"Reducing benefit levels below recent AFDC levels (which have already been significantly reduced over the last two decades) is clearly not in the best interests of children"(p26).

"We hope that states will avoid contradictory policy initiatives. Despite the commitment to marriage and two-parent families, the new law permits states to opt out of the 1988 reform requiring that AFDC-UP (unemployed parent) be offered" (p26).

"There is potential danger in contracting with for-profit organizations for welfare eligibility determination" (p26).

"Many TANF recipients have limited skills, face a tough job market, and will need to re-orient family routines substantially; they should be helped- and that will take time"(p27).

"A ‘family cap,’ another state option (a ‘new’ child, conceived while the family receives welfare aid, is not added to the budget) could serve only to harm children dependent on public aid, and gives no promise of accomplishing its announced objective of discouraging out-of-wedlock parenting"(p27).

"States should sustain the child support ‘bonus’ that existed under AFDC out of their own resources if necessary"(p27).

"States should avoid diverting federal funds from the cash assistance and work programs, and thus undercutting TANF" (p28).

"States need to build their own rainy day fund and should use some of their windfall funds to do this"(p28).

"States need to pay special attention to their cities"(p28).

"States need to monitor closely the path between TANF and SSI, on the one hand, and child welfare, on the other"(p29).

"States need to develop clear goals regarding what they expect their new plans to accomplish, and then collect the data that will permit them to assess whether they have achieved these goals"(p29).