< Back to Current Version

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

Changes from June 9, 2016 to November 21, 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

June 9November 21, 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 IF10036Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by [author name scrubbed]).

TANF Funding and Expenditures. 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 FY2014FY2015, expenditures on basic assistance (cash assistance) totaled $8.47.8 billion—2625% 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-Kindergartenpre-kindergarten programs toward the MOE requirement.

Cash Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.65 million families, composed of 4.13.7 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in September 2015June 2016. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—3.02.7 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%)35% of all families on the rolls in FY2013FY2015. Additionally, 1729% of cash assistance families had an employed adult, while 3836% 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 20132015, 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 ColumbiaKansas), the maximum monthly benefit of $428429 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 FY2013FY2014 states achieved, on average, an all-family participation rate of 33.536.6% and a two-parent rate of 32.930.8%. That year, 119 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 overviewdiscussion of TANF rules, see CRS In Focus IF10036Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by [author name scrubbed].

Funding and Expenditures How Are TANF Programs Funded?

TANF programs are funded through a combination of federal and state funds. In FY2017, TANF has two federal grants to states. The bulk of the TANF funding is in a basic block grant to the states, totaling $16.5 billion for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. There is also a contingency fund available that provides extra federal funds to states that meet certain conditions.

Additionally, states are required to expend a minimum amount of their own funds for TANF and TANF-related activities under what is known as the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. States are required to spend at least 75% of what they spent in FY1994 on TANF's predecessor programs. The minimum MOE amount, in total, is $10.4 billion per year for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

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

TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193).The TANF basic block grant amount—both nationally and for each state—was established in the 1996 welfare reform law. It has not been adjusted for changes since then, such as inflation, the size of the TANF assistance caseload, or changes in the poverty population.

From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2016 (ended September 30, 2016), the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the TANF block grant declined by 33.1%. Table 1 shows the impact of inflation on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2016. Table 1. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars

Fiscal Year

TANF Basic Block Grant

Value of the TANF Basic Block Grant in FY1997 Dollars

Cumulative Change in the Value of the TANF Basic Block Grant from FY1997 (FY1997 dollars)

1997

$16.488

$16.488
 

1998

16.488

16.223

-1.6%

1999

16.488

15.918

-3.5

2000

16.488

15.428

-6.4

2001

16.488

14.946

-9.4

2002

16.488

14.725

-10.7

2003

16.488

14.388

-12.7

2004

16.488

14.061

-14.7

2005

16.488

13.614

-17.4

2006

16.488

13.130

-20.4

2007

16.488

12.829

-22.2

2008

16.488

12.284

-25.5

2009

16.488

12.324

-25.3

2010

16.488

12.119

-26.5

2011

16.488

11.806

-28.4

2012

16.488

11.528

-30.1

2013

16.488

11.343

-31.2

2014

16.488

11.162

-32.3

2015

16.488

11.128

-32.5

2016

16.488

11.025

-33.1

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 Have States Used TANF Funds?Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2015. In FY2015, a total of $31.7 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs. Basic assistance, ongoing benefits to families to meet basic needs, represented 25% ($7.8 billion) of total FY2015 TANF and MOE dollars.

TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2015, 17% 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. It provides short-term and emergency benefits for families with immediate and crisis needs. Some states also count as MOE dollars their expenditures on pre-kindergarten programs.

Figure 1. Uses of TANF and MOE Funds, FY2015

(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-1 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 FY2015 (September 30, 2015, the latest data currently available), a total of $3.7 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 FY2015, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.4 billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments to spend, and they come in the form of contracts and grants to provide benefits and services. However, the definition of "obligation" varies from program to program, and because TANF essentially consists of 54 different programs (one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the territories), what constitutes an obligation may vary.

At the end of FY2015, states had $2.3 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 assistance, with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. Assistance includes monthly cash assistance benefits provided to families to meet ongoing, basic needs. It also includes other ongoing benefits to meet basic needs, such as food assistance added to monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotments in California for working parents or food assistance for immigrants barred from regular SNAP benefits in certain states.

As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance accounts for about 25% 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 "Assistance"? Table 2 provides assistance caseload information. A total of 1.5 million families, composed of 3.7 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded assistance in June 2016. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.7 million in that month. For state-by-state assistance caseloads, see Table B-4. Table 2. TANF Assistance Caseload: June 2016

Total Families

1,471,307

Total Recipients

3,746,955

Total Adults

1,020,494

Total Children

2,726,461

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 Assistance Caseload Level Compare with Historical Levels? Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving assistance, from July 1959 to June 2016. 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 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 assistance peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The 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. In June 2016, the assistance caseload had declined to 1.5 million families.

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-June 2016

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 June 2016, includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement. See Table A-2 for average annual data on families, recipients, adult recipients, and child recipients of ADC, AFDC, and TANF cash assistance for 1961 to 2015. Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash assistance families by state. What Are the Characteristics of Families Receiving TANF Assistance? Historically, the "typical" family receiving assistance 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 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 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 FY2015, families with an unemployed adult recipient represented 35% 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. In FY1994, a monthly average of 3.8 million families per month who received AFDC cash assistance had adult recipients who were not working. In FY2015, a monthly average of 578,000 families per month had adult recipients or work-eligible individuals, with no adult recipient or work-eligible individual working.

With the decline in families headed by unemployed adults, the share of the caseload that represent families with employed adults and "child only" families has increased. In FY2015, families with employed adult recipients represented 29% of all 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 FY2015 was 36%. In FY2015, families with a non-recipient, non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles) represented 13% of all assistance families. Families with ineligible, noncitizen adults or adults who have not reported their citizenship status made up 10% of the assistance caseload in that year. Families where the parent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the children received TANF made up 9% of all assistance families in FY2015.

Figure 3. Characteristics of Assistance Families, Selected Years FY1988 to FY2015

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.

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 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.)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 September 2015. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—3.0 million in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance caseloads, see Table B-4.

Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: September 2015

Total Families

1,599,180

Total Recipients

4,134,430

Total Adults

1,160,309

Total Children

2,974,121

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 September 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. In September 2015, the cash assistance caseload had declined to 1.6 million families.

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-September 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 September 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 2013.42015.1 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 Alaska2 For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 2015 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $923 per month in Alaska. The map shows a regional pattern to the maximum monthly benefit paid, with lower benefit amounts in the South than in other regions. In all states, the maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family was less than 50% of poverty-level income.5

3

2015

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.64 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 FY2013FY2014. 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-familiesIn FY2014, the all-family work participation rate declined slightly to 33.5%.

increased to 36.6%. The increase in the work participation rate over the FY2012 to FY2014 period is because of an increase in the percent of families working while also receiving some form of TANF assistance, rather than an increase in non-employed individuals participating in job readiness activities.5

Figure 5. National Average TANF Work Participation Rate for All Families, FY2002-FY2013

FY2014

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 43 shows which states failed the TANF all-families work participation standards from FY2002 through FY2013FY2014. 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 FY2013FY2014, the number of jurisdictions that failed the all-family work participation standard declined to 119. The 119 jurisdictions are California, Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, OregonNevada, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, and Guam. California, Oregon, and Guam have failed their all-family work standards for all years, FY2007 through FY2013FY2014.

For state-by-state information on FY2013FY2014 caseload reduction credits, effective (after credit) standards, and work participation rates related to the "all families" standard, see Table B-7.

Table 4U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Work Participation Rates for FY2014, TANF-ACF-IM-2016-04, July 2016, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-acf-im-2016-04. Table 3. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2013

FY2014

(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

2014

Alabama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Arizona

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Colorado

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

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

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

X

Puerto Rico

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rhode Island

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

South Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

South Dakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Washington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

West Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Wisconsin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Wyoming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guam

X

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

9

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 54 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2002 through FY2013FY2014. 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.76 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. Of the 28 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their FY2014 TANF work participation calculation, 910 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 54. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2013

FY2014

("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

2014

Alabama

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Alaska

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

Arizona

YES

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

NO

California

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Colorado

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Connecticut

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Delaware

NA

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

NA

Florida

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

Georgia

NA

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

YES

Idaho

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Illinois

NA

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

YES

Iowa

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Kansas

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Kentucky

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Louisiana

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Maine

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Maryland

NA

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

YES

Michigan

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Minnesota

NA

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

NA

Missouri

NO

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Montana

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

Nebraska

NA

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

NO

New Hampshire

YES

NA

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

NA

New Mexico

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

New York

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

North Carolina

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

North Dakota

NA

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

NO

Oklahoma

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Oregon

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NA

YES

Pennsylvania

YES

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

NA

Rhode Island

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

South Carolina

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

South Dakota

NA

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

NO

Texas

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Utah

NA

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

NO

Virginia

NA

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

NO

West Virginia

NO

NO

NA

NA

NA

NO

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

Wisconsin

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Wyoming

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Guam

NO

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

NA

Number of Jurisdictions without Two-Parent Families

24

25

29

29

29

24

26

27

25

27

27

27

26

Number of Jurisdictions with Two-Parent Families

30

29

25

25

25

30

28

27

29

27

27

27

28

Number of Jurisdictions Meeting Two-Parent Standard

25

25

21

23

21

22

22

20

23

22

7

9

10

Number of Jurisdictions Failing Two-Parent Standard

5

4

4

2

3

7

6

7

6

5

20

18

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. Uses of Federal TANF and State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Dollars, FY2015

 

Billions of Dollars

Percentage of Total Federal TANF and MOE Dollars

Basic assistance

$7.8

24.6%

Administrative expenditures

2.2

7.0

Work program expenditures

2.1

6.7

Emergency and short-term benefits and services

1.3

4.1

Child care expenditures

5.4

16.9

Pre-K and early childhood services

1.9

6.0

Refundable tax credits

2.6

8.1

Child welfare services

2.3

7.3

Other Services

6.1

19.3

Totals

31.7

100.0

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

Table A-2. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2015Appendix 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-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

Percentage 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 Percentage of All Children

As a Percentage 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

950

4.0

18.8

2015

1.609

4.126

1.155

2.971

4.0

20.3

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-53. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category, Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2013

FY2015
 

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

2015

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working

3,136,566

3,798,997

992,445

825,490

781,473

578,482

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Working

243,573

378,620

420,794

259,001

302,079

467,298

Child-Only/SSI Parent

59,988

171,391

171,951

176,670

156,215

141,176

Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent

47,566

184,397

125,900

153,445

196,103

162,418

Child-Only/Caretaker Relative

188,598

328,290

255,984

261,944

234,499

208,836

Child-Only/Other

71,661

184,567

235,282

280,851

79,054

77,872

Totals

3,747,952

5,046,263

2,202,356

1,957,402

1,749,424

1,636,082
   

 

 

 

 

 

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working

83.7%

75.3%

45.1%

42.2%

44.7%

35.4%

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Working

6.5

7.5

19.1

13.2

17.3

28.6

Child-Only/SSI Parent

1.6

3.4

7.8

9.0

8.9

8.6

Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent

1.3

3.7

5.7

7.8

11.2

9.9

Child-Only/Caretaker Relative

5.0

6.5

11.6

13.4

13.4

12.8

Child-Only/Other

1.9

3.7

10.7

14.3

4.5

4.8

Totals

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, FY2013, and FY2015 TANF National Data Files.

Notes: FY2001 through FY2015 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For FY2013 and FY2015, 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 FY2015 TANF and MOE Funds by Category

(Dollars in millions)

State

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work Program

Short-Term and Emergency Benefits

Child Care

Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood Programs

Refundable Tax Credits

Child Welfare Services

Other Benefits and Services

Totals

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 Percentage of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding

 

Alabama

$31.6

$14.0

$3.5

$27.3

$5.9

$16.5

$0.0

$29.8

$41.5

$170.0

Alaska

46.2

4.4

10.0

0.0

18.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.1

87.4

Arizona

27.1

58.1

7.6

32.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

228.0

115.9

468.9

Arkansas

9.2

15.7

15.9

7.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

95.9

144.3

California

2,838.7

587.7

652.4

242.7

896.1

0.0

0.0

1.0

1,419.7

6,638.3

Colorado

76.9

17.4

10.7

8.1

30.6

62.9

4.8

44.1

86.1

341.7

Connecticut

69.8

43.6

16.4

13.2

56.3

83.6

0.0

54.9

168.0

505.7

Delaware

20.4

4.0

6.0

2.5

48.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.4

95.0

District of Columbia

70.2

6.3

37.4

51.7

59.5

0.0

20.0

0.0

21.8

266.9

Florida

177.2

81.7

47.4

0.8

329.3

0.0

0.0

270.4

83.2

990.1

Georgia

64.5

17.6

11.3

0.1

22.2

0.0

0.0

269.3

154.5

539.4

Hawaii

52.3

16.6

98.2

0.7

20.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

98.5

288.5

Idaho

7.8

5.4

5.2

10.4

10.2

1.6

0.0

1.5

1.3

43.3

Illinois

68.5

2.5

21.0

0.9

868.2

46.2

42.6

232.8

92.1

1,374.8

Indiana

20.4

23.7

15.0

0.0

100.6

0.0

31.9

0.0

103.6

295.2

Iowa

40.4

8.1

13.0

0.2

49.3

0.0

26.9

52.0

28.9

218.8

Kansas

19.6

9.0

3.4

0.0

10.3

14.1

46.9

23.3

32.0

158.6

Kentucky

139.8

14.4

32.7

0.0

46.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.5

254.1

Louisiana

18.8

16.3

28.6

11.1

5.2

68.5

17.0

30.5

33.8

229.9

Maine

40.5

5.3

3.1

4.5

9.6

5.4

2.8

1.2

12.9

85.2

Maryland

111.4

31.2

33.6

67.0

25.9

86.2

161.7

33.3

51.6

601.8

Massachusetts

266.2

34.7

9.8

96.7

331.9

0.9

116.0

14.9

241.1

1,112.2

Michigan

149.7

57.0

4.7

70.9

21.5

205.1

45.8

93.9

726.2

1,374.9

Minnesota

84.9

39.8

56.4

29.6

135.2

5.7

174.9

0.0

19.3

545.8

Mississippi

11.4

3.3

16.6

0.0

19.1

0.0

0.0

16.8

26.7

93.9

Missouri

77.1

5.8

26.8

175.2

44.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

90.8

420.1

Montana

16.6

5.2

12.1

1.5

10.4

0.0

0.0

2.6

4.2

52.6

Nebraska

24.0

5.0

15.1

0.0

23.5

0.0

36.8

4.3

0.2

109.0

Nevada

45.9

11.3

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

32.5

90.8

New Hampshire

15.4

8.4

4.2

2.2

8.8

0.0

0.0

0.8

7.8

47.6

New Jersey

190.7

59.5

85.0

15.2

111.9

455.8

195.1

0.0

68.7

1,181.9

New Mexico

52.7

7.8

11.1

0.0

30.5

6.1

48.3

0.2

79.2

235.9

New York

1,574.5

390.1

158.7

221.4

414.3

233.7

1,510.3

337.2

625.3

5,465.4

North Carolina

52.3

43.8

8.7

4.9

190.8

100.6

0.0

121.1

45.1

567.3

North Dakota

4.8

4.2

3.4

0.0

1.1

0.0

0.0

23.9

1.3

38.6

Ohio

270.7

122.1

70.0

55.3

378.3

0.0

0.0

7.2

175.9

1,079.6

Oklahoma

28.3

18.9

12.0

8.0

76.6

11.8

0.0

17.5

41.5

214.8

Oregon

126.4

49.4

20.3

30.8

13.0

8.1

2.0

8.0

89.7

347.7

Pennsylvania

215.2

82.8

105.5

14.7

378.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

227.0

1,023.4

Rhode Island

20.4

12.6

9.7

0.0

30.5

0.0

6.4

0.0

88.8

168.3

South Carolina

40.8

22.4

18.1

0.0

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

95.0

180.4

South Dakota

14.0

2.9

4.0

2.9

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.9

3.2

28.7

Tennessee

80.7

35.8

32.8

0.0

32.0

61.8

0.0

0.0

11.9

254.9

Texas

58.1

51.4

74.1

4.4

0.0

374.5

0.0

364.4

71.9

998.9

Utah

21.6

5.8

29.9

2.5

19.7

0.6

0.0

0.5

20.7

101.2

Vermont

17.7

7.2

0.2

2.7

32.6

0.0

19.9

3.4

13.5

97.2

Virginia

82.8

20.7

49.7

2.2

37.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

79.6

272.5

Washington

154.1

75.9

160.9

44.8

209.1

48.7

0.0

0.0

355.8

1,049.3

West Virginia

24.0

28.7

0.7

1.5

9.1

0.0

0.0

13.0

50.7

127.5

Wisconsin

120.2

28.4

37.3

37.5

173.5

0.0

62.5

3.7

119.5

582.7

Wyoming

4.9

7.1

0.5

3.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.1

28.0

Totals

7,797.4

2,231.0

2,111.5

1,309.0

5,351.8

1,898.4

2,572.5

2,308.7

6,108.8

31,689.1

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

Table B-2. Use of FY2015 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percentage of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding

State

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work Program

Short-Term and Emergency Benefits

Child Care

Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood Programs

Refundable Tax Credits

Child Welfare Services

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work

Child Care

Other Work Supports

Other Expenditures

Benefits and Services

Total

Totals

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, September 2015

State

Families

Recipients

Children

Adults

Alabama

12,497

28,935

22,575

6,360

Alaska

3,067

8,112

5,530

2,582

Arizona

11,080

23,352

17,861

5,491

Arkansas

4,399

9,901

7,308

2,593

California

622,144

1,828,933

1,266,249

562,684

Colorado

16,409

43,056

30,382

12,674

Connecticut

12,617

25,191

17,873

7,318

Delaware

4,437

12,544

7,661

4,883

District of Columbia

6,100

15,240

11,402

3,838

Florida

48,433

81,521

68,388

13,133

Georgia

13,144

25,786

23,089

2,697

Guam

1,031

2,271

1,836

435

Hawaii

7,102

20,262

13,672

6,590

Idaho

1,881

2,763

2,688

75

Illinois

17,123

38,585

31,952

6,633

Indiana

8,709

17,463

15,712

1,751

Iowa

12,695

31,387

22,799

8,588

Kansas

5,772

13,534

10,198

3,336

Kentucky

24,012

47,374

38,986

8,388

Louisiana

5,419

12,481

10,762

1,719

Maine

20,699

66,323

39,867

26,456

Maryland

18,836

45,102

33,722

11,380

Massachusetts

58,118

138,654

94,544

44,110

Michigan

19,236

47,291

37,049

10,242

Minnesota

19,310

44,705

35,003

9,702

Mississippi

6,468

13,004

10,060

2,944

Missouri

26,478

64,257

44,662

19,595

Montana

3,377

7,348

5,606

1,742

Nebraska

5,424

13,242

10,955

2,287

Nevada

10,462

26,955

20,182

6,773

New Hampshire

5,318

12,991

8,992

3,999

New Jersey

21,644

49,958

36,973

12,985

New Mexico

11,861

29,825

22,273

7,552

New York

148,436

382,926

271,226

111,700

North Carolina

13,518

26,034

21,780

4,254

North Dakota

1,124

2,745

2,255

490

Ohio

59,086

111,557

96,399

15,158

Oklahoma

7,180

15,992

13,671

2,321

Oregon

55,271

168,167

105,750

62,417

Pennsylvania

62,676

156,275

113,123

43,152

Puerto Rico

10,057

27,507

17,086

10,421

Rhode Island

4,524

10,692

7,685

3,007

South Carolina

10,246

23,023

18,627

4,396

South Dakota

3,010

5,881

5,278

603

Tennessee

34,181

78,078

59,416

18,662

Texas

31,602

68,760

60,802

7,958

Utah

3,845

9,491

6,919

2,572

Vermont

3,274

7,489

5,271

2,218

Virgin Islands

330

1,030

697

333

Virginia

24,651

53,938

40,016

13,922

Washington

31,707

70,896

50,501

20,395

West Virginia

7,457

15,502

12,096

3,406

Wisconsin

21,332

49,339

38,110

11,229

Wyoming

371

762

602

160

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

1,599,180

4,134,430

2,974,121

1,160,309

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, September of Selected Years

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage change to 2015 from:

State

1994

2007

2010

2014

2015

1994

2010

2014

Alabama

48,752

18,104

23,052

15,321

12,497

-74.4

-45.8

-18.4

Alaska

12,450

3,127

3,507

3,252

3,067

-75.4

-12.5

-5.7

Arizona

72,728

36,934

18,774

12,551

11,080

-84.8

-41.0

-11.7

Arkansas

25,298

8,472

8,469

5,629

4,399

-82.6

-48.1

-21.9

California

916,795

470,502

590,121

528,764

622,144

-32.1

5.4

17.7

Colorado

40,544

9,355

11,707

17,381

16,409

-59.5

40.2

-5.6

Connecticut

60,336

20,322

16,848

14,311

12,617

-79.1

-25.1

-11.8

Delaware

11,408

4,034

5,508

4,641

4,437

-61.1

-19.4

-4.4

District of Columbia

27,320

6,231

8,547

7,038

6,100

-77.7

-28.6

-13.3

Florida

239,702

46,864

57,742

49,811

48,433

-79.8

-16.1

-2.8

Georgia

141,596

23,600

20,133

14,160

13,144

-90.7

-34.7

-7.2

Guam

2,089

936

1,276

1,142

1,031

-50.6

-19.2

-9.7

Hawaii

21,312

6,426

9,953

8,141

7,102

-66.7

-28.6

-12.8

Idaho

8,635

1,506

1,820

1,918

1,881

-78.2

3.4

-1.9

Illinois

241,290

26,222

24,337

19,722

17,123

-92.9

-29.6

-13.2

Indiana

72,654

42,058

36,062

9,913

8,709

-88.0

-75.8

-12.1

Iowa

39,137

19,872

21,548

14,488

12,695

-67.6

-41.1

-12.4

Kansas

29,524

13,892

15,554

6,707

5,772

-80.4

-62.9

-13.9

Kentucky

78,720

29,492

30,875

27,244

24,012

-69.5

-22.2

-11.9

Louisiana

84,162

11,023

10,849

5,565

5,419

-93.6

-50.1

-2.6

Maine

22,322

12,352

15,377

24,213

20,699

-7.3

34.6

-14.5

Maryland

80,266

19,630

25,110

20,625

18,836

-76.5

-25.0

-8.7

Massachusetts

108,985

46,483

49,836

64,358

58,118

-46.7

16.6

-9.7

Michigan

215,873

71,892

67,241

24,478

19,236

-91.1

-71.4

-21.4

Minnesota

59,987

26,642

24,574

21,369

19,310

-67.8

-21.4

-9.6

Mississippi

55,232

11,658

11,895

8,090

6,468

-88.3

-45.6

-20.0

Missouri

91,875

39,544

39,262

28,838

26,478

-71.2

-32.6

-8.2

Montana

11,416

3,217

3,686

3,069

3,377

-70.4

-8.4

10.0

Nebraska

15,435

6,913

8,702

5,967

5,424

-64.9

-37.7

-9.1

Nevada

14,620

7,411

10,612

12,798

10,462

-28.4

-1.4

-18.3

New Hampshire

11,398

4,733

6,175

5,765

5,318

-53.3

-13.9

-7.8

New Jersey

122,376

34,123

34,516

27,136

21,644

-82.3

-37.3

-20.2

New Mexico

34,535

12,503

21,223

13,898

11,861

-65.7

-44.1

-14.7

New York

461,751

156,420

154,936

149,319

148,436

-67.9

-4.2

-0.6

North Carolina

129,258

24,537

23,705

11,485

13,518

-89.5

-43.0

17.7

North Dakota

5,410

2,156

1,996

1,229

1,124

-79.2

-43.7

-8.5

Ohio

244,099

78,129

105,140

62,143

59,086

-75.8

-43.8

-4.9

Oklahoma

46,572

9,002

9,388

7,296

7,180

-84.6

-23.5

-1.6

Oregon

40,504

18,645

31,751

55,441

55,271

36.5

74.1

-0.3

Pennsylvania

212,457

60,167

53,274

69,469

62,676

-70.5

17.6

-9.8

Puerto Rico

57,337

12,617

13,371

11,557

10,057

-82.5

-24.8

-13.0

Rhode Island

22,776

8,107

6,758

5,278

4,524

-80.1

-33.1

-14.3

South Carolina

50,430

14,936

19,347

11,016

10,246

-79.7

-47.0

-7.0

South Dakota

6,601

2,842

3,291

3,068

3,010

-54.4

-8.5

-1.9

Tennessee

109,678

58,244

62,714

43,907

34,181

-68.8

-45.5

-22.2

Texas

284,973

59,972

51,931

35,129

31,602

-88.9

-39.1

-10.0

Utah

17,505

5,069

6,646

4,144

3,845

-78.0

-42.1

-7.2

Vermont

9,761

4,503

3,256

3,501

3,274

-66.5

0.6

-6.5

Virgin Islands

1,146

395

537

398

330

-71.2

-38.5

-17.1

Virginia

74,257

31,563

37,448

26,762

24,651

-66.8

-34.2

-7.9

Washington

101,542

49,076

70,200

36,902

31,707

-68.8

-54.8

-14.1

West Virginia

40,279

9,699

10,496

8,313

7,457

-81.5

-29.0

-10.3

Wisconsin

75,086

17,824

24,746

26,956

21,332

-71.6

-13.8

-20.9

Wyoming

5,351

255

318

294

371

-93.1

16.7

26.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

5,015,545

1,720,231

1,926,140

1,601,910

1,599,180

-68.1

-17.0

-0.2

Table B-6. TANF Cash Assistance Families by Number of Parents by State: September 2015

 

 

 

 

 

As a Percentage of Total TANF Assistance Families

State

Single Parent

Two Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Single Parent

Two Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Alabama

6,243

99

6,155

12,497

50.0%

0.8%

49.3%

100.0%

Alaska

1,903

306

858

3,067

62.0

10.0

28.0

100.0

Arizona

4,812

273

5,995

11,080

43.4

2.5

54.1

100.0

Arkansas

2,432

97

1,870

4,399

55.3

2.2

42.5

100.0

California

340,198

121,246

160,700

622,144

54.7

19.5

25.8

100.0

Colorado

9,452

1,309

5,648

16,409

57.6

8.0

34.4

100.0

Connecticut

7,259

0

5,358

12,617

57.5

0.0

42.5

100.0

Delaware

1,329

22

3,086

4,437

30.0

0.5

69.6

100.0

District of Columbia

3,899

0

2,201

6,100

63.9

0.0

36.1

100.0

Florida

9,295

533

38,605

48,433

19.2

1.1

79.7

100.0

Georgia

2,604

0

10,540

13,144

19.8

0.0

80.2

100.0

Guam

236

84

711

1,031

22.9

8.1

69.0

100.0

Hawaii

4,066

1,576

1,460

7,102

57.3

22.2

20.6

100.0

Idaho

72

0

1,809

1,881

3.8

0.0

96.2

100.0

Illinois

5,775

0

11,348

17,123

33.7

0.0

66.3

100.0

Indiana

2,156

115

6,438

8,709

24.8

1.3

73.9

100.0

Iowa

6,960

735

5,000

12,695

54.8

5.8

39.4

100.0

Kansas

2,590

337

2,845

5,772

44.9

5.8

49.3

100.0

Kentucky

7,275

521

16,216

24,012

30.3

2.2

67.5

100.0

Louisiana

1,684

0

3,735

5,419

31.1

0.0

68.9

100.0

Maine

11,074

7,670

1,955

20,699

53.5

37.1

9.4

100.0

Maryland

11,445

0

7,391

18,836

60.8

0.0

39.2

100.0

Massachusetts

38,355

4,021

15,742

58,118

66.0

6.9

27.1

100.0

Michigan

9,005

0

10,231

19,236

46.8

0.0

53.2

100.0

Minnesota

9,818

0

9,492

19,310

50.8

0.0

49.2

100.0

Mississippi

2,907

0

3,561

6,468

44.9

0.0

55.1

100.0

Missouri

20,223

0

6,255

26,478

76.4

0.0

23.6

100.0

Montana

1,502

278

1,597

3,377

44.5

8.2

47.3

100.0

Nebraska

2,408

0

3,016

5,424

44.4

0.0

55.6

100.0

Nevada

4,642

995

4,825

10,462

44.4

9.5

46.1

100.0

New Hampshire

3,874

38

1,406

5,318

72.8

0.7

26.4

100.0

New Jersey

14,430

0

7,214

21,644

66.7

0.0

33.3

100.0

New Mexico

5,698

927

5,236

11,861

48.0

7.8

44.1

100.0

New York

95,550

3,234

49,652

148,436

64.4

2.2

33.5

100.0

North Carolina

3,949

159

9,410

13,518

29.2

1.2

69.6

100.0

North Dakota

490

0

634

1,124

43.6

0.0

56.4

100.0

Ohio

12,223

1,241

45,622

59,086

20.7

2.1

77.2

100.0

Oklahoma

2,321

0

4,859

7,180

32.3

0.0

67.7

100.0

Oregon

41,586

7,038

6,647

55,271

75.2

12.7

12.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

51,115

1,376

10,185

62,676

81.6

2.2

16.3

100.0

Puerto Rico

9,194

601

262

10,057

91.4

6.0

2.6

100.0

Rhode Island

2,643

211

1,670

4,524

58.4

4.7

36.9

100.0

South Carolina

4,551

0

5,695

10,246

44.4

0.0

55.6

100.0

South Dakota

603

0

2,407

3,010

20.0

0.0

80.0

100.0

Tennessee

17,518

148

16,515

34,181

51.3

0.4

48.3

100.0

Texas

7,958

0

23,644

31,602

25.2

0.0

74.8

100.0

Utah

1,804

0

2,041

3,845

46.9

0.0

53.1

100.0

Vermont

1,534

336

1,404

3,274

46.9

10.3

42.9

100.0

Virgin Islands

287

0

43

330

87.0

0.0

13.0

100.0

Virginia

14,290

0

10,361

24,651

58.0

0.0

42.0

100.0

Washington

15,378

2,342

13,987

31,707

48.5

7.4

44.1

100.0

West Virginia

2,594

0

4,863

7,457

34.8

0.0

65.2

100.0

Wisconsin

9,400

559

11,373

21,332

44.1

2.6

53.3

100.0

Wyoming

132

14

225

371

35.6

3.8

60.6

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

850,741

158,441

589,998

1,599,180

53.2

9.9

36.9

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

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.

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.

4.

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).

5.

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).

6.

Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

7
18.6%

8.2%

2.1%

16.0%

3.5%

9.7%

0.0%

17.5%

24.4%

100.0%

Alaska

52.9

5.0

11.5

0.0

21.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.3

100.0

Arizona

5.8

12.4

1.6

6.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

48.6

24.7

100.0

Arkansas

6.4

10.9

11.0

5.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.4

100.0

California

42.8

8.9

9.8

3.7

13.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.4

100.0

Colorado

22.5

5.1

3.1

2.4

8.9

18.4

1.4

12.9

25.2

100.0

Connecticut

13.8

8.6

3.2

2.6

11.1

16.5

0.0

10.9

33.2

100.0

Delaware

21.4

4.2

6.3

2.6

51.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.1

100.0

District of Columbia

26.3

2.4

14.0

19.4

22.3

0.0

7.5

0.0

8.2

100.0

Florida

17.9

8.3

4.8

0.1

33.3

0.0

0.0

27.3

8.4

100.0

Georgia

12.0

3.3

2.1

0.0

4.1

0.0

0.0

49.9

28.6

100.0

Hawaii

18.1

5.8

34.0

0.2

6.9

0.0

0.0

0.7

34.2

100.0

Idaho

18.0

12.4

12.0

23.9

23.5

3.7

0.0

3.4

3.1

100.0

Illinois

5.0

0.2

1.5

0.1

63.1

3.4

3.1

16.9

6.7

100.0

Indiana

6.9

8.0

5.1

0.0

34.1

0.0

10.8

0.0

35.1

100.0

Iowa

18.5

3.7

5.9

0.1

22.5

0.0

12.3

23.8

13.2

100.0

Kansas

12.4

5.7

2.1

0.0

6.5

8.9

29.6

14.7

20.2

100.0

Kentucky

55.0

5.7

12.9

0.0

18.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.1

100.0

Louisiana

8.2

7.1

12.4

4.8

2.3

29.8

7.4

13.3

14.7

100.0

Maine

47.5

6.2

3.6

5.2

11.3

6.3

3.3

1.5

15.1

100.0

Maryland

18.5

5.2

5.6

11.1

4.3

14.3

26.9

5.5

8.6

100.0

Massachusetts

23.9

3.1

0.9

8.7

29.8

0.1

10.4

1.3

21.7

100.0

Michigan

10.9

4.1

0.3

5.2

1.6

14.9

3.3

6.8

52.8

100.0

Minnesota

15.6

7.3

10.3

5.4

24.8

1.0

32.0

0.0

3.5

100.0

Mississippi

12.1

3.5

17.7

0.0

20.3

0.0

0.0

17.9

28.5

100.0

Missouri

18.4

1.4

6.4

41.7

10.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.6

100.0

Montana

31.6

9.9

23.1

2.9

19.7

0.0

0.0

5.0

8.0

100.0

Nebraska

22.0

4.6

13.9

0.0

21.6

0.0

33.8

4.0

0.2

100.0

Nevada

50.5

12.4

1.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

35.8

100.0

New Hampshire

32.3

17.6

8.9

4.6

18.5

0.0

0.0

1.7

16.4

100.0

New Jersey

16.1

5.0

7.2

1.3

9.5

38.6

16.5

0.0

5.8

100.0

New Mexico

22.4

3.3

4.7

0.0

12.9

2.6

20.5

0.1

33.6

100.0

New York

28.8

7.1

2.9

4.1

7.6

4.3

27.6

6.2

11.4

100.0

North Carolina

9.2

7.7

1.5

0.9

33.6

17.7

0.0

21.4

8.0

100.0

North Dakota

12.3

10.8

8.7

0.0

2.9

0.0

0.0

61.8

3.5

100.0

Ohio

25.1

11.3

6.5

5.1

35.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

16.3

100.0

Oklahoma

13.2

8.8

5.6

3.7

35.7

5.5

0.0

8.1

19.3

100.0

Oregon

36.4

14.2

5.8

8.9

3.7

2.3

0.6

2.3

25.8

100.0

Pennsylvania

21.0

8.1

10.3

1.4

36.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.2

100.0

Rhode Island

12.1

7.5

5.7

0.0

18.1

0.0

3.8

0.0

52.8

100.0

South Carolina

22.6

12.4

10.0

0.0

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

52.7

100.0

South Dakota

48.8

10.2

13.9

10.1

2.8

0.0

0.0

3.2

11.0

100.0

Tennessee

31.6

14.1

12.9

0.0

12.5

24.2

0.0

0.0

4.7

100.0

Texas

5.8

5.1

7.4

0.4

0.0

37.5

0.0

36.5

7.2

100.0

Utah

21.3

5.7

29.5

2.5

19.5

0.6

0.0

0.5

20.4

100.0

Vermont

18.2

7.4

0.2

2.8

33.5

0.0

20.5

3.5

13.9

100.0

Virginia

30.4

7.6

18.2

0.8

13.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.2

100.0

Washington

14.7

7.2

15.3

4.3

19.9

4.6

0.0

0.0

33.9

100.0

West Virginia

18.8

22.5

0.5

1.1

7.1

0.0

0.0

10.2

39.7

100.0

Wisconsin

20.6

4.9

6.4

6.4

29.8

0.0

10.7

0.6

20.5

100.0

Wyoming

17.4

25.2

2.0

12.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

43.2

100.0

Totals

24.6

7.0

6.7

4.1

16.9

6.0

8.1

7.3

19.3

100.0

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

Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2015

(September 30, 2015, in millions of dollars)

State

Obligated but not Spent

Unobligated

Total Unspent Funds

Alabama

$11.3

$41.8

$53.1

Alaska

0.0

57.4

57.4

Arizona

0.0

0.3

0.3

Arkansas

33.4

10.9

44.3

California

175.1

0.0

175.1

Colorado

0.0

38.9

38.9

Connecticut

0.0

0.0

0.0

Delaware

0.4

9.6

9.9

District of Columbia

0.0

90.0

90.0

Florida

43.8

0.0

43.8

Georgia

32.1

10.0

42.1

Hawaii

8.6

110.9

119.5

Idaho

0.0

30.4

30.4

Illinois

0.0

0.0

0.0

Indiana

323.9

5.3

329.2

Iowa

20.4

1.8

22.2

Kansas

1.0

58.8

59.8

Kentucky

0.0

30.2

30.2

Louisiana

12.9

0.0

12.9

Maine

0.0

92.0

92.0

Maryland

0.0

0.0

0.0

Massachusetts

0.0

0.0

0.0

Michigan

0.0

57.4

57.4

Minnesota

83.1

0.0

83.1

Mississippi

0.0

35.8

35.8

Missouri

16.1

0.0

16.1

Montana

0.0

42.4

42.4

Nebraska

0.0

60.0

60.0

Nevada

6.4

0.0

6.4

New Hampshire

0.0

58.0

58.0

New Jersey

0.0

14.6

14.6

New Mexico

93.5

0.0

93.5

New York

70.4

111.6

182.0

North Carolina

16.0

0.0

16.0

North Dakota

0.0

11.0

11.0

Ohio

227.5

124.8

352.3

Oklahoma

52.4

0.0

52.4

Oregon

0.0

22.1

22.1

Pennsylvania

55.9

469.8

525.8

Rhode Island

0.0

10.3

10.3

South Carolina

24.5

0.0

24.5

South Dakota

0.0

20.5

20.5

Tennessee

0.0

244.3

244.3

Texas

124.8

0.0

124.8

Utah

0.0

120.9

120.9

Vermont

0.0

0.2

0.2

Virginia

0.1

78.1

78.2

Washington

0.0

45.9

45.9

West Virginia

0.0

22.4

22.4

Wisconsin

0.0

88.1

88.1

Wyoming

4.6

24.2

28.7

Totals

1,438.1

2,250.4

3,688.5

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 Assistance by State, June 2016

State

Families

Recipients

Children

Adults

Alabama

10,399

23,557

18,723

4,834

Alaska

3,088

8,466

5,757

2,709

Arizona

9,767

20,048

15,812

4,236

Arkansas

3,532

7,772

5,925

1,847

California

565,079

1,632,867

1,146,682

486,185

Colorado

16,288

43,003

30,419

12,584

Connecticut

10,938

21,562

15,621

5,941

Delaware

4,925

13,992

8,555

5,437

District of Columbia

4,569

11,157

8,674

2,483

Florida

46,763

76,021

64,626

11,395

Georgia

12,464

23,764

21,629

2,135

Guam

879

1,930

1,591

339

Hawaii

6,135

17,050

11,699

5,351

Idaho

1,942

2,817

2,760

57

Illinois

14,809

32,551

27,860

4,691

Indiana

7,735

15,357

13,852

1,505

Iowa

11,871

29,303

21,494

7,809

Kansas

5,186

11,883

9,009

2,874

Kentucky

23,012

45,512

37,412

8,100

Louisiana

5,630

13,284

11,279

2,005

Maine

20,473

66,217

40,095

26,122

Maryland

20,699

51,285

37,653

13,632

Massachusetts

53,792

129,660

89,113

40,547

Michigan

16,064

39,018

31,408

7,610

Minnesota

19,160

44,700

35,048

9,652

Mississippi

5,631

11,086

8,680

2,406

Missouri

15,633

35,883

26,556

9,327

Montana

3,124

7,776

5,973

1,803

Nebraska

5,183

12,658

10,490

2,168

Nevada

9,313

23,564

17,909

5,655

New Hampshire

4,827

11,681

8,244

3,437

New Jersey

16,730

37,898

28,560

9,338

New Mexico

11,408

28,925

21,700

7,225

New York

142,249

364,807

259,249

105,558

North Carolina

15,250

27,127

24,073

3,054

North Dakota

1,069

2,592

2,165

427

Ohio

56,834

105,525

92,672

12,853

Oklahoma

7,019

15,590

13,419

2,171

Oregon

49,565

149,867

94,845

55,022

Pennsylvania

57,283

142,627

104,292

38,335

Puerto Rico

8,229

22,429

13,928

8,501

Rhode Island

3,889

9,112

6,668

2,444

South Carolina

9,369

20,508

16,974

3,534

South Dakota

3,037

5,967

5,412

555

Tennessee

29,889

66,896

51,426

15,470

Texas

28,087

60,428

53,577

6,851

Utah

3,894

9,552

7,007

2,545

Vermont

3,373

7,822

5,472

2,350

Virgin Islands

254

797

538

259

Virginia

22,522

48,654

36,538

12,116

Washington

37,021

79,563

53,530

26,033

West Virginia

7,147

14,527

11,576

2,951

Wisconsin

17,806

39,250

31,470

7,780

Wyoming

473

1,068

822

246
   

 

 

 

Totals

1,471,307

3,746,955

2,726,461

1,020,494

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 Assistance by State, June of Selected Years            

Percentage Change to 2016 from

State

1994

2007

2010

2015

2016

1994

2010

2014

Alabama

49,482

17,554

21,288

12,742

10,399

-79.0%

-51.2%

-18.4%

Alaska

12,977

3,284

3,475

3,176

3,088

-76.2

-11.1

-2.8

Arizona

71,530

35,232

31,919

10,766

9,767

-86.3

-69.4

-9.3

Arkansas

25,892

8,447

8,268

4,477

3,532

-86.4

-57.3

-21.1

California

919,535

470,099

578,950

611,379

565,079

-38.5

-2.4

-7.6

Colorado

41,378

10,230

11,675

16,731

16,288

-60.6

39.5

-2.6

Connecticut

59,701

20,632

16,957

12,807

10,938

-81.7

-35.5

-14.6

Delaware

11,239

3,916

5,322

4,449

4,925

-56.2

-7.5

10.7

District of Columbia

27,443

5,975

7,373

5,646

4,569

-83.4

-38.0

-19.1

Florida

239,232

46,710

56,706

48,630

46,763

-80.5

-17.5

-3.8

Georgia

139,566

24,005

20,134

12,975

12,464

-91.1

-38.1

-3.9

Guam

1,973

874

1,296

1,048

879

-55.4

-32.2

-16.1

Hawaii

20,844

6,398

9,663

7,267

6,135

-70.6

-36.5

-15.6

Idaho

8,739

1,560

1,744

1,831

1,942

-77.8

11.4

6.1

Illinois

242,740

28,723

22,087

18,161

14,809

-93.9

-33.0

-18.5

Indiana

72,881

40,403

34,409

8,756

7,735

-89.4

-77.5

-11.7

Iowa

39,813

19,752

21,345

12,854

11,871

-70.2

-44.4

-7.6

Kansas

30,020

14,096

14,183

5,762

5,186

-82.7

-63.4

-10.0

Kentucky

79,225

29,173

30,130

24,485

23,012

-71.0

-23.6

-6.0

Louisiana

85,741

10,787

10,256

5,040

5,630

-93.4

-45.1

11.7

Maine

22,641

12,628

14,675

22,594

20,473

-9.6

39.5

-9.4

Maryland

79,706

19,341

24,153

17,627

20,699

-74.0

-14.3

17.4

Massachusetts

110,108

44,619

48,975

57,413

53,792

-51.1

9.8

-6.3

Michigan

222,472

73,283

66,433

20,044

16,064

-92.8

-75.8

-19.9

Minnesota

63,043

26,646

24,146

18,695

19,160

-69.6

-20.6

2.5

Mississippi

55,183

11,366

11,931

6,468

5,631

-89.8

-52.8

-12.9

Missouri

92,265

38,762

38,308

27,026

15,633

-83.1

-59.2

-42.2

Montana

12,004

3,230

3,665

2,936

3,124

-74.0

-14.8

6.4

Nebraska

15,649

6,819

8,486

5,252

5,183

-66.9

-38.9

-1.3

Nevada

14,207

7,043

10,499

10,432

9,313

-34.4

-11.3

-10.7

New Hampshire

11,591

4,992

6,202

5,361

4,827

-58.4

-22.2

-10.0

New Jersey

122,536

34,177

33,540

22,684

16,730

-86.3

-50.1

-26.2

New Mexico

33,732

13,716

19,737

11,562

11,408

-66.2

-42.2

-1.3

New York

460,590

155,495

155,302

148,134

142,249

-69.1

-8.4

-4.0

North Carolina

131,065

24,857

23,384

13,917

15,250

-88.4

-34.8

9.6

North Dakota

5,725

2,068

1,958

1,137

1,069

-81.3

-45.4

-6.0

Ohio

247,886

77,005

103,198

58,954

56,834

-77.1

-44.9

-3.6

Oklahoma

46,864

8,921

9,021

6,887

7,019

-85.0

-22.2

1.9

Oregon

41,982

18,741

30,811

55,888

49,565

18.1

60.9

-11.3

Pennsylvania

211,431

61,948

51,683

63,272

57,283

-72.9

10.8

-9.5

Puerto Rico

58,484

13,122

13,257

10,291

8,229

-85.9

-37.9

-20.0

Rhode Island

22,737

8,381

7,404

4,711

3,889

-82.9

-47.5

-17.4

South Carolina

51,590

14,479

17,843

10,026

9,369

-81.8

-47.5

-6.6

South Dakota

6,868

2,871

3,247

2,965

3,037

-55.8

-6.5

2.4

Tennessee

109,339

60,777

61,851

36,316

29,889

-72.7

-51.7

-17.7

Texas

282,902

59,794

50,171

30,995

28,087

-90.1

-44.0

-9.4

Utah

17,536

5,123

6,641

3,787

3,894

-77.8

-41.4

2.8

Vermont

10,006

4,500

3,131

3,259

3,373

-66.3

7.7

3.5

Virgin Islands

1,106

418

513

343

254

-77.0

-50.5

-25.9

Virginia

75,020

31,576

37,276

24,557

22,522

-70.0

-39.6

-8.3

Washington

104,243

49,519

70,099

31,917

37,021

-64.5

-47.2

16.0

West Virginia

40,379

9,335

9,619

7,343

7,147

-82.3

-25.7

-2.7

Wisconsin

76,458

17,266

23,435

22,415

17,806

-76.7

-24.0

-20.6

Wyoming

5,751

252

337

335

473

-91.8

40.4

41.2
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

5,043,050

1,720,920

1,898,111

1,594,525

1,471,307

-70.8

-22.5

-7.7

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

Notes: Caseload data for 2000 through 2016 include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.

Table B-6. TANF Assistance Families by Number of Parents by State: June 2016          

As a Percent of Total Assistance Families

State

Single Parent

Two Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Single Parent

Two Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Alabama

4,629

79

5,691

10,399

44.5

0.8

54.7

100.0

Alaska

1,859

397

832

3,088

60.2

12.9

26.9

100.0

Arizona

3,672

230

5,865

9,767

37.6

2.4

60.0

100.0

Arkansas

1,788

52

1,692

3,532

50.6

1.5

47.9

100.0

California

310,431

107,237

147,411

565,079

54.9

19.0

26.1

100.0

Colorado

9,229

1,375

5,684

16,288

56.7

8.4

34.9

100.0

Connecticut

5,878

0

5,060

10,938

53.7

0.0

46.3

100.0

Delaware

1,897

0

3,028

4,925

38.5

0.0

61.5

100.0

District of Columbia

2,484

0

2,085

4,569

54.4

0.0

45.6

100.0

Florida

7,570

461

38,732

46,763

16.2

1.0

82.8

100.0

Georgia

2,062

0

10,402

12,464

16.5

0.0

83.5

100.0

Guam

191

65

623

879

21.7

7.4

70.9

100.0

Hawaii

3,639

1,152

1,344

6,135

59.3

18.8

21.9

100.0

Idaho

57

0

1,885

1,942

2.9

0.0

97.1

100.0

Illinois

3,935

0

10,874

14,809

26.6

0.0

73.4

100.0

Indiana

1,741

115

5,879

7,735

22.5

1.5

76.0

100.0

Iowa

6,254

697

4,920

11,871

52.7

5.9

41.4

100.0

Kansas

2,198

300

2,688

5,186

42.4

5.8

51.8

100.0

Kentucky

6,664

610

15,738

23,012

29.0

2.7

68.4

100.0

Louisiana

1,979

0

3,651

5,630

35.2

0.0

64.8

100.0

Maine

10,914

7,706

1,853

20,473

53.3

37.6

9.1

100.0

Maryland

13,142

379

7,178

20,699

63.5

1.8

34.7

100.0

Massachusetts

35,298

3,697

14,797

53,792

65.6

6.9

27.5

100.0

Michigan

6,580

0

9,484

16,064

41.0

0.0

59.0

100.0

Minnesota

9,751

0

9,409

19,160

50.9

0.0

49.1

100.0

Mississippi

2,386

0

3,245

5,631

42.4

0.0

57.6

100.0

Missouri

9,954

0

5,679

15,633

63.7

0.0

36.3

100.0

Montana

1,526

188

1,410

3,124

48.8

6.0

45.1

100.0

Nebraska

2,272

0

2,911

5,183

43.8

0.0

56.2

100.0

Nevada

3,897

800

4,616

9,313

41.8

8.6

49.6

100.0

New Hampshire

3,362

25

1,440

4,827

69.6

0.5

29.8

100.0

New Jersey

10,296

0

6,434

16,730

61.5

0.0

38.5

100.0

New Mexico

5,445

890

5,073

11,408

47.7

7.8

44.5

100.0

New York

91,506

3,242

47,501

142,249

64.3

2.3

33.4

100.0

North Carolina

2,806

112

12,332

15,250

18.4

0.7

80.9

100.0

North Dakota

426

0

643

1,069

39.9

0.0

60.1

100.0

Ohio

10,443

958

45,433

56,834

18.4

1.7

79.9

100.0

Oklahoma

2,171

0

4,848

7,019

30.9

0.0

69.1

100.0

Oregon

34,123

8,539

6,903

49,565

68.8

17.2

13.9

100.0

Pennsylvania

33,164

690

23,429

57,283

57.9

1.2

40.9

100.0

Puerto Rico

7,354

458

417

8,229

89.4

5.6

5.1

100.0

Rhode Island

2,161

162

1,566

3,889

55.6

4.2

40.3

100.0

South Carolina

3,534

0

5,835

9,369

37.7

0.0

62.3

100.0

South Dakota

555

0

2,482

3,037

18.3

0.0

81.7

100.0

Tennessee

14,447

123

15,319

29,889

48.3

0.4

51.3

100.0

Texas

6,851

0

21,236

28,087

24.4

0.0

75.6

100.0

Utah

1,843

0

2,051

3,894

47.3

0.0

52.7

100.0

Vermont

1,616

355

1,402

3,373

47.9

10.5

41.6

100.0

Virgin Islands

219

0

35

254

86.2

0.0

13.8

100.0

Virginia

12,453

0

10,069

22,522

55.3

0.0

44.7

100.0

Washington

17,336

5,527

14,158

37,021

46.8

14.9

38.2

100.0

West Virginia

2,250

0

4,897

7,147

31.5

0.0

68.5

100.0

Wisconsin

6,477

393

10,936

17,806

36.4

2.2

61.4

100.0

Wyoming

200

23

250

473

42.3

4.9

52.9

100.0
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

744,915

147,037

579,355

1,471,307

50.6

10.0

39.4

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.

Author Contact Information

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

Footnotes

1.

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).

2.

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.

3.

In 2015, the HHS poverty guidelines for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia for a family of 3 was $1,674 per month. Higher poverty lines applied in Alaska ($2,093 per month for a family of 3) and Hawaii ($1,925 per month for a family of 3).

4.

Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

5.

The TANF work participation rate increased from 29.5% in FY2011 to 36.6% in FY2014, 7.1 percentage points. The share of families with a member meeting the work standards and engaged in unsubsidized employment increased from 16.6% in FY2011 to 25.8% in FY2014. This 9.2 percentage point increase was greater than the 7.1 percentage point increase in the overall work participation rate.

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.