Why the TANF program fails as a safety net for single mothers, other vulnerable Americans

Amna Nawaz:

Well, this year marks the 25th anniversary of a federal program that provides direct cash assistance to the poor known as TANF.

As Stephanie Sy reports, an investigation by ProPublica looks at just how much the program has actually helped families in need.

Stephanie Sy:

In 1996, President Bill Clinton created TANF as part of welfare reform. The federal government provides grants to states that have discretion for how to use and distribute the funds.

For the past six months, ProPublica has been speaking with dozens of women, mostly single mothers in the Southwest, who turned to their state governments for financial assistance and found the process extremely onerous.

Advocates have been arguing that today's version of TANF hasn't kept up with demand.

ProPublica's Eli Hager has been investigating the state of TANF and joins us now.

Eli, thank you so much for being on the "NewsHour."

Why did you focus on the Southwest? And what were sort of the major takeaways in your reporting?

Eli Hager, ProPublica:

We focused on the Southwest for a few reasons. One is that it's the most rapidly changing part of the country right now.

The cost of living has just been skyrocketing across the region. And so a lot of single mothers with children have been struggling to make ends meet in terms of paying increasing rent and affording the things they need to raise a child.

And so, therefore, the state of the cash assistance program here was something that we really wanted to focus on.

Stephanie Sy:

So, basically, you have 50 different processes for people applying for public assistance.

Eli Hager:

Right.

When welfare reform was passed, a number of folks in Congress pointed out that it was essentially a massive experiment on poor people in this country, because it was allowing each state to operate its anti-poverty program however it wanted.

In Arizona, nearly two thirds of the money goes not to directly helping single mothers with children, but rather toward Child Protective Services, which often investigates those very same mothers for conditions arising from poverty.

The money can be used really however states want, as long as it's broadly defined helping people in poverty. And that's why we looked state by state, from New Mexico to Utah to Arizona.

Stephanie Sy:

Well, let's talk about New Mexico, because one of your reports focused on single mothers in New Mexico, and one of TANF's requirements, which is a federal requirement, that these mothers give information about their children's father when they're applying for funds.

You report how this is especially a problem for women who are in sort of fragile, even abusive relationships with their children's dads. When it comes to this question about asking about the biological father of one's children, why is that a problem?

Eli Hager:

Basically an interrogation into their sexual history. It's often embarrassing and humiliating to answer these questions.

In some cases, they might not be in touch with the father or they have a fragile co-parenting relationship with the father that they don't want to ruin, and they think that would be not in the child's best interests.

Stephanie Sy:

There is also a financial rationale, which is that states want to recoup anything they can from a biological father.

Is it effective at going after fathers who are not paying child support?

Eli Hager:

No, it does not.

A lot of the — one important point is that a lot of these fathers are very poor themselves. They don't have a lot of money to provide in child support. They pay back very little to the government.

Stephanie Sy:

Another of your reports, Eli, looked at an interesting dynamic in the state of Utah, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints plays an outsized role in filling that gap left between government assistance and people in need.

What does a religious organization, the LDS Church, have to do with TANF, which is a federal public assistance program?

Eli Hager:

The way that it works is, the state of Utah actually takes credit for the charitable work of the LDS Church, and the LDS Church does a lot of charitable work.

It counts it as the state's welfare spending. And that has allowed the state of Utah to get out of spending the $75 million that it would have otherwise been required to under federal law.

Stephanie Sy:

But does that mean that people that apply for TANF state assistance funds are actually going through the church's own requirements, and are those religious requirements that can discriminate based on religion?

Eli Hager:

Right. So, yes, it does sometimes mean that, but it can be explicit or implicit.

I talked to a lot of people who said that they were explicitly suggested or instructed by the state of Utah. They were denied welfare, and then they were told, why don't you try going to the LDS Church instead? They have a better welfare program than we do.

Or it can happen implicitly, which is just that welfare has become so hard to get. But then, when they do, there's a term in Utah called bishop roulette, which means, depending on the bishop you ask for welfare, the outcome could be very different.

So, if you're a single mother who's had sex out of wedlock, you might be judged by a bishop for that. Or, if you're in the LGBTQ community, you might not receive welfare for that reason.

Stephanie Sy:

Have there been any legal challenges? And has the LDS Church responded in any way to your reporting?

Eli Hager:

To my knowledge, there have been no legal challenges.

And to your other question, yes, the church has responded. They point out that millions of people across the state, the country and the world have benefited from the LDS Church's charitable efforts, first of all, and that, secondly, the church shouldn't be confused with a government agency.

Stephanie Sy:

After all of your reporting on these experiences, what's big takeaway and the lessons from TANF, its legacy and its future?

Eli Hager:

Well, I think the big question now is, has TANF failed?

A lot of single mothers just choose not to apply anymore because all of the paperwork that you have to fill out, all of the programs you have to go to, parenting classes, drug testing, all to get $100 or $200. It's not really a safety net for these families.

And so the question now before Congress is whether there needs to be a new kind of safety net for this century.

Stephanie Sy:

The series of reports is available on ProPublica's Web site.

Eli Hager with ProPublica's new Southwest bureau, welcome to Phoenix, and thank you so much for joining us.

Eli Hager:

Thank you for having me.