Originally Posted by rgrovr
Sure - I'll do your homework for you then since it seems none of you actual read the HHS proposal. In summation it states:
There a couple of reason this measure of improvement of 20% of "employment exits" is actually counterproductive to ensure folks actually get off welfare and head to work:
1. The measure can be met just by better record keeping by states. Many number of TANF recipients leave the program each month for unknown or unspecified reasons. The states could meet the 20% threshold just by keeping more accurate data on current exits
, not by actually improving it.
2. Exits will increase as the economy recovers strength. So almost every state will hit a 20% percent threshold of employment exits as the econonmy picks up steam. In doing so, they then would have no need to mandate the work requirement for anyone after they meet the threshold or if we hit another recession after a short "recovery"
3. Caseload size drives employment exits. In general if more folks come onto welfare, Caseload size gets larger - the more folks also are getting jobs or "employment exits" So you could have 100 people come onto welfare and 20 of them got jobs - now the other 80 don't need to meet the work requirement.
4. 20 percent increase in getting jobs or "employment exits" is insignificant. States avg. caseload is 40,000 cases. Each state averages 600 employment exits per month. So with the new rule, a state can be fully exempt from the work standards if it raises employment exits from 600 to 720.
So this new "meaningful" measure would exempt 39,000 other families from welfare-to-work requirements because 120 more people got jobs???
This is pretty transparent method to see that while the sound bite sounds all well and good, "If states improve people getting jobs by 20%, they have more flexibility in the TANF mandates" - it is really just a waiver from work requirements if they can meet a trivial threshold of improvement.
Read the whole rule here at the HHS website
to make your own decisions.
Sources on the actual proposal? The link you posted says nothing about it, except waivers to a certain section which isn't specific to the work requirement (which is a different section).