Order Code IB93034
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reform:
An Issue Overview
Updated April 14, 2003
Vee Burke
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Major Programs for Low-Income Families
TANF Trends and Data
FY2004 Budget Proposals
The 1996 Welfare Law and Changes to Date
Medicaid and TANF
Child Care
Alien Eligibility for Welfare
Food Stamp Revisions
Social Services Block Grants
TANF Reauthorization Bills
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 4)
Work Rules
Other Provisions
Senate Republican Leadership Bill (S. 5)
Work Rules
Other
Senate Democratic Alternatives, S. 367 and S. 448
TANF Issues
Definition of “Work Activities” and the Role of Education
Application of Minimum Wage Laws to “Workfare”
Work Participation Rates and Penalties
Child Care Funding
“Charitable Choice,” Faith-Based Initiative, and Privatization
Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Grants
Transfer of TANF Funds
Victims of Domestic Violence
Transportation for TANF Recipients
Housing Vouchers for TANF Recipients
Tax Credits for Hiring Welfare Recipients
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)
Unspent TANF Funds
Child Support Collections
TANF Bonus Funds
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB93034
04-14-03
Welfare Reform: An Issue Overview
SUMMARY
The Senate Finance Committee, which is
tion’s faith-based initiative.
expected to mark up a bill to reauthorize
TANF in May, received proposals for new
In May 2002, on a largely partisan vote,
TANF rules in early April. They include
229-197, the House passed a bill (H.R. 4737)
requirements for financial education of recipi-
to extend TANF on new terms from FY2003
ents (S. 813) and new due process and data
through FY2007, but the Senate Finance
collection rules (S. 770). Pending in Commit-
Committee substitute bill (H.R. 4737) never
tee are four comprehensive reauthorization
reached the Senate floor. The Senate Commit-
bills: H.R. 4, the House Republican leadership
tee bill adopted the 70% work participation
bill, passed by the House February 13, S. 5,
rate of the House bill, but rejected its proposal
the Senate Republican leadership bill, and two
for a 40-hour work week and it proposed to
Democratic alternatives, S. 367, and S. 448.
enlarge the list of countable activities. Presi-
H.R. 4 is almost identical to the bill passed by
dent Bush charged that the Senate bill had
the House last year (H.R. 4737). Both H.R. 4
work loopholes that made it a “retreat from
and S. 5 set the work week for most TANF
success.” In response to arguments that stiffer
recipients at 40 hours and require that states
work rules would raise child care needs, both
eventually engage 70% of recipients in a work
the House and the Senate Finance Committee
activity. S. 5 adds new anti-fraud rules, and
last year proposed to increase mandatory child
permits states to contract out the determina-
care funding. Over 5 years the increases were
tion of food stamp eligibility. Since the origi-
$1 billion in the House-passed bill and $5.5
nal program expired October 1, 2002, TANF
billion in the Senate Committee bill. The
and related programs of mandatory child care,
Senate bill also would have increased supple-
transitional medicaid, and abstinence educa-
mental grants and allowed states to give feder-
tion have been operating under temporary
ally funded TANF to legal immigrants, re-
spending authority. P.L. 108-7 extended these
gardless of date of entry. Both bills proposed
programs on FY2002 terms from March 31
to create marriage promotion grants and sev-
until June 30. Congress on April 10-11 passed
eral other specialized grants, but their terms
the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res.
differed. For a side-by-side comparison of the
95). Like the President’s budget proposal, the
two versions of H.R. 4737 (and current law),
resolution assumes renewal of TANF block
see CRS Report RL31541.
grants for 5 years ($16.5 billion annually) and
an increase in mandatory child care funding.
HHS reports that TANF work participa-
The president’s budget also proposed to:
tion rates rose slightly in FY2001, to 34.4%
replace Section 8 housing vouchers for low-
for all families. The statutory required rate
income families with a block grant called
was 45%, but in 28 states caseload reduction
Housing Assistance for Needy Families
credits reduced effective required rates to
(HANF), permit states to operate foster care
zero. September 2002 national enrollment
programs with a block grant, increase the
was 4.7% below that of September 2001, but
child tax credit from $600 per child to $1,000,
in 24 jurisdictions caseloads topped those of
establish a voucher program for drug treat-
last year. January food stamp enrollment, at
ment ($200 million annually for 3 years), and
20.7 million persons, was the highest in 5
to fund major elements of the Administra-
years.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB93034
04-14-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On April 10-11 the two Houses of Congress passed the conference report on the
FY2004 budget resolution, which assumes renewal of TANF for 5 years ($16.5 billion
annually) and an increase in entitlement child care funding. On April 9 the Senate passed
S. 476, the CARE Act, without charitable choice provisions, but Senator Santorum said he
would return to the issue during debate on TANF reauthorization. The bill contains tax
incentives for charitable giving, an increase in funding for the social services block grant, and
provisions to create a tax credit-funded program of Individual Development Accounts.
Legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 1261), which won committee
approval March 26, requires that some TANF funds (and those of other mandatory and
optional One-Stop center partners) be provided to Governors for allocation to local areas for
infrastructure costs of the centers (see CRS RS21484). In early April the Senate Finance
Committee, which is expected to mark up a bill to reauthorize TANF next month, received
proposals for new TANF provisions: requirements for financial education of recipients (S.
813), new due process and data collection rules (S. 770), and grants for transitional jobs (S.
786). P.L. 108-7, signed on February 20, extends TANF, mandatory child care funding, and
transitional medicaid until June 30. On December 12, President Bush issued an Executive
Order (EO 13729) to implement an expansion of charitable choice principles to virtually all
social service programs aimed at helping people in need.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Major Programs for Low-Income Families
AFDC/TANF national enrollment has been falling since 1994, but the number of
families on TANF rolls rose in more than half the states during FY2002. The September
2002 caseload held 2.025 million families, compared with 2.098 million one year earlier and
with the record peak of 5.084 million in March 1994. (Numbers for 2002 exclude some
families moved from TANF to state-funded programs.)
The food stamp caseload, which has been rising steadily since April 2001, reached 20.7
million persons in January, the highest number in 5 years. The all-time peak was 28 million
in March 1994. The number of children enrolled in Medicaid rose from 21.7 million in
FY1999 to 21.8 million in FY2000, but the number of enrolled parents fell from 9 million
to 8.3 million (numbers are estimates). The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is the largest
form of income-tested federally funded cash aid for families. The 2002 report of the
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) says research has found that time limits alone caused
more than 10% of the 1993-1999 caseload decline.
FY2000 estimated spending for low-income children and their families by selected
major income-tested programs that give cash, food, medical, and housing aid reached $154.3
billion: cash and medical aid, 33% each; food aid, 18%, and housing, 15%. (Table 1). In
FY2001 spending on cash food dropped by $0.4 billion (to $50.9 billion) but food outlays
climbed by $1 billion (to $28.5 billion). For a breakdown of FY2000 overall spending on
behalf of all population groups ($437 billion), see CRS Report RL31228.
CRS-1

IB93034
04-14-03
Table 1. Estimated Income-Tested Outlays for Children and Their
Families from Selected Major Programs, FY2000 and FY2001
Federal Funds
State-local Funds
Recipientsa
($ in billions)
($ in billions)
(in millions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2000
FY2001
FY2000
FY2001
Cash aid
$43.7
$44
$7.6
$6.9
––
––
(TANF)b
(6.9)
(6.7)
(7.6)
(6.9)
(5.8)c
(5.5)c
(EITC)d
(31.9)
(32.3)
0
0
(19.3)
(19.3)
(SSI) (children only)
(4.9)
(5.0)
N.A.
N.A.
(.85)
(.87)
Food benefits
26.9
27.5
1.0
––
––-
––
(Food stamps)e
(14.6)
(15.0)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(13.4)c
(13.5)c
(Subsidized meals)f
(8.3)
(8.4)
N.A.
N.A.
(17.3)
(17.3)
(WIC)
(4.0)
(4.1)
N.A.
N.A.
(7.2)c
(7.3)c
Major medical aid
30.2
32.6
N.A.
N.A.
34.3
36.9
(Medicaid)g
(28.3)
(29.9)
(21.4)
(22.6)
(31.0)c
(32.3)c
(S-CHIP)h
(1.9)
(2.7)
N.A.
N.A.
(3.3)
(4.6)
Major housing aid
23.5
23.9
0
0
3.8
4.1
(Public housing and
Section 8)
(19.5)
(19.8)
0i
0i
(3.7)j
(4.0)j
(Rural housing service
programs)k
(4.0)
(4.1)
0
0
(0.1)l
(0.1)l
Note: Figures include administrative costs where available. Excludes education benefits, work and job training
programs, Title XX social services, Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), energy aid,
and numerous smaller programs.
a. Caution: Average monthly number of individuals, except: subsidized meals, estimated daily average
participation in school meals and child care programs by children from lower-income families; Medicaid,
yearly total estimates of enrollment; EITC, yearly total number of families; SSI, number of children in
September, and housing, number of households at end of year.
b. Includes basic cash assistance, non-recurring short term aid, refundable tax credits, and contributions to
IDAs. Excludes outlays for work activities, child care, supportive services and other activities to promote
TANF goals.
c. Includes parents. Child totals: food stamps, 8.8 million in FY2000, 8.8 million in FY2001; WIC, 5.4
million in FY2000, 5.5 million in FY2001; TANF, 4.3 million in FY2000, 4.0 million in FY2001;
Medicaid, 21.9 million and 22.6 million, respectively.
d. Credit earned in calendar year preceding the fiscal year (example, CY1999 for FY2000). Direct payments,
$27.6 billion for FY2000; $ 27.8 billion for FY2001. Reduced tax liability, $4.3 billion and $4.5 billion,
respectively. FY2001 spending and recipient data are estimates.
e. Estimate. Includes Puerto Rico’s nutritional assistance program. Does not include employment/training
spending.
f. Estimate. Includes income-tested parts of school lunch, school breakfast, and child care food programs; also
summer food service program. Excludes cost of commodities.
g. Spending estimates are from the April 2001 and March 2002 baselines of CBO. The federal funding share
is estimated at 57% of total spending.
h. Spending estimates are based on state expenditure reports. Recipient counts represent the number of children
ever enrolled during the year.
i. Localities accept below-tax payments in lieu of property taxes on public housing projects.
CRS-2

IB93034
04-14-03
j. Based on estimated percentage of households with children: FY2000, public housing, 45%; Section 8, 70%;
FY2001, public housing, 43%; Section 8, 51%.
k. Subsidized loans to low-income persons for homeownership (Section 502) and rental aid (Sections 515/521).
l. Represents housing units, each of which generally can accommodate one family. Assistance was provided
to 87,423 families in FY2000 and 86,590 in FY2001. The Rural Housing Service does not collect data
on children in households.
TANF Trends and Data
The decline is TANF rolls has slowed to a near halt (see Figure 1). National numbers
in September were only 73,000 below those of a year before. However, TANF enrollment
topped that of September 2001 in several states (including New York, which has moved into
a state-funded safety net program more than 40,000 families after they reached the 5-year
federal time limit). Persons now enrolled include rising proportions of minorities, and 37%
of TANF “families” now have no adult recipient (child-only cases). The 2001 poverty rate
among children in female-headed families was 39.3%, compared with 39.8% in 2000, 49.3%
in 1996, and 52.9% in 1994, when AFDC numbers peaked.
Figure 1. AFDC/TANF Families, September
Cases,1989-2002
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
Thousands
1,000
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
FY2004 Budget Proposals

The FY2004 budget assumes reauthorization of TANF block grants ($16.5 billion
annually) for 5 years and proposes to continue child care funding at the FY2002 level ($4.8
billion). It would replace Section 8 housing vouchers with a block grant program to states,
increase the child tax credit from $600 per child to $1,000, establish a voucher program for
drug treatment ($200 million annually for 3 years), and allow states to obtain
medicaid/SCHIP funding in a single payment. It includes funding for components of the
Administration’s faith-based initiative: $100 million for the compassion capital fund, $50
million for mentoring children of prisoners, and $10 million for maternity group homes.
It includes $100 million for an EITC “compliance initiative,”which would require claimants
to provide additional information to the IRS to validate eligibility before payment, and $5
million to develop measures to reduce the incidence of erroneous payments in TANF, foster
care, and Head Start. It proposes to improve accuracy of eligibility decisions for child
nutrition programs through actions under current and proposed law.
CRS-3

IB93034
04-14-03
The 1996 Welfare Law and Changes to Date
TANF is a fixed block grant for state-designed programs of time-limited and work-
conditioned aid to families with children. Enacted on August 22, 1996 (P.L. 104-193), it
repealed AFDC, Emergency Assistance for Needy Families, and the Job Opportunities and
Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and replaced them with TANF. It combines previous
funding levels for the three programs into a single block ($16.5 billion annually through
FY2002 and entitles each state to a fixed annual sum based on pre-TANF funding. It also
provides an average of $2.3 billion annually in a new child care block grant. (TANF and
related programs have been extended through the first half of FY2003 by continuing
resolutions of Congress.) The law appropriates extra funds for loans, contingencies, bonuses
for “high performance” and for reducing out-of wedlock births, and supplemental grants for
states with historically low federal welfare funding per poor person and/or rapid population
gain. As amended in 1997 (P.L. 105-33), TANF law also provided a $3 billion program in
FY1998-FY1999 for welfare-to-work (WtW) grants, most of which required state cost
sharing, to help states achieve required work participation rates TANF greatly enlarged state
discretion in operating family welfare, and it ended the benefit entitlement of individual
families. TANF explicitly allows states to administer benefits and provide services through
contracts/vouchers with charitable, religious, or private organizations, a provision widely
called Charitable Choice.
The TANF block grant imposes some conditions. States must achieve minimum work
participation rates and maintain at least 75% of their “historic” level of state welfare funding,
increased to 80% if the state fails the work participation rate. States must require parents and
other caretaker recipients to engage in state-defined “work” after a maximum of 24 months
of benefits and must impose a general 5-year time limit on federally-funded ongoing basic
benefits. They may exempt single parents with a child under age 1 from required work (and
from the calculation of work participation rates). In FY2002, 50% of all families with an
adult recipient were required to work (including 90% of families with two parents); statutory
work rates are lowered for caseload declines from FY1995 levels. States are forbidden to
give TANF aid to unwed parents under 18 unless they live under adult supervision, and, if
high school dropouts, attend school. States may continue reforms begun under waivers from
AFDC rules even if terms are inconsistent with the new law. (For TANF provisions, as
compared to AFDC, see CRS Report 96-720.)
Medicaid and TANF
Although the 1996 law ended AFDC, it retains AFDC eligibility limits for Medicaid
use. It requires states to give Medicaid coverage to children and parents who would be
eligible for AFDC cash (under July 16, 1996 terms) if AFDC still existed. For this purpose,
states may lower AFDC income/resource standards to those in effect on May 1, 1988, and
may increase them by the percentage rise in the consumer price index since July 16, 1996,
and may change the method of determining income and resources. Through FY2002, states
had to extend transitional medical assistance (TMA) for 12 months to those who lost TANF
eligibility because larger earnings lifted their income above July 1996 limits. H.R. 4, passed
by the House this year, extends TMA for 1 year; the Senate Finance Committee last year
voted to extend it for 5 years.
CRS-4

IB93034
04-14-03
Child Care
The 1996 welfare law created a mandatory block grant for child care to low-income
families. Individual states are entitled to what they received for AFDC work-related child
care, transitional child care, and at-risk child care in a base year. States that maintain the
higher of their 1994 or 1995 spending on these programs are entitled also to extra funds at
the Medicaid match rate. Appropriated for the block grant was $13.9 billion over 6 years
($2.7 billion for FY2002, the final year). The law also authorized $1 billion annually through
FY2002 in discretionary funding under an expanded Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG). The combined entitlement and discretionary funding streams are referred
to as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). For fiscal year 2003 (as for 2002),
Congress appropriated $4.8 billion – $2.1 billion in discretionary funds, $2.7 billion in
mandatory funds. States may transfer some TANF funds to CCDF; in addition, they use
TANF block grants for “direct” child care. FY2000 TANF-funded child care (federal and
state dollars) totaled $2.3 billion, exclusive of $2 billion transferred to CCDF and state
spending that also could be counted toward sums needed to qualify for matching child care
entitlement funds. The FY2004 budget requests $4.8 billion for child care, no change from
FY2003.
Alien Eligibility for Welfare
The 1996 law barred most legal immigrants from welfare benefits. It also gave states
options (1) to extend TANF, Medicaid, and Title XX social services to legal immigrants who
arrived before the 1996 law and (2) to extend these benefits, after their first 5 years of U.S.
residence, to persons who arrived later. P.L. 105-33 restored SSI for legal aliens enrolled
when the ban was passed, and those who were here then and later become disabled; and P.L.
105-185 restored food stamp eligibility for immigrant children, aged, and disabled aliens here
before enactment of the 1996 law. At passage, CBO estimated that the 1996 alien provisions
would reduce direct federal outlays over 7 years by $23.7 billion, but P.L. 105-33 and P.L.
105-185 were estimated to restore more than half of this over 5 years ($9.5 billion in SSI, $2
billion in Medicaid and $800 million in food stamps). (See CRS Report RL31114 for more
details.) The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) grants food stamp eligibility to noncitizens after
their first 5 years in this country. The Senate Finance Committee TANF bill in the last
Congress would have permitted states to give federally funded TANF to legal aliens,
regardless of their entry date, and to give Medicaid and S-Chip to immigrant children and
pregnant women.
Food Stamp Revisions
The 1996 law expanded states’ food stamp role, added work rules, restricted benefits,
and barred eligibility for most legal aliens. At passage, net federal food stamp outlay savings
over 5 years were estimated at $23.3 billion. P.L. 105-33 provided $1.5 billion over 5 years
for work programs, and P.L. 105-18 allowed states to pay for food stamps for persons made
ineligible for federally financed stamps by the 1996 law. P.L. 106-387 raised benefits for
those with high shelter costs, and the 2002 farm bill increased estimated food stamp spending
by $5.7/$5.9 billion over 10 years. Changes include expanded eligibility for aliens.
CRS-5

IB93034
04-14-03
Social Services Block Grants
The 1996 Act reduced the $2.8 billion entitlement ceiling for Social Services Block
Grants (SSBG) under title XX of the Social Security Act by 15% and entitled states to $2.38
billion yearly. Congress later appropriated $2.5 billion for FY1997, $2.3 billion for FY1998,
$1.9 billion for FY1999, and $1.8 billion for FY2000. Beginning in FY2001, P.L. 105-178
reduced the entitlement ceiling to $1.7 billion, and Congress appropriated this amount for
FY2002. (For TANF transfers to SSBG, see Transfer of TANF funds.) The CARE Act (S.
476), approved by the Senate April 9, would increase SSBG funding for FY2003 and
FY2004 (to $1.975 and $2.8 billion, respectively). The FY2004 budget requests $1.7 billion.
TANF Reauthorization Bills
(See CRS Report RL31541 for a side-by-side comparison of the bill passed last year and
the Senate Finance Committee substitute for it (both called H.R. 4737). Also, CRS Report
RL31393 provides a brief comparison of all bills introduced in the last Congress.)
House-Passed Bill (H.R. 4)
Work Rules. The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act
increases the all-family minimum participation requirement from the current 50% level to
70% by FY2008, ends the separate higher rate for 2-parent families, and requires TANF
adults to engage in work or self-sufficiency activities an average of 40 hours per week,
including 24 hours in “work,” defined as unsubsidized jobs, subsidized private jobs,
subsidized public jobs, on-the-job training, supervised work experience, and supervised
community service. States could define any other activity as countable (for the remaining
16 weekly hours) so long as it was consistent with the purposes of TANF. Also, for 3
months within 24 months, persons could be deemed to meet the 24 hour weekly direct work
requirement by engaging in activities chosen by the state, and under some circumstances, a
fourth month could be credited for education. The bill replaces the fixed base year (FY1995)
for the general caseload reduction credit with a moving and more recent base, but it creates
a “super-achiever” caseload reduction credit for a state whose FY2001 caseload was at least
60% smaller than that of FY1995 (without regard to intervening policy changes). The bill
requires states to end cash aid to a family for at least one month if the parent failed to engage
in required activities for two months. It continues the 5-year time limit on federally paid
basic assistance, along with the 20% hardship exemption. It allows states to make TANF a
mandatory partner in the workforce investment system.
Other Provisions. The bill maintains funding at current levels for basic block grants,
supplemental grants, and the contingency fund. It allows 50% of TANF funds to be
transferred to the CCDBG (up from 30% in current law). Further, it appropriates $2.917
yearly in mandatory child care funds through FY2008 (a $1 billion increase over 5 years).
It authorizes appropriation of an annual average of $1.7 billion over 5 years for the CCDBG,
with the sum rising from $2.1 billion for FY2003 to $3.1 billion for FY2008. It creates new
“superwaiver” authority for states to coordinate rules of specified programs for low-income
families. Programs and activities covered by this waiver provision are TANF, Welfare-to-
Work grants, SSBG, Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI), Title I of WIA
CRS-6

IB93034
04-14-03
(excluding JOB Corps), Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, CCDBG, U.S. Housing
Act (excepting Section 8 rental assistance and set-asides for the elderly and disabled),
Homeless Assistance Act; and the food stamp program.
Specified provisions (including non-financial food stamp rules, any funding restriction
in an appropriations act) could not be waived. Funds could not be transferred from one
account to another, and projects could not increase federal costs. Waiver approval would be
required by each relevant Secretary. The bill also would authorize five states to replace food
stamps with demonstrations of food assistance block grant projects. The bill establishes
marriage promotion matching grants ($100 million yearly) and specifies that TANF funds
used for marriage promotion must be treated as the 50% state match.
It also appropriates $100 million annually for research and demonstration projects and
technical assistance and specifies that these funds must be spent primarily on activities
allowed under marriage promotion grants. It establishes fatherhood projects ($20 million
authorized annually through FY2008), ends the nonmarital birth bonus, and ends the high
performance bonus, replacing it with an employment achievement bonus ($500 million
appropriated for FY2004 through FY2009). The bill makes improving child well-being the
overall TANF purpose and adds “reducing poverty” to the goal of ending dependence on
government benefits. The bill also extends abstinence-only education funding for 5 years
and transitional Medicaid for one year.
Senate Republican Leadership Bill (S. 5)
Work Rules. Work rules (participation rates, hours of work, countable activities) are
the same as in H.R. 4. However, in calculating state work participation rates, S. 5 does not
allow states to exclude families in their first month of assistance (an option in H.R. 4).
Other. Most funding amounts and rules are the same as in H.R. 4. However, S. 5
changes the super-waiver provisions, disallowing a waiver that would reduce or eliminate
TANF work participation rates. It doubles funding for healthy marriage promotion matching
grants (to $200 million annually), increases the federal matching rate from 50% to 75% and,
like H.R. 4, provides that TANF funds used for marriage promotion shall be treated as state
matching funds. S. 5 also appropriates $100 million in outright grants that must be spent on
healthy marriage promotion (as noted above, the counterpart provision in H.R. 4 merely
requires that the extra $100 million be used “primarily” for marriage promotion). The bill
permits states to privatize the determination of eligibility for food stamps and to use TANF
work and procedural rules for persons who apply for both TANF and food stamps. It also
indexes funding (at one-half the rate of inflation) for the food assistance block grant projects
proposed in H.R. 4. The bill also imposes new anti-fraud rules, requiring states to check an
Federal Bureau of Investigation database on wanted felons against names of applicants for
TANF, food stamps, SSI, or unemployment compensation and to check earnings reported by
TANF recipients with amounts shown on the National Directory of New Hires.
Senate Democratic Alternatives, S. 367 and S. 448
S. 367. Sponsored by Senator Rockefeller, this TANF reauthorization bill increases
funding for TANF basic and supplemental grants; maintains work participation standards at
50% for all families; expands the list of countable work activities; permits states to stop the
CRS-7

IB93034
04-14-03
federal time clock during months of work, community service, workfare, or participation in
a parents as scholars program; allows states, through September 30, 2008, to continue
prewelfare reform waivers scheduled to expire after September 30, 2002; and makes
numerous other changes. Upon its introduction February 12, Senator Rockefeller said it was
basically the same as his bill from last year, S. 2052.
S. 448. This comprehensive “Leave No Child Behind Act,” sponsored by Senator
Dodd, maintains basic grants at current levels through FY2009 and prohibits use of TANF
funds to supplant other funds. The bill replaces the caseload reduction credit with an
employment credit; stops the federal time clock during a month spent in a priority activity;
provides partial work participation credit for part-time workers; permits a state, without
numerical limit, to continue federally funded benefits beyond 60 months for persons with
severe work barriers; requires states to give extended “earned-back” time for persons in
wage-paying jobs; greatly enlarges child care funding (appropriating $3.8 billion in
entitlement funds for FY2004 and rising amounts for the future (up to $24.2 billion for
FY2013); appropriates $200 million yearly for a poverty reduction bonus; authorizes $500
million over 5 years for matching “Gateways” grants, chiefly to inform working poor about
available help. Numerous other provisions include a rise in the federal minimum wage.
TANF Issues
Definition of “Work Activities” and the Role of Education
What activities are countable in calculating a state’s work participation rate? In contrast
to JOBS, which allowed credit for postsecondary education, TANF law includes only three
educational activities: vocational educational training (12 month limit), secondary school
attendance and education directly related to employment (adult high school dropouts and teen
parents only). The law provides that participation in vocational educational training or
completion of high school can account for no more than 30% of the persons credited with
work. Although it is not a countable activity, most state TANF programs include
postsecondary education, as the sharp caseload drop has cut or ended the risk of penalty for
failing work participation rates. (See CRS Report RL30767.)
Application of Minimum Wage Laws to “Workfare”
The Clinton Administration ruled that most TANF recipients assigned to “workfare,”
where recipients work for their benefit, would be classified as “employees” under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and, hence, must receive the minimum wage rate (higher of the federal
or state rate). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said it would not exclude TANF workfare
payments from federal income and employment taxes if recipients were required to
participate more hours for their benefit than the minimum wage equivalent. Adult TANF
recipients generally now must work an average of 30 hours weekly (20 hours if they have a
child under 6). At the federal minimum wage ($5.15), a 30-hour weekly workfare
assignment equates to $154.50 in benefits ($669 per month); and in the 11 jurisdictions with
higher state minimum wage rates, the required “workfare benefit” would be higher. Only in
Alaska, California, New York (Suffolk County), and Wisconsin (Community Service
program), are TANF maximum benefits for a 3-person family (as of Jan. 2002) high enough
CRS-8

IB93034
04-14-03
to provide the required amount for 30 hours of work, at the federal minimum wage rate, by
a single-parent family. Many states could observe the workfare minimum “wage” by adding
food stamps to the calculation, but some would have to boost cash benefits.
Work Participation Rates and Penalties
HHS reported on October 17, 2002, that work participation rates increased in FY2001
to 34.4% for all families and 51.1% for 2-parent families (compared with 34% and 48.9%,
respectively, in FY2000). All states met their all-family adjusted minimum standards, as did
30 jurisdictions of the 35 with two-parent families in the TANF program. The statutory
minimum work rates for FY2001 were 45% for all families and 90% for two-parent families,
but actual state targets were adjusted downward to give credit for reductions in caseload from
FY1995 to FY2000. These credits reduced all-family participation standards to zero in 28
states. See [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/im01rate.htm] for state rates. Both
versions of H.R. 4737 in the 107th Congress proposed to end the higher participation rate for
two-parent families.
Child Care Funding
The level of child care funding has emerged as a key issue in TANF reauthorization.
House-passed TANF bills in 2002 and 2003 (H.R. 4737 and H.R. 4, respectively) proposed
to increase mandatory child care funding by $1 billion over 5 years and to raise the
discretionary authorization by $200 million annually over 5 years, reaching the level of $3.1
billion in FY2007. The Senate Finance TANF bill in 2002 proposed to increase mandatory
funding by $5.5 billion over 5 years. S. 261, introduced January 30, 2003, would increase
funds for the Child Care Development and Block Grant (CCDBG) by $11.2 billion over 5
years.
“Charitable Choice,” Faith-Based Initiative, and Privatization
The 1996 welfare law permits states to “administer and provide services” under TANF,
food stamps, Medicaid, and some other federal programs through contracts with (or
vouchers redeemable with) charitable, religious, or private organizations. However, food
stamp and Medicaid law effectively require eligibility to be determined by a public official.
(S. 5 would permit states to “privatize” determination of food stamp eligibility.) The stated
purpose of what has come to be known as “charitable choice” is to allow religious
organizations to provide services on the same basis as any other nongovernmental provider
“without impairing their religious character” or diminishing the religious freedom of
recipients. Since 1996, Congress has enacted other charitable choice provisions–applying
them to grants under the Community Services Block Grant (1998) and to substance abuse
services under the Public Health Service Act (2000). (See CRS Report RS20712.) Using
its new privatization authority, Wisconsin has contracted out the administration of TANF in
some counties, and a 2002 survey by the General Accounting Office found that in some
locations in three other states (Texas, Arizona, and Florida) the determination of TANF
eligibility is performed by contractors (GAO-02-661).
To carry out the faith-based agenda proposed by President Bush in January 2001, the
House voted (H.R. 7) to extend charitable choice rules to nine new program areas and offer
CRS-9

IB93034
04-14-03
tax incentives for charitable giving, but the Senate did not pass this legislation. On
December 12, 2002, the President issued an Executive Order (No. 13279) to implement an
expansion of charitable choice principles to virtually all social service programs aimed at
helping people in need. Congress earlier had acted on four other faith-based initiatives: a
matching grant program to help children of prisoners, prison pre-release pilot programs, a
Compassion Capital fund to provide technical aid and start-up costs for small groups, and
competition for 21st Century Community Learning Center grants. However, Congress took
no action on two other faith-based initiatives: responsible fatherhood grants and second-
chance maternity homes. During 2002, the Administration announced award of almost $25
million in Compassion Capital fund grants to 21 “intermediary” organizations authorized to
issue sub-grants and of $17.5 billion in funds designed “to link faith-based and grassroots
community organizations” to the nation’s One-Stop Career system under the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA). On April 4, 2003, the Labor Department announced that it would
award another $3.75 million to small faith-based and community organizations and
intermediary organizations; funds are intended to expand access to One-Stop centers. The
FY2004 budget requests $100 million for the Compassion Capital fund, $50 million to
mentor children of prisoners, and $10 million for maternity group homes. The CARE Act
(S. 476), passed by the Senate April 9, has no charitable choice provisions; but, in a title
called Compassion Capital Fund, it authorizes $200 million for FY2003 (and “such funds”
as needed for FY2004-2007) in grants to nongovernmental organizations for technical
assistance and other support to community-based organizations. It also authorizes use of
funds under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act for maternity group homes ($33 million
for FY2003 and such sums as needed for FY2004).
Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Grants
The basic TANF block grant earmarks no funds for any program component, benefits
or work programs. In response to a presidential budget proposal, the 1997 Balanced Budget
Act created a $3 billion welfare-to-work grant program for FY1998-FY1999, administered
by the Secretary of Labor. It required 75% of funds (after set-asides) to be used for 33% state
matching formula grants. Remaining funds were to be used for competitive grants. Over the
2 years, formula grants totaled almost $2 billion, and competitive grants, $712 million. As
of December 31, 2000, $1.6 billion in WtW funds remained unspent; and, as requested by
the President, Congress extended the WtW spending deadline (from 3 years to 5 years from
the award date) in P.L. 106-554. As first enacted, 70% of funds had to be used to benefit
TANF recipients (and non-custodial parents) with at least two specified barriers to work who
themselves (or whose minor children) were long-term recipients (30 months of AFDC/TANF
benefits) or were within 12 months of reaching a time limit. Eligibility was liberalized by
P.L. 106-113. States now can help new groups: long-term TANF recipients without
specified work barriers, former foster care youths 18 to 24 years old, TANF recipients who
are determined by criteria of the local private industry council to have significant barriers to
self-sufficiency, and non-TANF custodial parents with below-poverty income who are
unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support and comply with a
personal responsibility contract. (See CRS Report RS20134.)
Transfer of TANF Funds
The law allows states to transfer up to 30% of TANF funds to the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the Title XX social services block grant (SSBG),
CRS-10

IB93034
04-14-03
but sets a limit of 10% on the share that can go to SSBG. P.L. 105-200 allows states to use
TANF funds, within the overall 30% transfer limit, as state matching funds for job access
grants to provide transportation services to TANF recipients and ex-recipients, noncustodial
parents of TANF children, and those at “risk” of becoming eligible for TANF. Cumulative
SSBG transfers from TANF awards through FY1999 totaled $6.4 billion, 13.7% of awards.
During FY1999, states transferred 17% of 1999 awards (11% to CCDBG and 6% to SSBG).
P.L. 105-178 cut the share of funds that could go to SSBG to 4.25%, effective in FY2001,
but Congress in December restored the 10% cap for FY2001 only; and in late 2001 ( P.L.
107-116) continued it at 10% for FY2002. The House voted in 2002 (H.R. 4737) and again
in 2003 (H.R. 4) to allow 50% of TANF funds to be transferred to CCDBG.
Victims of Domestic Violence
The 1996 law allows states to certify in their TANF plans that they have adopted
standards to screen and identify TANF recipients with a history of domestic violence, refer
them to services, and waive program requirements in some cases; all but 10 jurisdictions
have adopted this Family Violence Option (FVO). The Senate several times voted to allow
unlimited TANF waivers for victims of domestic violence and to disregard these persons in
computing a state’s work participation rate, but the House has disagreed. Regulations permit
a state that has adopted the FVO to receive “reasonable cause” exceptions to penalties for
failing work and time limit rules if the state had granted domestic violence waivers that met
certain standards. (See CRS Report RS20662.)
Transportation for TANF Recipients
The 1998 transportation act (P.L. 105-178) authorized $750 million in 50% matching
funds over 5 years for matching grants for job access and reverse commute grants for welfare
recipients, of which no more than $10 million annually can be for reverse commute projects.
It said funds were to be used to develop services for welfare recipients and other low-income
persons (income not above 150% of the poverty level). As noted immediately above, states
may use TANF funds, within limits, as state matching funds for these grants. Appropriations
for FY1999 and 2000 were $75 million annually, and for FY2001, $99.780 million (P.L.
106-346). In FY1999, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) awarded competitive grants
to 206 projects, but thereafter Congress designated many projects for funding. For FY2000,
about 50% of funds were earmarked for specific projects, and for FY2001, about 75% ($21
million was earmarked in FY2001 for five state governments). Observing that earmarking
of funds prevented projects to “emerge from a competitive process,” FTA proposed on May
3, 2001, to allocate all funds among the states and outlying areas, on the basis of each
jurisdiction’s share of low-income persons, beginning in FY2002. It requested $125 million
for that year and said a formula program would allow states to select grantees on a
competitive basis and facilitate multi-year funding. For details of the proposal and
information about FY1999-FY2001 awards, see [http://www.fta.dot.gov/wtw]. A GAO
study (GAO-03-204) in December 2002 found that the Job Access program has improved
local service coordination, but said the Department of Transportation had failed legal
requirements to evaluate the program and submit a report to Congress.
CRS-11

IB93034
04-14-03
Housing Vouchers for TANF Recipients
In response to President Clinton’s FY1999 request, Congress appropriated funds in
1998 (P.L. 105-276) for tenant-based housing assistance to help eligible TANF families
move to work ($283 million, sufficient for 50,000 Section 8 vouchers). This law made
sweeping changes in subsidized housing, including: Reducing the share of units reserved for
very poor families in an effort to achieve an income mix; requiring housing agencies to set
minimum rents (not above $50 monthly); allowing public housing tenants to choose a flat
rent or income-adjusted rent; forbidding housing agencies to increase the rent for one year
of TANF recipients (or some other previously unemployed persons) who take a job; and
requiring adult public housing residents, for 8 hours monthly, to participate in a self-
sufficiency program or in community service. (See CRS Report 98-868.) The FY2000 and
FY2001 budgets requested funding for new WtW housing vouchers, but Congress denied the
requests, and subsequent budgets (including that for FY2003) have sought no new WtW
housing vouchers. The FY2004 budget proposes to replace Section 8 housing vouchers with
Housing Assistance for Needy Families (HANF) block grants to states. For a general
discussion of housing for the poor, see CRS Report RL30486.
Tax Credits for Hiring Welfare Recipients
In 1997, Congress established a Welfare-to-Work (WtW)Tax Credit for hiring persons
who had received AFDC/TANF for 18 months. It also extended an existing credit called the
Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)for hiring certain persons, including those who had
received TANF for 9 months. P.L. 106-554 added “renewal communities” to the areas
where a tax credit is offered for hiring resident youth. S. 545, introduced March 15, 2001,
would extend WOTC to small business employees working or living in areas of poverty.
P.L. 107-147, signed March 9, includes an extension of the WtW tax credit and WOTC
through December 31, 2003. The FY2004 budget proposes to extend these credits, in
combined, modified form, through December 31, 2005. See CRS Report RL30089.
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)
The 1996 law permits states to use TANF funds to carry out a program of individual
development accounts (IDAs) established by (or on behalf of) persons eligible for TANF,
with no dollar limit. Accounts are to contain deposits from the recipient’s earnings, matched
by a contributions from a not-for-profit organization, or a state or local government agency
in cooperation with the organization. Withdrawals are allowed only for postsecondary
educational expenses, first home purchase, and business capitalization. All means-tested
programs must disregard amounts, including accruing interest, in TANF-funded IDEAS.
According to HHS, 31 states allow TANF recipients to establish IDAs, including IDAs under
the Assets for Independence (AIA) 5-year demonstration program created by Congress in
1998. In the first 3 years of the AIA program, awards totaling $37.5 million were made to
125 competitively-funded grantees to operate IDA programs for TANF-eligible and certain
other low-income persons. In addition, under terms of the law, two states (Indiana and
Pennsylvania) with pre-existing programs were awarded just over $5 million for FY1999-
2001. In mid-April 2002, the Office of Community Services requested applications for
FY2002 awards. Appropriations for FY1999 and FY2000 were $10 million each; for
FY2001 and FY2002, $25 million each. In mid-June, 2002, the Office of Refugee
CRS-12

IB93034
04-14-03
Resettlement (ORR) announced that it planned to award about $2.5 million in FY2002 ORR
funds for projects to establish and manage IDA accounts for refugees (a term including
asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and certain Amerasians from Vietnam). Savings in
these IDAs could be used not only for home ownership, business capitalization, and
postsecondary education, but also for purchase of an automobile or computer. The CARE
Act, approved by the Senate on April 9, includes a provision to establish a new IDA program
financed with tax credits to financial institutions.
Unspent TANF Funds
As of September 30, 2002, HHS reports that states had an unspent/unobligated balance
in the U.S. Treasury of $5.8 billion in TANF funds. Unliquated obligations totaled $3.1
billion, and unobligated balances, $2.7 billion. Nine states had no balances left to obligate:
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Vermont, and Virginia. States may draw TANF funds from the Treasury only for
reimbursement of expenditures. The law sets no fiscal year deadline for spending TANF
dollars for “assistance,” defined by regulation as basic ongoing aid. The House-passed H.R.
4 would permit carryover of funds for any benefit or service (a provision approved also by
the Senate Finance Committee last year).
Child Support Collections
To receive TANF, parents must assign child support rights to the state. In FY1999,
child support enforcement offices collected $6 billion assigned by TANF and former TANF
families. Of this sum, $3.8 billion was distributed to former TANF families and $0.1 million
to TANF families; most of the rest was used to repay federal and state administrative costs.
The House voted in 2001 (H.R. 4678) to require states and localities to distribute more child
support to ex-welfare families (with federal funding) and to allow states to give child support
collections to TANF families without having to repay the federal government for its share
of the money. The bill also proposed “fatherhood” grants to promote marriage and applied
Charitable Choice rules to them, but the Senate did not act on counterpart legislation. P.L.
106-553 and P.L. 106-554 appropriated $4 million to two national organizations to promote
fatherhood. In 2002, both the House-passed TANF bill (H.R. 4737) and the Senate Finance
Committee substitute for this bill included provisions to promote “responsible fatherhood”
and distribute more child support directly to families.
TANF Bonus Funds
On October 4, 2002, HHS announced award of $100 million in bonuses to 6 of the 7
jurisdictions that achieved reductions in the percentages of births to unwed women between
1997-98 and 1996-00. Bonuses went to Alabama, Colorado, D.C., Michigan,, Texas, and
the Virgin Islands. On July 2, 2002, the Department announced award of the third TANF
high performance bonus: $200 million to 26 states and D.C., based on state rankings
(absolute and relative) in FY2000 on work-related measures — rates of job entry and success
in the workforce (job retention and earnings gain). Winners ranked among the top 10 states
in at least one category. Bonuses ranged from $0.648 million in Nebraska for improvement
in workforce success to $41.7 million in California (also the top winner in the two previous
CRS-13

IB93034
04-14-03
years) for workforce success. For state rankings and high performance bonuses, see
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/hpb/index.htm]. On August 30, 2000, HHS issued
final rules for high performance bonuses, effective for awards beginning in FY2002,
available on the HHS Web site at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/hpb]. The new
rules add four non-work performance measures: family formation and stability, health
insurance coverage, food stamp coverage, and child care coverage.
LEGISLATION
Note: All Senate bills shown were referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
H.R. 4 (Pryce)
Reauthorizes TANF, on new terms, for 5 years. Almost identical to H.R. 4737, as
passed by House in 2002. See text above. Introduced February 4, 2003. Passed House
February 13.
H.R. 535 (AcevedopVila)
TANF. Provides access to “tools” for moving from welfare to work. Introduced
February 5, 2003; referred to Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 624 (Stark)
TANF. Credits work-barrier removal as work. Introduced February 5, 2003; referred
to Ways and Means Committee.
H.R. 625 (Stark)
TANF. Makes poverty reduction a TANF goal and provides grants for that purpose.
Introduced February 5, 2003; referred to Ways and Means Committee.
H.R. 706 (Stark)
TANF. Provides $100 million grant program for projects to promote “secure and
healthy” families. Introduced February 11, 2003; referred to Ways and Means Committee.
S. 5 (Talent)
TANF reauthorization. Very similar to House-passed H.R. 4, but increases marriage
funds and contains new anti-fraud and food stamp provisions. Introduced February 14.
S. 261 (Bingaman)
TANF. Children First Act. Increases CCDBG funding by $11.2 billion over 5 years;
excludes months of TANF-funded child care benefits from federal 5-year assistance limit.
Other provisions. Introduced January 30, 2003.
S. 262 (Bingaman)
TANF. Removes limit on percentage of recipients who may be credited with work by
virtue of educational activity. Stops federal time clock for months when child care or
transportation aid (but no cash benefit) is received by persons engaged in work or education.
Introduced January 30, 2003.
CRS-14

IB93034
04-14-03
S. 263 (Bingaman)
TANF and waivers. Allows states to continue (through September 30, 2007) waivers
that were scheduled to expire between Oct. 1, 2002 and September 30, 2007. Requires HHS
Secretary to approve waiver applications with similar or identical terms to those of waivers
continued by above provision. Amends state plan requirements. Introduced January 30.
S. 316 (Corzine)
TANF. Specifies assessment procedure; treats work-barrier removal activities as
countable work. Other changes. Introduced February 5, 2003.
S. 327 (Levin)
TANF. Allows vocational educational training to be counted as a TANF work activity
for 24 months. Introduced February 6, 2003.
S. 367 (Rockefeller)
TANF reauthorization. Increases block grants and supplemental grants, replaces the
caseload reduction credit with an employment credit. Many other provisions. Introduced
February 12, 2003.
S. 448 (Dodd)
TANF reauthorization. Extends block grants at current level, replaces the caseload
reduction credit with an employment credit, stops federal time clock for months of priority
work, greatly increases child care funds. (Comprehensive provisions about health, education;
unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc.) Introduced February 26.
S. 574 (Corzine)
TANF. Stops the federal time clock for months of assistance received during periods
of high unemployment. Introduced March 7.
S. 603 (Snowe)
TANF. Allows states to create a program of postsecondary education (including
college) for TANF recipients. Introduced March 12.
S. 605 (Smith)
TANF waivers. Gives states the option to continue current pre-TANF waivers (and
those expiring after January 1, 2002) through September 2008. Introduced March 12.
S. 657 (Bayh)
TANF. Provides fatherhood grants within TANF. Introduced March 19.
S. 669 (Snowe)
Child support. Provides more support for ex-welfare families. Introduced March 19.
S. 770 (Feingold)
TANF. Sets due process rules and new reporting requirements. Introduced April 2
S. 786 (Bingaman)
TANF. Provides grants for transitional jobs programs. Introduced April 3.
CRS-15

IB93034
04-14-03
S. 813 (Corzine
TANF. Requires states to promote financial education and treat it as a countable work
activity. Introduced April 8.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
(See also the CRS Welfare Reform Briefing Book, at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebwlf1.shtml])
CRS Report RL31228. Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income:
Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY1998-FY2000, by Vee Burke.
CRS Report RL31371. Comments from the Public on TANF Reauthorization, by Vee Burke,
Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, Shannon Harper, Carmen Solomon-Fears, Karen Spar, and
Emilie Stoltzfus
.
CRS Report 97-86. Indian Tribes and Welfare Reform, by Vee Burke.
CRS Report RL31393. TANF: Brief Comparison of Reauthorization Bills, by Vee Burke.
CRS Report RL31541. TANF Reauthorization: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law
and Two Versions of .R. 4737, by Vee Burke.
CRS Report RS21070. TANF Sanctions Brief Summary, by Vee Burke and Gene Falk.
CRS Report RS21069. TANF Time Limits: Basic Facts and Implications, by Gene Falk, Vee
Burke, and Shannon Harper.
CRS Report RL31087. Welfare Reform: FY2000 TANF Spending and Recent Spending
Trends, by Gene Falk.
CRS Report 97-509. Welfare Reform: Education as a Work Activity, by Vee Burke.
CRS Report 98-369. Welfare Reform: TANF Trends and Data, by Vee Burke.
CRS Report RL30724. Welfare Reform Research: What Have We Learned Since the Family
Support Act of 1988? by Christine Devere, Gene Falk, and Vee Burke.
CRS Report RL30882. Welfare Reform Research: What Do We Know about Those Who
Leave Welfare? by Christine Devere.
CRS Report 96-882. The Wisconsin Works Welfare Program: Concept and Experience, by
Vee Burke.
CRS-16