Order Code RL32760
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions
Updated March 31August 23, 2005
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜{ The Library of Congress
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF)
Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions
Summary
The 109th Congress is considering legislation to extend funding and possibly
amend the block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which
was created in the 1996 welfare reform law. The original funding authority provided
in the 1996 law expired at the end of FY2002. Since then, Congress has
inconclusively debated legislation to reauthorize TANF (and some related programs)
but has kept the program alive through temporary extensions. The latest such
extension is scheduled to expire on JuneSeptember 30, 2005. Reauthorization bills introduced
introduced for the 109th Congress (H.R. 240, S. 667) have policies that mirror those
of bills
considered during the previous three years.
This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF — about
its caseload, funding, and how states have complied with work participation rules.
It will be updated as new data to respond to these questions become available.
Additionally, if new questions are frequently asked, responses to them will also be
added to this report. This report does not provide a description or detailed
background information about TANF current law or pending legislation, but refers
readers to other Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports for that information.
Caseload. In JuneDecember of 2004, a total of 2.1 million needy families with children
children received cash assistance from TANF or from related state programs. The
number of
families receiving cash assistance is down by more than half (58%) from the
the historical peak of 5.1 million families receiving cash assistance in March of 1994.
Funding. TANF provides fixed funding to states — the bulk of the funding is
provided in a $16.5 billion per year basic block grant. The grant is not adjusted for
changes in the cash welfare caseload (see above) or for inflation. From FY1997
through FY2004, the TANF cash grant lost 15% of its value (purchasing power)
because of inflation.
In FY2003FY2004, states transferred $2.87 billion to other block grants (16.315.9% of the
TANF block grant): $1.9 billion to the child care block grant and $0.98 billion to the
Social Services Block Grant. As of September 30, 20032004 (end of FY2003FY2004), there
remained a total of $3.98 billion in unspent TANF funds.
Work Requirements. Though TANF law sets a statutory standard that a state
must have 50% of its caseload (that includes an adult or teen parent) participating in
work or work activities, this standard is reduced by a “caseload reduction credit.”
The caseload reduction credit reduces the TANF work participation standard one
percentage point for each percent decline in the caseload since FY1995. In FY2003,
this meant that 20 states had effective (after credit) standards of 0%. States actually
achieved a 31.3% participation rate in FY2003 — well below the 50% statutory
standard, but high enough above the effective (after credit) standards so that all states
except Nevada and Guam met the 50% participation standard.
Contents
Current Status of the Program and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why Is Welfare Legislation Being Considered in the 109th Congress? . 1
How Many Times Has Congress Enacted Temporary Extensions
Extensions of TANF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Is There an Administration Proposal to Reauthorize TANF? . . . . . . . . 2
Has There Been Legislative Action to Reauthorize TANF Since
2002? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002? 2
The Cash Welfare Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Many Families and Recipients Currently
Receive Cash
Welfare? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Much Has the Cash Welfare Caseload
Declined Since
the Mid- 1990s? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Are There Any Adjustments to the TANF Block Grant for
for Changes in Circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value
Because of
Inflation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Been Transferred
to the Child
Care and Social Service Block Grants? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? . . 56
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? . . . 6
Appendix: State Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash
Welfare, Welfare:
October 1976-JuneDecember 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . 4
List of Tables
Table 1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: June
December 1994,
2000, 2003, and 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table A2. TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services
Block Grant, FY2003FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table A3. Cumulative TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social
Services Services
Block Grants, FY1997-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table A4. Unspent TANF Funds as of September 30, 20032004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table A5. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for All Families,
FY2003, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table A6. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for
for Two-Parent Families, FY2003, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions
This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended as a
quick reference to provide easy access to information and data. This report is not
intended to discuss TANF or welfare issues. For a discussion of welfare issues, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10104IB10140, Welfare Reauthorization: Overview of the Issues. This
report also does not provide information on TANF program rules. For such
information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on Financing and Requirements for State
Programs.
Current Status of the Program and Legislation
Why Is Welfare Legislation Being Considered in the 109th
Congress? The original funding authority for TANF, mandatory child care, and
state grants for abstinence education provided in the 1996 welfare law expired at the
end of FY2002 (September 30, 2002). Since then, Congress has inconclusively
debated legislation that would have provided a multiyear reauthorization of the
program. These programs have been continued under stop-gap, temporary measures,
the latest of which will expire on JuneSeptember 30, 2005. Congress thus faces the issue of
welfare reauthorization in 2005
of welfare reauthorization.
How Many Times Has Congress Enacted Temporary Extensions of
TANF? H.R. 11603021, signed by the President March 25July 1, 2005 (P.L. 109-419), was the
ninth tenth
temporary extension of TANF. Table 1 provides a listing of the laws that have
extended TANF, up to the latest extension, which runs until JuneSeptember 30, 2005. These
These extensions have not changed TANF policy, and the program has been
operating in
FY2003-FY2005 just as it did in FY2002.
CRS-2
Table 1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2005
Public law
Time period
Notes
P.L. 107-229
Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002
Extension as a part of a continuing
resolution.
P.L. 107-294
Jan. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2003
Extension as part of a continuing
resolution.
P.L. 108-7
Apr. 1, 2003-June 30, 2003
Extension as a part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act.
P.L. 108-40
July 1, 2003-Sept. 30, 2003
Free-standing bill that amended the
Social Security Act to extend TANF
and related programs.
P.L. 108-89
Oct. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2004
Multipurpose bill that extended
programs through the first half of
FY2004.
P.L. 108-210
Apr. 1, 2004-June 30, 2004
Free-standing bill extending funding
authority for the program through June
30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262
July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004
Free-standing bill extending funding
authority for the program through
Sept. 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308
Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005
Free-standing bill to extend funding
authority for the programs through
Mar. 31, 2005.
P.L. 109-4
Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005
Free-standing bill to extend funding
authority for the programs through
June 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-19
July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005.
Free-standing bill to extend funding
authority for the programs through
Sept. 30, 2005.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Is There an Administration Proposal to Reauthorize TANF? Yes. In
February 2002, the Bush Administration issued its proposal to reauthorize and amend
TANF, Working Toward Independence.1
Has There Been Legislative Action to Reauthorize TANF Since
2002? The House passed a bill in May 2002 (H.R. 4737, 107th Congress), generally
1
Available online from the White House website at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2002/02/welfare-reform-announcement-book.pdf].
CRS-3
aligned with the President’s proposal. An alternative bill was reported from the
Senate Finance Committee that July but the full Senate never took up the bill.
1
Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-reformannouncement-book.pdf].
CRS-3
Early in the 108th Congress, the House again passed a bill that generally
followed the Administration proposal (H.R. 4, 108th Congress, passed the House in
February 2003). Eight months later, the Senate Finance Committee again reported
a substitute measure. The Finance Committee bill came to the Senate floor in late
March 2004, but its consideration was set aside on April 1, 2004 when a motion to
limit debate on the bill failed to muster the needed 60 votes. The bill never
reappeared on the floor for consideration. Reauthorization bills being considered in
the 109th Congress (H.R. 240, S. 667) have policies that mirror those of the bills
considered during the previous three years.
The Cash Welfare Caseload
How Many Families and Recipients Currently Receive Cash
Welfare? In June ofDecember 2004 (latest data available) about 2.1 million families received
received cash welfare either funded from TANF block grants or state programs with
expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement. For
state-specific caseload numbers, see Appendix A, Table A1.
How Much Has the Cash Welfare Caseload Declined Since the Mid1990s? Historically, the cash welfare caseload peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million
families. The 2.1 million families receiving cash welfare as of June 2004 represents
December 2004
represents a decline of 58% since its historical peak.
Figure 1 shows the trend
nationally in the number of families receiving cash
assistance from October 1975 to June
December 2004. Table A1 shows state-by-state the
number of families receiving
cash welfare in JuneDecember 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004.
CRS-4
Figure 1. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash
Welfare,: October 1976-JuneDecember 2004
6,000,000
March 1994:
5.1 million families
5,000,000
4,000,000
June 2004:
2.1 million families
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
O
O
ct
-7
6
ct
-7
7
O
ct
-7
8
O
ct
-7
9
O
ct
-8
0
O
ct
-8
1
O
ct
-8
2
O
ct
-8
3
O
ct
-8
4
O
ct
-8
5
O
ct
-8
6
O
ct
-8
7
O
ct
-8
8
O
ct
-8
9
O
ct
-9
0
O
ct
-9
1
O
ct
-9
2
O
ct
-9
3
O
ct
-9
4
O
ct
-9
5
O
ct
-9
6
O
ct
-9
7
O
ct
-9
8
O
ct
-9
9
O
ct
-0
0
O
ct
-0
1
O
ct
-0
2
O
ct
-0
3
-
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
December 2004:
2.1 million families
1,000,000
Oct-04
Oct-02
Oct-00
Oct-98
Oct-96
Oct-94
Oct-92
Oct-90
Oct-88
Oct-86
Oct-84
Oct-82
Oct-80
Oct-78
Oct-76
0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-4
Program Funding
Are There Any Adjustments to the TANF Block Grant for Changes
in Circumstances? No. Aside from contingency funds for a recession and bonus
funds based on state performance, the amount of funds received by the states is fixed
and not adjusted for either inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload.
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of
Inflation? From FY1997 (the first year of TANF funding) through FY2004 (ended
September 30, 2004), the real value of the basic TANF block grant declined by 15%.
Based on inflation projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in JanuaryAugust
2005, the block grant would decline by 2526% from FY1997 through FY2010. Table
2 shows the value of the basic TANF block grant from FY1997 through FY2010 in
constant 1997 dollars.
CRS-5
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
Fiscal yearYear
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Value of the block
grant in billionsBlock
Grant in Bilions of
FY1997 dollarsDollars
$16.5
16.2
15.9
15.4
14.9
14.7
14.4
14.1
13.76
13.43
13.10
12.97
12.64
12.32
Cumulative loss of
valueLoss of
Value (in percent)
—
-2%
-3%
-6%
-9%
-11%
-13%
-15%
-17
-19%
-20%
-21%
-22
-23%
-25%
-26%
-25
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Constant dollars were
computed using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Actual inflation was
used to compute constant dollars for FY1997-FY2004 using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Constant dollars for FY2005 through FY2010 are based on the inflation assumptions of the
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), published in JanAugust. 2005.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Been Transferred to the Child
Care and Social Service Block Grants? In FY2003FY2004 (the latest year for which
data are available) states transferred a total of $2.87 billion (16.315.9% of the block grant):
$1.9 billion (10.811.2% of the TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $0.9
billion 8
billion (4.7% of the block grant) to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). See
Table A2 for transfers by
state. In FY2003, Oklahoma transferred the maximum 30% of TANF (six other
states transferred just about the maximum, more than 29% of TANF). state.
Cumulatively over the lifetime of TANF (FY1997-FY2003FY2004), a total of $18.421.0
billion (16.015.9% of the block grant) has been transferred: $11.613.5 billion (10.12% of the
CRS-5
TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $6.87.5 billion (5.97% of the TANF
block grant) to SSBG. Table A3 shows cumulative transfers by state to the child
care block grant and SSBG.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? At the end of
FY2003FY2004 (September 30, 20032004, the latest data available), a total of $3.98 billion of
TANF block grants had not either been transferred or spent. This represents 3.32.8%
of all TANF grants provided to the states over the FY1997-FY2003FY2004 period.
Some of the $3.98 billion in unspent TANF funds represents funds for
commitments that states already made. Through the end of September 20032004, states
had made commitments to spend — obligations — that have yet to result in
expenditures totaling $1.69 billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments
CRS-6
to spend in the form of contracts, grants, or other types of commitments to provide
benefits and services. However, the definition of “obligation” varies from program
to program, and since TANF essentially comprises 54 different programs, what
constitutes an obligation may vary among the states.
The remaining $2.31.9 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated
balance.”
These are the funds states have available for new commitments.
Table A4 shows TANF unspent funds available as of September 30, 2003 by
state. Note that some transfers from TANF may remain unspent in the child care
block grant and SSBG program; such unspent transfers are not included in the figures
for unspent TANF funds.
TANF Work Participation Standards
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet?
The TANF statute requires states to have 50% of their caseload with an adult or teen
household head meet standards of participation in work or activities — that is, a
family member must be in specified activities for a minimum number of hours.
There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a
state’s caseload, requiring 90% of its two-parent caseload to meet participation
standards.
However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a
“caseload
reduction credit,” which reduces TANF work participation standards one percentage
percentage point for each percent decline in a state’s cash welfare caseload from
FY1995. This
has significantly reduced the effective (after credit) work participation
standard states
must meet. For FY2003 work participation (latest data currently
available), the
caseload reduction credit reduced participation standards to 0% in 20
states. (That
is, the caseload reduction credit equaled or exceeded 50%.)
Table A5 shows the statutory and effective (after-credit) work participation
standards and actual work participation rates achieved by states for FY2003 for all
families. Table A6 shows the same information for the two-parent portion of the
caseload.
CRS-6
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?
In FY2003 (latest year of available data), the national average work participation rate
for all families achieved by states was 31.3% — well below the statutory 50%
participation standard, but, because of the caseload reduction credit, high enough so
that all jurisdictions except Nevada and Guam met the FY2003 standard. The
participation rate achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was
48.4%. In FY2003, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Guam, and West Virginia
failed to meet the two-parent standard.
Actual work participation rates for each state are shown on Table A5 (all family
family rates) and Table A6 (two-parent family rates).
CRS-7
Appendix: State Tables
Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: June
December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Col.Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Jun-94
49,482
12,977
71,530
25,892
919,535
41,378
59,701
11,239
27,443
239,232
139,566
1,973
20,844
8,739
242,740
72,881
39,813
30,020
79,225
85,741
22,641
79,706
110,108
222,472
63,043
55,183
92,265
12,004
15,649
14,207
11,591
122,536
33,732
460,590
131,065
5,725
247,886
46,864
41,982
211,431
58,484
22,737
51,590
6,868
109,339
282,902
17,536
Jun-00
18,839
7,542
32,769
12,046
552,221
10,772
28,840
5,920
17,071
64,446
50,891
2,760
20,689
1,308
79,913
36,043
20,860
12,469
37,471
25,520
12,277
30,522
41,761
70,285
39,295
14,979
48,812
4,467
10,088
6,146
5,791
51,847
22,701
248,148
44,420
2,886
95,835
13,591
17,264
87,972
31,273
17,242
17,017
2,789
55,940
128,289
8,191
Jun-03
19,580
5,384
49,003
10,763
495,174
14,287
24,708
5,762
16,984
58,083
55,883
3,072
13,292
1,739
36,718
56,227
21,908
15,676
34,650
22,372
10,706
28,918
49,012
75,987
42,570
19,620
45,883
6,349
11,943
11,010
6,290
44,428
16,540
194,693
39,729
3,370
83,802
14,742
18,943
80,518
18,984
14,562
19,221
2,754
71,057
141,022
8,667
Jun-04
18,888
4,878
47,996
9,492
504,737
14,943
25,096
5,665
17,388
56,937
50,900
3,072
11,875
1,841
36,907
52,428
22,020
16,870
35,578
17,067
10,997
28,091
49,025
79,411
39,282
18,096
46,962
5,147
12,369
9,313
6,030
47,266
17,410
197,301
36,751
2,999
84,195
13,684
18,371
89,747
17,007
14,267
16,824
2,729
73,208
100,387
9,012
Percentage Change to
June 2004 from:
Jun-94 Jun-00 Jun-03
-61.8%
0.3% -3.5%
-62.4
-35.3
-9.4
-32.9
46.5
-2.1
-63.3
-21.2
-11.8
-45.1
-8.6
1.9
-63.9
38.7
4.6
-58.0
-13.0
1.6
-49.6
-4.3
-1.7
-36.6
1.9
2.4
-76.2
-11.7
-2.0
-63.5
0.0
-8.9
55.7
11.3
0.0
-43.0
-42.6
-10.7
-78.9
40.7
5.9
-84.8
-53.8
0.5
-28.1
45.5
-6.8
-44.7
5.6
0.5
-43.8
35.3
7.6
-55.1
-5.1
2.7
-80.1
-33.1
-23.7
-51.4
-10.4
2.7
-64.8
-8.0
-2.9
-55.5
17.4
0.0
-64.3
13.0
4.5
-37.7
0.0
-7.7
-67.2
20.8
-7.8
-49.1
-3.8
2.4
-57.1
15.2
-18.9
-21.0
22.6
3.6
-34.4
51.5
-15.4
-48.0
4.1
-4.1
-61.4
-8.8
6.4
-48.4
-23.3
5.3
-57.2
-20.5
1.3
-72.0
-17.3
-7.5
-47.6
3.9
-11.0
-66.0
-12.1
0.5
-70.8
0.7
-7.2
-56.2
6.4
-3.0
-57.6
2.0
11.5
-70.9
-45.6
-10.4
-37.3
-17.3
-2.0
-67.4
-1.1
-12.5
-60.3
-2.2
-0.9
-33.0
30.9
3.0
-64.5
-21.7
-28.8
-48.6
10.0
4.0
CRS-8
State
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Jun-94
10,006
1,106
75,020
104,243
40,379
76,458
5,751
Jun-00
5,858
884
30,910
58,217
12,000
17,534
565
Jun-03
5,238
476
31,904
56,339
15,884
21,256
401
Jun-04
5,229
538
36,380
57,985
15,660
23,167
335
Percentage Change to
June 2004 from:
Jun-94 Jun-00 Jun-03
-47.7
-10.7
-0.2
-51.4
-39.1
13.0
-51.5
17.7
14.0
-44.4
-0.4
2.9
-61.2
30.5
-1.4
-69.7
32.1
9.0
-94.2
-40.7
-16.5
Totals
5,043,050 2,294,186 2,174,083 2,139,753
-57.6
-6.7
-1.6
Vermont
Dec-94
47,903
12,370
72,158
25,047
923,358
40,244
60,965
11,227
27,420
238,682
141,154
21,489
8,953
241,091
69,933
38,022
28,838
76,824
82,792
22,025
80,890
105,769
209,695
61,343
53,221
91,802
11,660
15,013
15,559
11,078
120,908
34,854
463,692
128,848
5,309
236,298
45,893
39,967
208,949
56,132
22,599
50,251
6,521
105,616
281,011
17,240
9,707
Dec-00
18,959
5,586
32,156
11,132
529,918
10,623
27,694
5,543
16,675
65,111
51,393
19,243
1,309
69,941
40,683
20,436
12,567
36,754
26,435
11,417
30,660
42,829
69,055
37,830
15,825
50,788
4,697
9,941
6,932
5,586
48,284
21,856
234,866
45,199
2,886
86,563
14,548
16,033
84,175
26,956
16,725
18,110
2,750
58,585
133,685
7,641
5,577
Dec-03
19,745
4,900
52,170
10,695
493,139
14,654
24,939
5,830
17,617
61,413
58,004
12,543
1,844
35,401
54,983
21,589
16,156
35,728
21,215
10,982
29,776
50,420
79,051
39,213
19,769
48,586
5,349
12,170
9,995
6,113
45,363
17,606
195,972
39,124
3,190
84,781
14,921
18,223
85,198
18,211
14,533
19,973
2,809
73,538
118,536
9,081
5,183
Dec-04
21,119
4,577
45,917
8,771
511,175
15,076
24,265
5,866
17,727
66,974
46,336
11,574
1,887
39,488
52,010
21,494
17,441
35,569
17,184
11,676
27,864
49,586
81,007
32,657
17,272
47,807
4,743
11,930
8,339
6,232
48,416
18,083
194,689
36,466
2,873
84,937
13,691
19,836
96,642
15,544
13,620
18,629
2,842
73,236
98,721
4,730
5,088
Percentage Change to Dec 04
from
Dec-94 Dec-00 Dec-03
-55.9
11.4
7.0
-63.0
-18.1
-6.6
-36.4
42.8
-12.0
-65.0
-21.2
-18.0
-44.6
-3.5
3.7
-62.5
41.9
2.9
-60.2
-12.4
-2.7
-47.8
5.8
0.6
-35.4
6.3
0.6
-71.9
2.9
9.1
-67.2
-9.8
-20.1
-46.1
-39.9
-7.7
-78.9
44.2
2.3
-83.6
-43.5
11.5
-25.6
27.8
-5.4
-43.5
5.2
-0.4
-39.5
38.8
8.0
-53.7
-3.2
-0.4
-79.2
-35.0
-19.0
-47.0
2.3
6.3
-65.6
-9.1
-6.4
-53.1
15.8
-1.7
-61.4
17.3
2.5
-46.8
-13.7
-16.7
-67.5
9.1
-12.6
-47.9
-5.9
-1.6
-59.3
1.0
-11.3
-20.5
20.0
-2.0
-46.4
20.3
-16.6
-43.7
11.6
1.9
-60.0
0.3
6.7
-48.1
-17.3
2.7
-58.0
-17.1
-0.7
-71.7
-19.3
-6.8
-45.9
-0.5
-9.9
-64.1
-1.9
0.2
-70.2
-5.9
-8.2
-50.4
23.7
8.9
-53.7
14.8
13.4
-72.3
-42.3
-14.6
-39.7
-18.6
-6.3
-62.9
2.9
-6.7
-56.4
3.3
1.2
-30.7
25.0
-0.4
-64.9
-26.2
-16.7
-72.6
-38.1
-47.9
-47.6
-8.8
-1.8
CRS-8
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Virgin Islands
74,203
102,603
39,546
73,714
5,400
2,088
1,264
30,479
57,077
14,129
17,915
569
2,554
771
35,077
56,640
16,340
22,400
382
3,072
539
37,725
58,719
13,607
21,748
336
3,072
504
Percentage Change to Dec 04
from
-49.2
23.8
7.5
-42.8
2.9
3.7
-65.6
-3.7
-16.7
-70.5
21.4
-2.9
-93.8
-40.9
-12.0
47.1
20.3
0.0
-60.1
-34.6
-6.5
Totals
4,979,138 2,235,651 2,174,681 2,147,317
-56.9
-4.0
-1.3
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-9
Table A2. TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services
Block Grant, FY2003
($ in millions)
Transfers to
CCDBG
Percent
of total
State
Dollars
grants
Alabama
$20.5
19.6%
Alaska
15.7
23.6
Arizona
0.0
0.0
Arkansas
6.0
8.7
California
572.5
15.4
Colorado
22.2
13.1
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
Delaware
1.1
3.4
District of Col.
18.5
15.8
Florida
122.5
18.5
Georgia
32.2
8.6
Hawaii
11.1
11.1
Idaho
8.7
24.3
Illinois
0.0
0.0
Indiana
18.4
8.1
Iowa
28.2
20.3
Kansas
12.7
11.4
Kentucky
47.1
24.1
Louisiana
39.0
21.1
Maine
10.7
13.0
Maryland
48.9
19.5
Massachusetts
91.9
19.9
Michigan
0.0
0.0
Minnesota
26.6
9.5
Mississippi
19.3
20.0
Missouri
24.9
10.4
Montana
8.6
17.9
Nebraska
9.0
14.2
Nevada
0.0
0.0
New Hampshire
1.2
2.9
New Jersey
78.8
19.3
New Mexico
29.8
24.3
New York
39.9
1.6
North Carolina
74.5
21.8
North Dakota
0.0
0.0
Ohio
0.0
0.0
Oklahoma
30.8
20.0
Oregon
0.0
0.0
Pennsylvania
124.5
16.6
Rhode Island
9.1
9.3
South Carolina
1.3
1.3
South Dakota
1.7
7.4
Tennessee
52.0
23.2
Transfers to SSBG
Dollars
$10.5
4.1
22.7
0.0
81.5
15.0
26.7
1.4
3.9
52.3
36.8
9.9
1.4
20.5
2.0
11.3
4.3
0.0
16.4
7.5
22.9
42.1
20.2
7.9
0.0
21.7
3.9
0.0
0.9
2.9
17.6
2.0
244.0
4.5
0.0
74.9
15.4
0.0
30.6
0.0
5.3
2.3
5.3
Percent of
total
grants
10.0%
6.2
10.0
0.0
2.2
8.8
9.6
4.1
3.4
7.9
9.9
9.9
4.0
3.5
0.9
8.1
3.9
0.0
8.9
9.1
9.1
9.1
2.5
2.8
0.0
9.1
8.0
0.0
1.9
7.1
4.3
1.6
9.9
1.3
0.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
5.2
10.0
2.3
Total transfers
Dollars
$31.0
19.8
22.7
6.0
654.0
37.2
26.7
2.5
22.5
174.8
69.0
20.9
10.2
20.5
20.4
39.5
17.1
47.1
55.4
18.2
71.8
134.0
20.2
34.5
19.3
46.6
12.5
9.0
0.9
4.1
96.4
31.8
283.9
79.0
0.0
74.9
46.2
0.0
155.1
9.1
6.6
4.0
57.3
Percent of
total
grants
29.6%
29.8
10.0
8.7
17.6
22.0
9.6
7.5
19.2
26.5
18.5
21.0
28.3
3.5
9.0
28.4
15.2
24.1
30.0
22.0
28.7
29.0
2.5
12.3
20.0
19.5
26.0
14.2
1.9
10.0
23.6
26.0
11.5
23.1
0.0
10.0
30.0
0.0
20.6
9.3
6.5
17.4
25.5
CRS-10
State
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Transfers to
CCDBG
Percent
of total
Dollars
grants
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
19.0
10.0
5.7
107.3
26.7
0.0
0.0
65.3
20.0
7.7
19.8
1,859.7
10.8
Transfers to SSBG
Dollars
27.2
9.0
4.7
15.8
10.4
11.0
13.4
3.8
948.0
Percent of
total
grants
4.8
10.0
9.7
9.1
2.6
9.8
4.1
9.9
5.5
Total transfers
Dollars
27.2
9.0
14.0
25.8
117.7
11.0
78.7
11.5
2,807.7
Percent of
total
grants
4.8
10.0
28.7
14.8
29.3
9.8
24.1
29.7
16.3FY2004
($ in millions)
Transfers to
CCDBG
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
Dollars
Percent
of total
grants
Dollars
Percent
of total
grants
Dollars
Percent
of total
grants
19.9
18.7
10.6
10.0
30.6
28.7
15.4
0.0
16.2
305.2
28.1
0.0
3.2
18.5
122.5
29.7
7.8
6.8
0.0
4.1
27.6
21.5
46.3
22.1
7.7
20.3
91.9
0.0
25.0
2.8
25.0
2.0
9.0
0.0
0.1
51.2
33.0
408.0
83.8
0.0
0.0
29.5
24.2
0.0
24.6
8.3
18.8
0.0
9.8
15.7
19.4
8.1
7.9
19.1
0.0
1.9
20.3
21.2
25.1
12.3
9.6
8.0
19.7
0.0
8.9
2.9
11.0
4.3
14.8
0.0
0.2
12.3
28.4
16.5
24.8
0.0
0.0
19.6
3.5
22.6
2.7
87.2
15.0
26.7
3.3
3.9
62.3
19.7
9.8
3.6
34.0
2.0
11.9
4.3
0.0
16.3
6.9
22.9
45.9
26.9
4.8
9.8
21.7
2.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
15.5
2.0
122.0
6.4
0.0
75.6
14.8
5.5
9.8
4.1
2.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.3
9.8
5.4
10.0
10.0
5.8
0.9
8.8
4.3
0.0
9.1
8.6
9.0
9.8
3.4
1.7
10.0
9.5
4.3
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.7
1.7
4.9
1.9
0.0
10.0
9.8
18.9
22.6
18.9
392.4
43.1
26.7
6.5
22.4
184.8
49.4
17.6
10.3
34.0
6.1
39.5
25.8
46.3
38.4
14.6
43.2
137.8
26.9
29.8
12.7
46.7
4.0
9.0
0.7
0.1
66.7
35.0
530.0
90.2
0.0
75.6
44.3
29.8
9.8
28.7
10.6
28.8
10.0
19.8
19.0
29.2
13.4
17.9
29.1
5.8
2.8
29.0
25.5
25.1
21.3
18.1
17.0
29.5
3.4
10.6
12.9
20.5
8.7
14.8
1.4
0.2
16.0
30.2
21.5
26.7
0.0
10.0
29.4
CRS-10
Transfers to
CCDBG
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
Dollars
Percent
of total
grants
Dollars
Percent
of total
grants
Dollars
Percent
of total
grants
0.0
165.9
13.1
1.3
0.0
54.1
0.0
0.0
9.2
16.8
95.5
0.0
65.2
0.0
1905.3
0.0
22.9
13.9
1.3
0.0
24.3
0.0
0.0
18.8
10.1
24.5
0.0
20.0
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
10.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.7
15.8
10.7
11.4
13.4
1.9
793.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
9.6
10.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
9.6
9.5
2.7
10.0
4.1
9.5
4.7
0.0
165.9
13.5
11.3
2.2
54.1
0.0
5.3
14.0
32.6
106.2
11.4
78.6
1.9
2698.4
0.0
22.9
14.3
10.9
10.0
24.3
0.0
6.0
28.4
19.6
27.3
10.0
24.1
9.5
15.9
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-11
Table A3. Cumulative TANF Transfers to the Child Care and
Social Services Block Grants, FY1997-FY2003
($ in millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Col.Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Transfers to
CCDBG
Percent
Percent of
of total
total
Dollars grants Dollars
grants
$145.1
18.6%
$78.1
10.0%
87.5
21.8
28.6
7.1
103.6
6.4
151.8
9.3
17.0
4.3
8.7
2.2
2,150.3
8.4
355.2
1.4
151.5
15.8
82.4
8.6
0.0
0.0
158.3
8.3
6.5
3.0
10.2
4.7
103.6
14.1
30.3
4.1
660.2
15.5
383.9
9.0
191.2
7.9
181.1
7.5
45.1
7.1
19.1
3.0
39.5
18.1
15.0
6.9
272.4
7.2
304.2
8.1
288.1
19.4
72.3
4.9
125.1
13.8
71.6
7.9
67.3
9.3
65.3
9.0
235.4
18.4
64.7
5.1
289.9
24.0
32.8
2.7
43.6
8.0
23.3
4.3
163.2
10.3
137.5
8.7
659.4
20.3
303.5
9.3
296.5
5.4
374.8
6.8
139.3
8.0
121.4
7.0
100.5
15.4
54.8
8.4
122.7
8.0
117.8
7.7
51.4
16.5
20.2
6.5
36.0
8.9
4.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
6.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
2.9
1.1
327.5
12.0
247.6
9.0
136.9
16.4
4.0
0.5
1,570.8
9.3 1,609.4
9.6
380.9
17.1
49.1
2.2
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
359.7
7.0
511.7
10.0
209.6
20.0
104.8
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
375.6
7.8
196.4
4.1
27.3
4.4
6.5
1.0
14.3
2.1
64.6
9.3
13.9
9.4
14.9
10.0
Total transfers
Percent of
Dollars total grants
$223.2
28.5%
116.1
28.9
255.4
15.7
25.7
6.5
2,505.5
9.8
233.9
24.4
158.3
8.3
16.7
7.7
133.9
18.2
1,044.1
24.4
372.2
15.4
64.2
10.1
54.5
25.0
576.7
15.3
360.4
24.2
196.7
21.7
132.6
18.3
300.1
23.4
322.7
26.7
66.9
12.3
300.7
19.0
962.9
29.6
671.2
12.1
260.7
15.0
155.3
23.9
240.4
15.7
71.6
23.1
40.4
10.0
6.3
2.0
4.1
1.5
575.1
21.0
140.9
16.9
3,180.2
18.9
429.9
19.3
0.5
0.3
871.4
17.0
314.3
30.0
0.0
0.0
572.0
11.9
33.8
5.4
79.0
11.3
28.8
19.4
CRS-12
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
CCDBG
Percent
Percent of
of total
total
grants
Dollars grants Dollars
302.4
20.6
15.6
1.1
164.3
4.4
200.1
5.4
3.7
0.6
35.6
6.1
48.8
14.6
32.2
9.6
137.7
12.6
102.5
9.4
551.4
20.2
79.0
2.9
15.4
2.0
43.6
5.7
368.4
16.3
163.3
7.2
15.5
9.6
16.0
10.0
11,617.6
10.1 6,777.6
5.9
Total transfers
Percent of
Dollars total grants
318.0
21.7
364.4
9.8
39.4
6.7
81.0
24.2
240.1
22.0
630.5
23.1
59.0
7.8
531.7
23.5
31.5
19.6
18,395.2
16.0Dollars
of total
grants
165.1
18.6
102.9
22.1
103.6
5.6
33.2
7.2
2430.8
8.3
179.6
16.2
0.0
0.0
9.6
3.8
122.1
14.3
782.7
16.0
204.3
7.3
52.8
7.2
46.3
18.3
272.4
6.3
292.2
17.1
152.7
14.7
88.8
10.8
281.7
19.2
312.0
22.5
60.6
9.7
182.5
9.9
751.3
20.2
296.5
4.7
164.3
8.1
103.3
13.8
147.7
8.4
52.4
14.7
45.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.4
364.5
11.6
170.0
17.9
1978.8
10.3
464.6
18.1
0.5
0.3
359.7
6.1
239.1
19.9
Transfers to SSBG
Dollars
88.7
32.1
174.4
11.4
442.2
97.4
185.0
13.6
34.2
446.2
181.1
28.9
18.5
338.2
74.3
83.5
69.6
64.7
49.1
40.0
160.4
349.5
401.7
126.2
64.6
139.5
22.2
4.4
7.0
2.9
262.8
6.0
1731.4
55.5
0.0
587.3
119.5
Percent
of total
grants
10.0
6.9
9.4
2.5
1.5
8.8
8.5
5.4
4.0
9.1
6.5
4.0
7.3
7.8
4.4
8.0
8.4
4.4
3.5
6.4
8.7
9.4
6.4
6.3
8.6
7.9
6.2
0.9
1.9
0.9
8.3
0.6
9.0
2.2
0.0
10.0
10.0
Total transfers
Dollars
253.8
135.0
278.0
44.6
2873
276.9
185.0
23.2
156.4
1228.9
385.4
81.7
64.8
610.6
366.4
236.2
158.4
346.4
361.1
100.6
342.9
1100.8
698.2
290.5
167.9
287.2
74.6
49.4
7.0
4.3
627.3
176.0
3710.2
520.1
0.5
947.0
358.6
Percent
of total
grants
28.6
29.0
15.0
9.6
9.8
25.0
8.5
9.3
18.3
25.1
13.8
11.2
25.6
14.1
21.5
22.7
19.2
23.7
26.0
16.1
18.6
29.6
11.0
14.4
22.4
16.3
20.9
10.6
1.9
1.3
19.9
18.5
19.2
20.3
0.3
16.1
29.9
CRS-12
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Transfers to
CCDBG
Percent
Dollars
of total
grants
0.0
0.0
541.5
9.8
40.4
5.6
14.1
1.8
13.9
8.2
356.4
21.1
164.3
3.9
3.7
0.6
58.0
15.1
154.5
12.3
646.9
20.8
15.4
1.8
433.6
16.8
15.5
8.6
13,473.2
10.2
Transfers to SSBG
Dollars
0.0
196.4
6.9
64.6
17.1
15.6
200.1
37.2
37.0
118.3
89.7
51.0
176.7
17.9
7,542.6
Percent
of total
grants
0.0
3.5
1.0
8.1
10.0
0.9
4.7
5.5
9.6
9.4
2.9
5.8
6.8
9.9
5.7
Total transfers
Dollars
0.0
737.9
47.3
78.8
31.0
372.0
364.4
41.0
95.0
272.8
736.6
66.4
610.3
33.3
21,015.8
Percent
of total
grants
0.0
13.3
6.6
9.8
18.2
22.1
8.6
6.1
24.7
21.7
23.7
7.6
23.6
18.5
15.9
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-13
Table A4. Unspent TANF Funds as of September 30, 20032004
($ in millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Obligated but
Unobligated and
unspent
unspent
$3.9
$27.6
0.0
10.3
19.8
9.0
0.0
56.9
226.5
0.0
81.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.2
1.2
43.1
0.0
159.7
20.6
161.0
4.2
90.8
12.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
27.1
0.0
5.4
25.4
0.0
21.8
44.1
8.5
72.0
0.0
8.6
36.9
15.5
18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
113.1
0.0
41.4
1.2
2.4
21.7
0.0
1.1
7.9
0.0
16.2
1.1
10.0
0.0
11.5
48.6
200.0
36.7
9.3
199.8
261.4
56.0
3.5
0.0
10.1
239.6
341.9
0.0
119.7
28.4
0.0
277.4
155.3
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
23.1
0.0
0.0
Total unspent
funds
$ 31.5
10.3
28.7
56.9
226.5
81.2
0.0
5.2
44.4
159.7
181.6
95.0
13.1
0.0
27.1
30.9
21.8
52.6
72.0
45.4
34.3
0.0
113.1
41.4
3.6
21.7
9.0
16.2
11.1
11.5
248.5
46.0
461.1
59.5
10.1
581.6
119.7
28.4
432.7
2.9
0.0
23.5
0.0
CRS-14
State
Obligated but
unspent
9.7
9.3
25.1
0.1
249.1
66.2
0.0
1.2
1.5
99.3
17.9
10.9
9.8
0.0
43.8
5.7
0.0
3.9
16.8
0.0
7.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
6.5
30.7
1.0
7.5
1.2
0.0
86.0
16.7
193.8
62.6
0.0
484.8
74.4
46.1
64.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
Unobligated and
unspent
22.7
11.6
0.0
86.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
46.9
0.0
160.8
113.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
5.2
62.3
0.0
27.6
66.5
5.1
111.4
69.6
1.8
0.0
20.7
0.0
15.3
47.6
94.1
13.9
239.7
0.0
12.4
336.2
18.1
0.0
142.1
0.0
1.5
22.2
Total unspent funds
32.4
20.9
25.1
86.0
249.1
66.2
0.0
5.1
48.4
99.3
178.7
124.4
9.8
0.0
43.8
26.2
5.2
66.2
16.8
27.6
73.6
6.6
111.4
69.6
8.3
30.7
21.8
7.5
16.5
47.6
180.2
30.6
433.6
62.6
12.4
821
92.5
46.1
206.1
0.0
1.5
22.9
CRS-14
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Obligated but
Unobligated and
unspent
unspent
33.3
132.9
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
12.6
18.2
29.8
0.0
0.0
12.6
15.3
85.0
30.0
36.8
1,580.2
2,305.9
Total unspent
funds
166.2
20.0
0.0
30.8
29.8
12.6
100.4
66.7
3,886.1unspent
4.7
176.8
0.0
0.0
14.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
13.0
1863.5
Unobligated and
unspent
16.0
2.7
17.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.8
22.5
41.1
1886.5
Total unspent funds
20.7
179.5
17.5
0.0
14.0
3.5
3.8
22.6
54.1
3750
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-15
Table A5. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for All
Families, FY2003, by State
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Effective
Statutory
Caseload
(after
Actual
participation reduction
credit)
participation State met
standard
credit
standard)
rate
standard?
50.0
-60.4
0.0
37.1
Yes
50.0
-38.9
11.1
41.1
Yes
50.0
-36.9
13.1
13.4
Yes
50.0
-46.7
3.3
22.4
Yes
50.0
-44.2
5.8
24.0
Yes
50.0
-67.3
0.0
32.5
Yes
50.0
-29.7
20.3
30.6
Yes
50.0
-39.8
10.2
18.2
Yes
50.0
-38.5
11.5
23.1
Yes
50.0
-70.6
0.0
33.1
Yes
50.0
-51.9
0.0
10.9
Yes
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
No
50.0
-30.0
20.0
65.8
Yes
50.0
-30.0
20.0
43.7
Yes
50.0
-79.1
0.0
57.8
Yes
50.0
-21.1
28.9
40.3
Yes
50.0
-42.7
7.3
45.1
Yes
50.0
-8.3
41.7
87.9
Yes
50.0
-45.5
4.5
32.8
Yes
50.0
-59.0
0.0
34.6
Yes
50.0
-47.5
2.5
27.7
Yes
50.0
-43.5
6.5
9.1
Yes
50.0
-45.1
4.9
61.0
Yes
50.0
-62.0
0.0
25.3
Yes
50.0
-35.2
14.8
25.0
Yes
50.0
-37.4
12.6
17.2
Yes
50.0
-45.0
5.0
28.0
Yes
50.0
-48.0
2.0
85.9
Yes
50.0
-25.8
24.2
33.4
Yes
50.0
-23.8
26.2
22.3
No
50.0
-43.9
6.1
28.2
Yes
50.0
-58.2
0.0
35.0
Yes
50.0
-41.6
8.4
42.0
Yes
50.0
-60.1
0.0
37.1
Yes
50.0
-52.6
0.0
25.3
Yes
50.0
-38.0
12.0
27.0
Yes
50.0
-57.2
0.0
62.3
Yes
50.0
-53.2
0.0
29.2
Yes
50.0
-54.0
0.0
60.0
Yes
50.0
-60.6
0.0
9.9
Yes
50.0
-46.9
3.1
6.1
Yes
50.0
-30.8
19.2
24.3
Yes
50.0
-47.6
2.4
54.3
Yes
50.0
-37.6
12.4
46.1
Yes
50.0
-38.4
11.6
42.7
Yes
CRS-16
State
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Effective
(after
Actual
Statutory
Caseload
credit)
participation State met
participation reduction
standard)
rate
standard?
standard
credit
50.0
-50.3
0.0
28.1
Yes
50.0
-33.0
17.0
28.1
Yes
50.0
-42.9
7.1
24.3
Yes
50.0
-50.2
0.0
5.0
Yes
50.0
-56.8
0.0
44.6
Yes
50.0
-41.8
8.2
46.2
Yes
50.0
-58.7
0.0
14.2
Yes
50.0
-51.9
0.0
67.2
Yes
50.0
Statutory
participation
standard
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Caseload
Effective
Actual
reduction (after credit) participation
credit
standard)
rate
-60.4
0.0
37.1
-38.9
-36.9
-46.7
-44.2
-67.3
-29.7
-39.8
-38.5
-70.6
-51.9
0.0
-30
-30.0
-79.1
-21.1
-42.7
-8.3
-45.5
-59.0
-47.5
-43.5
-45.1
-62.0
-35.2
-37.4
-45.0
-48.0
-25.8
-23.8
-43.9
-58.2
-41.6
-60.1
-52.6
-38
-57.2
-53.2
-54.0
-60.6
-46.9
11.1
13.1
3.3
5.8
0.0
20.3
10.2
11.5
0.0
0.0
50.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
28.9
7.3
41.7
4.5
0.0
2.5
6.5
4.9
0.0
14.8
12.6
5.0
2.0
24.2
26.2
6.1
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
41.1
13.4
22.4
24.0
32.5
30.6
18.2
23.1
33.1
10.9
0.0
65.8
43.7
57.8
40.3
45.1
87.9
32.8
34.6
27.7
9.1
61.0
25.3
25.0
17.2
28.0
85.9
33.4
22.3
28.2
35.0
42.0
37.1
25.3
27.0
62.3
29.2
60.0
9.9
6.1
State met
standard?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CRS-16
State
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Statutory
participation
standard
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
reduction (after credit) participation
standard?
credit
standard)
rate
-30.8
19.2
24.3
Yes
-47.6
2.4
54.3
Yes
-37.6
12.4
46.1
Yes
-38.4
11.6
42.7
Yes
-50.3
0.0
28.1
Yes
-33.0
17.0
28.1
Yes
-42.9
7.1
24.3
Yes
-50.2
0.0
5.0
Yes
-56.8
0.0
44.6
Yes
-41.8
8.2
46.2
Yes
-58.7
0.0
14.2
Yes
-51.9
0.0
67.2
Yes
-87.0
0.0
83.0
Yes
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-17
Table A6. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for
Two-Parent Families, FY2003, by State
Statutory
participation
State
standard
Alabama
90.0
Alaska
90.0
Arizona
90.0
Arkansas
90.0
California
90.0
Colorado
90.0
Connecticut
90.0
Delaware
90.0
Dist. of Col.
90.0
Florida
90.0
Georgia
90.0
Guam
90.0
Hawaii
90.0
Idaho
90.0
Illinois
90.0
Indiana
90.0
Iowa
90.0
Kansas
90.0
Kentucky
90.0
Louisiana
90.0
Maine
90.0
Maryland
90.0
Massachusetts
90.0
Michigan
90.0
Minnesota
90.0
Mississippi
90.0
Missouri
90.0
Montana
90.0
Nebraska
90.0
Nevada
90.0
New Hampshire
90.0
New Jersey
90.0
New Mexico
90.0
New York
90.0
North Carolina
90.0
North Dakota
90.0
Ohio
90.0
Oklahoma
90.0
Oregon
90.0
Pennsylvania
90.0
Puerto Rico
90.0
Rhode Island
90.0
South Carolina
90.0
South Dakota
90.0
Tennessee
90.0
Effective
Caseload
(after
Actual
reduction
credit)
participation State met
credit
standard)
rate
standard?
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Col.
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Statutory
participation
standard
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
reduction
(after credit) participation
standard?
credit
standard)
rate
NA
NA
NA
NA
48.8
41.2
44.6
Yes
36.9
53.1
55.3
Yes
46.7
43.3
31.8
No
NA
NA
NA
NA
67.3
22.7
40.1
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.0
41.0
19.6
No
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
90.0
0.0
No
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.4
9.6
42.3
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.1
28.9
39.2
Yes
8.3
81.7
87.1
Yes
81.0
9.0
46.2
Yes
59.0
31.0
39.0
Yes
79.9
10.1
29.2
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
45.1
44.9
73.9
Yes
83.6
6.4
36.2
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48.0
42.0
95.7
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.6
48.4
52.0
Yes
79.3
10.7
52.2
Yes
52.6
37.4
49.2
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.3
9.7
67.8
Yes
53.2
36.8
50.5
Yes
54.0
36.0
52.7
Yes
83.5
6.5
8.8
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.8
59.2
94.9
Yes
47.6
42.4
50.6
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CRS-18
State
CRS-18
State
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Statutory
participation
standard
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
Effective
(after
Actual
Caseload
credit)
participation State met
reduction
standard)
rate
standard?
credit
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
reduction
(after credit) participation
standard?
credit
standard)
rate
30.8
59.2
94.9
Yes
47.6
42.4
50.6
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
54.3
35.7
37.5
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48.4
41.6
44.3
Yes
58.7
31.3
25.2
No
68.7
21.3
40.3
Yes
87.0
3.0
91.5
Yes
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).