Statement of Diana Pearce and Jennifer Brooks, Wider Opportunities for Women ^(*)

Measuring the Impact of Welfare's Work Requirements on Family Income
and Well-Being Using the Self-Sufficiency Standard

The Impact of TANF Work Requirements:

Work requirements under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), combined with the expanding economy of the late 1990s, have resulted in an unprecedented decrease in the number of families currently on welfare. There is, however, substantial debate about which factor--the economy or TANF work requirements--has been more important, but together the impact has been dramatic:

• The majority of those leaving welfare have entered employment. The average number is about three in five, according to the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation's (ASPE) summary of 11 state or county welfare leavers' studies, ⁽²⁾ depending upon the measure used. (If any earnings during any month counts as "employed," the percentage is higher; if the measure is stricter, requiring a minimum amount of earnings (such as $100 or $500 per quarter), and/or work in all or most months, the percentage is substantially lower).

• Average wages have been low, averaging about $7 to $8 per hour. While the majority work full-time, a substantial number do not, so the average work week is about 30-35 hours. Thus, these wages and hours yield earnings of roughly $900-$1200 per month, which is approximately 75-100% of the poverty line for a family of three.

• Steady work has not characterized most of those employed, so that average earnings over the year are considerably less than the hourly or monthly numbers suggested above. ⁽³⁾

• Not surprisingly, the level of material hardships found has been significant, affecting substantial proportions of current and former welfare recipients. Thirty-six percent of families have gone without meals, 2.5 million individuals have gone to food pantries, and one in 10 families have lost their housing and become homeless due to loss of TANF benefits. ⁽⁴⁾

In sum, the results of the TANF work requirements, though dramatic, are a mixed bag. On the one hand, more families have parents in the workforce, which potentially is a positive, for it decreases dependence on welfare and increases, at least potentially, economic independence. On the other hand, families with employed parents also have added work expenses, so that while income may increase (compared to cash assistance) expenses related to employment (such as child care, transportation, and taxes) may increase even more. Indeed, careful research by Edin and Lein ⁽⁵⁾ concluded that when a straightforward comparison of expenses versus resources was made, welfare-reliant families were "better off" than work-reliant families.

Because of the substantial difference in expenses between families with parents in the workforce and those that are not, as well as the substantial differences in expenses such as housing and child care between different places, one cannot use a standard such as the poverty measure to determine the well-being of families, and ultimately, the impact of TANF work requirements. The poverty measure does not distinguish between families with adults in the workforce, and those with no working adults, nor does it take into account the differences between places in costs. Finally, the poverty standard does not take into account the differences in costs by age of children (especially child care).

Any real look at these questions requires an adequate measure of how much it takes to live in a given place, which is exactly what the Self-Sufficiency Standard is designed to do. Unlike the federal poverty standard, the Self-Sufficiency Standard accounts for the costs of living and working as they vary by family size and composition and by geographic location. The Self-Sufficiency Standard can help us to understand the quality and severity of the gap between resources and needs for families across the country who are leaving welfare and entering the workforce. For example,

• In Washington D.C., a single mother with one preschooler and one school-age child needs a monthly income of $3,993 to cover her costs if she receives no subsidies.
• However, in Rapid City, South Dakota, that same family would need a monthly income of $2,235.

These numbers are drawn from the Self-Sufficiency Standard for these states. The Self-Sufficiency Standard calculates how much money working adults need to earn to meet their families' basic needs without subsidies of any kind. The Standard defines the amount of income necessary to meet basic needs (including paying taxes) in the regular "marketplace" without public subsidies (such as public housing, food stamps, Medicaid, or child care) or private or informal subsidies (such as free babysitting by a relative or friend, food provided by churches or local food banks, or shared housing). The Standard is varied by the age of the children, and by where one lives. (For further comparisons of the cost of living for various family types across a number of states and cities, please see the Appendix).

The Gap Between Welfare Leavers' Wages and Self-Sufficiency:

If mothers leaving welfare earn the national average ($7 to $8 per hour), even in South Dakota they would have less than half the resources they need to cover their costs. In Washington, D.C., they would have only one-fourth of what they would need, at a minimum--not enough to even cover the rent. However, many families do not earn Self-Sufficiency Wages, particularly if they have recently left welfare for the workforce or live in high cost areas.

Without additional work supports, many families cannot afford their housing and food and child care--much less their other basic needs. They are likely to be forced to choose between needs, or accepting substandard or inadequate child care, insufficient food, or substandard housing. The gap between their earnings and the costs of their basic needs also affects their ability to keep a job, or progress in the workforce. If a single mother cannot afford childcare, her ability to sustain a full-time job is severely in jeopardy. Likewise, if a parent is forced into low wage work with little possibility for wage progression, he or she is not likely to be able to sustain his/her family for a long period of time. Thus, the problem is not about "bad budgeting" or "bad choices": it is about inadequacy of wages alone for many families.

Covering Costs and Closing the Income Gap--Raising Wages and Lowering Expenses:

There are two basic approaches to close this gap between what a family needs, and earnings that many are experiencing when leaving welfare. One approach is to raise wages. The other is to lower expenses through supports/subsidies--public and/or private, in cash or "in kind."

These two approaches can and should be used, as appropriate, sequentially or in tandem. There is not a single solution, a one-size-fits-all answer, for each parent and family is different. For example, some parents may combine work and study from the outset so that they can then move into jobs that pay higher wages. Alternatively, some parents may receive skill development through education and training, followed by jobs that are supplemented by supports (if necessary) until their wages reach the self-sufficiency level. Whatever choices are made, policymakers should ensure that parents are able to choose the path to self-sufficiency that best safeguards their family's well-being and allows them to balance work, education and family responsibilities. Below, we describe some key strategies on either side of this equation--raising wages and providing public supports.

Raising Wages--Building Skills, Targeting Jobs:

In order to increase the wages received by parents leaving welfare for the workforce, the focus must be on the first job. It has long been recognized that women particularly experience substantial "occupational segregation" in the labor market, with many women workers crowded into a few occupations, such as cashier, clerical worker, and food service, many of which pay low average wages. Recently, research has documented that for welfare leavers in particular, "wage progression" does not happen automatically. In fact, if one enters the work force at a job with low wages, one is not likely to move up. ⁽⁶⁾ Therefore, one's first job needs to offer an adequate wage. ⁽⁷⁾ Wider Opportunities for Women has, for over three decades, understood the value of building the skills of lower-income individuals and targeting resources on well-paying jobs. We support four approaches that increase the likelihood of achieving higher initial wages.

1. Training and Education: Research shows that neither job search nor basic education alone are particularly effective in moving welfare recipients into well-paid work. For many low-income parents moving into the workforce, the ability to move into jobs that pay Self-Sufficiency Wages will depend on access to effective skill upgrading services. ⁽⁸⁾ According to Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, entering the workforce with higher basic skills leads to modestly higher wages. However, education beyond high school is linked to substantially higher wages. ⁽⁹⁾ Adults who have language difficulties, inadequate education, or who lack job skills or experience, cannot achieve Self-Sufficiency Wages without access to training and education. For some, this may mean ESL (English as a Second Language), Adult Basic Education (ABE) and/or the GED (General Education Degree). For others, this may mean two- or four-year degrees.

At the same time, it is clear that for single parents, pursuing post-secondary education simultaneously with meeting work requirements (of 20 to 30 hours per week), as well as single parenting, is difficult, a triple burden that is often very difficult to accomplish. Single parents need the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education to increase their access to well-paying employment. If the work requirements under TANF could be satisfied with post-secondary education, welfare recipients would be able to gain the skills that would help them become self-sufficient, and do so much more quickly than when they try to combine school and work simultaneously.

2. Functional Context Education: Rigorous research demonstrates that pre-employment services that provide "a flexible, individualized mix of services--primarily job search, work-focused education, life skills, and job training" and that make job quality a central goal ⁽¹⁰⁾ effectively help welfare recipients find better jobs. Wider Opportunities for Women has long advocated for training programs to utilize instructional strategies that integrate literacy skills and job content. This approach--called Functional Context Education (FCE)--works well for many low-skilled individuals who have experienced educational failures in the past. It provides skill development opportunities in the context that the learner will use them--in the context of a job. Strong employer input and participation is key. Programs using FCE are able to do in months what traditional programs take years to do because programs teach literacy and basic skills in the context in which the learner will use them rather than in isolated segments. This shorter timeframe is especially critical considering the time constraints under TANF and the personal time constraints of single parents. ⁽¹¹⁾

3. Targeting Higher-Wage Jobs: In every labor market, jobs exist that are in high demand by employers and pay decent wages. Starting out in better jobs (in terms of higher hourly wages or benefits) or in certain occupations (production, manufacturing, cleaning maintenance, etc. as opposed to sales) is linked both to job retention and to having higher wages later. ⁽¹²⁾ Many of these jobs do not require substantial post-secondary training or education. However, identifying such jobs requires that an analysis be done to determine which industries, in a given labor market: (1) pay Self-Sufficiency Wages, (2) are experiencing shortages (unmet demand), (3) what barriers exist between these jobs and jobseekers (such as transportation/location, skill sets, language, etc.), and (4) what infrastructure (such as training programs or transportation) is required to bring jobs and jobseekers together. ⁽¹³⁾ States should be required to identify higher-wage industrial sectors that need workers for welfare-to-work placements.

4. Increasing Access to Nontraditional Occupations: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, nontraditional occupations (NTOs) are jobs in which 25 percent or less of the workforce is female. NTOs pay 20-30% more than jobs traditionally held by women and offer excellent benefits and career advancement potential.

For many women, nontraditional jobs (such as construction, copy machine repair, X-ray technician, or computer-aided drafting) require relatively little post-secondary training, yet provide wages at Self-Sufficiency levels. To enhance women's access to these jobs--or training leading to these jobs--requires addressing a range of barriers that prevent women from entering and remaining in nontraditional occupations. Giving women the opportunity to learn about different career options, including their wages and benefits through career counseling, may be sufficient to access some of these jobs, while other nontraditional jobs require access to training or pre-apprenticeship preparation classes. Retention in nontraditional occupations may require supports such as nontraditional-hour child care or support for buying tools and special equipment. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Lowering Costs--Public and Private Supports/Subsidies:

The other side of the self-sufficiency equation is reducing the costs and adequately meeting the needs of low-income families and welfare recipients through work supports/subsidies, both public and private. At the crucial point in their lives of entering employment, such subsidies can help a family achieve stability in meeting each basic need, without scrimping on nutrition, or living in overcrowded or substandard housing, or using inadequate child care. This stability can help a family maintain employment, which is a necessary condition for achieving wage adequacy and improving wages.

Below we discuss several of these alternatives: work supports (federal and state), child support, and health care coverage.

1. Work Supports (Food Stamps, Medicaid, cash assistance (TANF), housing and child care subsidies): Because many parents earn low wages after they leave welfare, they continue to be eligible for Food Stamps and/or Medicaid. However, the number of families receiving these supports is considerably lower than the number eligible. ⁽¹⁵⁾ While this discrepancy may, in some cases, be by choice, the impact is that families whose resources are, by definition, scarce and inadequate (otherwise, they would not be eligible for these programs), are forced to use their limited resources to try to meet all their needs, and in most cases cannot do so adequately. Subsidies or vouchers such as cash assistance (TANF), child care, and/or transportation (tokens or employer subsidies) all aid families as they struggle to become economically independent. Yet, there are many barriers to accessing these programs, including high co-payment schedules (in child care), lack of providers (for health care), and insufficient program funds (such as housing).

2. Child Support: While not an option for all families, whenever possible child support from absent, non-custodial parents should be sought. Higher unemployment rates and lower wages among some groups may result in lesser amounts of child support. Nevertheless, whatever the amount, child support payments reduce the amount required for a family to meet its needs, while providing the support of both parents to meet children's needs.

3. Health Care Coverage: Health care coverage results in better job retention, and decreased use of welfare. Without employer-provided or public health benefits, parents have to make the difficult choice between (1) not working and retaining eligibility for health care coverage (through Medicaid), and (2) employment without health care coverage for their families. However, families who enter the workforce from welfare are eligible for continued coverage by Medicaid for themselves and their children for one year in most states. With the expansions in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), many families now have the option of covering their children's health care needs when their employer does not offer family coverage after one year. Yet, many families are not receiving even this amount of support, either Medicaid of SCHIP. ⁽¹⁶⁾

States should be rewarded for doing the "right thing" for welfare recipients and welfare leavers:

By rewarding states that move towards providing the means and supports for families to move not just off welfare, but towards self-sufficiency, Congress would be underscoring the importance of helping all families becoming self-sufficient.

• Federal lawmakers should support programs that increase access to better jobs by rewarding states that:

• meet the Self-Sufficiency Standard (including both wages and access to employer-provided health care coverage) for increased numbers of welfare leavers;
• train, place and retain welfare leavers in higher-waged jobs, such as nontraditional occupations for women;
• engage in labor market analyses that identify higher-waged jobs/sectors, and provide career development assistance related to higher-wage jobs;
• encourage post-secondary education participation through supports such as child care and by counting such education as fulfilling work requirements;
• provide literacy programs that strengthen basic skills in the context of employment (FCE, see above for description);
• increase the number of families that receive work supports--both cash assistance and subsidies, such as child care; and
• "stop the clock" for families receiving TANF who are engaged in work but whose earnings are so low that they remain eligible for partial TANF grants (see, for example, Illinois policy).

Conclusions

As families in state after state approach their state (and/or federal) lifetime limits on welfare receipt, the question of job retention and wage adequacy takes on increasing urgency. Thus, we urge Congress to consider how best to ensure that states move towards programs that increase initial wage levels and adequacy, with work supports as needed (and until need ends), thus increasing job retention and reducing the numbers of families returning to welfare.

For a large number of families, the question of wage adequacy has taken on new urgency as the federal five-year lifetime limit approaches. Not all parents who leave welfare remain off welfare. For some parents whose wages are inadequate, a crisis (such as a health emergency, or inability to secure child care) may result in a return to welfare. (Return rates range from 18% to 33%. ⁽¹⁷⁾) As parents' total time on welfare approaches the five-year lifetime limit, they will no longer have available cash assistance through TANF, and yet they will not be able to meet their families' needs through their wages.

Only by effectively addressing the gap between the kinds of wages now being received and self-sufficiency--through both raising wages and lowering costs (through subsidies/work supports)--only then can we truly talk about success in welfare reform.

Appendix--The Self-Sufficiency Standard

The Self-Sufficiency Standard has been calculated for 13 states and one metropolitan area: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It is also in progress in Washington, Colorado, Montana and Kentucky. Table 1 compares the Self-Sufficiency Standard hourly wages for several different family types for a large city and a rural county in each of 13 states and one metropolitan area. Although in every instance, the cost of living is less in the rural county selected than in the large city (usually the state's largest city), there is quite a bit of variation. Many of these states have "rural" counties, often either tourist areas (with high seasonal housing costs) or high-cost ex-urban communities, that are in fact as expensive, or more so, than the state's large urban areas. Thus, in Massachusetts, the standard is higher in Cape Cod and the Islands than in Boston.

Table 1 also shows how costs vary for different family types. It shows the Standard as an hourly wage and assumes that the adult(s) work full-time (40 hours per week). The amounts are thus what adults, supporting themselves or a family, must earn to meet the family's basic needs. Not surprisingly, it costs quite a bit more when a single adult becomes a single parent with a child, especially a very young child. The differential is such that the single parent's Self-Sufficiency Standard is at least 150 percent of that of a single adult in her geographical area and as much as 200 percent or, in a few instances, more. The addition of a second child under school age results in costs that are double to triple that of the single adult in the same community. Not just the number of children but the age of the children matters, too. The Self-Sufficiency Standard costs drop as the need for full-time child care lessens with older children. The last column shows the standard for two parents with a preschool-age child and a school-age child. Reflecting the additional costs of food, health care, taxes, and transportation associated with a second adult, these numbers are only slightly higher than those for the single parent with two children of these ages. However, since there are two adults, this total reflects two wages, not just one, thus reducing the required wage of each and making it much easier to meet a family's needs with two breadwinners rather than just one. (The Self-Sufficiency Standard assumes that when there are two adults, both work equally, and both work full-time, and thus each incurs the costs associated with employment, such as taxes and transportation, and that they share such costs as child care, rent, food, and so forth).

In table 2 and figure 1, for six different places we compare the Self-Sufficiency Standard for a single parent with a preschool-age and a school-age child to other benchmarks of income: (1) welfare and food stamps; (2) minimum wage (minus taxes); (3) the federal poverty line; (4) local median family income.

As can be seen in table 2, the cash value of food stamps and cash assistance varies in amount from state to state, but even more as a percentage of the relevant Self-Sufficiency Standard. While actual benefits are higher in higher-income or higher-cost locales such as New Jersey or Washington, D.C., these benefits are low relative to the actual cost of living when compared to states such as Indiana. In Indiana a three-person household's cash benefits, though $1,500 per year less than in the District of Columbia, are more than one-third of the Self-Sufficiency Standard, while in Washington, D.C., the cash assistance is barely one-fifth of the standard.

Likewise, when one examines the adequacy of the minimum wage, one finds large variations among jurisdictions. Although the federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, several states have higher minimums, and state taxes vary somewhat from state to state. (We do not include the value of tax credits because families at the minimum wage either do not qualify for them or will not receive them at this wage level.) ⁽¹⁸⁾ We find that working full-time and year-round at the minimum wage provides only about 25 percent to about 40 percent of the Self-Sufficiency Standard. Thus, even two adults working at minimum wage would in most states be below self-sufficiency (this does not take into account the additional expenses of a second adult not included in the standard used here).

 

Table 2. Comparing the Self-Sufficiency Standard for a Single Parent with a Preschool-Age Child and a School-Age Child to Income Benchmarks
City and STATE:	Welfare and Food Stamps	Minimum Wage (minus taxes)	Federal Poverty Line	Self-Sufficiency Wage	Median Family Income	The Self-Sufficiency Standard as a % of Median Income
Monmouth, NEW JERSEY (1999)	$9,108	$9,856	$13,880	$40,415	$53,800	75%
as % of the Self-Sufficiency Standard	23%	24%	34%	100%	133%
Muncie, INDIANA (1998)	$8,928	$9,578	$13,650	$24,564	$37,832	65%
as % of the Self-Sufficiency Standard	36%	39%	56%	100%	154%
Washington, DC (1998)	$10,464	$11,804	$13,650	$47,916	$65,100	74%
as % of the Self-Sufficiency Standard	22%	25%	28%	100%	136%
Pittsburgh, PENNSYLVANIA (1998)	$8,928	$9,578	$13,650	$26,388	$36,810	72%
as % of the Self-Sufficiency Standard	34%	36%	52%	100%	139%
Worcester, MASSACHUSETTS (1997)	$10,272	$9,856	$13,330	$35,460	$45,900	77%
as % of the Self-Sufficiency Standard	29%	28%	38%	100%	129%
Springfield, ILLINOIS (1996)	$8,280	$9,578	$12,980	$24,554	$47,700	51%
as % of the Self-Sufficiency Standard	34%	39%	53%	100%	194%

Similarly the federal poverty line for a family of three (which is the same for every jurisdiction, varying only by the year for which the standard was calculated) ranges from about one-third to about one-half of the respective Self-Sufficiency Standard. While adding the costs of employment, including child care, transportation, and taxes, would raise the poverty level closer to what a family really needs, the poverty level would still be substantially below the Self-Sufficiency Standard. Moreover, the variation across geographical jurisdictions reinforces the federal poverty standard's not taking into account the wide range in the cost of living. These comparisons again highlight the inappropriateness of using a standard such as the federal poverty measure to assess income adequacy for families with employed adults for, unlike the Self-Sufficiency Standard, the poverty measure does not incorporate geographical differences or include costs associated with employment.

In table 2 the Self-Sufficiency Standard is compared with the local median family income. In this case, we have calculated the Self-Sufficiency Standard as a percent of the area median income (for a family of three). As can be seen in table 2, the Self-Sufficiency Standard ranges from 51 percent of the area median income for a family of three (Springfield, Illinois) to 77 percent (Worcester, Massachusetts). As noted earlier, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development uses area median income as a standard to assess families' needs for housing assistance. Those with incomes below 50 percent of the median area income are considered "very low income," while those whose incomes are below 80 percent of the median are considered "low income." ⁽¹⁹⁾ Thus the Self-Sufficiency Standard in all of these states falls within the HUD definition of "low income" but not "very low income."

Figure 1. Comparing the Self-Sufficiency Standard for a Single Adult with a Preschool-Age Child and a School-Age Child to Income Benchmarks

* Diana Pearce is an Associate Professor at the University of Washington in the School of Social Work in Seattle, W.A. Jennifer Brooks is Director of Self-Sufficiency Programs & Policy at Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW) in Washington, D.C. WOW is a 36-year-old national nonprofit organization whose mission is to help women and girls achieve equality of opportunity and economic independence.

1. Initial Synthesis Report of the Findings from ASPE's "Leavers" Grants, Prepared by Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC 20037, January 4, 2001, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/synthesis01/.

2. According to Acs and Loprest, although "slightly over half of all leavers work in any given post-exit quarter, it is not uncommon for leavers to cycle in and out of jobs; consequently, the share of leavers who ever worked over the year after exit is considerably higher and the share who worked in all four quarters is considerably lower." Initial Synthesis Report of the Findings from ASPE's "Leavers" Grants, Prepared by Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC 20037, January 4, 2001, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/synthesis01/.

3. Arloc Sherman, et al., Welfare to What? Early Findings on Family Hardship and Well-Being, (Washington, D.C.: Children's defense Fund and National Coalition for the Homeless, December 1998). According to the report, one in three children in families who recently lost TANF assistance (36%) were "eating less or skipping meals due to cost" according to a 1997 survey of 70 agencies (p. 20). Out of 27,700 clients surveyed at food banks and soup kitchens nationwide, one in eight had recently come off of public assistance--families and individuals. Second Harvests' survey represents more than 21 million individuals nationwide who use their food assistance program. If these numbers are representative, then more than 2.5 people turn to emergency food programs and food banks after losing public assistance (p. 20). An Atlanta survey found that nearly one-half (46%) of the 161 homeless families with children interviewed in shelters or other homeless facilities had lost TANF benefits in the past 12 months. In a survey of 777 homeless families in 10 cities nationwide in 1997 and 1998, one in 10 indicated their homelessness was due to loss of TANF benefits (p. 20).

4. Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein, Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work, (New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications, 1997.

5. Julie Strawn and Karin Martinson, Steady Work and Better Jobs: How to Help Low-income Parents Sustain Employment and Advance in the Workforce, (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000).

6. According to Strawn and Martinson, the factors predicting higher wages are: starting off in higher-paying jobs, changing jobs (but not too often), having or acquiring higher basic skills and postsecondary education/training, and starting off in certain occupations. Likewise the factors predicting steady work include: starting off in higher-paying jobs, working steadily initially, working in certain occupations (not sales), and having jobs with benefits.

7. Julie Strawn and Karin Martinson, Steady Work and Better Jobs: How to Help Low-income Parents Sustain Employment and Advance in the Workforce, (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000).

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Wider Opportunities for Women, Six Strategies for Self-Sufficiency (Washington, D.C.: Wider Opportunities for Women, 1996). For examples of model Functional Context Education Programs see Center for Employment Training program in San Juan, California and Wider Opportunities for Women, Work Skills program in Washington D.C.

11. Julie Strawn and Karin Martinson, Steady Work and Better Jobs: How to Help Low-income Parents Sustain Employment and Advance in the Workforce, (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000), p.19.

12. This approach is called a "sectoral employment intervention." For more information, see Wider Opportunities for Women, Six Strategies for Self-Sufficiency (Washington, D.C.: Wider Opportunities for Women, 1996); or the National Network of Sector Practitioners at http://www.nedlc.org/nnsp/.

13. See Wider Opportunities for Women's http://www.work4women.org/ for more information about nontraditional employment for women.

14. Lissa Bell and Carsen Strege-Flora, Access Denied: Federal Neglect Gives Rise to State Lawlessness; Families Denied Access to Medicaid, Food Stamps, CHIP, and Child Care, May 2000.

15. According to a recent national report by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, "applicants for Food stamps, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Child Care programs routinely face diversion tactics by welfare offices … applicants must wade through misinformation, cumbersome application processes, unlawful practices, and degrading interactions in the hopes of obtaining benefits." Lissa Bell and Carsen Strege-Flora, Access Denied: Federal Neglect Gives Rise to State Lawlessness; Families Denied Access to Medicaid, Food Stamps, CHIP, and Child Care, May 2000.

16. Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, Initial Synthesis Report of the Findings from ASPE's "Leavers" Grants. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/synthesis01/ January 2001. More than 15% of families leaving TANF returned within one year. Eight of the 11 study areas report the percentage of families who ever received TANF in the year after initially exiting. These numbers range from 18 to 35 percent. By quarter, the numbers fluctuate, indicating that families are constantly moving on and off of public assistance--cycling through the system.

17. At the minimum wage (federal or state), a single parent with two children would not pay any federal taxes. Since the both the child tax credit and the child care tax credit are credits against the federal tax, the single parent would not receive either of those. The single parent would, however, qualify for an earned income tax credit, at or near the maximum of $3,756 in 1999. However, very few receive this credit on a monthly basis, and if they do, they are limited by law to only a portion, about $116 per month in 1999. Because they are unlikely to receive it in the year in which they earn it, or at best only a partial payment, we do not include it here. See also Michael A. O'Connor, The Earned Income Tax Credit: Eligible Families at Risk of Losing Benefits, 33 Clearinghouse Rev. 433 (Nov.-Dec. 1999).

18. Almost all assistance is limited to those of very low income, and even then only about one-fourth of eligible families receive housing assistance.