According to GAO's analysis of data in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS), on average, low-wage workers worked fewer hours per week, were more highly concentrated in a few industries and occupations, and had lower educational attainment than workers earning hourly wages above $16 in each year GAO reviewed—1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2016. Their percentage of the U.S. workforce also stayed relatively constant over time. About 40 percent of the U.S. workforce ages 25 to 64 earned hourly wages of $16 or less (in constant 2016 dollars) over the period 1995 through 2016. The combination of low wages and few hours worked compounded the income disadvantage of low-wage workers and likely contributed to their potential eligibility for federal social safety net programs.

About 20 percent of families with a worker earning up to the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour), 13 percent of families with a worker earning above federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour, and 5 percent of families with a worker earning $12.01 to $16 per hour were in poverty in each year GAO reviewed (see figure).The extent of poverty varied considerably by the type of family in which a worker lived. For example, single-parent families earning the federal minimum wage or below comprised a higher percentage of families in poverty. In contrast, married families with no children comprised the lowest percentage of families in poverty, and generally had family incomes at or above the poverty line.

On Tuesday, October 10, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted an event on the state of safety-net programs under the Trump administration to include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The discussion was moderated by AEI’s Robert Doar with a panel of Wade Horn, the former assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families; Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation; and Ron Haskins from the Brookings Institution.

Project IMPROVE, which is funded by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA), is a training and technical assistance resource for TANF programs interested in improving outcomes for low-income families. Under contract with OFA, Mathematica Policy Research works in partnership with state and local TANF agencies using the Learn, Innovate, Improve (LI2) process to execute collaborative, evidence-informed program change. LI2 was developed by Mathematica in partnership with the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University with support from the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. This process has been or is being used in dozens of TANF and workforce agencies across the country to design, implement, and test innovative strategies to improve program performance and client outcomes.

This OFA-sponsored webinar on October 26th from 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. EST provided an overview of the LI2 process, drawing upon recent examples of how it has helped large and small, urban and rural TANF programs make targeted improvements and manage change. We highlighted innovations that have emerged from TANF programs using this process. Presenters included Michelle Derr and Jonathan McCay from Mathematica Policy Research, Dena Jardine from the Larimer County Workforce Center in Colorado, and Noelle Simmons from the San Francisco Human Services Agency.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (HHS/ACF/OFA) Regions V and VII hosted the TANF Technical Assistance Meeting, Innovations in TANF: Setting the Stage for the Next 20 Years on June 22-24, 2016, at the Bolling Federal Building in Kansas City Missouri. The meeting brought together TANF program administrators and other key stakeholders to engage with peers on innovative strategies and collaborations to promote economic and social well-being for individuals, families, and communities. Meeting attendees were provided with opportunities to discuss best practices and latest research, as well as to plan ways to improve TANF programming for low-income families in their jurisdictions.

This blog post from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families details the reasoning behind a recent decision to rescind waivers from TANF work requirements. Strengthening work requirements is not intended to be punitive, but rather to emphasize the importance of work as a crucial means of attaining self-sufficiency. The goal of this new policy is to help states engage TANF participants in work and work activities more consistently.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance released 22 work participation rate tables for fiscal year 2016. The tables include an average number of work-eligible individuals participating in work activities, the average number of hours of work participation per week, and the average number of families with sufficient work hours to meet the work requirement.

The Office of Family Assistance’s (OFA) Systems to Family Stability National Policy Academy (Policy Academy) was an 18-month intensive technical assistance (TA) initiative in 2015–2016 for seven states and one county interested in modernizing and improving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) practice. During the initiative, sites received dedicated coaches, onsite strategic planning, access to expert consultants, and tailored written resources. Additionally, they participated in several in-person convenings, peer exchanges, and virtual training. These state profiles detail the journey and lessons learned of the 8 teams that participated in the Policy Academy.

This policy brief from the Center for Poverty Research at UC Davis highlights new research that demonstrates a connection between a parent being employed or receiving cash assistance and a higher likelihood of the parent(s) being reunified with their children after a child welfare interaction. It provides examples of how a parent may become economically disconnected once their child is removed and how this can significantly impact the chance of reunification. Suggestions for further supporting vulnerable families are given.