Teen Parents and the Reauthorization of Welfare Reform
By Kelley O’Dell
Introduction
This Reauthorization Note summarizes the major
policy questions related to the reauthorization of welfare reform and teen
parents and includes information on policy positions of interest groups and
legislative proposals. The note also includes links to organizations concerned
about teen parent issues and to sites with examples of state and local
programs serving teen parents. It is often challenging to meet teen parents’
needs for multiple services, including housing, education, and child care. For
more information, see April Kaplan, “Teen Parents and Welfare Reform Policy,”
Issue Note (March 1997), Washington, D.C., Welfare Information Network,
at http://www.welfareinfo.org/kaplan.htm.
More information on teen parents and welfare reform can be found on the
Welfare Information Network (WIN) web page on Teen Parents, at http://www.welfareinfo.org/teen.asp.
Issue Overview
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 included clear expectations and
financial incentives for teen parents. An explicit goal of the welfare reform
law is to reduce out-of-wedlock births, including those to teenagers. The
intent of the legislation’s minor teen parent provisions is to improve the
well-being and economic self-sufficiency of teen parents as well as their
children’s well-being. Minor teen parents who are Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) recipients are subject to specialized time limits, work
requirements, stay-in-school provisions, and live-at-home provisions. States
may not spend TANF funds on minor, unmarried custodial parents who do not live
with their parents or in a setting approved by the state. They also may not
provide TANF funds to minor teen parents who are not participating in high
school or other equivalent training programs. Teen parents below age 18 and
18-year-olds who are full-time students and receive TANF assistance are not
subject to time limits or work requirements. States have the flexibility to
extend the provisions to young parents ages 19 and 20. Some observers and
advocates question whether all eligible teen parents are being served by TANF.
Others question whether enough is being done to ensure that needy teen parents
meet the requirements for assistance and access to services.
Although little attention has been focused on this
population thus far in the reauthorization debate, policymakers need to
consider pending policy proposals carefully, because they could affect the
economic future of teen parents who are receiving or are eligible for
assistance. The impact on teen parents of many proposals not specifically
geared to this population, such as those relating to sanctions, time limits,
and work
requirements, should also be examined thoughtfully. The commonly cited
statistic that historically approximately half of the nation’s welfare
recipients under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program had
children as teenagers highlights the importance of continuing to address the
needs of teen parents under welfare reform. It also highlights the importance
of preventing teen pregnancy and childbearing in the first place. For more
information, see the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Not Just
Another Single Issue: Teen Pregnancy Prevention’s Link to Other Critical
Social Issues (Washington, DC: April 2002), at http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/notjust.pdf.
Although teenage birth rateshave declined in recent years, the total U.S.
teenage birth rate is the highest among developed nations (Singh and Darroch,
2000) and of great concern to policymakers and the public.
Policy Questions
What data is available about teen parents? The
fourth annual report to Congress on TANF includes data on teen parents, both
those receiving assistance as teen heads of TANF cases and teen parents who
are also children of TANF case heads. According to the report, in fiscal year
2000, 7 percent of adult TANF recipients (heads of cases), or 112,080 of
1,579,000 were teenagers. Of the 991,806 teen recipients of TANF, 13.9
percent (138,000) were teen parents themselves. This demonstrates
multiple generations “embedded” in the same TANF case, as the children of
these 138,000 teen parents were also members of the TANF families. For more
information, see the report at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/ar2001/indexar.htm.
Some organizations assert there is insufficient data
describing teen parents either receiving or eligible for TANF to accurately
gauge the impact of welfare reform on this population. According to a report
by the Center for Law and Social Policy, few national data have been available
on serving teen parents under PRWORA. Moreover, the number of teen parents
receiving benefits may be higher than the number reported by the government.
For more information, see Janellen Duffy and Jodie Levin-Epstein, Add It
Up: Teen Parents on Welfare . . . Undercounted, Oversanctioned, Underserved
(Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, April 2002), at http://www.clasp.org/LegalDev/CLASP/DMS/Documents/1023136975.87/AddItUp.pdf.
What has been the impact of requirements aimed at teen
parents? Specific provisions of PRWORA, including the education/training
requirement and the living arrangement provision, are aimed at teen parents.
Education/Training Requirement
States may not provide TANF assistance to minor teen parents who are not
participating in high school or other equivalent training programs. Most of
the 33 state administrators that returned a July 2000 Center for Law and
Social Policy (CLASP) survey responded that their state does not face
significant challenges in implementing the requirement. However, at least 12
administrators reported the requirement poses significant challenges.
Specifically, they cited the lack of electronic interface between the
education and TANF systems, the lack of needs assessments for teen parents,
and the lack of child care and transportation. Several administrators
mentioned the lack of alternative education programs as yet another challenge.
For more information, see Duffy and Levin-Epstein, at http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1023136975.87/AddItUpReportFINAL.pdf.
A Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., summary of three teen
parent demonstrations reinforces the idea that there are inadequate
educational opportunities for this population. For more information, see
Robert G. Wood and John Burghardt, Implementing Welfare Reform Requirements
for Teenage Parents: Lessons from Experience in Four States (Princeton,
N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 31, 1997), at http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/tpd/synthes/summary.htm.
Living Arrangement Provision
States may not provide federal TANF assistance to minor, unmarried,
custodial parents who do not live in an adult-supervised setting, which is
typically their parent, guardian or other adult relative, or in another
setting approved by the state. One challenge the living arrangement provision
poses is it can be difficult to determine which person or what agency should
conduct the living arrangement assessment. The provision could also disrupt
stable living environments if a teen lives with a grandparent, for example,
and that arrangement is not deemed an acceptable living situation in that
particular state. In many states there is a lack of appropriate supervised
group living situations, such as Second Chance homes or “maternity homes,”
for those teen mothers in need of safe and stable living arrangements.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, common elements
of Second Chance homes include safety, support, and supervision. PRWORA
included language specifically encouraging the creation of Second Chance
homes.
How could the reauthorization of welfare reform affect
services to teen parents?
Issues
Organizations are currently advocating for states to implement teen parent
policies and practices that are possible under current law and calling on
Congress to legislate other policies and practices in reauthorization. Their
recommendations relate to using the flexibility of TANF; enhancing data
collection and analysis of policies related to teen parents and welfare
reform, such as sanctions, bonuses, education and training, and living
arrangements; and ensuring training so program staff can better serve eligible
and enrolled teen parents.
Sanction policies could be changed during reauthorization,
and this is an area relevant to serving TANF teen parents. Teen parents may be
disproportionately sanctioned compared with the entire welfare population,
according to a CLASP survey. In five states that submitted data, teen parents
were sanctionedfor
failure to comply with the education/training requirementat
a higher rate than families overall as calculated in a separate study by the
General Accounting Office. CLASP recommends that sanction protection
procedures should be established to help teen parents understand, avoid, or
end sanctions. Other recommendations include a study of the impact of
sanctions on teen parents and an examination of sanction rates in different
geographic areas of states. For more information, see Duffy and Levin-Epstein,
at http://www.clasp.org/pubs/teens/AddItUp.pdf.
Another reauthorization proposal from some organizations
relates to PRWORA’s prohibition of TANF assistance to families in which
adults have received 60 months of assistance. Because 18- and 19-year-old
parents receiving TANF are considered “adults,” they are subject to the
provision. In addition, teen parents who are heads of households, or are
married to heads of households, including those who are below age 18, are also
subject to this provision. Most teen parents have “ticking time clocks”
because most of them are at the transitional ages of 18 or 19, when most teen
parents become parents. Some organizations advocate that the federal
time-limit clock should not start for any teen parents who are still in school
and meeting education requirements, regardless of their age. It should be
noted that some states do not start the time-limit clock for minor parent
heads of household or for minor teens meeting certain education requirements.
Still another reauthorization recommendation is that
Congress establish a formal compliance period for applicant teen parents who
do not meet requirements, so they can work on resolving any barriers to
compliance while receiving benefits. This transitional compliance period is
permissible under current law, but not required.
Executive and Congressional Legislative Proposals
With a new Congress, there will be a new set of reauthorization proposals.
However, we can look to the proposals of last year for a sense of the key
issues related to teen parents. The proposals include changes to requirements
for teen parents; expanded funding for Second Chance Homes; and initiatives to
better track teen parents and evaluate current programs.
The Bush Administration’s fiscal year 03 budget included,
a $33 million funding request for Second Chance, or maternity, homes. The Bush
Administration’s welfare reform proposal would require 40 hours of work
(including 24 hours of “direct work”) for a recipient to count towards a
state’s work participation rate. Teen parents who maintain satisfactory
secondary school attendance, or participate in employment-related education
for an average of at least 20 hours per week, would satisfy both the
requirement for 24 hours of direct work and the requirement for 40 hours of
full participation. To be counted toward a state’s participation rate, teen
parents who are not satisfactorily attending school would have to meet the
full work and participation standards. The President’s proposal also would
eliminate the 30 percent cap in current law, whereby the number of teen
parents in school and recipients in vocational training programs that a state
may count toward participation rates is capped at thirty percent. House Bill,
H.R. 4737, was congruent to the Administration’s position with regard to
these provisions and did not prepare any other changes to provisions related
to teen parents.
The late Representative Patsy T. Mink (D-Hawaii) introduced
the TANF Reauthorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 3113) in the House on
October 12, 2001. Its provisions would have eliminated the sanctions against
teen parents not attending high school or an equivalent training program and
not living in adult-supervised settings.
On February 12, 2002, Representative Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.)
introduced the Education Counts Act (H.R. 3730), which would have
removed teen parents from the 30 percent limitation on persons who are
participating in education activities and may be deemed engaged in “work.”
Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) introduced the Work and Family Act of 2002
(S. 2524) on May 15. The proposal would also have removed teen parents from
the 30 percent cap.
On August 1, 2002, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
introduced the Building Secure and Healthy Families Act of 2002
(S. 2876). The bill would have required three studies of teen parents to
include research on the eligibility of teen parents not on TANF, barriers to
their enrollment, best practices in programs for teen parents, and sanctions
for teen parents. A transitional compliance period was part of the bill, and
the “clocks” of teen parents in school would not start until age 21.
The bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee would have
provided for a transitional compliance period for teen parent eligibility. It
also called for a study of teen parents with a random sample. The study would
have include assessment procedures to detect barriers to education and
training. The committee’s bill remove teen parents from inclusion in the
30-percent cap on participants allowed in education and training activities.
The bill would also authorize $33 million in new funding for Second Chance
homes.
On October 10, 2001, Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Joe
Lieberman (D-Conn.) introduced The Second Chance Homes Promotion Act of
2001. The bill would have provided competitive grants to public or private
entities to expand and improve the availability of community-based,
adult-supervised group homes for teenage mothers and their babies.
Current State Policies
States run a wide variety of programs serving teen parents,
including programs that focus on the teens completing their education and
improving their employment prospects; parenting education; reducing repeat
pregnancies; accessing other services for which the teens are eligible; and
other services.
The Nurse Home Visitation program in Elmira, New York,
and Memphis, Tennessee, has shown promise in the prevention or delay of
subsequent childbearing by young mothers. Nurse visits to young women have
delayed childbearing, lowered rates of child abuse, and produced better
outcomes for children. The program has been successfully replicated. For more
information, see David Olds et al., “Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by
Nurses: Recent Findings,” in Future of Children (Los Altos, Calif.:
Packard Foundation, spring/summer 1999), at http://www.futureofchildren.org/hv2/hv2_03.pdf.
The Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS)
serves TANF teen parents through 129 TANF local offices located throughout the
state and 83 community-based Teen Parent Services (TPS) program offices¾predominately
health departments but also including schools, two DHS-staffed offices, and
other agencies experienced with teen services. Teens and their children
receive education, career, social service, and preventive health-related
services in the TPS offices. The TPS services aim to help the young parents
move to long-term self-sufficiency and ensure their children are healthy and
prepared to enter school. The TPS offices partner with DHS local offices,
which are responsible for TANF, food stamp, and Medicaid benefits, to ensure
families receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. Trained teen
parent coordinators in the local DHS offices work as teen intake specialists
for the TPS program. If at intake the teen already has her high school diploma
or GED certificate and therefore is not eligible for TPS, the coordinator
refers her to appropriate resources and services, including housing,
education, health care, child care, and job training. DHS also trains teen
parent coordinators and contract staff in partnership with a variety of
government branches, nonprofit organizations, and advocacy groups. TPS
participates in strong alliances with these teen advocates to help advise and
manage the program. The training, which is designed to support TPS at the
local level, addresses adolescent development, teen parent policies, and other
strategies for working with young parents. For more information on the
programs in DHS local offices, contact Amina Everett Boggs at 217/782-1210.
For more information on the TPS programs, contact Denise Simon at 217/785-0462
or dhsd62c5@dhs.state.il.us.
Massachusetts administers a robust Teen Living Program
(TLP) of 23 Second Chance homes. Two new homes were created this past year.
One of those homes is for victims of domestic violence and their children and
is a large, 10-bed house in the western part of the state. A current TLP
provider and a domestic violence program collaborate on running this home. The
other new home is the Supported Teen Parent Employment Program (STEP). STEP
provides transitional housing for parents who have “graduated” from other
TLPs. The STEP clients complied with service plans but still require support
services before moving on to permanent housing. Case management is provided,
and the provider works with the city housing authority to provide Section 8
certificates to all graduates of STEP. For more information, contact Lisa
Gualdoni at 617/748-2000 or lisa.gualdoni@state.ma.us.
Nebraska assigns teen parent recipients to specialized
case managers and the state purchases slots for teen parents in other existing
programs. In Lincoln, the state has a TANF-funded agreement with the local
YWCA to provide a program for teen parents. The program includes
transportation, onsite child care, “soft-skills” training, nutrition
classes, career assessment, and consulting on education activities. For more
information, contact Dennis Ellis at dennis.ellis@hhss.state.ne.us.
In Washington support services of WorkFirst, the
state’s TANF program, are available to unmarried or pregnant minors who are
income-eligible to receive TANF and meet either of the following conditions:
are living in a department-approved living arrangement and are meeting the
school requirement or are actively working with a social worker and need
support services to remove the barriers that are preventing them from living
in a department-approved living arrangement and/or from meeting the school
requirements. For more information, contact Debbie Miller, program manager,
Division of Employment and Assistance Programs, Washington Department of
Social and Human Services, at milled@dshs.wa.gov
or 360/413-3101.
Research
As states continue to develop and improve services for teen
parents receiving TANF, a number of evaluations and studies may shed light on
different aspects of serving this population. Several evaluations of Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) waivers focused on teen parent
provisions and yield information about serving teen parents. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a report on evaluations
of three of these programs: the New Chance demonstration, Ohio’s Learning,
Earning and Parenting (LEAP) program, and the Teenage Parent Demonstration (TPD).
Voluntary Participation. Kisker, Maynard, Rangarajan,
and Boller found that linking cash assistance to participation in programs
with support services “increases the level of self-sufficiency-oriented
activities.” Specifically, TPD demonstrations reached 89 percent of teen
parents receiving welfare through the provision of support services, case
management, and sanctions. Rates of job training, school attendance, and
employment increased during program operations; however, the activity levels
decreased after the programs ceased. The researchers also found that, although
voluntary programs can increase participation in education and training
activities, few teen parents choose to participate in the programs.
Long-Term Impacts. New Chance had no long-term impacts
on employment, income, or welfare receipt. The short-term increases in
employment levels and earnings seen in teenagers still in school when they
entered LEAP faded when the teens aged out of the program. TPD programs
increased employment and earnings for teen mothers who were subject to the
participation requirements and who received support services. When the teens
in the experimental group returned to the regular welfare program, however,
impacts faded.
Education Completion. Evaluation findings from the
three demonstration programs showed that it is easier to increase the number
of teen parents enrolled in General Educational Development (GED) programs
than to increase high school retention or rematriculation. Higher rates of
school enrollment and GED program participation do not always lead to higher
graduation rates or improvements in basic skills. Specifically, TPD did not
improve average reading or math skills, though both school and GED program
enrollment increased. One of the three TPD programs resulted in a higher high
school graduation rate. Under LEAP school attendance and grade attainment
increased, but graduation rates did not increase. The New Chance program
increased GED attainment but reduced high school graduation rates; basic
reading skills did not increase. For other evaluation findings and more
information, see Kisker et al., Moving Teenage Parents into
Self-Sufficiency: Lessons from Recent Demonstrations¾Final
Report (Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., September
1998), at http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/tpd/synthes/index.htm.
We can also look to the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation’s (MDRC) evaluation of the LEAP program for more insights on
education completion. The MDRC evaluation was experimental in design, using
program and control groups. LEAP benefited initially enrolled teens by
increasing their school attendance, GED receipt, and work experience. Impacts
for those initially not enrolled were limited to school enrollment and
attendance. LEAP was cost-neutral for the welfare department. For more
information, see Long et al., LEAP: Final Report on Ohio’s Welfare
Initiative to Improve School Attendance Among Teenage Parents, Ohio’s
Learning, Earning and Parenting Program (New York, N.Y.: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, 1997), at http://www.mdrc.org/Reports/LEAP_Final/LEAP-ExecSumm.html.
With regard to teen parents and educational outcomes, an
evaluation of the CAL-LEARN, part of California’s CalWorks TANF program,
also yields some insights. The program provides financial incentives for
pregnant and parenting teens to stay in school. The program also includes case
management, transportation, child care, and ancillary services necessary for
education. The University of California at Berkeley, Data Archive and
Technical Assistance Center, provided an independent review of the CAL-LEARN
program. The evaluation found that teens who participated in the program
graduated (i.e., obtained GEDs) at significantly higher rates. Evaluators also
found that this effect depended on whether teens were enrolled in school when
they entered CAL-LEARN; teens who were enrolled in school when they entered
the program graduated at an insignificantly different rate than other teens in
school but not in the program. Teens that were not in school when they
enrolled in the program graduated at a rate of 20 percent compared with 11
percent of “no treatment” teens who were not enrolled in school. Teens
that had never been held back in school prior to entering the program
benefited far more than teens who had been held back. For more information and
findings, see Mauldon et al., Impact of California’s CAL-LEARN
Demonstration Project (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, Data
Archive and Technical Assistance Center, June 2000), at http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/res/pdf/caleval/CL%20Final%20Report.pdf.
A recently released study addressed questions about the
impact of welfare reform on the behavior of teen parents. Kaestner and O’Neill
analyzed two cohorts of data (1979 and 1997) from the National Longitudinal
Surveys of Youth to document differences between these cohorts in terms of
welfare use and future economic and social well-being. The researchers also
sought “to investigate the causal role of welfare reform in behavioral
change.” Teenage mothers in 1997 were less likely to receive welfare and
more likely to live with a parent or a spouse than were teenage mothers in
1979. The differences in cohorts also suggest that welfare reform is
associated with reduced fertility, reduced welfare receipt, reduced marriage,
and reduced school dropout rates among young women. The decline in welfare
entry is due to both lower take-up among eligible teens and a decline in “qualifying
behaviors,” such as fertility, marriage, and nonmarital fertility. The study
authors recommend that more research is needed because they could not
determine definitively that welfare reform is responsible for these findings.
For more information, see Robert Kaestner and June O’Neill, Has Welfare
Reform Changed Teenage Behaviors? (Cambridge, Mass.: National
Bureau of Economic Research, May 2002), at http://papers.nber.org/papers/W8932.
The Center for Impact Research, along with the Center for
Law and Social Policy, the Alliance for Young Families, the Illinois Caucus
for Adolescent Health, and the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy
Prevention, conducted a three-city (Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta) study of
more than 1,500 teen mothers. The study found that:
-
teen parents have trouble accessing and keeping TANF
benefits;
-
teen parents have trouble completing or attending
school; and
-
teen parents are not accessing other assistance
programs, such as medical assistance, food stamps, child care, and
nutrition programs for women, infants, and children.
The study also includes recommendations for TANF
reauthorization. The researchers raised concerns that diversion and other
issues could be derailing effective services to needy teen parents. For more
information, see Deborah L. Shapiro and Helene M. Marcy, Knocking on the
Door: Barriers to Welfare and Other Assistance for Teen Parents: A Three-City
Research Study (Chicago, Ill.: Center for Impact Research, April 2002), at
http://www.impactresearch.org/documents/CIRknockdoor.pdf.
As noted earlier, Second Chance Homes are an allowable housing
option for teen parents. Although there is anecdotal evidence that Second Chance
homes successfully prevent second births to teen parents, raise rates of school
completion, lower child abuse and neglect, and achieve other positive outcomes,
rigorous evaluation findings are still limited. Increased emphasis on evaluation
in such programs is likely. For more information, see U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, Second Chance Homes: Providing Services to Teenage Parents and
Their Children (Washington, D.C., October 2000), at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/search/hsp/2ndchancehomes00/index.htm#evidence.
Efforts to improve outcomes and services for teen parents
receiving public assistance have included home visiting programs. Home
visiting programs are often geared to young parents to develop parenting skills,
improve health outcomes, and delay subsequent pregnancies. Kelsey, Johnson, and
Maynard examined home visitor services to teen parents receiving AFDC benefits
and participating in welfare-to-work programs. The researchers concluded that
paraprofessional home visitor services only modestly improved the outcomes of
welfare-to-work programs. However, several findings could be useful to designers
of future programs for teen parents. Teens that were visited at home spent more
time in school; among certain program subgroups, more home-visited teens
obtained their high school diploma; and the earnings of home-visited teens were
higher than those of the control group. Many of the differences between the
program group and control group were likely because of varying program emphases
and the relative skills of the home visitors. For more information, see Kelsey,
Johnson, and Maynard, The Potential of Home Visitor Services to Strengthen
Welfare-to-Work Programs for Teenage Parents on Cash Assistance
(Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania, Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc., and Health Federation of Philadelphia, 2001), at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/potential.pdf.
Interested Organizations
Alliance for Young Families, www.youngfamilies.org,
Jamie Strausz-Clark, 617/482-9122 or info@youngfamilies.org.
American Enterprise Institute, www.aei.org
or 202/862-5800.
American Public Human Services Association, www.aphsa.org
or 202/ 682-0100.
Center for Assessment and Policy Development, www.capd.org
or 610/664-4540.
Center for Law and Social Policy, Christine Grisham and Jodie
Levin-Epstein, www.clasp.org
or 202/906-8000.
Child Trends, www.childtrends.org
or 202/362-5580.
Child Welfare League of America, John Sciamanna, www.cwla.org
or 202/ 638-2952.
Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention, www.gcapp.org/index.asp
or 404/475-6048.
Manpower Demonstration and Research Corporation, www.mdrc.org
or 212/ 532-3200.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., www.mathematica-mpr.com
or 609/799-3535.
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, www.teenpregnancy.org
or 202/478-8500.
National Governors Association, www.nga.org
or 202/624-5300.
National Network for Youth, Bob Reeg, www.nn4youth.org
or 202/783-7949.
National Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and
Prevention, Inc., www.noappp.org or
Karen Canova, 202/293-8370.
Social Policy Action Network, www.span-online.org
or 202/434-4770.
WestEd, www.wested.org
or 415/565-3000.
Specific Organization Proposals
In addition to the executive and Congressional proposals
addressed earlier, a number of organizations are also suggesting changes to TANF
that would affect teen parents.
Center for Impact Research (CIR)
The center recommends that the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services should conduct a study of teen parents to investigate questions
regarding access and participation in TANF and other assistance programs. CIR
also recommends a transitional period. For more information, see http://www.impactresearch.org/documents/CIRknockdoor.pdf.
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
CLASP is calling for several policy changes related to teen parents and
TANF, including:
-
a federal “transitional eligibility” period to
allow teen parents to comply with welfare reform requirements;
-
the inclusion in state TANF plans of information
relevant to teen parents, such as capacity, assessment, and
head-of-household criteria;
-
better data reporting by states and better estimation
methods by the federal government;
-
state assessments of why eligible teen parents are not
receiving TANF;
-
improved access to support services that can help
teenagers meet the education and living arrangement requirements; and
-
continued evaluation of different approaches to the
education/training requirement and living arrangement provision.
For more information, visit www.clasp.org
or contact Jodie Levin-Epstein or
Jodie@clasp.org.
Child Welfare League of America (CWLA)
CWLA recommends that funding be increased for Second Chance homes. The
group also recommends that Congress add funds for training and technical
assistance for eligibility workers so teenage applicants can be better informed
about their eligibility. In addition, CWLA supports a “transitional period”
for teen parents applying for TANF benefits. For more information, see http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/tanf011218.htm.
Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute
Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute proposes eliminating
all public benefits, not just TANF benefits, to unwed parents below age 21. He
proposes a test of this policy in a western or mountain region state with a
small caseload and strong social welfare programs outside of government. For
more information and a comment on this proposal by Rebecca Maynard, see Charles
Murray, “Family Formation,” in The New World of Welfare, ed. Rebecca
Blank and Ron Haskins, (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2001).
National Network for Youth
The National Network for Youth recommends that states be required to
consult with teen parents about their preferred living arrangement and to
provide or ensure the provision of alternative living arrangements for parents
unable to live at home. Over forty national organizations signed a letter,
circulated by the Network, to Senators Baucus and Grassley of the Senate Finance
Committee in June 2002. The letter includes recommendations to establish a
transitional compliance period; allow the lifetime limit on TANF assistance to
commence at age 20 for minor parents enrolled in education and training
activities; and require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to
conduct a study of teen parents receiving TANF. For more information, contact
the National Network for Youth at 202/783-7949.
Publications
Alliance for Young Families. Living on the Edge II: A
Study on Young Homeless Families in Massachusetts. Boston: Mass., 2001.
Available at http://www.youngfamilies.org.
Duffy, Janellen, and Jodie Levin-Epstein. Add It Up: Teen
Parents and Welfare . . . Undercounted, Oversanctioned, Underserved.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, April 2002. Available at http://www.clasp.org.
Kaestner, Robert, and June O’Neill. Has Welfare Reform
Changed Teenage Behaviors? Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic
Research, May 2002. Available at http://papers.nber.org/papers/W8932.
Kaplan, April. “Teen Parents and Welfare Reform Policy.” Issue
Note (March 1997). Washington, D.C., Welfare Information Network. Available
at http://www.welfareinfo.org/kaplan.htm.
Kelsey, Johnson, and Maynard. The Potential of Home
Visitor Services to Strengthen Welfare-to-Work Programs for Teenage Parents on
Cash Assistance. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., and Health Federation of Philadelphia, 2001. Available at
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/potential.pdf.
Kisker, Ellen Eliason, Rebecca A. Maynard, Anu Rangarajan,
and Kimberly Boller. Moving Teenage Parents into Self-Sufficiency: Lessons
from Recent Demonstrations¾Final Report.
Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., September 1998. Available at
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/tpd/synthes/summary.htm.
Long, David, Judith Gueron, Robert Wood, Rebecca Fisher, and
Veronica Fellerath. LEAP: Final Report on Ohio’s Welfare Initiative to
Improve School Attendance Among Teenage Parents, Ohio’s Learning Earning and
Parenting Program. New York, N.Y.: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, 1997. Available at http://www.mdrc.org/Reports/LEAP_Final/LEAP-ExecSumm.html.
Mauldon, Jane, Jan Malvin, Jon Stiles, Nancy Nicosia, and Eva
Seto. Impact of California’s CAL-LEARN Demonstration Project. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California, Data Archive and Technical Assistance Center,
June 2000. Available at http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/res/pdf/caleval/CL%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Murray, Charles. “Family Formation.” In The New World
of Welfare, ed. Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 2001.
Quint, Janet, Johannes Bos, and Denise Polit. New Chance:
Final Report on a Comprehensive Program for Disadvantaged Young Mothers and
Their Children. New York, N.Y.: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation,
July 1997. Available at http://www.mdrc.aa.psiweb.com/Reports/NewChanceExSum.html.
Reich, Kathy, and Lisa M. Kelly. Starting a Second Chance
Home: A Guide for Policymakers and Practitioners. Washington, D.C.: Social
Policy Action Network, January 2001. Available at http://www.span-online.org/sch_starting.pdf.
Reichman, Nancy E., and Sara S. MacLanahan. Self-Sufficiency
Programs and Parenting Interventions: Lessons from New Chance and the Teenage
Parent Demonstration. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 2001. Available
at http://www.srcd.org/sprv15n2.pdf.
Shapiro, Deborah L., and Helene M. Marcy. Knocking on the
Door: Barriers to Welfare and Other Assistance for Teen Parents: A Three-City
Research Study. Chicago, Ill.: Center for Impact Research, April 2002.
Available at http://www.impactresearch.org/documents/CIRknockdoor.pdf.
Singh, Susheela, and Jacqueline E. Darroch. “Adolescent
Pregnancy and Childbearing:
Levels and Trends in Developed Countries.” Family Planning
Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 1,(January/February 2000). Available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.html.
Social Policy Action Network. Second Chance Homes National
Directory. Washington, D.C.: Social Policy Action Network, November 2001.
Available at http://www.span-online.org/sch_natl_directory.html.
Wood, Robert G., and John Burghardt. Implementing Welfare
Reform Requirements for Teenage Parents: Lessons from Experience in Four States.
Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 31, 1997. Available
at http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/teepareq/xsteen.htm.
The author would like to thank Christine Grisham and Jodie
Levin-Epstein of the Center for Law and Social Policy and Andrea Kane of the
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy for their exceedingly helpful
reviews of this publication.
-
- For more
information, contact: TANF
Reauthorization Resources, The Welfare Information Network,
