< Back to Current Version

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

Changes from December 7, 2011 to October 2, 2013

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy December 7, 2011October 2, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32760 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQFAQs 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). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk). TANF Funding. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk of which is provided in a $16.5 billion-per-year basic federal 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 basic block grant is not adjusted for inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload (see “The Caseload,” below). It has lost 28% of its value to inflation from FY1997 through FY2011bulk of federal TANF funding lapsed at the end of September 30, 2013. The pending continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 59) would fund TANF into FY2014. State Spending. Though TANF is best known for funding cash welfareassistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2009FY2012, expenditures on basic assistance (cash welfareassistance) totaled $9.30 billion—28% 28.6% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. TANF also contributes funds for child care and services services for children who have been, or are at risk of being, abused and neglected. Cash WelfareAssistance Caseload. A total of 1.98 million families, composed of 4.61 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in June 2011March 2013. The bulk of the “recipients” were children— 3.43.1 million in that month. The cash welfareassistance caseload is very heterogeneous. The type of family historically thought of as the “typical” cash welfareassistance family—one with an unemployed adult adult recipient—accounted for less than half of all families on the rolls in FY2008FY2010. Additionally, 15% of cash welfareassistance families had an employed adult, while almost half of all families had no adult adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving Supplemental Security Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles) caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and ineligible noncitizen parents. Cash WelfareAssistance Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 20092011, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. Benefits in all states represent a fraction of poverty-level income. In the median state (Kansas), the jurisdiction (North Dakota), the maximum monthly benefit of $429427 for a family of three represents 28% of poverty-levelpovertylevel income. Cash WelfareAssistance Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and 90% of two-parent families in work activities. However, these standards are reduced by caseload reduction from FY2005. Further, states may get an extra credit against these standards by spending more than required under the TANF MOE. Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% or 90% targets, and vary by state. In FY2010In FY2009, states achieved an all-family allfamily participation rate of 29.40% and a two-parent rate of 28.333.4%. That year, eight jurisdictions failed failed the all-family standard, and sevensix jurisdictions failed the two-parent standard. States that fail to to meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant. Congressional Research Service . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQFAQs Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Current Topics.................................................................................................................................. 1 What isIs TANF’s Current Funding Level?.Status? ................................................................................. 1 Has the President Proposed Reauthorization Legislation for TANF? ....................................... 2 Is the Cash Welfare Caseload Rising Because of the Current Recession? ................................ 2 How Can States Pay for Any Caseload Increases Caused by the Recession? ........................... 3 May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients? ........................................................Is Legislation Pending That Would Extend TANF Beyond September 30? .............................. 1 What Is TANF’s Current Funding Level?.................................................................................. 2 Did the Cash Assistance Caseload Rise During the Recent Recession?.................................... 3 What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative? .................................................................... 3 Has Any State Formally Applied for a “Waiver” of TANF Work Participation Standards? .............................................................................................................................. 3 May States Require Drug Testing of Assistance Recipients? .................................................... 3 History ............................................................................................................................................. 34 When wasWas the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Created? .................................................................................................................................. 34 Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? ............................................................ 4 Funding and Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 45 How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? .............................. 45 How Have States Used TANF Funds? ....................................................................................... 56 How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? ................................................................. 67 The Caseload ................................................................................................................................... 7 How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services? ....................... 7 How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Cash Welfare?....Assistance? .............................................................................................................................. 7 How Does the Current Cash WelfareAssistance Caseload Level Compare Withwith Historical Levels? ................................................................................................................................... 78 What Are the Characteristics of Cash WelfareAssistance Families?... ....................................................... 8 9 TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? ........... 10..... 11 TANF Work Participation Standards ............................................................................................. 1215 What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? ....................................... 12 What Actual15 Have There Been Changes in the Work Participation Rules Enacted Since the 1996 Welfare Reform Law? .......................................................................................................... 15 What Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? ......................................... 13 Figures Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2009, by Major Benefit and Service Category........... 16 What Has Been the National Average All-Family Work Participation Rate?.................... 16 How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard From FY2002 Through FY2010? ............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Welfare 17 Are States that Recently Failed the All-Family Standard Being Penalized? ..................... 20 Have States Met the Two-Parent Work Participation Standard? ....................................... 20 Figures Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2012, by Major Benefit and Service Category........................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Welfare Caseload: FY2008...................................................... 9 Tables Table 1. TANF Funding: FY2006 through FY2012......................................................................... 1................................................... 6 Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-March 2013 ....................... 9 Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Assistance Caseload: FY2010................................................ 10 Congressional Research Service The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 4. National Average All-Families Work Participation Rate: FY2002-FY2010 .................. 17 Tables Table 1. Federal TANF Funding: FY2006 Through FY2013 .......................................................... 2 Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars .......................................................... 45 Table 3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Rolls, June 2011Cash Assistance Caseload: March 2013.................................................................. 78 Table 4. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Benefit for a Family of Three: July 2011..................... 11 Table 5. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Assistance Benefits by Family Size: July 2011 ........... 13 Table 6. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2010 ........ 18 Table 7. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2010 Monthly TANF Cash Welfare Maximum Benefit Amount for a Family Sizes of Two and Three, July 2009........................................................................................................... 10 Congressional Research Service . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ .............. 20 Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006 .................................................... 14. 23 Table A-2. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2012FY2013 ..................................................... 1524 Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2009FY2012 .................................. 15 Table A-4.Cash Welfare Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2008 .................... 1624 Table B-1. Use of FY2009FY2012 TANF and MOE Funds by Category .................................................. 1725 Table B-2. Use of FY2009FY2012 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding ..................................................................................... 2027 Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2009FY2012 ............................................................... 2130 Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Welfare, June 2011.......Assistance, March 2013 .............................................................................................................. 2331 Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance, JuneMarch 1994, 2007, 2010, and 2011 ................ 2012, and 2013 ............................................................................................................................ 25 33 Table B-6. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance, Byby Number of Parents Receiving Assistance on Their Own Behalf: June 2011.March 2013 ............................................................................ 27 Table B-7. TANF Work Participation Rates: FY2009 ................................ 36 Table B-7. TANF All-Family Work Participation Rate by State: FY2002 Through FY2010 ........ 38 Table B-8. TANF Two-Parent Work Participation Rate: FY2002-FY2010 ................................... 2940 Appendixes Appendix A. Supplementary Tables .............................................................................................. 1423 Appendix B. State Tables ............................................................................................................... 1725 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 3042 Congressional Research Service . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQFAQs 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 TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk. For a non-technical overview of TANF, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An Introduction, by Gene Falk. For a discussion of current TANF legislative issues, see CRS Report R41781, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress, by Gene Falk. Current Topics What is TANF’s Current Funding Level? TANF currently operates under a three-month extension of funding, through December 31, 2011. P.L. 112-35 extended TANF basic block grants (the state family assistance grant), healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood grants, and certain other funds at their FY2011 funding level through the first quarter of FY2012. In addition, legislation enacted in 2010 (P.L. 111-242) provided an FY2012 appropriation of $612 million for TANF contingency funds. P.L. 112-35 provided no funds for TANF supplemental grants. Table 1 shows TANF funding for FY2006 through FY2012. The FY2012 figure represents annualized funding for the first three months of FY2012 as provided under P.L. 112-35. Table 1. TANF Funding: FY2006 through FY2012 (Dollars in millions) 2006 2007 2008 $16,489 $16,489 Supplemental grants 319 Healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grants State family assistance grant Grants to the territories 2009 2010 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 319 319 319 319 211 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 Congressional Research Service 2011 2012 (first three months under P.L. 11235, at the full-year rate) 1 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ 2006 Grants for tribal work programs Regular contingency funds 2007 2008 2009 2011 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 93 59 428 1,107 212 334 612a 617 4,383 18,768 21,639 17,270 17,337 Emergency contingency funds Totals 2010 2012 (first three months under P.L. 11235, at the full-year rate) 17,137 17,103 17,472 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from HHS. a. The FY2012 appropriation for the contingency fund was provided in P.L. 111-242 Current Topics What Is TANF’s Current Funding Status? TANF is funded through a combination of federal and state funds. The bulk of federal funding for TANF lapsed on September 30, 2013. 1 There is no authority for making the quarterly grants that would usually be made at the beginning of FY2014. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), states may use funds from prior years’ grants to continue their TANF benefits, services, and activities. TANF, unlike many other federal grant programs, allows states to “reserve,” without fiscal year limit, unused grant funds for later use. States may draw on these reserve funds during this funding lapse. States may also expend from their own funds monies to continue TANF benefits, services, and activities. HHS says that any state funds expended during the federal funding lapse may count toward TANF’s requirement that states spend a certain amount each year (the “maintenance of effort requirement.”) TANF also has a contingency fund, which was designed to provide extra funding during recessions. That fund has an FY2014 appropriation ($612 million) that qualifying states may draw upon. For HHS guidance during the funding lapse, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/ acf-issues-letter-on-tanf-in-event-of-government-shutdown. Is Legislation Pending That Would Extend TANF Beyond September 30? The pending continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 59) would continue TANF funding into FY2014. The resolution would continue funding at FY2013 levels for TANF grants, mandatory child care, and certain grants to Puerto Rico and the territories.2 It would continue current policies. The House1 Funding through September 30, 2013, was provided in P.L. 113-6, Division F, title IV, Section 1522. The original House-passed resolution would not have funded certain HHS research activities that historically have received $15 million per year. The Senate amendment to the resolution restored funding for these research activities. 2 Congressional Research Service 1 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs passed versions of the resolution would continue funding through December 15, 2013; the Senate-passed version of the resolution would continue funding through November 15, 2013. A bill that was passed earlier in the year by the House (H.R. 890) would extend TANF through December 31, 2013. That bill would also prohibit waivers of TANF work participation standards (see “What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative?”). The Senate has not acted on H.R. 890. What Is TANF’s Current Funding Level? Table 1 shows TANF funding for FY2006 through FY2013. The bulk of TANF funding is in a basic block grant (the state family assistance grant), which provides annual funding totaling $16.5 billion for the 50 states and District of Columbia. This grant and amount was established in the 1996 welfare reform law and has not been changed since then. Table 1. Federal TANF Funding: FY2006 Through FY2013 (Dollars in millions) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 Supplemental grants 319 319 319 319 319 211 0 0 Healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grants 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 93 59 428 1,107 212 334 612 610a 617 4,383 18,768 21,639 17,270 17,337 17,335 State family assistance grant Grants to the territories Grants for tribal work programs Regular contingency funds Emergency contingency funds Totals 17,137 17,103 17,472 2012 2013 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from HHS. a. P.L. 112-275 appropriated $612 million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2013 and reserved $2 million of these funds for a commission on child abuse and neglect fatalities. Thus, $610 million is available for FY2013 TANF contingency fund grants to states. 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 low-income families with children. This level of state funding, known as maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding, was also established in the 1996 welfare law and has not been changed since then. Has the President Proposed Reauthorization Legislation for TANF? No. The President’s FY2012 budget proposed funding for TANF in FY2012 at current law levels plus funding for supplemental grants at the historical level ($319 million per year). While the budget itself did not propose a long-term reauthorization of TANF, it provided some “general principles” for reauthorization. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) FY2012 Budget in Brief says When TANF reauthorization is considered, the Administration would be interested in exploring with Congress a variety of strategies to strengthen the program’s ability to improve outcomes for families and children, including helping more parents succeed as workers by building on the recent successes with subsidized employment, using performance indicators to drive program improvement; and preparing the program to respond more effectively in the event of a future economic downturn. Is the Cash Welfare Caseload Rising Because of the Current Recession? The TANF cash welfare caseload has been increasing since the summer of 2008. The caseload hit its lowest level since 1969 in July 2008, but has increased since then. From July 2008 to December 2010, the TANF cash welfare caseload increased by 16%, adding about 273,000 families to the benefit rolls. Congressional Research Service 2 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ How Can States Pay for Any Caseload Increases Caused by the Recession? There is no additional, recession-related funding provided in the one-year TANF extension included in P.L. 111-291 for the remainder of FY2011. Absent additional funding, states will have to reallocate funds from other block grant activities to finance any cash welfare caseload increases resulting from the lingering effects of 2007-2009 recession. Over the period FY2007 to the first quarter of FY2011, states drew $7.1 billion in combined funds from the TANF regular contingency fund created in the 1996 welfare reform law and the TANF “Emergency Contingency Fund” (ECF) created in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) to provide extra funding in FY2009 and FY2010. It expired, as originally scheduled, on September 30, 2010. Not all these contingency funds financed cash welfare caseload increases. Regular contingency funds helped pay for increased costs in the wide range of benefits, services, and activities funded through TANF. The ECF helped pay for increased costs of cash welfare, non-recurrent short-term aid, and subsidized employment. 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. 104-193.) 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 Congressional Research Service 2 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Did the Cash Assistance Caseload Rise During the Recent Recession? The TANF cash assistance caseload rose from August 2008 through December 2010, increasing 17% from 1,675,297 families in July 2008 to a peak of 1,952,451 families in December 2010. The caseload has declined since then, standing at 1,753,668 in March 2013. What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative? On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would accept applications for “waivers” of the TANF work participation standards. In general, these are waivers of the way the performance of state welfare-to-work programs are assessed. (The requirements that apply to individuals are determined by the states, but the federal TANF work participation standards influenced the design of state programs and requirements.) For a discussion, see CRS Report R42627, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare Waivers, by Gene Falk. Has Any State Formally Applied for a “Waiver” of TANF Work Participation Standards? As of September 27, 2013, no states had formally applied for a waiver of TANF work participation standards under the Administration’s waiver initiative. May States Require Drug Testing of Assistance Recipients? Yes. The 1996 assistance reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for assistance recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104-193.) However, specific state policies regarding drug testing raise constitutional issues. See CRS Report R42326, Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits, by David H. Carpenter. 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. For a discussion of states that require drug testing in TANF and related programs, see CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by Maggie McCarty et al. Congressional Research Service 3 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs History When Was 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 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). PRWORA is also referred to in this report as the 1996 welfare reform law. 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. Congressional Research Service 3 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) included provisions establishing “welfare-towork” grants for FY1998 and FY1999 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 from 2002 through 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 A-1 for a listing of the temporary extensions.) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) includesincluded a long-term extension of funding for TANF through FY2010. It also modified TANF work participation standards; established $100 million per year in TANF research and technical assistance funds for “healthy marriage promotion” initiatives; and provided $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.) The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) provided that healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives would be funded at $75 million each for FY2011. Temporary extension legislation continued these activities for FY2012 and FY2013 at $75 million for responsible fatherhood and $75 million for healthy marriage initiatives. P.L. 112-96 (the law that extended the payroll tax cut through 2012) provided TANF funding through the end of FY2012. It provided FY2012 funding for the basic TANF block grant, healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood competitive grants, and certain other funds at their FY2011 levels. It did not provide FY2012 funding for TANF supplemental grants. Congressional Research Service 4 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs In addition, P.L. 112-96 • prevents electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs; states are required to prohibit access to TANF cash at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) at such establishments; and • requires states to report TANF data in a manner that facilitates the exchange of that data with other programs’ data systems. Legislation that extended TANF funding for FY2013 did not include policy changes. Funding and Expenditures How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2011FY2012 (ended September 30, 20112012), the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 2830.1%. Table 2 shows the impact of inflation on on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2011FY2012. Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars Fiscal Year Value of the Block Grant in BillionsMillions of FY1997 Dollars Cumulative Loss of Value in PercentPercentage Change from FY1997 Value 1997 $16.5 0 1998 16.2 -21.6% 1999 15.9 -3%.5 2000 15.4 -6%.4 2001 14.9 -9%.4 2002 14.7 -11%10.7 2003 14.4 -13%12.7 2004 14.1 -15% 2005 13.6 -17% Congressional Research Service 4 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Fiscal Year Value of the Block Grant in Billions of FY1997 Dollars Cumulative Loss of Value in Percent14.7 2005 13.6 -17.4 2006 13.1 -20%.4 2007 12.8 -22%.2 2008 12.3 -25%.5 2009 12.3 -25%.3 2010 12.1 -26%.5 2011 11.8 -28% Source: Prepared by the.4 2012 11.5 -30.1 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index for all All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.. Congressional Research Service 5 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs How Have States Used TANF Funds? TANF is best known as a funding source of cash welfareassistance 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 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2009. In FY2009FY2012. In FY2012, a total of $33.531.4 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs. Basic assistance, the category that most closely reflects cash welfare, had expenditures of $9.3 billion in FY2009—28% of total TANF and MOE dollars. All three expenditure categories commonly associated with “welfare” for needy families with children—basic assistance, administrative costs, and work activities—accounted for less than half ($14.2 billion or 42%) of all fundsassistance, represented 28.6% ($9.0 billion) of total FY2012 TANF and MOE dollars. TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2009, 18FY2012, 16.0% of all TANF funds used were were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). 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 experiencing child abuse or neglect. However, TANF’s accounting system does a poor job of capturing expenditures associated with spending on the child welfare system.1 Most TANF funding for these programs is subsumed in the catch-all “other” expenditure category. 1 For a discussion of the shortcomings 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. Congressional Research Service 5 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ expenditure category. Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2009, FY2012, by Major Benefit and Service Category (Dollars in billions; total federal and state MOE funds used—$33.5 billion) Basic Assistance, $9.3 Other, $10.9 Administration, $2.5 Other Work Supports, $2.6 Child Care, $5.9 Work Programs, $2.4 Service Category Total = $31.4 billion Other 31.7% Basic Assistance 28.6% Administration 7.2% Other Work Supports 9.6% Child Care 16.0% Work Expenditures 6.9% Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Congressional Research Service 6 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs See Appendix A, Table A-3 for percentagesdollar amounts of total federal TANF and state MOE funds associated with each of these categories. For state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Appendix B, Table B-1, and Table B-2. How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? TANF law permits states to “reserve” unused funds without time limit. This permits flexibility in timing of the use of TANF funds, including the ability to “save” funds for unexpected occurrences that might increase costs (such as recessions or natural disasters). At the end of FY2009 (the most recent dataFY2012 (September 30, 2012, the latest data currently available), a total of $3.7 1 billion of federal TANF funding hadremained neither been transferred nor spent. However, some of that $3.7 billion represented fundsthese unspent funds represent monies that states had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2009 FY2012, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.6 4 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 because TANF essentially consists of 54 different programs (one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the territories), what constitutes an obligation may vary. Congressional Research Service 6 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ The remaining $2.1 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated balance may vary. At the end of FY2012, states also had $1.7 billion of “unobligated balances.” These funds are available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 in Appendix B shows unspent TANF funds by state. 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)cash assistance, with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. As discussed in a 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” programTANF basic assistance accounts for about 28.6% of all TANF expenditures. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving “assistance” are very likely to undercount the number of families receiving any TANFfundedTANF-funded benefit or service. How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOEFunded Cash WelfareAssistance? Table 3 provides cash welfareassistance caseload information. A total of 1.98 million families, composed of 4.6 of 4.1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in June 2011March 2013. The bulk of the “recipients” were children—3.41 million in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance caseloads, see Table B-4 in Appendix B. Table 3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Rolls, June 2011 Families 1,924,449 Recipients 4,606,278 Children 3,437,062 Adults 1,169,216 Source: Congressional Research Service on the basis ofAppendix B. Congressional Research Service 7 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: March 2013 Families 1,753,668 Total Recipients 4,097,377 Children 3,094,144 Adults 1,003,233 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: TANF cash assistance caseload includes families receiving assistance in state-funded programs counted toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. How Does the Current Cash Assistance How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare With with Historical Levels? The number of families receiving cash welfareassistance peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The cash welfare The cash assistance caseload fell rapidly in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before before leveling off in 2001. In 2004, the caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than in the late 1990s. Nationally, the caseload began to rise beginning in August 2008. Congressional Research Service 7 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ , peaking in December 2010 at close to 2.0 million families. Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving cash welfare, from July 1959 to June 2011. Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash welfare families by state. Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Welfare (Millions of families, July 1959 to June 2011) March 1994: 5.1 million 5 4 3 June 2011: 1.9 million 2 1 July 2008: 1.7 million 0 9 2 5 7 8 4 0 1 3 6 9 2 5 7 8 0 1 4 l-5 ul-6 ul-6 ul-6 ul-7 ul-7 ul-7 ul-8 ul-8 ul-8 ul-8 ul-9 ul-9 ul-9 ul-0 ul-0 ul-0 ul-1 Ju J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). What Are the Characteristics of Cash Welfare Families? Historically, the “typical” cash welfareassistance, from July 1959 to March 2013. Congressional Research Service 8 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-March 2013 Families in Millions 6 March 1994: 5.1 million 5 4 3 Dec. 2010: 1.95 million 2 Mar. 2013: 1.8 million July 2008: 1.7 million 1 Jul-59 Jul-61 Jul-63 Jul-65 Jul-67 Jul-69 Jul-71 Jul-73 Jul-75 Jul-77 Jul-79 Jul-81 Jul-83 Jul-85 Jul-87 Jul-89 Jul-91 Jul-93 Jul-95 Jul-97 Jul-99 Jul-01 Jul-03 Jul-05 Jul-07 Jul-09 Jul-11 0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Represents families receiving cash assistance from Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and TANF. For October 1999 through March 2013, includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash assistance families by state. What Are the Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families? Historically, the “typical” cash assistance family has been headed by a single parent (usually the mother) with one or two children. The single parent has also typically been unemployed. However, the cash welfareassistance caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the composition of the rolls. Today, less than half of all cash welfareassistance families are headed by an unemployed adult recipient. Almost half4 in 10 of all cash welfareassistance families had no adult recipient or work-eligible individual at all, at all, with the adults in the family ineligible for aid and the benefits paid only on behalf of the child (these are known as “child-only” families). This shift occurred because the caseload decline was concentrated among the families thought of as the “typical” cash welfareassistance families, and welfare-toworkto-work efforts have been concentrated on this population. Congressional Research Service 9 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 3 shows the composition of the cash welfareassistance caseload in FY2008FY2010. Families with an unemployed adult recipient represent 3646% of all cash welfareassistance families. Families with an Congressional Research Service 8 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ employed (in a regular job) adult recipient, who receive cash welfareassistance as an earnings supplement, comprise an additional 15% of the cash welfareassistance rolls. Within the “child-only” portion of the caseload, families with a parent (usually a disabled parent) receiving SSI and the children children receiving TANF as a supplement to that benefit represent 1110% of the cash welfare assistance caseload. Families that are made up of children living with a non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) represent 16% of the cash welfare caseload. Families with adults who were either sanctioned or time-limited off the rolls (and thus had their family’s benefit reduced) represented about 6% of all cash 13% of the cash assistance familiescaseload. Families of child citizens living with ineligible parents who are noncitizens or who have not reported their citizenship status make up 911% of the total cash welfareassistance caseload. The remainder of the cash welfareassistance caseload represents child recipients for whom data on the adults they live with are not available. Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Welfare Caseload: FY2008 Child-only/other , 114,250 Child-only/noncitizen or unknown citizenship of parent, 159,447 Family with adult recipients/ Not employed, 616,240 Child-only/caretaker relative, 267,486 Child-only/SSI parent, 183,392 Child-only/Adults(s) time-limited, 55,843 Child-only/Adult(s) sanctioned, 43,067 Families with adult recipients/At least 1 Employed, 254,284 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the FY2008 TANF National Data Files. As previously discussed, the composition of the caseload has changed considerably over time. Table A-4 shows the change in this categorization of families over time. Congressional Research Service 9 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Assistance Caseload: FY2010 Child-Only/Other 5% Child-Only/SSI Parent 10% ChildOnly/Ineligible Immigrant Parent 11% ChildOnly/Caretaker Relative 13% Family with an Adult/Not Employed 46% Family with an Adult/Employed 15% Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2010 TANF National Data Files. Notes: Includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Families with an adult include families with nonrecipient parents who are “work-eligible.” Most non-recipient parents who are “work-eligible” are those who have reached time limits or have been sanctioned off the rolls in states that permit continuation of aid to children of such parents. For more information on the characteristics and the changes in the composition of the cash assistance caseload, see CRS Report R43187, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload, by Gene Falk. Congressional Research Service 10 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs 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 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state for a family of two and a family of three in July 2009.2 2011.3 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-parent family with two children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types such as two-parent families or “child-onlychildonly” cases. States also vary their benefits by other factors such as housing costs and sub-state geography. Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying larger cash benefits to larger families on the presumption that they have greater financial needs. The maximum monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e.g., no earned or unearned income) and 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. The table also shows the benefit amounts relative to poverty-level income. TANF pays a family in cash only a fraction of poverty level income (as officially determined and published by the Department of Health and Human Services). For a family of twothree, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 2009 varied from $142 per month in Tennessee (12% of poverty-level income) to $821 per month in Alaska (54% of poverty-level income). For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 20092011 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi (11.0% of poverty-level income) to $923 per month in Alaska (4847.8% of poverty-level income).4 Table 4. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Welfare Maximum Benefit Amount Benefit for a Family Sizes of Two and Three, July 2009 Family Size of Two State Alabama Family Size of Three Dollars Percent of Poverty Threshold Dollars Percent of Poverty Threshold $190 15.6% $215 14.1% Alaska 821 54.1 923 48.4 Arizona 220 18.1 278 18.2 Arkansas 162 13.3 204 13.4 California 561 46.2 694 45.5 Colorado 364 30.0 462 30.3 2 of Three: July 2011 Maximum Monthly Benefit for a Family of 3 Maximum Monthly Benefit as a Percent of the 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines Alabama $215 13.9% Alaska 923 47.8 Arizona 278 18.0 Arkansas 204 13.2 California 638 41.3 Colorado 462 29.9 State 3 States are not required to report to the federal government their cash welfareassistance benefit amounts in either the TANF state state plan (under sectionSection 402 of the Social Security Act) or in annual program reports (under section 407Section 411 of the Social Security Act). The benefit amounts shown are from the “Welfare Rules Database,” maintained by the Urban Institute and funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 4 Different poverty thresholds, with greater dollar amounts, apply in Alaska than in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. New York’s benefit of $753 per month represents 48.8% of the poverty guidelines that apply in the 48 contiguous states and District of Columbia. Congressional Research Service 11 Congressional Research Service 10 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Family Size of Two Family Size of Three Dollars Percent of Poverty Threshold Dollars Percent of Poverty Threshold Connecticut 457 37.6 560 36.7 Delaware 270 22.2 338 22.2 District of Columbia 336 27.7 428 28.1 Florida 241 19.8 303 19.9 Georgia 235 19.4 280 18.4 Hawaii 506 36.2 636 36.2 Idaho 309 25.4 309 20.3 Illinois 318 26.2 432 28.3 Indiana 230 18.9 288 18.9 Iowa 361 29.7 426 27.9 Kansas 352 29.0 429 28.1 Kentucky 225 18.5 262 17.2 Louisiana 188 15.5 240 15.7 Maine 363 29.9 485 31.8 Maryland 453 37.3 574 37.6 Massachusetts 531 43.7 633 41.5 Michigan 403 33.2 492 32.2 Minnesota 437 36.0 532 34.9 Mississippi 146 12.0 170 11.1 Missouri 234 19.3 292 19.1 Montana 401 33.0 504 33.0 Nebraska 293 24.1 364 23.9 Nevada 318 26.2 383 25.1 New Hampshire 606 49.9 675 44.2 New Jersey 322 26.5 424 27.8 New Mexico 357 29.4 447 29.3 New York 524 43.1 721 47.3 North Carolina 236 19.4 272 17.8 North Dakota 378 31.1 477 31.3 Ohio 355 29.2 434 28.4 Oklahoma 225 18.5 292 19.1 Oregon 436 35.9 514 33.7 Pennsylvania 316 26.0 403 26.4 Rhode Island 449 37.0 554 36.3 State Congressional Research Service 11 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Family Size of Two Family Size of Three Dollars Percent of Poverty Threshold Dollars Percent of Poverty Threshold South Carolina 215 17.7 271 17.7 South Dakota 482 39.7 539 35.3 Tennessee 142 11.7 185 12.1 Texas 211 17.4 244 16.0 Utah 380 31.3 474 31.1 Vermont 536 44.1 640 41.9 Virginia 254 20.9 320 21.0 Washington 453 37.3 562 36.8 West Virginia 301 24.8 340 22.3 Wisconsin 628 51.7 628 41.2 Wyoming 514 42.3 546 35.8 Maximum 821 54 923 48.0 Minimum 142 12 170 11.0 Median 352 29 429 28.0 State Source: Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Database, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).FAQs Maximum Monthly Benefit for a Family of 3 Maximum Monthly Benefit as a Percent of the 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines Connecticut 674 43.6 Delaware 338 21.9 District of Columbia 428 27.7 Florida 303 19.6 Georgia 280 18.1 Hawaii 610 34.3 Idaho 309 20.0 Illinois 432 28.0 Indiana 288 18.7 Iowa 426 27.6 Kansas 429 27.8 Kentucky 262 17.0 Louisiana 240 15.5 Maine 485 31.4 Maryland 574 37.2 Massachusetts 633 41.0 Michigan 492 31.9 Minnesota 532 34.5 Mississippi 170 11.0 Missouri 292 18.9 Montana 504 32.6 Nebraska 364 23.6 Nevada 383 24.8 New Hampshire 675 43.7 New Jersey 424 27.5 New Mexico 380 24.6 New York 753 48.8 North Carolina 272 17.6 North Dakota 427 27.7 Ohio 434 28.1 Oklahoma 292 18.9 Oregon 506 32.8 Pennsylvania 421 27.3 Rhode Island 554 35.9 South Carolina 221 14.3 State Congressional Research Service 12 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Maximum Monthly Benefit for a Family of 3 Maximum Monthly Benefit as a Percent of the 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines South Dakota 555 35.9 Tennessee 185 12.0 Texas 260 16.8 Utah 498 32.3 Vermont 665 43.1 Virginia 389 25.2 Washington 478 31.0 West Virginia 340 22.0 Wisconsin 628 40.7 Wyoming 577 37.4 Median State 427 27.7 Maximum 923 48.8 Minimum 170 11.0 State Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the Urban Institute’s “Welfare Rules Database.” As discussed above, most states vary maximum benefits by family size, paying larger benefits for larger families. The exceptions are Idaho and Wisconsin, which pay a flat maximum benefit. Additionally, some states do not increase benefits—or provide a smaller than usual increase in benefits—for a family already on the rolls when a new baby is born. This is known as the “family cap” policy, which 17 states had in July 2011.5 Table 5. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Assistance Benefits by Family Size: July 2011 Benefits for a Single Parent and Children State Alabama Two Three Four Five Six $190 $215 $245 $275 $305 Alaska 821 923 1,025 1,127 1,229 Arizona 220 278 334 392 449 Arkansas 162 204 247 286 331 California 516 638 762 866 972 Colorado 364 462 561 665 767 Connecticut 544 674 786 886 992 5 States that had a family cap policy as of July 2011 are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Congressional Research Service 13 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Two Three Four Five Six Delaware 270 338 407 475 544 District of Columbia 336 428 523 602 708 Florida 241 303 364 426 487 Georgia 235 280 330 378 410 Hawaii 486 610 736 861 986 Idaho 309 309 309 309 309 Illinois 318 432 474 555 623 Indiana 230 288 347 405 464 Iowa 361 426 495 548 610 Kansas 352 429 497 558 619 Kentucky 225 262 328 383 432 Louisiana 188 240 284 327 366 Maine 363 485 611 733 856 Maryland 453 574 695 805 885 Massachusetts 531 633 731 832 936 Michigan 403 492 597 694 828 Minnesota 437 532 621 697 773 Mississippi 146 170 194 218 242 Missouri 234 292 342 388 431 Montana 401 504 606 709 812 Nebraska 293 364 435 506 577 Nevada 318 383 448 513 578 New Hampshire 606 675 738 798 879 New Jersey 322 424 488 552 616 New Mexico 304 380 459 536 613 New York 548 753 905 1,063 1,172 North Carolina 236 272 297 324 349 North Dakota 328 427 523 620 717 Ohio 355 434 536 627 698 Oklahoma 225 292 361 422 483 Oregon 432 506 621 721 833 Pennsylvania 330 421 514 607 687 Rhode Island 449 554 634 714 794 South Carolina 175 221 266 311 355 South Dakota 496 555 613 671 730 Tennessee 142 185 226 264 305 Congressional Research Service 14 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Two Three Four Five Six Texas 225 260 312 347 399 Utah 399 498 583 663 731 Vermont 560 665 751 842 904 Virginia 323 389 451 537 570 Washington 385 478 562 648 736 West Virginia 301 340 384 420 460 Wisconsin 628 628 628 628 628 Wyoming 543 577 577 611 611 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the Urban Institute’s “Welfare Rules Database.” 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.36 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 at risk of being 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 percentage point decline in the caseload. Through FY2006, states were given credit for caseload declines that occurred since FY1995. Beginning in FY2007, states were only credited with caseload declines that have occurred since FY2005. The FY2007 effective (after-credit) standard is based on caseload declines from FY2005 3a state’s caseload. Additionally, under a regulatory provision, a state may get “extra” credit for caseload reduction if it spends more than required under the TANF MOE. Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% and 90% targets, and vary by state. Have There Been Changes in the Work Participation Rules Enacted Since the 1996 Welfare Reform Law? The 50% and 90% target standards that states face, as well as the caseload reduction credit, date back to the 1996 welfare reform law. However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) made several changes to the work participation rules effective in FY2007: • 6 The caseload reduction credit was changed to measure caseload reduction from FY2005, rather than the original law’s FY1995. Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation. Congressional Research Service 12 . 15 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ to FY2006. However, under a regulatory provision, states may get “extra” credit for caseload reduction if they spend more than required under the TANF MOE. States can exclude those families funded by state funds in excess of required state spending. The ARRA temporarily modifies the caseload reduction credit states receive toward their TANF work participation. The modification is effective for the FY2009 through FY2010 standards. The ARRA provides that a state’s credit would not be reduced for any caseload increases that occurred in FY2008 through FY2010. What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? In FY2009, the national average work participation rate achieved by states for all families was 29.4%. The participation rate within TANF achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was 28.3%. These rates are well below the statutory target of 50% for all families and 90% for two-parent families. They are also well below the targets even when adjusting for actual caseload reduction between FY2005 and FY2008. However, only eight jurisdictions failed the allfamily standard, and seven jurisdictions failed the two-parent standard. This is because (1) many states obtained fairly large “extra” credits for spending above the required MOE level; (2) states were “held harmless” for any caseload increases between FY2007 and FY2008 (based on the temporary ARRA modification to the caseload reduction credit, noted above); and (3) many states eliminated two-parent families from their TANF and MOE caseloads. Presumably, many states aided two-parent families with their own funds. The jurisdictions that failed to meet the all-family standard were California, the District of Columbia, Guam, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. The jurisdictions that failed to meet the two-parent standard were Alaska, Guam, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Rhode Island. States that fail to meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant. States can avoid the penalty by entering into a corrective compliance plan with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). They can also claim reasonable cause for failing to meet the penalty. Further, penalties are reduced based on the degree of noncompliance, and may be reduced by the Secretary of HHS for those states that were economically needy during FY2009. See Table B-7 for state-by-state FY2009 work participation rates. Congressional Research Service 13 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Appendix A. Supplementary Tables Table A-1.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FAQs • The work participation standards were broadened to include families receiving cash aid in “separate state programs.” Separate state programs are programs run with state funds, distinct from a state’s “TANF program,” but with expenditures countable toward the TANF MOE. • HHS was instructed to provide definition to the allowable TANF work activities listed in law. HHS was also required to define what is meant by a “work-eligible” individual, expanding the number of families that are included in the work participation calculation. • States were required to develop plans and procedures to verify work activities. What Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? HHS computes two work participation rates for each state that are then compared with the effective (after-credit) standard to determine if it has met the TANF work standard. An “allfamilies” work participation rate is computed and compared with the all-families effective standard (50% minus the state’s caseload reduction credit). HHS also computes a two-parent work participation rate that is compared with the two-parent effective standard (90% minus the state’s caseload reduction credit). What Has Been the National Average All-Family Work Participation Rate? Figure 4 shows the national average all-families work participation rate for FY2002 through FY2010. For the period FY2002 through FY2010, states have achieved an all-families work participation rate hovering around 30%. In FY2010, the all-families work participation rate was 29.0%. This is well below the statutory target of 50% for all families, but most (not all) states met the standard because of credits against the 50% standard. Congressional Research Service 16 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 4. National Average All-Families Work Participation Rate: FY2002-FY2010 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 28.9% 27.5% 29.4% 30.3% 30.6% 29.7% 29.4% 29.4% 29.0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2002 2003 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: FY2002 through FY2006 work participation rates are based on federal work participation standard rules. They exclude the effects of “grandfathered” waivers of pre-1996. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the option to continue their pre-reform “waiver” programs and have their work participation rates based on the rules of the state waivers, not the federal rules. The last of these pre-1996 waivers expired in 2006. The all family work participation rates for FY2002 through FY2006 that include the effect of the waivers are slightly higher than the rates shown here. How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard From FY2002 Through FY2010? Table 6 shows which states failed the TANF all-families work participation standards from FY2002 through FY2010. Before FY2007 (the first year policies under the DRA were effective), only a few jurisdictions failed to meet TANF all-families work participation standards. In FY2006, three jurisdictions failed the standard, and that was the greatest number that failed the standards over the FY2002 through FY2006 period. However, in FY2007 15 jurisdictions failed to meet the all-families standard. This number declined to 9 in FY2008 and 8 in FY2009. In FY2010 (the most recent year for which data are available), 8 jurisdictions failed to meet the standard. Of these, 6 (California, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Guam) failed the standards in all years since FY2007. Congressional Research Service 17 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table 6. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2010 Changes to TANF Work Participation Standard Rules Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) Effective in FY2007 Post-DRA Policies Pre-DRA Policies 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 X X X X X X X X Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut X Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana X X X Iowa Kansas Kentucky X Louisiana Maine X X Michigan X X Minnesota X Maryland Massachusetts X Mississippi Missouri X X Montana Nebraska Nevada X X New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Congressional Research Service X 18 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Post-DRA Policies Pre-DRA Policies 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 X X X X X X X X X X X X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont X Virginia Washington West Virginia X X X X X X 9 8 8 Wisconsin Wyoming Guam X X X X X Virgin Islands Number of Jurisdictions Failing Standard X 1 2 1 2 3 15 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As shown in Figure 4 there was little change in the national average all-families work participation rate from FY2007 through FY2010. However, following a spike in the number of states failing the standard in FY2007, the number of states failing fell to nine in FY2008 and eight in both FY2009 and FY2010. Some of the decline in the number of states failing the standard is attributable to the increased use of “extra” credit states received for spending beyond what is required by law. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that, in FY2009, 32 of the 45 states that met their standard claimed this “extra credit.” GAO calculated that 17 of these states would not have met their participation standards without claiming the “extra” credit for spending beyond what was required by law.7 7 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Serviced (continued...) Congressional Research Service 19 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Are States that Recently Failed the All-Family Standard Being Penalized? States that fail to meet the TANF work participation standard are at risk of being penalized through a reduction in their block grant. However, penalties can be forgiven if a state claims, and the Secretary of HHS finds, that it had “reasonable cause” for failing the standard. Penalties can also be forgiven for states that enter into “corrective compliance plans,” and subsequently meet the work standard. HHS has not announced the status of penalties for failing to meet the allfamilies standard for FY2007 and subsequent years. Have States Met the Two-Parent Work Participation Standard? In addition to meeting a work standard for all families, TANF also imposes a second, 90% standard for the two-parent portion of its cash assistance caseload. This standard too can be reduced for caseload reduction. Table 7 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2002 through FY2012. However, the display on the table is more complex than that for reporting whether a state failed its “all family” rate. A substantial number of states have reported no twoparent families subject to the work participation standard.8 These states are denoted on the table with an “NA,” indicating that the two-parent standard was not applicable to the state in that year. For states with two-parent families in its caseload, the table reports “Yes” for states that met the two-parent standard, and “No” for states that failed the two-parent standard. In FY2010, 25 jurisdictions reported that no two-parent families were included in the TANF work participation standard calculation. Of the 29 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their TANF work participation calculation, 23 met the standard and 6 did not. Table 7. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2010 (“Yes” indicates a state met the standard; “No” indicates the state failed to meet the standard; and “NA” means the standard was not applicable to the state in that year (no two-parent families in its caseload).) Post-DRA Policies Pre-DRA Policies 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Alabama NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES Alaska YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Arizona YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES (...continued) and Work Participation. Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, GAO-11990T, September 8, 2011, p. 12, http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126892.pdf. 8 Before the changes made by the DRA were effective, a number of states had their two-parent families in separate state programs that were not included in the work participation calculation. When DRA brought families receiving assistance in separate state programs into the work participation rate calculations, a number of states moved these families into solely-state-funded programs. These are state-funded programs with expenditures not countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement, and hence are outside of TANF’s rules. Congressional Research Service 20 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Post-DRA Policies Pre-DRA Policies 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Arkansas NO NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES California NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES Colorado YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA YES NA NA NA Delaware NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA District of Columbia NO NO NO NO NO NA NA NA NA Florida NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES Georgia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hawaii NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NA YES Idaho YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA Illinois NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Indiana NA NA NA NA NA NO YES YES YES Iowa YES YES NA NA NA YES YES YES YES Kansas YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Kentucky YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES Louisiana YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA Maine YES YES NA NA NA YES NO NO NO Maryland NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Massachusetts YES YES YES YES NA NA YES YES YES Michigan YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA Minnesota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mississippi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Missouri NO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Montana YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Nebraska NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nevada NA NA NA NA NA NO NO NO NO New Hampshire YES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Jersey NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Mexico YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES New York YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA North Carolina YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES North Dakota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES Oklahoma NA YES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Oregon YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Congressional Research Service 21 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Post-DRA Policies Pre-DRA Policies 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pennsylvania YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rhode Island YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO South Carolina YES YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA South Dakota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tennessee NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES Texas NA NA NA NA NA YES NA NA NA Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vermont YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Virginia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Washington YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES West Virginia NO NO NA NA NA NO NA NA YES Wisconsin YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Yes Yes Wyoming YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Guam NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Number of Jurisdictions without TwoParent Families 24 25 29 29 30 24 26 27 25 Number of Jurisdictions with TwoParent Families 30 29 25 25 24 30 28 27 29 Number of Jurisdictions Meeting the Two-Parent Standard 25 25 21 23 21 22 22 20 23 Number of States Failing the Two-Parent Standard 5 4 4 2 3 8 6 7 6 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Failure to meet the two-parent standard alone typically has smaller financial consequences for the state than failure to meet the all-family standard or failure to meet both the all-family and twoparent standards. Under HHS regulations, if a state fails only the two-parent standard, the penalty reduction in the block grant is prorated for the share of the overall cash assistance caseload that represents two-parent families. Two-parent families typically account for a small share of the overall cash assistance caseload. Congressional Research Service 22 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Appendix A. Supplementary Tables Table A-1.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006 Public Law Time Period Notes P.L. 107-229 Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002 Extension as 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 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 Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the program through June 30, 2004. P.L. 108-262 July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004 Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the program through Sept. 30, 2004. P.L. 108-308 Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005 Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through Mar. 31, 2005. P.L. 109-4 Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005 Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through June 30, 2005. P.L. 109-19 July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005 Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through Sept. 30, 2005. P.L. 109-68 Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 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 December 31, 2005. P.L. 109-161 Jan. 1, 2006-Mar. 31, 2006 Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through March 31, 2006. It reduced the bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock births for FY2006-FY2010 to offset the costs of the temporary extension. Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Congressional Research Service 14 . 23 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQFAQs Table A-2.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2012FY2013 Public Law Time Period Notes P.L. 111-242 Oct. 1, 2010-Dec. 3, 2010 Extension as part of a continuing resolution. P.L. 111-290 Dec. 4, 2010-Dec. 7, 2010 Extension as part of a continuing resolution. P.L. 111-291 Dec. 8, 2010-Sept. 30, 2011 (except supplemental grants, Dec. 8, 2010-June 30, 2011) Extension as part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It funded supplemental grants only through the first three quarters of FY2011 and at a reduced rate. P.L. 112-35 Oct. 1, 2011-Dec. 31, 2011 Free-standing bill to extend TANF for three months. No funding for TANF supplemental grants. Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2009 Dollars (in billions) Percent of Total Dollars Basic Assistance $9.3 27.8% Administration 2.5 7.4 Work Programs 2.4 7.0 Child Care 5.9 17.5 Other Work Supports 2.6 7.9 Other 10.9 32.4 Totals 33.5 100.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Congressional Research Service 15 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Table A-4.Cash Welfare Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2008 Family with adult recipients/ not employed Families with adult recipients/at least one employed 1988 1994 2008 3,136,566 3,798,997 616,240 243,573 378,621 254,284 — — 43,067 Child-only/adult(s) sanctioned Child-only/adults(s) time-limited Child-only/SSI parent 55,843 59,988 171,391 183,392 188,598 328,290 267,486 Child-only/noncitizen or unknown citizenship of parent 47,565 184,397 159,447 Child-only/other 71,660 184,567 114,250 3,747,950 5,046,263 1,694,009 Family with adult recipients/ not employed 83.7 75.3 36.4 Families with adult recipients/at least one employed 6.5 7.5 15.0 Child-only/adult(s) sanctioned 0.0 0.0 2.5 Child-only/adults(s) time-limited 0.0 0.0 3.3 Child-only/SSI parent 1.6 3.4 10.8 Child-only/caretaker relative 5.0 6.5 15.8 Child-only/noncitizen or unknown citizenship of parent 1.3 3.7 9.4 Child-only/other 1.9 3.7 6.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Child-only/caretaker relative Total As a Percent of All Cash Welfare Families Total Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the 1988 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; the 1994 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; and the 2008 TANF National Data File. Note: For FY2008, the cash welfare caseload includes those whose benefits were funded from TANF dollars as well as those whose benefits were funded with MOE dollars under SSPs. “Family with an adult, unemployed” includes families reported as “child-only” who are under a sanction. Congressional Research Service 16 . Appendix B. State Tables Table B-1. Use of FY2009 TANF and MOE Funds by Category (Dollars in millions) Basic Assistance Administrative Expenditures Work Program Expenditures Other Work Supports Other Total $42.3 $17.0 $21.5 $7.5 $6.4 $65.1 $159.7 Alaska 31.9 6.0 9.6 30.7 1.3 6.0 85.5 Arizona 138.0 43.6 12.6 57.2 0.7 157.3 409.5 Arkansas 16.5 13.5 25.8 15.5 4.4 65.1 140.9 California 3,509.5 611.6 485.4 1,020.2 205.6 1,051.1 6,883.5 Colorado 51.8 14.2 0.9 30.6 9.8 266.4 373.7 Connecticut 89.3 36.9 18.9 27.3 5.7 326.1 504.2 Delaware 18.2 7.3 0.6 30.9 0.3 5.3 62.5 District of Columbia 22.7 12.3 20.5 81.2 3.9 35.7 176.2 Florida 180.0 38.7 65.2 375.5 6.5 375.0 1,040.7 Georgia 55.0 22.1 17.9 22.2 15.7 388.6 521.5 Hawaii 70.1 19.4 142.4 33.4 2.8 97.1 365.2 Idaho 5.9 12.0 6.6 8.7 0.1 9.3 42.6 Illinois 61.1 28.2 68.7 490.7 18.7 463.0 1,130.4 Indiana 108.6 30.9 20.3 52.5 31.7 109.0 353.1 Iowa 61.9 10.8 18.5 45.4 18.4 63.8 218.8 Kansas 46.5 11.2 2.1 38.2 46.7 53.3 198.0 Kentucky 117.4 12.8 25.9 83.1 6.4 29.9 275.5 Louisiana 42.8 7.8 9.1 38.2 5.2 148.6 251.7 Maine 74.6 3.9 13.9 18.0 20.1 4.0 134.6 Maryland 107.1 55.5 36.9 31.5 132.9 180.9 544.9 Massachusetts 324.7 44.1 22.8 336.0 87.1 379.3 1,194.0 State Alabama CRS-17 Child Care . Basic Assistance Administrative Expenditures Work Program Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Total 336.4 136.2 113.1 174.6 74.6 766.6 1,601.6 Minnesota 90.0 47.5 76.0 119.6 135.6 59.8 528.5 Mississippi 18.9 4.8 28.3 27.2 25.4 24.5 129.1 Missouri 104.5 14.6 23.4 77.6 0.0 139.1 359.2 Montana 16.4 5.9 11.6 9.5 0.0 8.3 51.7 Nebraska 26.4 5.5 21.5 22.5 29.4 0.6 105.7 Nevada 46.7 10.6 5.0 0.0 5.0 62.2 129.5 New Hampshire 33.9 11.7 9.6 8.0 1.7 23.3 88.1 New Jersey 181.8 73.3 102.2 107.1 227.0 516.6 1,207.9 New Mexico 60.1 15.2 15.1 39.0 45.1 26.4 200.8 1,458.0 456.6 181.7 516.0 1,234.4 1,860.2 5,706.9 North Carolina 89.3 45.0 59.6 237.2 36.0 268.8 735.9 North Dakota 8.5 4.9 3.2 1.0 1.9 16.7 36.3 432.0 158.0 46.7 327.2 22.9 385.1 1,372.0 22.0 20.2 0.2 124.1 22.3 73.2 262.0 Oregon 115.0 27.7 27.4 37.0 8.2 97.8 313.1 Pennsylvania 197.7 77.0 155.5 428.4 36.8 242.4 1,137.9 Rhode Island 45.2 12.7 7.0 19.8 9.5 31.4 125.7 South Carolina 40.5 15.7 26.2 4.1 9.9 93.5 189.7 South Dakota 13.6 3.3 3.8 0.8 0.0 6.2 27.9 127.8 33.1 64.1 95.0 0.0 85.9 405.9 Texas 84.2 92.1 78.3 26.8 1.3 548.3 831.1 Utah 32.8 12.4 32.6 14.0 4.2 39.6 135.5 Vermont 16.9 7.5 0.3 23.9 24.2 13.7 86.5 Virginia 73.8 25.5 54.7 40.2 9.3 78.3 281.8 318.5 52.0 130.2 216.5 4.0 843.8 1,564.9 State Michigan New York Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Washington CRS-18 . Basic Assistance Administrative Expenditures Work Program Expenditures 31.8 25.7 1.5 Wisconsin 113.4 26.4 Wyoming 11.3 9,323.5 State West Virginia Totals Other Work Supports Other 28.2 16.9 54.3 158.4 33.5 254.9 24.6 192.1 644.9 1.7 0.5 5.8 0.4 11.8 31.5 2,482.7 2,358.8 5,860.6 2,641.0 10,850.2 33,516.8 Child Care Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-19 Total . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Table B-2. Use of FY2009 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding State Basic Assistance Administrative Expenditures 13.4% Child Care Other Work Supports 4.7% 4.0% Other 40.7% Total Alabama 26.5% Alaska 37.3 7.1 11.2 35.9 1.5 7.1 100.0 Arizona 33.7 10.7 3.1 14.0 0.2 38.4 100.0 Arkansas 11.7 9.6 18.3 11.0 3.1 46.2 100.0 California 51.0 8.9 7.1 14.8 3.0 15.3 100.0 Colorado 13.9 3.8 0.3 8.2 2.6 71.3 100.0 Connecticut 17.7 7.3 3.8 5.4 1.1 64.7 100.0 Delaware 29.1 11.7 1.0 49.4 0.4 8.4 100.0 District of Columbia 12.9 7.0 11.6 46.1 2.2 20.2 100.0 Florida 17.3 3.7 6.3 36.1 0.6 36.0 100.0 Georgia 10.5 4.2 3.4 4.3 3.0 74.5 100.0 Hawaii 19.2 5.3 39.0 9.2 0.8 26.6 100.0 Idaho 13.8 28.2 15.5 20.5 0.3 21.8 100.0 Illinois 5.4 2.5 6.1 43.4 1.7 41.0 100.0 Indiana 30.8 8.8 5.7 14.9 9.0 30.9 100.0 Iowa 28.3 4.9 8.5 20.7 8.4 29.2 100.0 Kansas 23.5 5.7 1.1 19.3 23.6 26.9 100.0 Kentucky 42.6 4.6 9.4 30.2 2.3 10.9 100.0 Louisiana 17.0 3.1 3.6 15.2 2.1 59.0 100.0 Maine 55.5 2.9 10.3 13.4 15.0 3.0 100.0 Maryland 19.7 10.2 6.8 5.8 24.4 33.2 100.0 Massachusetts 27.2 3.7 1.9 28.1 7.3 31.8 100.0 Michigan 21.0 8.5 7.1 10.9 4.7 47.9 100.0 Minnesota 17.0 9.0 14.4 22.6 25.7 11.3 100.0 Mississippi 14.6 3.8 21.9 21.0 19.7 19.0 100.0 Missouri 29.1 4.1 6.5 21.6 0.0 38.7 100.0 Montana 31.8 11.4 22.4 18.3 0.0 16.1 100.0 Nebraska 25.0 5.2 20.3 21.3 27.8 0.5 100.0 Nevada 36.1 8.2 3.8 0.0 3.9 48.0 100.0 New Hampshire 38.5 13.2 10.9 9.1 1.9 26.4 100.0 New Jersey 15.0 6.1 8.5 8.9 18.8 42.8 100.0 New Mexico 29.9 7.6 7.5 19.4 22.4 13.2 100.0 Congressional Research Service 10.7% Work Program Expenditures 100.0% 20 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Basic Assistance State Administrative Expenditures Work Program Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Total New York 25.5 8.0 3.2 9.0 21.6 32.6 100.0 North Carolina 12.1 6.1 8.1 32.2 4.9 36.5 100.0 North Dakota 23.5 13.5 8.8 2.8 5.3 46.1 100.0 Ohio 31.5 11.5 3.4 23.8 1.7 28.1 100.0 8.4 7.7 0.1 47.4 8.5 28.0 100.0 Oregon 36.7 8.8 8.7 11.8 2.6 31.2 100.0 Pennsylvania 17.4 6.8 13.7 37.6 3.2 21.3 100.0 Rhode Island 36.0 10.1 5.6 15.8 7.6 25.0 100.0 South Carolina 21.3 8.3 13.8 2.2 5.2 49.3 100.0 South Dakota 48.9 11.9 13.8 2.9 0.1 22.3 100.0 Tennessee 31.5 8.2 15.8 23.4 0.0 21.2 100.0 Texas 10.1 11.1 9.4 3.2 0.2 66.0 100.0 Utah 24.2 9.2 24.0 10.3 3.1 29.2 100.0 Vermont 19.5 8.7 0.3 27.6 28.0 15.9 100.0 Virginia 26.2 9.1 19.4 14.3 3.3 27.8 100.0 Washington 20.3 3.3 8.3 13.8 0.3 53.9 100.0 West Virginia 20.1 16.2 0.9 17.8 10.7 34.3 100.0 Wisconsin 17.6 4.1 5.2 39.5 3.8 29.8 100.0 Wyoming 35.9 5.4 1.6 18.3 1.1 37.6 100.0 Totals 27.8 7.4 7.0 17.5 7.9 32.4 100.0 Oklahoma Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2009 (September 30, 2009; dollars in millions) State Obligated but Unspent Alabama Unobligated and Unspent Total Unspent $4.8 $26.8 $31.7 Alaska 0.0 58.3 58.3 Arizona 21.5 0.0 21.5 Arkansas 2.6 56.8 59.3 California 370.7 0.0 370.7 Colorado 0.0 76.6 76.6 Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.0 Congressional Research Service 21 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ State Obligated but Unspent Unobligated and Unspent Total Unspent Delaware 0.0 4.6 4.6 District of Columbia 3.3 35.4 38.8 Florida 26.3 6.9 33.2 Georgia 59.2 33.4 92.6 Hawaii 19.4 48.4 67.8 Idaho 12.3 0.0 12.3 Illinois 0.0 0.0 0.0 Indiana 53.4 0.0 53.4 Iowa 6.4 22.3 28.7 Kansas 0.0 44.7 44.7 Kentucky 0.0 48.8 48.8 Louisiana 23.6 0.0 23.6 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 11.6 79.1 90.8 Massachusetts 3.0 0.0 3.0 Michigan 0.0 244.7 244.7 Minnesota 0.0 103.4 103.4 Mississippi 9.9 18.6 28.5 Missouri 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montana 0.4 44.8 45.1 Nebraska 0.1 43.0 43.1 Nevada 0.0 11.3 11.3 New Hampshire 0.0 17.5 17.5 New Jersey 103.1 12.8 115.9 New Mexico 43.8 0.0 43.8 New York 317.4 311.2 628.7 North Carolina 196.2 3.5 199.7 0.0 16.3 16.3 Ohio 48.2 0.0 48.2 Oklahoma 41.7 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pennsylvania 61.0 119.9 180.9 Puerto Rico 2.1 20.8 22.9 Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Carolina 0.0 40.0 40.0 South Dakota 0.0 19.9 19.9 Tennessee 0.0 147.6 147.6 Maine Maryland North Dakota Oregon Congressional Research Service 22 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ State Obligated but Unspent Unobligated and Unspent 128.8 0.0 128.8 Utah 0.0 91.9 91.9 Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 Virginia 0.8 19.9 20.7 Washington 0.0 131.4 131.4 West Virginia 0.0 63.0 63.0 Wisconsin 11.4 0.0 11.4 Wyoming 2.7 41.8 44.5 1,585.6 2,065.1 3,650.7 Texas Totals Total Unspent Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Welfare, June 2011 State Families Recipients Children Adults 22,541 54,440 40,145 14,295 Alaska 3,803 10,458 7,099 3,359 Arizona 17,962 40,635 29,410 11,225 Arkansas 7,925 17,897 12,759 5,138 California 610,459 1,498,943 1,161,901 337,042 Colorado 12,616 32,336 23,834 8,502 Connecticut 16,177 31,843 22,445 9,398 Delaware 5,332 15,140 9,342 5,798 District of Columbia 7,661 20,873 15,990 4,883 Florida 53,440 94,270 77,518 16,752 Georgia 19,416 36,109 32,507 3,602 Guam 1,288 3,114 2,311 803 Hawaii 9,790 29,056 19,566 9,490 Idaho 1,913 2,932 2,697 235 Illinois 29,881 87,096 71,819 15,277 Indiana 24,655 57,404 44,424 12,980 Iowa 20,594 53,116 36,051 17,065 Kansas 14,225 36,702 24,809 11,893 Kentucky 30,704 62,346 49,120 13,226 Louisiana 10,325 23,474 19,816 3,658 Maine 15,519 40,025 26,172 13,853 Alabama Congressional Research Service 23 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ State Families Recipients Children Adults Maryland 25,228 61,624 44,560 17,064 Massachusetts 50,205 99,378 66,008 33,370 Michigan 64,995 169,565 121,704 47,861 Minnesota 24,652 53,707 40,307 13,400 Mississippi 11,555 24,434 17,809 6,625 Missouri 38,810 93,400 63,560 29,840 Montana 3,412 8,482 6,036 2,446 Nebraska 7,846 19,075 15,005 4,070 10,675 27,337 20,399 6,938 6,013 12,737 9,144 3,593 New Jersey 34,822 83,676 58,361 25,315 New Mexico 19,640 49,556 35,520 14,036 157,876 395,168 285,360 109,808 North Carolina 22,396 42,837 36,205 6,632 North Dakota 1,758 4,426 3,333 1,093 96,838 217,153 158,553 58,600 8,575 19,324 15,863 3,461 Oregon 34,133 89,834 60,551 29,283 Pennsylvania 78,841 199,112 140,695 58,417 Puerto Rico 15,836 42,811 28,404 14,407 Rhode Island 6,462 15,284 10,540 4,744 South Carolina 16,973 39,815 30,040 9,775 South Dakota 3,337 7,031 5,901 1,130 Tennessee 61,531 156,345 112,625 43,720 Texas 47,124 105,825 91,448 14,377 Utah 3,420 7,874 6,113 1,761 Vermont 3,326 7,710 5,351 2,359 427 1,197 872 325 Virginia 35,135 76,718 54,931 21,787 Washington 58,863 137,344 96,046 41,298 West Virginia 10,085 23,023 16,332 6,691 Wisconsin 27,105 65,638 49,226 16,412 329 629 525 104 1,924,449 4,606,278 3,437,062 1,169,216 Nevada New Hampshire New York Ohio Oklahoma Virgin Islands Wyoming Totals Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Congressional Research Service 24 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, June 1994, 2007, 2010, and 2011 Percentage Changes to June 2011 from June … 1994 2007 2010 2011 1994 2007 2010 Alabama 49,482 17,554 21,288 22,541 -54.4 28.4 5.9 Alaska 12,977 3,284 3,475 3,803 -70.7 15.8 9.4 Arizona 71,530 35,232 31,919 17,962 -74.9 -49.0 -43.7 Arkansas 25,892 8,447 8,268 7,925 -69.4 -6.2 -4.1 California 919,535 470,099 578,950 610,459 -33.6 29.9 5.4 Colorado 41,378 10,230 11,675 12,616 -69.5 23.3 8.1 Connecticut 59,701 20,632 16,957 16,177 -72.9 -21.6 -4.6 Delaware 11,239 3,916 5,322 5,332 -52.6 36.2 0.2 District of Columbia 27,443 5,975 7,373 7,661 -72.1 28.2 3.9 Florida 239,232 46,710 56,706 53,440 -77.7 14.4 -5.8 Georgia 139,566 24,005 20,134 19,416 -86.1 -19.1 -3.6 Guam 1,973 874 1,296 1,288 -34.7 47.4 -0.6 Hawaii 20,844 6,398 9,663 9,790 -53.0 53.0 1.3 Idaho 8,739 1,560 1,744 1,913 -78.1 22.6 9.7 Illinois 242,740 28,723 22,087 29,881 -87.7 4.0 35.3 Indiana 72,881 40,403 34,409 24,655 -66.2 -39.0 -28.3 Iowa 39,813 19,752 21,345 20,594 -48.3 4.3 -3.5 Kansas 30,020 14,096 14,183 14,225 -52.6 0.9 0.3 Kentucky 79,225 29,173 30,130 30,704 -61.2 5.2 1.9 Louisiana 85,741 10,787 10,256 10,325 -88.0 -4.3 0.7 Maine 22,641 12,628 14,675 15,519 -31.5 22.9 5.8 Maryland 79,706 19,341 24,153 25,228 -68.3 30.4 4.5 Massachusetts 110,108 44,619 48,975 50,205 -54.4 12.5 2.5 Michigan 222,472 73,283 66,433 64,995 -70.8 -11.3 -2.2 Minnesota 63,043 26,646 24,146 24,652 -60.9 -7.5 2.1 Mississippi 55,183 11,366 11,931 11,555 -79.1 1.7 -3.2 Missouri 92,265 38,762 38,308 38,810 -57.9 0.1 1.3 Montana 12,004 3,230 3,665 3,412 -71.6 5.6 -6.9 Nebraska 15,649 6,819 8,486 7,846 -49.9 15.1 -7.5 Nevada 14,207 7,043 10,499 10,675 -24.9 51.6 1.7 New Hampshire 11,591 4,992 6,202 6,013 -48.1 20.5 -3.0 122,536 34,177 33,540 34,822 -71.6 1.9 3.8 New Jersey Congressional Research Service 25 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Percentage Changes to June 2011 from June … 1994 New Mexico 2007 2010 2011 1994 2007 2010 33,732 13,716 19,737 19,640 -41.8 43.2 -0.5 New York 460,590 155,495 155,302 157,876 -65.7 1.5 1.7 North Carolina 131,065 24,857 23,384 22,396 -82.9 -9.9 -4.2 5,725 2,068 1,958 1,758 -69.3 -15.0 -10.2 247,886 77,005 103,198 96,838 -60.9 25.8 -6.2 Oklahoma 46,864 8,921 9,021 8,575 -81.7 -3.9 -4.9 Oregon 41,982 18,741 30,811 34,133 -18.7 82.1 10.8 Pennsylvania 211,431 61,948 51,683 78,841 -62.7 27.3 52.5 Puerto Rico 58,484 13,122 13,257 15,836 -72.9 20.7 19.5 Rhode Island 22,737 8,381 7,404 6,462 -71.6 -22.9 -12.7 South Carolina 51,590 14,479 17,843 16,973 -67.1 17.2 -4.9 South Dakota 6,868 2,871 3,247 3,337 -51.4 16.2 2.8 Tennessee 109,339 60,777 61,851 61,531 -43.7 1.2 -0.5 Texas 282,902 59,794 50,171 47,124 -83.3 -21.2 -6.1 Utah 17,536 5,123 6,641 3,420 -80.5 -33.2 -48.5 Vermont 10,006 4,500 3,131 3,326 -66.8 -26.1 6.2 1,106 418 513 427 -61.4 2.2 -16.8 75,020 31,576 37,276 35,135 -53.2 11.3 -5.7 104,243 49,519 70,099 58,863 -43.5 18.9 -16.0 West Virginia 40,379 9,335 9,619 10,085 -75.0 8.0 4.8 Wisconsin 76,458 17,266 23,435 27,105 -64.5 57.0 15.7 Wyoming 5,751 252 337 329 -94.3 30.6 -2.4 5,043,050 1,720,920 1,898,111 1,924,449 -61.8 11.8 1.4 North Dakota Ohio Virgin Islands Virginia Washington Totals Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Caseload data includes those aided under TANF and under separate state programs (SSPs) funded by TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) dollars. Congressional Research Service 26 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Table B-6. Families Receiving Cash Assistance, By Number of Parents Receiving Assistance on Their Own Behalf: June 2011 As a percent of total families State No Parent Families Single Parent Families TwoParent Families Total Families No Parent Families Single Parent Families 37.4% 61.8% TwoParent Families Alabama 8,440 13,936 165 22,541 Alaska 1,016 2,298 489 3,803 26.7 60.4 12.9 Arizona 7,605 9,800 557 17,962 42.3 54.6 3.1 Arkansas 2,981 4,723 221 7,925 37.6 59.6 2.8 California 261,484 287,083 61,892 610,459 42.8 47.0 10.1 Colorado 5,035 6,584 997 12,616 39.9 52.2 7.9 Connecticut 6,901 9,276 0 16,177 42.7 57.3 0.0 Delaware 3,100 2,205 27 5,332 58.1 41.4 0.5 District of Columbia 2,165 5,496 0 7,661 28.3 71.7 0.0 Florida 39,426 13,123 891 53,440 73.8 24.6 1.7 Georgia 15,930 3,486 0 19,416 82.0 18.0 0.0 Guam 688 424 176 1,288 53.4 32.9 13.7 Hawaii 1,835 5,832 2,123 9,790 18.7 59.6 21.7 Idaho 1,736 177 0 1,913 90.7 9.3 0.0 Illinois 14,642 15,239 0 29,881 49.0 51.0 0.0 Indiana 9,386 13,943 1,326 24,655 38.1 56.6 5.4 Iowa 5,221 14,420 953 20,594 25.4 70.0 4.6 Kansas 3,946 9,003 1,276 14,225 27.7 63.3 9.0 Kentucky 18,251 11,776 677 30,704 59.4 38.4 2.2 Louisiana 6,733 3,592 0 10,325 65.2 34.8 0.0 Maine 2,569 10,920 2,030 15,519 16.6 70.4 13.1 Maryland 8,111 17,117 0 25,228 32.2 67.8 0.0 Massachusetts 16,985 30,560 2,660 50,205 33.8 60.9 5.3 Michigan 17,226 47,769 0 64,995 26.5 73.5 0.0 Minnesota 11,039 13,613 0 24,652 44.8 55.2 0.0 Mississippi 5,013 6,542 0 11,555 43.4 56.6 0.0 Missouri 8,654 30,156 0 38,810 22.3 77.7 0.0 Montana 1,396 1,696 320 3,412 40.9 49.7 9.4 Nebraska 3,685 4,161 0 7,846 47.0 53.0 0.0 Nevada 4,849 4,771 1,055 10,675 45.4 44.7 9.9 New Hampshire 2,578 3,286 149 6,013 42.9 54.6 2.5 Congressional Research Service 0.7% 27 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ As a percent of total families State No Parent Families Single Parent Families TwoParent Families Total Families No Parent Families Single Parent Families TwoParent Families New Jersey 9,512 25,310 0 34,822 27.3 72.7 0.0 New Mexico 6,976 11,295 1,369 19,640 35.5 57.5 7.0 New York 59,583 95,503 2,790 157,876 37.7 60.5 1.8 North Carolina 15,999 6,164 233 22,396 71.4 27.5 1.0 665 1,093 0 1,758 37.8 62.2 0.0 46,682 42,903 7,253 96,838 48.2 44.3 7.5 5,114 3,461 0 8,575 59.6 40.4 0.0 Oregon 10,082 20,752 3,299 34,133 29.5 60.8 9.7 Pennsylvania 22,605 53,818 2,418 78,841 28.7 68.3 3.1 Puerto Rico 3,326 12,510 0 15,836 21.0 79.0 0.0 Rhode Island 2,135 3,831 496 6,462 33.0 59.3 7.7 South Carolina 6,907 10,066 0 16,973 40.7 59.3 0.0 South Dakota 2,207 1,130 0 3,337 66.1 33.9 0.0 Tennessee 12,669 47,252 1,610 61,531 20.6 76.8 2.6 Texas 33,213 13,911 0 47,124 70.5 29.5 0.0 Utah 2,081 1,339 0 3,420 60.8 39.2 0.0 Vermont 1,383 1,531 412 3,326 41.6 46.0 12.4 0 427 0 427 0.0 100.0 0.0 Virginia 12,559 22,576 0 35,135 35.7 64.3 0.0 Washington 23,709 29,297 5,857 58,863 40.3 49.8 10.0 4,877 5,208 0 10,085 48.4 51.6 0.0 12,357 14,013 735 27,105 45.6 51.7 2.7 232 91 6 329 70.5 27.7 1.8 793,499 1,026,488 104,462 1,924,449 41.2 53.3 5.4 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Virgin Islands West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Caseload data includes those aided under TANF and under separate state programs (SSPs) funded by TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) dollars. Congressional Research Service 28 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ Table B-7. TANF Work Participation Rates: FY2009 All Family Standard State Participation Rate Met Standard? Two-Parent Standard Participation Rate Met Standard? United States 29.4 Alabama 32.4 YES 24.7 YES Alaska 37.2 YES 40.5 NO Arizona 27.1 YES 62.6 YES Arkansas 37.1 YES 21.7 YES California 26.8 NO 28.6 YES Colorado 37.8 YES 33.3 YES Connecticut 34.4 YES NA NA Delaware 37.5 YES NA NA Dist. Of Col. 23.5 NO NA NA Florida 46.1 YES 54.4 YES Georgia 57.1 YES NA NA Guam 0.0 NO 0.0 NO Hawaii 40.3 YES NA NA Idaho 52.0 YES NA NA Illinois 49.3 YES NA NA Indiana 17.5 YES 17.8 YES Iowa 35.4 YES 27.0 YES Kansas 23.9 YES 25.6 YES Kentucky 37.3 YES 35.1 NO Louisiana 34.4 YES NA NA Maine 16.8 NO 16.6 NO Maryland 44.0 YES NA NA Massachusetts 47.5 YES 92.8 YES Michigan 27.9 YES NA NA Minnesota 29.8 YES NA NA Mississippi 67.5 YES NA NA Missouri 13.2 NO NA NA Montana 44.2 YES 58.7 YES Nebraska 50.3 YES NA NA Nevada 39.4 YES 46.8 NO New Hampshire 46.5 YES NA NA Congressional Research Service 28.3 29 . The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQ All Family Standard Two-Parent Standard Participation Rate Met Standard? New Jersey 20.1 YES NA NA New Mexico 43.1 YES 63.0 YES New York 33.4 YES NA NA North Carolina 32.3 YES 46.6 YES North Dakota 61.0 YES NA NA Ohio 23.3 NO 23.1 YES Oklahoma 23.0 YES NA NA 9.5 NO 5.9 NO Pennsylvania 45.8 YES 84.2 YES Puerto Rico 8.7 NO NA NA Rhode Island 13.8 YES 13.6 NO South Carolina 45.1 YES NA NA South Dakota 59.4 YES NA NA Tennessee 25.5 YES 0.0 YES Texas 37.0 YES NA NA Utah 32.6 YES NA NA Vermont 29.0 YES 24.0 YES 7.1 YES NA NA Virginia 44.3 YES NA NA Washington 23.0 YES 18.6 YES West Virginia 19.6 YES NA NA Wisconsin 39.9 YES 33.0 YES Wyoming 61.3 YES 75.7 YES State Oregon Virgin Islands Participation Rate Met Standard? Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Note: NA denotes not applicable. State did not service two-parent families in its TANF or MOE-funded programs. NR denotes not reported. Author Contact Information Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344 Congressional Research Service 30P.L. 112-78 Jan 1, 2012-February 21, 2012 Extension of TANF for two months, as part of a bill to provide a two-month extension for the 2011 payroll tax reduction, extended unemployment compensation, and other expiring provisions. P.L. 112-96 February 22, 2012-Sept. 30, 2012 Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2012 included as part of a bill to extend the 2011 payroll tax reduction, unemployment compensation, and other expiring provisions. P.L. 112-175 Oct. 1, 2011-March 27, 2013 Extension of TANF for the first six months of FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution. March 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013 Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution. P.L. 113-6 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2012 Millions of Dollars Percent of Total Federal and MOE Funds Basic Assistance $8,982.2 28.6% Administration 2,254.0 7.2 Work Expenditures 2,163.1 6.9 Child Care 5,022.4 16.0 Other Work Supports 3,004.5 9.6 Other 9,931.9 31.7 Totals 31,358.1 100.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Congressional Research Service 24 Appendix B. State Tables Table B-1. Use of FY2012 TANF and MOE Funds by Category (Dollars in millions) State Alabama Basic Assistance Administration Work Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Totals $49.6 $19.7 $22.9 $5.5 $6.8 $66.4 $170.9 Alaska 41.3 5.2 11.1 21.8 1.0 4.9 85.5 Arizona 49.3 39.2 9.6 -1.1 2.0 247.0 345.9 Arkansas 14.6 9.0 32.5 10.7 3.8 104.0 174.6 California 3,285.2 569.0 528.0 793.0 164.7 1,142.7 6,482.7 Colorado 70.7 20.4 3.9 -30.8 8.7 192.8 265.8 Connecticut 81.1 31.4 16.8 35.8 5.0 323.6 493.7 Delaware 19.1 7.8 4.9 45.1 -0.4 11.5 88.1 District of Columbia 35.8 7.6 10.7 56.5 16.6 47.3 174.3 Florida 169.5 32.3 58.7 333.3 4.5 377.6 975.8 Georgia 43.9 23.9 20.7 23.3 10.9 399.9 522.7 Hawaii 69.2 15.7 93.6 25.3 3.5 59.7 267.0 Idaho 7.2 4.8 6.6 11.0 0.3 13.1 43.0 Illinois 127.4 33.1 33.8 624.5 15.7 351.2 1,185.7 Indiana 40.7 23.3 20.7 38.7 32.0 92.3 247.6 Iowa 66.4 15.2 17.8 45.1 17.9 64.1 226.5 Kansas 33.1 12.1 0.7 20.0 63.9 53.2 183.0 112.2 12.8 36.5 98.4 20.3 27.2 307.4 Kentucky CRS-25 State Basic Assistance Administration Work Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Totals Louisiana 17.9 20.0 7.9 5.2 22.7 187.4 261.0 Maine 69.6 3.7 12.2 10.8 17.0 1.8 115.0 Maryland 141.7 42.1 48.6 23.6 130.9 182.7 569.6 Massachusetts 360.0 37.5 6.7 301.9 107.4 353.8 1,167.3 Michigan 253.1 165.1 82.3 22.4 239.4 821.7 1,584.0 Minnesota 86.4 42.5 63.6 122.7 142.0 48.0 505.2 Mississippi 19.0 3.8 23.8 19.1 22.7 18.2 106.6 Missouri 91.9 11.1 17.8 69.3 0.0 222.9 413.0 Montana 15.6 9.0 11.4 12.2 0.0 8.3 56.5 Nebraska 25.4 4.6 18.9 23.5 35.4 2.5 110.4 Nevada 43.7 8.8 1.6 0.9 1.3 42.7 99.0 New Hampshire 29.7 13.4 7.2 6.4 1.4 18.6 76.7 New Jersey 209.9 63.3 74.9 78.9 185.7 494.6 1,107.2 New Mexico 63.9 9.3 8.8 30.5 47.2 46.4 206.0 1,470.9 364.2 151.2 468.8 1,423.4 1,520.7 5,399.3 North Carolina 64.2 41.5 46.2 177.2 60.0 233.9 623.0 North Dakota 5.9 4.1 4.4 1.0 1.5 20.5 37.3 366.0 112.3 44.7 443.9 13.6 115.7 1,096.4 21.8 23.6 0.0 58.7 26.9 61.2 192.1 Oregon 152.1 35.7 13.5 9.5 2.2 131.6 344.7 Pennsylvania 293.7 88.5 104.4 430.9 14.4 154.9 1,086.8 Rhode Island 36.9 12.6 8.4 22.7 13.8 67.9 162.3 South Carolina 31.4 13.5 14.3 4.1 2.1 83.1 148.5 South Dakota 14.2 2.5 4.1 0.8 0.1 7.8 29.5 New York Ohio Oklahoma CRS-26 State Tennessee Basic Assistance Administration Work Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Totals 118.5 34.0 68.9 82.4 0.0 68.9 372.6 Texas 92.6 73.0 83.7 26.9 6.9 631.4 914.5 Utah 26.6 8.8 24.8 7.5 2.0 34.4 104.0 Vermont 18.3 6.2 0.2 24.0 22.4 10.9 82.0 Virginia 104.1 20.8 51.4 42.6 8.4 79.5 306.7 Washington 242.0 55.2 171.5 125.2 1.3 465.9 1,061.1 33.0 13.6 1.9 28.4 27.5 40.3 144.6 Wisconsin 137.2 24.4 52.6 180.6 47.8 160.9 603.4 Wyoming 8.7 3.0 1.8 3.7 0.0 14.3 31.4 8,982.2 2,254.0 2,163.1 5,022.4 3,004.5 9,931.9 31,358.1 West Virginia Totals Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Table B-2. Use of FY2012 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding State Alabama Basic Assistance Administration Work Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Totals 29.0% 11.5% 13.4% 3.2% 4.0% 38.9% 100.0% Alaska 48.4 6.1 13.0 25.5 1.2 5.8 100.0 Arizona 14.2 11.3 2.8 -0.3 0.6 71.4 100.0 Arkansas 8.3 5.2 18.6 6.1 2.2 59.6 100.0 California 50.7 8.8 8.1 12.2 2.5 17.6 100.0 Colorado 26.6 7.7 1.5 -11.6 3.3 72.6 100.0 Connecticut 16.4 6.4 3.4 7.3 1.0 65.5 100.0 CRS-27 State Basic Assistance Administration Work Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Totals Delaware 21.7 8.9 5.6 51.2 -0.4 13.0 100.0 District of Columbia 20.5 4.3 6.1 32.4 9.5 27.1 100.0 Florida 17.4 3.3 6.0 34.2 0.5 38.7 100.0 Georgia 8.4 4.6 4.0 4.5 2.1 76.5 100.0 Hawaii 25.9 5.9 35.1 9.5 1.3 22.3 100.0 Idaho 16.8 11.1 15.3 25.6 0.6 30.6 100.0 Illinois 10.7 2.8 2.8 52.7 1.3 29.6 100.0 Indiana 16.4 9.4 8.3 15.6 12.9 37.3 100.0 Iowa 29.3 6.7 7.9 19.9 7.9 28.3 100.0 Kansas 18.1 6.6 0.4 10.9 34.9 29.1 100.0 Kentucky 36.5 4.2 11.9 32.0 6.6 8.9 100.0 Louisiana 6.9 7.6 3.0 2.0 8.7 71.8 100.0 Maine 60.6 3.2 10.6 9.4 14.7 1.6 100.0 Maryland 24.9 7.4 8.5 4.1 23.0 32.1 100.0 Massachusetts 30.8 3.2 0.6 25.9 9.2 30.3 100.0 Michigan 16.0 10.4 5.2 1.4 15.1 51.9 100.0 Minnesota 17.1 8.4 12.6 24.3 28.1 9.5 100.0 Mississippi 17.9 3.6 22.3 17.9 21.3 17.1 100.0 Missouri 22.3 2.7 4.3 16.8 0.0 54.0 100.0 Montana 27.6 15.9 20.2 21.6 0.0 14.7 100.0 Nebraska 23.0 4.2 17.1 21.3 32.1 2.3 100.0 Nevada 44.2 8.9 1.7 0.9 1.3 43.1 100.0 New Hampshire 38.7 17.4 9.4 8.4 1.8 24.3 100.0 New Jersey 19.0 5.7 6.8 7.1 16.8 44.7 100.0 CRS-28 State Basic Assistance Administration Work Expenditures Child Care Other Work Supports Other Totals New Mexico 31.0 4.5 4.3 14.8 22.9 22.5 100.0 New York 27.2 6.7 2.8 8.7 26.4 28.2 100.0 North Carolina 10.3 6.7 7.4 28.4 9.6 37.5 100.0 North Dakota 15.7 11.0 11.7 2.7 4.1 54.8 100.0 Ohio 33.4 10.2 4.1 40.5 1.2 10.6 100.0 Oklahoma 11.3 12.3 0.0 30.5 14.0 31.8 100.0 Oregon 44.1 10.4 3.9 2.8 0.6 38.2 100.0 Pennsylvania 27.0 8.1 9.6 39.7 1.3 14.3 100.0 Rhode Island 22.7 7.8 5.2 14.0 8.5 41.8 100.0 South Carolina 21.2 9.1 9.6 2.8 1.4 55.9 100.0 South Dakota 48.1 8.4 13.9 2.7 0.4 26.4 100.0 Tennessee 31.8 9.1 18.5 22.1 0.0 18.5 100.0 Texas 10.1 8.0 9.2 2.9 0.8 69.0 100.0 Utah 25.6 8.4 23.8 7.2 1.9 33.1 100.0 Vermont 22.3 7.6 0.3 29.3 27.3 13.3 100.0 Virginia 33.9 6.8 16.7 13.9 2.7 25.9 100.0 Washington 22.8 5.2 16.2 11.8 0.1 43.9 100.0 West Virginia 22.8 9.4 1.3 19.6 19.0 27.9 100.0 Wisconsin 22.7 4.0 8.7 29.9 7.9 26.7 100.0 Wyoming 27.6 9.7 5.6 11.6 0.0 45.5 100.0 Totals 28.6 7.2 6.9 16.0 9.6 31.7 100.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CRS-29 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2012 (September 30, 2012, in millions of dollars) State Alabama Obligated but Not Expended Unobligated Funds Total Unspent Funds $3.5 $5.7 $9.2 Alaska 0.0 75.5 75.5 Arizona 0.0 24.8 24.8 Arkansas 0.0 42.1 42.1 California 141.1 0.0 141.2 Colorado 0.0 17.6 17.6 Connecticut 0.0 6.3 6.3 Delaware 3.9 5.7 9.6 District of Columbia 9.5 59.7 69.2 Florida 49.1 87.5 136.6 Georgia 35.0 54.1 89.0 Hawaii 13.2 28.8 42.0 Idaho 31.4 0.0 31.4 Illinois 0.0 57.3 57.3 189.0 21.7 210.7 Iowa 3.9 8.7 12.5 Kansas 0.0 39.0 39.0 Kentucky 1.9 7.7 9.6 Louisiana 0.2 0.0 0.2 Maine 0.0 3.4 3.4 Maryland 0.0 0.0 0.0 Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0.0 Michigan 0.0 119.0 119.0 Minnesota 54.3 79.5 133.8 Mississippi 5.6 12.9 18.5 Missouri 0.0 19.4 19.4 Montana 0.8 44.6 45.5 Nebraska 0.1 55.9 56.1 Nevada 0.0 9.0 9.0 New Hampshire 0.0 4.7 4.7 New Jersey 148.2 23.5 171.7 New Mexico 28.0 0.0 28.0 New York 221.4 300.3 521.6 North Carolina 187.4 3.5 190.9 Indiana Congressional Research Service 30 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Obligated but Not Expended North Dakota Unobligated Funds Total Unspent Funds 0.0 18.7 18.7 Ohio 42.1 47.1 89.2 Oklahoma 46.9 6.7 53.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 Pennsylvania 70.4 208.1 278.5 Rhode Island 13.9 0.0 13.9 South Carolina 0.0 13.6 13.6 South Dakota 0.0 16.0 16.0 Tennessee 0.0 20.5 20.5 Texas 92.4 0.0 92.4 Utah 0.0 86.5 86.5 Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 Virginia 1.6 25.1 26.7 Washington 0.0 0.0 0.0 West Virginia 9.5 0.0 9.5 Wisconsin 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wyoming 5.0 24.1 29.1 1,409.1 1,684.2 3,093.3 Oregon Totals Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Assistance, March 2013 State Alabama Families Recipients Children Adults 19,551 46,976 34,936 12,040 Alaska 3,730 10,027 6,748 3,279 Arizona 16,037 36,395 25,906 10,489 Arkansas 6,848 15,267 10,894 4,373 California 567,593 1,366,728 1,086,982 279,746 Colorado 14,825 38,576 27,511 11,065 Connecticut 14,592 28,828 20,310 8,518 Delaware 4,903 13,784 8,416 5,368 District of Columbia 5,701 13,597 10,496 3,101 Florida 54,608 97,257 79,592 17,665 Georgia 17,806 34,670 30,450 4,220 1,325 3,159 2,383 776 Guam Congressional Research Service 31 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Families Recipients Children Adults Hawaii 9,206 26,621 17,605 9,016 Idaho 1,823 2,746 2,587 159 Illinois 21,569 47,895 39,315 8,580 Indiana 12,837 26,364 23,128 3,236 Iowa 17,848 45,368 31,451 13,917 8,288 19,940 14,369 5,571 Kentucky 30,300 60,918 48,398 12,520 Louisiana 7,598 17,033 14,703 2,330 Maine 28,368 60,169 33,540 26,629 Maryland 21,704 51,755 37,877 13,878 Massachusetts 67,820 153,450 102,878 50,572 Michigan 36,189 83,689 62,154 21,535 Minnesota 23,535 52,506 39,935 12,571 Mississippi 9,918 20,789 15,235 5,554 Missouri 35,666 85,842 58,362 27,480 Montana 2,994 7,201 5,308 1,893 Nebraska 6,759 16,136 13,134 3,002 10,404 26,588 19,783 6,805 6,221 15,217 10,222 4,995 New Jersey 32,291 78,425 54,528 23,897 New Mexico 14,956 36,779 27,124 9,655 158,864 403,178 288,137 115,041 North Carolina 19,882 38,069 32,296 5,773 North Dakota 1,394 3,477 2,725 752 68,472 136,887 110,858 26,029 7,611 16,823 14,106 2,717 Oregon 43,400 103,269 74,594 28,675 Pennsylvania 71,741 176,064 126,890 49,174 Puerto Rico 13,115 36,080 22,733 13,347 Rhode Island 5,928 14,096 9,668 4,428 South Carolina 12,537 28,587 22,174 6,413 South Dakota 3,122 6,184 5,351 833 Tennessee 51,336 123,991 90,614 33,377 Texas 39,555 88,440 77,575 10,865 Utah 4,477 10,916 7,997 2,919 Vermont 3,427 7,769 5,407 2,362 406 1,193 857 336 Kansas Nevada New Hampshire New York Ohio Oklahoma Virgin Islands Congressional Research Service 32 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Families Recipients Children Adults Virginia 31,316 67,310 48,675 18,635 Washington 48,239 112,200 76,282 35,918 8,788 19,241 14,234 5,007 Wisconsin 25,902 61,773 46,024 15,749 Wyoming 343 1,135 687 448 1,753,668 4,097,377 3,094,144 1,003,233 West Virginia Totals Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Caseload data include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance, March 1994, 2007, 2012, and 2013 Percentage Change to March 2013 from March.... 1994 2007 2010 2012 2013 1994 2007 2013 Alabama 51,217 18,005 20,740 20,818 19,551 -61.8% 8.6% -6.1% Alaska 13,209 3,376 3,296 3,906 3,730 -71.8 10.5 -4.5 Arizona 71,713 35,617 35,227 17,268 16,037 -77.6 -55.0 -7.1 Arkansas 26,355 8,600 8,492 7,440 6,848 -74.0 -20.4 -8.0 California 916,427 471,775 576,355 580,388 567,593 -38.1 20.3 -2.2 Colorado 42,541 11,149 11,785 14,024 14,825 -65.2 33.0 5.7 Connecticut 59,351 20,890 17,261 15,118 14,592 -75.4 -30.1 -3.5 Delaware 11,592 4,027 5,089 5,301 4,903 -57.7 21.8 -7.5 District of Columbia 27,047 5,748 9,786 5,805 5,701 -78.9 -0.8 -1.8 Florida 248,514 47,337 57,471 53,706 54,608 -78.0 15.4 1.7 Georgia 141,859 24,681 20,464 18,443 17,806 -87.4 -27.9 -3.5 Guam 1,863 931 1,245 1,316 1,325 -28.9 42.3 0.7 Hawaii 20,395 6,410 9,630 9,536 9,206 -54.9 43.6 -3.5 Idaho 9,016 1,661 1,742 1,874 1,823 -79.8 9.8 -2.7 Illinois 241,817 31,397 21,973 33,709 21,569 -91.1 -31.3 -36.0 Indiana 74,843 41,226 35,915 17,004 12,837 -82.8 -68.9 -24.5 Congressional Research Service 33 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Percentage Change to March 2013 from March.... 1994 2007 2010 2012 2013 1994 2007 2013 Iowa 40,676 20,082 21,345 19,108 17,848 -56.1 -11.1 -6.6 Kansas 30,591 14,550 14,202 11,094 8,288 -72.9 -43.0 -25.3 Kentucky 81,141 29,788 30,028 30,057 30,300 -62.7 1.7 0.8 Louisiana 88,059 10,730 10,273 9,191 7,598 -91.4 -29.2 -17.3 Maine 23,231 12,736 14,942 15,039 28,368 22.1 122.7 88.6 Maryland 81,253 19,077 24,052 23,753 21,704 -73.3 13.8 -8.6 Massachusetts 112,803 44,579 49,062 64,449 67,820 -39.9 52.1 5.2 Michigan 227,114 75,173 70,633 40,919 36,189 -84.1 -51.9 -11.6 Minnesota 64,055 26,513 24,048 24,499 23,535 -63.3 -11.2 -3.9 Mississippi 56,420 11,210 11,805 11,263 9,918 -82.4 -11.5 -11.9 Missouri 93,735 39,577 38,847 37,723 35,666 -62.0 -9.9 -5.5 Montana 12,278 3,184 3,742 3,174 2,994 -75.6 -6.0 -5.7 Nebraska 16,323 7,426 8,539 7,375 6,759 -58.6 -9.0 -8.4 Nevada 14,011 6,424 10,365 10,590 10,404 -25.7 62.0 -1.8 New Hampshire 11,574 5,183 6,247 6,294 6,221 -46.3 20.0 -1.2 New Jersey 123,025 34,884 33,047 34,162 32,291 -73.8 -7.4 -5.5 New Mexico 33,847 14,017 19,342 18,001 14,956 -55.8 6.7 -16.9 New York 457,660 159,447 156,188 157,885 158,864 -65.3 -0.4 0.6 North Carolina 134,063 25,509 24,382 21,562 19,882 -85.2 -22.1 -7.8 North Dakota 6,079 2,016 2,037 1,648 1,394 -77.1 -30.9 -15.4 Ohio 254,021 77,624 103,012 153,065 68,472 -73.0 -11.8 -55.3 Oklahoma 47,428 9,283 9,315 8,472 7,611 -84.0 -18.0 -10.2 Oregon 43,617 18,872 30,199 37,927 43,400 -0.5 130.0 14.4 Congressional Research Service 34 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Percentage Change to March 2013 from March.... 1994 2007 2010 2012 2013 1994 2007 2013 Pennsylvania 211,771 63,637 51,085 77,566 71,741 -66.1 12.7 -7.5 Puerto Rico 58,869 13,809 13,581 14,711 13,115 -77.7 -5.0 -10.8 Rhode Island 22,872 8,296 7,505 6,559 5,928 -74.1 -28.5 -9.6 South Carolina 53,260 15,652 17,934 14,131 12,537 -76.5 -19.9 -11.3 South Dakota 7,129 2,825 3,209 3,184 3,122 -56.2 10.5 -1.9 Tennessee 111,740 62,395 61,685 56,972 51,336 -54.1 -17.7 -9.9 Texas 286,613 61,566 49,871 44,529 39,555 -86.2 -35.8 -11.2 Utah 17,908 5,146 6,724 5,048 4,477 -75.0 -13.0 -11.3 Vermont 9,988 4,463 3,106 3,440 3,427 -65.7 -23.2 -0.4 Virgin Islands 1,078 440 507 427 406 -62.3 -7.7 -4.9 Virginia 75,854 31,354 36,744 33,391 31,316 -58.7 -0.1 -6.2 Washington 104,326 52,292 69,637 53,392 48,239 -53.8 -7.8 -9.7 West Virginia 41,521 9,774 9,690 9,289 8,788 -78.8 -10.1 -5.4 Wisconsin 78,739 17,211 21,353 26,152 25,902 -67.1 50.5 -1.0 Wyoming 5,857 273 352 317 343 -94.1 25.6 8.2 5,098,28 8 1,749,847 1,905,10 6 1,902,01 4 1,753,66 8 -65.6 0.2 -7.8 Totals Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Caseload data include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Congressional Research Service 35 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table B-6. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance, by Number of Parents Receiving Assistance on Their Own Behalf: March 2013 SingleParent Families TwoParent Families NoParent Families Total Families SingleParent Families TwoParent Families NoParent Families Alabama 11,584 204 7,763 19,551 59.3% 1.0% 39.7% Alaska 2,315 442 973 3,730 62.1 11.8 26.1 Arizona 9,237 573 6,227 16,037 57.6 3.6 38.8 Arkansas 4,071 173 2,604 6,848 59.4 2.5 38.0 California 248,412 53,505 265,676 567,593 43.8 9.4 46.8 Colorado 8,998 1,159 4,668 14,825 60.7 7.8 31.5 Connectic ut 8,441 0 6,151 14,592 57.8 0.0 42.2 Delaware 1,723 22 3,158 4,903 35.1 0.4 64.4 District of Columbia 3,412 0 2,289 5,701 59.8 0.0 40.2 Florida 13,873 757 39,978 54,608 25.4 1.4 73.2 Georgia 4,155 0 13,651 17,806 23.3 0.0 76.7 Guam 566 209 550 1,325 42.7 15.8 41.5 Hawaii 5,323 2,204 1,679 9,206 57.8 23.9 18.2 Idaho 156 0 1,667 1,823 8.6 0.0 91.4 Illinois 7,605 0 13,964 21,569 35.3 0.0 64.7 Indiana 4,049 195 8,593 12,837 31.5 1.5 66.9 Iowa 11,338 1,066 5,444 17,848 63.5 6.0 30.5 Kansas 4,340 530 3,418 8,288 52.4 6.4 41.2 Kentucky 10,867 778 18,655 30,300 35.9 2.6 61.6 Louisiana 2,289 0 5,309 7,598 30.1 0.0 69.9 Maine 24,716 988 2,664 28,368 87.1 3.5 9.4 Maryland 14,002 0 7,702 21,704 64.5 0.0 35.5 Massachus etts 42,984 4,451 20,385 67,820 63.4 6.6 30.1 Michigan 21,485 0 14,704 36,189 59.4 0.0 40.6 Minnesota 12,698 0 10,837 23,535 54.0 0.0 46.0 State Congressional Research Service 36 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State SingleParent Families TwoParent Families NoParent Families Total Families SingleParent Families TwoParent Families NoParent Families Mississippi 5,466 0 4,452 9,918 55.1 0.0 44.9 Missouri 27,818 0 7,848 35,666 78.0 0.0 22.0 Montana 1,648 283 1,063 2,994 55.0 9.5 35.5 Nebraska 3,098 0 3,661 6,759 45.8 0.0 54.2 Nevada 4,636 1,063 4,705 10,404 44.6 10.2 45.2 New Hampshire 4,792 94 1,335 6,221 77.0 1.5 21.5 New Jersey 23,510 0 8,781 32,291 72.8 0.0 27.2 New Mexico 7,807 943 6,206 14,956 52.2 6.3 41.5 New York 99,634 2,888 56,342 158,864 62.7 1.8 35.5 North Carolina 5,333 220 14,329 19,882 26.8 1.1 72.1 North Dakota 749 0 645 1,394 53.7 0.0 46.3 Ohio 19,548 2,849 46,075 68,472 28.5 4.2 67.3 Oklahoma 2,717 0 4,894 7,611 35.7 0.0 64.3 Oregon 37,711 105 5,584 43,400 86.9 0.2 12.9 Pennsylvan ia 50,564 975 20,202 71,741 70.5 1.4 28.2 Puerto Rico 10,361 0 2,754 13,115 79.0 0.0 21.0 Rhode Island 3,553 489 1,886 5,928 59.9 8.2 31.8 South Carolina 6,659 0 5,878 12,537 53.1 0.0 46.9 South Dakota 833 0 2,289 3,122 26.7 0.0 73.3 Tennessee 32,404 978 17,954 51,336 63.1 1.9 35.0 Texas 10,861 0 28,694 39,555 27.5 0.0 72.5 Utah 1,872 0 2,605 4,477 41.8 0.0 58.2 Congressional Research Service 37 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs SingleParent Families TwoParent Families NoParent Families Total Families SingleParent Families TwoParent Families NoParent Families 1,598 377 1,452 3,427 46.6 11.0 42.4 Virgin Islands 406 0 0 406 100.0 0.0 0.0 Virginia 19,504 0 11,812 31,316 62.3 0.0 37.7 Washingto n 25,638 5,008 17,593 48,239 53.1 10.4 36.5 West Virginia 3,982 0 4,806 8,788 45.3 0.0 54.7 Wisconsin 13,375 810 11,717 25,902 51.6 3.1 45.2 Wyoming 120 12 211 343 35.0 3.5 61.5 904,836 84,350 764,482 1,753,668 51.6 4.8 43.6 State Vermont Totals Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Caseload data include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Table B-7. TANF All-Family Work Participation Rate by State: FY2002 Through FY2010 State United States 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 28.9% 27.5% 29.4% 30.3% 30.6% 29.7% 29.4% 29.4% 29.0% Alabama 37.3 37.1 37.9 38.6 41.6 34.0 37.4 32.4 37.1 Alaska 39.6 41.1 43.6 45.7 45.6 46.8 42.8 37.2 33.3 Arizona 25.9 13.4 25.5 30.3 29.6 30.0 27.8 27.1 29.1 Arkansas 21.4 22.4 27.3 28.3 27.9 35.3 38.8 37.1 34.1 California 27.3 24.0 23.1 25.9 22.2 22.3 25.1 26.8 26.2 Colorado 35.9 32.5 34.7 25.8 30.0 27.3 32.3 37.8 33.6 Connecticut 26.6 30.6 24.3 33.8 30.8 28.8 25.3 34.4 37.2 Delaware 11.7 18.2 22.1 22.6 25.3 32.7 48.8 37.5 38.8 District of Columbia 16.4 23.1 18.2 23.5 17.1 35.0 49.6 23.5 15.0 Florida 30.4 33.1 40.4 38.0 41.0 64.2 42.4 46.1 47.5 Georgia 8.2 10.9 24.8 57.2 64.9 54.2 59.0 57.1 67.5 Hawaii 32.5 34.6 40.3 35.5 37.3 28.7 34.4 40.3 47.6 Idaho 40.7 43.7 41.0 39.9 44.2 53.0 59.5 52.0 49.5 Congressional Research Service 38 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Illinois 58.4 57.8 46.1 43.0 53.0 55.5 42.6 49.3 49.1 Indiana 45.3 40.3 36.3 30.9 26.7 27.5 29.4 17.5 19.2 Iowa 51.2 45.1 50.0 47.8 39.0 40.2 41.1 35.4 34.8 Kansas 37.6 32.4 88.0 86.7 77.2 12.8 19.6 23.9 27.2 Kentucky 32.4 32.8 38.1 39.7 44.6 38.2 38.0 37.3 46.4 Louisiana 38.7 34.6 35.4 34.6 38.4 42.2 40.0 34.4 27.4 Maine 44.5 27.7 32.1 28.3 26.6 21.9 11.4 16.8 19.7 Maryland 8.3 9.1 16.0 20.5 44.5 46.7 36.9 44.0 40.7 Massachusetts 9.2 8.4 10.3 12.6 13.6 17.0 44.7 47.5 22.2 Michigan 28.9 25.3 24.5 22.0 21.6 28.0 33.6 27.9 22.8 Minnesota 31.2 25.0 26.8 28.9 30.3 28.1 29.9 29.8 40.2 Mississippi 18.5 17.2 21.0 22.6 35.5 61.9 63.2 67.5 66.3 Missouri 25.4 28.0 19.5 20.0 18.7 14.0 14.2 13.2 17.5 Montana 37.9 37.4 86.7 83.1 79.2 46.4 44.2 44.2 51.6 Nebraska 22.8 29.4 34.5 31.8 32.0 23.0 51.2 50.3 49.5 Nevada 21.6 22.3 34.5 42.3 47.8 34.0 42.1 39.4 37.6 New Hampshire 32.6 28.2 30.2 24.6 24.1 42.0 47.4 46.5 46.6 New Jersey 36.4 35.0 34.6 29.0 29.2 33.0 18.9 20.1 19.9 New Mexico 42.7 42.0 46.2 41.6 42.3 36.4 37.5 43.1 42.5 New York 38.5 37.1 37.8 35.2 37.8 38.0 37.3 33.4 35.0 North Carolina 27.4 25.3 31.4 27.5 32.4 32.4 24.5 32.3 37.1 North Dakota 30.4 27.0 25.3 31.4 51.9 58.7 50.2 61.0 68.7 Ohio 56.1 62.2 65.2 58.3 54.9 23.7 24.5 23.3 23.1 Oklahoma 26.7 29.2 33.2 34.0 32.9 38.1 29.2 23.0 24.3 8.0 14.7 32.1 14.9 15.2 14.7 24.1 9.5 8.4 Pennsylvania 10.4 9.9 7.1 15.2 26.1 48.9 38.6 45.8 46.0 Puerto Rico 5.6 6.1 7.5 13.1 13.1 8.2 11.6 8.7 8.6 Rhode Island 24.6 24.3 23.7 24.2 24.9 26.8 17.5 13.8 12.0 South Carolina 30.2 28.6 53.7 54.3 49.5 53.3 51.7 45.1 37.2 South Dakota 42.5 46.1 54.8 57.5 57.9 53.5 62.2 59.4 61.4 Tennessee 14.3 13.4 13.0 14.3 16.8 45.9 25.2 25.5 26.5 Texas 21.1 28.1 34.2 38.9 42.0 34.6 29.3 37.0 36.1 Utah 27.9 28.1 26.2 30.3 42.5 49.8 37.6 32.6 33.8 Vermont 21.4 24.3 24.9 22.4 22.2 22.4 23.2 29.0 34.9 Virginia 22.6 29.9 50.1 46.3 53.9 43.5 45.4 44.3 42.9 Washington 49.8 46.2 35.4 38.6 36.1 25.4 18.3 23.0 24.2 West Virginia 19.2 14.2 11.7 16.3 26.2 15.4 17.6 19.6 25.9 Oregon Congressional Research Service 39 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Wisconsin 69.4 67.2 61.3 44.3 36.2 36.7 37.1 39.9 42.5 Wyoming 82.9 83.0 77.8 82.1 77.2 65.4 50.5 61.3 63.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 17.7 5.0 10.6 16.9 14.5 17.1 15.5 7.1 9.2 Guam Virgin Islands Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: FY2002 through FY2006 work participation rates are based on federal work participation standard rules. They exclude the effects of “grandfathered” waivers of pre-1996. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the option to continue their pre-reform “waiver” programs and have their work participation rates based on the rules of the state waivers, not the federal rules. The last of these pre-1996 waivers expired in 2006. The allfamily work participation rates for FY2002 through FY2006 that include the effect of the waivers are slightly higher than the rates shown here. Table B-8. TANF Two-Parent Work Participation Rate: FY2002-FY2010 (NA denotes not applicable; state has no two-parent families in the participation rate calculation) State United States 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 44.2% 41.8% 45.3% 40.8% 45.9% 35.7% 27.6% 28.3% 33.4% Alabama NA NA NA NA NA 29.1 28.1 24.7 28.6 Alaska 44.5 44.6 52.8 54.7 54.2 58.6 47.0 40.5 35.3 Arizona 52.2 55.3 65.6 74.2 67.5 72.1 64.3 62.6 72.8 Arkansas 24.4 31.8 34.4 45.9 22.3 19.2 32.0 21.7 21.5 California NA NA NA NA NA 31.7 26.5 28.6 35.6 Colorado 45.6 40.1 37.5 32.1 35.2 31.4 30.8 33.3 28.6 Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA 26.8 NA NA NA Delaware NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA District of Columbia 13.4 19.6 20.1 35.9 13.1 NA NA NA NA Florida NA NA NA NA NA 59.4 37.5 54.4 56.4 Georgia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hawaii NA NA NA NA NA NA 70.4 NA 56.3 Idaho 40.2 42.3 37.1 41.4 39.2 NA NA NA NA Illinois NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Indiana NA NA NA NA NA 30.7 31.4 17.8 18.7 Iowa 41.6 39.2 NA NA NA 39.7 39.8 27.0 28.0 Kansas 38.5 30.3 93.7 92.8 82.3 12.1 15.5 25.6 28.9 Kentucky 43.7 46.2 51.2 48.9 51.3 48.1 38.8 35.1 42.7 Louisiana 57.2 39.0 38.0 37.0 42.5 NA NA NA NA Maine 58.2 29.2 NA NA NA 30.1 8.6 16.6 17.2 Maryland NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Massachusetts 12.9 12.0 15.4 13.5 NA NA 96.4 92.8 90.1 Congressional Research Service 40 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Michigan 46.5 36.2 35.7 30.4 26.2 NA NA NA NA Minnesota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mississippi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Missouri 27.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Montana 54.8 55.9 90.8 85.4 83.3 55.8 51.6 58.7 57.2 Nebraska NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nevada NA NA NA NA NA 45.7 51.4 46.8 45.2 New Hampshire 30.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Jersey NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Mexico 57.5 52.0 55.3 57.5 54.5 47.2 50.9 63.0 57.4 New York 56.3 52.2 48.3 43.4 48.9 NA NA NA NA North Carolina 46.7 49.2 47.2 44.7 54.0 53.6 51.3 46.6 60.9 North Dakota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio 60.0 67.8 68.4 58.1 55.5 29.3 27.9 23.1 25.4 Oklahoma NA 50.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Oregon 18.9 23.4 35.5 21.1 22.6 12.6 11.1 5.9 7.2 Pennsylvania 11.0 8.8 15.0 17.7 32.5 89.8 79.8 84.2 86.8 Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rhode Island 93.8 94.9 94.9 95.1 94.3 98.5 94.5 13.6 9.2 South Carolina 30.1 25.5 55.9 63.7 64.7 88.0 NA NA NA South Dakota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tennessee NA NA NA NA NA 44.1 11.9 0.0 0.0 Texas NA NA NA NA NA 59.2 NA NA NA Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vermont 32.7 37.5 38.2 35.8 33.9 31.6 31.8 24.0 38.2 Virginia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Washington 50.7 44.3 31.1 37.7 43.1 25.2 17.2 18.6 22.3 West Virginia 26.5 25.2 NA NA NA 16.4 NA NA 89.6 Wisconsin 39.3 40.3 33.1 25.5 17.1 20.9 31.6 33.0 31.1 Wyoming 93.8 91.5 87.5 65.2 75.9 74.1 69.4 75.7 48.5 Guam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: FY2002 through FY2006 work participation rates are based on federal work participation standard rules. They exclude the effects of “grandfathered” waivers of pre-1996. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the option to continue their pre-reform “waiver” programs and have their work participation rates based on the rules of the state waivers, not the federal rules. The last of these pre-1996 waivers expired in 2006. The all- Congressional Research Service 41 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs family work participation rates for FY2002 through FY2006 that include the effect of the waivers are slightly higher than the rates shown here. Author Contact Information Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344 Congressional Research Service 42