< Back to Current Version

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

Changes from September 8, 2015 to March 18, 2016

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


The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy July 9, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32760 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs 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 also required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. Federal and State TANF Expenditures. Though TANF is best known for funding cash assistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2013, expenditures on basic assistance (cash assistance) totaled $8.7 billion—28% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. TANF also contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of being, abused and neglected. Cash Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.7 million families, composed of 4.2 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in December 2014. The bulk of the “recipients” were children—3.1 million in that month. The cash assistance caseload is heterogeneous. The type of family historically thought of as the “typical” cash assistance family—one with an unemployed adult recipient—accounted for less than half of all families on the rolls in FY2012. Additionally, 18% of cash assistance families had an employed adult, while 36% of all TANF families were “child-only” and had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving Supplemental 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 Assistance Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 2013, 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 jurisdiction (the District of Columbia), the maximum monthly benefit of $428 for a family of three represents 26% of poverty-level income. Cash Assistance 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 the amount of a state’s 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 FY2012 states achieved an all-family participation rate of 34.4% and a two-parent rate of 33.9%. That year, 16 jurisdictions failed the all-family standard, and 20 jurisdictions failed the two-parent standard. States that fail 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: FAQs Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Current Topics.................................................................................................................................. 1 What Is TANF’s Current Funding Status? ................................................................................. 1 What Is TANF’s Funding Level? ............................................................................................... 1 May States Require Drug Testing of TANF Cash Assistance Recipients? ................................ 2 What Are TANF’s Rules for Drug Felons?................................................................................ 2 What Are TANF’s Rules for Substance Abuse Treatment? ....................................................... 2 What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative? .................................................................... 3 Has Any State Formally Applied for a “Waiver” of TANF Work Participation Standards? .............................................................................................................................. 3 Are there Restrictions on a Family’s Use of TANF Benefits? ................................................... 3 Funding and Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 4 How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? .............................. 4 How May States Use Federal TANF Funds? ............................................................................. 5 What Expenditures May a State Count Toward its Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirement?.......................................................................................................................... 5 How Have States Used TANF Funds? ....................................................................................... 6 How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? ................................................................. 7 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 Assistance? ............................................................................................................................. 7 How Does the Current Cash Assistance Caseload Level Compare with Historical Levels? ................................................................................................................................... 8 What Are the Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families? ..................................................... 9 TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? ................ 11 TANF Work Participation Standards ............................................................................................. 12 What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? ....................................... 12 Have There Been Changes in the Work Participation Rules Enacted Since the 1996 Welfare Reform Law? .......................................................................................................... 13 What Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? .................................................... 13 How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard From FY2002 Through FY2012? ................................................................................................................ 14 Have States Met the Two-Parent Work Participation Standard? ............................................. 16 Figures Figure 1. Uses of TANF Federal Grants and State MOE Funds: FY2013 ....................................... 6 Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-December 2014.................. 9 Figure 3. Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families, Selected Years FY1988 to FY2012 ......... 10 Figure 4. TANF Cash Assistance Maximum Monthly Benefit Amounts for a Single Parent Family with Two Children, July 2013 ........................................................................................ 12 Congressional Research Service The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 5. National Average TANF Work Participation Rate for All Families, FY2002FY2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Tables Table 1. Federal Funding for TANF Grants: FY2007 Through FY2015 ......................................... 1 Table 2. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars ..................................................... 4 Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: December 2014............................................................ 8 Table 4. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2012 ........ 15 Table 5. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 17 Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006 ..................................................... 20 Table A-2. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2015 ..................................................... 21 Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2013 .................................. 22 Table A-4. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2014 ............................................... 22 Table B-1. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category .................................................. 25 Table B-2. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding ..................................................................................... 28 Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2013 ............................................................... 31 Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by State, December 2014 .......................................................................................... 32 Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Assistance by State, December of Selected Years ....................................................................................................... 34 Table B-6. TANF Families by Number of Parents in Assisted Unit by State: December 2014 ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Table B-7. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, All Families, FY2012.......................................................... 38 Table B-8. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, Two-Parent Families, FY2012 ............................................ 40 Appendixes Appendix A. Supplementary Tables .............................................................................................. 20 Appendix B. State Tables ............................................................................................................... 25 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 42 Congressional Research Service The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs 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. Responses to Frequently Asked Questions March 18, 2016 (RL32760) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Tables

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 In Focus IF10036, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant, by [author name scrubbed]).

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 also required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement.

Federal and State TANF Expenditures. Though TANF is best known for funding cash assistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2014, expenditures on basic assistance (cash assistance) totaled $8.4 billion—26% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. TANF also contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of being, abused and neglected. Some states also count expenditures in the pre-Kindergarten programs toward the MOE requirement.

Cash Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.6 million families, composed of 4.1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in March 2015. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.9 million in that month. The cash assistance caseload is heterogeneous. The type of family historically thought of as the "typical" cash assistance family—one with an unemployed adult recipient—accounted for less than half (45%) of all families on the rolls in FY2013. Additionally, 17% of cash assistance families had an employed adult, while 38% of all TANF families were "child-only" and had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving Supplemental 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 Assistance Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 2013, 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 jurisdiction (the District of Columbia), the maximum monthly benefit of $428 for a family of three represents 26% of poverty-level income.

Cash Assistance 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 the amount of a state's 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 FY2013 states achieved, on average, an all-family participation rate of 33.5% and a two-parent rate of 32.9%. That year, 11 jurisdictions failed the all-family standard, and 18 jurisdictions failed the two-parent standard. States that fail to meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant.

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

Introduction

This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended to serve as a quick reference to provide easy access to information and data. This report does not provide information on TANF program rules.
For a non-technical overview of TANF, see CRS In Focus IF10036, CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An Overview, by Gene Falk. Current Topics What Is TANF’ Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant, by [author name scrubbed]. Current Topics What Is TANF's Current Funding Status? P.L. 113-235, the omnibus appropriation act for FY2015, P.L. 114-113 (The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016) extends TANF funding through September 30, 2015.1 What Is TANF’s Funding Level? 2016.1 Funding for TANF is provided at the same level, and on the same terms, as in FY2015. What Is TANF's Funding Level? Table 1 shows TANF funding for FY2007FY2008 through FY2015FY2016. 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 amount was established in the 1996 welfare reform law and has not been changed since then. FY2015 FY2016 funding for TANF grants is the same as in previous years, except for the TANF contingency fund. AFY2015. As was the case in the prior year, a total of $583 million is available for FY2015FY2016 contingency fund grants to states, compared with $610 million in FY2014. A total FY2015 contingency fund appropriation of $608 million includes set-asides of $15 million for HHS TANF research activities and $10 million for Census Bureau research activities related to TANF, leaving $583 million for contingency fund grants to states. Table 1. Federal Funding for TANF Grants: FY2007FY2008 Through FY2015 (Dollars in millions) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 Supplemental grants 319 319 319 319 211 0 0 0 0 Healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grants 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 State family assistance grant Grants to the territories Grants for tribal work programs 1 See Section 228 of Division G of P.L. 113-235. Congressional Research Service 1 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs 2007 Contingency fund 59 2008 428 Emergency contingency fund Totals 17,103 17,472 2009 2010 1,107 212 617 4,383 18,768 21,639 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 334 612 610a 610a 583b 17,270 17,337 17,335 17,335 17,308 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 FY2014, and reserved $2 million in each year of these funds for a commission on child abuse and neglect fatalities. Thus, $610 million was available for FY2013 and FY2014 TANF contingency fund grants to states. b. P.L. 113-235 appropriated $608 million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2015 and FY2016, but sets aside from those funds $15 million for HHS welfare research activities and $10 million for U.S. Census Bureau activities related to welfare research. 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.

(Dollars in millions)

 

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

State family assistance grant

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

$16,489

Supplemental grants

319

319

319

211

0

0

0

0

0

Healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grants

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

Grants to the territories

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

Grants for tribal work programs

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

Contingency fund

428

1,107

212

334

612

610a 610a 583b 583c

Emergency contingency fund

 

617

4,383

           

Totals

17,472

18,768

21,639

17,270

17,337

17,335

17,335

17,308

17,308

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 FY2014, and reserved $2 million in each year of these funds for a commission on child abuse and neglect fatalities. Thus, $610 million was available for FY2013 and FY2014 TANF contingency fund grants to states.

b. P.L. 113-235 appropriated $608 million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2015 and FY2016, but sets aside from those funds $15 million for HHS welfare research activities and $10 million for U.S. Census Bureau activities related to welfare research.

c. P.L. 114-113 appropriated $160 million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2016 and FY2017. It set aside from those funds $15 million for HHS welfare research activities and $10 million for U.S. Census Bureau activities related to welfare research. (The FY2016 appropriation to the contingency fund made by P.L. 114-113 replaced the FY2016 appropriation previously made by P.L. 113-235.)

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. May States Require Drug Testing of TANF Cash Assistance Recipients? Yes. The 1996 assistancewelfare reform reform law gave states the optionoption 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. 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 [author name scrubbed] et , by Maggie McCarty et al. See also CRS Report R42326, Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits, by [author name scrubbed]. , by David H. Carpenter. What Are TANF's Rules for Drug Felons? The 1996 welfare reform 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.)2 .)2 What Are TANF's Rules for Substance Abuse Treatment? States may use TANF funds for substance abuse treatment. Federal TANF dollars cannot be used for "medical services," but can be used for "non-medical" treatment such as counseling. State MOE dollars can be used for medical services connected with substance abuse treatment. 2 TANF also bars aid to fleeing felons and people convicted of welfare fraud by misrepresenting their state of residence. For an overview of rules for TANF, as well as those for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and housing assistance programs related to drug testing and crime-related issues, see CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by Maggie McCarty et al. Congressional Research Service 2 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs TANF requires states to conduct an employability assessment of adult recipients, and 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. Additionally, a state may engage recipients in substance abuse treatment and count that activity toward its work participation standard, though such an activity is counted only for a limited period of time. Substance abuse treatment is considered a "job readiness" activity; a state may count job search and job readiness activities for a maximum of 12 weeks in a year toward its work participation standards. What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative? 's "Waiver" Initiative? On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would accept applications for “waivers”"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 federal work participation standards. Under the initiative, states would have to apply for a waiver and have that waiver approved by HHS and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For a discussion, see CRS Report R42627, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare Waivers, by [author name scrubbed]. , by Gene Falk. Has Any State Formally Applied for a “Waiver”"Waiver" of TANF Work Participation Standards? As of March 16, 2016, one state (Ohio) had requestedof July 7, 2015, no state had formally applied for a waiver of TANF work participation standards under the Administration’s waiver initiative. standards. As of that date, the Administration had made no decision on whether to approve the waiver request. Are there Restrictions on a Family's Use of TANF Benefits? TANF funds a wide range of benefits and services, many of which are for specific purposes. However, TANF is best known for helping states finance their cash public assistance programs for needy families with children. The “cash”"cash" benefits are often paid on an Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) card that a recipient can take to an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) to draw cash or use to purchase goods and services at a point-of-sale device. As "cash," there are no restrictions on the types of goods and services that can be purchased with a TANF benefit. However, TANF law does restrict where a recipient might access benefits at an ATM. 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. Congressional Research Service 3 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs at such establishments. Funding and Expenditures How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? of Inflation? From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2014FY2015 (ended September 30, 2014), 2015), the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 32.35%. Table 2 shows the impact of inflation on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2014FY2015. On average, the TANF basic block grant has lost 2.32% of its value each year over that period. Table 2. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars Cumulative Change in Value of the Basic Block Grant from FY1997 Levels Fiscal Year Value of the Basic TANF Block Grant in FY1997 Dollars ($ in billions) 1997 $16.5 1998 16.2 -1.6% 1999 15.9 -3.5 2000 15.4 -6.4 2001 14.9 -9.4 2002 14.7 -10.7 2003 14.4 -12.7 2004 14.1 -14.7 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 -28.4 2012 11.5 -30.1 2013 11.3 -31.2 2014 11.2 -32.3 Average Annual Rate of Change in the Value of the Block Grant -2.3% Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Notes: Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Congressional Research Service 4 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs How May States Use Federal TANF Funds? TANF is a broad-purpose block grant that gives states the flexibility to use its funds to address both the effects of, and the root causes of, childhood economic disadvantage. There are two sets of rules: those that relate to the use of federal TANF grants, and those for which state expenditures count toward meeting the TANF MOE state spending requirement. States have broad discretion on how they expend federal TANF grants. States may use TANF funds “in any manner that is reasonably calculated” to accomplish the block grant’s statutory purpose. That purpose is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to 1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; 2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; 3. prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and 4. encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. In addition, states may also expend federal TANF grants on any activity financed by pre-TANF programs. These are known as “grandfathered” activities.” Examples of activities that do not meet a TANF goal but may be financed by TANF grants include foster care payments and funding for juvenile justice activities, if they were financed in the pre-TANF programs. In addition to expending federal funds on allowable TANF activities, federal law permits a limited amount of the federal TANF basic block grant to be used for other programs. A maximum of 30% of the TANF block grant may be used for the following combined transfers or expenditures: (1) transfers to the Child Care and Development Block Grant; (2) transfers to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), with a maximum transfer to the SSBG set at 10% of the basic block grant; (3) as state match for “reverse commuter grants,” providing public transportation from inner cities to the suburbs. What Expenditures May a State Count Toward its Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirement? The range of expenditures on activities that states may count toward the maintenance of effort requirement is—like the authority to spend federal funds—quite broad. The expenditures need not be in the “TANF program” itself, but in any program that provides benefits and services to TANF-eligible families in cash assistance, child care assistance, education and job training, administrative costs, or any other activity designed to meet TANF’s statutory goals. States may

Fiscal Year

Value of the Basic TANF Block Grant in FY1997 Dollars ($ in billions)

Cumulative Change in Value of the Basic Block Grant from FY1997 Levels

1997

$16.5

 

1998

16.2

-1.6%

1999

15.9

-3.5

2000

15.4

-6.4

2001

14.9

-9.4

2002

14.7

-10.7

2003

14.4

-12.7

2004

14.1

-14.7

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

-28.4

2012

11.5

-30.1

2013

11.3

-31.2

2014

11.2

-32.3

2015

11.1

-32.5

Average Annual Rate of Change in the Value of the Block Grant

-2.2%

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Notes: Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

How May States Use Federal TANF Funds?

TANF is a broad-purpose block grant that gives states the flexibility to use its funds to address both the effects of, and the root causes of, childhood economic disadvantage. There are two sets of rules: those that relate to the use of federal TANF grants, and those for which state expenditures count toward meeting the TANF MOE state spending requirement.

States have broad discretion on how they expend federal TANF grants. States may use TANF funds "in any manner that is reasonably calculated" to accomplish the block grant's statutory purpose. That purpose is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to

  • 1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
  • 2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
  • 3. prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
  • 4. encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

In addition, states may also expend federal TANF grants on any activity financed by pre-TANF programs. These are known as "grandfathered" activities. Examples of activities that do not meet a TANF goal but may be financed by TANF grants include foster care payments and funding for juvenile justice activities, if they were financed in the pre-TANF programs.

In addition to expending federal funds on allowable TANF activities, federal law permits a limited amount of the federal TANF basic block grant to be used for other programs. A maximum of 30% of the TANF block grant may be used for the following combined transfers or expenditures: (1) transfers to the Child Care and Development Block Grant; (2) transfers to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), with a maximum transfer to the SSBG set at 10% of the basic block grant; (3) as state match for "reverse commuter grants," providing public transportation from inner cities to the suburbs.

What Expenditures May a State Count Toward its Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirement?

The range of expenditures on activities that states may count toward the maintenance of effort requirement is—like the authority to spend federal funds—quite broad. The expenditures need not be in the "TANF program" itself, but in any program that provides benefits and services to TANF-eligible families in cash assistance, child care assistance, education and job training, administrative costs, or any other activity designed to meet TANF's statutory goals. States may count expenditures made by local governments toward the MOE requirement.

count expenditures made by local governments toward the MOE requirement. Additionally, there is a general rule of federal grants management that permits states to count as a state expenditure "third-party" in-kind donations, from non-governmental entities. These third-party donations may be counted toward the TANF MOE as long as they meet the requirements of providing benefits or services to TANF-eligible families and meet the requirements of the types of activities that states may count toward the MOE requirement. Congressional Research Service 5 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs The MOE requirement sets a minimum amount that states must expend from their own funds. Under current law, there are incentives for states to expend funds beyond this minimum. States must spend more than the minimum MOE to access TANF contingency funds. Additionally, states can receive extra “credit”"credit" toward their work participation standards for spending more than the minimum required. How Have States Used TANF Funds? Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2013. In FY2013FY2014. In FY2014, a total of $31.69 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 assistance, represented 2826% ($8.74 billion) of total FY2013FY2014 TANF and MOE dollars. TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2013FY2014, 16% of all TANF funds used were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). 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 's accounting system does a poor job of capturingnot clearly capture expenditures associated with spending on the child welfare system. Most TANF funding for these programs is subsumed in the catch-all “other” expenditure category. Figure 1. Uses of TANF Federal Grants and State MOE Funds: FY2013 (Total = $31.6 Billion) Source: : Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). See Appendix A, Table A-3 for dollar amounts of total federal TANF and state MOE funds "other" expenditure category. Some states also count as MOE dollars their expenditures on pre-Kindergarten programs. These expenditures too are subsumed in the "other" expenditure category.

Figure 1. Uses of TANF and MOE Funds, FY2014

(Dollars in billions)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

See Table A-3 for dollar 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 Table B-1 and Table B-2. Table B-2. Congressional Research Service 6 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? TANF law permits states to “reserve”"reserve" unused funds without time limit. This permits flexibility in timing of the use of TANF funds, including the ability to “save”"save" funds for unexpected occurrences that might increase costs (such as recessions or natural disasters). At the end of FY2013FY2014 (September 30, 20132014, the latest data currently available), a total of $3.0 4 billion of federal TANF funding remained neither transferred nor spent. However, some of these unspent funds represent monies that states had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2013 FY2014, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.5 7 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” "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. At the end of FY2013FY2014, states also had $1.56 billion of "unobligated balances." These funds are available to states to make newnew spending commitments. Table B-3 shows unspent TANF funds by state. The Caseload by state. The Caseload How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services? and Services? This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving only ongoing cash assistancebasic (i.e., cash) assistance, with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance accounts for about 2826% of all TANF expenditures. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving “assistance”"assistance" are likely to undercount the number of families receiving any TANF-funded benefit or service. How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOEFundedMOE-Funded Cash Assistance? Table 3 provides cash assistance caseload information. A total of 1.76 million families, composed of 4.21 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in December 2014March 2015. The bulk of the “recipients” the "recipients" were children—3.12.9 million in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance caseloads, see Table B-4. Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: March 2015

Total Families

1,618,151

Total Recipients

4,067,509

Total Adults

1,120,809

Total Children

2,946,700

Table B-4. Congressional Research Service 7 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: December 2014 Families 1,674,536 Total Recipients 4,216,251 Total Children 3,055,382 Total Adults 1,160,869 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 Caseload Level Compare with Historical Levels? Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving cash assistance, from July 1959 to December 2014March 2015. Before 19961997, these are families that received cash assistance from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. From 1997 onward, these are families that received cash assistance from TANF. The shaded areas of the figure represent months when the national economy was in recession. Though the health of the national economy affected the trend in the cash assistance caseload, the long-term trend in receipt of cash assistance does not follow a classic counter-cyclical pattern. (Such a pattern would have the caseload rise during economic slumps, and then fall again during periods of economic growth.) Factors other than the health of the economy (demographic trends, policy changes) also influenced the caseload trend. The figure shows two periods of sustained caseload increases: the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s and a second period from 1988 to 1994. The number of families receiving cash assistance peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The cash assistance caseload fell rapidly in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before leveling off in 2001. In 2004, the caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than in the late 1990s. During the recent 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath, the caseload began to rise from its postwelfare reform low in August 2008 (1.7 million families)1.7 million families in August 2008, peaking in December 2010 at close to 2.0 million families. By December 2014March 2015, the cash assistance caseload had declined to approximately match its a new post- welfare reform low at about 1.7 million families. Congressional Research Service 8 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-December 2014 Millions of Families 6 MAR 1994 Historic Peak: 5.1 million families 5 4 DEC 2014 1.7 million families 3 2 1 0 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 of 1.6 million families.

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-March 2015
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Shaded areas denotesdenote months when the national economy was in recession. Information represents families receiving cash assistance from Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and TANF. For October 1999 through December 2014March 2015, includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement. See Table A-4 for average annual data on families, recipients, adult recipients, and child recipients of ADC,/AFDC AFDC, and TANF cash assistance for 1961 to 2014. 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”"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 assistance caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the composition of the rolls. Figure 3 shows the change in the size and composition of the cash assistance caseload under both AFDC (1988 and 1994) and under TANF. In FY1988, 84% of AFDC families were headed by an unemployed adult recipient. In FY2012FY2013, families with an unemployed adult recipientsrecipient represented 45% of all cash assistance families. This decline occurred, in large part, as the number of families headed by unemployed adult recipients declined. declined more rapidly than other components of the cash assistance caseload. With the decline in families headed by unemployed adults, the share of the caseload that represented families with employed adults and "child only" families has increased. In FY2012, FY2013, families with employed adult recipients represented 1817% of all cash assistance families. “Childonly”"Child-only" families are those where no adult recipient receives benefits in their own right; the family receives benefits on behalf of its children. The share of the caseload that was child-only in Congressional Research Service 9 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs FY2012 was 36.5%. In FY2012 FY2013 was 38%. In FY2013, families with a non-recipient, non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles) represented 1213% of all cash assistance families. Families with ineligible, noncitizen adults or adults who have not reported their citizenship status made up 11% of the cash assistance caseload in that year. Families where the parent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the children received TANF made up 9% of all cash assistance families in FY2012. FY2013.

Figure 3. Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families, Selected Years FY1988 to FY2012 Source: FY2013 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the TANF national data files. Notes: TANF cash assistance caseload includes families receiving assistance in state-funded programs counted toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. 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): Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload, by [author name scrubbed]. , 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 nono 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. 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. Figure 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state for a single mother caring for two children (family of three) in July 2013.33 The benefit amounts shown are those for a singleparentsingle-parent family with two children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types such as two-parent families or "child-only" cases. States also vary their benefits by other factors such as housing costs and sub-state geography. For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 2013 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $923 per month in Alaska. In all states, the maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family was less than 50% of poverty-level income. 4 3 States are not required to report to the federal government their cash assistance benefit amounts in either the TANF state plan (under Section 402 of the Social Security Act) or in annual program reports (under Section 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 In 2013, the HHS poverty guidelines for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia for a family of 3 was $1,628 per month. Higher poverty lines applied in Alaska ($2,034 per month for a family of 3) and Hawaii ($1,873 per month for a family of 3). Congressional Research Service 11 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs poverty-level income.4 Figure 4. TANF Cash Assistance Maximum Monthly Benefit Amounts for a Single Parent Family with Two Children, July 2013 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the Urban Institute’s 's Welfare Rules Database. Database. For additional information on TANF benefit amounts by state, see CRS Report R43634, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Eligibility and Benefit Amounts in State TANF Cash Assistance Programs, by [author name scrubbed]. , by Gene Falk. 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.55 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. 5 Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation. Congressional Research Service 12 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs 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 a state's caseload. Additionally, under a regulatory provision, a state may get “extra”"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 and by year. States that fail to meet the TANF work participation standard are at riskrisk 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. 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:The caseload reduction credit was changed to measure caseload reduction from FY2005, rather than the original law's FY1995. 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 “'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. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), a law enacted in response to the sharp economic downturn of 2007-2009, held states “harmless”"harmless" for caseload increases affecting the work participation standards for FY2009 through FY2011. It did so by allowing states to “freeze”"freeze" caseload reduction credits at pre-recession levels through the FY2011 standards. 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”"all-families" 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’ state's caseload reduction credit). Congressional Research Service 13 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Figure 5 shows the national average all-families work participation rate for FY2002 through FY2012 FY2013. For the period FY2002 through FY2011, states have achieved an average all-families work participation rate hovering around 30%. In FY2012, the average all-families work participation rate ticked up to 34.4%. In that year, states faced higher work participation standards because the “freeze” to "freeze" to the caseload reduction credit enacted in ARRA expired. Figure 5. National Average TANF Work Participation Rate for All Families, FY2002FY2012 Work Participation Rate 50% 40% 30% 34.4% 28.9% 27.5% 29.4% 30.3% 30.6% 29.7% 29.4% 29.4% 29.0% 29.5% 20% 10% 0% FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Source: The FY2013 average all-families work participation rate declined slightly to 33.5%.

Figure 5. National Average TANF Work Participation Rate for All Families, FY2002-FY2013 Source:
Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard From FY2002 Through FY2012? FY2013? Table 4 shows which states failed the TANF all-families work participation standards from FY2002 through FY2012FY2013. Before FY2007, only a few jurisdictions failed to meet TANF allfamiliesall-families work participation standards. However, in FY2007, 15 jurisdictions failed to meet the all-families standard. FY2007 was the first year in which policies under the DRA were effective. This number declined to nine9 in FY2008 and eight8 in FY2009. In FY2012, despite the uptick in the national average work participation rate, 16 states failed to meet the all-family standard, the largest number of states that did not meet their participation standards in any one year since the enactment of TANF. FY2012 was the year that ARRA’s “freeze”'s "freeze" of the caseload reduction credit expired, and states were generally required to meet higher standards than in previous years. For state-by-state information on FY2012 caseload

In FY2013, the number of jurisdictions that failed the all-family work participation standard declined to 11. The 11 jurisdictions are California, Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, and Guam. California, Oregon, and Guam have failed their all-family work standards for all years, FY2007 through FY2013.

For state-by-state information on FY2013 caseload
reduction credits, effective (after credit) standards, and work participation rates related to the “all families”"all families" standard, see Table B-7. Table B-7. Congressional Research Service 14 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table 4. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2012 FY2013 (Changes to TANF Work Participation Standard Rules Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) Effective in FY2007) Post-DRA Pre-DRA State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alabama Alaska X Arizona Arkansas California X X X X X X Colorado X Connecticut X Delaware District of Columbia X X X Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho X Illinois Indiana X X X Iowa Kansas Kentucky X Louisiana Maine X X Michigan X X Minnesota X X X X X X X Maryland Massachusetts Mississippi Missouri X X X X Montana Nebraska Nevada X X X New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Congressional Research Service X 15 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Post-DRA Pre-DRA State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 X X X X X 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 X South Carolina X South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont X X Virginia X Washington X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X Wyoming Guam X X X X X Virgin Islands Totals X X X X X X 9 8 8 9 16 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). 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 5 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 two- Congressional Research Service 16 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs parent families subject to the work participation standard.6 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 FY2012, 27 jurisdictions reported that no two-parent families were included in the TANF work participation standard calculation. Of the 27 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their TANF work participation calculation, 7 met the standard and 20 did not. For state-by-state information on FY2012 caseload reduction credits, effective (after credit) standards, and work [DRA] Effective in FY2007)  

Pre-DRA

Post-DRA

State

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Alabama

                       

Alaska

                   

X

 

Arizona

                       

Arkansas

                       

California

         

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Colorado

                   

X

X

Connecticut

       

X

             

Delaware

                       

District of Columbia

             

X

X

X

   

Florida

                       

Georgia

                       

Hawaii

                       

Idaho

                   

X

 

Illinois

                       

Indiana

     

X

X

X

           

Iowa

                       

Kansas

                       

Kentucky

         

X

           

Louisiana

                       

Maine

         

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

Maryland

                       

Massachusetts

                       

Michigan

         

X

X

 

X

X

   

Minnesota

         

X

           

Mississippi

                       

Missouri

           

X

X

 

X

X

X

Montana

                       

Nebraska

                       

Nevada

 

X

     

X

       

X

X

New Hampshire

                       

New Jersey

                       

New Mexico

         

X

           

New York

                       

North Carolina

                       

North Dakota

                       

Ohio

         

X

X

X

X

X

   

Oklahoma

                       

Oregon

         

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Pennsylvania

                     

X

Puerto Rico

         

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rhode Island

                   

X

 

South Carolina

                   

X

 

South Dakota

                       

Tennessee

                       

Texas

                       

Utah

                       

Vermont

         

X

       

X

X

Virginia

                   

X

 

Washington

                   

X

X

West Virginia

         

X

X

         

Wisconsin

                   

X

X

Wyoming

                       

Guam

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Virgin Islands

         

X

                                     

Totals

1

2

1

2

3

15

9

8

8

9

16

11

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

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 5 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2002 through FY2013. 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 two-parent families subject to the work participation standard.6 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 FY2013, 27 jurisdictions reported that no two-parent families were included in the TANF work participation standard calculation. Of the 27 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their TANF work participation calculation, 9 met the standard and 18 did not. For state-by-state information on FY2013 caseload reduction credits, effective (after credit) standards, and work
participation rates related to two-parent families, see Table B-8. . Table 5. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2012 (“Yes”FY2013 ("Yes" indicates a state met the standard; “No”"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-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alabama NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES YES Alaska YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO YES NO Arizona YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Arkansas NO NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES YES NO California NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES NO Colorado YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA YES NA NA NA NA NA Delaware NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA District of Columbia NO NO NO NO NO NA NA NA NA NA NA Florida NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES NO Georgia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hawaii NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NA YES YES YES Idaho YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA NA Illinois NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Indiana NA NA NA NA NA NO YES YES YES YES NO Iowa YES YES NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES NO Kansas YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Kentucky YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES NO Louisiana YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 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 17 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Post-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Maine YES YES NA NA NA YES NO NO NO NO NO Maryland NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Massachusetts YES YES YES YES MA NA YES YES YES NA YES Michigan YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA NA Minnesota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mississippi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Missouri NO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Montana YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Nebraska NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nevada NA NA NA NA NA NO NO NO NO NO NO New Hampshire YES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Jersey NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Mexico YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO New York YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA NA North Carolina YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES North Dakota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ohio YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO Oklahoma NA YES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Oregon YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO Pennsylvania YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rhode Island YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO South Carolina YES YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA South Dakota NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tennessee NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES NA Texas NA NA NA NA NA YES NA NA NA NA NA Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Vermont YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Virginia NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Washington YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO West Virginia NO NO NA NA NA NO NA NA YES NA NA Wisconsin YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Wyoming YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Guam NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Congressional Research Service 18 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) State Post-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Jurisdictions without Two-Parent Families 24 25 29 29 29 24 26 27 25 27 27 Number of Jurisdictions with Two-Parent Families 30 29 25 25 25 30 28 27 29 27 27 Number of Jurisdictions Meeting Two-Parent Standard 25 25 21 23 21 22 22 20 23 22 7 5 4 4 2 3 7 6 7 6 5 20 Number of Jurisdictions Failing Two-Parent Standard Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Congressional Research Service 19 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). Note: "NA" means the standard was not applicable to the state in that year [no two-parent families in its caseload].)  

Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)

Post-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)

State

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Alabama

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Alaska

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

Arizona

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Arkansas

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

California

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Colorado

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Connecticut

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Delaware

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

District of Columbia

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Florida

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

Georgia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Hawaii

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

Idaho

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Illinois

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Indiana

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

Iowa

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Kansas

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Kentucky

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

Louisiana

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Maine

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Maryland

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Massachusetts

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

NA

YES

YES

Michigan

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Minnesota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Mississippi

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Missouri

NO

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Montana

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

Nebraska

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Nevada

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

New Hampshire

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

New Jersey

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

New Mexico

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

New York

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

North Carolina

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

North Dakota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ohio

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Oklahoma

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Oregon

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NA

Pennsylvania

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Puerto Rico

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Rhode Island

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

South Carolina

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

South Dakota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Tennessee

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NO

Texas

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Utah

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Vermont

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Virginia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Washington

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

West Virginia

NO

NO

NA

NA

NA

NO

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

Wisconsin

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Wyoming

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

Guam

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Virgin Islands

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Number of Jurisdictions without Two-Parent Families

24

25

29

29

29

24

26

27

25

27

27

27

Number of Jurisdictions with Two-Parent Families

30

29

25

25

25

30

28

27

29

27

27

27

Number of Jurisdictions Meeting Two-Parent Standard

25

25

21

23

21

22

22

20

23

22

7

9

Number of Jurisdictions Failing Two-Parent Standard

5

4

4

2

3

7

6

7

6

5

20

18

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

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).

Note:
Table shows extensions through 2006, when the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) extended TANF through FY2010. Temporary extensions after 2010 are shown in Table A-2. Table A-2. Table A-2. Congressional Research Service 20 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table A-2.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2015 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. P.L. 112-78 Jan 1, 2012-Feb. 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 Feb. 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. P.L. 113-6 March 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013 Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution. P.L. 113-46 Oct. 17, 2013-Jan 15, 2014 Extension of TANF as a part of a continuing resolution. The resolution ended the “government shutdown,” and a TANF funding gap between Oct 1 and Oct 16, 2013 P.L. 113-73 Jan. 16, 2014-Jan. 18, 2014 Extension of TANF funding as part of a short-term continuing resolution. P.L. 113-76 Jan 19, 2014-Sept. 30, 2014 Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of FY2014 as part of an omnibus appropriation act. P.L. 113-164 Oct. 1, 2014-Dec 11, 2014 Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 11, 2014, as part of a continuing resolution. P.L. 113-202 Dec. 12, 2014-Dec 13, 2014 Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 13, 2014, as part of a short-term continuing resolution. P.L. 113-203 Dec 14, 2014-Dec 17, 2014 Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 17, 2014, as part of a short-term continuing resolution. P.L. 113-235 Dec. 18, 2014-Sept. 30, 2015 Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of FY2015 as part of an omnibus appropriations act. Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Congressional Research Service 21 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2013 (Dollars in Billions) Billions of Dollars Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Dollars Basic Assistance $8.7 27.6% Administration 2.3 7.2 Work Program Expenditures 2.0 6.4 Child Care 5.0 15.8 Other Work Supports 2.8 9.0 Other Expenditures 10.7 33.9 Totals 31.6 100.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Table A-4.Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2014 TANF Child Recipients Year Families (millions) Recipients (millions) Adults (millions) Children (millions) As a Percent of All Children As a Percent of All Poor Children 1961 0.873 3.363 0.765 2.598 3.7% 14.3% 1962 0.939 3.704 0.860 2.844 4.0 15.7 1963 0.963 3.945 0.988 2.957 4.1 17.4 1964 1.010 4.195 1.050 3.145 4.3 18.6 1965 1.060 4.422 1.101 3.321 4.5 21.5 1966 1.096 4.546 1.112 3.434 4.7 26.5 1967 1.220 5.014 1.243 3.771 5.2 31.2 1968 1.410 5.702 1.429 4.274 5.9 37.8 1969 1.696 6.689 1.716 4.973 6.9 49.7 1970 2.207 8.462 2.250 6.212 8.6 57.7 1971 2.763 10.242 2.808 7.435 10.4 68.5 1972 3.048 10.944 3.039 7.905 11.1 74.9 1973 3.148 10.949 3.046 7.903 11.2 79.9 1974 3.219 10.847 3.041 7.805 11.2 75.0 1975 3.481 11.319 3.248 8.071 11.8 71.2 1976 3.565 11.284 3.302 7.982 11.8 76.2 1977 3.568 11.015 3.273 7.743 11.6 73.9 Congressional Research Service 22 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs TANF Child Recipients Year Families (millions) Recipients (millions) Adults (millions) Children (millions) As a Percent of All Children As a Percent of All Poor Children 1978 3.517 10.551 3.188 7.363 11.2 72.8 1979 3.509 10.312 3.130 7.181 11.0 68.0 1980 3.712 10.774 3.355 7.419 11.5 63.2 1981 3.835 11.079 3.552 7.527 11.7 59.2 1982 3.542 10.358 3.455 6.903 10.8 49.6 1983 3.686 10.761 3.663 7.098 11.1 50.1 1984 3.714 10.831 3.687 7.144 11.2 52.3 1985 3.701 10.855 3.658 7.198 11.3 54.4 1986 3.763 11.038 3.704 7.334 11.5 56.0 1987 3.776 11.027 3.661 7.366 11.5 56.4 1988 3.749 10.915 3.586 7.329 11.4 57.8 1989 3.798 10.992 3.573 7.419 11.5 57.9 1990 4.057 11.695 3.784 7.911 12.1 57.9 1991 4.497 12.930 4.216 8.715 13.2 59.8 1992 4.829 13.773 4.470 9.303 13.9 59.9 1993 5.012 14.205 4.631 9.574 14.1 60.0 1994 5.033 14.161 4.593 9.568 13.9 61.7 1995 4.791 13.418 4.284 9.135 13.1 61.5 1996 4.434 12.321 3.928 8.600 12.3 58.7 1997 3.740 10.376 NA NA 10.0 50.1 1998 3.050 8.347 NA NA 8.1 42.9 1999 2.578 6.924 NA NA 6.7 39.4 2000 2.303 6.143 1.655 4.479 6.1 38.1 2001 2.192 5.717 1.514 4.195 5.7 35.3 2002 2.187 5.609 1.479 4.119 5.6 33.6 2003 2.180 5.490 1.416 4.063 5.5 31.3 2004 2.153 5.342 1.362 3.969 5.4 30.2 2005 2.061 5.028 1.261 3.756 5.1 28.9 2006 1.906 4.582 1.120 3.453 4.6 26.7 2007 1.730 4.075 0.956 3.119 4.2 23.2 2008 1.701 4.005 0.946 3.059 4.1 21.6 2009 1.838 4.371 1.074 3.296 4.4 21.2 2010 1.919 4.598 1.163 3.435 4.6 20.9 2011 1.907 4.557 1.149 3.408 4.6 20.9 Congressional Research Service 23 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs TANF Child Recipients Year Families (millions) Recipients (millions) Adults (millions) Children (millions) As a Percent of All Children As a Percent of All Poor Children 2012 1.852 4.402 1.104 3.298 4.4 20.3 2013 1.726 4.042 0.993 3.050 4.1 20.6 2014 1.650 3.957 1.007 2.949 4.0 NA Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Census Bureau. Notes: NA denotes not available. During transition reporting from AFDC to TANF, caseload statistics on adult and child recipients were not collected. For those years, TANF children as a percent of all children and percent

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.

P.L. 112-78

Jan 1, 2012-Feb. 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

Feb. 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.

P.L. 113-6

March 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013

 

Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution.

P.L. 113-46

Oct. 17, 2013-Jan. 15, 2014

 

Extension of TANF as a part of a continuing resolution. The resolution ended the "government shutdown," and a TANF funding gap between Oct 1 and Oct 16, 2013

P.L. 113-73

Jan. 16, 2014-Jan. 18, 2014

 

Extension of TANF funding as part of a short-term continuing resolution.

P.L. 113-76

Jan. 19, 2014-Sept. 30, 2014

 

Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of FY2014 as part of an omnibus appropriation act.

P.L. 113-164

Oct. 1, 2014-Dec. 11, 2014

 

Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 11, 2014, as part of a continuing resolution.

P.L. 113-202

Dec. 12, 2014-Dec. 13, 2014

 

Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 13, 2014, as part of a short-term continuing resolution.

P.L. 113-203

Dec. 14, 2014-Dec. 17, 2014

 

Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 17, 2014, as part of a short-term continuing resolution.

P.L. 113-235

Dec. 18, 2014-Sept. 30, 2015

 

Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of FY2015 as part of an omnibus appropriations act.

P.L. 114-53

Oct. 1, 2015 – Dec. 11, 2015

 

Extension of TANF funding through December 11, 2015, as part of a short-term continuing resolution.

P.L. 114-96

Dec. 12, 2015-Dec. 16, 2015

 

Extension of TANF funding through December 16, 2015, as part of a short-term continuing resolution.

P.L. 114-100

Dec. 16, 2015-Dec. 17, 2015

 

Extension of TANF funding through December 22, 2015, as part of a short-term continuing resolution.

P.L. 114-113

Dec. 18, 2015- Sept. 30, 2016

 

Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of FY2016 as part of an omnibus appropriation act.

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Table A-3. Uses of Federal TANF and State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Dollars, FY2014  

Billions of Dollars

Percent of Total Federal TANF and MOE Dollars

Basic Assistance

$8.4

26.5%

Administration

2.3

7.1

Work Program

2.2

6.8

Child Care

5.1

16.1

Other Work Supports

3.0

9.5

Other

10.9

34.1

Totals

31.9

100.0

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Table A-4. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2014          

TANF Child Recipients

Year

Families (millions)

Recipients (millions)

Adults (millions)

Children (millions)

As a Percent of All Children

As a Percent of All Poor Children

1961

0.873

3.363

0.765

2.598

3.7%

14.3%

1962

0.939

3.704

0.860

2.844

4.0

15.7

1963

0.963

3.945

0.988

2.957

4.1

17.4

1964

1.010

4.195

1.050

3.145

4.3

18.6

1965

1.060

4.422

1.101

3.321

4.5

21.5

1966

1.096

4.546

1.112

3.434

4.7

26.5

1967

1.220

5.014

1.243

3.771

5.2

31.2

1968

1.410

5.702

1.429

4.274

5.9

37.8

1969

1.696

6.689

1.716

4.973

6.9

49.7

1970

2.207

8.462

2.250

6.212

8.6

57.7

1971

2.763

10.242

2.808

7.435

10.4

68.5

1972

3.048

10.944

3.039

7.905

11.1

74.9

1973

3.148

10.949

3.046

7.903

11.2

79.9

1974

3.219

10.847

3.041

7.805

11.2

75.0

1975

3.481

11.319

3.248

8.071

11.8

71.2

1976

3.565

11.284

3.302

7.982

11.8

76.2

1977

3.568

11.015

3.273

7.743

11.6

73.9

1978

3.517

10.551

3.188

7.363

11.2

72.8

1979

3.509

10.312

3.130

7.181

11.0

68.0

1980

3.712

10.774

3.355

7.419

11.5

63.2

1981

3.835

11.079

3.552

7.527

11.7

59.2

1982

3.542

10.358

3.455

6.903

10.8

49.6

1983

3.686

10.761

3.663

7.098

11.1

50.1

1984

3.714

10.831

3.687

7.144

11.2

52.3

1985

3.701

10.855

3.658

7.198

11.3

54.4

1986

3.763

11.038

3.704

7.334

11.5

56.0

1987

3.776

11.027

3.661

7.366

11.5

56.4

1988

3.749

10.915

3.586

7.329

11.4

57.8

1989

3.798

10.992

3.573

7.419

11.5

57.9

1990

4.057

11.695

3.784

7.911

12.1

57.9

1991

4.497

12.930

4.216

8.715

13.2

59.8

1992

4.829

13.773

4.470

9.303

13.9

59.9

1993

5.012

14.205

4.631

9.574

14.1

60.0

1994

5.033

14.161

4.593

9.568

13.9

61.7

1995

4.791

13.418

4.284

9.135

13.1

61.5

1996

4.434

12.321

3.928

8.600

12.3

58.7

1997

3.740

10.376

NA

NA

10.0

50.1

1998

3.050

8.347

NA

NA

8.1

42.9

1999

2.578

6.924

NA

NA

6.7

39.4

2000

2.303

6.143

1.655

4.479

6.1

38.1

2001

2.192

5.717

1.514

4.195

5.7

35.3

2002

2.187

5.609

1.479

4.119

5.6

33.6

2003

2.180

5.490

1.416

4.063

5.5

31.3

2004

2.153

5.342

1.362

3.969

5.4

30.2

2005

2.061

5.028

1.261

3.756

5.1

28.9

2006

1.906

4.582

1.120

3.453

4.6

26.7

2007

1.730

4.075

0.956

3.119

4.2

23.2

2008

1.701

4.005

0.946

3.059

4.1

21.6

2009

1.838

4.371

1.074

3.296

4.4

21.2

2010

1.919

4.598

1.163

3.435

4.6

20.9

2011

1.907

4.557

1.149

3.408

4.6

20.9

2012

1.852

4.402

1.104

3.298

4.4

20.3

2013

1.726

4.042

0.993

3.050

4.1

19.1

2014

1.650

3.957

1.007

2.949

4.0

18.8

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Notes: NA denotes not available. During transition reporting from AFDC to TANF, caseload statistics on adult and child recipients were not collected. For those years, TANF children as a percent of all children and percent
of all poor children were estimated by HHS and published in Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors, Annual Report to Congress Congress, Table TANF 2, p. A-7. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/14/indicators/rpt_indicators.pdf. Table A-5. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category, Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2013  

1988

1994

2001

2006

2013

Monthly Average Number of Families

Total Families

3,747,952

5,046,263

2,202,356

1,957,402

1,749,424

Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed

3,136,566

3,798,997

992,445

825,490

781,473

Family with Adult(s)/Employed

243,573

378,620

420,794

259,001

302,079

Child-Only/SSI Parents(s)

59,988

171,391

171,951

176,670

156,215

Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)

47,566

184,397

125,900

153,445

196,103

Child-Only/Caretaker Relative

188,598

328,290

255,984

261,944

234,499

Child-Only/Other

71,661

184,567

235,282

280,851

79,054

Percent of Total Cash Assistance Families

Total Families

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Family with Adults/Not Employed

83.7

75.3

45.1

42.2

44.7

Family with Adults/Employed

6.5

7.5

19.1

13.2

17.3

Child-Only/SSI Parents(s)

1.6

3.4

7.8

9.0

8.9

Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)

1.3

3.7

5.7

7.8

11.2

Child-Only/Caretaker Relative

5.0

6.5

11.6

13.4

13.4

Child-Only/Other

1.9

3.7

10.7

14.3

4.5

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2013 TANF National Data Files.

Notes: FY2001 through FY2013 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For FY2013, TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit. For FY2001 and FY2006, such families cannot be identified and are classified as "child-only" families.

Appendix B. State Tables Table B-1. Use of FY2014
. Child poverty data for 2014 will not be available until September 2015. Congressional Research Service 24 Appendix B. State Tables Table B-1. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category (Dollars in millions) State Alabama Basic Assistance Administration Work Child Care Other Work Supports Other Expenditures Total $45.9 $24.4 $21.0 $5.5 $3.8 $70.3 $170.9 Alaska 38.7 4.6 12.6 27.4 0.6 5.4 89.2 Arizona -21.8 44.4 8.8 10.1 0.2 337.7 379.4 Arkansas 13.2 14.0 23.5 8.6 3.2 94.2 156.6 California 3,225.3 556.6 507.3 840.4 183.5 1,718.7 7,031.8 Colorado 70.7 20.7 2.1 1.2 8.3 212.7 315.7 Connecticut 81.3 29.3 16.1 35.5 4.9 318.1 485.2 Delaware 12.9 -0.2 1.4 57.2 0.0 11.9 83.2 District of Columbia 59.0 7.4 37.4 76.4 16.0 57.4 253.7 Florida 173.2 30.3 58.4 342.7 5.5 387.4 997.5 Georgia 47.5 15.7 -0.7 22.2 20.1 389.1 493.9 Hawaii 64.1 14.9 94.7 13.0 4.0 53.9 244.5 Idaho 6.5 5.6 6.2 10.8 0.3 16.8 46.3 Illinois 81.0 27.5 31.1 645.5 25.1 350.7 1,160.9 Indiana 28.9 18.0 16.0 77.7 33.9 104.9 279.3 Iowa 54.1 7.1 15.9 44.2 13.3 76.1 210.7 Kansas 27.5 13.5 0.4 22.5 54.2 55.5 173.6 Kentucky 102.1 11.9 34.1 74.4 21.7 33.5 277.7 Louisiana 25.7 20.4 6.4 5.2 19.0 145.1 221.7 CRS-25 State Maine Basic Assistance Administration Work Child Care Other Work Supports Other Expenditures Total 49.8 2.7 12.4 9.9 11.9 9.2 95.9 Maryland 139.2 61.2 36.3 24.2 147.6 175.9 584.2 Massachusetts 338.7 33.3 6.5 296.2 109.3 354.3 1,138.4 Michigan 206.6 180.5 81.0 19.5 51.6 890.4 1,429.6 Minnesota 94.1 46.3 54.7 53.7 134.7 53.4 437.0 Mississippi 16.7 3.2 33.0 19.1 16.8 17.6 106.4 Missouri 101.3 9.4 17.4 42.3 0.0 232.7 403.1 Montana 15.3 8.4 12.1 10.0 0.0 7.8 53.6 Nebraska 24.2 3.5 19.4 23.5 36.0 2.3 108.9 Nevada 43.5 8.1 1.8 0.0 1.1 35.5 90.1 New Hampshire 23.9 12.0 6.9 8.8 1.3 20.1 73.0 New Jersey 304.0 81.5 87.6 73.2 190.5 558.1 1,295.0 New Mexico 53.1 10.7 8.7 36.3 47.6 57.1 213.5 1,606.0 333.9 124.4 536.9 1,432.6 1,576.8 5,610.7 North Carolina 59.1 47.8 42.6 172.3 60.8 240.4 623.0 North Dakota 5.1 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.3 18.5 33.9 301.9 146.0 36.1 382.0 9.9 126.5 1,002.3 19.8 23.9 0.0 70.0 25.7 59.6 199.0 Oregon 141.8 37.3 17.1 11.1 3.8 112.8 324.0 Pennsylvania 271.5 80.0 78.1 395.4 9.5 208.2 1,042.8 Rhode Island 42.4 16.2 9.4 24.4 13.6 80.4 186.4 South Carolina 34.8 19.1 20.1 4.1 1.9 150.3 230.2 South Dakota 12.6 2.8 4.2 0.8 0.1 7.1 27.6 New York Ohio Oklahoma CRS-26 State Tennessee Basic Assistance Administration Work Child Care Other Work Supports Other Expenditures Total 108.2 31.4 71.2 29.5 0.0 77.7 318.1 Texas 75.4 68.3 87.8 26.8 5.6 591.0 854.9 Utah 23.2 7.6 18.0 10.5 0.3 18.1 77.6 Vermont 20.0 7.1 0.1 28.9 24.9 11.4 92.5 Virginia 100.5 22.3 52.7 30.8 8.7 66.0 281.0 Washington 201.7 59.9 159.5 130.7 2.5 308.9 863.3 31.0 26.2 1.8 10.4 29.8 45.4 144.6 134.2 23.0 34.2 200.0 47.8 164.7 603.9 2.5 7.4 1.8 3.7 0.0 17.5 32.8 8,737.9 2,290.9 2,033.7 5,006.5 2,844.8 10,735.3 31,649.2 West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Negative entries denote adjustments for prior year reporting changes. CRS-27 Table B-2. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding State Basic Assistance Administration 12.3% 3.2% Other Work Supports 2.2% Other Expenditures 41.1% Total Alabama 26.9% Alaska 43.3 5.2 14.1 30.7 0.6 6.0 100.0 Arizona -5.8 11.7 2.3 2.7 0.1 89.0 100.0 Arkansas 8.4 8.9 15.0 5.5 2.0 60.2 100.0 California 45.9 7.9 7.2 12.0 2.6 24.4 100.0 Colorado 22.4 6.6 0.7 0.4 2.6 67.4 100.0 Connecticut 16.8 6.0 3.3 7.3 1.0 65.6 100.0 Delaware 15.5 -0.2 1.7 68.7 0.0 14.3 100.0 District of Columbia 23.3 2.9 14.8 30.1 6.3 22.6 100.0 Florida 17.4 3.0 5.8 34.4 0.6 38.8 100.0 Georgia 9.6 3.2 -0.1 4.5 4.1 78.8 100.0 Hawaii 26.2 6.1 38.7 5.3 1.6 22.0 100.0 Idaho 14.2 12.1 13.5 23.3 0.6 36.4 100.0 Illinois 7.0 2.4 2.7 55.6 2.2 30.2 100.0 Indiana 10.4 6.4 5.7 27.8 12.1 37.6 100.0 Iowa 25.7 3.4 7.5 21.0 6.3 36.1 100.0 Kansas 15.8 7.8 0.2 13.0 31.2 32.0 100.0 Kentucky 36.8 4.3 12.3 26.8 7.8 12.1 100.0 Louisiana 11.6 9.2 2.9 2.4 8.6 65.4 100.0 Maine 51.9 2.8 12.9 10.3 12.4 9.6 100.0 Maryland 23.8 10.5 6.2 4.1 25.3 30.1 100.0 Massachusetts 29.8 2.9 0.6 26.0 9.6 31.1 100.0 CRS-28 14.3% Work Child Care 100.0% Basic Assistance Administration Work Child Care Michigan 14.5 12.6 5.7 1.4 Minnesota 21.5 10.6 12.5 Mississippi 15.7 3.0 Missouri 25.1 Montana Other Work Supports Other Expenditures Total 3.6 62.3 100.0 12.3 30.8 12.2 100.0 31.0 17.9 15.8 16.5 100.0 2.3 4.3 10.5 0.0 57.7 100.0 28.6 15.7 22.6 18.6 0.0 14.5 100.0 Nebraska 22.3 3.2 17.8 21.6 33.0 2.1 100.0 Nevada 48.2 9.0 2.0 0.0 1.3 39.4 100.0 New Hampshire 32.7 16.4 9.5 12.0 1.8 27.5 100.0 New Jersey 23.5 6.3 6.8 5.7 14.7 43.1 100.0 New Mexico 24.9 5.0 4.1 17.0 22.3 26.8 100.0 New York 28.6 6.0 2.2 9.6 25.5 28.1 100.0 North Carolina 9.5 7.7 6.8 27.7 9.8 38.6 100.0 North Dakota 15.0 11.7 11.9 3.0 3.8 54.6 100.0 Ohio 30.1 14.6 3.6 38.1 1.0 12.6 100.0 Oklahoma 10.0 12.0 0.0 35.2 12.9 29.9 100.0 Oregon 43.8 11.5 5.3 3.4 1.2 34.8 100.0 Pennsylvania 26.0 7.7 7.5 37.9 0.9 20.0 100.0 Rhode Island 22.7 8.7 5.1 13.1 7.3 43.2 100.0 South Carolina 15.1 8.3 8.7 1.8 0.8 65.3 100.0 South Dakota 45.7 10.0 15.3 2.9 0.4 25.7 100.0 Tennessee 34.0 9.9 22.4 9.3 0.0 24.4 100.0 Texas 8.8 8.0 10.3 3.1 0.6 69.1 100.0 Utah 29.9 9.8 23.2 13.5 0.3 23.3 100.0 State CRS-29 Basic Assistance Administration Work Child Care Vermont 21.7 7.7 0.1 31.2 Virginia 35.8 7.9 18.8 Washington 23.4 6.9 West Virginia 21.4 Wisconsin Wyoming State Totals Other Work Supports Other Expenditures Total 27.0 12.3 100.0 11.0 3.1 23.5 100.0 18.5 15.1 0.3 35.8 100.0 18.1 1.3 7.2 20.6 31.4 100.0 22.2 3.8 5.7 33.1 7.9 27.3 100.0 7.5 22.5 5.4 11.1 0.0 53.4 100.0 27.6 7.2 6.4 15.8 9.0 33.9 100.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Negative entries denote adjustments for prior year reporting changes. CRS-30 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2013 (September 30, 2013, in millions of dollars) State Alabama Obligated but not Spent Total Unspent Funds Unobligated $3.7 $10.6 $14.3 Alaska 0.0 69.7 69.7 Arizona 2.7 0.0 2.7 Arkansas 18.3 16.0 34.3 California 8.4 0.0 8.4 Colorado 0.0 19.1 19.1 Connecticut 0.0 6.3 6.3 Delaware 9.6 10.4 20.0 District of Columbia 6.5 54.4 60.9 Florida 29.6 0.5 30.1 Georgia 21.2 60.9 82.1 Hawaii 5.8 59.5 65.2 Idaho 31.7 0.0 31.7 Illinois 0.0 16.0 16.0 238.1 21.7 259.7 Iowa 14.1 3.0 17.1 Kansas 11.6 32.3 43.9 Kentucky 0.0 3.5 3.5 Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maine 0.0 24.6 24.6 Maryland 4.9 0.0 4.9 Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0.0 Michigan 0.0 42.4 42.4 Minnesota 0.0 161.4 161.4 Mississippi 4.0 7.9 11.9 Missouri 22.3 -0.2 22.1 Montana 0.4 42.7 43.1 Nebraska 0.0 59.6 59.6 Nevada 0.0 12.7 12.7 New Hampshire 0.0 13.2 13.2 New Jersey 32.4 37.5 69.9 New Mexico 50.2 0.0 50.2 273.4 104.0 377.4 Indiana New York Congressional Research Service 31 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Obligated but not Spent North Carolina Total Unspent Funds Unobligated 192.6 3.5 196.1 0.0 15.8 15.8 201.3 34.0 235.4 53.3 0.0 53.3 0.0 17.9 17.9 Pennsylvania 52.1 300.1 352.2 Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Carolina 0.0 12.4 12.4 South Dakota 0.0 14.9 14.9 Tennessee 0.0 59.3 59.3 152.7 0.0 152.7 Utah 0.0 109.2 109.2 Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 Virginia 5.1 33.9 39.0 69.5 0.0 69.6 West Virginia 0.0 0.1 0.1 Wisconsin 0.0 12.9 12.9 Wyoming 3.2 21.2 24.5 1,518.7 1,525.0 3,043.7 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Texas Washington 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 by State, December 2014 State Recipients Children 14,835 35,066 26,859 8,207 Alaska 3,066 8,277 5,618 2,659 Arizona 12,193 27,292 20,203 7,089 Arkansas 5,447 12,171 8,908 3,263 California 626,297 1,745,407 1,237,834 507,573 Colorado 17,680 46,925 33,119 13,806 Connecticut 13,711 27,512 19,350 8,162 Delaware 4,670 13,178 8,071 5,107 District of Columbia 5,027 12,637 9,230 3,407 Alabama Congressional Research Service Families Adults 32 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Families Recipients Children Adults Florida 50,288 87,711 72,331 15,380 Georgia 13,910 27,197 24,168 3,029 Guam 1,133 2,545 2,030 515 Hawaii 8,166 23,547 15,804 7,743 Idaho 1,903 2,830 2,708 122 Illinois 19,410 43,526 35,829 7,697 Indiana 9,753 19,736 17,745 1,991 14,169 35,460 25,361 10,099 6,478 15,424 11,453 3,971 Kentucky 26,486 53,071 42,998 10,073 Louisiana 5,619 12,686 11,006 1,680 Maine 23,345 48,172 26,662 21,510 Maryland 20,803 50,484 37,250 13,234 Massachusetts 63,094 149,391 101,532 47,859 Michigan 23,364 57,661 44,255 13,406 Minnesota 19,055 41,193 32,390 8,803 Mississippi 7,642 15,572 11,760 3,812 Missouri 28,870 70,128 48,501 21,627 Montana 3,068 7,457 5,595 1,862 Nebraska 5,803 14,029 11,455 2,574 12,015 31,578 23,005 8,573 5,816 14,185 9,698 4,487 New Jersey 26,397 61,824 44,981 16,843 New Mexico 11,522 34,081 26,864 7,217 150,121 386,055 275,109 110,946 North Carolina 6,806 14,818 11,189 3,629 North Dakota 1,208 3,025 2,452 573 61,872 118,421 100,551 17,870 7,373 16,416 13,926 2,490 Oregon 57,659 174,750 109,621 65,129 Pennsylvania 68,231 170,018 122,507 47,511 Puerto Rico 11,818 32,495 20,228 12,267 Rhode Island 5,237 12,512 8,817 3,695 South Carolina 11,064 25,089 19,999 5,090 South Dakota 3,042 6,053 5,366 687 Tennessee 41,109 96,181 71,628 24,553 Texas 34,110 75,102 66,362 8,740 Iowa Kansas Nevada New Hampshire New York Ohio Oklahoma Congressional Research Service 33 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Families Recipients Children Adults Utah 4,004 9,894 7,204 2,690 Vermont 3,470 8,059 5,675 2,384 381 1,207 824 383 Virginia 26,293 57,457 42,359 15,098 Washington 36,004 81,972 57,822 24,150 8,130 17,407 13,342 4,065 Wisconsin 25,225 60,670 45,262 15,408 Wyoming 344 697 566 131 1,674,536 4,216,251 3,055,382 1,160,869 Virgin Islands West Virginia Totals 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. Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Assistance by State, December of Selected Years Percentage Change to 2014 from ... State 1994 2007 2010 2013 2014 Alabama 47,903 18,584 24,212 18,394 14,835 -69.0% -20.2% -19.3% Alaska 12,370 2,989 3,572 3,439 3,066 -75.2 2.6 -10.8 Arizona 72,158 37,122 19,366 14,036 12,193 -83.1 -67.2 -13.1 Arkansas 25,047 8,741 8,632 6,395 5,447 -78.3 -37.7 -14.8 California 923,358 477,465 601,286 533,081 626,297 -32.2 31.2 17.5 Colorado 40,244 9,094 8,064 17,270 17,680 -56.1 94.4 2.4 Connecticut 60,965 19,424 16,750 14,335 13,711 -77.5 -29.4 -4.4 Delaware 11,227 3,997 5,745 4,792 4,670 -58.4 16.8 -2.5 District of Columbia 27,420 5,237 9,410 6,021 5,027 -81.7 -4.0 -16.5 Florida 238,564 48,608 58,144 53,087 50,288 -78.9 3.5 -5.3 Georgia 141,154 22,740 20,686 16,481 13,910 -90.1 -38.8 -15.6 Guam 2,088 NA 1,260 1,342 1,133 -45.7 NA -15.6 Hawaii 21,489 6,621 10,240 8,865 8,166 -62.0 23.3 -7.9 Idaho 8,953 1,527 1,848 1,838 1,903 -78.7 24.6 3.5 Illinois 241,091 20,562 27,177 20,354 19,410 -91.9 -5.6 -4.6 Indiana 69,933 31,103 31,461 11,195 9,753 -86.1 -68.6 -12.9 Iowa 38,022 19,762 21,037 16,126 14,169 -62.7 -28.3 -12.1 Congressional Research Service 1994 2007 2013 34 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Percentage Change to 2014 from ... State 1994 2007 2010 Kansas 28,838 12,853 15,647 7,553 6,478 -77.5 -49.6 -14.2 Kentucky 76,824 29,323 31,336 29,488 26,486 -65.5 -9.7 -10.2 Louisiana 82,792 11,106 11,117 6,151 5,619 -93.2 -49.4 -8.6 Maine 22,025 12,235 15,435 26,604 23,345 6.0 90.8 -12.3 Maryland 80,890 20,466 26,160 21,310 20,803 -74.3 1.6 -2.4 Massachusetts 105,769 52,473 51,179 71,012 63,094 -40.3 20.2 -11.2 Michigan 209,695 69,327 67,596 29,782 23,364 -88.9 -66.3 -21.5 Minnesota 61,343 26,387 24,726 22,267 19,055 -68.9 -27.8 -14.4 Mississippi 53,221 11,631 12,078 9,260 7,642 -85.6 -34.3 -17.5 Missouri 91,802 39,054 39,617 32,172 28,870 -68.6 -26.1 -10.3 Montana 11,660 3,192 3,694 3,149 3,068 -73.7 -3.9 -2.6 Nebraska 15,427 7,515 8,406 6,379 5,803 -62.4 -22.8 -9.0 Nevada 15,559 7,410 11,066 11,914 12,015 -22.8 62.1 0.8 New Hampshire 11,078 4,497 6,168 6,080 5,816 -47.5 29.3 -4.3 New Jersey 113,293 34,175 35,153 28,658 26,397 -76.7 -22.8 -7.9 New Mexico 34,854 12,195 21,664 13,206 11,522 -66.9 -5.5 -12.8 New York 463,692 155,798 158,133 153,078 150,121 -67.6 -3.6 -1.9 North Carolina 128,848 24,544 23,639 18,575 6,806 -94.7 -72.3 -63.4 5,309 2,072 1,931 1,366 1,208 -77.2 -41.7 -11.6 236,298 80,629 103,513 64,371 61,872 -73.8 -23.3 -3.9 Oklahoma 45,893 8,951 9,472 7,270 7,373 -83.9 -17.6 1.4 Oregon 39,967 19,299 33,123 45,270 57,659 44.3 198.8 27.4 Pennsylvania 208,949 55,389 59,034 69,667 68,231 -67.3 23.2 -2.1 Puerto Rico 56,132 12,356 14,621 12,818 11,818 -78.9 -4.4 -7.8 Rhode Island 22,599 8,349 6,778 5,815 5,237 -76.8 -37.3 -9.9 South Carolina 50,251 14,428 19,038 11,770 11,064 -78.0 -23.3 -6.0 South Dakota 6,521 2,904 3,290 3,204 3,042 -53.4 4.8 -5.1 Tennessee 105,616 55,161 63,150 50,850 41,109 -61.1 -25.5 -19.2 Texas 281,011 57,002 52,972 38,460 34,110 -87.9 -40.2 -11.3 Utah 17,240 5,140 6,811 4,382 4,004 -76.8 -22.1 -8.6 Vermont 9,707 4,242 3,335 3,638 3,470 -64.3 -18.2 -4.6 Virgin Islands 1,264 399 511 432 381 -69.9 -4.5 -11.8 74,203 31,041 37,105 28,866 26,293 -64.6 -15.3 -8.9 102,603 52,013 69,805 42,747 36,004 -64.9 -30.8 -15.8 West Virginia 39,546 8,725 10,676 8,862 8,130 -79.4 -6.8 -8.3 Wisconsin 73,714 17,788 25,270 27,522 25,225 -65.8 41.8 -8.3 North Dakota Ohio Virginia Washington Congressional Research Service 2013 2014 1994 2007 2013 35 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Percentage Change to 2014 from ... State 1994 Wyoming Totals 2007 2010 2013 2014 1994 2007 2013 5,400 265 312 380 344 -93.6 29.8 -9.5 4,971,819 1,703,910 1,952,451 1,671,379 1,674,536 -66.3 -1.8 0.2 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Caseload data for 2007 through 2014 include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Table B-6. TANF Families by Number of Parents in Assisted Unit by State: December 2014 Single Parent Two Parent No Parent Single Parent Two Parent No Parent Alabama 8,028 129 6,678 54.1 0.9 45.0 Alaska 1,874 362 830 61.1 11.8 27.1 Arizona 6,197 356 5,640 50.8 2.9 46.3 Arkansas 3,092 110 2,245 56.8 2.0 41.2 California 344,136 110,621 171,540 54.9 17.7 27.4 Colorado 10,355 1,380 5,945 58.6 7.8 33.6 Connecticut 8,087 0 5,624 59.0 0.0 41.0 Delaware 1,586 22 3,062 34.0 0.5 65.6 District of Columbia 3,561 0 1,466 70.8 0.0 29.2 Florida 11,677 693 37,918 23.2 1.4 75.4 Georgia 2,946 0 10,964 21.2 0.0 78.8 Guam 363 106 664 32.0 9.4 58.6 Hawaii 4,712 1,871 1,583 57.7 22.9 19.4 Idaho 121 0 1,782 6.4 0.0 93.6 Illinois 6,731 0 12,679 34.7 0.0 65.3 Indiana 2,491 133 7,129 25.5 1.4 73.1 Iowa 8,235 863 5,071 58.1 6.1 35.8 Kansas 3,018 419 3,041 46.6 6.5 46.9 Kentucky 8,674 657 17,155 32.7 2.5 64.8 Louisiana 1,645 0 3,974 29.3 0.0 70.7 Maine 20,645 436 2,264 88.4 1.9 9.7 Maryland 13,322 0 7,481 64.0 0.0 36.0 Massachusetts 41,362 4,418 17,314 65.6 7.0 27.4 Michigan 12,067 0 11,297 51.6 0.0 48.4 8,949 0 10,106 47.0 0.0 53.0 State Minnesota Congressional Research Service 36 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Mississippi Single Parent Two Parent No Parent Single Parent Two Parent No Parent 3,783 0 3,859 49.5 0.0 50.5 Missouri 22,082 0 6,788 76.5 0.0 23.5 Montana 1,605 291 1,172 52.3 9.5 38.2 Nebraska 2,692 0 3,111 46.4 0.0 53.6 Nevada 5,681 1,388 4,946 47.3 11.6 41.2 New Hampshire 4,341 48 1,427 74.6 0.8 24.5 New Jersey 18,427 0 7,970 69.8 0.0 30.2 New Mexico 5,573 822 5,127 48.4 7.1 44.5 96,025 3,129 50,967 64.0 2.1 34.0 3,354 144 3,308 49.3 2.1 48.6 572 0 636 47.4 0.0 52.6 14,333 1,520 46,019 23.2 2.5 74.4 2,490 0 4,883 33.8 0.0 66.2 Oregon 49,333 2,918 5,408 85.6 5.1 9.4 Pennsylvania 49,875 1,450 16,906 73.1 2.1 24.8 Puerto Rico 10,816 712 290 91.5 6.0 2.5 Rhode Island 3,150 319 1,768 60.1 6.1 33.8 South Carolina 5,277 0 5,787 47.7 0.0 52.3 687 0 2,355 22.6 0.0 77.4 23,199 182 17,728 56.4 0.4 43.1 Texas 8,740 0 25,370 25.6 0.0 74.4 Utah 2,102 0 1,902 52.5 0.0 47.5 Vermont 1,662 352 1,456 47.9 10.1 42.0 338 0 43 88.7 0.0 11.3 Virginia 15,477 0 10,816 58.9 0.0 41.1 Washington 17,759 3,093 15,152 49.3 8.6 42.1 3,224 0 4,906 39.7 0.0 60.3 Wisconsin 12,845 862 11,518 50.9 3.4 45.7 Wyoming 125 3 216 36.3 0.9 62.8 919,441 139,809 615,286 54.9 8.3 36.7 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Virgin Islands West Virginia Totals 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. Congressional Research Service 37 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table B-7. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, All Families, FY2012 State Caseload Reduction Credit (Percentage Points) Effective (After Caseload Reduction Credit) Standard United States Work Participation Rate Met Standard? 34.4% Alabama 7.7 42.3% 46.0 Yes Alaska 9.8 40.2 36.7 No Arizona 38.0 12.0 27.1 Yes Arkansas 50.0 0.0 40.2 Yes California 0.0 50.0 27.2 No Colorado 14.9 35.1 23.8 No Connecticut 24.2 25.8 52.7 Yes Delaware 12.8 37.2 41.5 Yes District of Col. 17.8 32.2 34.8 Yes Florida 9.7 40.3 45.1 Yes Georgia 50.0 0.0 64.5 Yes Guam 0.0 50.0 29.0 No Hawaii 50.0 0.0 50.6 Yes Idaho 0.0 50.0 49.8 No Illinois 17.5 32.5 38.6 Yes Indiana 38.8 11.2 31.0 Yes Iowa 17.3 32.7 38.4 Yes Kansas 39.8 10.2 28.4 Yes Kentucky 19.6 30.4 53.3 Yes Louisiana 34.8 15.2 26.8 Yes Maine 0.0 50.0 34.9 No Maryland 5.1 44.9 46.1 Yes Massachusetts 24.2 25.8 39.7 Yes Michigan 12.5 37.5 43.1 Yes Minnesota 8.8 41.2 45.3 Yes Mississippi 26.8 23.2 67.6 Yes Missouri 12.9 37.1 20.5 No Montana 3.1 46.9 47.3 Yes Nebraska 50.0 0.0 53.4 Yes Nevada 2.9 47.1 35.1 No New Hampshire 0.0 50.0 73.0 Yes Congressional Research Service 38 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Caseload Reduction Credit (Percentage Points) Effective (After Caseload Reduction Credit) Standard Work Participation Rate Met Standard? New Jersey 47.6 2.4 19.6 Yes New Mexico 16.1 33.9 46.0 Yes New York 31.4 18.6 31.6 Yes North Carolina 29.4 20.6 47.3 Yes North Dakota 36.0 14.0 71.1 Yes 0.0 50.0 61.9 Yes 25.8 24.2 24.7 Yes 0.0 50.0 33.8 No Pennsylvania 21.4 28.6 29.8 Yes Puerto Rico 9.0 41.0 16.3 No Rhode Island 0.0 50.0 10.0 No South Carolina 0.0 50.0 36.8 No South Dakota 0.0 50.0 55.0 Yes Tennessee 28.5 21.5 30.5 Yes Texas 43.4 6.6 29.1 Yes Utah 24.8 25.2 41.4 Yes 4.7 45.3 42.2 No 42.9 7.1 15.1 Yes 7.0 43.0 42.6 No Washington 32.7 17.3 11.1 No West Virginia 11.9 38.1 38.7 Yes Wisconsin 0.0 50.0 32.4 No Wyoming 0.6 49.4 79.4 Yes Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Congressional Research Service 39 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Table B-8. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, Two-Parent Families, FY2012 State Caseload Reduction Credit (Percentage Points) Effective (After Caseload Reduction Credit) Standard United States Work Participation Rate Met Standard? 33.9% Alabama 56.5 33.5% 40.0 Yes Alaska 18.9 71.1 38.1 No Arizona 38.0 52.0 66.1 Yes Arkansas 53.7 36.3 27.4 No California 0.0 90.0 30.8 No Colorado 14.9 75.1 20.1 No Connecticut NA NA NA NA Delaware NA NA NA NA District of Col. NA NA NA NA Florida 19.4 70.6 53.0 No Georgia NA NA NA NA Guam 0.0 90.0 62.3 No Hawaii 55.6 34.4 58.7 Yes Idaho NA NA NA NA Illinois NA NA NA NA Indiana 38.8 51.2 24.0 No Iowa 45.8 44.2 29.3 No Kansas 39.8 50.2 30.8 No Kentucky 19.6 70.4 51.8 No Louisiana NA NA NA NA Maine 0.0 90.0 19.0 No Maryland NA NA NA NA Massachusetts 24.2 65.8 83.9 Yes Michigan NA NA NA NA Minnesota NA NA NA NA Mississippi NA NA NA NA Missouri NA NA NA NA Montana 34.1 55.9 56.6 Yes Nebraska NA NA NA NA Nevada 2.9 87.1 41.6 No New Hampshire NA NA NA NA Congressional Research Service 40 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs State Caseload Reduction Credit (Percentage Points) Effective (After Caseload Reduction Credit) Standard Work Participation Rate Met Standard? New Jersey NA NA NA NA New Mexico 16.1 73.9 53.5 No New York NA NA NA NA North Carolina 29.4 60.6 63.6 Yes North Dakota NA NA NA NA Ohio 0.0 90.0 60.1 No Oklahoma NA NA NA NA Oregon 0.0 90.0 8.7 No Pennsylvania 72.7 17.3 54.0 Yes Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA Rhode Island 0.0 90.0 6.3 No South Carolina NA NA NA NA South Dakota NA NA NA NA Tennessee NA NA NA NA Texas NA NA NA NA Utah NA NA NA NA Vermont 4.7 85.3 52.2 No Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA Virginia NA NA NA NA Washington 32.7 57.3 11.8 No West Virginia NA NA NA NA Wisconsin 0.0 90.0 16.9 No Wyoming 0.6 89.4 77.4 No Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: NA denotes that the state does not have two-parent families in their TANF or MOE programs. Congressional Research Service 41 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs Author Contact Information Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344 Congressional Research Service 42

(Dollars in millions)

State

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work

Child Care

Other Work Supports

Other Expenditures

Total

Alabama

$39.7

$8.3

$21.5

$5.5

$4.2

$109.6

$188.9

Alaska

39.8

4.7

12.5

24.8

1.2

3.4

86.4

Arizona

32.1

35.4

8.1

12.9

1.3

266.1

355.9

Arkansas

11.1

13.3

17.1

0.4

2.2

96.7

140.9

California

3,076.0

567.4

576.4

795.9

195.5

1,493.7

6,705.1

Colorado

79.3

20.5

2.2

0.9

7.2

206.0

316.1

Connecticut

83.4

38.1

17.7

39.4

5.1

313.2

497.0

Delaware

21.3

6.2

6.6

61.3

0.4

10.4

106.2

District of Columbia

60.3

8.6

34.6

55.7

21.0

84.2

264.5

Florida

165.5

41.3

50.7

337.8

0.9

403.0

999.3

Georgia

42.6

17.5

10.8

22.2

10.9

404.9

508.9

Hawaii

58.7

15.9

97.0

20.0

3.7

68.9

264.1

Idaho

6.7

5.1

5.7

11.8

0.2

16.7

46.3

Illinois

77.4

26.0

22.0

710.1

45.3

338.9

1,219.7

Indiana

23.4

18.8

15.0

77.7

32.5

100.0

267.4

Iowa

50.3

8.2

18.3

45.1

27.0

71.6

220.6

Kansas

22.8

10.2

0.5

19.7

50.9

54.8

159.0

Kentucky

132.1

11.3

33.9

31.4

19.5

30.3

258.5

Louisiana

20.3

19.6

5.3

10.2

18.8

144.8

219.0

Maine

45.3

3.0

10.7

5.7

12.2

8.7

85.5

Maryland

116.7

55.7

43.4

18.4

163.3

198.9

596.4

Massachusetts

292.7

34.6

6.4

323.6

114.3

328.3

1,099.9

Michigan

167.2

159.9

62.9

30.9

56.4

918.4

1,395.7

Minnesota

86.0

46.5

66.2

144.1

162.0

46.6

551.4

Mississippi

14.4

3.6

32.5

19.1

13.0

16.6

99.2

Missouri

83.8

4.7

23.6

41.0

0.0

242.0

395.2

Montana

15.8

6.2

11.0

10.5

0.0

9.2

52.7

Nebraska

23.4

3.8

18.1

23.5

37.4

10.1

116.3

Nevada

50.0

11.1

1.3

0.0

1.3

34.5

98.3

New Hampshire

21.6

11.6

6.6

8.0

1.2

12.6

61.6

New Jersey

218.5

67.2

96.5

114.0

202.4

594.7

1,293.4

New Mexico

47.2

7.6

13.0

36.2

47.6

63.2

214.8

New York

1,747.5

338.2

168.2

438.8

1,494.9

1,541.8

5,729.4

North Carolina

54.3

49.5

34.3

175.1

55.1

244.2

612.4

North Dakota

4.6

4.0

3.9

1.0

1.3

22.3

37.2

Ohio

282.6

161.0

73.8

399.4

11.6

196.8

1,125.3

Oklahoma

18.3

25.5

0.0

63.2

26.9

63.1

196.9

Oregon

140.2

47.4

18.6

13.7

2.1

119.3

341.2

Pennsylvania

256.2

72.5

85.8

411.4

9.2

223.8

1,058.8

Rhode Island

23.3

10.9

10.3

24.0

13.1

94.5

176.1

South Carolina

21.8

18.4

15.0

4.1

2.1

209.8

271.2

South Dakota

15.5

2.7

4.1

-3.5

0.1

6.4

25.4

Tennessee

81.3

32.5

38.4

44.3

0.0

70.2

266.7

Texas

64.4

56.2

89.3

26.7

4.6

646.9

888.1

Utah

24.6

5.7

28.0

13.5

0.0

22.1

93.9

Vermont

18.5

8.0

0.1

27.8

26.4

11.8

92.5

Virginia

99.4

21.4

52.1

39.1

8.1

69.0

289.1

Washington

180.9

65.7

164.1

158.2

3.7

401.0

973.7

West Virginia

30.6

28.7

1.6

11.9

31.4

36.8

141.0

Wisconsin

150.7

27.7

29.7

219.3

65.9

163.9

657.3

Wyoming

3.2

7.4

2.7

0.5

0.0

15.5

29.2

               

Totals

8,443.4

2,275.2

2,168.3

5,126.6

3,015.4

10,860.3

31,889.3

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Notes: Negative entries denote adjustments for prior year reporting changes.

Table B-2. Use of FY2014 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding  

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work

Child Care

Other Work Supports

Other Expenditures

Total

Alabama

21.0%

4.4%

11.4%

2.9%

2.2%

58.0%

100.0%

Alaska

46.0

5.5

14.5

28.7

1.4

3.9

100.0

Arizona

9.0

9.9

2.3

3.6

0.4

74.8

100.0

Arkansas

7.9

9.5

12.1

0.3

1.6

68.7

100.0

California

45.9

8.5

8.6

11.9

2.9

22.3

100.0

Colorado

25.1

6.5

0.7

0.3

2.3

65.2

100.0

Connecticut

16.8

7.7

3.6

7.9

1.0

63.0

100.0

Delaware

20.1

5.9

6.2

57.7

0.4

9.8

100.0

District of Columbia

22.8

3.2

13.1

21.1

7.9

31.8

100.0

Florida

16.6

4.1

5.1

33.8

0.1

40.3

100.0

Georgia

8.4

3.4

2.1

4.4

2.1

79.6

100.0

Hawaii

22.2

6.0

36.7

7.6

1.4

26.1

100.0

Idaho

14.4

11.0

12.4

25.6

0.5

36.1

100.0

Illinois

6.3

2.1

1.8

58.2

3.7

27.8

100.0

Indiana

8.8

7.0

5.6

29.0

12.2

37.4

100.0

Iowa

22.8

3.7

8.3

20.5

12.2

32.5

100.0

Kansas

14.3

6.4

0.3

12.4

32.0

34.5

100.0

Kentucky

51.1

4.4

13.1

12.1

7.5

11.7

100.0

Louisiana

9.3

9.0

2.4

4.6

8.6

66.1

100.0

Maine

52.9

3.6

12.5

6.6

14.2

10.2

100.0

Maryland

19.6

9.3

7.3

3.1

27.4

33.3

100.0

Massachusetts

26.6

3.1

0.6

29.4

10.4

29.8

100.0

Michigan

12.0

11.5

4.5

2.2

4.0

65.8

100.0

Minnesota

15.6

8.4

12.0

26.1

29.4

8.4

100.0

Mississippi

14.5

3.6

32.8

19.2

13.1

16.7

100.0

Missouri

21.2

1.2

6.0

10.4

0.0

61.2

100.0

Montana

29.9

11.8

21.0

19.9

0.0

17.4

100.0

Nebraska

20.1

3.3

15.6

20.2

32.1

8.7

100.0

Nevada

50.9

11.3

1.3

0.0

1.4

35.1

100.0

New Hampshire

35.1

18.8

10.7

13.0

2.0

20.5

100.0

New Jersey

16.9

5.2

7.5

8.8

15.7

46.0

100.0

New Mexico

22.0

3.5

6.1

16.9

22.2

29.4

100.0

New York

30.5

5.9

2.9

7.7

26.1

26.9

100.0

North Carolina

8.9

8.1

5.6

28.6

9.0

39.9

100.0

North Dakota

12.5

10.7

10.5

2.7

3.6

60.1

100.0

Ohio

25.1

14.3

6.6

35.5

1.0

17.5

100.0

Oklahoma

9.3

12.9

0.0

32.1

13.7

32.0

100.0

Oregon

41.1

13.9

5.4

4.0

0.6

35.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

24.2

6.8

8.1

38.9

0.9

21.1

100.0

Rhode Island

13.2

6.2

5.8

13.6

7.4

53.7

100.0

South Carolina

8.1

6.8

5.5

1.5

0.8

77.4

100.0

South Dakota

61.2

10.7

16.2

-13.6

0.4

25.1

100.0

Tennessee

30.5

12.2

14.4

16.6

0.0

26.3

100.0

Texas

7.2

6.3

10.1

3.0

0.5

72.8

100.0

Utah

26.2

6.1

29.8

14.4

0.0

23.6

100.0

Vermont

20.0

8.6

0.1

30.0

28.5

12.8

100.0

Virginia

34.4

7.4

18.0

13.5

2.8

23.9

100.0

Washington

18.6

6.7

16.9

16.2

0.4

41.2

100.0

West Virginia

21.7

20.4

1.1

8.4

22.3

26.1

100.0

Wisconsin

22.9

4.2

4.5

33.4

10.0

24.9

100.0

Wyoming

10.8

25.2

9.2

1.8

0.0

53.0

100.0

 

             

Totals

26.5

7.1

6.8

16.1

9.5

34.1

100.0

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Notes: Negative entries denote adjustments for prior year reporting changes.

Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2014

(September 30, 2014, in millions of dollars)

State

Obligated but not Spent

Unobligated

Total Unspent Funds

Alabama

$2.9

$30.7

$33.6

Alaska

0.0

63.4

63.4

Arizona

0.4

0.0

0.4

Arkansas

0.0

49.5

49.5

California

89.4

0.0

89.4

Colorado

14.0

7.7

21.7

Connecticut

0.2

6.3

6.4

Delaware

0.8

7.7

8.5

District of Columbia

2.0

80.7

82.7

Florida

34.3

0.0

34.3

Georgia

34.9

42.5

77.4

Hawaii

3.8

86.7

90.5

Idaho

30.3

0.0

30.3

Illinois

0.0

14.4

14.4

Indiana

301.1

2.6

303.7

Iowa

16.2

11.6

27.7

Kansas

10.7

42.1

52.8

Kentucky

0.0

4.4

4.4

Louisiana

0.0

0.0

0.0

Maine

0.0

58.8

58.8

Maryland

0.0

0.0

0.0

Massachusetts

0.0

0.0

0.0

Michigan

0.0

38.9

38.9

Minnesota

60.5

69.6

130.2

Mississippi

0.0

21.2

21.2

Missouri

9.7

0.0

9.7

Montana

41.8

0.0

41.8

Nebraska

0.2

56.1

56.3

Nevada

6.5

0.0

6.5

New Hampshire

0.0

29.3

29.3

New Jersey

29.5

13.9

43.5

New Mexico

75.2

0.0

75.2

New York

171.6

20.9

192.5

North Carolina

201.1

3.5

204.6

North Dakota

0.0

14.1

14.1

Ohio

197.6

79.6

277.2

Oklahoma

61.8

0.0

61.8

Oregon

0.0

0.0

0.0

Pennsylvania

65.6

355.4

421.0

Rhode Island

12.1

0.0

12.1

South Carolina

0.0

35.5

35.5

South Dakota

0.0

19.4

19.4

Tennessee

0.0

153.1

153.1

Texas

188.7

0.0

188.7

Utah

0.0

116.0

116.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

0.0

Virginia

0.7

53.6

54.3

Washington

65.0

0.0

65.0

West Virginia

0.0

3.7

3.7

Wisconsin

0.0

5.0

5.0

Wyoming

1.9

23.9

25.7

       

Total

1,730.1

1,622.0

3,352.1

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 by State, March 2015

State

Families

Recipients

Children

Adults

Alabama

13,419

31,205

24,162

7,043

Alaska

3,170

8,589

5,772

2,817

Arizona

11,073

23,939

18,017

5,922

Arkansas

4,768

10,606

7,792

2,814

California

616,628

1,728,256

1,216,670

511,586

Colorado

17,372

45,948

32,283

13,665

Connecticut

13,086

26,208

18,556

7,652

Delaware

4,525

12,717

7,739

4,978

District of Columbia

5,830

14,338

10,804

3,534

Florida

48,376

83,013

68,935

14,078

Georgia

13,070

25,096

22,530

2,566

Guam

1,076

2,402

1,920

482

Hawaii

7,711

22,084

14,810

7,274

Idaho

1,838

2,684

2,615

69

Illinois

19,211

43,308

35,603

7,705

Indiana

9,193

18,350

16,568

1,782

Iowa

13,627

33,864

24,282

9,582

Kansas

6,095

14,312

10,699

3,613

Kentucky

25,347

49,986

40,881

9,105

Louisiana

5,102

11,287

9,967

1,320

Maine

19,388

40,335

22,678

17,657

Maryland

18,991

45,463

33,975

11,488

Massachusetts

58,491

137,738

93,942

43,796

Michigan

21,471

51,717

40,210

11,507

Minnesota

18,867

42,573

33,804

8,769

Mississippi

6,690

13,201

10,177

3,024

Missouri

28,024

67,963

47,110

20,853

Montana

2,820

6,687

5,115

1,572

Nebraska

5,604

13,307

10,984

2,323

Nevada

10,795

27,787

20,652

7,135

New Hampshire

5,512

13,280

9,131

4,149

New Jersey

24,580

57,343

42,161

15,182

New Mexico

11,841

29,535

22,034

7,501

New York

149,249

384,319

273,605

110,714

North Carolina

9,723

19,433

15,620

3,813

North Dakota

1,180

2,923

2,384

539

Ohio

59,611

112,481

96,852

15,629

Oklahoma

6,971

15,279

13,042

2,237

Oregon

57,392

172,571

108,524

64,047

Pennsylvania

63,978

158,450

114,916

43,534

Puerto Rico

10,758

29,499

18,298

11,201

Rhode Island

4,837

11,514

8,142

3,372

South Carolina

10,289

23,119

18,638

4,481

South Dakota

2,982

5,849

5,220

629

Tennessee

38,358

88,834

66,613

22,221

Texas

31,326

67,562

60,214

7,348

Utah

3,710

9,084

6,658

2,426

Vermont

3,220

7,378

5,254

2,124

Virgin Islands

350

1,100

749

351

Virginia

24,981

54,279

40,160

14,119

Washington

33,977

76,125

54,034

22,091

West Virginia

7,597

15,809

12,306

3,503

Wisconsin

23,747

56,129

42,357

13,772

Wyoming

324

651

536

115

         

Totals

1,618,151

4,067,509

2,946,700

1,120,809

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.

Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Assistance by State, March of Selected Years            

Percentage Change to 2015 from:

State

1994

2007

2010

2014

2015

1994

2010

2013

Alabama

51,217

18,005

20,740

17,232

13,419

-73.8%

-35.3%

-22.1%

Alaska

13,209

3,376

3,296

3,681

3,170

-76.0

-3.8

-13.9

Arizona

71,713

35,617

35,227

12,558

11,073

-84.6

-68.6

-11.8

Arkansas

26,355

8,600

8,492

5,963

4,768

-81.9

-43.9

-20.0

California

916,427

471,775

576,355

537,178

616,628

-32.7

7.0

14.8

Colorado

42,541

11,149

11,785

16,960

17,372

-59.2

47.4

2.4

Connecticut

59,351

20,890

17,261

14,421

13,086

-78.0

-24.2

-9.3

Delaware

11,592

4,027

5,089

4,627

4,525

-61.0

-11.1

-2.2

District of Columbia

27,047

5,748

9,786

6,336

5,830

-78.4

-40.4

-8.0

Florida

248,514

47,337

57,471

49,391

48,376

-80.5

-15.8

-2.1

Georgia

141,859

24,681

20,464

15,280

13,070

-90.8

-36.1

-14.5

Guam

1,863

931

1,245

1,254

1,076

-42.2

-13.6

-14.2

Hawaii

20,395

6,410

9,630

8,441

7,711

-62.2

-19.9

-8.6

Idaho

9,016

1,661

1,742

1,859

1,838

-79.6

5.5

-1.1

Illinois

241,817

31,397

21,973

20,206

19,211

-92.1

-12.6

-4.9

Indiana

74,843

41,226

35,915

10,614

9,193

-87.7

-74.4

-13.4

Iowa

40,676

20,082

21,345

15,784

13,627

-66.5

-36.2

-13.7

Kansas

30,591

14,550

14,202

7,027

6,095

-80.1

-57.1

-13.3

Kentucky

81,141

29,788

30,028

28,785

25,347

-68.8

-15.6

-11.9

Louisiana

88,059

10,730

10,273

5,604

5,102

-94.2

-50.3

-9.0

Maine

23,231

12,736

14,942

25,658

19,388

-16.5

29.8

-24.4

Maryland

81,253

19,077

24,052

20,369

18,991

-76.6

-21.0

-6.8

Massachusetts

112,803

44,579

49,062

69,408

58,491

-48.1

19.2

-15.7

Michigan

227,114

75,173

70,633

26,486

21,471

-90.5

-69.6

-18.9

Minnesota

64,055

26,513

24,048

21,920

18,867

-70.5

-21.5

-13.9

Mississippi

56,420

11,210

11,805

8,637

6,690

-88.1

-43.3

-22.5

Missouri

93,735

39,577

38,847

30,641

28,024

-70.1

-27.9

-8.5

Montana

12,278

3,184

3,742

2,996

2,820

-77.0

-24.6

-5.9

Nebraska

16,323

7,426

8,539

6,082

5,604

-65.7

-34.4

-7.9

Nevada

14,011

6,424

10,365

11,961

10,795

-23.0

4.1

-9.7

New Hampshire

11,574

5,183

6,247

5,876

5,512

-52.4

-11.8

-6.2

New Jersey

123,025

34,884

33,047

28,154

24,580

-80.0

-25.6

-12.7

New Mexico

33,847

14,017

19,342

12,693

11,841

-65.0

-38.8

-6.7

New York

457,660

159,447

156,188

151,233

149,249

-67.4

-4.4

-1.3

North Carolina

134,063

25,509

24,382

16,688

9,723

-92.7

-60.1

-41.7

North Dakota

6,079

2,016

2,037

1,280

1,180

-80.6

-42.1

-7.8

Ohio

254,021

77,624

103,012

62,519

59,611

-76.5

-42.1

-4.7

Oklahoma

47,428

9,283

9,315

6,987

6,971

-85.3

-25.2

-0.2

Oregon

43,617

18,872

30,199

45,233

57,392

31.6

90.0

26.9

Pennsylvania

211,771

63,637

51,085

68,008

63,978

-69.8

25.2

-5.9

Puerto Rico

58,869

13,809

13,581

12,079

10,758

-81.7

-20.8

-10.9

Rhode Island

22,872

8,296

7,505

5,523

4,837

-78.9

-35.5

-12.4

South Carolina

53,260

15,652

17,934

11,089

10,289

-80.7

-42.6

-7.2

South Dakota

7,129

2,825

3,209

3,117

2,982

-58.2

-7.1

-4.3

Tennessee

111,740

62,395

61,685

47,691

38,358

-65.7

-37.8

-19.6

Texas

286,613

61,566

49,871

35,950

31,326

-89.1

-37.2

-12.9

Utah

17,908

5,146

6,724

4,276

3,710

-79.3

-44.8

-13.2

Vermont

9,988

4,463

3,106

3,400

3,220

-67.8

3.7

-5.3

Virgin Islands

1,078

440

507

420

350

-67.5

-31.0

-16.7

Virginia

75,854

31,354

36,744

27,437

24,981

-67.1

-32.0

-9.0

Washington

104,326

52,292

69,637

42,521

33,977

-67.4

-51.2

-20.1

West Virginia

41,521

9,774

9,690

8,535

7,597

-81.7

-21.6

-11.0

Wisconsin

78,739

17,211

21,353

27,271

23,747

-69.8

11.2

-12.9

Wyoming

5,857

273

352

363

324

-94.5

-8.0

-10.7

                 

Totals

5,098,288

1,749,847

1,905,106

1,635,702

1,618,151

-68.3

-15.1

-1.1

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Notes: Caseload data for 2007 through 2015 include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.

Table B-6. TANF Families by Number of Parents by State: March 2015        

As a Percentage of Total Families

State

Single Parent

Two Parents

No Parent

Single Parent

Two Parents

No Parent

Alabama

6,870

128

6,421

51.2%

1.0%

47.9%

Alaska

1,926

411

833

60.8

13.0

26.3

Arizona

5,177

292

5,604

46.8

2.6

50.6

Arkansas

2,649

105

2,014

55.6

2.2

42.2

California

335,363

111,031

170,234

54.4

18.0

27.6

Colorado

10,053

1,484

5,835

57.9

8.5

33.6

Connecticut

7,574

0

5,512

57.9

0.0

42.1

Delaware

1,369

16

3,140

30.3

0.4

69.4

District of Columbia

3,611

0

2,219

61.9

0.0

38.1

Florida

10,401

599

37,376

21.5

1.2

77.3

Georgia

2,478

0

10,592

19.0

0.0

81.0

Guam

344

98

634

32.0

9.1

58.9

Hawaii

4,383

1,794

1,534

56.8

23.3

19.9

Idaho

67

0

1,771

3.6

0.0

96.4

Illinois

6,729

0

12,482

35.0

0.0

65.0

Indiana

2,143

146

6,904

23.3

1.6

75.1

Iowa

7,732

850

5,045

56.7

6.2

37.0

Kansas

2,743

392

2,960

45.0

6.4

48.6

Kentucky

7,795

615

16,937

30.8

2.4

66.8

Louisiana

1,285

0

3,817

25.2

0.0

74.8

Maine

16,739

472

2,177

86.3

2.4

11.2

Maryland

11,538

0

7,453

60.8

0.0

39.2

Massachusetts

36,162

4,061

18,268

61.8

6.9

31.2

Michigan

10,532

0

10,939

49.1

0.0

50.9

Minnesota

8,879

0

9,988

47.1

0.0

52.9

Mississippi

2,994

0

3,696

44.8

0.0

55.2

Missouri

21,317

0

6,707

76.1

0.0

23.9

Montana

1,384

266

1,170

49.1

9.4

41.5

Nebraska

2,438

0

3,166

43.5

0.0

56.5

Nevada

4,776

1,100

4,919

44.2

10.2

45.6

New Hampshire

4,038

40

1,434

73.3

0.7

26.0

New Jersey

16,731

0

7,849

68.1

0.0

31.9

New Mexico

5,647

957

5,237

47.7

8.1

44.2

New York

95,376

3,161

50,712

63.9

2.1

34.0

North Carolina

3,538

146

6,039

36.4

1.5

62.1

North Dakota

539

0

641

45.7

0.0

54.3

Ohio

12,368

1,390

45,853

20.7

2.3

76.9

Oklahoma

2,237

0

4,734

32.1

0.0

67.9

Oregon

47,466

3,193

6,733

82.7

5.6

11.7

Pennsylvania

50,154

1,353

12,471

78.4

2.1

19.5

Puerto Rico

9,800

685

273

91.1

6.4

2.5

Rhode Island

2,793

317

1,727

57.7

6.6

35.7

South Carolina

4,692

0

5,597

45.6

0.0

54.4

South Dakota

629

0

2,353

21.1

0.0

78.9

Tennessee

20,964

149

17,245

54.7

0.4

45.0

Texas

7,348

0

23,978

23.5

0.0

76.5

Utah

1,639

0

2,071

44.2

0.0

55.8

Vermont

1,446

331

1,443

44.9

10.3

44.8

Virgin Islands

307

0

43

87.7

0.0

12.3

Virginia

14,422

0

10,559

57.7

0.0

42.3

Washington

16,153

2,862

14,962

47.5

8.4

44.0

West Virginia

2,737

0

4,860

36.0

0.0

64.0

Wisconsin

11,389

801

11,557

48.0

3.4

48.7

Wyoming

109

3

212

33.6

0.9

65.4

       

 

 

 

Totals

869,973

139,248

608,930

53.8

8.6

37.6

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.

Table B-7. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, All Families, FY2013

State

Statutory Standard

Caseload Reduction Credit

Adjusted Standard (Statutory Standard Minus Caseload Reduction Credit)

Work Participation Rate

Met Standard? (WPR Equals or Exceeds Adjusted Standard

Alabama

50.0%

19.6%

30.4%

48.8%

Yes

Alaska

50.0

7.8

42.2

42.8

Yes

Arizona

50.0

37.9

12.1

20.8

Yes

Arkansas

50.0

50.0

0.0

39.5

Yes

California

50.0

0.0

50.0

25.1

No

Colorado

50.0

9.7

40.3

24.2

No

Connecticut

50.0

27.2

22.8

47.8

Yes

Delaware

50.0

30.7

19.3

39.3

Yes

District of Col.

50.0

6.7

43.3

44.3

Yes

Florida

50.0

16.6

33.4

44.6

Yes

Georgia

50.0

50.0

0.0

61.9

Yes

Guam

50.0

0.0

50.0

35.5

No

Hawaii

50.0

50.0

0.0

46.8

Yes

Idaho

50.0

0.0

50.0

51.1

Yes

Illinois

50.0

0.0

50.0

69.0

Yes

Indiana

50.0

25.5

24.5

32.8

Yes

Iowa

50.0

30.3

19.7

36.4

Yes

Kansas

50.0

43.5

6.5

32.5

Yes

Kentucky

50.0

19.4

30.6

54.7

Yes

Louisiana

50.0

47.2

2.8

23.6

Yes

Maine

50.0

0.0

50.0

76.6

Yes

Maryland

50.0

19.5

30.5

50.4

Yes

Massachusetts

50.0

5.5

44.5

47.4

Yes

Michigan

50.0

0.0

50.0

53.3

Yes

Minnesota

50.0

11.6

38.4

45.1

Yes

Mississippi

50.0

0.0

50.0

63.0

Yes

Missouri

50.0

26.9

23.1

22.4

No

Montana

50.0

10.8

39.2

40.2

Yes

Nebraska

50.0

50.0

0.0

51.3

Yes

Nevada

50.0

0.0

50.0

36.4

No

New Hampshire

50.0

0.0

50.0

76.3

Yes

New Jersey

50.0

44.6

5.4

21.8

Yes

New Mexico

50.0

29.4

20.6

51.7

Yes

New York

50.0

31.4

18.6

32.5

Yes

North Carolina

50.0

30.2

19.8

43.8

Yes

North Dakota

50.0

42.2

7.8

74.1

Yes

Ohio

50.0

0.0

50.0

50.9

Yes

Oklahoma

50.0

29.2

20.8

27.1

Yes

Oregon

50.0

0.0

50.0

46.5

No

Pennsylvania

50.0

19.4

30.6

25.8

No

Puerto Rico

50.0

4.7

45.3

21.5

No

Rhode Island

50.0

43.9

6.1

11.6

Yes

South Carolina

50.0

20.8

29.2

31.9

Yes

South Dakota

50.0

0.0

50.0

57.3

Yes

Tennessee

50.0

29.4

20.6

28.6

Yes

Texas

50.0

47.8

2.2

20.2

Yes

Utah

50.0

38.1

11.9

29.9

Yes

Vermont

50.0

8.5

41.5

39.3

No

Virgin Islands

50.0

50.0

0.0

16.0

Yes

Virginia

50.0

15.4

34.6

43.1

Yes

Washington

50.0

28.9

21.1

13.3

No

West Virginia

50.0

20.9

29.1

36.5

Yes

Wisconsin

50.0

0.0

50.0

33.8

No

Wyoming

50.0

1.6

48.4

78.6

Yes

           

Met Standard

     

43

Failed Standard

     

11

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Table B-8. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, Two-Parent Families, FY2013  

Statutory Standard

Caseload Reduction Credit

Adjusted Standard (Statutory Standard Minus Caseload Reduction Credit

Work Participation Rate

Met Standard? (WPR Equals or Exceeds Adjusted Standard

Alabama

90.0%

49.1%

40.9%

44.6%

Yes

Alaska

90.0

18.5

71.5

46.8

No

Arizona

90.0

37.9

52.1

54.5

Yes

Arkansas

90.0

50.2

39.8

22.0

No

California

90.0

0.0

90.0

30.9

No

Colorado

90.0

9.7

80.3

17.8

No

Connecticut

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Delaware

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

District of Col.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Florida

90.0

46.5

43.5

51.2

Yes

Georgia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Guam

90.0

0.0

90.0

59.3

No

Hawaii

90.0

52.1

37.9

57.0

Yes

Idaho

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Illinois

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Indiana

90.0

67.9

22.1

22.6

Yes

Iowa

90.0

56.2

33.8

28.7

No

Kansas

90.0

43.5

46.5

35.2

No

Kentucky

90.0

28.6

61.4

52.4

No

Louisiana

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Maine

90.0

0.0

90.0

12.6

No

Maryland

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Massachusetts

90.0

5.5

84.5

95.8

Yes

Michigan

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Minnesota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Mississippi

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Missouri

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Montana

90.0

10.8

79.2

37.5

No

Nebraska

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Nevada

90.0

0.0

90.0

40.3

No

New Hampshire

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

New Jersey

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

New Mexico

90.0

29.4

60.6

61.6

Yes

New York

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

North Carolina

90.0

30.2

59.8

61.5

Yes

North Dakota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ohio

90.0

0.0

90.0

57.0

No

Oklahoma

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Oregon

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pennsylvania

90.0

52.2

37.8

48.2

Yes

Puerto Rico

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Rhode Island

90.0

43.9

46.1

7.4

No

South Carolina

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

South Dakota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Tennessee

90.0

29.4

60.6

6.8

No

Texas

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Utah

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Vermont

90.0

8.5

81.5

49.8

No

Virgin Islands

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Virginia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Washington

90.0

28.9

61.1

12.6

No

West Virginia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Wisconsin

90.0

0.0

90.0

26.1

No

Wyoming

90.0

1.6

88.4

80.2

No

           

Met Standard

     

9

Failed Standard

     

18

Not Applicable (No Two-Parent Families)

 

27

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Notes: NA denotes that the state does not have two-parent families in their TANF or MOE programs.

Author Contact Information

[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Social Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

1.

The extension of program authority and funding for TANF is contained in Section 230 of Division H of the public law.

2.

TANF also bars aid to fleeing felons and people convicted of welfare fraud by misrepresenting their state of residence. For an overview of rules for TANF, as well as those for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and housing assistance programs related to drug testing and crime-related issues, see CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by [author name scrubbed] et al.

3.

States are not required to report to the federal government their cash assistance benefit amounts in either the TANF state plan (under Section 402 of the Social Security Act) or in annual program reports (under Section 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.

In 2013, the HHS poverty guidelines for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia for a family of 3 was $1,628 per month. Higher poverty lines applied in Alaska ($2,034 per month for a family of 3) and Hawaii ($1,873 per month for a family of 3).

5.

Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

6.

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.