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 August 23, 2005January 23, 2007 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 September 30, 2005. Reauthorization bills 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 December of 2004, a total of 2.1 million needy families with 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 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 FY2004, states transferred $2.7 billion to other block grants (15.9% of the TANF block grant): $1.9 billion to the child care block grant and $0.8 billion to the Social Services Block Grant. As of September 30, 2004 (end of FY2004), there remained a total of $3.8 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 of TANF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Is There an Administration Proposal to Reauthorize TANF? . . . . . . . . 2 Has There Been Legislative Action to Reauthorize TANF Since 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 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? . . . . . . . . . . . 5 How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? . . 6 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: October 1976-December 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table A2. TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services Block Grant, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table A3. Cumulative TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services Block Grants, FY1997-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table A4. Unspent TANF Funds as of September 30, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 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 IB10140, 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 September 30, 2005. Congress thus faces the issue of welfare reauthorization. How Many Times Has Congress Enacted Temporary Extensions of TANF? H.R. 3021, signed by the President July 1, 2005 (P.L. 109-19), was the 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 September 30, 2005. 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. 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 December 2004 (latest data available) about 2.1 million families 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 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 December 2004. Table A1 shows state-by-state the number of families receiving cash welfare in December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004. CRS-4 Figure 1. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Welfare: October 1976-December 2004 6,000,000 March 1994: 5.1 million families 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). 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 August 2005, the block grant would decline by 26% 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 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Value of the Block Grant in Bilions of FY1997 Dollars $16.5 16.2 15.9 15.4 14.9 14.7 14.4 14.1 13.6 13.3 13.0 12.7 12.4 12.2 Cumulative Loss of Value (in percent) -2% -3% -6% -9% -11% -13% -15% -17% -20% -21% -23% -25% -26% 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 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), published in August. 2005. How Much of the TANF Grant Has Been Transferred to the Child Care and Social Service Block Grants? In FY2004 (the latest year for which data are available) states transferred a total of $2.7 billion (15.9% of the block grant): $1.9 billion (11.2% of the TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $0.8 billion (4.7% of the block grant) to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). See Table A2 for transfers by state. Cumulatively over the lifetime of TANF (FY1997-FY2004), a total of $21.0 billion (15.9% of the block grant) has been transferred: $13.5 billion (10.2% of the TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $7.5 billion (5.7% 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 FY2004 (September 30, 2004, the latest data available), a total of $3.8 billion of TANF block grants had not either been transferred or spent. This represents 2.8% of all TANF grants provided to the states over the FY1997-FY2004 period. Some of the $3.8 billion in unspent TANF funds represents funds for commitments that states already made. Through the end of September 2004, states had made commitments to spend — obligations — that have yet to result in expenditures totaling $1.9 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 $1.9 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 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. 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 rates) and Table A6 (two-parent family rates). CRS-7 Appendix: State Tables Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004 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 Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah 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, FY2004 ($ 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 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 CCDBG Percent Dollars 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, 2004 ($ 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 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 unspent 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 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 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 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 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 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 Frequently Asked Questions Summary The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). Its funding was recently extended through FY2010 by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748). It will be updated. Funding and Expenditures. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk of which is provided in a $16.5 billion-per-year basic block grant. States are required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. The $16.5 billion basic block grant, which will be provided to states through FY2010, represents the same basic block grant as provided in the 1996 welfare reform law. The grant is not adjusted for inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload (see “Caseload,” below). It has lost 20% of its value (purchasing power) to inflation from FY1997 through FY2006. Though TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for needy families with children, the block grant and associated state MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2005, expenditures on activities associated with a “traditional” cash welfare program — cash benefits themselves ($11 billion), administrative costs, and spending on work activities — totaled only half of total TANF and MOE funds. TANF also contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of, abuse and neglect. Caseload. Though only about half of federal and state expenditures are associated with cash welfare, the “TANF caseload” number commonly discussed is the number of families and recipients receiving cash welfare. Information is not available on families and individuals who receive TANF benefits and services other than cash welfare. In June 2006, 1.9 million families, consisting of 4.6 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash welfare. The “typical” welfare family is headed by a single mother with one or two children. However, the cash welfare caseload is very heterogenous. In FY2004, about four out of 10 cash welfare families were “child-only” cases — families in which the adult is ineligible for cash in his or her own right. Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In January 2005, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of 3 ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and 90% of two-parent families in work activities. These participation standards are reduced for caseload reduction from FY2005. In FY2004 (the last year for which data are available), states achieved average work participation rates of 32% for all families and 47% for two-parent families. Most states are likely to have to increase work participation in order to achieve the FY2007 TANF work participation standards. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Current Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Can TANF Recipients Be in a Four-Year College Degree Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients? . . . . . . . . . . 2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 When was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Created? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Funding and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 What is TANF’s Current Funding Level? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 How Have States Used TANF Funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Cash Welfare? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare With Historical Levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What Are the Characteristics of the “Typical” Cash Welfare Family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What is a TANF “Child-Only” Family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 TANF Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 How Have TANF Cash Benefits Changed Over Time? . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix B. State Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 List of Figures Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2005, By Major Benefit or Service Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Welfare, July 1959 to June 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3. Composition of Cash Welfare “Child-Only” Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 List of Tables Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, FY2006-FY2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 4. Cash Welfare “Child-Only Cases,” FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 5. TANF Maximum Cash Benefits for Single-Parent Families, By Family Size, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 6. Cash Welfare Benefits for a Family of Three (Single-Parent Family), January 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table A1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs, FY2003-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table A2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table A3. Average Monthly Families, Recipients, and Children, Calendar Years 1961-2006 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table A4. Number of Cash Welfare Families, Adult Recipients, and Child Recipients By Selected Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table A5. Composition of Cash Welfare Families By Selected Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table B1. Use of FY2005 TANF and MOE Funds by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table B2. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category, as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table B3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table B4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table B5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, June 1994, June 2000, June 2005, and June 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table B6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2004, by State . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Introduction This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended to serve as a quick reference to provide easy access to information and data. This report 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, by Gene Falk. Current Topics Can TANF Recipients Be in a Four-Year College Degree Program? Yes. Federal law does not prohibit states from having their TANF recipients in a four-year program, and supporting a college education is a legal use of TANF funds. However, participation in a four-year college degree program often cannot be counted — as the sole or primary work activity of a recipient — toward the TANF work participation standards that states must meet. States are penalized for failing to meet TANF work participation standards as an incentive for them to engage recipients in activities that can be counted toward the work standards. Whether participation in a four-year college program can be counted toward meeting these work standards depends on whether it is “defined” as a creditable work activity. Prior to FY2007, states themselves “defined” which specific work activities counted toward TANF work participation standards within the context of 12 listed federal categories. However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue regulations to establish uniform definitions for TANF work activities. These regulations were issued (in interim final form) on June 29, 2006.1 1 See text of the regulations at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanfregs/tfinrule.pdf]. (continued...) CRS-2 Before implementation of these HHS regulations, some states defined participation in a four-year college program as either “vocational educational training” or “job skills training directly related to employment.” In defining the “vocational educational training” activity, HHS specifically said that participation in a four-year college program cannot count. However, the HHS regulations define “job skills training directly related to employment” as either specific or general education related to employment. The definition of this activity does not specifically address whether college courses applied toward a four-year degree may be “job skills training” that would be counted toward TANF participation standards. Further, “job skills training directly related to employment” cannot be the sole or primary work activity for many recipients (single parents with a child age 6 or older and those in two-parent families). May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients? Yes. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for welfare recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104193.) In addition to this option, the 1996 welfare reform law contained two other provisions related to drug abuse and TANF applicants or recipients. The law established a lifetime ban on eligibility for TANF and food stamps for those convicted of a drug-related felony. However, states may either opt out entirely or modify and limit this lifetime ban. (See Section 115 of P.L. 104-193.) Further, TANF allows states to establish Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs) for their TANF families. The IRP may require participation in a substance abuse treatment program. A family may be sanctioned for failure to comply with its IRP. In 2005, the House passed a measure (S. 1932 as passed by the House) that would have required states to conduct drug testing of welfare recipients and end benefits for families with members who failed a certain number of drug tests. This provision was a part of a broad welfare reauthorization that was included in the House-passed version of S. 1932. However, this provision was not included in the final, scaled-back welfare reauthorization that was ultimately included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (see “Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?,” below). 1 (...continued) See, also, CRS Report RS22490, TANF: A Guide to the New Definitions of What Counts as Work Participation, by Gene Falk. CRS-3 History When was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Created? The TANF block grant was created by the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). TANF replaced the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which dated back to the Social Security Act of 1935, and several other related programs. Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-35) included provisions establishing “welfare-to-work” grants for Fiscal Years (FYs) 1998 and 1999, and made several other policy and technical changes to TANF. No new welfare-to-work grants were made after FY1999. The original funding authority for TANF ended on September 30, 2002. Over the four-year period of 2002-2005, Congress considered, but did not pass, legislation to modify and reauthorize TANF (see CRS Report RL33418, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109th Congress: An Overview, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears). Over this four-year period, Congress passed 12 “temporary extensions” of TANF and related programs as stop-gap measures until it could reach agreement on a longer-term reauthorization. (See Appendix A, Table A1 for a listing of the temporary extensions.) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) includes a long-term extension of funding for TANF through FY2010. It also requires most states to either raise participation in work activities among families receiving cash welfare from TANF, or further reduce the cash assistance rolls; it establishes $100 million per year in TANF research and technical assistance funds for “healthy marriage promotion” initiatives; and it provides $50 million per year for “responsible fatherhood initiatives.” (For a discussion of TANF provisions in the DRA, see CRS Report RS22369, TANF, Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.) Funding and Expenditures What is TANF’s Current Funding Level? The DRA provides funding for TANF through FY2010. The basic block grant is funded at $16.5 billion per year (for the 50 states and the District of Columbia) through FY2010. This was its original level, as established in the 1996 welfare reform law. The DRA also funds several grants and research in addition to the basic block grant, as shown on Table 1. Though most TANF funding currently runs though FY2010, the DRA extended supplemental grants only through FY2008. Readers should note that the DRA provides the funding authority (an appropriation, not just authorization) in advance through FY2010. TANF funding is not provided in annual appropriations. CRS-4 Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, FY2006-FY2010 ($ in millions) Basic block grant Supplemental grants Funding for the territories Marriage Promotion/healthy fatherhood TANF research Census Bureau research on welfare reform Total federal funds (without contingency funds) 2006 2007 $16,478 $16,478 319 319 77 78 2008 16,478 319 78 2009 16,478 0 78 2010 16,478 0 78 150 15 150 15 150 15 150 15 150 15 10 10 10 10 10 17,049 17,050 17,050 16,731 16,731 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data in a U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate, S. 1932, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, January 27, 2006. In addition to federal TANF funds, states are required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion per year for TANF-related activities for lowincome families with children. This level of state funding, known as maintenance-ofeffort (MOE) funding, was also established in the 1996 welfare law, and has not since been changed. How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2006 (ended September 30, 2006), the real value of the TANF block grant declined by a measure of one-fifth (20%). Based on the current inflation projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the block grant will decline in value by 27% from FY1997 through FY2010. CRS-5 Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Value of the Block Grant in Billions of FY1997 Dollars 16.5 16.2 15.9 15.4 14.9 14.7 14.4 14.1 13.6 13.1 12.8 12.5 12.2 12.0 Cumulative Loss of Value (in percent) — -2% -3% -6% -9% -11% -13% -15% -17% -20% -23% -24% -26% -27% 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-FY2006 using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Constant dollars for FY2007 through FY2010 are based on the inflation assumptions of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), published in August 2006. How Have States Used TANF Funds? TANF is best known as a funding source of cash welfare benefits for needy families with children. However, states have considerable discretion in using TANF funds, and have used them for a wide range of benefits and services. Figure 1, below, shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2005. In FY2005, a total of $28.4 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs. The three expenditure categories commonly associated with “welfare” for needy families with children — cash benefits, administrative costs, and work activities — accounted for only a little more than half (53%) of all funds. TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2005, 19% of all TANF funds used were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). FY2005 TANF and MOE expenditures on child care totaled $3.2 billion and transfers to CCDF totaled $1.9 billion, adding up to a $5.1 billion contribution to child care funding from TANF. TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system, which provides foster care, adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either have experienced or are at risk of child abuse or neglect. However, TANF’s CRS-6 accounting system poorly captures expenditures associated with spending on the child welfare system.2 Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2005, By Major Benefit or Service Category Total Expenditures and Transfers = $28.4 Billion Other Expenditures, 16% Transfers to SSBG, 3% Family Formation Expenditures, 3% Other Work Supports, 6% Basic (cash) Assistance, 38% Transfers to CCDF, 7% Child Care Expenditures, 11% Work Program Expenditures, 8% Administrative Expenditures, 8% Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). See Appendix A, Table A2, for dollar amounts associated with each of these categories. For state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Appendix B, Table B1 and Table B2. 2 For a discussion of the short-comings of TANF financial data reporting, see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant, GAO-06-414, March 2006. For an estimate of TANF’s contribution to child welfare agencies’ funding, see Scarcella et al, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children V, Urban Institute, May 2006. CRS-7 How Much Is Spent on Child Care from Both the TANF and the Child Care and Development Fund? Figure 1, above, shows that TANF is a major contributor to child care funding. In addition, there is a separate block grant specifically dedicated to child care, known as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). A frequently asked question is: “How much are we spending on child care from both TANF and the child care block grant?” It is not possible to answer that question by simply adding together the information from TANF and CCDF. This is because some of the money recorded for child care in TANF is also considered an expenditure under CCDF. Thus, adding the amount of TANF and MOE funds used for child care to CCDF expenditures would “double count” some child care spending. First, federal law allows up to 30% of the TANF block grant to be transferred to CCDF. These transfers will result in CCDF expenditures when the transfers are actually spent. Thus, TANF transfers should be subtracted from the TANF child care figure so that this spending is not double-counted. Second, some TANF MOE money can also be counted toward a separate CCDF MOE. Adjustments have to be made to avoid double-counting some state child care spending as both TANF and CCDF MOE spending. Making these adjustments, CRS estimates that child care spending from both TANF and CCDF totaled $11.7 billion in FY2005. How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? At the end of FY2005 (September 30, 2005), a total of $3.9 billion of federal TANF funding had been neither transferred nor spent. However, some of that $3.9 billion represented funds that states had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2005, states had made such commitments to spend — that is, obligations — totaling $1.8 billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments to spend, and they come in the form of contracts and grants to provide benefits and services. However, the definition of “obligation” varies from program to program, and since TANF essentially consists of 54 different programs (one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the territories), what constitutes an obligation may vary. The remaining $2.1 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated balance.” These funds are available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B3 in Appendix B shows unspent TANF funds by state. CRS-8 The Caseload How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services? This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving only ongoing assistance (generally cash welfare), with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. As discussed in the previous section of this report, a little less than half of all TANF funds are used on activities not considered part of a traditional “welfare” program. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving “assistance” are very likely to undercount the number of families receiving any TANF-funded benefit or service. How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOEFunded Cash Welfare? Table 3 provides cash welfare caseload information for the most recent month for which data are available (June 2006). A total of 1.9 million families composed of 4.6 million recipients received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in June 2006.3 The bulk of the “recipients” were children — 3.5 million children in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance caseloads, see Table B3 in Appendix B. Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2006 Total families 1,920,632 Total recipients 4,626,692 Total children 3,481,370 Total adults 1,134,539 Note: The number of total recipients is greater than the sum of total children and total adults because HHS reported total recipient data but not total children or total adult data for Guam. Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 3 These numbers may differ from other reported cash welfare caseload figures, which often reflect only the caseload within the TANF program while excluding the caseload in MOEfunded, separate state programs. In June 2006, within TANF alone, there were 1.8 million families composed of 4.1 million recipients. That month, in separate state programs financed from MOE funds, there were 149,000 families composed of 503,000 recipients. Note that if a family received assistance from both TANF and SSP programs in a month, the family would be double-counted in the total cash welfare caseload. That “double count” is likely to be small. Unduplicated caseload data from TANF and SSPs are not available on a monthly basis. CRS-9 How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare With Historical Levels? The number of families receiving cash welfare peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The cash welfare caseload fell rapidly in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before leveling off in 2001. Beginning again in 2004 the caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than observed in the late 1990s. Figure 2, below, provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving cash welfare, from July 1959 to the present. The 1.9 million families currently on the cash assistance rolls represent their lowest level since 1970. Table B3 shows recent trends in the number of cash welfare families by state. Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Welfare, July 1959 to June 2006 6,000,000 5,000,000 Historic Peak: March 1994 5.1 Million Families 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 June 2006: 1.9 Million Families 1,000,000 Ju l-5 9 Ju l -6 2 Ju l-6 5 Ju l-6 8 Ju l-7 1 Ju l-7 4 Ju l-7 7 Ju l-8 0 Ju l -8 3 Ju l-8 6 Ju l -8 9 Ju l-9 2 Ju l -9 5 Ju l-9 8 Ju l -0 1 Ju l-0 4 0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). See Table A3 in Appendix A for calendar-year average monthly numbers of families, recipients, and children receiving cash welfare. What Are the Characteristics of the “Typical” Cash Welfare Family? The most common cash welfare family comprises a single mother with one child. The majority of both the adults and children on the cash welfare caseload are racial or ethnic minorities. Many of the children on the cash welfare caseload are young: in FY2004, 40% of the children in cash welfare families were under the age of 6. CRS-10 However, the welfare caseload is heterogenous. Some basic facts about the caseload for FY2004: ! ! ! ! ! Single-parent families comprised an estimated 53% of all cash assistance families. The second-most common cash assistance family had no adult recipients — totaling 41% of all cash assistance families (See Child-Only Cases, below). Only 6% of cash assistance families had two adult recipients. The average family size on the cash benefit rolls was about three persons. Most adult recipients (86%) were women. The majority of the cash assistance caseload are racial or ethnic minorities. Among adult recipients, 37% were African-American, 20% were Hispanic, and 37% were white non-Hispanic. An estimated 23% of cash welfare adults were employed. See Table A4 and Table A5 in Appendix A for a summary of selected characteristics of families, adults and children receiving cash welfare in FY2004, and how these characteristics compare with those of the caseload in FY1994 and FY2000. What is a TANF “Child-Only” Family? A child-only family (or case) is one in which there are no adult recipients. Of course, children in families receiving cash welfare are in the care of an adult. However, benefits are paid to the family on behalf of only the children — the adult is not considered a recipient, and often his or her “needs” are not considered in determining how much is paid to the family. “Child-only” families are exempt from the federal TANF time limit on benefit receipt.4 Through FY2006, “child-only” families have also been excluded from determinations of a state’s TANF work participation rate. Beginning in FY2007, under provisions of new HHS regulations adopted to implement the Deficit Reduction Act, some “child-only” families will be counted in determining the work participation rate. In FY2004, “child-only” cases comprised 41% of all cash assistance families — up considerably from the FY1994 percentage of 17% of all cash assistance families. Moreover, the number of child-only families (845,000) was greater in FY2004 than it was in FY1994. “Child-only” families are themselves a heterogeneous group. In some instances, child recipients are living with their parents, but the parents are ineligible for assistance because they are ineligible noncitizens, are recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), have been sanctioned for failure to meet a program requirement, or have reached a state time limit on aid to an adult recipient. In other cases, the children are not living with their parents, but rather with a caretaker relative such as a grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc. 4 TANF prohibits states from using federal funds to provide assistance to families with an adult for more than five years (60 months). However, up to 20% of the TANF assistance caseload may be extended beyond five years for reason of hardship, and states may use MOE funds to assist families that have been on the rolls for five years or more. CRS-11 Figure 3, below, summarizes the characteristics of child-only cases, dividing them into three groups: families headed by an ineligible caretaker parent (58% of all “child-only” families), families headed by a caretaker relative (31% of “child only” families), and families for which information was not available about who was responsible for caring for the child. (Readers should note that these data are statereported — some states did not report information on adults who are not recipients themselves in cash welfare families.) Table 4, below, provides some limited detail on child-only family heads. Data are limited because states were not required to report certain characteristics of adult non-recipients (e.g., their citizenship or whether they had reached a state time limit), and because of poor reporting by some states on these persons. Figure 3. Composition of Cash Welfare “Child-Only” Cases Unknow n, 11% Caretaker Relative, 31% Ineligible Parent, 58% Total Number of Child-Only Cash Welfare Families = 845,000 Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of the FY2004 TANF national data files. Table 4. Cash Welfare “Child-Only Cases,” FY2004 Number (in thousands) Percent of all child-only cases Total child-only families 845 100.0% Ineligible parent 486 57.6 Receives SSI 206 24.4 Other 281 33.2 265 31.3 Grandparent 149 17.6 Other 116 13.7 Caretaker relative Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of the FY2004 TANF national data files. CRS-12 Child-Only Cases and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 As mentioned above, certain welfare reform provisions such as time limits and work requirements do not apply to “child-only” cases. TANF law and regulations do not define who in a family must be counted as a recipient, leaving states to decide whether to include or exclude family members (such as adults). However, the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations determining when a parent of a recipient child must be included in TANF work participation standard calculations. These regulations were released in interim, final form on June 29, 2006. They require states to include in the participation rate calculation families who have non-recipient adult parents who have been removed from the family because of a sanction (e.g., failure to participate in work) or because of a state time limit on an adult receiving TANF. The regulations permit states, on a case-by-case basis, to include in the participation calculations adult non-recipient parents who receive SSI, but might meet participation standards because of their work through programs such as “Ticket to Work.” The HHS regulations promulgated under the Deficit Reduction Act do not affect non-parent, non-recipient adults in TANF families (e.g., grandparents). TANF Cash Benefits How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? There are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a family. (There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash benefits, though all states do so.) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the states. Table 5, below, shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state and family size as of January 2005.5 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single parent family with children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types such as two-parent families or “child-only” cases. States also vary their benefits by other factors such as housing costs and sub-state geography. In general, the table shows the highest benefit amounts paid in the state, though the Michigan amount is for Wayne County (Detroit) and the New York benefit is for New York City.6 5 States are not required to report to the federal government their cash welfare benefit amounts in either the TANF state plan (under section 402 of the Social Security Act) or in annual program reports (under section 407 of the Social Security Act). The benefit amounts in this report are from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) survey of state TANF financial eligibility rules and benefit levels. CRS last conducted this survey for the month of January 2005. 6 In Michigan, higher maximum benefits were paid in Washtenaw County ($489 per month (continued...) CRS-13 Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying bigger families larger cash benefits on the presumption that larger families have greater financial needs. In January 2005, for the average cash welfare family (a family of three), the maximum monthly benefit in the median state was $389, with a range from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. The maximum monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e.g., no earned or unearned income) who complies with program rules. Families with income other than TANF often are paid a reduced benefit. Moreover, some families are financially sanctioned for failure to meet a program requirement (e.g., a work requirement), and are also paid a lower benefit. 6 (...continued) for a family of three) than in Wayne County. In New York, higher maximum benefits were paid in Suffolk County ($783 per month for a family of three) than in New York City. CRS-14 Table 5. TANF Maximum Cash Benefits for Single-Parent Families, By Family Size, January 2005 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 1 $165 0 204 81 359 214 402 201 239 180 155 335 309 223 139 183 267 186 122 230 216 418 276 250 110 136 251 222 231 489 162 231 414 181 282 223 180 310 215 2 $190 821 275 162 584 280 513 270 298 241 235 452 309 292 229 361 352 225 188 363 380 518 371 437 146 234 328 293 289 556 322 310 501 236 378 305 225 395 330 3 $215 923 347 204 723 356 636 338 379 303 280 570 309 396 288 426 429 262 240 485 482 618 459 532 170 292 405 364 348 625 424 389 691 272 477 373 292 460 421 4 $245 1,025 418 247 862 432 741 407 463 364 330 687 309 435 346 495 497 328 284 611 583 713 563 621 194 342 482 435 407 688 488 469 825 297 573 461 361 565 514 5 $275 1,127 489 286 980 512 835 475 533 426 378 805 309 509 405 548 558 383 327 733 675 812 659 697 218 388 560 506 466 748 552 548 964 324 670 539 422 660 607 6 $305 1,229 561 331 1,101 590 935 544 627 487 410 922 309 572 463 610 619 432 366 856 743 912 792 773 242 431 637 577 525 829 616 627 1,059 349 767 600 483 755 687 CRS-15 State Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1 327 121 366 95 93 274 503 242 349 262 0 195 2 449 163 448 142 193 380 604 323 440 301 673 320 3 554 205 501 185 223 474 709 389 546 340 673 340 4 634 248 553 226 268 555 795 451 642 384 673 340 5 714 290 606 264 298 632 885 537 740 420 673 360 6 794 333 659 305 342 696 946 587 841 460 673 360 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS survey of state TANF financial eligibility and benefit rules. How Have TANF Cash Benefits Changed Over Time? The large variation in TANF cash welfare benefits is not new. Even before the 1996 welfare reform law, states determined benefit amounts. Most states do not regularly adjust benefits for the effects of inflation. Some states have not changed their benefit levels in many years. Table 6, below, compares the January 2005 benefit for a family of three (single-parent family) with the benefits paid in January 1996, 2000, and 2002. In inflation-adjusted terms, the benefits declined in value by 19% in states that paid the same benefit in January 2005 as in January 1996. CRS-16 Table 6. Cash Welfare Benefits for a Family of Three (Single-Parent Family), January 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2005 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 1996 $164 923 347 204 596 356 636 338 415 303 280 712 317 377 288 426 429 262 190 418 373 565 459 532 120 292 438 364 348 550 424 389 577 272 431 2000 $164 923 347 204 626 356 636 338 379 303 280 570 293 377 288 426 429 262 190 461 417 565 459 532 170 292 469 364 348 575 424 439 577 272 457 2002 $164 923 347 204 679 356 636 338 379 303 280 570 293 377 288 426 429 262 240 485 472 618 459 532 170 292 494 364 348 600 424 389 577 272 477 Percent change in real (inflationadjusted) dollars: 2005 1996-2005 $215 6.1% 923 -19.0 347 -19.0 204 -19.0 723 -1.8 356 -19.0 636 -19.0 338 -19.0 379 -26.1 303 -19.0 280 -19.0 570 -35.2 309 -21.1 396 -15.0 288 -19.0 426 -19.0 429 -19.0 262 -19.0 240 2.3 485 -6.1 482 4.6 618 -11.4 459 -19.0 532 -19.0 170 14.7 292 -19.0 405 -25.1 364 -19.0 348 -19.0 625 -8.0 424 -19.0 389 -19.0 691 -3.0 272 -19.0 477 -10.4 CRS-17 State Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1996 341 307 460 421 554 200 430 185 188 416 633 354 546 253 517 360 2000 373 292 460 421 554 204 430 185 201 451 708 354 546 328 673 340 2002 373 292 460 421 554 205 469 185 201 474 709 389 546 453 673 340 Percent change in real (inflationadjusted) dollars: 2005 1996-2005 373 -11.4 292 -23.0 460 -19.0 421 -19.0 554 -19.0 205 -17.0 501 -5.7 185 -19.0 223 -4.0 474 -7.7 709 -9.3 389 -11.0 546 -19.0 340 8.8 673 5.4 340 -23.5 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS survey of state TANF financial eligibility and benefit rules. CRS-18 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 meet standards of participation in work or activities — that is, a family member must be in specified activities for a minimum number of hours.7 There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a state’s caseload, requiring 90% of the state’s two-parent caseload to meet participation standards. States that fail the TANF work participation standards are penalized by a reduction in their block grant amounts. However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a “caseload reduction credit.” The caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard one percentage point for each percent decline in the caseload. Beginning in FY2007, states will be credited only with caseload declines that have occurred since FY2005. The FY2007 effective (after-credit) standard will be based on caseload declines from FY2005 to FY2006. The FY2008 effective standard will be based on caseload declines from FY2005 to FY2007. States are not given credit for caseload declines that result from new restrictions on eligibility enacted by states since FY2005. The currently available caseload data do not tell what the effective (after-credit) participation standards will be for FY2007. However, cash welfare caseloads have declined over the past year. From the first nine months of FY2005 to the first nine months of FY2006, the national average decline in the overall cash welfare caseload was about 6% (see Table B3 in Appendix B). If this is sustained over the entire fiscal year and is not a result of restrictive policy changes, the average state will see its effective participation standards reduced by six percentage points — from 50% to 44%. What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? In FY2004, the national average work participation rate for all families achieved by states was 32%. The participation rate within TANF achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was 47.4%. This implies that many states would have to raise their participation rates from historical levels to comply with the FY2007 TANF work participation standards. In FY2004, all jurisdictions except Guam met TANF work participation standards. A more generous caseload reduction credit, counting caseload declines from FY1995, was in effect that year. In FY2004, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Washington failed to meet the two-parent standard. See Table B5 in Appendix B for FY2004 participation rates for all states. 7 Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation. CRS-19 Appendix A. Supplementary Tables Table A1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs, FY2003-FY2006 Public law P.L. 107-229 P.L. 107-294 P.L. 108-7 P.L. 108-40 P.L. 108-89 P.L. 108-210 Time period Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002 Jan. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2003 Apr. 1, 2003-June 30, 2003 July 1, 2003-Sept. 30, 2003 Oct. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2004 Apr. 1, 2004-June 30, 2004 P.L. 108-262 July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004 P.L. 108-308 Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005 P.L. 109-4 Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005 P.L. 109-19 July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005 P.L. 109-68 Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 2005 P.L. 109-161 Jan. 1, 2006-Mar. 31, 2006 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Notes Extension as part of a continuing resolution. Extension as part of a continuing resolution. Extension as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Free-standing bill that amended the Social Security Act to extend TANF and related programs. Multipurpose bill that extended programs through the first half of FY2004. Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the program through June 30, 2004. Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the program through Sept. 30, 2004. Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs through Mar. 31, 2005. Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs through June 30, 2005. Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs through Sept. 30, 2005. Bill to provide extra funding to help states provide benefits to families affected by Hurricane Katrina, suspend certain requirements in states affected by the hurricane, and extend the funding authority for the programs through Dec. 31, 2005. Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs through March 31, 2006. Reduced the bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock births for FY2006FY2010 to offset the costs of the temporary extension. CRS-20 Table A2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2005 Category Basic (cash) assistance Administrative expenditures Work program expenditures Child care expenditures Transfers to CCDF Other work supports Family formation expenditures Other expenditures Transfers to SSBG Total Expenditures Total Transfers Total Dollars (in Billions) $10.7 2.4 2.2 3.2 1.9 1.7 0.8 4.6 0.9 25.6 2.9 28.4 Percent of Total Expenditures (and Transfers) 37.8% 8.4 7.6 11.2 6.8 5.8 3.0 16.2 3.2 89.9 10.1 100.0 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-21 Table A3. Average Monthly Families, Recipients, and Children, Calendar Years 1961-2006 (in thousands) Year Total Families 1961 873 1962 939 1963 963 1964 1,010 1965 1,060 1966 1,096 1967 1,220 1968 1,410 1969 1,696 1970 2,207 1971 2,763 1973 3,148 1974 3,219 1975 3,481 1976 3,565 1977 3,568 1978 3,517 1979 3,509 1980 3,712 1981 3,835 1982 3,542 1983 3,686 1984 3,714 1985 3,701 1986 3,763 1987 3,776 1988 3,749 1989 3,798 1990 4,057 1991 4,497 1992 4,829 1993 5,012 1994 5,033 1995 4,791 1996 4,484 1999 2,455 2000 2,303 2001 2,192 2002 2,187 2003 2,180 2004 2,155 2005 2,069 2006 (six-month 1,959 average, through June) Total Recipients Total Children Total Adults 3,363 2,598 765 3,704 2,844 860 3,945 2,957 988 4,195 3,145 1,050 4,422 3,321 1,101 4,546 3,434 1,112 5,014 3,771 1,243 5,702 4,274 1,429 6,689 4,973 1,716 8,462 6,212 10,148 10,242 7,435 12,323 10,949 7,903 13,504 10,847 7,805 13,469 11,319 8,071 14,047 11,284 7,982 13,941 11,015 7,743 13,648 10,551 7,363 13,188 10,312 7,181 12,935 10,774 7,419 13,442 11,079 7,527 13,720 10,358 6,903 12,803 10,761 7,098 13,238 10,831 7,144 13,321 10,855 7,198 13,392 11,038 7,334 13,648 11,027 7,366 13,680 10,915 7,329 13,590 10,992 7,419 13,717 11,695 7,911 14,542 12,930 8,715 15,919 13,773 9,303 16,869 14,205 9,574 17,327 14,161 9,568 17,264 13,418 9,135 16,356 13,654 8,560 15,140 6,637 4,807 2,557 6,143 4,479 2,406 5,717 4,195 2,283 5,609 4,119 2,267 5,490 4,062 2,234 5,341 3,970 2,193 5,036 3,762 2,103 4,727 3,549 1,989 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-22 Table A4. Number of Cash Welfare Families, Adult Recipients, and Child Recipients By Selected Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004 Number of families (in thousands) Average family size 1994 5,046 2.8 2000 2,297 3.0 2004 2,129 2.9 Percent change, 1994-2004 -57.8 1.9 Characteristics of families (numbers of families in thousands) Number of adult recipients With one adult recipient With two adult recipients Subtotal: with adult recipients With no adult recipients 3,757 411 4,169 869 1,370 163 1,532 761 1,133 125 1,258 871 -69.8 -69.7 -69.8 0.3 -17.3 -23.2 -17.9 14.5 Number of children in family One child Two children Three or more children 2,148 1,514 1,272 996 655 598 1,012 598 477 -52.9 -60.5 -62.5 1.6 -8.6 -20.3 Number of adult recipients 4,610 1,751 1,398 -69.7 -20.1 Characteristics of adult recipients (numbers in thousands) Gender Women Men 4,022 587 1,516 234 1,209 190 -69.9 -67.7 -20.3 -19.2 Employment status Employed Not employed 384 4,182 485 848 316 699 -17.9 -83.3 -35.0 -17.5 Percent change, 2000-2004 -7.3 -4.5 CRS-23 Percent change, 1994-2004 Percent change, 2000-2004 1994 2000 2004 Race/ethnicity White (Non-Hispanic) African-American Hispanic Other* 1,870 1,559 862 319 573 604 407 132 511 513 281 75 -72.7 -67.1 -67.4 -76.5 -10.8 -15.1 -31.0 -43.4 Number of child recipients (numbers in thousands) 9,753 4,619 3,980 -59.2 -13.8 559 1,765 1,507 651 3,520 1,732 293 583 589 297 1,906 948 279 553 517 231 1,501 896 -50.1 -68.7 -65.7 -64.5 -57.4 -48.3 -4.9 -5.1 -12.2 -22.1 -21.3 -5.5 3,220 3,701 2,064 488 1,233 1,754 1,210 309 1,109 1,509 1,067 234 -65.6 -59.2 -48.3 -52.0 -10.1 -14.0 -11.7 -24.3 Age Infants 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 6 to 12 13 or older Race/ethnicity White (Non-Hispanic) African-American Hispanic Other * Includes persons who reported multiple racial affiliations. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of the FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control data file and the FY2000 and FY2004 TANF National data files. CRS-24 Table A5. Composition of Cash Welfare Families By Selected Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004 1994 Percent of Total Families 2000 Percentage point change, 2004 1994-2004 Percentage point change, 2000-2004 Number of Adult Recipients One Two or more Subtotal: with adult recipients None 74.5 8.2 82.6 17.2 59.6 7.1 66.7 33.1 53.2 5.9 59.1 40.9 -21.2 -2.3 -23.5 23.7 -6.4 -1.2 -7.6 7.8 Number of Children One Two Three or more 42.6 30.0 25.2 43.4 28.5 26.1 47.6 28.1 22.4 5.0 -1.9 -2.8 4.2 -0.4 -3.7 87.2 12.7 86.6 13.4 86.4 13.6 -0.8 0.8 -0.2 0.2 8.3 27.7 22.6 14.2 -5.1 40.6 33.8 18.7 6.9 32.8 34.5 23.3 7.5 36.6 36.7 20.1 5.4 -4.0 2.9 1.4 -1.6 3.8 2.2 -3.2 -2.2 Percent of Total Adult Recipients Gender Women Men Employment Status Employed Race/Ethnicity White (Non-Hispanic) African-American Hispanic Other* CRS-25 1994 Percent of Child Recipients 2000 Percentage point change, 2004 1994-2004 Percentage point change, 2000-2004 Age Infants 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 6 to 12 13 or older 5.7 18.1 15.4 6.7 36.1 17.8 6.3 12.6 12.8 6.4 41.3 20.5 7.0 13.9 13.0 5.8 37.7 22.5 1.3 -4.2 -2.5 -0.9 1.6 4.8 0.7 1.3 0.2 -0.6 -3.6 2.0 Race/Ethnicity White (Non-Hispanic) African-American Hispanic Other 33.0 37.9 21.2 5.0 26.7 38.0 26.2 6.7 27.9 37.9 26.8 5.9 -5.2 0.0 5.7 0.9 1.2 -0.1 0.6 -0.8 * Includes persons who reported multiple racial affiliations. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of the FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control data file and the FY2000 and FY2004 TANF National data files. CRS-26 Appendix B. State Tables Table B1. Use of FY2005 TANF and MOE Funds by Category ($ in millions) Basic (cash) State assistance Alabama $47.4 Alaska 41.1 Arizona 160.1 Arkansas 18.5 California 3,503.7 Colorado 75.1 Connecticut 125.7 Delaware 19.3 District of Columbia 66.3 Florida 184.2 Georgia 117.3 Hawaii 81.7 Idaho 7.3 Illinois 122.2 Indiana 113.2 Iowa 75.7 Kansas 65.4 Kentucky 104.9 Louisiana 51.3 Maine 90.0 Maryland 124.3 Massachusetts 331.6 Michigan 412.0 Minnesota 137.3 Mississippi 26.9 Missouri 124.9 Administrative expenditures $12.4 5.8 38.5 7.7 557.3 21.1 29.3 5.8 14.9 93.0 19.0 14.3 2.2 23.7 40.5 13.4 8.4 16.6 26.1 5.9 36.0 28.4 94.5 45.2 5.3 20.3 Work program expenditures $15.8 11.8 18.5 12.2 436.7 1.2 23.9 0.0 19.9 81.8 86.8 20.6 7.7 85.6 7.3 18.3 1.7 27.6 12.5 2.1 28.1 19.1 83.7 70.8 15.1 32.3 Family formation Child care expenexpenTransfers to Other work ditures ditures CCDF supports $6.2 $4.1 $3.7 $1.9 12.8 15.2 0.7 0.6 9.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 14.8 7.5 5.1 2.5 669.4 412.6 151.1 22.1 1.9 2.7 8.4 0.1 12.3 0.0 18.2 74.1 23.7 -4.3 12.5 0.0 39.4 18.5 0.0 2.8 242.3 122.5 7.3 11.3 22.2 0.0 13.6 31.5 10.6 10.3 1.2 0.0 0.8 8.7 0.3 2.5 415.3 0.0 20.2 1.2 15.3 5.0 39.4 1.6 5.1 25.3 4.7 8.3 7.9 21.4 36.0 0.0 20.9 54.4 5.8 0.0 5.2 19.6 8.0 51.2 13.7 8.9 12.8 0.0 29.8 0.0 100.5 21.6 183.6 91.9 70.7 0.6 226.9 130.9 1.5 102.1 40.0 22.6 57.7 0.0 4.9 19.5 13.2 7.3 61.3 27.4 0.0 7.4 Other expenditures $36.0 1.3 68.1 5.6 542.3 106.0 175.3 0.0 12.7 248.5 229.6 0.0 19.1 330.3 89.4 36.1 34.9 40.5 32.0 2.3 8.6 54.6 254.6 41.3 6.1 52.8 Transfers to SSBG $10.4 3.1 23.0 2.4 128.2 15.0 26.7 2.4 3.9 62.3 14.1 10.0 1.4 17.5 2.0 12.8 4.3 0.0 16.4 4.9 22.9 45.9 43.9 0.0 9.8 21.7 Total $137.9 92.5 321.6 76.6 6,423.2 231.5 485.5 59.4 178.4 1,053.2 534.2 148.7 50.0 1,015.9 313.7 199.7 180.1 270.7 222.4 140.7 371.8 826.3 1,350.1 415.0 108.2 348.0 CRS-27 State 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 Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Basic (cash) assistance 19.8 54.0 33.1 35.3 440.9 74.8 1,761.8 108.4 11.2 316.4 33.2 105.1 407.1 72.1 73.4 11.6 120.8 181.1 45.2 36.1 143.1 261.9 43.0 115.5 6.6 10,739.0 Administrative expenditures 5.3 5.8 16.6 7.1 82.9 7.2 380.8 39.1 3.4 132.3 15.8 26.9 99.5 14.5 21.1 2.9 28.8 121.3 19.7 6.7 46.5 45.4 25.0 35.6 1.0 Work program expenditures 11.2 11.8 1.3 8.8 45.4 12.2 200.2 62.4 2.6 77.7 0.0 22.3 179.8 7.1 55.5 3.4 25.4 86.1 30.9 0.6 51.0 93.7 2.6 33.3 0.4 2,376.6 2,166.9 Family Child care formation expenTransfers to Other work expenditures CCDF supports ditures 1.3 1.9 0.0 0.4 6.5 9.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.6 0.3 4.6 5.5 1.1 1.2 26.4 0.0 52.1 350.7 2.9 29.6 1.9 1.2 102.0 381.8 753.6 39.5 117.4 86.0 6.5 0.1 2.4 0.0 1.5 2.2 220.7 0.0 25.3 10.2 62.1 30.8 26.3 3.8 9.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 129.8 116.8 45.9 31.9 51.3 8.8 0.3 0.0 4.1 1.5 7.3 6.9 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 31.3 57.7 5.9 0.0 22.6 0.0 2.7 7.6 9.5 0.0 1.3 0.5 8.3 9.2 14.9 0.0 22.0 3.0 7.4 0.6 69.1 103.0 3.8 0.0 20.5 0.0 10.0 15.2 168.7 64.2 62.4 16.5 3.0 3.7 2.4 0.0 3,197.1 1,937.4 1,650.0 840.2 Other expenditures 5.9 0.0 8.9 4.8 -4.6 27.1 732.0 114.0 10.3 207.5 33.1 89.5 296.3 22.7 61.3 10.9 21.0 429.2 0.9 0.9 19.0 51.1 7.7 14.0 18.8 Transfers to SSBG 1.8 0.0 1.2 3.9 15.4 2.0 119.8 5.6 0.0 74.3 15.4 0.0 29.4 1.1 20.0 2.2 9.1 61.1 3.0 4.7 15.3 7.9 11.0 13.4 0.0 4,610.3 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 922.4 Total 47.6 87.1 71.2 72.1 1,009.2 159.0 4,471.5 539.5 33.6 1,064.3 220.5 268.8 1,336.5 177.9 251.0 32.6 300.0 911.7 110.8 81.5 308.0 635.9 135.0 523.5 36.0 28,439.9 CRS-28 Table B2. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category, as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding 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 Basic (cash) assistance 34.4 44.4 49.8 24.2 54.5 32.5 25.9 32.5 37.2 17.5 22.0 55.0 14.6 12.0 36.1 37.9 36.3 38.7 23.1 64.0 33.4 40.1 30.5 33.1 24.8 35.9 41.6 62.0 Administrative expenditures 9.0 6.3 12.0 10.1 8.7 9.1 6.0 9.7 8.4 8.8 3.6 9.6 4.4 2.3 12.9 6.7 4.7 6.1 11.8 4.2 9.7 3.4 7.0 10.9 4.9 5.8 11.2 6.6 Family Work formation program expenexpenChild care Transfers to Other work ditures ditures expenditures CCDF supports 11.4 4.5 3.0 2.7 1.4 12.7 13.9 16.4 0.8 0.7 5.7 3.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 16.0 19.4 9.8 6.7 3.3 6.8 10.4 6.4 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 3.6 0.0 4.9 2.5 0.0 3.8 15.3 0.0 39.9 -7.2 21.0 0.0 11.2 22.1 10.4 0.0 1.6 7.8 23.0 11.6 0.7 1.1 16.2 4.2 0.0 2.5 5.9 13.9 7.1 6.9 0.8 0.0 15.3 1.6 17.5 0.5 5.0 8.4 40.9 0.0 2.0 0.1 2.3 4.9 1.6 12.6 0.5 9.2 2.5 12.7 2.3 4.2 1.0 4.4 11.9 20.0 0.0 10.2 7.7 20.1 2.1 0.0 5.6 2.3 8.8 3.6 23.0 1.5 9.8 6.3 9.1 0.0 7.6 8.0 0.0 27.0 5.8 2.3 22.2 11.1 8.6 0.1 6.2 16.8 9.7 0.1 7.6 17.1 9.6 5.5 13.9 0.0 14.0 4.6 18.1 12.2 6.7 9.3 17.6 7.9 0.0 2.1 23.5 2.8 3.9 0.0 0.8 13.6 7.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 Other expenditures 26.1 1.5 21.2 7.4 8.4 45.8 36.1 0.0 7.1 23.6 43.0 0.0 38.1 32.5 28.5 18.1 19.4 15.0 14.4 1.6 2.3 6.6 18.9 10.0 5.6 15.2 12.4 0.0 Transfers to SSBG 7.5 3.4 7.2 3.2 2.0 6.5 5.5 4.0 2.2 5.9 2.6 6.7 2.9 1.7 0.6 6.4 2.4 0.0 7.4 3.5 6.2 5.6 3.3 0.0 9.0 6.2 3.7 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 CRS-29 State Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Basic (cash) assistance 46.6 48.9 43.7 47.0 39.4 20.1 33.2 29.7 15.1 39.1 30.5 40.5 29.2 35.8 40.3 19.9 40.8 44.3 46.5 41.2 31.9 22.1 18.5 37.8 Administrative expenditures 23.3 9.9 8.2 4.5 8.5 7.2 10.2 12.4 7.2 10.0 7.4 8.2 8.4 8.9 9.6 13.3 17.8 8.2 15.1 7.1 18.5 6.8 2.9 8.4 Work Family program formation expenChild care Transfers to Other work expenditures expenditures CCDF supports ditures 1.8 5.6 0.0 7.9 0.5 12.2 6.4 7.6 1.5 1.6 4.5 2.6 0.0 5.2 34.8 7.7 1.8 18.6 1.2 0.8 4.5 2.3 8.5 16.9 0.9 11.6 21.8 15.9 1.2 0.0 7.8 7.2 0.0 4.4 6.5 7.3 20.7 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.0 28.2 13.9 11.9 1.7 8.3 3.5 0.0 5.8 0.0 13.5 9.7 8.7 3.4 2.4 4.0 28.9 4.9 0.2 0.0 22.1 1.6 0.6 2.9 2.7 10.5 2.5 0.0 0.4 1.7 8.5 10.4 19.2 2.0 0.0 9.4 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.8 27.9 8.5 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.8 10.2 11.3 18.3 0.0 16.6 7.2 1.0 2.4 0.2 14.7 10.9 16.2 0.6 0.0 1.9 15.2 0.0 7.4 11.2 6.4 32.2 12.3 11.9 3.2 1.1 8.3 10.3 6.6 0.0 7.6 11.2 6.8 5.8 3.0 Other expenditures 12.5 6.6 -0.5 17.1 16.4 21.1 30.6 19.5 15.0 33.3 22.2 12.8 24.4 33.6 7.0 47.1 0.8 1.2 6.2 8.0 5.7 2.7 52.3 Transfers to SSBG 1.8 5.3 1.5 1.3 2.7 1.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 8.0 6.7 3.0 6.7 2.7 5.8 5.0 1.2 8.2 2.6 0.0 16.2 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 3.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 CRS-30 Table B3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2005 ($ 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 Obligated but unexpended funds $6.1 8.4 28.1 0.2 387.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 9.6 33.7 44.4 67.2 6.8 0.0 44.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.1 77.2 3.7 38.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.6 1.0 184.8 57.9 0.0 420.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Unobligated and unexpended funds $31.6 22.4 0.0 97.8 0.0 77.5 0.0 6.2 53.6 0.0 146.8 79.6 0.0 0.0 21.4 19.9 0.8 48.7 6.3 5.5 101.5 7.7 45.7 34.1 15.8 0.0 33.4 8.7 19.8 48.4 0.0 20.7 221.3 0.0 15.6 473.3 86.9 36.8 0.0 6.1 Total unspent funds $37.7 30.8 28.1 98.0 387.3 77.5 0.0 7.7 63.3 33.7 191.2 146.7 6.8 0.0 65.7 26.3 0.8 48.7 35.4 5.5 109.3 7.7 45.8 111.3 19.5 38.7 33.4 8.7 19.8 48.4 187.6 21.8 406.0 57.9 15.6 893.6 86.9 36.8 0.9 6.1 CRS-31 State South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals Obligated but unexpended funds 0.0 0.7 2.1 181.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1,843.1 Unobligated and unexpended funds 40.0 19.9 117.9 0.0 44.6 0.0 14.7 18.4 13.6 0.0 41.3 2,104.3 Total unspent funds 40.0 20.6 119.9 181.7 44.6 0.0 14.7 18.4 13.6 0.0 47.0 3,947.3 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-32 Table B4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2006 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of 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 Families 18,540 3,635 37,827 7,893 486,943 14,071 21,758 5,411 15,279 50,801 29,237 3,072 9,203 1,787 36,084 43,515 21,212 16,963 32,622 10,582 11,360 19,256 47,064 83,196 30,895 12,597 43,103 3,774 12,501 6,903 6,212 41,793 16,308 174,323 29,209 2,711 78,301 9,857 18,542 92,827 14,089 12,172 17,617 Total recipients 43,319 9,876 82,861 16,981 1,191,948 36,276 47,031 12,124 38,809 83,958 55,711 10,783 25,818 2,954 88,366 126,464 48,714 44,077 68,438 23,471 32,788 43,707 95,454 219,946 81,518 25,824 109,520 9,783 32,536 16,843 14,153 106,339 41,009 445,386 56,406 6,934 166,678 21,502 41,568 238,608 37,928 31,058 41,095 Child recipients 33,694 6,791 62,595 13,039 957,806 26,353 32,424 9,130 30,047 71,013 49,787 NR 17,596 2,583 70,676 96,269 31,119 30,203 52,193 20,376 21,944 33,045 65,712 159,605 57,672 19,972 74,539 6,757 22,555 12,828 9,748 74,576 29,660 316,304 45,750 4,940 127,713 17,793 31,066 169,520 26,827 22,192 30,388 Adult recipients 9,625 3,085 20,266 3,942 234,142 9,923 14,607 2,994 8,762 12,945 5,924 NR 8,222 371 17,690 30,195 17,595 13,874 16,245 3,095 10,844 10,662 29,742 60,341 23,846 5,852 34,981 3,026 9,981 4,015 4,405 31,763 11,349 129,082 10,656 1,994 38,965 3,709 10,502 69,088 11,101 8,866 10,707 CRS-33 State South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Families 2,849 68,151 67,892 7,115 4,677 440 34,323 54,710 10,855 18,273 302 Total recipients 6,178 181,702 155,966 17,200 11,632 1,246 80,520 132,130 24,522 40,493 541 Child recipients 5,165 130,145 129,081 12,865 7,532 934 56,488 92,519 17,911 33,459 471 Adult recipients 1,013 51,557 26,885 4,335 4,100 312 24,032 39,611 6,611 7,034 70 1,920,632 4,626,692 3,481,370 1,134,539 Note: “NR” denotes not reported. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-34 Table B5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, June 1994, June 2000, June 2005, and June 2006 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of 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 June-94 49,482 12,977 71,530 25,892 919,535 41,378 59,701 11,239 27,443 June-00 18,839 7,542 32,769 12,046 552,221 10,772 28,840 5,920 17,071 June-05 20,123 4,565 41,952 8,191 505,534 15,430 23,721 5,627 16,786 June-06 18,540 3,635 37,827 7,893 486,943 14,071 21,758 5,411 15,279 239,232 139,566 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 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 59,673 38,669 3,072 10,451 1,855 39,165 50,233 21,264 17,404 34,014 15,565 11,682 25,464 48,430 79,800 31,839 15,389 46,041 4,731 12,679 7,780 6,354 47,613 17,224 189,001 32,057 2,885 80,473 11,241 19,477 50,801 29,237 3,072 9,203 1,787 36,084 43,515 21,212 16,963 32,622 10,582 11,360 19,256 47,064 83,196 30,895 12,597 43,103 3,774 12,501 6,903 6,212 41,793 16,308 174,323 29,209 2,711 78,301 9,857 18,542 Percentage change June 05- June 94June 06 June 06 -7.9% -62.5% -20.4 -72.0 -9.8 -47.1 -3.6 -69.5 -3.7 -47.0 -8.8 -66.0 -8.3 -63.6 -3.8 -51.9 -9.0 -44.3 -14.9 -24.4 0.0 -11.9 -3.7 -7.9 -13.4 -0.2 -2.5 -4.1 -32.0 -2.8 -24.4 -2.8 4.3 -3.0 -18.1 -6.4 -20.2 -1.4 -11.3 -2.2 -12.2 -5.3 -7.8 -8.9 -6.0 -2.7 -12.3 -4.8 -78.8 -79.1 55.7 -55.8 -79.6 -85.1 -40.3 -46.7 -43.5 -58.8 -87.7 -49.8 -75.8 -57.3 -62.6 -51.0 -77.2 -53.3 -68.6 -20.1 -51.4 -46.4 -65.9 -51.7 -62.2 -77.7 -52.6 -68.4 -79.0 -55.8 CRS-35 State Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total June-94 211,431 58,484 22,737 51,590 6,868 109,339 282,902 17,536 10,006 1,106 75,020 104,243 40,379 76,458 5,751 June-00 87,972 31,273 17,242 17,017 2,789 55,940 128,289 8,191 5,858 884 30,910 58,217 12,000 17,534 565 June-05 96,807 14,887 12,904 17,922 2,723 70,692 82,950 9,041 4,897 457 36,233 58,668 12,081 20,059 290 June-06 92,827 14,089 12,172 17,617 2,849 68,151 67,892 7,115 4,677 440 34,323 54,710 10,855 18,273 302 5,043,050 2,294,186 2,064,065 1,920,632 Percentage change June 05- June 94June 06 June 06 -4.1 -56.1 -5.4 -75.9 -5.7 -46.5 -1.7 -65.9 4.6 -58.5 -3.6 -37.7 -18.2 -76.0 -21.3 -59.4 -4.5 -53.3 -3.7 -60.2 -5.3 -54.2 -6.7 -47.5 -10.1 -73.1 -8.9 -76.1 4.1 -94.7 -6.9 -61.9 Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-36 Table B6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2004, by State State United States All Families 32.2 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 37.9 43.6 25.5 27.3 23.1 34.7 24.3 22.1 18.2 40.4 24.8 0.0 70.5 41.0 46.1 36.3 50.0 88.0 38.1 35.4 32.1 16.0 60.0 24.5 26.8 21.0 19.5 92.7 34.5 34.5 30.2 34.6 46.2 37.8 31.4 25.3 65.2 33.2 32.1 7.1 Two-parent families 47.4 * 52.8 65.6 34.4 * 37.5 * * 20.1 * * 0 * 37.1 * * * 93.7 51.2 38 * * 65.4 35.7 * * * 95.7 * * * * 55.3 48.3 47.2 * 68.4 * 35.5 15 CRS-37 State Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming All Families 7.5 23.7 53.7 54.8 50.6 34.2 26.2 24.9 10.6 50.1 35.4 11.7 61.3 77.8 Two-parent families * 94.9 55.9 * * * * 38.2 * * 31.1 * 33.1 87.5 * State did not serve two-parent families within its TANF program in FY2004. Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).