the future. for which a birth followed by an immediate return to work leads to spiraling set of bad con- Looking Ahead: The Political sequences just at the moment the child is most Landscape vulnerable? Future work by the Urban Institute The charge for this paper asks not only for will look in more detail at the consequences what should happen to advance the policy over time of a birth in low-income families, agenda for low-income families but also for but Ratcliffe and McKernan have already found an assessment of what will happen, given the that the addition to a family of a child under actual political climate. This is of course a dif- six (likely a birth or adoption) increases by 2.5 ficult assignment at any time, let alone at the to 3.5 percentage points the likelihood that a time this paper was drafted, just before the family will move into poverty the following year elections of November 2006. I have left the (Ratcliffe and McKernan 2002).4 predictions as I made them in October, adding only two annotations in light of those elections. In the U.S., five states including New Jersey and New York provide some paid leave for I see three major obstacles blocking substantial disability related to pregnancy and childbirth forward movement of this agenda. First, the through Temporary Disability Insurance. These problem that drove the political urgency of programs provide workers with some wage welfare reform was high welfare caseloads— replacement for a limited period (up to 26 and that problem has been solved. So it is not weeks in New York and New Jersey), and clear whether there is still a problem important they compensate a considerable proportion of to the American public that these suggestions new births—25 percent in New Jersey for the respond to. Even if many people might think 2000–03 period. these suggestions are good ideas, where would the energy and sense of urgency come from to In 2002, California (which also has a TDI drive them forward? program) enacted the nation’s first paid family leave program, to partially replace the wages Second, the federal budget deficit is a con- of parents who leave the labor force to care straint on solutions that require public sector for young children (or ill family members funding, as many (but not all) of these do.5 or for their own illness). The program was Looking at the record of budgets in the past implemented in the summer of 2004 and is few years, though, suggests that this constraint funded through a mandatory payroll tax on all is not the whole story: expenditure increases employees. A number of other jurisdictions and tax cuts have been enacted despite their (including Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, budget effects, so the right question may be Washington, and the District of Columbia) what in this climate would create a strong have introduced paid family leave legislation in enough reason for funding. In her remarks for the past few years. This is an area where state the Urban Institute’s Working Families round-

61 table in 2005, Isabel Sawhill argued that this ness—most notably in the case of health is a time for big ideas, because only big ideas insurance. If employers join the argument will generate enough traction to bring budget for public investment in low-income families resources with them (Golden et al. 2006). because of worries about their own competi- tiveness, that transforms the public debate. And third, children and families with children are becoming less like the rest of the adult Second, to the extent that middle income population demographically—less white, Americans are experiencing growing inse- more Hispanic and African American, more curity—about health insurance, retirement likely to be children of immigrants, less likely prospects, lay-offs, their standard of living, the to be in well-educated and higher-income economic damage done to whole communi- families—a change that could affect support ties as higher-wage jobs leave—they may see for the agenda. For example, Americans typi- a common set of issues with struggling families cally believe in the primary role of parents who are just like them in many ways but have compared to government in ensuring that even less to build on. The same is true of the children have a fair chance at school and life stress that middle-income families experi- success. As families change demographically, ence regarding work and family, a stress that is the public might be more inclined to see their accentuated for middle-income families as it is struggles as failures of parenting rather than as for lower-income families in a less secure eco- challenges that any parent in the same circum- nomic position. A middle-income mother who stances would experience. fears her baby will suffer if she returns to work soon after birth may also be concerned that Yet as an optimist, I see important reasons if she stays home, the family will be unable to for hope. Even if reducing welfare caseloads pay the mortgage. As a result, she could have a brought the initial sense of urgency to the great deal in common with someone just a few welfare reform agenda, the ensuing legislative rungs down the ladder who has even fewer record in statehouses and Congress demon- options. This judgment, that widely perceived strates a widespread consensus that parents economic insecurity could add energy to this who work ought to be able to provide for agenda, is certainly consistent with the results their children. That consensus is an important of November’s election, and in particular with asset, even if it does not solve the problem of the widely noted thread of economic populism urgency and demand for change. in a number of winning campaigns.

What might lead to urgency? Several fascinat- And finally, while children are more different ing developments of the past several years from adults demographically than they used to could answer that question. First, the perspec- be, the other important demographic trend is tives of employers about public investment that there are fewer of them, relative to the in low-income families may be changing as a number of aging baby boomer adults who will result of worries about global competitive- need to be supported. Over time, this could

62 add urgency to an agenda of valuing each child in Massachusetts and paid parental leave in more and ensuring that each child grows up California could make a substantial difference healthy, well-educated, and able to compete in whenever the federal government is again able the global labor market. to focus on domestic policy. The message for the three important states targeted by the Where does this leave the agenda? When I Policy Research Institute for the Region is first presented the paper, I argued that the clear: this is a particularly important time to next two years are an especially important move ahead on an agenda that promotes fami- time for innovation and bold initiatives at lies’ economic security and children’s wellbeing. the state level. Just as AFDC came after many states had adopted mothers’ pension In the light of the November election, I would programs and TANF after states had experi- make only one amendment. If the election is a mented with welfare reform through waivers, sign that the federal government will be ready so the future federal agenda for low-income to pay serious policy attention earlier than we families is likely to depend on emerging state supposed, then the urgency for strong and models. State enactment and implementation effective state action only increases. of new policies like universal health insurance

REFERENCES Acs, Gregory, and Austin Nichols. 2005. Working archives/income_wealth/007419.html (accessed to Make Ends Meet: Understanding the Income and 11/20/2006). Expenses of America’s Low-Income Families. Washing- ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Bureau of the Census. 2004. Statistical Abstract of Families. Paper No. 2. the United States: 2004–05. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office. Acs, Gregory, and Pamela Loprest. 2005. Who Are Low-Income Working Families? Washington, D.C.: Borck, Thomas, and Lashawn Richburg-Hayes. The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. 2006. “Paying for Persistence: Early Results of a Paper No. 1. Louisiana Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents Attending Community College.” New York Acs, Gregory, Harry J. Holzer, and Austin Nichols. City, NY: MDRC. 2005. “How Have Households with Children Fared in the Job Market Downturn?” Washington, D.C.: Capizzano, Jeffrey, and Main, Regan. 2005. “Many The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Young Children Spend Long Hours in Child Care.” Policy Brief A-67. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Snapshots of America’s Families, No. 22. Beadle, Michelle. 2006. Children in Low-Income Families. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Edie, David. 2006. “Toward a New Child Care Low-Income Children. Paper No. 2. Policy.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Policy Brief 2. Bureau of the Census. 2006. “Income Climbs, Poverty Stabilizes, Uninsured Rate Increases.” Ehrle, Jennifer, Gina Adams, Kathryn Tout. 2001. www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/ Who’s Caring for our Youngest Children? Child Care Patterns of Infants and Toddlers. Washington, D.C.:

63 The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Macomber, Jennifer. 2006. An Overview of Selected Occasional Paper No. 42. Data on Children in Vulnerable Families. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Children. Giannarelli, Linda, Sarah Adelman, and Stefanie Paper No. 1. Schmidt. 2003. Getting Help with Child Care Expenses. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Nichols, Austin. 2006. “Understanding Recent Assessing the New Federalism. Occasional Paper No. Changes in Child Poverty.” Washington, D.C.: The 62. Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Policy Brief A-71. Global Strategy Group, LLC. 2006. “Welfare in the Public View.” Presentation at “TANF @ Ten”, Parks, James. 2006. “San Francisco First to Require Princeton, NJ, Oct. 6. Paid Sick Leave.” AFL-CIO. http://blog.aflcio. org/2006/11/09/san-francisco-first-to-require-paid- Golden, Olivia, Pamela Loprest, Sheila Zedlewski, sick-leave/. (accessed 11/20/20006). and Roundtable Moderators. 2006. Parents and Children Facing a World of Risk: “Next Steps Toward The Urban Institute. 2005. “Low-Income Working a Working Families’ Agenda” Roundtable Report. Families: Facts and Figures.” Washington, D.C.: The Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Urban Institute. Fact Sheet. Working Families. Paper No. 5. The Urban Institute. 2006. “A Decade of Welfare Golden, Olivia. 2005. Assessing the New Federalism: Reform: Facts and Figures.” Washington, D.C.: The Eight Years Later. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Urban Institute. Fact Sheet. Institute. Assessing the New Federalism. Vroman, Wayne. 2005. “An Introduction to Holzer, Harry, and Karin Martinson. 2005. Can We Unemployment and Unemployment Insurance.” Improve Job Retention and Advancement Among Low- Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Income Working Parents? Washington, D.C.: The Working Families. Policy Brief No. 1. Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. Paper No. 3. Waldfogel, Jane. 2001. “Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from the 2000 Surveys.” Monthly Labor Lerman, Robert I., and Caroline Ratcliffe. 2000. Review. September: 17–23. “Did Metropolitan Areas Absorb Welfare Recipi- ents without Displacing Other Workers?” Wash- Wittenburg, David, and Pamela Loprest. (Draft). ington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New The Ability or Inability to Work: Challenges in Moving Federalism. Policy Brief A-45. Towards a More Work-Focused Disability Definition for Social Security Administration (SSA) Disability Pro- Levin-Epstein, Jodie, and Laura Boyd. 2006. “Paid grams. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Sick Days Legislation: A Legislator’s Guide.” Wash- ington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy and Zaslow, Martha, Greg Acs, Cameron McPhee, Women’s Legislator’s Lobby. and Sharon Vandivere. 2006 (Draft). Children in Low-Income Working Families: Change and Continu- Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski. 2006. The ity in Family Context and Measures of Well-being. Changing Role of Welfare in the Lives of Low-Income Washington, D.C.: Paper prepared for The Urban Families with Children. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute and Child Trends Roundtable on Children Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Occasional in Low-Income Families. Paper No. 73. Zedlewski, Sheila, Gina Adams, Lisa Dubay, and Maag, Elaine. 2006. “Analyzing Recent State Tax Genevieve Kenney. 2006. Is There A System Support- Policy Choices Affecting Low-Income Working ing Low-Income Working Families? Washington, D.C.: Families: The Recession and Beyond.” Washington, The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Families. D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low-Income Working Paper No. 4. Families. Policy Brief No. 3.

64 NOTES 1. The views expressed in this paper are those of and Children in a World of Risk, “Next Steps toward the author and should not be attributed to the a Working Families’ Agenda” Roundtable Report. Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. In ad- Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Low Income dition to the colleagues whose research is cited in Working Families, Occasional Paper 5. In this paper, I this paper, the author would like to acknowledge also discuss non-working families.) Dr. Pamela Winston for her thoughtful suggestions regarding the framework for thinking about 3. As noted earlier, low-income is defined here as economic security for families and Daniel Kuehn for income less than twice the federal poverty level, or able research assistance. about $38,000 for a family of four.

2. Throughout this paper, I use the term “low- 4. For some families whose prior income was just income families” to refer to families whose income above the poverty line, this could be a consequence is below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, of increasing family size even if income is stable, or about $38,000 for a family of four. As explained since the poverty line is adjusted to increase with in the text, many of these families work long family size. (For example, a family that was just hours for low wages and are much more likely above poverty as a family of three might be below to experience hardship than the families above it when a new baby arrives and it becomes a family them on the income ladder. For a fuller discussion of four.) More detailed research planned for the of the characteristics of one large group of low- future will help to distinguish among different pos- income families, those who work regularly, and the sible patterns. rationale for focusing on them, see Acs, Greg, and Pamela Loprest. 2005. Who are Low-Income Working 5. California enacted a specific per-employee tax Families? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. to fund parental leave, and the mandated sick leave Low-Income Working Families Occasional Paper 1. provisions in San Francisco are funded by employ- and Golden, Olivia, Pamela Loprest, Sheila Ze- ers—a potential political challenge and perhaps an dlewski, and Roundtable Moderators. 2006. Parents economic burden but not a public expenditure.

65 66 Attitudes Toward Poverty and Welfare in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

earning more than 200 percent of the Federal Global Strategy poverty level. Out of the total sample of 1,536 Group, llc people interviewed, 371 were categorized as In September 2006, the Global Strategy working poor, 192 were current recipients of Group conducted a telephone survey on public assistance, and the remaining 973 were behalf of the Policy Research Institute for the categorized as middle class or above. Region in an attempt to gauge the regional attitudes toward the issues of poverty and The Story that Emerges welfare. The results of this survey, which On the following pages, we present selected included responses from 1,536 residents of data that reflects the views of the surveyed New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, population. (Detailed survey questions and provides some insight into how different responses can be found in Appendix D of this groups of people within the region perceive a publication.) There is a story that emerges wide range of issues related to poverty, such from these data: as social responsibility, inequality, personal responsibility and specific government polices. Poverty is a problem and government should play The survey also offers a window into the a role in addressing it … general public awareness about the actual programs in place and how they have evolved People in the region believe that poverty is a over the past 10 years with the beginning of serious problem, and they are very supportive TANF and welfare reform. of “ensuring that no one goes without food, clothing and shelter,” while at the same time Methodology acknowledging that government currently The survey focused on the opinions and favors the rich. Two other findings indicate knowledge of four groups: (1) the entire beliefs that might lead to support for some population of the three-state region, (2) those sort of government intervention: 45 percent currently receiving any form of public assis- believe that people are poor largely for tance, (3) those categorized as the working reasons out of their control compared to poor, who are earning less than 200 percent 35 percent who believe people are poor for of the Federal poverty level, and (4) those reasons under their own control. (Nationally, that are considered middle class and above, the opposite view prevails—47 percent say

67 the blame falls on the poor.) And most people The government should be involved, but how? in the survey tend to believe that poor people generally share their values. (At the same Nearly everyone agrees: the best social time, far fewer individuals believe that Fortune program is a job, we have a moral obliga- 500 CEOs (36 percent), Donald Trump (30 tion to help the poor, and there is a path to percent), or even President Bush (47 percent) self-reliance and getting ahead for those who share “most” or “some” of their values.) work hard. Along these lines, there is strong support for increasing the minimum wage (in Knowledge about actual welfare reform is limited line with national surveys). And beyond jobs, while perceptions of it are positive … low-cost child care (with 89 percent saying it is a good idea), reducing taxes, expanding the By large margins, individuals believe there are EITC, allowing recipients to attend two/four more people on welfare in the last 10 years. year colleges, and training/counseling are all There is little agreement that Bill Clinton did ideas that people support. In the end, individu- “end welfare as we know it.” But when told als surveyed tend to believe that most people that there were in fact large declines, a majority need the help they get from welfare. While says the welfare rolls have dropped because there is solid momentum behind the idea of laws have forced people to work, while one- requiring recipients to submit to drug testing, in-five believe it is because the economy has and support (if somewhat less “intense”) created jobs. While most tend to believe that for requiring welfare recipients to perform individuals who have been removed from community service, those surveyed reject the the welfare have had mixed results, overall notion that government should stop providing respondents still believe that changes in welfare welfare services of some kind. have been beneficial. So in general, individuals believe (“somewhat” but not “strongly”) that Bill Clinton’s welfare reform had a positive effect.

68 Charts

CHART 1

How big a problem is poverty in America today? Is it a very, somewhat, not very, or not at all serious problem? Very serious Not at all serious

All 50% 38% 2% 2% 8%

Middle class 46% 43% 2% 8% 2%

2x poverty 64% 28% 2% 5% 1%

Welfare 73% 20% 1% 3% 3%

Do you think poverty will ever be done away with in America? No Yes

All 89% 2% 10%

Middle class 89% 2% 9%

2x poverty 88% 9% 10%

Welfare 78% 7% 15% National (Gallup, 1998): No – 91%, Yes – 8%

CHART 2

% “Most” + “Very” important issue All Middle class 2x poverty Welfare Ensuring that no one in America goes without food, 85 84 90 93 clothing, and shelter Promoting economic development and creating 84 82 87 92 new jobs Guaranteeing affordable health care for all Americans 83 81 89 92 Ending poverty in America 74 72 80 89 Balancing the federal budget 66 64 74 80 Lowering taxes 57 53 72 82 Increasing government aid to the poor 54 50 68 80

69 CHART 3

Which comes closest to your view? Government favors the rich, government favors the middle class, or government favors the poor? 100% 9% 9% 7% 9% Don’t know 5% 4% 5% 7% Favors the poor 13% 80% 12% 12% 15% Middle class

60% 73% 73% 75% 71% Favors the rich

40%

20%

0% All Middle class 2x poverty Welfare

CHART 4

Do you think poor people in this country are mostly poor because of... Reasons that are largely Reasons that are largely Don’t know under their own control out of their control

Out of their Out of their Out of their control control control 45% 52% 57%

Don’t Don’t Don’t know know Under own know 18% Under own 16% Under own 14% control control 36% control 31% 28%

Middle class 2x poverty Welfare

70 CHART 5

I‘m going to mention some individuals and groups in public life. For each, I want you to tell me whether you think this individual or group generally shares most of your moral and ethical values, some, or hardly any. 100% 9% 10% 8% 7% 13% 10% 9% Don’t know 5% 12% 3% 4% 4% 6% None (vol.) 6% 6% 7% 13% 10% 80% 12% 11% 13% Hardly any 18% 18% 20%

60% 41% 58% 59% 51% 46% Some 40% 54% 54% 53%

20% 38% 24% 26% 17% 16% 10% 10% 10% Most 0% All Middle 2x Welfare All Middle 2x Welfare class poverty class poverty Poor people People on welfare

CHART 6

I’m going to mention some individuals and groups in public life. For each, I want you to tell me whether you think this individual or group generally shares most of your moral and ethical values, some, or hardly any. 100% 4% 4% 3% 7% 12% 12% 11% 15% 14% 13% 17% 18% Don’t know

27% 80% 27% 26% 32% 26% 26% 27% 33% 23% 22% 25% 24% None (vol.)

60% 22% 20% 29% 27% 26% 26% 32% 30% 36% 27% 26% Hardly any 40% 37%

29% 31% 23% 21% Some 20% 31% 36% 23% 25% 25% 21% 19% 17% 19% 18% 18% 14% 9% 0% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% Most All Middle 2x Welfare All Middle 2x Welfare All Middle 2x Welfare class poverty class poverty class poverty President Bush Donald Trump Fortune 500 CEOs

71 CHART 7

In the last 10 years, would you say the number of Americans receiving welfare has increased or decreased, or remained about the same? Decreased greatly Increased greatly

All 5% 17% 13% 22% 26% 17%

Middle class 6% 19% 11% 22% 25% 17%

2x poverty 4% 13% 13% 21% 25% 24%

Welfare 5% 19% 7% 14% 27% 29%

CHART 8

“In President Clinton’s first State of the Union address he promised to end welfare as we know it and to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life. Do you agree or disagree that Clinton ended welfare as we knew it?” Decreased greatly Strongly disagree

All 15% 21% 8% 24% 30%

Middle class 12% 21% 7% 24% 32%

2x poverty 19% 19% 11% 27% 22%

Welfare 30% 21% 9% 17% 20%

72 CHART 9

In the past decade, the number of Americans on welfare has dropped from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. Do you think this is mainly because the strong economy has created lots of new jobs in the past few years, because changes in the welfare laws have forced more people to go to work, or something else? Law forced to work Economy created jobs

All 56% 22%

Middle class 56% 23%

2x poverty 64% 20%

Welfare 55% 29%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

CHART 10

Do you think that most people who have been removed from welfare rolls are now better off than they were when they were receiving welfare? Worse off Better off

Much better All Somewhat positive 14% 8% 14% 39% Middle class Much worse 13% 5% 14% 39% Somewhat negative 2x poverty 15% 8% 15% 39%

Welfare 18% 8% 18% 38%

50% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

73 CHART 11

What do you think has become of those who were removed from the welfare rolls? Most are still poor Some are still poor but Most are no longer poor Don’t know some are no longer poor

Some poor, Some poor, Some poor, Some poor, some not some not some not some not 52% 51% 51% 48% Not 8% Not 6% Not 5% Not 10% Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Still poor Don’t know Still poor 8% 8% Still poor 9% 36% Still poor 6% 34% 32% 36%

All Middle class 2x poverty Welfare

CHART 12

“As you may know, 10 years ago, in 1996, Congress and President Clinton passed a law to change the welfare system, end the federal guarantee of public assistance for the poor, require able-bodied recipients to work after two years, cut off benefits after five years, and cut back on food stamps.” On balance, do you think the changes have had a negative or positive effect on America? Negative Positive

Very positive All Somewhat positive 18% 5% 10% 44% Middle class Very negative 16% 3% 11% 48% Somewhat negative 2x poverty 24% 9% 9% 35%

Welfare 27% 11% 17% 31%

60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

74 CHART 13

“The best social program is a job.” All 65% 22% 2% 9% 3% Middle class 65% 22% 2% 8% 3% 2x poverty 63% 25% 2% 8% 3% Welfare 49% 31% 3% 11% 7%

“America has a moral obligation to help the poor.” All 52% 33% 2% 9% 5% Middle class 50% 34% 1% 10% 5% 2x poverty 54% 31% 1% 8% 6% Welfare 53% 27% 3% 12% 5%

“If you work hard, you can get ahead in America.” All 47% 32% 1% 12% 8% Middle class 48% 33% 12% 6% 2x poverty 43% 29% 1% 12% 15% Welfare 37% 30% 2% 16% 16%

“Government programs to reduce poverty only make the problem worse by creating a culture of dependency.” All 29% 29% 4% 22% 15% Middle class 29% 31% 3% 22% 15% 2x poverty 26% 29% 9% 23% 13% Welfare 34% 32% 5% 13% 17%

“A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works full-time.” All 26% 22% 3% 26% 23% Middle class 23% 21% 4% 28% 24% 2x poverty 37% 22% 4% 19% 19% Welfare 37% 23% 4% 19% 17% Strongly agree Somewhat agree DK Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree

75 CHART 14 Responders were asked about various policy options

Provide low cost child care so parents can work full-time. All 46% 43% 2% 7% 2% Middle class 45% 44% 2% 7% 2% 2x poverty 49% 42% 1% 7% 2% Welfare 51% 39% 3% 5% 2%

Reduce taxes for low-income people who work and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. All 38% 49% 3% 8% 1% Middle class 37% 48% 4% 8% 2% 2x poverty 44% 46% 3% 5% 1% Welfare 48% 41% 4% 4% 1%

Allow welfare recipients to attend two- or four-year college programs, so people can get out of poverty, not just off welfare. All 39% 45% 2% 10% 3% Middle class 36% 46% 3% 12% 3% 2x poverty 44% 43% 3% 6% 3% Welfare 58% 36% 1% 2% 2%

Provide training in marriage and relationship skills, couple counseling, and conflict resolution. All 34% 44% 3% 14% 4% Middle class 34% 42% 2% 16% 5% 2x poverty 37% 49% 5% 7% 2% Welfare 43% 44% 3% 8% 2%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree DK Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Very good idea Very bad idea

76 CHART 14 (continued) Responders were asked about various policy options

Require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. All 40% 36% 4% 15% 5% Middle class 35% 36% 4% 18% 6% 2x poverty 49% 37% 2% 9% 3% Welfare 45% 31% 2% 14% 6%

Require welfare recipients to perform community service. All 30% 45% 4% 17% 3% Middle class 30% 44% 5% 17% 3% 2x poverty 31% 47% 4% 15% 2% Welfare 29% 45% 3% 17% 6%

Get government out of the business of providing welfare and let private charities, community and religious groups do the job.

All 9% 25% 6% 38% 21% Middle class 9% 23% 5% 40% 21% 2x poverty 10% 26% 9% 37% 18% Welfare 10% 28% 6% 31% 23%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree DK Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Very good idea Very bad idea

77 CHART 15

Do you support or oppose increasing the minimum wage? Oppose Support

All Strongly support 5% 6% 65% 20% Somewhat support Middle class Strongly oppose 6% 7% 61% 22% Somewhat oppose 2x poverty 2% 2% 76% 15%

Welfare 3% 4% 78% 15%

50% 30% 30% 10% 0% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

CHART 16 Which comes closer to your view? Most people on welfare need the help, or most people on welfare could get by without it? Could get by Need the help

All 24% 63%

Middle class 26% 63%

2x poverty 24% 60%

Welfare 19% 63%

40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

78 Appendices:

The preceding papers were first presented at a conference on October 6, 2006, at Princeton University. Contained in the following appendices are materials from that conference.

79 80 Appendix A: Keynote Address

This is not political, This is academic: the Charles B. Rangel Republican Party basically believes that a small Representative, 15th government is best for the American people. Congressional District of New They believe that it is not the government’s York, United States House of money, it’s the taxpayers’, and the taxpayer Representatives knows how to use that money better than the Federal government. Republicans believe When Tony Shorris first asked me to appear the only reason that we have a Congress is here, I thought that I needed all of the aca- to raise the funds for national defense and to demic credit possible to be able to say, “I deal with those issues relegated to the Federal spoke at Princeton.” government under the Constitution. Anything else, they believe, should remain in the hands The Ways and Means Committee is the most of local and state governments. powerful committee in the House of Repre- sentatives, even as it relates to the Senate. So, as it relates to Social Security, Medicare, As determined by the Constitution, all tax and other Federal programs, Republicans do issues have to be initiated in the House, and not believe that one size fits all and that the therefore, the Ways and Means Committee. local government should have the responsibil- In fact, the entire tax structure comes out of ity. One might ask how the local governments the Ways and Means Committee, including can pay for all this. Republicans say the Federal corporate and private taxes. This means the government pays only because constituents committee determines who isn’t required to are not paying enough local taxes to support pay taxes and who gets the tax incentives. The these services. But Republicans argue that committee has jurisdiction over international it should be up to the local government to trade. It also controls the Social Security establish its own priorities. If constituents want system, which is under severe attack from their local governments to pay for health care, the Administration. And, we have jurisdiction Social Security, or any other social programs, over Medicare, the healthcare system for our they should demand that from their mayors seniors. What the Ways and Means Commit- and other local government officials. If they tee has to deal with in the United States is the refuse to do it, constituents can vote them fundamental difference between the parties. out. But these services should not be the responsibility of the Federal government.

81 Democrats, on the other hand, believe that everyone believes that what’s important today our government should not force people to go is preserving our national security. And so, it alone. We believe, as President Roosevelt rather than talk today about social workers, believed, that the government should be there bleeding hearts, and helping the poor, I stand as a cushion between your pension and your before you as an advocate for strong national retirement, not only to make you more com- security, and make the argument that poor fortable, but also to provide the opportunity people are a threat to our national security. for you to be a productive American. When you suffer a disability that keeps you from The reality is that poor people are uneducated. working, the government should be there. We Poor people don’t have the means to take care believe the government should be there when of themselves. Poor people get sick earlier. a wage-earner dies and her kids need support Poor people get in trouble earlier. Poor people and need to go to school. We believe that are not competitive. Poor people are costing health care should be a universal right, not a us billions of dollars: by being in our jails, eating, privilege, as is too often the case. accessing healthcare, and producing absolutely nothing. Consider for a moment that putting And so, the fear I have is that when it comes someone in jail costs on average over $22,000 to the budget, we find the Republicans anxious a year, or that health care for the uninsured to slash revenues. This is not because wealthy costs our nation about $35 billion a year, or people are asking for it, but because they that drug abuse costs society $143 billion a want to “starve the beast.” If they succeed, year in lost productivity. Wouldn’t investment they’ll get rid of the money to fund Social in positive outcomes be cheaper than covering Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And if they the cost of negative outcomes? do succeed, what happens to these services? You make the transformation, as Republicans To me, it seems that if you saw what hap- would say, through privatization. Once you pened in Katrina, it really wasn’t a question of destroy the Social Security system by private whether God was racist. It was poverty that accounts, Medicare by health savings accounts, put so many black folks on the death line with or the prescription drug benefit of Medicare so many poor, uneducated white folks. Many by allowing drug companies to run the pro- politicians know what I’m talking about—it’s grams, then all these programs will be a thing the question of life and death. And with of the past. And it will take significant efforts Katrina, poverty was the question of life and to restore the programs, as it would require death. And so, I ask my Republican friends, dramatically unpopular, yet responsible, tax “Can we afford that?” increases to provide adequate funding to support them. There’s a fellow from Mississippi, Representative Gene Taylor, a Congressman who represents Well, I’m 76 years old. I can’t change the think- the affected area. He cried on the House floor, ing in Washington, but I understand that most and he said, “If only that flood, that hurricane

82 had come only three days later, my people Poverty is a luxury that this great country, would have been saved.” And I asked him, politically, cannot afford. We need the trust of “What is the connection between three days friends all over the world to say that here, that and what would have happened?” He said, no matter how poor you are, for your kids, “Three days later, most or all of my people at least, there is an opportunity. This is what would have received either their welfare checks America is all about. or their Social Security checks, and they would have had the money to get some gasoline, to If you take World War II, and take the GI bill, get some trucks, to get out of town.” and see how people who were discharged from the service were able to realize their Now, I know a lot of people believe it’s our dreams, not because of who they were or responsibility to bring peace and democracy who their family was, but because of what they to all parts of the world: Baghdad, Iraq, North knew they could be. What did we give them? Korea, and Iran. But if we really want to show Education—because most of those who went the strength of democracy, we have to explain into the Army did not have the means to do what happened in Katrina. We have to let it for themselves. Instead, most of them went the world know that no matter how great we into the Army, had children and got married. think we are, that poverty and a lack of educa- To be able to get by with no money for a tion in our communities is not even on our mortgage, to get a house—what happened agenda. In fact, a recent UNICEF report ranks out of this? The GI bill developed the middle the United States second from the bottom in class of America. It took people out of poverty terms of child poverty rates in the industrial- and it enabled their children to be all that ized world. they could be; it was that bridge that allowed us to create the greatness of America which And so in going back to the Congress, we will should be the objective of all the developing have an opportunity to get beyond the ques- countries: to have that middle class. The GI bill tions of what Republicans or Democrats would provided educational opportunities to over do for the poor. When you are uneducated, 21 million Americans, and between 1945 and lacking self-esteem, without skills, and unable 1966, one-fifth of all homes built in the U.S. to take care of your family, you do not care if were financed by GI loans. it’s a Republican or Democrat that’s making decisions. But one thing is abundantly clear: And what do we have today? A squeeze that there is going to be a breath of fresh air in grows even greater because of a worsening tax Congress as we can now look at the Executive structure for the middle class. So many people Branch, the House, and the Senate, and say who work every day are unable to afford health there must be a better way for Americans to care, cannot afford rising gas prices or mortgage show our light to the people of the world who prices, and will not see the day when their are dreaming and aspiring for a higher quality children will be able to afford their own home. of life— to show them how we run it here. Since 2001, income for America’s families has

83 not kept pace with inflation, declining in real school diploma. I thought that I didn’t need terms by nearly $1,300. Is it any wonder that it. I was a crackerjack rifle shotsman. I was a poverty is simultaneously increasing—with over sergeant. I could take a 75-pound artillery shell five million more Americans falling into poverty and have it directed on the enemy seven miles over the last five years? away through the fire direction center. I was somebody important. When I went down to Instead of things getting better for the middle get a job, they asked what I could do. And you class, the heart of America, we’re watching an know how that ended. I ended up right back economic boom for those on the highest end in the garment center where I started. So, one of the income spectrum. And every year more day, they loaded me up with a hand truck with people are falling into poverty—people who, all of these boxes. It was raining. The boxes economically, cannot take advantage of global- were old, and they spilled out into the middle ization, which is based on finding subsidized of the street—onto 36th Street and 6th Ave- workers—with Republicans and the CEO class nue. Cops were cursing me out, telling me to struggling against it. get off the street or they were going to arrest me. I said, “I’m Sergeant Charles Rangel!” He I know as a fact that education really works in said, “Get off the street.” eliminating or alleviating poverty. I was born and raised on the streets of Lenox Avenue; I I went straight to the Veterans Administra- did not know anybody who attended college, tion and said, “Sir, there’s something wrong, much less graduated. It didn’t bother me at all, they must not know who I am.” I looked at all because I hung out on the street with young these faces, and as it turned out, everybody people who thought they were better than at the VA was a World War I1 veteran and young people who were even talking about had no idea what the hell I was talking about. going to college. But at the end of the day, I It took a long time and then finally, I won. went off into the Army. I got that uniform. I They gave me an aptitude test and they said had that brass. I was feeling good, and I had I should be an undertaker or an electrician. I self-esteem. I had no idea that when I would said, “You’ve got the wrong test here!” I mean, go to Korea that the Chinese hated me so I took my rosaries —Catholic Charities gave much that they would shoot me, try to kill me, the test—so I said, “Something’s wrong.” And and I told Jesus that if I get out of that, he’d they said, “No, you’re a high school dropout, have no problem with me. you cannot go to college, and you don’t have enough time.” I said, “I’m staying here until we And between you and me, I haven’t had a bad find some time.” day since I got out of there. So finally, after six months, they asked me, I got out with a pocketful of money and look- “What is it you want, Rangel? What is it you ing good with self-esteem, but the one thing want to be?” I was crushed. For a young man, that was missing was that I didn’t have a high not even to know enough be able to say what

84 he or she wants to be happens to be the make them productive, to make them believe greatest sin of all. I had nothing even to dream in themselves and therefore, to make them about. And I stood absolutely bewildered in believe in this country. trying to get some answer to catch up to my aggressive desire to work. When I accepted this invitation, I knew that it’s going to take more than political will; it’s My grandfather was an elevator operator in going to take people to understand that this the criminal court building. He worked there Federal government will only do what they for 33 years, and he survived automation. He are mandated to do. If you bring the politi- was important. He wore that uniform going cians, the goodwill, and those in the academic to work, off to the job. He had seniority, and fields, and those who have the responsibility he had the elevators that took up the district together—we don’t need any welfare system attorneys and the judges. And he wasn’t the in this country. If we say that every child, and kind of guy who said, “I love you,” but you every family, and every community is going know, I understood. I didn’t ask for a whole to have opportunity, they don’t have to fail. If lot of love, I just wanted to get out of Lenox we can tell all the developing countries that Avenue. Now, he wasn’t the kind of guy who you don’t have to read our Constitution but appeared to like people, but those judges, rather see what we do with our people, see and lawyers, and DAs would come in, and what they are able to do for themselves, their you would think Jesus Christ appeared—all community, and their country—you don’t the excitement in the world! So I told one of need a Constitutional government; you need a them that I wanted to be a lawyer. And he told government that cares. me how much time we had, what I had to do, and I digested it. So I went home, and told my And so, as Chairman of the Ways and Means grandfather that I wanted to be a lawyer and Committee some would say, “What exactly I don’t know when he stopped laughing. But I can you do?” I’m saying, if you’re looking for an know one thing. Before he died I was assistant economic incentive, if you’re looking for a tax district attorney in that damn building. credit, you have to tell me what you are doing to help get people out of poverty or to help Why do I tell these stories? I knew what I prevent them from getting into poverty. Do wasn’t when I went to the Army. I knew what you advocate educational programs? Do you I didn’t know when I went out of school. But advocate that Americans should be as healthy the difference—not only with me but every as they can be? Do you advocate that education guy on the block I was raised with—is having should not be something that children pay for? access to an education. I am saying that if the They should get it and pay back for the fact that Army can take you and teach anything, there we gave it to them by being more productive. is no reason why—with a national commitment—that we can’t take every child we This could truly be a revolutionary period, have and make them better than they are, to because some of you may have heard that

85 I’m an advocate for the draft. But being an best employment hopes that I had, believe me, advocate for the draft means that I’m advocat- in the rural United States and the inner cities, ing that just being poor, and unemployable, poverty drives the number of people who and hopeless should not make you the only are drawn to the military, and that is immoral people that are being placed in harm’s way. It and unpatriotic. Especially when they see that is immoral for a President to have an elective $40,000 bonus dangled in front of them. war knowing that nobody in this Administra- tion—or this Cabinet and the Pentagon—not And so, what I’m asking is this: let us try push only will they never have to serve, but they will for a draft—it has to start somewhere. The never have to go to a funeral of anybody who Civil Rights movement and the racism and served because they don’t know anybody. the lynchings that took place in this country in the 20s and the 30s—the priests, and But when those youngsters are trained, they ministers, and rabbis spoke up against it. One don’t have the political choice. They have to do day a woman in the back of the bus spoke up what they are told, and they are the courageous and said, “I will not move.” As a result they among us. But why don’t we apply this belief to formed a boycott, and along came Martin patriots throughout America? 1f being at war Luther King Jr. And then, all of America said means that the nation is in danger, then every- that this can’t keep going on. And maybe this body—I, my son, my grandson—should be is the time for us to move on, time for all of saying, “I want to make some type of sacrifice these people in this great country—blacks and to protect the country that’s been good to me.” whites, Jews, and Gentiles—to step together. And collectively, they were not only able to And the whole idea is that if we really believe stop the murders, but they changed the vot- that we were going to war and would lose ing laws. Even though I marched with them, I those in our community, we would think twice never even thought that I could ever become a about whether or not Saddam Hussein is really public servant. In the Congress I joined, there a threat to the United States of America. We were nine blacks. We became 13 blacks, and would not make the mistake that there were now we have 42 blacks. no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to A1 Qaeda, no connection to 9/11. We’ve got a black in the Senate and 20 Hispan- We would not be rattling swords with North ics. In other words, this revolution took place, Korea. We would not be prepared to put and people had to ask themselves, “What were the military option on the table in Iran. And they doing before the revolution?” when it reaches the point that our country is in danger, everybody should do something I’m suggesting to you that the period of time instead of just giving tax cuts to the rich. But, if that we are living here today is one of the you’re poor, what other options do you have? most dangerous times that our country has What political strength do you have? And just ever faced. We are involved in a war that has as in 1948, September 15, the Army was the no end and the people that are suffering are

86 those that are poor. Not one person here yourselves, but it’s that you didn’t say anything can even make up what victory looks like. If I when the war was going on or the corruption told the President tomorrow that the enemy was going on. These things were happen- wanted to surrender, he wouldn’t have a clue ing—did you participate? Were you part of as to who to go to sign the papers. the problem or part of the solution?

We don’t know. We are involved in a mess I hope that this is the beginning of a partner- and the only question is: can we admit it and ship - with whatever power I may get in the get the hell out? The opportunity to change is Ways and Means Committee. That we bring here, not only for peace, but for poverty, lack it together to create a national program, to of health care, lack of jobs, lack of self-esteem, be able to say, there is another way. That and lack of the stuff that makes Americans people don’t deal with this war; that they deal so proud of themselves. We should never be with peace; that they deal with people; that ashamed with any foreigner for who we are or they deal with aspirations; that they deal with what we’re not doing. We should be so proud, dreams; and that they deal with making Ameri- that the rest of the world would say, “I only cans one. I just want to be the politician who is wish that my country could be like yours.” on that side.

We have that opportunity. And you are the Now back home on the streets of Lenox Ave- ones that are on the ground. And we need nue, people are asking me—people who used you, not only in dealing with academic classes to call me Charlie—that if I become the Chair- or dealing with your clients, but we need you man of the Ways and Means Committee, “Do at the polls because voting is just as much a we really have to call you “Mr. Chairman?” And part of being an American as anything else I haven’t given that a lot of thought because I you can think of. And if at the end of the day, don’t care too much. But, no, you don’t have to things remain the same and you did your call me Mr. Chairman because I wouldn’t really part, at least you can explain that you love want to be treated any differently than any this country—and all of its people—and you other world leader. lost. Because losing isn’t the worst thing; lack of participation is. If we lose and you didn’t So with that being said, I’ve really enjoyed participate, it’s not just how you feel about being here. Thank you so much.

87 88 Appendix A: Closing Remarks

This day brought Tony Shorris, Udai Tambar, Mary Gay and Andy Rachlin into our lives for one reason: Abbott-Young they wanted a fair understanding of how policy Rescue Mission of Trenton affects people’s lives. Despite their name, they are not interested only in policy. They are What a day this has been for those we serve, interested in people as well. And I salute you for the Rescue Mission—in fact for all non- gentlemen for that, and thank you. profits—and for Princeton University! I was delighted to hear the congressman challenge Working on the video was a highlight for the us to ask ourselves what we are all really Rescue Mission. Lynnell asked how I managed doing. Lots of folks have asked how the Rescue to work for 28 years at this job. I think the real Mission was able to partner with Princeton question is why would anyone leave a job like University. It was easy. Princeton University this? I have the honor and privilege of repre- was walking down Route 1 looking for some senting some of the finest people in the world. poor people, and they found us. It is frankly I have the pleasure of working with truly caring, how we get our clients. Seriously, the credit committed, and talented individuals. goes to the University’s Policy Research Institute for the Region who responded so As I watched the video and heard the stories, enthusiastically to our approach for a confer- I wondered if what I do, if what the Rescue ence on welfare and poverty. Mission does, and in fact if this conference has any purpose or any meaning. The answer is From that phone call on it has been quite no, unless you’re the one life that’s changed by exciting. First they said we’ll make a video. something like this. Watching the video, I also Then they said we’ll conduct some research. feel you cannot do this work without getting Then they said we’ll get the new Commis- angry at the seeming endless hurdles that need sioner of the Department of Human Services. to be overcome. It’s not just the substance Then they said we’ll get national experts and abuse, it’s not just the mental health issues, a congressman. And then they asked us if and it’s not just the poverty. It is the sum, the we could get some people. Well, we got the multiple, and the divide of those things. It is people here, because it is such an important life that beats our folks down and at the same issue. time gives them an incredible strength.

89 I have learned that the Rescue Mission does a the hospital. Fortunately he recovered, came few things right in our approach: (1) we accept back to the Rescue Mission, and as I said, has the differences in people, their strengths and returned to employment. But my point is this: their weaknesses, and we use their strengths in 36 hours—36 hours—he had completely to build our community, (2) we understand undone the entire year’s worth of struggle. that it’s about jobs—jobs that you can live on, and most importantly (3) we give multiple And we are so far removed from his world that chances. What does it mean to give “multiple we believe rules and programs—things like an chances?” I can only explain it to you from the arbitrary five-year cut-off period, sanctions, eyes of our clients—which takes us back to inflexible work requirements—will motivate where we started this morning: him to change his life. He tries every single day to do the right thing. Honestly, not everyone at There’s a man who went to work this morning the Rescue Mission makes it—but denying ben- from the Rescue Mission. He’s on his third efits or services based on an arbitrary period admission to the Rescue Mission. He came of time defies rational thinking. Can we afford back in September 2005 and by January he to dismiss so many lives? I think not. was driving a truck for us. He worked at the Rescue Mission for six months. In the middle So, thank you for making this conference pos- of the summer, he said, “I’m going to go out sible and bringing this discussion to a new level. to get a job but I want to live here, because The solution is not just about TANF or GA or I know if I leave I’ll have problems.” And he training programs—each can be only a part stayed at the Rescue Mission while he worked of the answer. Today we showed a willingness at an outside job. He had made it! He had a to broaden the discussion, and to think about job, a car, a girlfriend. policies that refuse to accept economic poverty as a part of our society. In August he found me and said, “My job isn’t working for me. I have to work near this hot The speakers were truly inspirational. Ted and oven. I keep passing out. I want to come back Lynnell are blessings in our lives. But for me, and be a truck driver.” I told him it was okay. the ladies from HomeFront, Mustard, Tyrone, He came back as a truck driver and was sched- Jonathan, and in absence, Jokes—wherever uled for a routine urine analysis. He told me he you get your courage from—please continue couldn’t take it and ran out the door. Let me to share it with us so that we may have the be real clear—we would never have thrown courage to do the right thing. him out, he ran out. I didn’t hear from him for a day, but the next morning his mother called God Bless You! me to tell me he had been shot. He was in

90 Appendix B: Summaries of Panel Discussions

Summary of Discussion from the Rescue Mission of Trenton, a Trenton from Panel 1 agency that since its founding in 1915 has pro- In his welcoming remarks at the conference, vided refuge, services and counseling to “the Anthony Shorris, Director of the Policy homeless, the hungry, the transient, and the Research Institute for the Region, said, “This addicted,” or from HomeFront, a Trenton-area is more than just another academic confer- non-profit organization with a food pantry that ence, because understanding the lives of those provided families with temporary housing and affected by TANF requires tools beyond those other services. In the film, Abbott-Young said, of the academy.” Shorris said that the goal of “Welfare is not an adequate living expense. the conference was to “look at the issue from What’s needed is a simplified, individualized a variety of perspectives.” Those who rely on system.” As Nancy pleaded, “Work with me.” TANF offer the most important perspective, of course. As Mary Gay Abbott-Young, the Chief A panel discussion following the film was Executive Officer of the Rescue Mission of led by LynNell Hancock, a professor at the Trenton, asked, “Can people outside this world Columbia University School of Journalism ever really know it?” In an effort to familiarize whose book Hands to Work: The Stories of others with this world, the Institute com- Three Families Racing the Welfare Clock docu- missioned Welfare as We Know It, a film that ments the experiences of families navigating captures the complexities of life on welfare. New York City’s welfare system for five years. Hancock noted that she “always thought it The film, which opened the conference, chron- would be more effective to have the voices of icles the struggles of Sonia, a formerly abused real people in the academic debate,” because single mother with five children who struggled the issues they face are as complex and varied to complete her high school degree in her 40s as the individuals. Unfortunately, according to and hopes to buy a house; Leroy, a former fos- Hancock, TANF “created a fairly rigid welfare ter child who spent time in prison; Rhonda, a system for a population with a wide range of mother and refugee from Sudan; and Nancy, a needs.” The panel represented some of these young single mother with bipolar disorder, who needs. It included Mary Gay Abbott-Young, was homeless during part of her pregnancy who was featured in the film; Connie Mercer, and who has not completed her high school founder and executive director of HomeFront; degree. All four were working hard to rebuild Sonia Navarro, food pantry coordinator at their lives. All four had also received support HomeFront, who was also featured in the film;

91 and Anthony Harris, a resident of the Rescue Sonia goes is to keep learning new things. I Mission of Trenton and also a truck driver at have ambitions. Maybe I can work my way the Mission. up—maybe even be a lawyer someday.”

Connie Mercer and Mary Gay Abbott-Young Anthony Harris, also known as Mustard, spoke about how the welfare population has recounted his struggles with addiction, and changed in the years they have been working the support he received from the Mission. with it. Young said that previous residents of According to its mission statement, the Mission the Mission primarily were World War II vets provides services “regardless of how many who had work skills, but who were alcoholics. times an individual has fallen down.” Harris Today, she described her clients as “people expressed his appreciation for the Mission tak- with fine principles, but less skills and abilities. ing him in repeated times. “Life on the street While everyone who comes here desires a was getting rocky. I did a lot of bad things—it better life, these people find it hard to survive wasn’t me, it was the addiction. I needed a safe in society.” Mercer said that at HomeFront, the haven from the streets of Trenton. I owe the issue used to be affordable housing and skills Rescue Mission my life.” acquisition. “Now we deal with huge mental health and addiction problems,” she said. She An audience question-and-answer period fol- noted that the average reading level of moth- lowed the discussion. Some of the highlights: ers at her center was lower than 6th grade. In light of these challenges, “Sonia’s struggle is A questioner noted that Sonia Navarro said that even more heroic,” said Hancock. she grew up thinking it was normal to have kids at a young age. What kind of program could Sonia Navarro concurred, “Education is key. change the idea of what’s normal? Sending someone to a job without a diploma or skills sets them up for failure,” she said. But Connie Mercer answered that teaching about the cycle is not easy to break. Navarro spoke birth control is not enough. “Give folks some about her hopes for life after welfare, but of joy, hopes and dreams and they won’t get the struggles the working poor have juggling pregnant. Our young ladies have no dreams.” the various demands of life. “Welfare holds Navarro said, “The question is how to take you up halfway, and then let’s you go,” she what happens and learn from it.” said. Navarro recounted a talk she gave six years ago to the Board of Education, in which A questioner asked Navarro and Anthony Harris she explained that once someone starts on what sort of policies they recommend to make drugs or having children at a young age, he it easier to make transitions to housing or to get or she stops growing mentally. “That doesn’t more education, such as subsidies or child care. mean you can’t make it,” she said. “It means Harris noted that he is no longer on welfare, you need support to make it.” Asked where and proud of that fact. “Everything depends on we go from here, Navarro replied, “Where

92 me, I don’t depend on the state.” But he sug- heads.” She concluded, “We made a promise gested improving access to specific programs, as a society that if you go out and get a job, such as Medicaid. Navarro said that the past you’ll be okay. Lots of folks on welfare did their shadows the possibilities for the future, “I’d part of the bargain, but society hasn’t done its love to buy a house,” she said, but old debt part.” from a trip to the emergency room when she didn’t have Medicaid means that she has been An audience member, noting that an annual unable to get a credit card, despite obvious income of $40,000 a year is needed to pay the efforts to try to pay the debt. “It’s not easy average rent of $1,000 a month, said, “We have for past mistakes to be overlooked,” she said. not designed a society where people with mini- Similarly, she described how being in trouble mum skills can live a decent life on or off welfare.” with the law one time at age 28 has hampered If raising the minimum wage isn’t going to help, job opportunities. Also, when she gets a raise, what can be done? Section 8 [federally subsidized housing] takes it. “I’m paying $600 a month now—I could “The key thing needed is affordable housing,” pay a mortgage. But every time I step up, I get said Mercer. She noted that some progress pushed back down. I’m trying to get to another was made in New Jersey’s last legislative ses- level, but it’s damn hard,” she said. sion with rental assistance programs, but that overall the commitment to affordable housing Mercer noted that she has clients “who are has stopped. Abbott-Young said, “We need to working 40 hours a week, making $12 an hour challenge ourselves to stop looking at welfare at jobs we don’t want, yet still need services, recipients as ‘bad,’ and instead as people with because they cannot put a roof over their problems who need help.”

93 Summary Discussion Sara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology and of Panel 2 Public Affairs at Princeton University and A panel discussion followed “What We Director of Princeton’s Bendheim-Thoman thought and What We’ve Learned,” the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, presentations by Peter Edelman, Professor of moderated the panel. It included Linda Gibbs, Law at Georgetown University and Health and Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Ser- Human Services Assistant Secretary for Plan- vices in New York City; Feather Houstoun, ning and Human Services during the Clinton President of the William Penn Foundation; and administration, and Robert Wood, Senior Lawrence Mead, Professor of Politics at New Researcher at Mathematica. The presenta- York University. tions examined TANF from the perspective of those making policy. Edelman, who is critical of Linda Gibbs said she agreed that more talk is TANF, noted that the film Welfare as We Know needed about the broader issue of poverty, It sums up the problem, which is that “one size and that welfare needs to be individualized. doesn’t fit all.” While welfare should both help She focused on the New York experience, people find work and leave dependency, Edel- which has had “tremendous success in moving man maintains that it should also provide them TANF recipients into jobs,” and also at using with a safety net. What we’ve learned, he said, other programs such as food stamps and Med- is that finding this balance is tricky, and one icaid as work support.” Gibbs said that in New that plays out differently in different states. “At York City, the welfare program has always best, TANF is a program for prosperous times. focused strongly on employment, and features The real issue is how to get everyone out of tailored employment support. However, she poverty and on a living wage,” he concluded. noted that the safety net aspect of the pro- Wood presented data showing how New gram continues beyond 60 months. York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania took very different approaches to TANF, but ended up New York’s success has led to a 66 percent with similar caseload declines. He noted that decline in caseloads since TANF began, while the TANF reauthorization presents challenges work rates for single, never-married women because of new federal rules requiring an with kids rose from 41 percent in 1995 to increased percentage of TANF recipients be 65 percent in 2004. At the same time, child working for states to receive funding. poverty declined from 43 percent in 1995 to

94 31 percent in 2004. However, the remaining ing “conditional cash transfers,” in which poor population has multiple barriers to work, cash incentives are offered for investments in Gibbs said, noting that despite the gains over human capital, such as health and education. the past decade and the reduced caseload, “These measures build shared responsibility,” more than 1.5 million residents of New York she said. “The monies are conditional, and City still live in poverty. “The poverty rate depend on certain targets being achieved.” in New York City is stunningly higher than in the rest of the nation,” she said. “Helping Feather Houstoun said that at the time TANF this population, which must be the program’s was passed in 1996, she was confident that focus, requires a multivariate approach that welfare recipients could engage with the involves thinking beyond TANF.” workforce. However, the caseloads turned out to include subgroups of people with multiple In what Gibbs called a “bold step,” Mayor problems who were not capable of entering Bloomberg has directly taken on the issue of the workforce, as well as clients who cycle in poverty, which is usually only dealt with at a and out of the program. “The caseload is not state and national level because of funding. simply one group of people that exist over Gibbs said the mayor believes the City can time. And this indicated that the program decrease its poor population, but “we need to really needed to be customized.” In light of make tough decisions that focus on the sub- the decade’s experience with welfare reform, populations where we have the tools to help Houstoun was opposed to the way that the and can have an impact.” In New York, those program was reauthorized. In particular, she populations are the working poor; young, believes that the loss of flexibility regarding unemployed adults; and children. Gibbs said work requirements will constrain the ability of it is notable that there has been a dramatic states to customize their programs and hence increase in the percentage of those in poverty compound the failures. One strategy used in who have a working adult in the family, which Pennsylvania was to analyze implementation rose from 29 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in success by county, which suggested what might 2005. be best for a large-scale program. “These are large-scale programs with millions of small sto- The Mayor’s idea is “to invest in the poor ries that are forced to fit into a bureaucracy,” so they can invest in themselves,” and his Houstoun said. “What’s needed are training approach is to focus on how to boost employ- programs with a pervasive message about ment. The strategies the City is using are: work, balanced with work programs with a promoting career paths, increasing access to pervasive message about training.” work supports, building assets and financial literacy among the poor, and increasing the Nonetheless, Houstoun said a lot has been stock of affordable housing. It is also looking learned in 10 years of TANF. While the good at innovative solutions from other parts of the economy proved to be an important element world. For example, New York is consider- in the early success, the labor market at the

95 entry level remains highly fluid, and TANF empathy, by itself, was not enough to help recipients have opportunities to find jobs. people, because giving aid did not lead to “Once they get in there, if they have the changes in people’s lives. “The help and hassle proper supports to keep them engaged in the combination is what did the job,” said Mead. workforce, such as child care, they can hold on “Welfare recipients have obligations as well as and move up,” she said. And for those staying society has obligations.” The welfare recipients in the workforce longer, the result is a progres- in the film Welfare as We Know It affirm the sive increase in income. “The frustration is that idea of this shared approach, Mead said. He TANF started out as a program to get people also contends that there is no research to into the work force, but it rapidly became show that the disconnected group of welfare the way of moving people out of poverty,” recipients who are not engaging with the work said Houstoun. “And we learned very quickly force are any worse off than before TANF. In that we couldn’t do that, because that entails contrast, research does show that states with a much broader set of issues, such as training the most stringent work enforcement require- programs.” ments have had the greatest gains in welfare recipients’ income. In light of these findings, Lawrence Mead said he had two reactions to Mead supports the work requirement changes Edelman’s and Wood’s papers, and welfare made in the TANF reauthorization. reform in general. “First, welfare reform succeeded,” he said. “And second, it is incom- Mead also noted that welfare reform was a plete.” In terms of success, Mead said that the real triumph for government, bringing liberals reform “did what it was designed to do”—it and conservatives together at the federal, state required recipients to go to work as a condi- and local levels. It required bipartisan support tion of aid. “This is a dramatic transformation for spending on such things as EITC, health that led to a significant drop in caseloads and care and child support. “The reform is popular, a rise in recipients who are working,” Mead and comes from a combination of liberal and said. While the good economy at the time conservative impulses that produced a new of reform helped, as did benefits such as the welfare system where work is expected, Earned Income Tax Credit, the new work but we also provide a lot of support that requirement, which helped people change we didn’t do before,” he said. “Ironically, this how they were actually living, was the essence conservative reform actually had the effect of of the transformation. expanding the idea of what government might do to help the needy,” he said. The film Welfare as We Know It suggests that the basis of welfare is empathy, Mead contin- Addressing his second point, that welfare ued. That was the attitude that prevailed until reform is incomplete, Mead said that work- the 1990s, and many economists believed that force participation needs to be improved, welfare recipients simply wouldn’t be able which is what the reauthorization is designed to work on the level demanded. However, to address. He recommends extending the

96 system of service and supports to fathers, attitudes. For example, states need to give up who are largely left out of the system. And, the idea of uncontested benefits, and require he said the incomes of those on welfare must something in return for welfare. “We have to rise. “If you work, you shouldn’t be poor,” he give up the idea that the poor are victims,” said. “I agree that we need to move beyond he concluded. “The recipients themselves, welfare reform and shift the focus to poverty.” including those in the film, affirm the idea that In addition to getting more men to work, he responsibility for poverty is shared between recommends improving benefits, particularly the poor and society.” Mead encouraged the for those who are employed. “Those who poor to mobilize and generate political pres- want to do more for the poor should try to sure—noting that, historically, the best way attach benefits to families who are employed,” to do this is through unions and groups of he said. This will require changing certain employed people.

97 Summary of Discussion for compatible. These conflicting goals explain Panel 3 “how we got here,” Berlin said. But going for- A panel discussion followed the presentation ward requires deciding on which goal should by Olivia Golden, a senior fellow at the Urban dominate. Berlin said that neither poverty Institute. Golden concluded that, “the future reduction nor saving money were goals of of reducing poverty is not in TANF, but in TANF. It was about reducing dependency and more tailored approaches.” She predicted that promoting work. However, reducing poverty the federal government would look at new was a major consideration in many states, approaches after five to 10 states pilot innova- including New York, New Jersey, and Pennsyl- tive, successful programs. vania, where welfare recipients were allowed to retain some of their benefits when they Douglas Massey, Henry G. Bryant Professor went to work. of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School moder- “TANF is not a program like AFDC, which it ated the panel. It included Gordon Berlin, replaced,” explained Berlin, “but is a remark- president of MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan ably flexible funding source.” However, the social policy research organization; Clarke 2006 reauthorization was very backward look- Bruno, Commissioner of the Department ing. It focused on worker participation rates of Human Services in New Jersey; Irwin and obligations—the same issues debated in Garfinkel, Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of 1996—but it did not take into account how Contemporary Urban Problems at the Colum- different the situation was, with caseloads bia University School of Social Work; and down and a dramatic increase in the percent- David Jones, President of Community Service age of people working. There were two new Society in New York. problems that needed more consideration: the problems of the hard-to-employ and Gordon Berlin said he was “wearing the the working poor who have only a fragile hat of the region” in his response to the economic foothold. According to Berlin, “That presentations. He said that welfare reform leaves the question, will the new bill be flexible has four goals—reducing dependency, reduc- and durable enough to support reforms over ing poverty, promoting work and containing the next 10 years?” costs—but that these goals are not always

98 Along those lines Berlin laid out a vision for father in the past month. In light of this, he is what welfare administrators need to think embarking on an aggressive plan to increase about going forward, when there are fewer child-support collection rates. As for childcare, people on the rolls. Using the block grant the waiting list is up to 4,400 families. wisely requires thinking clearly about three tasks: Bruno said countering these problems is extremely difficult. He cited the situation in • Supporting the working poor, who have a Camden, which has a $140 million municipal precarious foothold in the work force. Up to 30 percent of this group have cycled on budget, but the budget “is so out of whack,” and off welfare. To keep them off the rolls, because the city collects only a fraction of the they need a package of supportive benefits. taxes needed to sustain it. Forty-four percent These benefits exist—such as food stamps and the earned income tax credits—but of the city’s residents are on pubic assis- there is no institutional structure for deliv- tance and half are under age 25. “Camden is ering them. increasingly disconnected from the economy,” • Assisting the hard to employ. Working with this group requires close working relation- he concludes. “While a focus on the working ships with partner agencies, such as mental poor is right, it’s still not clear what it is pos- health services (Berlin noted that up to 30 sible to do.” percent of female welfare recipients are depressed) and substance abuse agencies. • Managing a temporary work-condition Irwin Garfinkel said that childcare and universal welfare system for the poor, so that people pre-K reinforce work and reduce poverty, understand the concept that “welfare is a and should be a component of welfare’s temporary place to be as they move on to the future.” future. While TANF helped decrease welfare Clarke Bruno, who had been in his job for caseloads, he said the reality is that welfare is only two weeks, called the conference “a a program for those who for some reason are great tutorial.” He discussed the importance unable to work. “The real credit for TANF’s of support systems that impact welfare, such success goes to poverty reduction programs,” as housing, childcare and child support—and according to Garfinkel. In keeping with this, the difficulty of securing them. He noted funding universal pre-K will not only reduce that housing costs in New Jersey could be an poverty but also be a good state investment. enormous barrier. They are the highest in the He noted that UPK is costly, but research shows nation, with 40 percent of renters paying more that the benefits far exceed the costs. He cited than 30 percent of their income, and there is a a Rand study showing a $2.60 benefit for each shortage of affordable housing. Between 2004 dollar spent on UPK. “We can reduce poverty and 2005, the demand has risen 30 percent. for this generation and the next,” he concluded. In terms of child support, Bruno cited a Math- “UPK is a good investment for states.” ematica study that found that fewer than one in five New Jersey children live with their bio- David Jones said his focus is on the reduction logical father, and of these, two-thirds of them of urban poverty, which overwhelmingly afflicts have received no financial support from their blacks and Latinos, who have the highest rate

99 of those not in school or working, or living fits, such as earned-income tax credits and at 200 percent below poverty. He said that, health insurance. He is working with unions despite TANF and other support programs, who are interested in low-wage members, there is essentially no movement out of pov- such as New York City’s 63,000 security erty for these groups. The kinds of challenges guards. This group makes, on average, less they face—getting health insurance, getting than $10 an hour, and one-third of them are time to go to PTA meetings—are insurmount- in and out of homelessness. “Mere morality able when added to the other challenges they will not move masses,” he said. “The situation face in daily life. “We’re generating a class of is not going to change without political power, young people who cannot compete,” said which is why we need organizations to help Jones. the poor assert their rights. The only way to get anyone to listen and generate a political To address these grim realities, his group has will is if there is a political cost.” “started to do some non-traditional things” that will provide the poor with auxiliary bene-

100 Appendix C: Conference Agenda

TANF @ TEN: A Retrospective on Welfare Reform

October 6, 2006

Sponsored by The Policy Research Institute for the Region at Princeton University, The Rescue Mission of Trenton Opening Session Welcoming Remarks Anthony Shorris, Director, Policy Research Institute for the Region Welfare as We Know It: An Original Documentary Film, Premiere and Discussion Moderator LynNell Hancock, Professor, Columbia University School of Journalism Discussants Mary Gay Abbott-Young, Chief Executive Officer, Rescue Mission of Trenton Anthony Harris, Resident Truck Driver, Rescue Mission of Trenton Connie Mercer, Executive Director, Homefront Sonia Navarro, Food Pantry Coordinator, Homefront What We Thought and What We’ve Learned Presentation Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Robert Wood, Senior Researcher, Mathematica Moderator Sara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs; Director, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University Discussants Linda Gibbs, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services, City of New York Feather Houstoun, President, William Penn Foundation Lawrence Mead, Professor of Politics, New York University

101 Lunch Session Keynote Address Hon. Charles Rangel, Representative, United States House of Representatives Survey Presentation Jeffrey Plaut, Partner, Global Strategy Group Ten More Years: The Future of Welfare Reform Presentation Olivia Golden, Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute Moderator Douglas Massey, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wil- son School, Princeton University Panelists Gordon Berlin, President, MDRC Clarke Bruno, Commissioner, Department of Human Services, State of New Jersey Irwin Garfinkel, Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems, Columbia University School of Social Work David Jones, President, Community Service Society Closing Remarks Mary Gay Abbott-Young, Chief Executive Officer, Rescue Mission of Trenton

102 Participant Biographies

and economic security policy area and in Mary Gay the education, children, and families policy Abbott-Young area. His responsibilities included planning, Chief Executive Officer, Rescue developing, and managing new projects and Mission of Trenton directing the organization’s ongoing work related to the hard-to-employ, low-income Mary Gay Abbott-Young has been employed workers, community employment initiatives, by the Rescue Mission of Trenton since 1976, child development, marriage, whole-school becoming executive director in 1986, and chief reform, and instructional improvement. Before executive officer in 2000. She holds a master’s joining MDRC in 1990, he was executive degree in education from Temple University, deputy administrator for management, budget, Philadelphia, and a bachelor’s degree in social and policy at the New York City Human work from California State College, California, Resources Administration. He also worked as Pennsylvania. Abbott-Young is a New Jersey a program officer and deputy director of the State licensed alcohol and drug abuse coun- Ford Foundation’s Urban Poverty program selor, a New Jersey State certified criminal and as a program analyst and project officer justice counselor, and a New Jersey State in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employ- certified social worker. She has received the ment and Training Administration. Throughout Citizen of the Year Award from the Trenton his career, Berlin has developed and managed Council of Civic Associations and the Women programs to address problems associated with of Achievement Award from the YWCA of welfare dependency, homelessness, teenage Trenton. Abbott-Young has appeared in The pregnancy, early childhood development, Times of Trenton “Market Leader” and The New poverty, health, and unemployment, and other York Times Metro Section Public Lives. issues of concern to low-income families and communities. He founded and, for seven years, Gordon Berlin served as the executive director of the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation, a President, MDRC Canadian nonprofit formed at the request of Gordon Berlin became president of MDRC the Canadian government to test innovative on September 1, 2004. Previously, he served employment-focused programs. He has written as MDRC’s chief operating officer, oversee- and co-authored numerous publications on ing its activities in the work, community, employment and social welfare issues.

103 Before becoming a lawyer, Bruno served Clarke Bruno as director of a street outreach program, a Commissioner, New Jersey special assistant for New York City’s largest Department of Human Services social service agency, and as executive director Nominated in July 2006 by Governor Jon Cor- of a housing and educational agency in East zine to be commissioner of the Department Harlem. He also worked as a consultant for of Human Services, Bruno leads a department Catholic Relief Services in Brazil. with 16,000 employees and an annual budget Bruno received his B.A. with honors from of more than $9 billion that serves almost one Swarthmore College and his J.D., cum laude, million New Jersey residents annually. The from New York University School of Law. department administers New Jersey’s Medicaid and TANF programs and operates the state’s five psychiatric hospitals and seven residential Peter Edelman centers for people with developmental disabili- ties. The department also provides many other Professor of Law, Georgetown services in the community for people with a University range of social service needs through contracts Peter Edelman has been on the faculty of with nonprofit agencies and organizations. Georgetown University since 1982. He took leave during President Clinton’s first term to Before coming to the Department of Human serve as counselor to HHS Secretary Donna Services, Bruno was general counsel at the Shalala and then as assistant secretary for plan- New York City Department of Homeless ning and evaluation. Services. There, he directed legal affairs and spearheaded new policies that addressed the Edelman has been associate dean of the needs of homeless men, women, and children. Law Center, director of the New York State He was a key member of the management Division for Youth, and vice president of the team that transformed the historically troubled University of Massachusetts. He was a legisla- agency into one of the highest performing tive assistant to Senator Robert F. Kennedy agencies in city government. and was issues director for Senator Edward Kennedy’s Presidential campaign in 1980. Before joining the Bloomberg administration, Earlier, he was a law clerk to Supreme Court Bruno was an attorney in private practice. He Justice Arthur J. Goldberg and before that served on the board of directors of four not- to Judge Henry J. Friendly on the U.S. Court for-profit agencies with missions ranging from of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He also economic development to health care. He worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as began his legal career by working for a federal special assistant to assistant attorney general judge. John Douglas.

104 Edelman’s book, Searching for America’s Heart: Garfinkel has authored or co-authored over RFK and the Renewal of Hope, was published 100 scientific articles and 11 books on pov- by Houghton-Mifflin in 2001. He is the author erty, income transfers, program evaluation, of many articles on poverty, constitutional law, and child support, including Single Mothers and issues about children and youth. His article and Their Children: A New American Dilemma, in Atlantic Monthly titled “The Worst Thing Bill Assuring Child Support: An Extension of Social Clinton Has Done” received the Harry Chapin Security, Social Policies for Children, and most Media Award. recently, Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement. His research on the Edelman has chaired and been a board mem- old child support system and proposal for a ber of many organizations and foundations. new child support assurance system helped He is currently the board president of the shape Wisconsin’s pioneering child support New Israel Fund, and is a board member of reforms, which in turn helped to shape the the Center for Community Change, the Public Child Support Act of 1984, the Family Support Welfare Foundation, Americans for Peace Act of 1988, and the Personal Responsibil- Now, the Center for Law and Social Policy, ity and Work Opportunity Act [sic] of 1996. and a half dozen other nonprofit organizations. He also has consulted with numerous other He has been a United States-Japan Leader- state governments in the United States and ship Program Fellow, was the J. Skelly Wright the governments of Great Britain, Austra- Memorial Fellow at Yale Law School, and has lia, and Sweden. Current research projects received numerous honors and awards for include “Fragile families and child well-being,” his work. “Child support and welfare in fragile families,” and “the American welfare state: laggard or Irwin Garfinkel leader?” Professor, Columbia University Garfinkel earned his Ph.D. from the University School of Social Work of Michigan.

Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems Linda Gibbs and the chair of the Social Indicators Survey Deputy Mayor for Health and Center at the Columbia University School of Human Services, City of New York Social Work. He was the director of the Insti- tute for Research on Poverty (1975–1980) and Linda Gibbs was appointed deputy mayor for the School of Social Work (1982–84) at the health and human service by Mayor Bloomberg University of Wisconsin. Between 1980 and in January 2006. In this position, she oversees 1990, he was the principal investigator of the the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Wisconsin child support study. Human Resources Administration, Administra- tion for Children’s Services, Department of

105 Homeless Services, Department for the Aging, various positions in New York City’s govern- Health and Hospitals Corporation, Depart- ment. She was a staff attorney at the Charter ment of Correction, Department of Probation, Revision Commission that dissolved the Board Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of of Estimate and put in place sweeping changes Health Insurance Access, and the HIV Health in the structure of City government. Her and Human Services Planning Council. responsibilities there included revisions to the Previously, Gibbs had served as commissioner budget, procurement, and ethics laws. She has of the New York City Department of also served in the New York City Council as Homeless Services (DHS). special adviser to the director of the finance division and at the Mayor’s Office of Manage- During her tenure, DHS embarked on aggres- ment and Budget as deputy director for social sive strategies to shift the City’s response services. to those with housing crises from shelter to prevention, rental assistance, and housing. Gibbs brokered a settlement with legal advo- Olivia Golden cates which gave DHS its first respite from Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute active litigation in a generation and during which time the agency reformed the family Olivia Golden is an expert in child and family intake center and helped record numbers of programs at the federal, state, and local levels homeless families achieve permanent housing. with a special interest in the way services are She also served as the chief administrator of delivered on the front lines, and her career has the mayor’s ambitious strategy to end chronic combined senior positions in government, the homelessness. advocacy world, and academia. From 2001 to 2004, she served as director of the Child and During the Giuliani Administration, Gibbs Family Services Agency of the District of served as the deputy commissioner for man- Columbia, leading the agency out of federal agement and planning for the Administration court receivership and making critical for Children’s Services (ACS). With then ACS improvements in services to children. From commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, she worked 1993 to 2001, she served in two presidentially on successful strategies to implement funda- appointed positions within the U.S. Depart- mental reform of a deeply troubled agency, to ment of Health and Human Services, first as one that achieved historic reductions in the commissioner for children, youth, and families foster care caseload and helped to develop and then as assistant secretary for children and what would become a national model for families. In these roles, she was responsible for neighborhood-based service delivery to at-risk over 60 federal programs, including Head Start; children and families. Early Head Start, which was created during her tenure to extend the benefits of Head Start to Since her graduation from SUNY–Buffalo babies and toddlers from birth to age three; School of Law in 1985, Gibbs has served in federal child care programs, which were greatly

106 expanded during those years; child abuse and departments at the Port Authority of New neglect programs, including the implementation York and New Jersey, as a senior budget and of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; policy analyst at the New York City Indepen- and the implementation of welfare reform and dent Budget Office, and as a consultant for the major changes in the nation’s child support New York City Board of Education. And while program. She was also director of programs at HealthFirst, a not-for-profit, hospital-owned and policy at the Children’s Defense Fund managed care organization in New York, he (1991–93), lecturer in public policy at the served as the organization’s director of analy- Kennedy School of Government at Harvard sis. Goldfeld received his B.A. in computer University (1987–91), and budget director for science from Williams College and his master’s the Executive Office of Human Services in the in public affairs and urban and regional plan- Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1983–85). ning from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. Golden’s book, Poor Children and Welfare Reform, was published in 1992 and draws lessons from welfare programs around the LynNell Hancock country that tried to make a difference to Professor, Columbia University families by serving two generations, both School of Journalism parent and child. More broadly, her publications focus on the service delivery, LynNell Hancock is a reporter and writer leadership, and political strategies that human specializing in education and child and family services programs use to achieve successful policy issues who has taught journalism at the results for children and families. Columbia School of Journalism since 1993. In addition to contributing to Newsweek, Colum- bia Journalism Review, and The New York Times, Keith S. Goldfeld she covered education for The Village Voice, Program Director, Policy the New York Daily News, and Newsweek, and Research Institute for the Region has served on the National Advisory Board for Journalism Fellowships in Child and Family Before joining Princeton University’s Policy Policy. She is author of Hands to Work: The Sto- Research Institute for the Region as program ries of Three Families Racing the Welfare Clock director, Goldfeld worked as a policy and data (2002), the upcoming Prairie Fires (2007), and analyst for a number of organizations spanning contributed to The Public Assault on America’s the government, not-for-profit, and private Children: Poverty, Violence, and Juvenile Injustice sectors. Just before coming to the Policy (2000), and to America’s Mayor (2005). Han- Research Institute, he was a health care con- cock holds an M.A. in East Asian languages and sultant at Gold Health Strategies, Inc. in New literature and an M.S. in journalism, both from York City. His experience in the government Columbia. includes working as a policy analyst in various

107 as Pennsylvania’s secretary of public welfare Anthony Harris during Governor Tom Ridge’s administration, Resident Truck Driver, treasurer of the State of New Jersey under Rescue Mission of Trenton Governor Tom Kean, chief financial officer of Anthony Harris (AKA Mustard) was born and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation raised in Trenton, New Jersey. He is highly Authority, and in a number of senior positions regarded for his knowledge of the community with the U.S. Department of Housing and and friendly demeanor. Urban Development.

Currently, Harris is a resident truck driver for Houstoun has had a diverse range of experi- the Rescue Mission of Trenton. He is proud ences related to the foundation’s work, of his recent accomplishments and believes he including the development of the State can “achieve the impossible.” Planning Commission in New Jersey, helping to launch the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark, and service on the boards Feather O. Houstoun of Philadelphia’s Center City District, the President, William Penn New Jersey State Aquarium, the New Jersey Foundation Network, and the Housing Finance Agencies of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. She was On March 1, 2005, Feather O. Houstoun elected a Fellow of the National Academy of became president of the William Penn Foun- Public Administration in 1991. Houstoun has dation. She is responsible for the foundation’s published articles on growth management, $59 million grant-making budget, as well as gubernatorial leadership, housing, and linkages its external affairs, finances, and administra- between business districts and transportation. tion. Houstoun previously served on the foundation’s board of directors as part of the team overseeing grant making related to the David R. Jones environment and community development. President and CEO, Community Service Society Prior to joining the foundation, she was an executive with AmeriChoice, a United Health David R. Jones has been president and chief Group company serving Medicaid clients in 13 executive officer of the Community Service states, and was a senior visiting scholar at the Society of New York since 1986. Prior to join- University of Pennsylvania teaching and con- ing CSS, Jones served as executive director of ducting research on public management issues. the New York City Youth Bureau, and from 1979 to 1983, as special adviser to Mayor Perhaps best known for her distinguished Koch. Jones was a member of the transition career in the public sector, Houstoun has committee of New York’s mayor-elect Michael worked at every level of government, serving Bloomberg.

108 Jones received a B.A. from Wesleyan Univer- sity and a Juris Doctor degree from the Yale Sara McLanahan Law School. He clerked for Judge Constance Professor of Sociology and Public Baker Motley of the Federal District Court for Affairs; Director, Bendheim- the Southern District of New York and was Thoman Center for Research a member of the law firm of Cravath, Swaine on Child and Family Wellbeing, & Moore, where he specialized in corporate Princeton University antitrust cases and contract litigation. Sara McLanahan is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University. She is a Douglas S. Massey faculty associate of the Office of Population Henry G. Bryant Professor of Research and is the founder and director of Sociology and Public Affairs, the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. She currently serves Woodrow Wilson School, as editor-in-chief of The Future of Children, a Princeton University journal dedicated to providing research and analysis to promote effective policies and pro- Douglas S. Massey received his Ph.D. in 1978 grams for children. from Princeton University and has served on the faculties of the University of Chicago and She is the past president of the Population the University of Pennsylvania. His research Association of America, and has served on focuses on international migration, race and the National Academy of Sciences-Institute housing, discrimination, education, urban of Medicine Board on Children, Youth, and poverty, and Latin America, especially Mexico. Families and the boards of the American He is the author, most recently, of Beyond Sociological Association and the Population Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Association of America. She currently serves Age of Economic Integration, and Source of the on the Advisory Board for the National River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America’s Poverty Center, the Board of Trustees for the Selective Colleges and Universities. He is a mem- William T. Grant Foundation, and the selection ber of the National Academy of Sciences and committee for the William T. Grant Young the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Scholars Award. and past president of the American Sociologi- cal Association and the Population Association She is the author of many articles and books of America. including Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement (1998); Social Policies for Children (1996); Growing Up with a Single Parent (1994); Child Support and Child Wellbeing (1994); Child Support Assurance: Design Issues, Expected Impacts, and Political Barriers, as Seen

109 from Wisconsin (1992); and Single Mothers and requirements in welfare, the approach that now Their Children: A New American Dilemma (1986). dominates national policy. He is also a leading scholar of the politics and implementation of McLanahan has received numerous awards welfare reform. He has written seven books and honors including the James S. Coleman and many articles and other publications on Fellow of the American Academy of Political these subjects. These works have helped shape and Social Sciences, Distinguished Scholar welfare reform in the United States and abroad. Award from the American Sociological Government Matters, his study of welfare reform Association Family Section, the Pro Humani- in Wisconsin, was a co-winner of the 2005 tate Literary Award for Parenting and Child Louis Brownlow Book Award, given by the Development in Nontraditional Families from National Academy of Public Administration. the North American Resource Center for Child Welfare, the Duncan Distinguished Book Mead has consulted with federal, state, and Award, and the Goode Distinguished Book local governments in this country and with Award for Growing Up With a Single Parent. several foreign countries. He testifies regularly She is an elected member of the Sociological to Congress on poverty, welfare, and social Research Association and has been a visiting policy, and he often comments on these sub- fellow at the Russell Sage Foundation and the jects in the media. Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. He is a native of Huntington, New York, and a graduate of Amherst College. He received McLanahan earned her Ph.D. in sociology from his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard the University of Texas–Austin in 1979. University.

Lawrence M. Mead Connie Mercer Professor of Politics, Executive Director, HomeFront New York University Connie Mercer began her social services career Lawrence M. Mead teaches public policy and with the Canadian Mental Health Association American government at New York University. where she created a network of 19 group He has been a visiting professor at Harvard, homes for disturbed youth. She then headed Princeton, and the University of Wisconsin, the Interstate Consortium on Residential Child and a visiting fellow at Princeton and at the Care that drafted licensing standards that were Hoover Institution at Stanford University. adopted in 27 states. In 1984 she was made deputy director of the Illinois Department of Mead is an expert on the problems of poverty Children and Family Services, responsible for and welfare in the United States. Among aca- oversight of all state child welfare services, and demics, he was the principal exponent of work with guardianship of 30,000 children and an

110 annual budget of $205 million. In 1988, she cre- news shows. His clients include New York ated The Mercer Group, which provided social State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, U.S. service consulting and established an outpatient Representatives Charles Rangel and Nydia treatment center at Mt. Sinai Medical Center. Velázquez, the New York State Democratic She founded HomeFront 16 years ago, and Party, the Service Employees International serves as its executive director. She received Union (SEIU/1199), the National Association her B.A. from the University of Chicago, and of Police Organizations, the Campaign for her M.A. in psychology from York University Tobacco Free Kids, and Redbook magazine. in Toronto. Plaut also has taught at New York University as an adjunct professor. Sonia Navarro Food Pantry Coordinator, Charles B. Rangel HomeFront Representative, 15th District of New York, United States House In 2002, Sonia Navarro proudly walked with her son as they both earned their high school of Representatives diploma from Daylight/Twilight in Trenton, Congressman Charles B. Rangel is serving his New Jersey. She served three years as a 18th term as the Representative from the 15th Volunteer in Service to America (VISTA) Congressional District, comprising East and through AmeriCorps, and is currently working Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and as a pantry supervisor at HomeFront. While Washington Heights/Inwood. Rangel is the Navarro has many goals that she would like to Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways accomplish, she is working towards her child and Means, Chair of the Board of the Demo- care provider certification through Child Care cratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Connection. In spite of the many obstacles and Dean of the New York State Congress- that she has faced, she is determined to be a ional Delegation. positive role model to her family, friends, and community. He is the principal author of the $5 billion Federal Empowerment Zone demonstration project to revitalize urban neighborhoods Jeffrey Plaut throughout America. He is also the author of Partner, Global Strategy Group the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which Jeffrey Plaut has served as a strategist on is responsible for financing 90 percent of the numerous political and public interest affordable housing built in the U.S. in the last campaigns in the New York area and beyond. 10 years. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, Plaut was honored as a “Rising Star of Politics which Rangel also championed, has provided 2000” by Campaigns and Elections magazine thousands of jobs for underprivileged young and is a frequent talking head on public affairs people, veterans, and ex-offenders.

111 As the former chair of the Select Commit- tee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, Rangel Anthony Shorris continues to lead the nation’s fight against drug Director, Policy Research abuse and trafficking. In his efforts to reduce Institute for the Region; Lecturer, the flow of drugs into the United States and Public and International Affairs, to solve the nation’s continuing drug abuse Woodrow Wilson School, crisis, he serves as chair of the Congressional Princeton University Narcotics Abuse and Control Caucus. Before joining the Woodrow Wilson School Rangel is a founding member and former chair faculty, Anthony Shorris served as deputy of the Congressional Black Caucus; he was chancellor for operations and policy at the also chair of the New York State Council of New York City Board of Education, the Black Elected Democrats and was a member nation’s largest school system. Shorris has of the House Judiciary Committee during the more than 25 years of experience in public hearings on the articles of impeachment of and nonprofit management. He was appointed President Richard Nixon. by the mayor as New York City’s commissioner of finance and its deputy budget Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948–52, director, as well as by two governors as the during which time he fought in Korea and was first deputy executive director of the Port awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star. Authority of New York and New Jersey, the He has authored several pieces of legislation to nation’s oldest and largest public authority. benefit minority and women veterans, including a successful bill that established the Office In the nonprofit sector, Shorris has served as of Minority Affairs within the Department of executive vice president and chief operating Veterans Affairs. officer of a billion-dollar health-care organization operating in New York and Pennsylvania, Rangel is a graduate of New York University as well as been chair of the boards of organiza- and St. John’s University School of Law. He has tions focused on areas as diverse as leadership spent his entire career in public service, first development, prisoner re-entry, and the deliv- as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern ery of local social services. He has consulted District of New York, and later in the New on management and policy issues for national York State Assembly. He was elected to the and international foundations and nonprofit 92nd Congress on November 3, 1970, and has organizations on topics including education, been re-elected to each succeeding congress. public finance, health care, tax policy, economic development, housing, and infrastructure. Shorris holds a B.A. from Harvard College and an MPA from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University.

112 five-year follow-up period. Through this exten- Robert G. Wood sive study, he examined many aspects of the Senior Researcher, Mathematica experiences of TANF recipients, including their Policy Research employment stability and their likelihood of Robert G. Wood is a senior researcher at returning to welfare. Through other research, Mathematica Policy Research and has been Wood has examined employment retention studying welfare policy for more than 14 years. initiatives for TANF recipients in Pennsylva- Wood served as principal investigator for nia. His other welfare-related research has the Work First New Jersey evaluation, which examined child-only TANF cases, as well as tracked the economic and other outcomes programs and policies for teenage parents on of an early group of the state’s Temporary welfare. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the Assistance for Needy Families recipients over a University of Michigan.

113 114 Appendix D: Detailed Survey Results

1. For classification purposes, are you Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare over the age of 18? Yes 100% 100% 100% 100% No - - - - Don’t know/refused - - - -

2. Thinking about the country as a Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare whole, would you say that things in the Right direction 24% 25% 19% 16% United States are headed in the right Wrong track 62 62 64 69 direction or would you say things in VOL: (Neither/mixed) 11 11 10 10 United States are on the wrong track? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 3 2 7 5 Next I want to read a list of issues some people have mentioned as important for our country to address. They may or may not be important to you. For each one, please tell me if it is the most important issue for our country to address, a very important issue, somewhat important to you, or not all that important to you personally?

Important Not important NET (Ref.) Not Most Very Some Not (Ref.) Important important • Ensuring that no one in America goes without food, clothing and shelter 33% 52 12 3 * 85% 15 Middle Class 31% 53 12 3 * 84% 16 2xPoverty 40% 50 9 1 - 90% 10 Welfare 49% 44 5 1 1 93% 6 • Promoting economic development and creating new jobs 24% 60 14 2 * 84% 16 Middle Class 22% 61 14 2 * 83% 16 2xPoverty 32% 55 9 3 1 87% 12 Welfare 33% 58 7 1 1 92% 8 • Guaranteeing affordable health care for all Americans 35% 49 12 4 1 83% 16 Middle Class 33% 49 14 4 1 82% 18 2xPoverty 40% 49 7 3 1 89% 10 Welfare 45% 47 6 2 1 92% 7

• Ending poverty in America 25% 49 20 5 1 74% 25 Middle Class 22% 50 21 5 1 72% 27 2xPoverty 33% 46 15 4 1 80% 19 Welfare 42% 47 9 1 1 89% 10

• Balancing the federal budget 17% 49 28 5 1 66% 33 Middle Class 15% 50 29 5 1 65% 34 2xPoverty 25% 49 19 6 1 74% 25 Welfare 26% 54 16 4 1 80% 19

115 Next I want to read a list of issues some people have mentioned as important for our country to address. They may or may not be important to you. For each one, please tell me if it is the most important issue for our country to address, a very important issue, somewhat important to you, or not all that important to you personally?

Important Not important NET (Ref.) Not Most Very Some Not (Ref.) Important important • Lowering taxes 18% 40 30 12 1 57% 41 Middle Class 15% 39 31 13 1 54% 44 2xPoverty 27% 44 19 7 2 72% 26 Welfare 32% 49 12 5 2 82% 17

• Increasing government aid to the poor 13% 41 35 10 1 54% 45 Middle Class 11% 40 38 10 1 50% 48 2xPoverty 20% 47 25 6 1 68% 31 Welfare 32% 47 15 5 1 80% 19

10. Do you support or oppose Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare increasing the minimum wage? Strongly support 65% 61% 76% 78% IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say Somewhat support 20 22 15 15 you strongly or somewhat support/ Somewhat oppose 5 6 3 3 oppose increasing the minimum Strongly oppose 6 7 2 4 wage? VOL: (Neither support nor oppose) 3 3 2 2 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 1 1 2 -

SUPPORT (NET) 85 83 91 92 OPPOSE (NET) 11 13 5 6

11. How big a problem is poverty Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare in America today? Is it a very Very serious problem 51% 46% 64% 73% serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, a not very serious Somewhat serious problem 38 42 28 20 problem or not at all serious Not very serious 8 8 5 3 problem Not at all serious 2 2 1 3 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 2 2 1

PROBLEM (NET) 88 88 91 93 NO PROBLEM (NET) 10 10 6 6

12. Do you think poverty will ever be Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare done away with in America? Yes 10% 9% 9% 15% No 89 90 88 78 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 2 3 7

13. Which comes closest Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare to your view? Our government favors the poor 5% 4% 5% 7% Our government favors the rich 73 72 75 71 Our government favors the middle class 12 12 13 15 VOL: (None of these) 6 7 3 4 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 5 5 4 4

116 14. In general, are you satisfied or Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare dissatisfied with your personal Very satisfied 25% 28% 12% 12% financial situation at this time? Somewhat satisfied 44 47 37 28 IF CHOICE, ASK: Are you very Somewhat dissatisfied 16 13 23 18 satisfied/dissatisfied or somewhat Very dissatisfied 15 10 28 42 satisfied/dissatisfied? VOL: (Don’t Know/refused) 1 1 1 1

SATISFIED (NET) 68% 76 48 40 DISSATISFIED (NET) 31 23 51 60 Now I’m going to read a series of statements. After I read each one, please tell me whether you personally agree or disagree with the statement.

Agree Disagree (Ref.) NET Strong Some Some Strong (Ref.) Agree Disagree • The best social program is a job. 65% 22 9 3 2 87% 11 Middle Class 66% 21 8 3 2 87% 11 2xPoverty 63% 25 8 3 2 87% 11 Welfare 49% 31 11 7 3 80% 18 • America has a moral obligation to help the poor. 52% 33 9 5 2 85% 14 Middle Class 50% 34 9 5 1 85% 14 2xPoverty 54% 31 6 8 1 85% 14 Welfare 53% 27 12 5 3 80% 17 • If you work hard, you can get ahead in America. 47% 32 12 8 1 79% 20 Middle Class 48% 33 12 6 1 81% 19 2xPoverty 43% 29 12 15 1 72% 27 Welfare 37% 30 16 16 2 67% 31 • Government programs to reduce poverty only make the problem worse by creating a culture of dependency. 29% 29 23 15 4 58% 38 Middle Class 29% 31 23 14 3 60% 37 2xPoverty 26% 29 23 13 9 55% 36 Welfare 34% 32 13 17 5 66% 29 • A pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works full-time. 26% 22 26 23 3 48% 49 Middle Class 23% 22 29 23 3 45% 52 2xPoverty 37% 22 19 19 4 58% 38 Welfare 37% 23 19 17 4 60% 36

20. Do you think poor people in Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare this country are poor because of Reasons that are largely ROTATE—reasons that are largely under their own control 35% 36% 31% 28% under their own control or because Reasons that are largely of reasons that are largely out of out of their control 45 44 52 57 their control? VOL: (Don’t know) 18 18 16 14 VOL: (Refused) 2 1 1 2

117 21. Should legal immigration into the Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare United States be kept at its present Kept at its present level 34% 36% 29% 30% level, increased or decreased? Increased 18 17 17 20 Decreased 40 40 47 39 VOL: (Don’t know) 7 7 7 10 VOL: (Refused) 1 1 1 2

Let’s talk for a moment about the American Dream

22. How many Americans living today Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare do you think will be able to achieve All 3% 2% 3% 4% their idea of the American Dream? Most 20 23 14 11 Some 48 50 46 41 Only a few 25 21 34 40 None at all 1 1 2 3 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 3 1 2

23. Did your parents achieve their idea Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare of the American Dream? Yes 61% 64% 44% 43% No 32 30 46 49 VOL: (Does not apply) 4 3 4 3 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 3 3 6 5

24. How likely do you think you, Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare personally, are to achieve the Have already reached it 37% 43% 23% 14% American Dream in your lifetime, or Very likely to achieve it in my have you already reached it? lifetime 20 20 14 25 Somewhat likely to achieve it in IF NECESSARY, ADD: And by my lifetime 24 22 27 29 American Dream, I mean, as you, Not very likely 12 10 20 16 personally define it. Not at all likely 5 3 11 13 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 3 2 4 4 Thinking about another topic

25. In the last 10 years, would you say Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare the number of Americans receiving Increased greatly 17% 17% 24% 29% welfare has increased or decreased, Increased somewhat 26 26 25 27 or would you say the number has Remained about the same 22 22 21 14 remained about the same? Decreased somewhat 17 18 13 19 Decreased greatly 5 6 4 5 IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say it VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 12 11 13 7 has increased/decreased greatly or somewhat? INCREASED (NET) 43% 43 49 56 DECREASED (NET) 23 24 17 23

118 26. Which comes closer to your view Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare [ROTATE]. Most people on welfare Most people on welfare genuinely need the help, or most people on need the help. 63% 62% 60% 63% welfare could get by without it? Most people on welfare could get by without it. 24 26 24 19 VOL: (Both) 5 5 8 9 VOL: (Neither) 2 2 2 2 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 6 5 6 7

27. In President Clinton’s first State of Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare the Union address, he promised to, Strongly agree 5% 13% 19% 30% “end welfare as we know it,” and to Somewhat agree 21 21 19 21 make welfare a second chance, not a Somewhat disagree 24 23 27 17 way of life. Do you agree or disagree Strongly disagree 30 31 22 20 that President Clinton ended welfare VOL: (Neither agree nor disagree) 3 4 3 3 as we knew it? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 8 7 11 9

IF AGREE/DISAGREE, ASK: Is that AGREE (NET) 35% 34 38 51 strongly agree/disagree or just somewhat? DISAGREE (NET) 54 55 49 37

28. Which comes closer to your view? Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare [STATEMENT A] We need to provide Statement A strongly 53% 52% 53% 61% more child care and better job Statement A somewhat 16 16 16 17 training, so poor Americans can work Statement B strongly 17 16 19 10 their way off of welfare and out of Statement B somewhat 8 9 4 4 poverty. [STATEMENT B] We spend VOL: (Neither) 2 2 2 2 too much on welfare already, we need VOL: (Both) 2 3 3 4 to spend less. People should work, not VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 1 3 2 be on welfare . STATEMENT A (NET) 69% 69 69 78 IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say you STATEMENT B (NET) 25 25 24 14 agree with that statement strongly or somewhat?

29. As you may know, 10 years ago, Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare in 1996, Congress and President Very positive 10% 11% 9% 17% Clinton passed a law to change Positive 44 47 35 31 the welfare system, end the federal Negative 18 16 24 27 guarantee of public assistance for the Very negative 5 3 9 11 poor, require able-bodied recipients VOL: (Did not change very much) 7 8 6 9 to work after two years, cut off VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 15 15 16 5 benefits after five years and cut back on food stamps. POSITIVE (NET) 55% 58 44 48 On balance, do you think the changes NEGATIVE (NET) 23 19 33 38 had a positive or negative effect on America? IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say they had a very positive/negative effect, or just a positive/negative effect?

119 30. In the past decade, the number of Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare Americans on welfare has dropped The strong economy has created from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 lots of new jobs in the past few million today. Do you think this is years 22% 22% 20% 29% mainly because [ROTATE] the strong Changes in the welfare laws have forced more people to go to economy has created lots of new work 56 55 64 55 jobs in the past few years, or because VOL: (Something else SPECIFY) 2 2 2 6 changes in the welfare laws have VOL: (Neither) 4 4 4 3 forced more people to go to work, VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 10 9 9 7 or something else?

31. Do you think that most people Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare who have been removed from the Much better off 14% 14% 15% 18% welfare rolls are now better off or Somewhat better off 39 38 39 38 worse off now than they were when Somewhat worse off 14 13 15 18 they were receiving welfare? Much worse off 6 6 8 8 VOL: (No difference) 5 5 6 7 IF CHOICE, ASK: Would you say VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 22 23 18 11 they are much better/worse off or BETTER OFF (NET) 53% 52 54 56 somewhat better/worse off? WORSE OFF (NET) 20 19 23 26

32. What do you think has become Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare of those who were removed from Most are still poor 34% 35% 32% 36% the welfare rolls? Would you say that Some are still poor but some are most are still poor, some are still no longer poor 52 51 51 48 poor but some are no longer poor, Most are no longer poor 6 6 8 10 or most are no longer poor? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 8 8 9 6

Now I am going to read you some things the state and federal government might do. After each, please tell me if you think it is a very good idea, a good idea, a bad idea or a very bad idea.

Good idea Bad idea NET Very Bad Very (DK/CR) (Ref.) Good Bad good Good idea bad (DK/CR) (Ref.) idea idea • Provide low-cost child care, so parents can work full-time 46% 43 7 2 2 * 89% 9 Middle Class 44% 45 8 1 2 * 89% 9 2xPoverty 49% 42 6 2 1 - 91% 8 Welfare 51% 39 5 2 3 2 89% 7 • Reduce taxes for low-income people who work, and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit 38% 49 8 1 3 1 87% 9 Middle Class 36% 50 9 2 4 1 85% 10 2xPoverty 44% 46 5 1 3 1 90% 6 Welfare 48% 41 4 1 4 2 90% 5 • Allow welfare recipients to attend two- or four-year college programs, so people can get out of poverty, not just off of welfare 39% 45 10 3 2 1 84% 13 Middle Class 36% 47 12 3 2 * 83% 15 2xPoverty 44% 43 6 3 3 1 87% 9 Welfare 58% 36 2 2 1 2 94% 4

120 Now I am going to read you some things the state and federal government might do. After each, please tell me if you think it is a very good idea, a good idea, a bad idea or a very bad idea.

Good idea Bad idea NET Very Bad Very (DK/CR) (Ref.) Good Bad good Good idea bad (DK/CR) (Ref.) idea idea • Provide training in marriage and relationship skills, couples counseling and conflict resolution 34% 44 14 4 3 1 78% 18 Middle Class 34% 42 16 5 3 1 75% 21 2xPoverty 37% 49 7 2 5 * 85% 9 Welfare 43% 44 8 2 3 1 86% 9 • Require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing 39% 37 16 5 3 * 75% 21 Middle Class 37% 36 18 5 4 * 73% 23 2xPoverty 49% 37 9 3 2 * 85% 12 Welfare 45% 31 14 6 2 2 76% 20 • Require welfare recipients to perform community service 28% 46 17 4 5 * 74% 21 Middle Class 29% 44 18 4 4 1 73% 22 2xPoverty 31% 47 15 2 4 1 78% 17 Welfare 29% 45 17 6 3 1 73% 23 • Get government out of the business of providing welfare and let private charities, community and religious groups do the job 9% 23 41 20 6 1 32% 61 Middle Class 9% 23 42 20 5 1 32% 62 2xPoverty 10% 26 37 18 9 * 36% 56 Welfare 10% 28 31 23 6 2 39% 54 I’m going to mention some individuals and groups in public life. For each, I want you to tell me whether you think this individual or group generally shares most of your moral and ethical values, some of your moral and ethical values, or hardly any. How about...

Shares Shares Hardly (Shares most some any none) (DK/Ref.) • President George W. Bush 19% 29 22 27 4 Middle Class 19% 31 19 26 4 2xPoverty 18% 23 29 27 3 Welfare 14% 21 26 32 7 • Poor people 17% 58 12 3 9 Middle Class 15% 60 12 4 10 2xPoverty 24% 51 13 4 8 Welfare 38% 41 10 5 7 • People on welfare 10% 54 18 6 12 Middle Class 9% 54 19 6 12 2xPoverty 10% 53 20 7 10 Welfare 26% 46 13 6 9 • Donald Trump 5% 25 32 26 12 Middle Class 6% 26 31 26 12 2xPoverty 5% 21 36 27 11 Welfare 6% 19 27 33 15

121 Shares Shares Hardly (Shares most some any none) (DK/Ref.) • Fortune 500 CEOs 5% 31 27 23 14 Middle Class 4% 35 26 22 13 2xPoverty 5% 17 37 25 17 Welfare 9% 23 26 24 18 Now I would like to ask you a few final questions for statistical purposes only.

D101. What is your age? Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare 18–24 6% 5% 9% 8% 25–34 13 13 10 21 35–44 20 20 11 19 45–54 19 20 14 20 55–64 18 19 18 13 65+ 20 19 36 14 VOL: (Refused) 3 3 1 5

D102. What is the last grade that you Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare completed in school? Some grade school 1% * 3% 5% Some high school 6 4 13 21 Graduated high school 23 19 40 38 Technical/vocational 3 2 4 3 Some college 18 17 22 17 Graduated college 31 34 15 8 Graduate professional 17 20 4 4 VOL: (Refused) 2 2 1 3

45. How often do you volunteer in Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare your community for a not-for-profit, Daily 7% 7% 9% 10% religious, or charitable organization? Weekly 20 22 16 17 Monthly 14 14 13 12 Several times a year 20 21 15 11 Rarely 18 18 16 17 Never 19 17 28 28 VOL: (Refused) 2 2 2 5

46. If you were asked to use one of Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare these five names for the economic Upper class 3% 3% 1% 3% class you belong to, which would you Upper middle class 18 23 3 7 say you belong in? Would you say you Middle class 44 47 33 24 belong in [READ LIST] Working class 25 21 40 26 Lower class 8 3 22 36 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 3 2 5

122 47. In terms of your job status, are you Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare employed, unemployed but looking Employed 51% 54% 32% 30% for work, retired, a student, or a Unemployed but looking for work 5 4 7 19 homemaker? Retired 26 27 38 20 Student 3 3 2 2 Homemaker 8 8 8 10 VOL: (Disabled) 4 2 11 11 (Unemployed, but not looking for VOL: work) 1 1 1 4 VOL: (Refused) 2 3 1 4

48. Have you ever worked a job that Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare paid minimum wage or less? Yes—Hold a minimum wage job now 4% 3% 6% 11% IF YES, ASK: Do you hold that job Yes—Have held a minimum wage now, or was the last time you held job within the last 5 years 10 7 13 22 Yes—Have held a minimum wage a minimum wage job within the last job 5–10 years ago 7 6 8 15 five years, five to 10 years ago, or Yes—Have held a minimum wage more than 10 years ago? job more than 10 years ago 52 55 46 29 No—Have never held a minimum wage job 26 26 25 19 VOL: (Refused) 3 3 1 5

49_PA. [IF GENERAL POP PA] Do you Total receive cash assistance from any of Welfare 2% the following government programs? Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if) * Pennsylvania TANF (TAN-if), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - General assistance 3 No 94 VOL: (Refused) 1

49_NJ. [IF GENERAL POP NJ] Do you Total receive cash assistance from any of Welfare 1% the following government programs? Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if) * Work First New Jersey TANF (TAN-if) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - Work First New Jersey General Assistance 1 Supportive assistance to individuals and families, the cash assistance benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare 1 No 96 VOL: (Refused) 1

123 49_NY. [IF GENERAL POP NY] Do Total you receive cash assistance from Welfare 1% any of the following government Temporary Assistance for Needy programs? Families (TAN-if) 1 F.A., or Family Assistance 1 Safety Net Assistance cash 1 Safety Net Assistance non-cash, the benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare * No 93 VOL: (Refused) 3

50. [IF NO CASH ASSISTANCE] Have Total MidClass 2xPov you ever received welfare or other Yes—Within the last 5 years 3% 2% 4% cash assistance from any of those Yes—Between 5–10 years ago 2 1 3 programs? Yes—More than 10 years ago 7 5 12 No—Have never received welfare 83 86 75 IF NECESSARY, REPEAT STATE- VOL: (Refused) 6 6 5 APPROPRIATE CHOICES FROM LIST IN Q. ABOVE When was the last time you received it? Was it within the last five years, five to 10 years ago, or more than 10 years ago?

51. [IF NO CASH/WELFARE] Do you, Total MidClass 2xPov personally, have a close relative or Yes 41% 38% 43% personal friend who is or has been No 56 58 55 on welfare? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 4 4 2

52. Are you registered to vote? Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare Democrat 35% 34% 45% 61% IF YES, ASK: When it comes to politics, Independent closer to Democratic do you generally think of yourself Party 5 5 3 3 as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent 13 14 10 4 Independent, or something else? Independent closer to Republican Party 5 5 2 2 [IF INDEPENDENT ASK] Do you Republican 24 26 18 10 think of yourself as closer to the VOL: (Something else/other) 5 4 4 4 Democratic Party or the Republican VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 14 11 18 16 Party?

D110. What is your current marital Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare status? Married 59% 66% 39% 27% Not married, but living with partner 3 2 4 8 Single, never married 18 15 23 36 Divorced or separated 8 6 14 16 Widowed 9 8 19 9 VOL: (Refused) 3 3 1 5

124 53. [IF GENERAL POPULATION] Do Total MidClass 2xPov you currently have health insurance? Private insurance provided through your employer or your spouse. 57% 64% 30% If yes, which of the following best Private insurance that you purchased describes the kind of medical yourself from an insurance company. 15 15 19 coverage you, or members of Medicare 16 15 34 your household [HOUSEHOLD Medicaid 4 1 12 INCLUDES CHILDREN, SPOUSES A government program such as (IF NEW OR PARTNERS LIVING IN THE YORK: Child Health Plus or Family Health Plus) (IF NEW JERSEY: N.J. Family Care) SAME HOME] have? (IF PENNSYLVANIA: CHIP, Pennsylvanias Children’s Health Insurance Program) 2 1 3 READ CHOICES ACCEPT BUT VOL: (Other coverage) 3 2 5 DO NOT PUSH FOR MULTIPLE You do not currently have any type of RESPONSES medical insurance. 8 5 11 VOL: (Don’t Know/refused) 4 4 2

54. How many children, below the age Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare of 18, do you have living at home None 61% 62% 65% 46% with you? VOL: (RECORD EXACT NUMBER) * * 15 41 VOL: (Refused) 1 1 1 6

55. [IF GENERAL POPULATION] Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare Please tell me, including yourself, Live alone, One person in how many family members, including household 18% 18% 23% 39% adults and children, live in your Two people in the household 33 35 36 20 home? Three people in the household 16 16 12 22 Four people in the household 16 17 12 10 Please count anyone who is Five people in the household 8 7 9 7 temporarily away, for example in the Six people in the household 3 3 4 - hospital, in a nursing home or away Seven people in the household 1 1 1 - at school. Eight people in the household * - 1 - Nine or more people in the household * - 1 - VOL: (Refused) 3 5 - 2

D200. And may I ask your religious Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare background; is it Protestant, Catholic, Protestant 26% 25% 34% 27% Jewish, Muslim or something else? Catholic 38 39 33 27 Jewish 5 7 3 1 Muslim * * 1 3 VOL: (Mormon/Latter Day Saints) - - - 1 VOL: (Christian Scientist) * - * 1 VOL: (Christian) 6 6 8 15 VOL: (Spiritual) 1 * 1 1 VOL: (Other) 10 11 11 13 VOL: (None/Atheist) 5 4 4 5 VOL: (Refused) 8 8 4 9

125 D203. When it comes to attending Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare religious services, do you attend Every week 34% 34% 37% 28% services every week, a few times a month, about once a month, a few A few times a month 13 14 12 16 times a year, rarely or never? About once a month 6 6 6 9 A few times a year 23 23 22 23 Never 20 19 20 17 VOL: (Refused) 4 5 2 7

D300. And for statistical purposes only, Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare could you please tell me your race? Black/African-American 9% 9% 21% 39% [IF WHITE/BLACK/OTHER] D301. White/Caucasian 75 79 63 29 Do you consider yourself a Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino 7 3 10 24 Latino, or Spanish-speaking American? Asian-American 3 2 2 2 Other (SPECIFY) 3 2 4 3 VOL: (Refused) 4 4 2 4

D900. [IF GENERAL POPULATION] Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare Just for statistical purposes, can you Less than $20,000 11% * 51% 37% tell me what you would you say $20,000–$30,000 11 3 36 17 is your total annual family income $30,001–$40,000 9 8 8 5 before taxes? Is it less than $20,000, $40,001–$50,000 8 9 5 7 $20,000 to $30,000, more than $50,001–$75,000 13 17 - 10 $30,000 but less than $40,000, more $75,001–$100,000 9 13 - - than $40,000 but less than $50,000, $100,001–$150,000 10 13 - 7 more than $50,000 but less than More than $150,000 6 8 - 2 $75,000, more than $75,000, but VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 23 30 - 15 less than $100,000, or more than $100,000?

D400. Region [CODE FROM SAMPLE] Total Pennsylvania 31% New Jersey 22 New York 48

D100. Gender [BY OBSERVATION; Total MidClass 2xPov Welfare DO NOT ASK] Male 48% 48% 37% 30% Female 52 52 63 70 SCREENING QUESTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME OVERSAMPLES

X1. [IF LOW INCOME] Please tell 2xPov Welfare me, including yourself, how many Live alone, One person in household 29% 25% family members, including adults and Two people in the household 24 20 children, live in your home? Please Three people in the household 15 26 count anyone who is temporarily Four people in the household 14 11 away, for example in the hospital, in a Five people in the household 11 8 nursing home or away at school. Six people in the household 2 6 Seven people in the household 1 2 Eight people in the household 1 1 Nine or more people in the household 3 2

126 X2. [IF LOW INCOME] Do you 2xPov Welfare currently have health insurance? Private insurance provided through your employer If yes, which of the following best or your spouse. 29% 13% describes the kind of medical Private insurance that you purchased yourself from coverage you, or any members of an insurance company. 13 5 your household [HOUSEHOLD Medicare 25 25 INCLUDES CHILDREN, SPOUSES Medicaid 14 30 OR PARTNERS LIVING IN THE A government program such as (IF NEW YORK: SAME HOME] have? Child Health Plus or Family Health Plus) (IF NEW JERSEY: N.J. Family Care) (IF PENNSYLVANIA: CHIP, Pennsylvania’s Children’s Health Insurance Program) 10 16 [READ CHOICES ACCEPT BUT VOL: (Other coverage) 6 8 DO NOT PUSH FOR MULTIPLE You do not currently have any type of medical RESPONSES] insurance 13 5 VOL: (Don’t know/refused) 2 2

X3_PA. [IF LOW INCOME PA] Do Welfare you receive cash assistance from Welfare 48% any of the following government Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if) 8 programs? Pennsylvania TANF (TAN-if), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 9 General Assistance 35 No - VOL: (Refused) -

X3_NJ. [IF LOW INCOME NJ] Do Welfare you receive case assistance from Welfare 33% any of the following government Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if) 33 programs? Work First New Jersey TANF (TAN-if) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 8 Work First New Jersey General Assistance 8 Supportive Assistance to individuals and families, the cash assistance benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare 17 No - VOL: (Refused) -

X3_NY. [IF LOW INCOME NY] Do Welfare you receive case assistance from Welfare 64% any of the following government Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN-if) 14 programs? F.A., or Family Assistance 5 Safety Net Assistance cash 8 Safety Net Assistance non-cash, the benefit for individuals and families who have exhausted their time limit on welfare 8 No - VOL: (Refused) -

X900A. [IF ONE PERSON HH/ 2xPov Welfare LOW INCOME] Just for statistical Less than $10,000 49% 62% purposes, and so we can ensure that $10,000 to 20,000 51 35 we speak to everyone, can you tell $20,001 to 30,000 - 3 me what you would you say is your More than $30,000 - - total annual family income before VOL: (Don’t know/refused) taxes? Is it… - -

127 X900B. [IF TWO PERSON HH/LOW 2xPov Welfare INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, Less than $12,800 50% 67% and so we can ensure that we speak $12,800 to $25,600 50 27 to everyone, can you tell me what $25,601 to $38,400 - 7 you would you say is your total More than $38,400 - - annual family income before taxes? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) - - Is it…

X900C. [IF THREE PERSON HH/LOW 2xPov Welfare INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, Less than $15,800 38% 75% and so we can ensure that we speak $15,800 to $31,600 62 20 to everyone, can you tell me what $31,601 to $47,400 - 5 you would you say is your total More than $47,400 - - annual family income before taxes? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) - - Is it…

X900D. [IF FOUR PERSON HH/LOW 2xPov Welfare INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, Less than $20,000 37% 56% and so we can ensure that we speak $20,000 to $40,000 63 31 to everyone, can you tell me what $40,001 to $60,000 - 13 you would you say is your total More than $60,000 - - annual family income before taxes? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) - - Is it…

X900E. [IF FIVE PERSON HH/LOW 2xPov Welfare INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, Less than $23,700 67% 58% and so we can ensure that we speak $23,700 to $47,400 33 8 to everyone, can you tell me what $47,401 to $71,100 - 33 you would you say is your total More than $71,100 - - annual family income before taxes? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) - - Is it…

X900F. [IF SIX PERSON HH/LOW 2xPov Welfare INCOME] Just for statistical purposes, Less than $26,700 33% 89% and so we can ensure that we speak $26,700 to 55,400 67 11 to everyone, can you tell me what $55,401 to $82,100 - - you would you say is your total More than $82,100 - - annual family income before taxes? VOL: (Don’t know/refused) - - Is it…

128 164 PrincetonUniversity TANF at Ten at TANF