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
- Table 1. Federal Funding for TANF Grants: FY2008 Through FY2015
- Table 2. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars
- Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: March 2015
- Table 4. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2013
- Table 5. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2013
- Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006
- Table A-2. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2015
- Table A-3. Uses of Federal TANF and State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Dollars, FY2014
- Table A-4. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2014
- Table A-5. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category, Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2013
- Table B-1. Use of FY2014 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
- Table B-2. Use of FY2014 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding
- Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2014
- Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by State, March 2015
- Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Assistance by State, March of Selected Years
- Table B-6. TANF Families by Number of Parents by State: March 2015
- Table B-7. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, All Families, FY2013
- Table B-8. TANF Caseload Reduction Credits, Effective (After Credit) Standards, and Work Participation Rates by State, Two-Parent Families, FY2013
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
|
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.
|