According to Article XVII (1)(a) of the New York Constitution, “The aid, care
and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the
state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner and by such means
at the legislature may from time to time determine.”
We believe that the policies that were created to reform welfare are threatening the
public welfare of the most needy and vulnerable in our state. We are certain that it was
not the intent of our government to do harm to the poor, men, women and children who
are struggling to move themselves off of welfare. However, harm occurs daily as poor
people are forced to continue to remain dependent because of some of the very policies
created to “make people responsible.” One such policy that does harm is the termination
of benefits when the household income reaches the poverty level.
The Welfare Reform Act requires social service districts to use a flat percentage
earned Income disregard which is adjusted to the poverty level every year on June 1st. The
present disregard is 47%. However, most families never get to utilize this test because all
of their gross income is counted due to the Poverty Level Income Test. Under the
directive from the Federal government, this test applies only to persons living in
situations subject to maximum shelter allowances. Since the maximum shelter allowance
is in reality only 50% of any rental on Long Island, most of the families on TANF fall
under the Poverty Level Income Test. This test essentially throws people who cannot
swim, off into the ocean without a life raft.
Example:
A mother who has two children and is earning $10.50/hr working 35 hrs a week will
gross $367.50 a week. $367.50 X 4 = $1,470. The federal poverty level is $1,341. Case
is closed. If she was receiving rent in the form of shelter supplement, she now has to pay her rent of
$1,150. If you are only making $1,470. per month and pay a rent of $1150 that only leaves
a balance of $320 for food, transportation, gasoline and insurance for a car, maintenance
for a car, childcare, clothes, children’s school expenses, etc. We don’t expect that the
landlord will not accept reduced rent, so in a short time, this mother and two children
will be back in a homeless shelter.
In 2005, 3,654 families were receiving assistance from the Department of Social
Services in Suffolk County. The demographic pattern in Suffolk reflects national data on
this population on welfare. They are primarily female headed households, never married
with an average of 2.2 children. Over 50% of the adults do not have a high school
diploma and of the 50% who do, about one-third of them have had some college courses.
What they all have in common is a lack of resources to care for themselves and their
children. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized the need of the federal government to
provide social assistance in the form of financial support to vulnerable populations. In
his response to the economic depression, he created the New Deal, a social contract with
the nation that had three goals: Relief, Recovery, and Reform. As a part of his relief
efforts, Aid for Dependent Children was created in 1935 to provide financial assistance to
women who were either widowed or abandoned. The goal of the program was to provide
financial support to mothers so they could stay home and take care of their children.
Even here, we can see the moral implications attached to policy. It was deemed moral
that mothers care for their children. This policy also suggests that these mothers were
not poor because of a defect in their person but were left by the father of the children
either through death or abandonment. There was a sympathetic tone in this policy.
However, it is important to note that there is also the implication that if there are worthy
poor, there are also unworthy poor. Who is unworthy is determined by the prevailing
economic and cultural philosophies of the society. The right to secure economic relief
from the state whose cultural economy is base on self reliance and individual power has
colored the welfare reform agenda which emphasizes personal self reliance. What
welfare reform did not acknowledge were issues of socio economic disparity and
concurrent problems of the lack of affordable housing, educational disparity and mental
and physical health problems associated with the economically disadvantaged.
In response to the growing economic problems of the American market in the global
economy, the federal government determined that part of the problem was due to the
irresponsibility of the poor. Thus, welfare reform occurred and Temporary Aid to Needy
Families replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children. (AFDC)
Review of T.A.N.F
“Created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act,(1996) TANF has four goals:
To provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their
homes or in the homes of relatives.
To end the dependency of needy parents on government benefits by promoting
job preparation, work, and marriage
To prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
To encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. (2003,
Dolgoff & Feldstein,p.212)
A review of the literature strongly supports that TANF was successful in reducing
the welfare rolls since its inception. Its supporters state that there was a 40% decrease in
the number of welfare recipients from 1995 to 1998.
Critics of TANF argue that the reduction in welfare cases is not an indication that TANF
policies were successful. One major criticism is the inability to determine how variables
in the marketplace and/or the economy affected the reduction. TANF is not a controlled
experiment and therefore it is impossible to suggest a direct correlation with its policies
and the reduction in cases.
The following is a summary of the other reasons welfare cases closed.
The reduction can be explained by an improved economy and the marketplace. In
other words, TANF or any other programs are irrelevant. Studies have shown
that as much as 2/3 of the welfare population can be referred to as cyclers. That
means they cycle off and on welfare, moving on during economic downturns or
during personal crisis and off when they economy is better and/or they have
resolved their personal crisis. Those crises include lack of affordable housing,
health care problems and divorce and abandonment by a spouse.
Welfare rolls have declined because of policies that were created to divert or
sanction people off of the program. Diversion policies refer to the implementing
of policies that discourage people from completing the application process to
receive aid. The goal of the first line staff in the welfare office is to ‘encourage’
possible recipients to either get work or seek out family members who can help
them. The process of the application is complex and lengthy. ‘Over 30 states
have adopted diversion programs which emphasize other methods of providing
assistance, such as support services or a one time cash payment. ( Lens, p.280-81)
Other people, who do get on the system, are cut off (sanctioned) for failure to
comply with requirements. That can mean missing one meeting for assessment. I
have witnessed a 30 percent increase in sanctions over this past year in my work
with welfare clients. Critics argue that even if the rolls have been reduced it is not an indication that
the leavers are no longer in need of financial assistance. Essentially, they have
just stopped asking for help and are most likely, living in poverty, barely making
it and will eventually be back to welfare. Numerous studies have shown that people who have left the welfare
rolls are no better off then when they got on and often times are worse. In the 1999 National
Survey of America’s Families, the majority of TANF leavers (53.2%) reported
worrying about food and housing. Other problems they experienced include the loss
of medical insurance, the lack of medical care, and the inability to pay utility and
other household related expenses. (2005, Hunter& Santhiveeran) A survey of former recipients in Michigan
revealed that 56% of respondents relied on friends to make ends meet and likewise in Tennessee, 70 percent
of those surveyed reported that they received help from family members. Consistent with
these findings, food pantries and outreach centers that supply basic necessities for the
poor, reported experiencing steep inclines in the number of people who come to them
for help.
Critics argue that whether people are employed is not as significant as whether
people are earning enough to live on. When comparing “leavers” from AFDC and
TANF Ozawa and Yoon compared income levels. They found that the rate of
earnings increase among AFDC leavers was higher that the rate of increase among
TANF leavers. Put in another way, three months after leaving AFDC their income
increased to 11% of the poverty level. In contrast the TANF leavers income declined
to 87% of the poverty level. The authors attribute this difference to the greater
flexibility and training options offered in AFDC. While the TANF recipients are
often just forced into a marketplace that they are not prepared to succeed in.
Without an education they cannot be successful in this current job market. Living in
a global economy, the majority of jobs are in the service industries which are
frequently low paying. These are the employees who are first fired and bear the brunt
of the changing economic picture.
A TANF Alternative in Maine
Parents as Scholars
An alternative program to TANF was created in Maine, Parents as Scholars.
All participants who applied for TANF were also offered the possibility of
participating in Parents as Scholars (PaS) instead. In doing this, the recipients and
Maine were not under the restraints of the federal TANF program. So, there was more
freedom to experiment and to create a flexible alternative program. The state
dedicated funding to this project whose mission was focused on providing education
to welfare recipients.
“In 2002, researchers form the University of Maine and the University of Southern
Maine evaluated the PaS program and found it to be a stunning success. The
participants increased their earnings by nearly 50%, 90% maintained a grade point
average of 3.0 and 90% left welfare behind. In addition, benefits were found in the
next generation as well: The children of PaS participants demonstrated higher
aspirations than before their patents entered the program. ( Weikert: citing Smith et
al, 2002) This result confirms other studies showing that with a college degree 78 to
80% of recipients leave welfare and are never in need of financial assistance again.
The question is whether such a program can be replicated in another state with the
same success. I will discuss this in my concluding remarks.
Concluding Discussion
Lynne A. Weikart, an Associate Professor at Baruch College School of Public
Affairs in New York compared the effectiveness of welfare rights coalitions in New
York State and Maine. According to Dr. Weikert, New York officials have been openly hostile, at times
illegal, in their dealings with welfare issues and welfare recipients. New York State
placed responsibility for implementing TANF at the County level. In adding another
local level of jurisdiction, TANF recipients and those who are trying to help them
have less power or authority. The local political agendas take precedence over the
needs of their less powerful constituents.
Welfare rights groups in N.Y.were able to create legislative changes through
litigation. In the class action lawsuit, Davila v. Turner, the Court found that New
York City was in violation of its rights and duties under New York State Law,
conducting sham assessments and then automatically assigning all persons to
workfare. As a result, New York City agreed to take seriously its obligations to
conduct proper assessments. In addition, New York State was ordered to allow
TANF recipients who were in college to use their internships and or work study as
their work requirement.
Maine had one of the most successful challenges to the Federal welfare policy.
Weikart attributes this to the following; the political landscape, the gender of the
legislature and the percentage of minority recipients on welfare in that state.
In reviewing policy development Weikert argues that the most punitive and
hostile polices are found in states that tend to have the following pattern: the
legislatures are predominantly Republican and male and there is a significant
representation of minorities on the welfare rolls. These patterns seemed to hold true
in the case of New York and Maine. In Maine, in 1997, Democrats won both state legislative house and in
addition, there was a continual increase of women legislatures from 26% in 1996 to 30% in
2002. Another critical factor was the "personalization of welfare recipients to Maine
legislatures. In 1997, the advocacy collation succeeded in creating an internship in
which individual welfare recipients could meet and shadow state
legislatures.(Weikert, p.424) The opportunity to dialogue on a personal level seemed
to help to change the viewpoints of many legislatures about the rhetoric of the lazy
welfare mothers. Also, just 2% of the welfare recipients were minorities.
In contrast, there was a Republican governor in New York as well as Republican
legislature. Also, there were far fewer women as state legislature: 18% in 1996 and
22% in 2003. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services reveal that
over 65% of welfare recipients in New York are either African American or Hispanic.
The lessons that can be gleaned from the Parents as Scholars program are the
following:
Education is the key to helping people move out of poverty for good. Not only
does education give the tools of analysis, writing and math but education also
encourages the development of soft skills like organization, responsibility and
perseverance. Educational attainment helps to develop self esteem and
confidence, traits I find lacking after people have been on public assistance for
any length of time. Moving people off of welfare into low wage jobs undermines the economy of the
country. According to document created in 2005 at the Symposium at Teachers
college, Columbia University; America could save between $7.9 billion and $10.8
billion annually by improving educational attainment among all recipients of
TANF, food Stamps and housing assistance. America loses $192 billion in
combined income and tax revenue loses with each cohort of 18 year olds who
never complete high school.
We need to put a face on poverty. Bureaucrats, politicians and the general public
tend to objectify and demonize people who are in need of welfare. The best case
scenario in our society is that there will be a job that provides a living wage for
every member or that there will be a family that can help someone who is in need
of financial support. This does not always happen and then what do we do?
What are our obligations to help as individuals and as a country? This has been a
question each administration, each era has to answer and the response is felt by all
of us, although some refuse to recognize the interconnectedness we have with one
another.
In conclusion, we implore you to review the present welfare policies. We
understand that the local districts are restrained by federal policies, but with
collaborative and creative partnering between local service agencies and the local
legislatures we can develop innovative and compassionate programs which will
provide poor families with the tools they need to recreate their lives and create a
stable future for their children.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Steven & Anthony Hater & Brian M. Gryzlak, “Difficulties after Leaving
TANF: Inner City Women Talk About Reasons for Returning to Welfare.” Social
Work/volume 49, Number 2/April 2004
Dolgoff-Feldstein, Understanding Social Welfare-6th edition, Pearson education,
2003, Boston, MA
Hunter, Tamara, MSW & Janaki Santhiveeran, Ph.D., “Experience of Material
Hardships Among TANF Leavers” Journal of Family Social Work/volume 9,
Number1/2005, hawthorne Press
Lens, Vicki, “TANF: What went wrong and what to do next’ Social Work/Volume
47, Number 3/July 2002
Osawa, Martha N. & Hong-Sik Yoon. “Leavers from TANF and AFDC: How do
they fare economically?” Social Work Journal/Volume 50 Number 3 p. 239-249/July
2005
Price, Charles, :”Reforming Welfare Reform, Post Secondary Education Policy: Two
State Case Studies in Political Culture, Organizing, and Advocacy/Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, Volume XXXII/Number 3/Sept.2005
Walker, Rober, “Does Work Work?” Social Work Volume 27, Number 4, pp533542/
1998 Cambridge University Press
Weikert, Lynee A., “The Era of Meanness: Welfare Reform and Barriers to a
College Degree’ Afflia/Volume 20, Number 4/Winter 2005/Sage Publications
and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the
state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner and by such means
at the legislature may from time to time determine.”
We believe that the policies that were created to reform welfare are threatening the
public welfare of the most needy and vulnerable in our state. We are certain that it was
not the intent of our government to do harm to the poor, men, women and children who
are struggling to move themselves off of welfare. However, harm occurs daily as poor
people are forced to continue to remain dependent because of some of the very policies
created to “make people responsible.” One such policy that does harm is the termination
of benefits when the household income reaches the poverty level.
The Welfare Reform Act requires social service districts to use a flat percentage
earned Income disregard which is adjusted to the poverty level every year on June 1st. The
present disregard is 47%. However, most families never get to utilize this test because all
of their gross income is counted due to the Poverty Level Income Test. Under the
directive from the Federal government, this test applies only to persons living in
situations subject to maximum shelter allowances. Since the maximum shelter allowance
is in reality only 50% of any rental on Long Island, most of the families on TANF fall
under the Poverty Level Income Test. This test essentially throws people who cannot
swim, off into the ocean without a life raft.
Example:
A mother who has two children and is earning $10.50/hr working 35 hrs a week will
gross $367.50 a week. $367.50 X 4 = $1,470. The federal poverty level is $1,341. Case
is closed. If she was receiving rent in the form of shelter supplement, she now has to pay her rent of
$1,150. If you are only making $1,470. per month and pay a rent of $1150 that only leaves
a balance of $320 for food, transportation, gasoline and insurance for a car, maintenance
for a car, childcare, clothes, children’s school expenses, etc. We don’t expect that the
landlord will not accept reduced rent, so in a short time, this mother and two children
will be back in a homeless shelter.
In 2005, 3,654 families were receiving assistance from the Department of Social
Services in Suffolk County. The demographic pattern in Suffolk reflects national data on
this population on welfare. They are primarily female headed households, never married
with an average of 2.2 children. Over 50% of the adults do not have a high school
diploma and of the 50% who do, about one-third of them have had some college courses.
What they all have in common is a lack of resources to care for themselves and their
children. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized the need of the federal government to
provide social assistance in the form of financial support to vulnerable populations. In
his response to the economic depression, he created the New Deal, a social contract with
the nation that had three goals: Relief, Recovery, and Reform. As a part of his relief
efforts, Aid for Dependent Children was created in 1935 to provide financial assistance to
women who were either widowed or abandoned. The goal of the program was to provide
financial support to mothers so they could stay home and take care of their children.
Even here, we can see the moral implications attached to policy. It was deemed moral
that mothers care for their children. This policy also suggests that these mothers were
not poor because of a defect in their person but were left by the father of the children
either through death or abandonment. There was a sympathetic tone in this policy.
However, it is important to note that there is also the implication that if there are worthy
poor, there are also unworthy poor. Who is unworthy is determined by the prevailing
economic and cultural philosophies of the society. The right to secure economic relief
from the state whose cultural economy is base on self reliance and individual power has
colored the welfare reform agenda which emphasizes personal self reliance. What
welfare reform did not acknowledge were issues of socio economic disparity and
concurrent problems of the lack of affordable housing, educational disparity and mental
and physical health problems associated with the economically disadvantaged.
In response to the growing economic problems of the American market in the global
economy, the federal government determined that part of the problem was due to the
irresponsibility of the poor. Thus, welfare reform occurred and Temporary Aid to Needy
Families replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children. (AFDC)
Review of T.A.N.F
“Created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act,(1996) TANF has four goals:
To provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their
homes or in the homes of relatives.
To end the dependency of needy parents on government benefits by promoting
job preparation, work, and marriage
To prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
To encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. (2003,
Dolgoff & Feldstein,p.212)
A review of the literature strongly supports that TANF was successful in reducing
the welfare rolls since its inception. Its supporters state that there was a 40% decrease in
the number of welfare recipients from 1995 to 1998.
Critics of TANF argue that the reduction in welfare cases is not an indication that TANF
policies were successful. One major criticism is the inability to determine how variables
in the marketplace and/or the economy affected the reduction. TANF is not a controlled
experiment and therefore it is impossible to suggest a direct correlation with its policies
and the reduction in cases.
The following is a summary of the other reasons welfare cases closed.
The reduction can be explained by an improved economy and the marketplace. In
other words, TANF or any other programs are irrelevant. Studies have shown
that as much as 2/3 of the welfare population can be referred to as cyclers. That
means they cycle off and on welfare, moving on during economic downturns or
during personal crisis and off when they economy is better and/or they have
resolved their personal crisis. Those crises include lack of affordable housing,
health care problems and divorce and abandonment by a spouse.
Welfare rolls have declined because of policies that were created to divert or
sanction people off of the program. Diversion policies refer to the implementing
of policies that discourage people from completing the application process to
receive aid. The goal of the first line staff in the welfare office is to ‘encourage’
possible recipients to either get work or seek out family members who can help
them. The process of the application is complex and lengthy. ‘Over 30 states
have adopted diversion programs which emphasize other methods of providing
assistance, such as support services or a one time cash payment. ( Lens, p.280-81)
Other people, who do get on the system, are cut off (sanctioned) for failure to
comply with requirements. That can mean missing one meeting for assessment. I
have witnessed a 30 percent increase in sanctions over this past year in my work
with welfare clients. Critics argue that even if the rolls have been reduced it is not an indication that
the leavers are no longer in need of financial assistance. Essentially, they have
just stopped asking for help and are most likely, living in poverty, barely making
it and will eventually be back to welfare. Numerous studies have shown that people who have left the welfare
rolls are no better off then when they got on and often times are worse. In the 1999 National
Survey of America’s Families, the majority of TANF leavers (53.2%) reported
worrying about food and housing. Other problems they experienced include the loss
of medical insurance, the lack of medical care, and the inability to pay utility and
other household related expenses. (2005, Hunter& Santhiveeran) A survey of former recipients in Michigan
revealed that 56% of respondents relied on friends to make ends meet and likewise in Tennessee, 70 percent
of those surveyed reported that they received help from family members. Consistent with
these findings, food pantries and outreach centers that supply basic necessities for the
poor, reported experiencing steep inclines in the number of people who come to them
for help.
Critics argue that whether people are employed is not as significant as whether
people are earning enough to live on. When comparing “leavers” from AFDC and
TANF Ozawa and Yoon compared income levels. They found that the rate of
earnings increase among AFDC leavers was higher that the rate of increase among
TANF leavers. Put in another way, three months after leaving AFDC their income
increased to 11% of the poverty level. In contrast the TANF leavers income declined
to 87% of the poverty level. The authors attribute this difference to the greater
flexibility and training options offered in AFDC. While the TANF recipients are
often just forced into a marketplace that they are not prepared to succeed in.
Without an education they cannot be successful in this current job market. Living in
a global economy, the majority of jobs are in the service industries which are
frequently low paying. These are the employees who are first fired and bear the brunt
of the changing economic picture.
A TANF Alternative in Maine
Parents as Scholars
An alternative program to TANF was created in Maine, Parents as Scholars.
All participants who applied for TANF were also offered the possibility of
participating in Parents as Scholars (PaS) instead. In doing this, the recipients and
Maine were not under the restraints of the federal TANF program. So, there was more
freedom to experiment and to create a flexible alternative program. The state
dedicated funding to this project whose mission was focused on providing education
to welfare recipients.
“In 2002, researchers form the University of Maine and the University of Southern
Maine evaluated the PaS program and found it to be a stunning success. The
participants increased their earnings by nearly 50%, 90% maintained a grade point
average of 3.0 and 90% left welfare behind. In addition, benefits were found in the
next generation as well: The children of PaS participants demonstrated higher
aspirations than before their patents entered the program. ( Weikert: citing Smith et
al, 2002) This result confirms other studies showing that with a college degree 78 to
80% of recipients leave welfare and are never in need of financial assistance again.
The question is whether such a program can be replicated in another state with the
same success. I will discuss this in my concluding remarks.
Concluding Discussion
Lynne A. Weikart, an Associate Professor at Baruch College School of Public
Affairs in New York compared the effectiveness of welfare rights coalitions in New
York State and Maine. According to Dr. Weikert, New York officials have been openly hostile, at times
illegal, in their dealings with welfare issues and welfare recipients. New York State
placed responsibility for implementing TANF at the County level. In adding another
local level of jurisdiction, TANF recipients and those who are trying to help them
have less power or authority. The local political agendas take precedence over the
needs of their less powerful constituents.
Welfare rights groups in N.Y.were able to create legislative changes through
litigation. In the class action lawsuit, Davila v. Turner, the Court found that New
York City was in violation of its rights and duties under New York State Law,
conducting sham assessments and then automatically assigning all persons to
workfare. As a result, New York City agreed to take seriously its obligations to
conduct proper assessments. In addition, New York State was ordered to allow
TANF recipients who were in college to use their internships and or work study as
their work requirement.
Maine had one of the most successful challenges to the Federal welfare policy.
Weikart attributes this to the following; the political landscape, the gender of the
legislature and the percentage of minority recipients on welfare in that state.
In reviewing policy development Weikert argues that the most punitive and
hostile polices are found in states that tend to have the following pattern: the
legislatures are predominantly Republican and male and there is a significant
representation of minorities on the welfare rolls. These patterns seemed to hold true
in the case of New York and Maine. In Maine, in 1997, Democrats won both state legislative house and in
addition, there was a continual increase of women legislatures from 26% in 1996 to 30% in
2002. Another critical factor was the "personalization of welfare recipients to Maine
legislatures. In 1997, the advocacy collation succeeded in creating an internship in
which individual welfare recipients could meet and shadow state
legislatures.(Weikert, p.424) The opportunity to dialogue on a personal level seemed
to help to change the viewpoints of many legislatures about the rhetoric of the lazy
welfare mothers. Also, just 2% of the welfare recipients were minorities.
In contrast, there was a Republican governor in New York as well as Republican
legislature. Also, there were far fewer women as state legislature: 18% in 1996 and
22% in 2003. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services reveal that
over 65% of welfare recipients in New York are either African American or Hispanic.
The lessons that can be gleaned from the Parents as Scholars program are the
following:
Education is the key to helping people move out of poverty for good. Not only
does education give the tools of analysis, writing and math but education also
encourages the development of soft skills like organization, responsibility and
perseverance. Educational attainment helps to develop self esteem and
confidence, traits I find lacking after people have been on public assistance for
any length of time. Moving people off of welfare into low wage jobs undermines the economy of the
country. According to document created in 2005 at the Symposium at Teachers
college, Columbia University; America could save between $7.9 billion and $10.8
billion annually by improving educational attainment among all recipients of
TANF, food Stamps and housing assistance. America loses $192 billion in
combined income and tax revenue loses with each cohort of 18 year olds who
never complete high school.
We need to put a face on poverty. Bureaucrats, politicians and the general public
tend to objectify and demonize people who are in need of welfare. The best case
scenario in our society is that there will be a job that provides a living wage for
every member or that there will be a family that can help someone who is in need
of financial support. This does not always happen and then what do we do?
What are our obligations to help as individuals and as a country? This has been a
question each administration, each era has to answer and the response is felt by all
of us, although some refuse to recognize the interconnectedness we have with one
another.
In conclusion, we implore you to review the present welfare policies. We
understand that the local districts are restrained by federal policies, but with
collaborative and creative partnering between local service agencies and the local
legislatures we can develop innovative and compassionate programs which will
provide poor families with the tools they need to recreate their lives and create a
stable future for their children.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Steven & Anthony Hater & Brian M. Gryzlak, “Difficulties after Leaving
TANF: Inner City Women Talk About Reasons for Returning to Welfare.” Social
Work/volume 49, Number 2/April 2004
Dolgoff-Feldstein, Understanding Social Welfare-6th edition, Pearson education,
2003, Boston, MA
Hunter, Tamara, MSW & Janaki Santhiveeran, Ph.D., “Experience of Material
Hardships Among TANF Leavers” Journal of Family Social Work/volume 9,
Number1/2005, hawthorne Press
Lens, Vicki, “TANF: What went wrong and what to do next’ Social Work/Volume
47, Number 3/July 2002
Osawa, Martha N. & Hong-Sik Yoon. “Leavers from TANF and AFDC: How do
they fare economically?” Social Work Journal/Volume 50 Number 3 p. 239-249/July
2005
Price, Charles, :”Reforming Welfare Reform, Post Secondary Education Policy: Two
State Case Studies in Political Culture, Organizing, and Advocacy/Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, Volume XXXII/Number 3/Sept.2005
Walker, Rober, “Does Work Work?” Social Work Volume 27, Number 4, pp533542/
1998 Cambridge University Press
Weikert, Lynee A., “The Era of Meanness: Welfare Reform and Barriers to a
College Degree’ Afflia/Volume 20, Number 4/Winter 2005/Sage Publications
A New Vision for TANF
 |
| |
 |
Written By: Peter and Judith Barnett