< Back to Current Version

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

Changes from March 18, 2016 to June 9, 2016

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


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

March 18June 9, 2016 (RL32760)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Tables

Summary

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS In Focus IF10036, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant, by [author name scrubbed]).

TANF Funding. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk of which is provided in a $16.5 billion-per-year basic federal block grant. States are also required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement.

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

Cash Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.6 million families, composed of 4.1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in MarchSeptember 2015. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.93.0 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, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant, by [author name scrubbed].

Current Topics

What Is TANF's Current Funding Status?

P.L. 114-113 (The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016) extends TANF funding through September 30, 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 FY2008 through FY2016. 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.

FY2016 funding for TANF grants is the same as in FY2015. As was the case in the prior year, a total of $583 million is available for FY2016 contingency fund grants to states, compared with $610 million in FY2014.

Table 1. Federal Funding for TANF Grants: FY2008 Through FY2015

FY2016

(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. Aside from Funding, Has There Been Congressional Action on TANF Legislation in the 114th Congress?2

In May 2016, the House Ways and Means Committee approved six bills related to the TANF block grant. The bills include separate demonstration projects of social impact partnerships and subsidized employment, as well as four bills altering specific provisions of TANF.

H.R. 5170 would establish a mechanism through which state and local governments could apply to the Secretary of the Treasury for demonstration projects, which would be called "social impact partnership projects." These projects would use funds provided through philanthropic and other private-sector partnerships to finance social programs to meet specified social goals. The government would "pay off" investors only when a program evaluation demonstrates that desired outcomes are met. These programs would be funded at $100 million, financed from a set-aside from FY2017 TANF contingency funds.

H.R. 2990 would create a demonstration project for subsidized employment programs for TANF assistance families. Subsidized employment programs are those where public funds are used to pay all or part of the wages, benefits, and other costs of employing an individual. Subsidized employment can be a part of TANF programs under current law. However, except for a brief period when such programs were financed from special funds enacted in response to the 2007-2009 recession, subsidized employment has been little used in TANF. The subsidized employment demonstration is funded at $100 million, financed from an additional set-aside from FY2017 TANF contingency funds.

The House Ways and Means Committee also reported four additional TANF bills: H.R. 2959 would alter the rules for the TANF state spending requirement, H.R. 2966 would add reducing child poverty as a statutory TANF goal, H.R. 2952 would establish new employment outcome performance measures for TANF, and H.R. 5169 would continue TANF research and create a "what works" database of welfare initiatives and research.

For more detail on these bills, see CRS Report R44518, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Legislation in the 114th Congress.

May States Require Drug Testing of TANF Cash Assistance Recipients?

Yes. The 1996 welfare reform reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for assistance recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104-193.) However, specific state policies regarding drug testing raise constitutional issues. 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 al. See also CRS Report R42326, Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits, by [author name scrubbed].

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

3

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.

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?

On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would accept applications for "waivers" of the TANF work participation standards. In general, these are waivers of the way the performance of state welfare-to-work programs are assessed, the 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].

Has Any State Formally Applied for a "Waiver" of TANF Work Participation Standards?

As of March 16, 2016, one state (Ohio) had requested a waiver of TANF work participation 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" 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.

Funding and Expenditures

How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation?

From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2015 (ended September 30, 2015), the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 32.5%. Table 2 shows the impact of inflation on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2015. On average, the TANF basic block grant has lost 2.2% of its value each year over that period.

Table 2. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars

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.

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.

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" 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 FY2014. In FY2014, a total of $31.9 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 26% ($8.4 billion) of total FY2014 TANF and MOE dollars.

TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2014, 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 accounting system does not 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. 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.

How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent?

TANF law permits states to "reserve" unused funds without time limit. This permits flexibility in timing of the use of TANF funds, including the ability to "save" funds for unexpected occurrences that might increase costs (such as recessions or natural disasters).

At the end of FY2014 (September 30, 2014, the latest data currently available), a total of $3.4 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 FY2014, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.7 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" 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 FY2014, states had $1.6 billion of "unobligated balances." These funds are available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 shows unspent TANF funds by state.

The Caseload

How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services?

This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving only ongoing basic (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 26% of all TANF expenditures. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving "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 MOE-Funded Cash Assistance?

Table 3 provides cash assistance caseload information. A total of 1.6 million families, composed of 4.1 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in MarchSeptember 2015. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.93.0 million in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance caseloads, see Table B-4.

Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: March September 2015

Total Families

1,618,151

599,180

Total Recipients

4,067,509

134,430

Total Adults

1,120,809

160,309

Total Children

2,946,700

974,121

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 MarchSeptember 2015. Before 1997, 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 1.7 million families in August 2008, peaking in December 2010 at close to 2.0 million families. By MarchIn September 2015, the cash assistance caseload had declined to a new post welfare reform low of 1.6 million families.

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-MarchSeptember 2015

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

Notes: Shaded areas denote 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 MarchSeptember 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, 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" 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 FY2013, families with an unemployed adult recipient represented 45% of all cash assistance families. This decline occurred, in large part, as the number of families headed by unemployed adult recipients 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 FY2013, families with employed adult recipients represented 17% of all cash assistance families. "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 FY2013 was 38%. In FY2013, families with a non-recipient, non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles) represented 13% 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 FY2013.

Figure 3. Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families,
Selected Years FY1988 to 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].

TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month?

There are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a family. (There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash benefits, though all states do so.) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the states.

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 2013.34 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-parent family with two children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types such as two-parent families or "child-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

5

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 Welfare Rules 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].

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.56 There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a state's caseload, requiring 90% of the state's two-parent caseload to meet participation standards. States that fail the TANF work participation standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant amounts.

However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a "caseload reduction credit." The caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard one percentage point for each percentage point decline in a state's caseload. Additionally, under a regulatory provision, a state may get "extra" credit for caseload reduction if it spends more than required under the TANF MOE. Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% and 90% targets, and vary by state and by year.

States that fail to meet the TANF work participation standard are at risk of being penalized through a reduction in their block grant. However, penalties can be forgiven if a state claims, and the Secretary of HHS finds, that it had "reasonable cause" for failing the standard. Penalties can also be forgiven for states that enter into "corrective compliance plans," and subsequently meet the work standard.

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 "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" for caseload increases affecting the work participation standards for FY2009 through FY2011. It did so by allowing states to "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 "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's caseload reduction credit).

Figure 5 shows the national average all-families work participation rate for FY2002 through FY2013. For the period FY2002 through FY2011, states 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 the caseload reduction credit enacted in ARRA expired. 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 FY2013?

Table 4 shows which states failed the TANF all-families work participation standards from FY2002 through FY2013. Before FY2007, only a few jurisdictions failed to meet TANF all-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 9 in FY2008 and 8 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" of the caseload reduction credit expired, and states were generally required to meet higher standards than in previous years.

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" standard, see Table B-7.

Table 4. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2013

(Changes to TANF Work Participation Standard Rules Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [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.67 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-FY2013

("Yes" indicates a state met the standard; "No" indicates the state failed to meet the standard; and "NA" means the standard was not applicable to the state in that year [no two-parent families in its caseload].)

 

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. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2015

FY2016

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

PercentPercentage 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 PercentPercentage of All Children

As a PercentPercentage 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, 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

Percentage 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 TANF and MOE Funds by Category

(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 PercentPercentage of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding

 

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work

Child Care

Other Work Supports

Other Expenditures

Total

Alabama

21.0%

4.4%

11.4%

2.9%

2.2%

58.0%

100.0%

Alaska

46.0

5.5

14.5

28.7

1.4

3.9

100.0

Arizona

9.0

9.9

2.3

3.6

0.4

74.8

100.0

Arkansas

7.9

9.5

12.1

0.3

1.6

68.7

100.0

California

45.9

8.5

8.6

11.9

2.9

22.3

100.0

Colorado

25.1

6.5

0.7

0.3

2.3

65.2

100.0

Connecticut

16.8

7.7

3.6

7.9

1.0

63.0

100.0

Delaware

20.1

5.9

6.2

57.7

0.4

9.8

100.0

District of Columbia

22.8

3.2

13.1

21.1

7.9

31.8

100.0

Florida

16.6

4.1

5.1

33.8

0.1

40.3

100.0

Georgia

8.4

3.4

2.1

4.4

2.1

79.6

100.0

Hawaii

22.2

6.0

36.7

7.6

1.4

26.1

100.0

Idaho

14.4

11.0

12.4

25.6

0.5

36.1

100.0

Illinois

6.3

2.1

1.8

58.2

3.7

27.8

100.0

Indiana

8.8

7.0

5.6

29.0

12.2

37.4

100.0

Iowa

22.8

3.7

8.3

20.5

12.2

32.5

100.0

Kansas

14.3

6.4

0.3

12.4

32.0

34.5

100.0

Kentucky

51.1

4.4

13.1

12.1

7.5

11.7

100.0

Louisiana

9.3

9.0

2.4

4.6

8.6

66.1

100.0

Maine

52.9

3.6

12.5

6.6

14.2

10.2

100.0

Maryland

19.6

9.3

7.3

3.1

27.4

33.3

100.0

Massachusetts

26.6

3.1

0.6

29.4

10.4

29.8

100.0

Michigan

12.0

11.5

4.5

2.2

4.0

65.8

100.0

Minnesota

15.6

8.4

12.0

26.1

29.4

8.4

100.0

Mississippi

14.5

3.6

32.8

19.2

13.1

16.7

100.0

Missouri

21.2

1.2

6.0

10.4

0.0

61.2

100.0

Montana

29.9

11.8

21.0

19.9

0.0

17.4

100.0

Nebraska

20.1

3.3

15.6

20.2

32.1

8.7

100.0

Nevada

50.9

11.3

1.3

0.0

1.4

35.1

100.0

New Hampshire

35.1

18.8

10.7

13.0

2.0

20.5

100.0

New Jersey

16.9

5.2

7.5

8.8

15.7

46.0

100.0

New Mexico

22.0

3.5

6.1

16.9

22.2

29.4

100.0

New York

30.5

5.9

2.9

7.7

26.1

26.9

100.0

North Carolina

8.9

8.1

5.6

28.6

9.0

39.9

100.0

North Dakota

12.5

10.7

10.5

2.7

3.6

60.1

100.0

Ohio

25.1

14.3

6.6

35.5

1.0

17.5

100.0

Oklahoma

9.3

12.9

0.0

32.1

13.7

32.0

100.0

Oregon

41.1

13.9

5.4

4.0

0.6

35.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

24.2

6.8

8.1

38.9

0.9

21.1

100.0

Rhode Island

13.2

6.2

5.8

13.6

7.4

53.7

100.0

South Carolina

8.1

6.8

5.5

1.5

0.8

77.4

100.0

South Dakota

61.2

10.7

16.2

-13.6

0.4

25.1

100.0

Tennessee

30.5

12.2

14.4

16.6

0.0

26.3

100.0

Texas

7.2

6.3

10.1

3.0

0.5

72.8

100.0

Utah

26.2

6.1

29.8

14.4

0.0

23.6

100.0

Vermont

20.0

8.6

0.1

30.0

28.5

12.8

100.0

Virginia

34.4

7.4

18.0

13.5

2.8

23.9

100.0

Washington

18.6

6.7

16.9

16.2

0.4

41.2

100.0

West Virginia

21.7

20.4

1.1

8.4

22.3

26.1

100.0

Wisconsin

22.9

4.2

4.5

33.4

10.0

24.9

100.0

Wyoming

10.8

25.2

9.2

1.8

0.0

53.0

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

26.5

7.1

6.8

16.1

9.5

34.1

100.0

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

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

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

(September 30, 2014, in millions of dollars)

State

Obligated but not Spent

Unobligated

Total Unspent Funds

Alabama

$2.9

$30.7

$33.6

Alaska

0.0

63.4

63.4

Arizona

0.4

0.0

0.4

Arkansas

0.0

49.5

49.5

California

89.4

0.0

89.4

Colorado

14.0

7.7

21.7

Connecticut

0.2

6.3

6.4

Delaware

0.8

7.7

8.5

District of Columbia

2.0

80.7

82.7

Florida

34.3

0.0

34.3

Georgia

34.9

42.5

77.4

Hawaii

3.8

86.7

90.5

Idaho

30.3

0.0

30.3

Illinois

0.0

14.4

14.4

Indiana

301.1

2.6

303.7

Iowa

16.2

11.6

27.7

Kansas

10.7

42.1

52.8

Kentucky

0.0

4.4

4.4

Louisiana

0.0

0.0

0.0

Maine

0.0

58.8

58.8

Maryland

0.0

0.0

0.0

Massachusetts

0.0

0.0

0.0

Michigan

0.0

38.9

38.9

Minnesota

60.5

69.6

130.2

Mississippi

0.0

21.2

21.2

Missouri

9.7

0.0

9.7

Montana

41.8

0.0

41.8

Nebraska

0.2

56.1

56.3

Nevada

6.5

0.0

6.5

New Hampshire

0.0

29.3

29.3

New Jersey

29.5

13.9

43.5

New Mexico

75.2

0.0

75.2

New York

171.6

20.9

192.5

North Carolina

201.1

3.5

204.6

North Dakota

0.0

14.1

14.1

Ohio

197.6

79.6

277.2

Oklahoma

61.8

0.0

61.8

Oregon

0.0

0.0

0.0

Pennsylvania

65.6

355.4

421.0

Rhode Island

12.1

0.0

12.1

South Carolina

0.0

35.5

35.5

South Dakota

0.0

19.4

19.4

Tennessee

0.0

153.1

153.1

Texas

188.7

0.0

188.7

Utah

0.0

116.0

116.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

0.0

Virginia

0.7

53.6

54.3

Washington

65.0

0.0

65.0

West Virginia

0.0

3.7

3.7

Wisconsin

0.0

5.0

5.0

Wyoming

1.9

23.9

25.7

 

 

 

 

Total

1,730.1

1,622.0

3,352.1

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

Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by State, MarchSeptember 2015

State

Families

Recipients

Children

Adults

Alabama

13,419

12,497

31,205

28,935

24,162

22,575

7,043

6,360

Alaska

3,170

067

8,589

112

5,772

530

2,817

582

Arizona

11,073

080

23,939

352

18,017

17,861

5,922

491

Arkansas

4,768

399

10,606

9,901

7,792

308

2,814

593

California

616,628

622,144

1,728,256

828,933

1,216,670

266,249

511,586

562,684

Colorado

17,372

16,409

45,948

43,056

32,283

30,382

13,665

12,674

Connecticut

13,086

12,617

26,208

25,191

18,556

17,873

7,652

318

Delaware

4,525

437

12,717

544

7,739

661

4,978

883

District of Columbia

5,830

6,100

14,338

15,240

10,804

11,402

3,534

838

Florida

48,376

433

83,013

81,521

68,935

388

14,078

13,133

Georgia

13,070

144

25,096

786

22,530

23,089

2,566

697

Guam

1,076

031

2,402

271

1,920

836

482

435

Hawaii

7,711

102

22,084

20,262

14,810

13,672

7,274

6,590

Idaho

1,838

881

2,684

763

2,615

688

69

75

Illinois

19,211

17,123

43,308

38,585

35,603

31,952

7,705

6,633

Indiana

9,193

8,709

18,350

17,463

16,568

15,712

1,782

751

Iowa

13,627

12,695

33,864

31,387

24,282

22,799

9,582

8,588

Kansas

6,095

5,772

14,312

13,534

10,699

198

3,613

336

Kentucky

25,347

24,012

49,986

47,374

40,881

38,986

9,105

8,388

Louisiana

5,102

419

11,287

12,481

9,967

10,762

1,320

719

Maine

19,388

20,699

40,335

66,323

22,678

39,867

17,657

26,456

Maryland

18,991

836

45,463

102

33,975

722

11,488

380

Massachusetts

58,491

118

137,738

138,654

93,942

94,544

43,796

44,110

Michigan

21,471

19,236

51,717

47,291

40,210

37,049

11,507

10,242

Minnesota

18,867

19,310

42,573

44,705

33,804

35,003

8,769

9,702

Mississippi

6,690

468

13,201

004

10,177

060

3,024

2,944

Missouri

28,024

26,478

67,963

64,257

47,110

44,662

20,853

19,595

Montana

2,820

3,377

6,687

7,348

5,115

606

1,572

742

Nebraska

5,604

424

13,307

242

10,984

955

2,323

287

Nevada

10,795

462

27,787

26,955

20,652

182

7,135

6,773

New Hampshire

5,512

318

13,280

12,991

9,131

8,992

4,149

3,999

New Jersey

24,580

21,644

57,343

49,958

42,161

36,973

15,182

12,985

New Mexico

11,841

861

29,535

825

22,034

273

7,501

552

New York

149,249

148,436

384,319

382,926

273,605

271,226

110,714

111,700

North Carolina

9,723

13,518

19,433

26,034

15,620

21,780

3,813

4,254

North Dakota

1,180

124

2,923

745

2,384

255

539

490

Ohio

59,611

086

112,481

111,557

96,852

399

15,629

158

Oklahoma

6,971

7,180

15,279

992

13,042

671

2,237

321

Oregon

57,392

55,271

172,571

168,167

108,524

105,750

64,047

62,417

Pennsylvania

63,978

62,676

158,450

156,275

114,916

113,123

43,534

152

Puerto Rico

10,758

057

29,499

27,507

18,298

17,086

11,201

10,421

Rhode Island

4,837

524

11,514

10,692

8,142

7,685

3,372

007

South Carolina

10,289

246

23,119

023

18,638

627

4,481

396

South Dakota

2,982

3,010

5,849

881

5,220

278

629

603

Tennessee

38,358

34,181

88,834

78,078

66,613

59,416

22,221

18,662

Texas

31,326

602

67,562

68,760

60,214

802

7,348

958

Utah

3,710

845

9,084

491

6,658

919

2,426

572

Vermont

3,220

274

7,378

489

5,254

271

2,124

218

Virgin Islands

350

330

1,100

030

749

697

351

333

Virginia

24,981

651

54,279

53,938

40,160

016

14,119

13,922

Washington

33,977

31,707

76,125

70,896

54,034

50,501

22,091

20,395

West Virginia

7,597

457

15,809

502

12,306

096

3,503

406

Wisconsin

23,747

21,332

56,129

49,339

42,357

38,110

13,772

11,229

Wyoming

324

371

651

762

536

602

115

160
 

 

 

 

 

Totals

1,618,151

599,180

4,067,509

134,430

2,946,700

974,121

1,120,809

160,309

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, MarchSeptember of Selected Years

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage Changechange to 2015 from:

State

1994

2007

2010

2014

2015

1994

2010

2013

2014

Alabama

51,217

48,752

18,005

104

20,740

23,052

17,232

15,321

13,419

12,497

-73.8%

74.4

-35.3%

45.8

-22.1%

18.4

Alaska

13,209

12,450

3,376

127

3,296

507

3,681

252

3,170

067

-76.0

75.4

-3.8

12.5

-13.9

5.7

Arizona

71,713

72,728

35,617

36,934

35,227

18,774

12,558

551

11,073

080

-84.6

8

-68.6

41.0

-11.8

7

Arkansas

26,355

25,298

8,600

472

8,492

469

5,963

629

4,768

399

-81.9

82.6

-43.9

48.1

-20.0

21.9

California

916,427

795

471,775

470,502

576,355

590,121

537,178

528,764

616,628

622,144

-32.7

1

7.0

5.4

14.8

17.7

Colorado

42,541

40,544

11,149

9,355

11,785

707

16,960

17,381

17,372

16,409

-59.2

5

47.4

40.2

2.4

-5.6

Connecticut

59,351

60,336

20,890

322

17,261

16,848

14,421

311

13,086

12,617

-78.0

79.1

-24.2

25.1

-9.3

11.8

Delaware

11,592

408

4,027

034

5,089

508

4,627

641

4,525

437

-61.0

1

-11.1

19.4

-2.2

4.4

District of Columbia

27,047

320

5,748

6,231

9,786

8,547

6,336

7,038

5,830

6,100

-78.4

77.7

-40.4

28.6

-8.0

13.3

Florida

248,514

239,702

47,337

46,864

57,471

742

49,391

811

48,376

433

-80.5

79.8

-15.8

16.1

-2.1

8

Georgia

141,859

596

24,681

23,600

20,464

133

15,280

14,160

13,070

144

-90.8

7

-36.1

34.7

-14.5

7.2

Guam

1,863

2,089

931

936

1,245

276

1,254

142

1,076

031

-42.2

50.6

-13.6

19.2

-14.2

9.7

Hawaii

20,395

21,312

6,410

426

9,630

953

8,441

141

7,711

102

-62.2

66.7

-19.9

28.6

-8.6

12.8

Idaho

9,016

8,635

1,661

506

1,742

820

1,859

918

1,838

881

-79.6

78.2

5.5

3.4

-1.1

9

Illinois

241,817

290

31,397

26,222

21,973

24,337

20,206

19,722

19,211

17,123

-92.1

9

-1229.6

-4.9

13.2

Indiana

74,843

72,654

41,226

42,058

35,915

36,062

10,614

9,913

9,193

8,709

-87.7

88.0

-74.4

75.8

-13.4

12.1

Iowa

40,676

39,137

20,082

19,872

21,345

548

15,784

14,488

13,627

12,695

-66.5

67.6

-36.2

41.1

-13.7

12.4

Kansas

30,591

29,524

14,550

13,892

14,202

15,554

7,027

6,707

6,095

5,772

-80.1

4

-57.1

62.9

-13.3

9

Kentucky

81,141

78,720

29,788

492

30,028

875

28,785

27,244

25,347

24,012

-68.8

69.5

-15.6

22.2

-11.9

Louisiana

88,059

84,162

10,730

11,023

10,273

849

5,604

565

5,102

419

-94.2

93.6

-50.3

1

-9.0

2.6

Maine

23,231

22,322

12,736

352

14,942

15,377

25,658

24,213

19,388

20,699

-16.5

7.3

29.8

34.6

-24.4

14.5

Maryland

81,253

80,266

19,077

630

24,052

25,110

20,369

625

18,991

836

-76.6

5

-2125.0

-6.8

8.7

Massachusetts

112,803

108,985

44,579

46,483

49,062

836

69,408

64,358

58,491

118

-48.1

46.7

19.2

16.6

-159.7

Michigan

227,114

215,873

75,173

71,892

70,633

67,241

26,486

24,478

21,471

19,236

-90.5

91.1

-69.6

71.4

-18.9

21.4

Minnesota

64,055

59,987

26,513

642

24,048

574

21,920

369

18,867

19,310

-70.5

67.8

-21.5

4

-13.9

9.6

Mississippi

56,420

55,232

11,210

658

11,805

895

8,637

090

6,690

468

-88.1

3

-43.3

45.6

-22.5

20.0

Missouri

93,735

91,875

39,577

544

38,847

39,262

30,641

28,838

28,024

26,478

-70.1

71.2

-27.9

32.6

-8.5

2

Montana

12,278

11,416

3,184

217

3,742

686

2,996

3,069

2,820

3,377

-77.0

70.4

-24.6

8.4

-5.9

10.0

Nebraska

16,323

15,435

7,426

6,913

8,539

702

6,082

5,967

5,604

424

-65.7

64.9

-34.4

37.7

-7.9

9.1

Nevada

14,011

620

6,424

7,411

10,365

612

11,961

12,798

10,795

462

-23.0

28.4

4.1

-1.4

-9.7

18.3

New Hampshire

11,574

398

5,183

4,733

6,247

175

5,876

765

5,512

318

-52.4

53.3

-11.8

13.9

-6.2

7.8

New Jersey

123,025

122,376

34,884

123

33,047

34,516

28,154

27,136

24,580

21,644

-80.0

82.3

-25.6

37.3

-12.7

20.2

New Mexico

33,847

34,535

14,017

12,503

19,342

21,223

12,693

13,898

11,841

861

-65.0

7

-38.8

44.1

-614.7

New York

457,660

461,751

159,447

156,420

156,188

154,936

151,233

149,319

149,249

148,436

-67.4

9

-4.4

2

-1.3

0.6

North Carolina

134,063

129,258

25,509

24,537

24,382

23,705

16,688

11,485

9,723

13,518

-92.7

89.5

-60.1

43.0

-4117.7

North Dakota

6,079

5,410

2,016

156

2,037

1,996

1,280

229

1,180

124

-80.6

79.2

-42.1

43.7

-7.8

8.5

Ohio

254,021

244,099

77,624

78,129

103,012

105,140

62,519

143

59,611

086

-76.5

75.8

-42.1

43.8

-4.7

9

Oklahoma

47,428

46,572

9,283

002

9,315

388

6,987

7,296

6,971

7,180

-85.3

84.6

-25.2

23.5

-0.2

1.6

Oregon

43,617

40,504

18,872

645

30,199

31,751

45,233

55,441

57,392

55,271

31.6

36.5

90.0

74.1

26.9

-0.3

Pennsylvania

211,771

212,457

63,637

60,167

51,085

53,274

68,008

69,469

63,978

62,676

-69.8

70.5

25.2

17.6

-5.9

9.8

Puerto Rico

58,869

57,337

13,809

12,617

13,581

371

12,079

11,557

10,758

057

-81.7

82.5

-2024.8

-10.9

13.0

Rhode Island

22,872

776

8,296

107

7,505

6,758

5,523

278

4,837

524

-78.9

80.1

-35.5

33.1

-12.4

14.3

South Carolina

53,260

50,430

15,652

14,936

17,934

19,347

11,089

016

10,289

246

-8079.7

-42.6

47.0

-7.2

0

South Dakota

7,129

6,601

2,825

842

3,209

291

3,117

068

2,982

3,010

-58.2

54.4

-7.1

8.5

-4.3

1.9

Tennessee

111,740

109,678

62,395

58,244

61,685

62,714

47,691

43,907

38,358

34,181

-65.7

68.8

-37.8

45.5

-19.6

22.2

Texas

286,613

284,973

61,566

59,972

49,871

51,931

35,950

129

31,326

602

-89.1

88.9

-37.2

39.1

-12.9

10.0

Utah

17,908

505

5,146

069

6,724

646

4,276

144

3,710

845

-79.3

78.0

-44.8

42.1

-137.2

Vermont

9,988

761

4,463

503

3,106

256

3,400

501

3,220

274

-67.8

66.5

3.7

0.6

-5.3

6.5

Virgin Islands

1,078

146

440

395

507

537

420

398

350

330

-67.5

71.2

-31.0

38.5

-16.7

17.1

Virginia

75,854

74,257

31,354

563

36,744

37,448

27,437

26,762

24,981

651

-67.1

66.8

-32.0

34.2

-9.0

7.9

Washington

104,326

101,542

52,292

49,076

69,637

70,200

42,521

36,902

33,977

31,707

-67.4

68.8

-51.2

54.8

-2014.1

West Virginia

41,521

40,279

9,774

699

9,690

10,496

8,535

313

7,597

457

-81.7

5

-21.6

29.0

-11.0

10.3

Wisconsin

78,739

75,086

17,211

824

21,353

24,746

27,271

26,956

23,747

21,332

-69.8

71.6

11.2

-13.8

-1220.9

Wyoming

5,857

351

273

255

352

318

363

294

324

371

-94.5

93.1

-8.0

16.7

-10.7

26.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

5,098,288

015,545

1,749,847

720,231

1,905,106

926,140

1,635,702

601,910

1,618,151

599,180

-68.3

1

-15.1

17.0

-1.1

0.2 Table B-6. TANF Cash Assistance Families by Number of Parents by State: September

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

100.0

1.3

54.8

7.8

75.2

58.4

2.6

9.9

 

 

 

 

 

As a Percentage of Total TANF Assistance Families

State

Single Parent

Two Parents

Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Single Parent

Two Parents

Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Alabama

6,870

243

128

99

6,421

155

12,497

51.250.0%

1.00.8%

47.949.3% 100.0%

Alaska

1,926

903

411

306

833

858

60.8

3,067

62.0

1310.0

26.3

28.0

100.0

Arizona

5,177

4,812

292

273

5,604

995

11,080

46.8

43.4

2.6

5

54.1

50.6

100.0

Arkansas

2,649

432

105

97

1,870

2,014

4,399

55.6

3

2.2

42.2

5

100.0

California

335,363

340,198

121,246

111,031

160,700

170,234

622,144

54.4

7

19.5

18.0

25.8

27.6

100.0

Colorado

10,053

9,452

1,484

309

5,835

648

16,409

57.9

6

8.5

0

34.4

33.6

100.0

Connecticut

7,574

259

0

5,512

358

12,617

57.9

5

0.0

42.1

5

100.0

Delaware

1,369

329

16

22

3,140

086

4,437

30.3

0

0.4

5

69.4

6

100.0

District of Columbia

3,611

899

0

2,219

201

6,100

6163.9

0.0

38.1

36.1

100.0

Florida

10,401

9,295

599

533

38,605

37,376

48,433

21.5

19.2

1.2

1

79.7

77.3

100.0

Georgia

2,478

604

0

10,592

540

13,144

19.0

8

0.0

8180.2 100.0

Guam

344

236

84

98

711

634

1,031

32.0

22.9

98.1

58.9

69.0

100.0

Hawaii

4,383

066

1,794

576

1,534

460

56.8

7,102

2357.3

19.9

22.2

20.6

Idaho

67

72

0

1,771

809

1,881

3.6

8

0.0

96.4

2

100.0

Illinois

6,729

5,775

0

12,482

11,348

17,123

35.0

33.7

0.0

6566.3 100.0

Indiana

2,143

156

146

115

6,904

438

238,709

24.8

1.6

73.9

75.1

100.0

Iowa

7,732

6,960

850

735

5,045

000

12,695

56.7

5.8

6.2

39.4

37100.0

Kansas

2,743

590

392

337

2,960

845

5,772

45.0

44.9

6.4

5.8

48.6

49.3

100.0

Kentucky

7,795

275

615

521

16,937

216

24,012

30.8

3

2.4

2

67.5

66.8

100.0

Louisiana

1,285

684

0

3,817

735

25.2

5,419

31.1

0.0

74.8

68.9

100.0

Maine

16,739

11,074

472

7,670

1,955

2,177

20,699

86.3

53.5

37.1

29.4

11.2

100.0

Maryland

11,538

445

0

7,453

391

18,836

60.8

0.0

39.2

100.0

Massachusetts

36,162

38,355

4,061

021

15,742

18,268

58,118

61.8

66.0

6.9

31.2

27.1

100.0

Michigan

10,532

9,005

0

10,939

231

19,236

49.1

46.8

0.0

50.9

53.2

100.0

Minnesota

8,879

9,818

0

9,988

492

19,310

47.1

50.8

0.0

52.9

49.2

100.0

Mississippi

2,994

907

0

3,696

561

6,468

44.8

9

0.0

55.2

1

100.0

Missouri

21,317

20,223

0

6,707

255

26,478

76.1

4

0.0

23.9

6

100.0

Montana

1,384

502

266

278

1,170

597

3,377

49.1

44.5

9.4

8.2

41.5

47.3

100.0

Nebraska

2,438

408

0

3,166

016

5,424

43.5

44.4

0.0

56.5

55.6

100.0

Nevada

4,776

642

1,100

995

4,919

825

10,462

44.2

4

10.2

9.5

45.6

46.1

100.0

New Hampshire

4,038

3,874

40

38

1,434

406

5,318

73.3

72.8

0.7

26.4 100.0

New Jersey

16,731

14,430

0

7,849

214

21,644

68.1

66.7

0.0

31.9

33.3

100.0

New Mexico

5,647

698

957

927

5,237

236

47.7

11,861

48.0

844.1

44.2

100.0

New York

95,376

550

3,161

234

49,652

50,712

148,436

63.9

64.4

2.1

2

33.5

34100.0

North Carolina

3,538

949

146

159

6,039

9,410

36.4

13,518

29.2

1.5

2

62.1

69.6

100.0

North Dakota

539

490

0

641

634

1,124

45.7

43.6

0.0

54.3

56.4

100.0

Ohio

12,368

223

1,390

241

45,853

622

59,086

20.7

2.3

1

76.9

77.2

100.0

Oklahoma

2,237

321

0

4,734

859

7,180

32.1

3

0.0

67.9

7

100.0

Oregon

47,466

41,586

3,193

7,038

6,733

647

55,271

8212.7

5.6

12.0

11.7

100.0

Pennsylvania

50,154

51,115

1,353

376

10,185

12,471

62,676

78.4

81.6

2.1

2

16.3

19.5

100.0

Puerto Rico

9,800

194

685

601

273

262

10,057

91.1

4

6.4

0

2.5

6

100.0

Rhode Island

2,793

643

317

211

1,727

670

4,524

574.7

6.6

36.9

35.7

100.0

South Carolina

4,692

551

0

5,597

695

10,246

45.6

44.4

0.0

54.4

55.6

100.0

South Dakota

629

603

0

2,353

407

3,010

21.1

20.0

0.0

78.9

80.0

100.0

Tennessee

20,964

17,518

149

148

17,245

16,515

54.7

34,181

51.3

0.4

4548.3 100.0

Texas

7,348

958

0

23,978

644

31,602

23.5

25.2

0.0

76.5

74.8

100.0

Utah

1,639

804

0

2,071

041

44.2

3,845

46.9

0.0

55.8

53.1

100.0

Vermont

1,446

534

331

336

1,443

404

3,274

4446.9

10.3

44.8

42.9

100.0

Virgin Islands

307

287

0

43

330

87.0

87.7

0.0

12.3

13.0

100.0

Virginia

14,422

290

0

10,559

361

24,651

57.7

58.0

0.0

42.3

0

100.0

Washington

16,153

15,378

2,862

342

13,987

14,962

31,707

4748.5

87.4

44.1 100.0

West Virginia

2,737

594

0

4,860

863

7,457

36.0

34.8

0.0

6465.2 100.0

Wisconsin

11,389

9,400

801

559

11,557

373

48.0

21,332

44.1

3.4

53.3

48.7

100.0

Wyoming

109

132

14

3

225

212

371

3335.6

0.9

3.8

60.6

65.4

100.0
 

 

 

 

 

   

   

Totals

869,973

850,741

139,248

158,441

608,930

53.8

589,998

1,599,180

53.2

8.6

36.9

37.6

100.0

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

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.

1.

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

2.

This section is based on the summary of CRS Report R44518, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Legislation in the 114th Congress, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]

3.
34.

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).

45.

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).

56.

Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

67.

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.