The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions

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).