| Vol. 5, No. 6 April 2001 |
Addressing
the Well-Being of Children in Child-Only Cases
by
Background
Since the 1996 enactment of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the press has
abounded with reports of decreasing welfare caseloads. However, as the number of
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cases decreases, child-only cases
are becoming an increasing proportion of the total TANF caseload. Much of the
discussion on welfare reform research has focused on state efforts to meet work
requirements and reduce caseloads. Although this research has been critical to
program design and implementation, the child-only case population has often been
overlooked. More recently, however, research on these families has emerged.
According to the Administration for Children and
Family’s Third Annual Report to Congress, in 1999, there were about 770,000
child-only cases, which accounted for 29 percent of the total TANF caseload.
The number of child-only families increased steadily throughout the
middle 1990’s, reaching a peak of 978,000 such families in 1996.
Through 1998, the number of child only families decreased to 743,000,
although their proportion of the caseload continued to increase slowly to 23
percent. However, in 1999 both the
number and the proportion of child-only cases increased. To access the full
Third Annual Report to Congress refer to http://www.acf.dhhs.gov.
Several reasons that parents may not be eligible for
benefits and children are becoming child only cases, include:
One reason that the child only caseload may be
increasing is due to the fact that the similar requirements regarding time
limits and work requirement do not impact child-only cases.
Regardless of the reason for the increase
in child-only cases, states are beginning to examine how child-only status may
affect the well-being of these children. For more information on publications
that address child well-being, refer to the Welfare Information Network’s
(WIN) Resources for Welfare
This Issue Note focuses on policy choices that
states may want to consider when addressing child-only cases. It also examines
state flexibility in TANF policies to prevent TANF family cases from turning
into child-only cases, outreach efforts for immigrant children, support services
for children in child-only cases, and support services for adults in child-only
cases.
Policy
Issues
Composition of
state child-only cases. To ensure proper support services are provided to both the child and
the adult in the household, it is important to understand the composition of the
child-only caseload. Services will vary based on the circumstances that led to
the creation of the child-only case. Child-only cases generally fall into two
categories: nonparental cases and parental cases.
In nonparental cases, the child is not living with a
parent but is being cared for by a relative. For example, the child may be
living with a grandparent because of parental desertion, parental substance
abuse or mental health problems, parental incarceration, or parental abuse and
neglect. These subsidized guardianship arrangements can be formal and public,
where the subsidized guardian is involved with the child welfare system, or more
informal and private, where the child is living with the relative and has not
had contact with the child welfare system. Generally, the relative caretakers in
these subsidized guardianship arrangements are exempt from TANF work
requirements and time limits, so long as they do not receive cash assistance for
their own needs. In some cases
where caregivers are provided cash assistance for their own needs states exempt
them from TANF requirements. For information on subsidized guardianship
arrangements, state policies for subsidized guardians, and state practices,
refer to WIN’s Resources for Welfare Decisions—“Kinship
Care,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/kinshipcareresource.htm.
In parental child-only cases, the child is living
with a parent but the parent is ineligible to receive TANF benefits. Sometimes
the parent did not meet TANF requirements and has been sanctioned or removed
from the grant. These cases occur in states that enforce adult-only sanctions.
In other parental child-only cases, the adult in the
household is ineligible to receive TANF benefits because he or she receives
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Those who are eligible for SSI are needy
people who are age 65 or older, blind or disabled (i.e., have a mental or
physical impediment that keeps them from performing any substantial work). SSI
recipients are not allowed to receive TANF benefits for themselves, but they are
allowed to apply for such benefits for their children. For more information on
state programs for individuals with disabilities, refer to WIN’s
Issue Note—“Serving
Welfare Recipients with Disabilities,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/disablitiesissue.htm.
In still other parental child-only cases, the adult
in the household is ineligible to receive TANF benefits because he or she is an
immigrant. PRWORA has strict policies regarding immigrant eligibility.
Nonqualified aliens include immigrants who are undocumented. Qualified aliens
who entered the country after August 22, 1996, are not eligible to receive TANF
benefits until they have lived in the United States for five years. States may
use their own funds to provide assistance to qualified aliens who entered the
country after August 22, 1996. For more information on immigrant rules in
welfare reform, refer to WIN’s Issue Note—Welfare Reform and Immigrants:
Recent Developments and a Review of Key State Decisions", at http://www.welfareinfo.org/kramer.htm.
To ensure the well-being of children in nonparental
or parental child-only cases, states have several policy choices.
Policies that
affect child only caseloads. Several TANF
provisions and regulations may lead to child-only cases, including:
Although federal guidance regarding the TANF block
grant discourages states from converting family cases to child-only cases, the
legislation does give states considerable flexibility in designing programs.
States may want to take advantage of their flexibility and create policies to
assist families that are at risk of losing benefits and having their children
receive benefits through child-only cases. Policy options include using
maintenance-of-effort funds to assist immigrants, enacting legislation so
assistance to adults convicted of drug felonies is not totally prohibited,
providing state-only programs and exemptions and extensions for time limits, and
intervening more aggressively to follow up with adults threatened with
sanctions. WIN has several publications on state options and programs regarding
time limits, work requirements, sanction policies, and the treatment of
individuals with criminal records. For
copies of these publications, refer to “State
Policies and the TANF Time Limit Clock,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/jantimelimit.htm;
“Helping Low-Income Mothers with Criminal Records Achieve
Self-Sufficiency,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/lowincomemotherissuenote.htm;
and “The Use of Sanctions under TANF,”
at htttp://www.welfareinfo.org/sanctionissue_note.htm.
Outreach
efforts for immigrant children. Citizen children of immigrants ineligible for TANF
benefits are eligible for TANF assistance if they were born in the United
States. For reasons such as a fear of deportation, language barriers, and a lack
of outreach, many immigrant children do not receive the benefits for which they
are eligible; these benefits often serve as a vital family income supplement.
States may want to develop an outreach campaign to provide information to
immigrant families in their native languages about services for which their
children are eligible, such as TANF, food stamps, health care, and Medicaid.
Several outreach strategies are highlighted in WIN Issue Notes—“Food Stamp Education and Outreach Working to Provide
Nutrition Benefits to Eligible Households,”at
http://www.welfareinfo.org/foodstampout.htm,
and “Children’s
Health Insurance Program—Outreach and Enrollment,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/chipissuenote.htm.
Two additional sources of information on immigrants and TANF include “CHIP
and Access for Children in Immigrant Families”
at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/forum/pub6682.htm
and NCSL’s Immigrant Policy Project website at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig/
. For INS guidance on when the receipt of public benefits can impact “public
charge” determination refer to http://www.ins.gov/graphics/publicaaffairs/summaries/public.htm.
Support
services to adults in child-only cases. Caregivers in nonparental cases are often
grandparents who have limited incomes. The level of assistance provided through
child-only grants is significantly lower than TANF assistance for the entire
family unit, so policymakers may want to explore and identify alternative
sources of financial support for subsidized guardians. In addition, many
caregivers, either grandparents or others, work or volunteer and may need
similar support services that working parents need, such as child care and
transportation. They may also need access to a wide range of counseling services
to address the needs of the children for whom they are caring.
Not all children in families that lose benefits will
be at risk of abuse or neglect, but the risk of abuse or neglect increases based
on the size of the benefit lost and the presence of problems, such as drug
abuse, chronic illness, and/or domestic violence. States may want to establish
screening criteria and schedule potentially high-risk cases for counseling
services. TANF agencies may also want to help sanctioned adults understand their
responsibilities and help them come into compliance with state welfare law. In
sanctioned cases, the TANF agency may want to give the child protective services
agency advance notice of actions taken against the parent.
Services to
children in child-only cases. Children in either parental or nonparental child-
only cases may have parents with substance abuse or mental health problems, have
parents with drug felony convictions, face situations of child abuse or domestic
violence, have disabled parents, have elderly caretakers, or have separation
anxiety. Any of these circumstances
can leave children with behavioral, psychological, and social problems. When a
child is placed in a child-only case, or while states are addressing strategies
for preventing child-only cases, the therapeutic needs of the child should be
addressed. Because of the impact that family instability has on proper child and
youth development, states need to focus attention on policies and programs that
address the developmental needs of children of all ages. Services for children
in fragile families can be provided through state family preservation programs
or programs developed under the Safe and Stable Families Act. For more
information on state programs that address child and youth development, refer to
WIN’s Issue Note—“Youth
At Risk of Welfare Dependency, at http://www.welfareinfo.org/youthissue.htm.
Additional information can be found on NCSL’s website at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cw.htm.
The role of
community-based organizations in providing support services.
Community-based organizations can provide many of the support services these
children and families need, including substance abuse and mental health
treatment, domestic violence services, special needs child care, and
after-school programs. States have recognized that community-based organizations
are viable partners for several reasons. First, these organizations often have
better access to the people in their communities, making outreach campaigns more
effective. Second, these organizations, unlike government agencies, are likely
to be perceived as allies. In addition, community-based organizations serve
various constituencies; they include faith-based groups, as well as community
centers, rehabilitation programs, economic development corporations, youth
services, and legal services, and therefore reach a large number of clients with
different needs. For more information on community-based strategies, refer to WIN’s
Issue Note—“Emerging
Issues and Opportunities for Community-Based Organization Involvement in Welfare
Reform,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/cboinvolvementinwelfarereformissuenote.htm.
The percentage of child-only cases varies greatly
from state to state. In some states, the percentage is less than 10 percent; in
other states child-only cases constitute 40 percent or more of the total TANF
caseload. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and Wyoming are some
of the states with particularly high reported percentages of child-only cases (ASPE
2000). The caretakers in child-only cases are also disproportionately more
likely to be African American and older.
Recent research on how welfare and work policies
affect children shows that some policies under TANF have had positive effects on
children (Morris, 2001). But little
is known about the well-being of children in child-only cases. More research on
these children and their well-being is needed; the children in these families
have often been separated from their natural parents because of adverse
circumstances and may experience serious emotional and behavioral problems. A
study by Risler et al. (August 2000) found that 31 percent of the children in
child-only cases were receiving counseling services, compared with 13 percent of
the children in family cases. One explanation suggested for this difference was
that many of the children in these child-only cases have been separated from
their natural parents and have suffered emotional trauma. Such findings
highlight the need for more research on these children’s lives, experiences,
and outcomes.
For more information on research and evaluation
studies on child well-being, refer to WIN’s program and management pages on
child welfare research, at http://www.welfareinfo.org/cwresearch.htm,
and on child well-being, at http://www.welfareinfo.org/cwchildwellbeing.htm.
In addition, the Research Forum on Children, Families and the New Federalism has
several reviewed and unreviewed studies on its web site at http://www.researchforum.org/.
Innovative
Practices
Because of the very different types of family
structures found among the child-only caseload, designing appropriate
interventions to serve such families is complicated. Many of the programs that
have been developed focus on the needs of the subsidized guardians. In a study
of child-only policies and practices in three states—California, Florida and
Missouri—no special efforts were being made in 1999 to serve child-only cases;
these cases were generally seen as easier to address than regular TANF cases
(Farrell et al., February 2000). In light of the increasing proportion of
child-only cases, states are beginning to look more closely at the issue of
child-only caseloads and are developing programs that connect these families
with needed prevention, treatment, and support services. States also are
developing initiatives to help prevent families from becoming child-only cases.
Some of the programs and initiatives targeted to child-only cases and subsidized
guardians are profiled below.
Alabama. Alabama’s
KinShare Pilot Program is a low-income kinship program. It serves certain
vulnerable families, with incomes less than or equal to 200 percent of the
poverty level, in which the children are at risk of foster care placement or
when services are needed to stabilize an existing placement with a nonparent
relative. The target population includes families receiving child-only TANF cash
assistance benefits and families identified through the child welfare program.
Services include child care, respite care, special needs payments, emergency
intervention services, and counseling. The pilot began in one county in October
2000, and it will be expanded to five additional counties in April 2001. Contact
Jackie Moffitt, Alabama Department of Human Resources, at 334/242-1979.
New Jersey.
The Kinship Navigator is a referral service designed to help caregivers living
in New Jersey navigate government services, such as TANF, food stamps, Medicaid,
health insurance, and child care. The navigator can also be used to connect
caregivers to other government services, such as rental or utility assistance.
The number to reach the navigator service is 1-877-816-3211. Contact Wendi
Pattella at 609/292-3703.
New York.
Governor George E. Pataki announced in January 2001 that more than $31 million
would be awarded to create new community-based prevention programs for
vulnerable children and families. The initiative aims to provide resources to
families facing crisis before the family unit is shattered. It also seeks to
reduce incidences of child abuse and neglect and parental alcohol and/or
substance abuse; prevent placement in foster care; accelerate family
reunification; and keep youths in their own homes.
The State Office of Children and Family Services will administer the
funds in conjunction with the State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Services. Contact the State Office of Children and Family Services at 518/473-7793.
North Carolina.
Dare County’s Work First County Plan outlines a comprehensive strategy to
provide a continuum of preventive, support services to assist vulnerable
families in crisis and to try to prevent families from needing to apply for
welfare. One of the county-developed outcome goals is to assess the unmet needs
of child-only cases. In fiscal 2000–2001, all child-only cases will be
assessed to determine whether there are unmet service needs. In fiscal
2002–2003, the necessary services will be offered to the families. The needs
assessment will include developing a survey to obtain information on the health,
educational, and other developmental status of children in child-only cases, as
well as the needs of their caretakers, and contacting each family by phone or in
person to administer the survey. The survey data will be used to determine how
best to serve child-only cases in terms of their unmet needs. Contact Jay Burrus,
Dare County Department of Social Services, at 252/473-1471.
Ohio.
The Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services has developed the Statewide
Kinship Caregiver Services Program based on recommendations contained in an
agency task force report on grandparents raising grandchildren. The program
offers subsidized child care, respite care for the caregiver, legal assistance,
and training on how to deal with children with special needs. A toll-free number
is available for caregivers to call for information and referrals to services.
Contact the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services at 614/466-6282.
For More Information…
Resource
Contacts
Administration for Children and Families, Department
of Health and Human Services, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov
Annie Casey Foundation, 410-547-6600
or visit http://www.aecf.org/
Child Welfare League of America, Mattie L.
Satterfield, 202/662-4286 or msatterfield@cwla.org
Children's Defense Fund, 202/628-8787 or visit http://www.childrensdefense.org
Generations United, Grandparents and Other Relatives
Raising Children Project, Ana Beltran, 202/638-1263 or abeltran@gu.org;
or Maggie Troope, 202/638-1263 or mtroope@gu.org;
or visit http://www.gu.org/projg&o.htm
National Center for Children in Poverty, 212-304-7100
or visit http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/
National Conference Of State Legislatures, Sheri
Steisel, 202-624-5400
Research Forum on Children, Families and the New
Federalism, 212-304-7150
or visit http://www.researchforum.org/
Urban Institute, Rob Geen, 202/833-7200 or visit http://www.urban.org
U.S Department of Health and Human Services,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Colleen Rathberg,
mailto:crathgeb@OSASPE.DHHS.GOV
Publications
and Electronic Resources
Bloom, D., and L. Pavetti. Sanctions and Time Limits:
State Policies, Their Implementation, and Outcomes for Families. Mathematica
Policy Research Inc.. Washington, DC., 2001. Available at
http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/Conferences/pavetti-bloom%20paper.pdf.
Brown, R. “Helping Low-Income Mothers with Criminal
Records Achieve Self-Sufficiency.” Issue Note (December 2000). Welfare
Information Network, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.welfareinfo.org/lowincomemothersissuenote.htm.
Cherlin, A., L. Burton, J. Francis, J. Henrici, L. Lein, J. Quane, and K. Bogen.
Sanctions and Case Closings for Noncompliance: Who is Affected and Why.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, February 2001. Available at http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/18058_Welfare_Policy_Brief.pdf.
Christian, S. and L. Ekman.
A Place to Call Home: Adoption and Guardianship for Children in Foster
Care. Denver, Co: NCSL, March 2000.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cwpubs.htm
Christian, S. and K. Edwards.
Linking Child Welfare Services and Substance Abuse Treatment: A Guide for
Legislators. Denver, Co: NCSL,
August 2000. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cwpubs.htm
Farrell, M., M. Fishman, S. Laud, and V. Allen.
Understanding the AFDC/TANF Child-Only Caseload: Policies, Composition and
Characteristics in Three States. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, February 2000. Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/child-only-caseload00/index.htm.
Foster, E.M., and D. Rickman. Life After Welfare:
Report of the Georgia Welfare Leavers Study. Prepared for the Georgia Department
of Human Resources, Division of Family and Children Services. Atlanta, GA.,
January 2001. Available at http://www.arc.gsu.edu/tanf/statereport_law.PDF.
Goldberg and Schott. A Compliance-Oriented Approach
to Sanctions in State and County TANF Programs. Washington, D.C.: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2000. Available at http://www.cbpp.org/10-1-00sliip.htm.
Kaplan,
J. “Kinship Care.” Resources for
Welfare Decisions (January 2001). Welfare Information Network, Washington,
D.C. Available at http://www.welfareinfo.org/kinshipcareresource.htm.
Kramer,
F. “The Hard-to-Place: Understanding the Population and Strategies to Serve
Them.” Issue Note (March 1998).
Welfare Information Network, Washington, D.C.
Kramer,
F. “Welfare
Reform and Immigrants: Recent Developments and a Review of Key State Decisions.”
Issue Note (month, year of publication). Welfare Information Network,
Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.welfareinfo.org/kramer.htm.
Lower-Basch,
E. “Leavers” and Diversion Studies:
Preliminary Analysis of Racial Differences in Caseload Trends and Leaver
Outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 2000.
Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/leavers99/race.htm.
MaCurdy,
T., D. Mancuso, and M. O’Brien-Strain. The
Rise and Fall of California’s Welfare Caseloads: Types and Regions,
1980–1999. San Francisco, Calif.: Public Policy Institute of California,
2000. Available at http://www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC138/PPIC138.pdf/index.html.
Morris,
P., Huston, A., Duncan, G., Crosby, D. and J. Bos.
How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A
Synthesis of Research. New
York, NY: MDRC, March 2001.
Risler,
E., L. Nackerud, C.R. Larrison, and R. Rdesinski. The
Impact of Welfare Reform’s TANF Program in Georgia: Criteria for Exemption
from Its Work Requirements and Time Limits.
Ga.: University of Georgia, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, August
2000.
Starr,
A. “Left Behind: Everybody’s Leaving the Welfare Rolls—Except Latinas.” The
Washington Monthly, vol. 31, no. 4 (April 1999).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. “Final Rule—TANF Program.”
Federal Register 64, no. 69 (April 1999).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Characteristics and
Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients—Fiscal Year 1999: Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. Washington, D.C., 2000.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation. Frequently Asked Questions
about Child-Only Cases. Washington, D.C., September 1999. Available at http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/FAQ-Child-Only99/childonlyfaq.htm.
Vobejda,
B., and J. Havemann. “Child-Only Cases Rise on Welfare Rolls.” The Washington Post, 2 January, 1999.
Waters
Boots, S., and R. Geen. Family Care or
Foster Care? How State Policies Affect Kinship Caregivers. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute.
Woolverton,
M., J. McCarthy, S. Schibanoff, and R. Schulzinger. Welfare Reform: Exploring Opportunities for Addressing Children’s
Mental Health and Child Welfare Issues. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Child Development Center, 2000.