A Vacation Education on the Welfare Debate

Ah, August. Congress is out, traffic is a (relative) breeze, and I’m feeling refreshed after a relaxing family vacation that involved lots of lazy beach time and zero talk of what was happening back at the office.

…Well, maybe not zero. One thing I’ve found about devoting your career to really interesting women’s issues is that it’s not unusual for conversations with friends and family to wind up delving into those very same issues. Especially if, say, I’m in a house with 20 or so family members from across the country who want to know more about what’s going on in Washington.  

My family is full of bright, interesting people who are pretty on top of current events and have a range of perspectives on the issues. Previous gatherings have involved talk of taxes, health care policy, climate change, and the need to reform agricultural practices. This year, the subject of welfare came up – and so did some misinformation about a recent proposal from the Obama administration to allow states to waive certain work participation requirements under the federal welfare program (known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF).

Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers TANF, will use its statutory waiver authority to “allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.” The Obama administration has explained that, in response to longstanding concerns that existing TANF work participation measures require too much paperwork and too few results, the new policy is intended to give states more flexibility to help participating families (most of which are headed by single moms) secure and maintain jobs. Opponents have claimed that the policy is intended to eliminate work as a component of the welfare program.  Only one of these assertions can be true.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has explained that, to qualify for a waiver, “Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.” This condition clearly demands a stronger role for work in the welfare program, not a weaker one. Moreover, “States must also demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after their programs take effect. If they fail, their waiver will be rescinded. And if a Governor proposes a plan that undercuts the work requirements established in welfare reform, that plan will be rejected.”

Based on my (admittedly limited) anecdotal evidence, it seems that the directive to increase meaningful work participation among TANF recipients is not widely understood. I many not change many minds about the wisdom of the waiver policy, but I can at least help disseminate accurate information – something I’m happy to do in or out of the office.