.
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