Statement of Douglas J. Besharov, Professor, University of Maryland School of Public Affairs,
and Resident Scholar, Public Policy Research, American Enterprise Institute

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Implementation of Welfare Reform Work Requirements and Time Limits

March 7, 2002

Chairman Herger, and Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources:

Thank you for inviting me to testify on state implementation of work requirements and time limits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. My name is Douglas J. Besharov. I am a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, where I conduct research on children and families. I am also a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, where I teach courses on family policy, welfare reform, and evaluation.

Ask people on the street what "welfare reform" means, and most would probably answer "work in return for welfare." According to Kent Weaver, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, public opinion polls conducted between 1993 and 1995, on the eve of welfare reform, revealed that "The clear public favorite among welfare reforms is work requirements, which is consistent with the new paternalism approach to reform." ⁽¹⁾ Lawrence Mead of New York University explains: "public opinion polls show that while voters want the government to assist needy families, they also want adult welfare recipients to work, like the taxpayers who support them." ⁽²⁾

When the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) was enacted, most analysts expected states to develop large mandatory work programs in order to meet its mandatory "participation" requirements. TANF requires states to place an increasing percentage of adults on welfare in work activities. It establishes two separate "work participation rates": (1) an "all-family" or overall rate, and (2) a rate for two-parent families (which is higher than the rate for one-parent families because it is considered easier for one parent in a two-parent household to work than it is for a single mother).

1. The all-family rate (or overall rate) requires that at least 25 percent of TANF families with an adult (or minor child head of household) be involved for 1997, 30 percent for 1998, 35 percent for 1999, 40 percent for 2000, 45 percent for 2001, and culminating at 50 percent for 2002 and thereafter. ⁽³⁾ In order to be counted as participating, adults in one-parent families must have been engaged in work activities for at least twenty hours per week in 1997 and 1998, twenty-five hours in 1999, and thirty thereafter. ⁽⁴⁾ (Single parents with a child under six need only participate twenty hours per week to be counted.)
2. The two-parent family rate is higher (presumably because there are two parents available to care for the children): 75 percent for 1997 and 1998, and 90 percent thereafter. The number of required hours is also higher: In two-parent families, the parents must have been engaged in activities for at least thirty-five hours per week. (The parents can share the hours.) ⁽⁵⁾

States that do not meet these participation rates are subject to a financial penalty. ⁽⁶⁾

TANF also requires states to reduce or end assistance to people who refuse to engage in such work activities without good cause. ⁽⁷⁾

These "participation standards," however, have turned out to have little meaning because of the way the participation rates are calculated and because they can be satisfied by recipients combining welfare with work ("combiners").

Caseload reduction credit. What if a state successfully moves a substantial number of recipients from welfare to work? On the theory that it would be unfair to ignore this achievement, the required participation rates are reduced by the "caseload reduction credit." The credit reduces the state's required participation rate by one percentage point for each percentage point that the state's welfare caseload falls below the 1995 level. (Caseload reductions due to eligibility changes, such as full family sanctions, cannot be counted in measuring the caseload decline.) ⁽⁸⁾ Significantly, thus recognizing "entry effects" gives states an incentive to invest resources and time in helping applicants avoid welfare through various diversion activities and keeping leavers from returning by offering child care and post-employment services.

The caseload reduction credit was established in relation to 1995 welfare caseloads and, because of the sharp decline in the rolls since then, it has all but eliminated the need for states to establish mandatory work programs.

For the all-families participation rate, in 2000, thirty-one states did not have to place anyone in a work activity because their caseload declines were so large. In other words their "adjusted" participation rate was zero. Eleven states had "adjusted" all-families participation rates of under 10 percent. ⁽⁹⁾ Moreover, these participation rates are so low that they are easily satisfied because recipients combining work and welfare (pursuant to earnings disregards) count toward the participation rate. As a result, in 2000, all states and the District of Columbia met the all-families participation requirement.

Meeting the two-parent participation requirements has been more difficult for the states-even though the number of such cases has plummeted nationally ⁽¹⁰⁾ (from about 363,000 in 1994 to just 56,000 in 2000, an 85 percent drop) ⁽¹¹⁾-because both the participation rate and minimum hours of participation are higher. Nationally, in 2000, only about 40 or 50 percent of two-parent cases (with enormous variations among the states) were participating for a sufficient number of hours to meet the two-parent work requirement. ⁽¹²⁾ However, with the help of the caseload reduction credit, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia met or exceeded their adjusted two-parent work participation rates. ⁽¹³⁾

Only seven states did not meet their adjusted two-parent participation rate. ⁽¹⁴⁾ In earlier years, some of these states entered into corrective compliance plans with the federal government, and a few states have simply paid the penalty for not meeting their two-parent participation rates. (The penalties tend to be small because they are based on the proportion of two-parent cases in the state, which is generally small.) ⁽¹⁵⁾

But the major reason so few states were not out of compliance is that eighteen or more had, in effect, exempted themselves from the requirement by creating a separate state program for all or some of their two-parent families (or not having a program at all), up from fifteen states in 1999. ⁽¹⁶⁾ These separate state-funded programs are not subject to the work requirement (or other TANF provisions such as the five-year time limit).

The growing proportion of the caseload composed of "child-only" cases is also watering down participation requirements. For, there is no work requirement imposed on families that do not have an adult parent receiving aid, even if the parent is living in the same household as the child. In 1997, 23 percent of the national TANF caseload was thus exempt from a work requirement for this reason. ⁽¹⁷⁾ By 2000, the figure was up to 32 percent. ⁽¹⁸⁾ Some of these child-only cases involve children placed with relatives ("kinship care") because their parents cannot care for them. ⁽¹⁹⁾ Some involve immigrant families, where the adult immigrant is not eligible for benefits but their native born children are. Some involve situations where the parent is receiving SSI and is not included as part of the TANF grant (while the child is). And some involve families in which the adult has been sanctioned for some reason and is, therefore, off the grant.

Actual participation. Despite initial expectations, therefore, participation in the activities counted toward the TANF participation requirements ("countable work-related activities") has been quite limited. In an average month in 2000 (the most recent year with data), only 40 percent of adult TANF recipients participated in a countable activity. ⁽²⁰⁾ And, even that is a misleading statistic, because about 61 percent of those participating are simply combining work and welfare (in large part because of the newly generous earnings disregards described above). TANF calls this "unsubsidized employment," but that clearly is a misnomer since the families continue to receive welfare payments, which can be a substantial portion of their original grants. First the Clinton Administration and now the Bush Administration have helped muddy the waters by repeatedly reporting that large percentages of welfare recipients were "working," when, in fact, the vast majority were taking advantage of earnings disregards to combine work and welfare. ⁽²¹⁾

In fact, in 2000, only somewhere between 16 to 23 percent of all adult recipients were participating in activities other than "unsubsidized" employment, ⁽²²⁾ and only about 4 percent were in "work experience." Most of the rest of those not combining work and welfare were either in job search (5 percent) or vocational education (3 percent). ⁽²³⁾ (See Tables 1 and 1A.)

Importantly, four states-New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin-accounted for over 60 percent of the participants in work experience programs (37,971 out of a national total of 61,643). ⁽²⁴⁾ In these states, the percentage of adults in work experience ranged from 6 percent in New York to 57 percent in Wisconsin. (See Tables 2 and 2A.)

Because most states have had no trouble meeting the all-family participation rate-and because they have unspent TANF funds resulting from the decline in their caseloads-many states have also funded activities and services that may not count toward TANF participation requirements. Sometimes they mandate participation in them. These services include substance abuse treatment, skills assessment, mental health services, domestic abuse services, or adult literacy. Sometimes these services are provided in conjunction with some form of work experience or subsidized employment, and sometimes not.

Such activities are presently not countable toward participation requirements. If they were, they would have added appreciably to the number of recipients in countable activities. (In 2000, they accounted for as much as 15 percent of total participation.) ⁽²⁵⁾ In New York City, for example, in November 2001, adding the participants in normally noncountable activities would increase the number participating there by 7,683 (18 percent). The number of participants would rise from 43,669 to 51,352 (with 1,281 in substance abuse treatment, 1,831 in wellness/rehab, and 4,571 who are "needed at home" to care for a dependent). ⁽²⁶⁾

A word of warning about these statistics: In conversations with state and county officials, it was clear that many had very poor data on the numbers of participants in various activities, and discrepancies in some states' data suggest significant inaccuracies. Moreover, the data seems to have little meaning or utility to state officials, and many seem to make little use of the data that they have.

Notes:

^aNew York City data are as of July 28, 1999.
^bAlthough the 1996 welfare reform law calls this category "unsubsidized employment," the term is misleading, because it involves the ongoing provision of a welfare grant.
^cBased on sanction rates reported by the U.S. General Accounting Office for 1998.
^dThe number of sanctions in the state of New York was not reported; the data are thus limited to the number of sanctions in New York City.
^eThe term "engageable" is intended to identify the number of recipients who are potentially available for participation in work-related activities, because they are neither in unsubsidized employment nor in sanction status.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program: Third Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August, 2000), pp. 48-49, available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/annual3.pdf, accessed September 19, 2001; New York City Human Resources Administration, "FA/TANF - July 28, 1999 - Weekly Report"; and U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected (Washington, D.C.: GAO, GAO/HEHES-00-44, March 2000).

Notes:

^aAlthough the 1996 welfare reform law calls this category "unsubsidized employment," the term is misleading, because it involves the ongoing provision of a welfare grant.
^bBased on sanction rates reported by the U.S. General Accounting Office for 1998.
^c The term "engageable" is intended to identify the number of recipients who are potentially available for participation in work-related activities, because they are neither in unsubsidized employment nor in sanction status.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program: Third Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August, 2000), pp. 48-49, available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/annual3.pdf, accessed September 19, 2001; New York City Human Resources Administration, "FA/TANF - November 19, 2001 - Weekly Report"; and U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected (Washington, D.C.: GAO, GAO/HEHES-00-44, March 2000).

Conclusions

1. I believe that the past six years' experience establishes that mandatory work-related activities are a key element in any successful program of welfare reform. They can:

• Reinforce Work First efforts,
• Make time limits enforceable,
• Enhance human capital, and
• Build public support for further welfare reform efforts.

2. Up to now, almost all the work participation under TANF has been composed of recipients combining work and welfare, generally because of the very generous earnings disregards adopted by the states.

3. States are far from having the infrastructure and expertise to operate large mandatory work programs.

4. There is substantial interest among the states, for good or for bad, in offering services (and mandating participation) in activities other than work, such as drug treatment and remedial education. (Some of this may have been driven by the belief among states that, if they did not spend their TANF surpluses, they would lose them. In this regard, the Administration's proposal to allow states to create their own "rainy day" funds is most welcome.)

5. The current law contains many ways that states can minimize (and even avoid) TANF's participation requirements-such as by creating separate state programs or child-only cases, by adopting loose definitions of work, and by increasing the number of those combining work and welfare (by increasing earnings disregards even more and by suspending the time-limit clock).

6. Although most attention is being placed on requiring states to increase participation rates, it is equally important to remove barriers to their doing so. An important example is the need to exempt work-related activities from the reach of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and especially its minimum wage requirements.

7. Finally, any effort to increase TANF's participation rates-which I strongly support-will require a keen appreciation of the complex factors that will shape state responses-and should be prepared for unintended consequences.

1. R. Kent Weaver, Ending Welfare As We Know It (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000), p. 181.

2. Lawrence M. Mead, "The Politics of Conservative Welfare Reform," in The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca M. Blank and Ron Haskins (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Press, 2001), p. 203.

3. TANF's "participation rates" are computed as an average of the state's participation rates for each month of the fiscal year.

4. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Section 407(c)(1)(A).

5. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Section 407(c)(1)(B).

6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Final Rule 45 CFR 261.20(d), Federal Register, April 12, 1999, p. 17885.

7. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Section 407(e).

8. Some eligibility changes, such as expansions in earnings disregards, actually increase caseloads. States are required to identify each eligibility change, estimate its effect on the caseload, and then adjust the caseload by the net effect of all the changes. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, "Guidance on Submitting Caseload Reduction Credit Information, the TANF Caseload Reduction Report (Form ACF-202) and Instructions," November 5, 1999, available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/pa99-2.htm, accessed February 8, 2002.

9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 1A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: TANF Work Participation Rates, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table1a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

10. Part of this decline was caused by the shift, in some states, of two-parent cases to separate state programs.

11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. A-8, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 3A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Average Monthly Number of Parents in Two-Parent Families Who Are Participating in Work Activities for a Sufficient Number of Hours for the Family to Count as Meeting the Two-Parent Families Work Requirements, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table5a.htm, accessed March 5, 2002.

12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 5B, "Average Monthly Percent of Parents in Two-Parent Families Who Are Participating in Work Activities for a Sufficient Number of Hours for the Family to Count as Meeting the Two-Parent Families Work Requirements, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table5b.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 1A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: TANF Work Participation Rates, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table1a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 1A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: TANF Work Participation Rates, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table1a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

15. Personal communication from Mack Storrs, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, to Peter Germanis, January 9, 2002.

16. Indeed, in Rhode Island, if a family meets the two-parent participation rate, then federal funds are used and they are included in the rate. If not, the family receives assistance from a separate state program. (One HHS official observed, "Obviously, they aren't perfect at this game, since their two-parent rate was 95.8 percent-not 100 percent)." (This compares to a 6.8 percent participation rate in their separate state program.) As far as we know, Rhode Island is the only state doing this now, but others have discussed adopting the strategy, and more are likely to if participation requirements become more stringent.

17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Understanding the AFDC/TANF Child-only Caseload: Policies, Composition and Characteristics in Three States (Washington, D.C.: Author, February 1, 2000), p. 7.

18. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 3A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Status of Families as Relates to All Families Work Participation Rates," Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table3a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002. Despite the increase in the proportion of the caseload composed of child-only cases, the total number of such cases actually declined from 822,000 to 719,000.

19. These are assistance cases under TANF. However, it is also possible for states to shift these cases to their child welfare programs, and relabel them "kinship foster care" cases. See Douglas J. Besharov, "The Welfare Balloon: Squeeze Hard on One Side and the Other Side Will Just Expand," The Washington Post, June 11, 1995, p. C4

20. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 6A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Average Hours of Participation in Work Activities, Including Waivers, For All Adults Participating in Work Activities, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table6a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

21. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "States Continue to Meet Welfare Reform's Work Participation Rules," Press Release, February 14, 2002, available from: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020214.html, accessed March 4, 2002.

22. The range for this category reflects the fact that there may be recipients participating in more than one activity, so that it is not possible to estimate precisely the number of adults in countable activities other than "unsubsidized employment."

23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 6A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Average Hours of Participation in Work Activities, Including Waivers, For All Adults Participating in Work Activities, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table6a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Table 6A, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Average Hours of Participation in Work Activities, Including Waivers, For All Adults Participating in Work Activities, Fiscal Year 2000," available from: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/im00rate/table6a.htm, accessed March 4, 2002.

25. In fact, given the wide flexibility states have in defining their activities, participation in many of these activities could be classified under "community service," a countable activity for TANF participation requirements.

26. New York City Human Resources Administration, "FA/TANF - November 19, 2001 - Weekly Report."