The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 famously “ended welfare as we [knew] it” by replacing the state-operated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a revised funding scheme called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In the summer of 2012, controversy erupted over a memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), concerning state options for TANF performance reporting. Opponents of the Obama administration claimed the policy initiative specified in the memorandum signaled a fundamental change in direction of the national welfare policy established by PRWORA—that it “gutted” welfare reform. The memorandum has not (as of 2016) been rescinded, and the issues raised in the ensuing controversy remain unresolved. We review the controversy. We argue that while there is some justification in criticism of the Obama administration's strategy, the initiative addressed an important problem: the inadequacy of the program's performance measure given the variation in resources available to states in meeting the program's goals. The ACF memo was in our judgment a responsible step toward finding methods for improving TANF performance and, as conducted, the guts debate retarded this search.

中文翻译：

---

恢复福利改革的内脏

1996 年的《个人责任与工作机会和解法案》(PRWORA) 以一项名为“有需要的临时援助”(Temporary Assistance for Needy) 的修订资金计划取代了国家运营的对有受抚养子女的家庭的援助 (AFDC) 计划，从而“终止了我们[所知道的] 福利”。家庭 (TANF)。2012 年夏天，美国卫生与公众服务部 (HHS) 儿童和家庭管理局 (ACF) 发布的一份备忘录引发了争议，该备忘录涉及 TANF 绩效报告的州选项。奥巴马政府的反对者声称，备忘录中规定的政策倡议标志着 PRWORA 制定的国家福利政策方向发生了根本性变化——它“摧毁”了福利改革。该备忘录尚未（截至 2016 年）被撤销，在随后的争议中提出的问题仍未得到解决。我们审查争议。我们认为，虽然批评奥巴马政府的战略有一定道理，但该倡议解决了一个重要问题：鉴于各州在实现计划目标方面可用资源的差异，该计划的绩效衡量指标不足。在我们看来，ACF 备忘录是朝着寻找提高 TANF 性能的方法迈出的负责任的一步，正如所进行的那样，胆量辩论阻碍了这一搜索。考虑到各州在实现计划目标时可用资源的变化，s 绩效衡量标准。在我们看来，ACF 备忘录是朝着寻找提高 TANF 性能的方法迈出的负责任的一步，正如所进行的那样，胆量辩论阻碍了这一搜索。考虑到各州在实现计划目标时可用资源的变化，s 绩效衡量标准。在我们看来，ACF 备忘录是朝着寻找提高 TANF 性能的方法迈出的负责任的一步，正如所进行的那样，胆量辩论阻碍了这一搜索。