Ask the Scholar
Page 105 of 122
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
child comments care
Charlotte Brantley
Child care
Preliminary OMB/DPC comments/questions on TANF draft Final Rule:
Bonus to Reward States for High Performance
PHOTOCOPY
June 21, 2000
PRESERVATION
General
All the defense of measuring food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP make the child
care argument very hard to understand and seem inconsistent.
?
I'm OK their amending TAUF nile to deal at suprodue
p. 2
Please explain the reference to the amendment to 45 CFR Part 265.
p.4
Since this rule is related to me heald delinking issues, should the summary of
PRWORA include that provision of the Act?
5
"As we stated in this earlier rulemaking is unclear since many earlier
rulemakings are cited in the previous paragraph.
R.6
Please add "enforcement": Child support enforcement programs
are
?
p. 10
President made high performance bonus announcement on 12/4 (Saturday radio
address), not 12/6.
Their edit an P. 14 is ac C+ its one 2 say 12/6
onM/FS
They G.C. Mets date of NPRM, publicahar ).
states
30s
p.19 & 29
P.
Did all states object to the FS/M But dicaid/SCHIP ney should measures? shill Were fix there the any states P. reference to beflect
that supported them?
Medicaid- 3 states neutral
rest
POTUS annown
allistrations
Does the reference to "almost all Washington commenters objected to the family formation " neutral
FS- istate supported all either my on12/4 ment
mean all commenters on the rule, or all commenters on this measure?
Approximately how many/what percent of total commenters objected? Who were
the negative commenters? How did states react? Did Hill comments tend to be
wellstone opposed
negative or silent?
50-
48 opposed / 2 Catholic favor
charities
p.24
Second to last sentence: Saying that states "could not spend program funds to
improve [food stamps] program participation" seems like an overstatement in
light of the discussion on pp. 89-90. It needs either to be more specific ("could
not spend program funds on activities that are reimbursable under the Food Stamp
Act") or to make it clear that this reflects states' perceptions only ("they believed
they could not spend program funds to improve program participation").
p. 26
Should we add a bullet arguing that greater accountability for outcomes
(measured both within and beyond TANF) is a complement to greater state
flexibility? No, not the
p.30
p.
30
Is implication of last paragraph that state would deny work services in order to
keep family under 200% of poverty? Seems like a stretch.
ask new question on P. 29/30 who were the few who on Dammended Mis measure efforts
Family Formation
underned the credibility because their no support in data
or defining what we would be measuring
Page data
- Page
- 105
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 314aa75d4569f0a6
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 565374850
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "565374850",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565374850",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] - High Performance Bonus - Final Rule [binder] [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565374850",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 122,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "565374850",
"label": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] - High Performance Bonus - Final Rule [binder] [1]",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565374850"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "565374850",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565374850",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] - High Performance Bonus - Final Rule [binder] [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565374850",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 122,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565374850",
"naId": 565374850,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 105,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025/7367483-20200317S-023-008-2025-105.jpg",
"mediaId": "314aa75d4569f0a6",
"ocrText": "child comments care\nCharlotte Brantley\nChild care\nPreliminary OMB/DPC comments/questions on TANF draft Final Rule:\nBonus to Reward States for High Performance\nPHOTOCOPY\nJune 21, 2000\nPRESERVATION\nGeneral\nAll the defense of measuring food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP make the child\ncare argument very hard to understand and seem inconsistent.\n?\nI'm OK their amending TAUF nile to deal at suprodue\np. 2\nPlease explain the reference to the amendment to 45 CFR Part 265.\np.4\nSince this rule is related to me heald delinking issues, should the summary of\nPRWORA include that provision of the Act?\n5\n\"As we stated in this earlier rulemaking is unclear since many earlier\nrulemakings are cited in the previous paragraph.\nR.6\nPlease add \"enforcement\": Child support enforcement programs\nare\n?\np. 10\nPresident made high performance bonus announcement on 12/4 (Saturday radio\naddress), not 12/6.\nTheir edit an P. 14 is ac C+ its one 2 say 12/6\nonM/FS\nThey G.C. Mets date of NPRM, publicahar ).\nstates\n30s\np.19 & 29\nP.\nDid all states object to the FS/M But dicaid/SCHIP ney should measures? shill Were fix there the any states P. reference to beflect\nthat supported them?\nMedicaid- 3 states neutral\nrest\nPOTUS annown\nallistrations\nDoes the reference to \"almost all Washington commenters objected to the family formation \" neutral\nFS- istate supported all either my on12/4 ment\nmean all commenters on the rule, or all commenters on this measure?\nApproximately how many/what percent of total commenters objected? Who were\nthe negative commenters? How did states react? Did Hill comments tend to be\nwellstone opposed\nnegative or silent?\n50-\n48 opposed / 2 Catholic favor\ncharities\np.24\nSecond to last sentence: Saying that states \"could not spend program funds to\nimprove [food stamps] program participation\" seems like an overstatement in\nlight of the discussion on pp. 89-90. It needs either to be more specific (\"could\nnot spend program funds on activities that are reimbursable under the Food Stamp\nAct\") or to make it clear that this reflects states' perceptions only (\"they believed\nthey could not spend program funds to improve program participation\").\np. 26\nShould we add a bullet arguing that greater accountability for outcomes\n(measured both within and beyond TANF) is a complement to greater state\nflexibility? No, not the\np.30\np.\n30\nIs implication of last paragraph that state would deny work services in order to\nkeep family under 200% of poverty? Seems like a stretch.\nask new question on P. 29/30 who were the few who on Dammended Mis measure efforts\nFamily Formation\nunderned the credibility because their no support in data\nor defining what we would be measuring"
}