Congress seems poised to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program this year. Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee released a legislative discussion draft to update and improve upon the program. Originally slated for reauthorization five years ago, TANF has been operating on congressional extensions since 2010. Although reauthorization may seem like a minor event (TANF dwarfs in size to other means-tested programs for poor families), less than 20 years ago its creation was one of the most contentious issues in American politics. The work requirements and time limits were so controversial that President Bill Clinton twice vetoed the bill that created TANF before finally signing it in August 1996. It was so divisive within his administration that two of his aides resigned in protest.
President Bill Cllinton signs into law a bill reforming welfare, August 22, 1996. REUTERS/Stephen Jaffe.
Almost twenty years later, a proposal to relax some of the original work requirements, in favor of more flexibility on education and training activities, was included in the discussion draft. Last month, my colleagues and I submitted comments which recommended against this change. With education and training so important in today’s labor market, why recommend against it for TANF recipients? For one important reason: there is little evidence that education programs within the context of TANF make recipients better off.
One of the most comprehensive evaluations of welfare-to-work programs (the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies) found that an education-focused approach left participants worse off in terms of employment, earnings, and income than those who participated in a work-first program. The most effective program was one that used a mixed strategy of using work-first for some and work-focused short-term training for others – something that is already allowed under current TANF rules.
Some argue that these findings are out-of-date (they are from the mid-1990s), but more recent research suggests the same conclusions. A random assignment evaluation of education and training programs for employed welfare recipients from the early 2000s found no positive impacts on employment and earnings in follow-up periods. A case study of New York City’s welfare-to-work program in the mid-2000s found that providers who emphasized quick job placement over short-term training had higher job placement rates. The higher initial job placement rates meant that more participants were employed from the quick-placement group even in follow-up periods. And in 2012, a review of approaches aimed at facilitating post-secondary education for TANF recipients found few programs with positive effects.
Why are education and training programs ineffective for TANF recipients? One reason is that few participants actually complete the program and earn a credential. Without a credential, participants are no better off and simply delay their entry into the labor market, costing them valuable time. The NEWWS found that few participants who entered a GED program actually obtained their high school equivalency. And current federal data show that less than 30 % of all degree or certificate-seeking students in 2-year colleges (not just TANF recipients) actually graduate. At public community colleges, only 20 % graduate. This does not bode well for TANF recipients. Career pathways programs for low-income and TANF recipients are currently being studied. Similarly, efforts to improve community college graduation rates could be evaluated within the context of TANF. Recent research found that a program targeting a broader student population in New York City (not TANF specific) doubled the percentage who earned an Associate’s Degree in three years. In addition, demonstration projects to evaluate education approaches within TANF (as currently included in the discussion draft) could offer other education and training options.
If these education-focused programs were to show positive employment and income effects based on rigorous evaluations, the time might then be right to change the work requirements in TANF. But until we have more evidence, TANF should maintain its current balance between work and education activities.
