From TANF-UN to No TANF-UN? What Do Unemployment Numbers Say?
Oregon’s horrific new unemployment numbers mean more struggling families, including two-parent families. Children in some of those families have more to fear than just today’s news, as a program that could help them sits under the budget ax.
The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program provides small cash assistance grants, which, when coupled with food stamps and the Oregon Health Plan, supply minimal support for very poor families with children under the age of 19.
While TANF is primarily a program for children in single-parent households, there is a small program for children in two-parent households (TANF-UN) where the parents are unemployed or seriously underemployed. In February 2009 there were 2,539 families with children being helped in the two-parent program, compared to 20,966 single-parent households in the regular TANF program.
The number of families in the two-parent TANF-UN program in February was double the level in February 2008. The twofold increase speaks volumes about our economic situation.
Last December, with Oregon’s unemployment rate climbing, Governor Kulongoski proposed closing this very children’s program under his proposed budget for the next budget cycle.
Shouldn’t this week’s new unemployment numbers help save children in the two-parent TANF-UN program from the budget ax?
|
March 16, 2009 |
Chuck Sheketoff | Comments (24 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Daniel | Mar 16, 2009 5:43:01 PM
Does anyone else notice that there are ten times as many single parents needing this? More evidence that single motherhood is not something to be celebrated but something to be looked down upon.
The fact that the social stigma of unwed birth has gone by the wayside has punished children who now suffer poverty.
Marriage would provide the best support for these kids.
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 16, 2009 7:06:28 PM
single parents needing this? More evidence that single motherhood is not something to be celebrated but something to be looked down upon.
Nice ASSumption that single parent are only mothers. Single dad's are a rapidly growing group...
The fact that the social stigma of unwed birth has gone by the wayside has punished children who now suffer poverty.
Look no further than the GOP who celebrated Bristol Palin's pregnancy at the convention. She was a true hero to the fools and now, big surprise, no marriage. Sad.
Posted by: Brian C. | Mar 16, 2009 7:08:58 PM
No, we should not celebrate single motherhood per se but let's not forget about the absentee fathers. Bottom line, procreation is always a choice where consensual sex is concerned. If a woman is not using one of the many available birth control products then she clearly wants to get knocked up. The same is true for a man who chooses not to use a condom. It's just that simple.
How marriage is somehow a solution to the problem I'll never know. Are you suggesting state sanctioned shotgun weddings? If so, how would such a ludicrous (though hilarious to envision) policy solve anything?
Posted by: Bologna on Wonderbread | Mar 16, 2009 7:23:55 PM
Why is Oregon unemployment so much higher than Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona or Colorado? Aren't they all suffering from the same "Bush Depression"?
What did they do differently?
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 16, 2009 7:29:39 PM
in re:Bologna
Does anyone know of an legitimate studies done that address this issue. IMO this is a topic that should be front and center.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 16, 2009 9:44:14 PM
Maybe if the other parent actually paid their child support, you wouldn't see so many single parent households needing assistance. Increasing the child support collection rate is something I know AG Kroger is committed to, as it affects so many parts of our society.
Also, not every single parent is an unwed mother. They may be a widow, a widower, maybe their partner was abusive, maybe they're divorced, etc. Not every one is just a whore who decided to get knocked up. And not every one of them was deciding not to use birth control - it's not 100% effective, you know. Not to mention many women can't use hormone-based birth control, are allergic to condoms, etc.
The issue here isn't sex (although some real sex ed for teens would be good). It's about jobs that pay enough to live on, about absent parents paying their child support, etc.
Posted by: Scott J | Mar 17, 2009 2:07:40 PM
We should probably teach this statistic in our high school classes as part of sex eduction:
"If you become pregnant and the guy isn't man enough to provide for the child financially, you are roughly ten times more likely than a "committed" person to be on the welfare roles".
If we are going to teach them about sex, we should share with them the financial statistics that accompany single parent households and the finances of being an early parent.
Yes, of course there are exceptions to the rule and some people live fabulous lives as single parents.
Posted by: Brian C. | Mar 17, 2009 5:33:50 PM
Of course there are exceptions to every rule Jenni. That does not invalidate the rule.
Posted by: Ole Barn | Mar 19, 2009 2:05:43 PM
How many heads of households with children are one pink slip away from needing assistance? The published unemployment rate is above 10%. This makes the real unemployment rate somewhere around 20% because half the unemployed people do not qualify for unemployment insurance from which we receive our statistics. Households with two caretaker adults become no less needy when their source of income ends than do households headed by a single adult.
TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is designed to assist families with children. Have needy children done anything that warrants their being discriminated against because of the past actions of their parent or parents?
We must value people above profits or brick-and-mortar buildings.
Posted by: John | Mar 19, 2009 7:14:24 PM
I am a former welfare caseworker. I was there when we didn't allow two parent families eligibility for benefits.
You know what happened? In order to survive, one parent had to leave (usually Dad). You don't save any money, you break up families and we are all worse off for it. A really bad side effect is that Dad frequently never came back. A much better alternative is to provide better job finding support (or even subsidized work) and help people get back on their feet. These folks did not cause a collapsed economy. It was corporate scumbags.
Posted by: Bartender | Mar 25, 2009 9:53:45 PM
Of course there are exceptions to every rule Jenni. That does not invalidate the rule.
Um yeah, actually, it does. Especially when the "exceptions" are more plentiful than the "rule." MOST women on welfare have only 2 kids on average, and are actually widowed, separated or divorced.
I did a paper on this when I went back to school a few years ago. I'd have to dig up my sources, since I don't have them on my computer any more, but they're there without too much digging online. That is if you really care about the truth, Brian, rather than the outmoded welfare queen rhetoric from the 80s and 90s.
Thanks for all your points Jenni. I was gonna say the same thing, but you did it better... and a lot faster!
I wish Chuck would have published the current monthly TANF grants. I don't know what recipients get now, but three years ago, a family of 3 got about $500 per month and the rate hadn't been raised since the mid 90's. All this uproar about giving extremely destitute families with children $500 a month for a family of three? Give me a break!
Let's see how well anyone can pay their monthly expenses - rent, utilities, and things like laundry soap, toilet paper, and clothing on $500 a month. TANF (and TANF-UN) is a last ditch effort to keep these families together and off the streets.
Something like 30% of all children entering foster care were in families that received TANF in the previous year. Kulongoski had a TANF Children's Initiative (or some similarly named thing) a few years back to address this, but it puttered away without much fanfare. These children were not abused or neglected, their parents simply could not afford to house, clothe and feed them properly. That is stunning, in my opinion. And that was back when times were good and the economy wasn't in the tank. I shudder to think what these statistics look like now.
Posted by: Emily | Apr 24, 2009 10:20:23 PM
First of all I would like to say that I am a new mother. My daughter is now almost 5 months old. I was laid off when I was 5 months pregnant, and due to the economy was not able to find a job. My husband was laid off three weeks before I had my daughter prematurely. He has two other children, of which their mother will not allow him to see, and we have exhausted ALL of our resources. Between getting TWO roommates, letting our car get repossessed, having our electricity shut off TWICE now. I have finally admitted defeat. We were fortunate enough to get our daughter (which has health problems due to being born premature) on the oregon health plan and get a tiny amount on food stamps. We were making together almost 150K a year. And now we are trying to live on 387 a week. He is paying what the max amount of child support that the state will take out. But in the mean time we have to "bum" laundry soap off our roommates while his children are being well taken care of. Where is the justice in that? What about the people that had everything they wanted and more, and now have absolutely NOTHING. How can you people say that people are not trying and "abusing" the state system when there are honest people out there that are truly in need of the help? People that ARE paying child support that could use the money more than the custodial parent does? and no I am not saying that parents should not pay anything either. But where is that fine line?
Posted by: free online games | Jun 17, 2009 3:14:28 AM
That someone credible said that. Lots of folks said similar things- well, count it a number of different ways- since the Great Depression.
Posted by: Lenkradadapter | Jun 19, 2009 12:47:52 AM
I have finally admitted defeat. We were fortunate enough to get our daughter which has health problems due to being born premature on the oregon health plan and get a tiny amount on food stamps.
Regards,
Posted by: diet plans | Aug 6, 2009 6:17:06 AM
In terms of shutting down a business until compliance, I am still unable to understand why this can't be done through the administrative process if power is granted under statute.
Posted by: bayrak | Aug 9, 2009 6:25:06 AM
Introducing such a topic you'd like to congratulate you've let us know. Have good work
Posted by: Essay | Aug 11, 2009 1:53:10 AM
Despite not making the stage, Donna got more camera time than most of the models with her "come on down" walk. For TPIR fans.
Posted by: Antique Dealers | Aug 11, 2009 3:04:03 PM
I think we're going to see a job recovery in the next year.
Posted by: rw | Aug 11, 2009 9:05:04 PM
Chuck: thank you from the bottom of my heart for speaking to this.
Posted by: rw | Aug 11, 2009 9:17:17 PM
Some would ask why the $150K folks saved nothing or lived so out there at the bursting seams edge of those more than plenty means... there is plenty of diatribe to go around, Emily, and I hear your pain. I've often thought that those who had plenty might just suffer even worse than those like me who grew up in want. We are used to it, and as children we don't know it's grinding our parent's souls to dust. Perhaps getting lost in comparisons of where people are existing at is a pit to not fall into - it will sap you of precious energy, the light of your strong soul, which you need now to create more light for survival, for your life. Boy do I know what I'm talking about, from a few different sides.
It may be possible that the mother of his children wondered how you could live as you did and she and the kids, possibly/probably, quite left behind in her perception, her reality, no matter how it appeared from your vantage. I think the psychodynamic of destitution, loss, fear of scarcity and REAL survivalist want create poor politics.
After suffering from the longterm hemorrage of Oregon's economy in 1999 onward, I found to my sad horror that at last my good politics, my heart resistant to envy, self pity and entitlement over another's position... were gone sour. It has taken me some years of being well reemployed and back to doing work that is interesting if not always as meaningful as I'd been able to enjoy to start leaving behind the bad politics of fear.
The sad thing about your position, I know you are probably stuck trying to pay that child support you so desperately want in your pockets now because going to court is not an option! Getting it calibrated to real earnings, for you, is out of reach. And for her, to get it recalibrated once you are back to your 150K good life.... she probably could not afford THAT.
You are all caught in something dehumanizing, ugly.
Posted by: bike games | Sep 4, 2009 1:11:26 PM
In this economic situation the unemployment is a huge problem for many families.
Posted by: Van leasing | Sep 21, 2009 4:13:18 AM
I think the biggest worry is there doesn't seem to be a slowing down of people losing their jobs despite all the encouragement the Government tries to give in the media, Businesses are still going under which means everyone is trying to cut costs and no one is taking on or training new staff.
Posted by: Bad Credit Repair | Oct 12, 2009 10:10:25 AM
Job recovery is really on rough grounds. I sure hope things turn around for the economy.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Mar 16, 2009 5:07:32 PM
Absolutely! It should be saved. In fact I can't believe it is even being considered.
On the note of unemployment if you know anyone looking for an HR Genius please let me know. Partner was laid off back in August and while I swore it wasn't something I would talk about in the blog-o-sphere, 7 months of living off my paycheck and the one he gets from the state has definitely changed my perspecive on a number of things.