children & youth

public policy analysis

Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Introduction moving people from welfare to self-sufficiency,

There is great interest in the issue of parent and a comparison of research on barriers to DC
engagement in their children's education in the TANF data. The purpose of this analysis is to
District of Columbia. This interest is well founded. inform those interested in increasing parental
Research shows that benefits accrue to children, involvement in their children’s education about
families and the education system when parents are why punitive actions such as this will not achieve
involved in their children’s education. the desired outcome. By addressing the
challenges confronting welfare recipients,
The lack of parent participation has created including their own bad experiences with school,
frustration on the part of some residents and parents will become more engaged with their
elected officials which has, in turn, resulted in the children’s learning.
call for aggressive action. The most recent example
of such an action was by At-large Councilmember
Kwame Brown in Bill 17-1035, “Parental Involvement Brief history of TANF
In Children’s Education School Participation Act of In 1996 the Congress passed and President Clinton
2008." This bill would legislate the behavior of signed the historic welfare reform legislation, “The
parents who receive welfare benefits -- and only Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
those parents. Under the law, parents would be Reconciliation Act of 1996.” (PRWORA; P.L. 104-
required to attend all PTA and parent-teacher 193). PRWORA replaced Aid to Families with
meetings. This legislation and that which was
previously introduced by Councilmember Barry
related to drug testing TANF recipients are
contrary to the underpinnings of the District’s
welfare law, regulations and policies. The
The four purposes of the 1996
District's public policy approach to income support is welfare reform legislation
one that seeks to reduce reliance on public benefits
by offering a range of supportive services.
1. provide assistance to needy families so
that children may be cared for in their
Many oppose this punitive approach and are calling
for the development of an engagement plan that own homes or in the homes of relatives;
takes into account personal and system barriers. 2. end the dependence of needy parents on
This approach is entirely consistent with the public government benefits by promoting job
policy approach taken regarding the District's preparation, work, and marriage;
welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy 3. prevent and reduce the incidence of out-
Families (TANF) as well as with the "Guiding of-wedlock pregnancies and establish
Principles for Legislation or Regulations that Impact annual numerical goals for preventing and
TANF Households" prepared by the DC Women's reducing the incidence of these pregnan-
Agenda. cies; and
4 encourage the formation and mainte-
What follows is a brief summary of welfare reform nance of two-parent families.1
in the District of Columbia, persistent challenges to

1
children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF).

One of the prevailing themes of the welfare reform debate – nationally and in
states across the country – was to ensure families were self-sufficient. TANF
was deemed the public policy framework that would help that happen. As a
result, parents on TANF are subject to strict work requirements – 20 hours
per week for families with children under the age of 6 and 30 hours per week
for families with children ages 6 and older. Failure to comply with these
t he primary
goal of TANF
is to reduce poverty
requirements subjects a family to a reduction in their TANF benefit. Parents
through work, work that
are also supposed to comply with these work requirements and work towards
self-sufficiency on a grant that only brings them up to 29 percent of the
moves families above the
poverty level – leaving little money for anything but basic needs. poverty level. Public
policy decisions must be
The District of Columbia endured a lengthy debate about the implementation evaluated for their ability
of the federal welfare reform legislation, which, by design, provided great to help the state achieve
flexibility to states (and the District) to implement a program designed to this goal.2
meet the four purposes. The Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) in
the Department of Human Services took the lead on the development of the
District's approach, seeking guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and input from national organizations. Since the District
adopted welfare reform legislation in March 1997, the city has implemented
what can best be described as a moderate approach to TANF.

The District's approach is in stark contrast to states which embraced a

punitive approach including full family sanctions and limited access to
supportive services. Advocates and providers in the District, long engaged in
“safety net” issues (welfare, Medicaid, etc.), worked extensively with IMA to
institute a range of policies designed to support and not penalize families.
For example, the District opted to continue to support families who had
received welfare for longer than five years. The District has also chosen to
not impose full family sanctions. Such sanctions, which have been
implemented by other states, have been described as severe3 and far-
reaching:
Although time limits may receive more attention in the media, many more
families have been directly affected by sanctions, and sanctions have
arguably played a greater role in reshaping welfare recipients’ day-to-day
experiences.4

Challenges faced by welfare recipients in the District

The Income Maintenance Administration contracted with Urban Institute
to conduct research on the District's TANF population. “A Study of the
District of Columbia’s TANF Caseload” confirms what many advocates and
providers knew from experience – that TANF recipients confront
individual, family and system challenges that make work difficult and self-
sufficiency a far-off and for others dream. The related findings were:

2
children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

• DC TANF recipients face • While only 31.7 percent of employed leavers had health insurance
skill-based, personal, through their jobs, 40.7 percent were covered by Medicaid. Overall,
family, and logistical 21.6 percent of employed adult leavers (the head of the TANF unit) and
challenges that make it 19.3 percent of their children were uninsured.
hard for them to work. • Among jobless leavers, 23.6 percent reported they could not afford child
• The majority of TANF care at some time after leaving TANF and one in eight said lack of child
recipients face multiple care is a major reason for not working.
barriers to work. • Jobless leavers generally relied on public assistance to get by. More than
• Some barriers are more four out of five leavers received some support from TANF, food stamps,
common among non- Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and/or the Women, Infants, and
workers than among Children (WIC) program at some time after leaving TANF and about
workers.5 three-quarters received some assistance in the month prior to the
survey.
These findings were • When asked about specific experiences of hardship, such as difficulties
consistent with a prior paying rent or having utilities cut off or having to skip or reduce the size
Urban Institute study “The of meals, working and jobless leavers reported similar levels of difficulty.
Status of TANF Leavers in In addition, there was little difference in the reported incidence of
the District of Columbia.” hardships before and after exiting TANF.6
Some of the major findings
of this 2001 report were:
• Between June 1997 and
December 1999, DC’s Examples of challenges that make it hard
cash assistance caseload for TANF recipients to work
fell by 23.8 percent, to
18,028 families. This
decline is smaller than the The prevalence of the 15 barriers to work identified by Urban vary
36.9 percent drop nation- greatly, from three percent having a substance abuse problem to 38
wide; however, caseload percent without a high school diploma or GED. Detailed findings are:
declines in urban areas,
in general, lagged behind Skill challenges:
the national average. In • Less than high school/GED (37.9 percent)
addition, it is important • Low work experiences (27.1 percent)
to note that DC did not • Performed 3 or fewer common job tasks (26.4 percent)
adopt some of the poli-
cies used in other states Personal challenges:
to reduce its caseload, • Physical health problem (16.0 percent)
such as eliminating all • Mental health problem (20.9 percent)
cash benefits to families • Chemical dependence (3.1 percent)
in which the head fails to • Severe domestic violence in past year (14.6 percent)
comply with program • Possible presence of learning disability (8.6 percent)
requirements. • Criminal record (6.9 percent)
• Families leaving TANF in
DC were typical of DC’s Family and logistical challenges:
entire caseload in most • Caring for child with health or behavioral problems (25.7 percent)
respects; however, • Caring for sick family member other than child (10.7 percent)
leavers were slightly less • Pregnant or have child under age 1 (19.3 percent)
likely to have larger • Transportation problem (19.4 percent)
families and to have • Child care problems (41.6 percent)
children under age 6 than • Unstable housing (12.6 percent)7
the typical TANF recipi-
ent.
3
children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Many of the issues identified by Urban are still in with high minority enrollments (63 versus 30
play today, late 2008. This is in large part the percent).
result of school reform promises unfulfilled. For • Given a list of concerns that might impede parent
years, from one superintendent to the next, involvement in schools, the barrier named by the
education quality has lagged well behind national highest percentage of schools was lack of time on
standards. Certainly, there is hope with the the part of parents (87 percent). Lack of time on
reforms under Mayor Fenty. Absent significant the part of school staff created barriers for 56
improvements in the K-12 system, the District percent of schools, and
will continue to foster an environment where • 48 percent indicated that lack of staff training in
success is not possible for many, perpetuating working with parents was a significant barrier.
intergenerational poverty and welfare reliance. Lack of parent education to help with schoolwork,
cultural/ socioeconomic and language differences
Because of these challenges, IMA knew that a between parents and staff, parent and staff
strict “work first” program would not succeed; attitudes, and safety in the area after school hours
providing quality services and supports were were considered barriers in a higher percentage of
essential for success. The District's progressive schools with poverty concentrations and minority
TANF program, for example, offers rehabilitative enrollments of 50 percent or more than in schools
and drug treatment services to those on the low on these characteristics.8
welfare caseload and exemptions from the work
requirements for those in domestic violence This research is supported by many other studies. In
situations. The purpose of these policy short, there are many reasons that parents are
decisions was to direct job training resources unable to participate fully in their children’s
to those best able to utilize them and at the education. This legislation will not overcome any of
same time to understand and assist those who these barriers – it will just punish children, thus
required very specific kinds of help in order to undermining the legislation’s stated goals.
become self-sufficient.

Recommendations
What we know about parental Increasing parent engagement in their children's
involvement in their children’s education is a worthy public policy goal. However, a
education punitive approach is not only bad public policy but is
one that has far-reaching negative implications for
Much research has been done as to the value of
children and families.
parental involvement in their children’s education
and the barriers to such involvement. The
A better, more productive approach is one that 1)
National Center for Education Statistics, for
conforms to the principles set forth by the DC
example, reported
Women's Agenda (see page 5) and 2) that is informed
• Parent attendance at school-sponsored events
by research and experiences with behavior change
varied by geographic region, poverty concen-
initiatives.
tration, and minority enrollment in the school.
For example, while 72 percent of schools with
To achieve the public policy goal, it is recommended
a low concentration of poverty reported that
that:
“most or all” parents attended the school open
• the District treat all households in the same man-
house, 28 percent of schools with a high
ner.
poverty concentration reported such high
• the District use encouragement and not penalties
parent attendance. Similar differences were
to increase parent engagement.
found on this variable when schools with low
minority enrollments were compared to those

4
children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Guiding Principles for Legislation or Regulations

that Impact TANF Households

During the 17th legislative period, DC Council members introduced two pieces of legislation that
would have imposed onerous requirements on TANF households as a prerequisite to continued
receipt of TANF assistance. Both pieces of legislation singled out TANF households without an
adequate basis for such discrimination, failed to investigate best practices from other states, were
inconsistent with the goals of TANF grant implementation in the District, and would have harmed
children and families at a great cost to the District. The goals of the TANF program in the District
are two-fold: 1) to support and assist families in ending reliance on public benefits through the
promotion of job preparation and work leading to self sufficiency; and 2) to provide assistance to
needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives.
In order to ensure consistency with the District’s historically progressive approach to the TANF
program and these two stated goals of the program, the following principals should guide the
District’s creation of any new TANF legislation or regulations.

I. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR TANF HOUSEHOLDS

1. Any legislation imposing requirements on TANF households should have the same requirements
for non-TANF households. For example, legislation designed to encourage school involvement
by DCPS parents should not ignore non-TANF households.

II. PROVEN RESULTS

1. Any legislation that proposes to place additional requirements on TANF households should be
supported by data showing a need for such a requirement.
2. Any legislation resulting in additional requirements for TANF households should be based on best
practices/successful programs from other states demonstrating that the additional
requirement resulted in the desired outcome.
3. Any legislation that proposes to place additional requirements on TANF households should be
piloted to determine its effectiveness is achieving the desired goals.

III. ENCOURAGEMENT NOT PENALTIES

1. Given that TANF is the most minimal safety net for the District’s lowest income families, any
legislation that attempts to encourage TANF households to achieve certain goals – such as re-
maining drug-free or participating in their children’s educations – should not be punitive in
nature. Rather, it should provide assistance for overcoming barriers to compliance. For
example, additional funding for childcare or transportation expenses would enable TANF house-
holds to participate in more school activities. Additional funding for literacy and drug treatment
programs will enable TANF households to get off the waiting lists and into these important pro-
grams.
2. Carrots work better than sticks and do not cause deprivation to children. The District should
encourage desired behaviors by offering incentives rather than penalties. For example,
New York City offers households additional benefits if they participate in their children’s educa-
tion.9

5
children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

• OSSE, DC Public Schools, the DC Public Charter that struggle every day to feed their kids, attend
School Board, and the Office of the Deputy required work or training opportunities, and the like.
Mayor for Education identify the barriers to
parent engagement. We also know that welfare recipients face many
• school leaders develop programs/interventions/ barriers as they struggle to support their children –
strategies grounded in the research. For TANF grants that put them at 28 percent of the
example, poverty level, high incidences of physical and mental
1) take into consideration the disabilities, and high incidences of domestic violence.
cultural, social, socioeconomic On top of that, recipients are subject to work
interests and backgrounds of requirements that if not complied with can result in
families. a reduction of their TANF benefits.
2) use voluntarism as a way to involve
and engage parents and help Punitive legislation will be ineffective because it is
parents build skills. requires individuals and families who are operating at
3) create a welcoming environment in the Physiological level on Maslow's hierarchy of human
schools in which parents are a needs to function at the two top levels, Esteem and
central player and not viewed as a Self-actualization. In other words, parents who are
nuisance. struggling to meet their basic needs have great
4) be inclusive of friends and the difficulty complying with additional requirements.
extended family. Punishment is not sufficient to get parents to move
5) be supportive rather than punitive between the levels for a sustained period of time..
regarding participation. The vast All that will happen is that children on TANF will
majority of examples of effective suffer even more at the loss of income due to
engagement strategies use carrots innocent or purposeful non-compliance by their
and not sticks. parents or administrative errors.
6) match strategies to barriers and
other challenges to parental In order to achieve the goal of increased parent
participation. engagement in their children's education, city leaders
• OSSE develop an evaluation framework and would best serve the community by developing a
manage the evaluation of school parent en- parental involvement proposal based in best practices
gagement strategies. and consistent with the District’s public policy
• schools and OSSE use outreach efforts which approach to welfare.
have been shown to be effective. A local
example is outreach done for DC Healthy
Families, the CHIP expansion program. (See
page 7 for more information.)

Conclusion
The fact is this: We know there is value in
parents' interest in their kids’ education. It can
reduce or prevent truancy. It can help with
literacy. It can result in better long-term
outlooks. But we also know that many parents in
DC, and particularly parents who receive welfare,

6
children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Applying lessons from the District's health care access intiatives

to increasing parent engagement

The District's approach to health insurance/coverage programs for children, families and those not
eligible for Medicaid can only be described as extraordinarily progressive. With DC Healthy Families
and the DC HealthCare Alliance, the District led the nation in implementing never before seen access
to health insurance and health care with funding from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP; CHIP) and the commitment of Local funds. Both programs offer services to those with
incomes up to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

To enroll the thousands of qualified residents, the government and nonprofit organizations did two
things. First, the Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) in the Department of Human Services
took a “Medicaid first” stance -- all who sought services from IMA were offered Medicaid if they did
not have health insurance. It did not matter that health care was not their reason for visiting IMA.
Second, IMA and community-based organizations pulled out the stops regarding outreach. A range of
activities were used, some broad and general, others population specific. The result was that
enrollment skyrocketed and more residents than ever before had access to health care.

This aggressive approach to enrolling residents in health insurance/coverage programs was required.
Research has shown that accessing
regular health care by low-income
individuals and families occurs less than Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs
for those higher on the economic ladder.
One obvious reason is the lack of health
insurance. But even for those with SELF-
health coverage, barriers to regular, ACTUALIZATION
(autonomy and
preventive access is less than for those achievement)
with higher incomes. Beyond that,
however, is the very real psychological
barrier to enrolling in health care and EGO
using doctors to prevent illness. This is (self-esteem, power)
illustrated below in the depiction of
Maslow's "hierarchy of human needs."
What psychologist Maslow argued was SOCIAL
that individuals only moved from one (being loved, belonging)
level to the next when needs were
fulfilled. So, the very basic needs --
shelter and food, for example -- come SECURITY
before regular health care. (safety, shelter)

More important to the issue at hand is

PHYSICAL
that parent engagement -- which
requires balancing work, home and
(food, water, freedom from disease and
family -- are at the top level. disability)

7
 children & youth public policy analysis:
Barriers to TANF parent participation in education

Endnotes
1
Sheri Steisel, No Date, "TANF Checklist for State Legislators", on-line at http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/
chklist1.htm, downloaded December 22, 2008.

2
Paraphrased from Celia Hagert, March 28, 2007, “The Negative Impact of Full-family Sanctions on the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program in Texas” submitted to Subcommittee #1 on Health &
Human Services, California Assembly Budget Committee, on-line at http://www.cppp.org/
research.php?aid=647, downloaded December 18, 2008.

3
Dan Bloom, Don Winstead, January 2002, Sanctions and Welfare Reform, on-line at http://
www.mdrc.org/publications/191/policybrief.html, downloaded December 18, 2008.

4
Ibid.

5
Gregory Acs, Pamela J. Loprest, September 1, 2003, "A Study of the District of Columbia's TANF
Caseload", p. 3, on-line at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410863&renderforprint=1, downloaded
December 18, 2008.

6
Gregory Acs, Pamela J. Loprest, January 3, 2001, "The Status of TANF Leavers in the District of
Columbia, Final Report", pp. 2, 3, on-line at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410022&renderforprint=1,
downloaded December 18, 2008.

7
Gregory Acs, Pamela J. Loprest, September 1, 2003, "A Study of the District of Columbia's TANF
Caseload", p. 4, on-line at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410863&renderforprint=1, downloaded
December 18, 2008.

8
National Center for Education Statistics, February 1998, "Parent Involvement in Children's Education:
Efforts by Public Elementary Schools," on-line at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/98032/,
downloaded December 18, 2008.

9
DC Women's Agenda, No Date, "Guiding Principles for Legislation or Regulations that Impact TANF
Households".

Jennifer Mezey from the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia assisted with this
publication; she edited and made substantive contributions. Her knowledge of TANF and the
history of welfare reform in the District are invaluable to this analysis.

Prepared by Susie Cambria, MSW, Public Policy Consultant

Contact information: (301) 832-2339 cell, [email protected]
Publication Date: December 22, 2008