The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - Coursework Example

TANF: A Boon or a Bane TANF or the temporary assistance for needy families was a block grant passed in 1996 by the then President Bill Clinton under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PWRORA – Public Law 104-193). TANF which replaced many of the old welfare programs was the beginning of a new system which aimed to, as Mr. Clinton pointed out, “end welfare as we have known it”. The principle aim of TANF is to provide help and job opportunities to those who need them. It gives federal grants to the states, territories and tribal welfare programs and tries to promote self sufficiency by giving job preparations. It advocates the need for jobs, marriages, two parent families and also tries to prevent out of marriage pregnancies. Sharon Hays through her book “Flat Broke with Children” gives us an interesting insight into the world of the social workers who aid in carrying out the welfare programs under TANF and also tell us the story from the view points of those who receive the aid. TANF which came in place of the Emergency Assistance program (EA), the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) was a welcome change to the social workers who all were involved with various welfare organizations throughout the United States of America. As Hays (2004) points out “ most of welfare caseworkers I met were optimistic about the new law, at least in the first year of its enactment.....a number of case workers, echoing popular sentiment, told me that welfare had become a trap and the clients had become dependent” (Hays, 2004, p. 4). So the social workers felt that to impart training to the poor clients and make them suitable for various jobs would be a change of scenario, both for the worker and the recipient. However as Hays travels through the various phases of this program and meets various clients and aid workers over an extended period of time she finds many pitfalls in this assistance program. Though facts and figures prove that this program is a resounding success but as we travel with Hays we find that not everything is as rosy as it seems. Her research work which nearly extended for about three years gives us, in vivid details, as to the happenings in the various welfare program offices and in the homes of the recipients of this aid. She explores the various social values that this aid program tries to instill in its recipients and the inherent contradictions that arise while trying to apply these values in every day practical lives. This book is a first of its kind which tries to go in-depth and find out the actual impact of TANF on the lives of women pertaining to motherhood, marriages and livelihood. All laws pertaining to reform work in a singular manner. It tries to stop people from committing a crime and also punishes those who commit the crime. The law is in most cases a fixed social and moral code. To break this code is to commit crime. So it is but natural that any countrys law would reflect its social and ethical values. As Hays (2009) aptly frames it “a nations laws reflect a nations values”(Hays, 2004, p. 9). Similarly TANF act being a sort of reform law also in some way or the other mirrors the American social and ethical values. The feel and compassion for the poor in America goes back long in history and can be traced to the colonial times. In the early days compassion could be seen in the form of public school houses and many charitable institutions. The government and private sector often worked together to help the poor. These were seen in the form of Salvation Army and various other religious groups that worked for the benefit of the poor. The earlier reform laws on work commitment reflected the sentiment values of those ages where the deserving poor were deemed fit for aid and their children were given protection and training to make themselves self sufficient while the idle and the immoral were placed on forced jobs or very little aid. As Hays points out, “Welfare policy in the United States has long been closely connected to the nations cultural vision of the appropriate commitment to work”(Hays, 2004, p.13). This new law (TANF) reflects the new work ethics in place in the nineties, where the needy people would be trained and given placements under a limited time frame. After this time frame the federal aid would be lessened or even removed. It would not allow the recipients of this aid to become dependent on federal grants and become lazy in the process. Prior to the framing of TANF critics had blamed the older welfare programs like AFDC to be encouraging idleness amongst the recipients and also promoted the breakup of family units. This AFDC framed in early 30s (actually in vogue from the 1910’s) was basically for the widows and abandoned women with children. Grants and aids were made to help these women so that they could stay home and care for their children, as Hays (2004) tells us about the basic nature of the aid, “pensions, specially aimed at protecting widows so that they might take care of their children at home” (Hays, 2004, p.14). So we can see that the welfare laws also strongly reflected the family values that were in place right from the beginning of the society, where the mother is seen as the home maker and the father is the bread winner. As time went on and voices were raised that these welfare programs were creating a sort of negative reward for the poor and encouraging more and more family break ups and joblessness, a new act (TANF) was formed, but the basic American social and ethical values remained more or less intact. The compassion and the urge to help the poor still remained the primary motive. Along with this the welfare program also kept in mind the basic family values. This program inculcates family values within its recipients and tries to encourage families with two parents. This was in keeping with the view that the ever increasing number of welfare clients was mainly children and unwed mothers. These children formed a majority where fathers were not a part of the family. The Republican Party that initiated this reform made three very important observations. These are: 1. A society to be functioning smoothly needs strong marriages to be at its foundation. 2. Responsible parenthood for both the father and mother is important for a childs well being 3. A successful society needs successful marriages for the well being of the children of that society. However there have been certain changes too, keeping in mind the changes in the modern day social picture. Now women form a large part of the work force and working mothers are quite a common feature. As Hays (2004) points out “that welfare reform is a response to the widespread employment of mothers is a fact that is hard to miss...”(Hays, 2004, p.22). Thus the new welfare program or TANF is based on modern day requirements and is a modification of the old welfare aids but keeps the basic American social values in place. In the framing of TANF we find the government laying stress on two main factors. These are the family values and work requirement. As Hays (2004) would aptly frame it, “for shorthand purposes (and to emphasize the disjunction between them), I have come to call these two visions the work plan and the family plan” (Hays, 2004, 18). When we look at the work plan of TANF we find that there are certain work requirements that are deemed necessary for this welfare recipient. In fact the government defines the work requirements in these very terms, “end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage." Thus a strict imposition was made on work requirement, making it mandatory for the recipients to take part in various work activities while receiving the grant. It was compulsory for recipients to work 30 hours a week unless they had kids younger than 6 years of age. Only parents of very young children (less than one year old) and handicapped adults are exempted from these work activities and encouraged to stay at home and receive welfare aids. After two years of receiving this reform assistance the recipients will have to start working at least part time, to be able to continue receiving the benefits. For young married couples and parents (under age twenty), if they lack a high school degree, they will be considered at work if they attend their high school classes regularly or take part in educational activities related to work. Here we see a picture of stricter work rules that in reality permit less time for vocational or educational training to the recipient. Also the state may choose to end federal aid and can impose full family sanctions, that is, cancel the entire aid to the adults and children of that family, if a parent does not meet the work requirement parameter. This ‘work first’ requirement of TANF tends to function on the understanding that any work is a good work. So the end result is that the welfare recipients are stuck in low paid jobs due lack of proper job training. As Hays (2004) would tell us “ yet given the realities of low- wage work and single parenting, the work plan will not elevate the majority of welfare families above the poverty lines....”(Hays, 2004, p.61). There is also a five year limit to this TANF program where cash benefit is stopped after five years of assistance. So if we examine the ‘work plan’ closely we find that there are more disadvantages. First this plan leaves very little scope for the recipient to train and educate him or herself for a better job. That means that person is stuck in that low paying job just to keep on receiving his welfare benefits without any chance to better his opportunities. Secondly the state has the power to stop the aid completely if the recipient fails to meet the work plan requirement, thus for the failure of the parents, the children also suffer for no fault of theirs. Also under the system of family cap the mother is forced to work and has to keep her child, even a newborn one, in some child care center. So this work policy does not spell well for mothers of such capped children. This plan only serves to see that the recipients do not sit idle and waste their benefit cash. Under the family plan emphasis is given on a two parent family, marriages and responsible parenthood for the father and the mother both. Here we find certain rules relaxed and more flexibility given to states to assist more two parent families. Rewards are given to states with minimum number of out of marriage children and also less rate of abortion. States are also given the right to cancel or not to give assistance to unwed or teenage mothers or very young parents not living with other adult relatives. A federal grant has also been set aside for sex education to teach abstinence. Strangely, as Hays (2004) points out “the law does not include the slightest hint of further funding for birth control or family planning education” (Hays, 2004, p.67). Here the law fails to realize that simply training for abstinence does not curb non marital children nor does it stop the poor and the young people from having sex. This is one big flaw in the so called family plan of TANF. Here comes into light another disadvantage in the ‘family plan’ laws. This the system of a ‘family cap’ where a single mother who is under the welfare system decides to have another child will not get any benefit for the new baby, the logic behind this law being that it will discourage welfare mothers from having more children. However, in reality this has not happened. What has actually happened is that these so called capped children are being denied the benefits as the law does not recognize them. The single mothers to continue receiving the benefits must meet the requirement of the work plan and so will have to go on working, leaving their new born in some child care center. Here the law does not deem it necessary to ask the mothers as to whether they wish to keep their new born in some child care center or not. Often the child care centers are not good and cases of child abuses have been reported. As Hays (2004) frames it “the family caps effect on poor mothers and children is extremely harsh” (Hays, 2004, p.69). Thus we find the ‘work plan’ and the ‘family plan’ not working in effect with each other. Family plan targets a happy family where the father is the bread winner and earns enough so that the mother need not go out to work. In reality this happy picture often does not work. Thus a single mother is not only being denied her reproductive right, her right to parenthood but also as Hays (2004) puts it “it is also a problem of denying them the social inclusion...”(Hays, 2009, p.70). Thus if the ‘work plan’ and the ‘family plan’ is put together it gives a social picture of women being solely responsible for the upbringing of their children and women who all are financially and physically weak do not have the right to have children. So from what we find it seems that TANF does not really benefit its recipients in the long run. The vision of the work plan to create independence and productivity amongst its recipients comes to a grinding halt as it only serves to trap its beneficiaries in low menial jobs that are poor paying with no fixed hours and no work benefits. Poor single mothers are the worst affected by this law owing to the work first set up. They have to leave their children in child care centers while they go to work for some extremely low paying jobs that is more often than not, barely enough for the upkeeping of the entire family. Since this law limits the assistance for poor single mothers some researchers feel that this might lead to creation of more high conflict families, where women will try to stick to their abusive partners for fear of losing their federal benefits. It is not correct for the government to connect poverty and marriage of a woman and it also does not hold good for the government to portray the picture of a patriarchal society and forcibly implement it upon its citizens. Thus the work plan and the family plan of TANF is more of a disadvantage to its recipients, especially to the economically weak, single women having children. As Hays (2004) tells us “family plan , ….uses work requirements as a way of punishing mothers for their failure to get married and stay married” (Hays, 2009, 19). If we go through various official records of the different welfare packages till date we will find that TANF presents the most encouraging picture. From 1996 when this law first came into enactment till 2002, the percentage drop in welfare caseload is a whopping 53.8%. From an average of 4.5 million families receiving welfare benefits per month in 1996, this number plummeted down to an average of 2.1 families receiving welfare per month in 2002. An impressive number, indeed! However one must also keep in mind that it was during this time the economy boom was seen with the financial market skyrocketing. At this time the unemployment rate was just about 4%, an unheard of figure, before. So one can safely assume the percentile drop in workload cases may not have been entirely due to the new welfare package. A strong and ever growing economy made sure that most of the drop outs from the welfare package got good jobs due to the booming markets. This new welfare package with no proper provisions for affordable housing, child care or Medicare benefits is definitely not strong enough to face economic recessions and may push the poor into further depressions of homelessness and complete destitution. Many single and young mothers (who form about 90% of the TANF recipients) have been forced to leave this package since they could not meet the work plan requirement to take care of their new born. This welfare package simply fails to understand the requirements and ground realities faced by these single women. So whatever the figures show and how loud the politicians may shout themselves hoarse to claim the success of this package, according to me this policy has been a failure in most cases. The success and the glorifying figures have been mostly temporary. Any policy that claims to be for the benefit of the poor yet cannot touch or understand the basic needs and realities of these very people, cannot be called a success. TANF as a welfare package definitely needs a complete overhauling, right from the framing of its laws to its nature of implementation. It needs to understand the conditions faced by poor single mothers and relax their work requirement criteria till their children are of school going age. There needs to be a system to develop quality child care support for these poor income group families especially where the mother is the bread winner. Paper work for single mothers, with details asking about the father must be done away with or simply reduced. Work first criteria should be relaxed and scope for further education and other trainings should be given to the recipients so that they can further their chances of getting a better paid job. With recession setting in the recipients who serve as lowly paid workers doing basic menial work are the first ones to lose their jobs. Only with special training and education can make these recipients face the recession and not lose their jobs. Hays (2004) tells us that “as of April 2001, just 120000 welfare clients nationwide had lost their TANF benefits as a result of time limits” (Hays, 2004, p.260). So the five year limit should also be relaxed and extended so that the recipients get more time to secure a better job. Of course there are some good points to this reform pack as well. Hays (2004) sums it up as “ There are however two changes brought by welfare reforms that appear....to be positive and forward looking.....these are the massive expansion of childcare subsidies and the added requirements aimed at making “deadbeat dads” support their progeny” (Hays, 2004, p.71). References Hays, S. (2004). Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More