Order Code RL32760
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions
Updated March 31, 2005
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Summary
The 109th Congress is considering legislation to extend funding and possibly
amend the block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which
was created in the 1996 welfare reform law. The original funding authority provided
in the 1996 law expired at the end of FY2002. Since then, Congress has
inconclusively debated legislation to reauthorize TANF (and some related programs)
but has kept the program alive through temporary extensions. The latest such
extension is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2005. Reauthorization bills introduced
for the 109th Congress (H.R. 240, S. 667) have policies that mirror those of bills
considered during the previous three years.
This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF — about
its caseload, funding, and how states have complied with work participation rules.
It will be updated as new data to respond to these questions become available.
Additionally, if new questions are frequently asked, responses to them will also be
added to this report. This report does not provide a description or detailed
background information about TANF current law or pending legislation, but refers
readers to other Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports for that information.
Caseload. In June of 2004, a total of 2.1 million needy families with children
received cash assistance from TANF or from related state programs. The number of
families receiving cash assistance is down by more than half (58%) from the
historical peak of 5.1 million families receiving cash assistance in March of 1994.
Funding. TANF provides fixed funding to states — the bulk of the funding is
provided in a $16.5 billion per year basic block grant. The grant is not adjusted for
changes in the cash welfare caseload (see above) or for inflation. From FY1997
through FY2004, the TANF cash grant lost 15% of its value (purchasing power)
because of inflation.
In FY2003, states transferred $2.8 billion to other block grants (16.3% of the
TANF block grant): $1.9 billion to the child care block grant and $0.9 billion to the
Social Services Block Grant. As of September 30, 2003 (end of FY2003), there
remained a total of $3.9 billion in unspent TANF funds.
Work Requirements. Though TANF law sets a statutory standard that a state
must have 50% of its caseload (that includes an adult or teen parent) participating in
work or work activities, this standard is reduced by a “caseload reduction credit.”
The caseload reduction credit reduces the TANF work participation standard one
percentage point for each percent decline in the caseload since FY1995. In FY2003,
this meant that 20 states had effective (after credit) standards of 0%. States actually
achieved a 31.3% participation rate in FY2003 — well below the 50% statutory
standard, but high enough above the effective (after credit) standards so that all states
except Nevada and Guam met the 50% participation standard.

---

Contents
Current Status of the Program and Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why Is Welfare Legislation Being Considered in the 109th Congress? . 1
How Many Times Has Congress Enacted Temporary Extensions
of TANF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Is There an Administration Proposal to Reauthorize TANF? . . . . . . . . 2
Has There Been Legislative Action to Reauthorize TANF Since
2002? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Cash Welfare Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Many Families and Recipients Currently Receive Cash
Welfare? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Much Has the Cash Welfare Caseload Declined Since
the Mid- 1990s? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Are There Any Adjustments to the TANF Block Grant for
Changes in Circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of
Inflation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Been Transferred to the Child
Care and Social Service Block Grants? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? . . 5
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? . . . 6
Appendix: State Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash
Welfare, October 1976-June 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: June 1994,
2000, 2003, and 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table A2. TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services
Block Grant, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

---

Table A3. Cumulative TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social
Services Block Grants, FY1997-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table A4. Unspent TANF Funds as of September 30, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table A5. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for All Families,
FY2003, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table A6. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for
Two-Parent Families, FY2003, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions
This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended as a
quick reference to provide easy access to information and data. This report is not
intended to discuss TANF or welfare issues. For a discussion of welfare issues, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10104, Welfare Reauthorization: Overview of the Issues. This
report also does not provide information on TANF program rules. For such
information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on Financing and Requirements for State
Programs.
Current Status of the Program and Legislation
Why Is Welfare Legislation Being Considered in the 109th
Congress? The original funding authority for TANF, mandatory child care, and
state grants for abstinence education provided in the 1996 welfare law expired at the
end of FY2002 (September 30, 2002). Since then, Congress has inconclusively
debated legislation that would have provided a multiyear reauthorization of the
program. These programs have been continued under stop-gap, temporary measures,
the latest of which will expire on June 30, 2005. Congress thus faces the issue of
welfare reauthorization in 2005.
How Many Times Has Congress Enacted Temporary Extensions of
TANF? H.R. 1160, signed by the President March 25, 2005 (P.L. 109-4), was the
ninth temporary extension of TANF. Table 1 provides a listing of the laws that have
extended TANF, up to the latest extension, which runs until June 30, 2005. These
extensions have not changed TANF policy, and the program has been operating in
FY2003-FY2005 just as it did in FY2002.

---

CRS-2
Table 1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2005
Public law
Time period
Notes
P.L. 107-229
Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002
Extension as a 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
E x t e n s i o n a s a p a r t o f t h e
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
Free-standing bill extending funding
authority for the program through June
30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262
July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004
Free-standing bill extending funding
authority for the program through
Sept. 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308
Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005
Free-standing bill to extend funding
authority for the programs through
Mar. 31, 2005.
P.L. 109-4
Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005
Free-standing bill to extend funding
authority for the programs through
June 30, 2005.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Is There an Administration Proposal to Reauthorize TANF? Yes. In
February 2002, the Bush Administration issued its proposal to reauthorize and amend
TANF, Working Toward Independence.1
Has There Been Legislative Action to Reauthorize TANF Since
2002? The House passed a bill in May 2002 (H.R. 4737, 107th Congress), generally
aligned with the President’s proposal. An alternative bill was reported from the
Senate Finance Committee that July but the full Senate never took up the bill.
1 Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-reform-
announcement-book.pdf].

---

CRS-3
Early in the 108th Congress, the House again passed a bill that generally
followed the Administration proposal (H.R. 4, 108th Congress, passed the House in
February 2003). Eight months later, the Senate Finance Committee again reported
a substitute measure. The Finance Committee bill came to the Senate floor in late
March 2004, but its consideration was set aside on April 1, 2004 when a motion to
limit debate on the bill failed to muster the needed 60 votes. The bill never
reappeared on the floor for consideration. Reauthorization bills being considered in
the 109th Congress (H.R. 240, S. 667) have policies that mirror those of the bills
considered during the previous three years.
The Cash Welfare Caseload
How Many Families and Recipients Currently Receive Cash
Welfare? In June of 2004 (latest data available) about 2.1 million families received
cash welfare either funded from TANF block grants or state programs with
expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement. For
state-specific caseload numbers, see Appendix A, Table A1.
How Much Has the Cash Welfare Caseload Declined Since the Mid-
1990s? Historically, the cash welfare caseload peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million
families. The 2.1 million families receiving cash welfare as of June 2004 represents
a decline of 58% since its historical peak.
Figure 1 shows the trend nationally in the number of families receiving cash
assistance from October 1975 to June 2004. Table A1 shows state-by-state the
number of families receiving cash welfare in June 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004.
Figure 1. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash
Welfare, October 1976-June 2004
6,000,000
March 1994:
5.1 million families
5,000,000
4,000,000
June 2004:
2.1 million families
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
-
6
8
9
1
2
4
5
9
2
3
5
6
8
9
1
3
-86
-90
ct-7
ct-77 ct-7
ct-7
ct-80 ct-8
ct-8
ct-83 ct-8
ct-8
ct
ct-87 ct-88 ct-8
ct
ct-91 ct-9
ct-9
ct-94 ct-9
ct-9
ct-97 ct-9
ct-9
ct-00 ct-0
ct-02 ct-0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-4
Program Funding
Are There Any Adjustments to the TANF Block Grant for Changes
in Circumstances? No. Aside from contingency funds for a recession and bonus
funds based on state performance, the amount of funds received by the states is fixed
and not adjusted for either inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload.
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of
Inflation? From FY1997 (the first year of TANF funding) through FY2004 (ended
September 30, 2004), the real value of the basic TANF block grant declined by 15%.
Based on inflation projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January
2005, the block grant would decline by 25% from FY1997 through FY2010. Table
2 shows the value of the basic TANF block grant from FY1997 through FY2010 in
constant 1997 dollars.
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
Value of the block
grant in billions of
Cumulative loss of
Fiscal year
FY1997 dollars
value (in percent)
1997
$16.5
—
1998
16.2
-2%
1999
15.9
-3
2000
15.4
-6
2001
14.9
-9
2002
14.7
-11
2003
14.4
-13
2004
14.1
-15
2005
13.7
-17
2006
13.4
-19
2007
13.1
-20
2008
12.9
-22
2009
12.6
-23
2010
12.3
-25
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Constant dollars were
computed using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Actual inflation was
used to compute constant dollars for FY1997-FY2004 using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Constant dollars for FY2005 through FY2010 are based on the inflation assumptions of the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), published in Jan. 2005.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Been Transferred to the Child
Care and Social Service Block Grants? In FY2003 (the latest year for which
data are available) states transferred a total of $2.8 billion (16.3% of the block grant):
$1.9 billion (10.8% of the TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $0.9
billion to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). See Table A2 for transfers by
state. In FY2003, Oklahoma transferred the maximum 30% of TANF (six other
states transferred just about the maximum, more than 29% of TANF).
Cumulatively over the lifetime of TANF (FY1997-FY2003), a total of $18.4
billion (16.0% of the block grant) has been transferred: $11.6 billion (10.1% of the

---

CRS-5
TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $6.8 billion (5.9% of the TANF
block grant) to SSBG. Table A3 shows cumulative transfers by state to the child
care block grant and SSBG.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? At the end of
FY2003 (September 30, 2003, the latest data available), a total of $3.9 billion of
TANF block grants had not either been transferred or spent. This represents 3.3%
of all TANF grants provided to the states over the FY1997-FY2003 period.
Some of the $3.9 billion in unspent TANF funds represents funds for
commitments that states already made. Through the end of September 2003, states
had made commitments to spend — obligations — that have yet to result in
expenditures totaling $1.6 billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments
to spend in the form of contracts, grants, or other types of commitments to provide
benefits and services. However, the definition of “obligation” varies from program
to program, and since TANF essentially comprises 54 different programs, what
constitutes an obligation may vary among the states.
The remaining $2.3 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated balance.”
These are the funds states have available for new commitments.
Table A4 shows TANF unspent funds available as of September 30, 2003 by
state. Note that some transfers from TANF may remain unspent in the child care
block grant and SSBG program; such unspent transfers are not included in the figures
for unspent TANF funds.
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 with an adult or teen
household head meet standards of participation in work or activities — that is, a
family member must be in specified activities for a minimum number of hours.
There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a
state’s caseload, requiring 90% of its two-parent caseload to meet participation
standards.
However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a “caseload
reduction credit,” which reduces TANF work participation standards one percentage
point for each percent decline in a state’s cash welfare caseload from FY1995. This
has significantly reduced the effective (after credit) work participation standard states
must meet. For FY2003 work participation (latest data currently available), the
caseload reduction credit reduced participation standards to 0% in 20 states. (That
is, the caseload reduction credit equaled or exceeded 50%.)
Table A5 shows the statutory and effective (after-credit) work participation
standards and actual work participation rates achieved by states for FY2003 for all
families. Table A6 shows the same information for the two-parent portion of the
caseload.

---

CRS-6
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?
In FY2003 (latest year of available data), the national average work participation rate
for all families achieved by states was 31.3% — well below the statutory 50%
participation standard, but, because of the caseload reduction credit, high enough so
that all jurisdictions except Nevada and Guam met the FY2003 standard. The
participation rate achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was
48.4%. In FY2003, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Guam, and West Virginia
failed to meet the two-parent standard.
Actual work participation rates for each state are shown on Table A5 (all family
rates) and Table A6 (two-parent family rates).

---

CRS-7
Appendix: State Tables
Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: June
1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004
Percentage Change to
June 2004 from:
State
Jun-94
Jun-00
Jun-03
Jun-04
Jun-94 Jun-00 Jun-03
Alabama
49,482
18,839
19,580
18,888
-61.8%
0.3%
-3.5%
Alaska
12,977
7,542
5,384
4,878
-62.4
-35.3
-9.4
Arizona
71,530
32,769
49,003
47,996
-32.9
46.5
-2.1
Arkansas
25,892
12,046
10,763
9,492
-63.3
-21.2
-11.8
California
919,535
552,221
495,174
504,737
-45.1
-8.6
1.9
Colorado
41,378
10,772
14,287
14,943
-63.9
38.7
4.6
Connecticut
59,701
28,840
24,708
25,096
-58.0
-13.0
1.6
Delaware
11,239
5,920
5,762
5,665
-49.6
-4.3
-1.7
District of Col.
27,443
17,071
16,984
17,388
-36.6
1.9
2.4
Florida
239,232
64,446
58,083
56,937
-76.2
-11.7
-2.0
Georgia
139,566
50,891
55,883
50,900
-63.5
0.0
-8.9
Guam
1,973
2,760
3,072
3,072
55.7
11.3
0.0
Hawaii
20,844
20,689
13,292
11,875
-43.0
-42.6
-10.7
Idaho
8,739
1,308
1,739
1,841
-78.9
40.7
5.9
Illinois
242,740
79,913
36,718
36,907
-84.8
-53.8
0.5
Indiana
72,881
36,043
56,227
52,428
-28.1
45.5
-6.8
Iowa
39,813
20,860
21,908
22,020
-44.7
5.6
0.5
Kansas
30,020
12,469
15,676
16,870
-43.8
35.3
7.6
Kentucky
79,225
37,471
34,650
35,578
-55.1
-5.1
2.7
Louisiana
85,741
25,520
22,372
17,067
-80.1
-33.1
-23.7
Maine
22,641
12,277
10,706
10,997
-51.4
-10.4
2.7
Maryland
79,706
30,522
28,918
28,091
-64.8
-8.0
-2.9
Massachusetts
110,108
41,761
49,012
49,025
-55.5
17.4
0.0
Michigan
222,472
70,285
75,987
79,411
-64.3
13.0
4.5
Minnesota
63,043
39,295
42,570
39,282
-37.7
0.0
-7.7
Mississippi
55,183
14,979
19,620
18,096
-67.2
20.8
-7.8
Missouri
92,265
48,812
45,883
46,962
-49.1
-3.8
2.4
Montana
12,004
4,467
6,349
5,147
-57.1
15.2
-18.9
Nebraska
15,649
10,088
11,943
12,369
-21.0
22.6
3.6
Nevada
14,207
6,146
11,010
9,313
-34.4
51.5
-15.4
New Hampshire
11,591
5,791
6,290
6,030
-48.0
4.1
-4.1
New Jersey
122,536
51,847
44,428
47,266
-61.4
-8.8
6.4
New Mexico
33,732
22,701
16,540
17,410
-48.4
-23.3
5.3
New York
460,590
248,148
194,693
197,301
-57.2
-20.5
1.3
North Carolina
131,065
44,420
39,729
36,751
-72.0
-17.3
-7.5
North Dakota
5,725
2,886
3,370
2,999
-47.6
3.9
-11.0
Ohio
247,886
95,835
83,802
84,195
-66.0
-12.1
0.5
Oklahoma
46,864
13,591
14,742
13,684
-70.8
0.7
-7.2
Oregon
41,982
17,264
18,943
18,371
-56.2
6.4
-3.0
Pennsylvania
211,431
87,972
80,518
89,747
-57.6
2.0
11.5
Puerto Rico
58,484
31,273
18,984
17,007
-70.9
-45.6
-10.4
Rhode Island
22,737
17,242
14,562
14,267
-37.3
-17.3
-2.0
South Carolina
51,590
17,017
19,221
16,824
-67.4
-1.1
-12.5
South Dakota
6,868
2,789
2,754
2,729
-60.3
-2.2
-0.9
Tennessee
109,339
55,940
71,057
73,208
-33.0
30.9
3.0
Texas
282,902
128,289
141,022
100,387
-64.5
-21.7
-28.8
Utah
17,536
8,191
8,667
9,012
-48.6
10.0
4.0

---

CRS-8
Percentage Change to
June 2004 from:
State
Jun-94
Jun-00
Jun-03
Jun-04
Jun-94 Jun-00 Jun-03
Vermont
10,006
5,858
5,238
5,229
-47.7
-10.7
-0.2
Virgin Islands
1,106
884
476
538
-51.4
-39.1
13.0
Virginia
75,020
30,910
31,904
36,380
-51.5
17.7
14.0
Washington
104,243
58,217
56,339
57,985
-44.4
-0.4
2.9
West Virginia
40,379
12,000
15,884
15,660
-61.2
30.5
-1.4
Wisconsin
76,458
17,534
21,256
23,167
-69.7
32.1
9.0
Wyoming
5,751
565
401
335
-94.2
-40.7
-16.5
Totals
5,043,050
2,294,186
2,174,083
2,139,753
-57.6
-6.7
-1.6
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-9
Table A2. TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services
Block Grant, FY2003
($ in millions)
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
Percent
Percent of
Percent of
of total
total
total
State
Dollars
grants
Dollars
grants
Dollars
grants
Alabama
$20.5
19.6%
$10.5
10.0%
$31.0
29.6%
Alaska
15.7
23.6
4.1
6.2
19.8
29.8
Arizona
0.0
0.0
22.7
10.0
22.7
10.0
Arkansas
6.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
8.7
California
572.5
15.4
81.5
2.2
654.0
17.6
Colorado
22.2
13.1
15.0
8.8
37.2
22.0
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
26.7
9.6
26.7
9.6
Delaware
1.1
3.4
1.4
4.1
2.5
7.5
District of Col.
18.5
15.8
3.9
3.4
22.5
19.2
Florida
122.5
18.5
52.3
7.9
174.8
26.5
Georgia
32.2
8.6
36.8
9.9
69.0
18.5
Hawaii
11.1
11.1
9.9
9.9
20.9
21.0
Idaho
8.7
24.3
1.4
4.0
10.2
28.3
Illinois
0.0
0.0
20.5
3.5
20.5
3.5
Indiana
18.4
8.1
2.0
0.9
20.4
9.0
Iowa
28.2
20.3
11.3
8.1
39.5
28.4
Kansas
12.7
11.4
4.3
3.9
17.1
15.2
Kentucky
47.1
24.1
0.0
0.0
47.1
24.1
Louisiana
39.0
21.1
16.4
8.9
55.4
30.0
Maine
10.7
13.0
7.5
9.1
18.2
22.0
Maryland
48.9
19.5
22.9
9.1
71.8
28.7
Massachusetts
91.9
19.9
42.1
9.1
134.0
29.0
Michigan
0.0
0.0
20.2
2.5
20.2
2.5
Minnesota
26.6
9.5
7.9
2.8
34.5
12.3
Mississippi
19.3
20.0
0.0
0.0
19.3
20.0
Missouri
24.9
10.4
21.7
9.1
46.6
19.5
Montana
8.6
17.9
3.9
8.0
12.5
26.0
Nebraska
9.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
9.0
14.2
Nevada
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.9
0.9
1.9
New Hampshire
1.2
2.9
2.9
7.1
4.1
10.0
New Jersey
78.8
19.3
17.6
4.3
96.4
23.6
New Mexico
29.8
24.3
2.0
1.6
31.8
26.0
New York
39.9
1.6
244.0
9.9
283.9
11.5
North Carolina
74.5
21.8
4.5
1.3
79.0
23.1
North Dakota
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ohio
0.0
0.0
74.9
10.0
74.9
10.0
Oklahoma
30.8
20.0
15.4
10.0
46.2
30.0
Oregon
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pennsylvania
124.5
16.6
30.6
4.1
155.1
20.6
Rhode Island
9.1
9.3
0.0
0.0
9.1
9.3
South Carolina
1.3
1.3
5.3
5.2
6.6
6.5
South Dakota
1.7
7.4
2.3
10.0
4.0
17.4
Tennessee
52.0
23.2
5.3
2.3
57.3
25.5

---

CRS-10
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
Percent
Percent of
Percent of
of total
total
total
State
Dollars
grants
Dollars
grants
Dollars
grants
Texas
0.0
0.0
27.2
4.8
27.2
4.8
Utah
0.0
0.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
Vermont
9.2
19.0
4.7
9.7
14.0
28.7
Virginia
10.0
5.7
15.8
9.1
25.8
14.8
Washington
107.3
26.7
10.4
2.6
117.7
29.3
West Virginia
0.0
0.0
11.0
9.8
11.0
9.8
Wisconsin
65.3
20.0
13.4
4.1
78.7
24.1
Wyoming
7.7
19.8
3.8
9.9
11.5
29.7
Total
1,859.7
10.8
948.0
5.5
2,807.7
16.3
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-11
Table A3. Cumulative TANF Transfers to the Child Care and
Social Services Block Grants, FY1997-FY2003
($ in millions)
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
Percent
Percent of
of total
total
Percent of
State
Dollars
grants
Dollars
grants
Dollars
total grants
Alabama
$145.1
18.6%
$78.1
10.0%
$223.2
28.5%
Alaska
87.5
21.8
28.6
7.1
116.1
28.9
Arizona
103.6
6.4
151.8
9.3
255.4
15.7
Arkansas
17.0
4.3
8.7
2.2
25.7
6.5
California
2,150.3
8.4
355.2
1.4
2,505.5
9.8
Colorado
151.5
15.8
82.4
8.6
233.9
24.4
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
158.3
8.3
158.3
8.3
Delaware
6.5
3.0
10.2
4.7
16.7
7.7
District of Col.
103.6
14.1
30.3
4.1
133.9
18.2
Florida
660.2
15.5
383.9
9.0
1,044.1
24.4
Georgia
191.2
7.9
181.1
7.5
372.2
15.4
Hawaii
45.1
7.1
19.1
3.0
64.2
10.1
Idaho
39.5
18.1
15.0
6.9
54.5
25.0
Illinois
272.4
7.2
304.2
8.1
576.7
15.3
Indiana
288.1
19.4
72.3
4.9
360.4
24.2
Iowa
125.1
13.8
71.6
7.9
196.7
21.7
Kansas
67.3
9.3
65.3
9.0
132.6
18.3
Kentucky
235.4
18.4
64.7
5.1
300.1
23.4
Louisiana
289.9
24.0
32.8
2.7
322.7
26.7
Maine
43.6
8.0
23.3
4.3
66.9
12.3
Maryland
163.2
10.3
137.5
8.7
300.7
19.0
Massachusetts
659.4
20.3
303.5
9.3
962.9
29.6
Michigan
296.5
5.4
374.8
6.8
671.2
12.1
Minnesota
139.3
8.0
121.4
7.0
260.7
15.0
Mississippi
100.5
15.4
54.8
8.4
155.3
23.9
Missouri
122.7
8.0
117.8
7.7
240.4
15.7
Montana
51.4
16.5
20.2
6.5
71.6
23.1
Nebraska
36.0
8.9
4.4
1.1
40.4
10.0
Nevada
0.0
0.0
6.3
2.0
6.3
2.0
New Hampshire
1.2
0.4
2.9
1.1
4.1
1.5
New Jersey
327.5
12.0
247.6
9.0
575.1
21.0
New Mexico
136.9
16.4
4.0
0.5
140.9
16.9
New York
1,570.8
9.3
1,609.4
9.6
3,180.2
18.9
North Carolina
380.9
17.1
49.1
2.2
429.9
19.3
North Dakota
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
Ohio
359.7
7.0
511.7
10.0
871.4
17.0
Oklahoma
209.6
20.0
104.8
10.0
314.3
30.0
Oregon
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pennsylvania
375.6
7.8
196.4
4.1
572.0
11.9
Rhode Island
27.3
4.4
6.5
1.0
33.8
5.4
South Carolina
14.3
2.1
64.6
9.3
79.0
11.3
South Dakota
13.9
9.4
14.9
10.0
28.8
19.4

---

CRS-12
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
Percent
Percent of
of total
total
Percent of
State
Dollars
grants
Dollars
grants
Dollars
total grants
Tennessee
302.4
20.6
15.6
1.1
318.0
21.7
Texas
164.3
4.4
200.1
5.4
364.4
9.8
Utah
3.7
0.6
35.6
6.1
39.4
6.7
Vermont
48.8
14.6
32.2
9.6
81.0
24.2
Virginia
137.7
12.6
102.5
9.4
240.1
22.0
Washington
551.4
20.2
79.0
2.9
630.5
23.1
West Virginia
15.4
2.0
43.6
5.7
59.0
7.8
Wisconsin
368.4
16.3
163.3
7.2
531.7
23.5
Wyoming
15.5
9.6
16.0
10.0
31.5
19.6
Totals
11,617.6
10.1
6,777.6
5.9
18,395.2
16.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-13
Table A4. Unspent TANF Funds as of September 30, 2003
($ in millions)
Obligated but
Unobligated and
Total unspent
State
unspent
unspent
funds
Alabama
$3.9
$27.6
$ 31.5
Alaska
0.0
10.3
10.3
Arizona
19.8
9.0
28.7
Arkansas
0.0
56.9
56.9
California
226.5
0.0
226.5
Colorado
81.2
0.0
81.2
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
0.0
Delaware
5.0
0.2
5.2
District of Columbia
1.2
43.1
44.4
Florida
0.0
159.7
159.7
Georgia
20.6
161.0
181.6
Hawaii
4.2
90.8
95.0
Idaho
12.2
0.9
13.1
Illinois
0.0
0.0
0.0
Indiana
27.1
0.0
27.1
Iowa
5.4
25.4
30.9
Kansas
0.0
21.8
21.8
Kentucky
44.1
8.5
52.6
Louisiana
72.0
0.0
72.0
Maine
8.6
36.9
45.4
Maryland
15.5
18.8
34.3
Massachusetts
0.0
0.0
0.0
Michigan
0.0
113.1
113.1
Minnesota
0.0
41.4
41.4
Mississippi
1.2
2.4
3.6
Missouri
21.7
0.0
21.7
Montana
1.1
7.9
9.0
Nebraska
0.0
16.2
16.2
Nevada
1.1
10.0
11.1
New Hampshire
0.0
11.5
11.5
New Jersey
48.6
200.0
248.5
New Mexico
36.7
9.3
46.0
New York
199.8
261.4
461.1
North Carolina
56.0
3.5
59.5
North Dakota
0.0
10.1
10.1
Ohio
239.6
341.9
581.6
Oklahoma
0.0
119.7
119.7
Oregon
28.4
0.0
28.4
Pennsylvania
277.4
155.3
432.7
Rhode Island
0.0
2.9
2.9
South Carolina
0.0
0.0
0.0
South Dakota
0.4
23.1
23.5
Tennessee
0.0
0.0
0.0

---

CRS-14
Obligated but
Unobligated and
Total unspent
State
unspent
unspent
funds
Texas
33.3
132.9
166.2
Utah
0.0
20.0
20.0
Vermont
0.0
0.0
0.0
Virginia
12.6
18.2
30.8
Washington
29.8
0.0
29.8
West Virginia
0.0
12.6
12.6
Wisconsin
15.3
85.0
100.4
Wyoming
30.0
36.8
66.7
Total
1,580.2
2,305.9
3,886.1
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-15
Table A5. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for All
Families, FY2003, by State
Effective
Statutory
Caseload
(after
Actual
participation
reduction
credit)
participation
State met
State
standard
credit
standard)
rate
standard?
Alabama
50.0
-60.4
0.0
37.1
Yes
Alaska
50.0
-38.9
11.1
41.1
Yes
Arizona
50.0
-36.9
13.1
13.4
Yes
Arkansas
50.0
-46.7
3.3
22.4
Yes
California
50.0
-44.2
5.8
24.0
Yes
Colorado
50.0
-67.3
0.0
32.5
Yes
Connecticut
50.0
-29.7
20.3
30.6
Yes
Delaware
50.0
-39.8
10.2
18.2
Yes
Dist. of Col.
50.0
-38.5
11.5
23.1
Yes
Florida
50.0
-70.6
0.0
33.1
Yes
Georgia
50.0
-51.9
0.0
10.9
Yes
Guam
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
No
Hawaii
50.0
-30.0
20.0
65.8
Yes
Idaho
50.0
-30.0
20.0
43.7
Yes
Illinois
50.0
-79.1
0.0
57.8
Yes
Indiana
50.0
-21.1
28.9
40.3
Yes
Iowa
50.0
-42.7
7.3
45.1
Yes
Kansas
50.0
-8.3
41.7
87.9
Yes
Kentucky
50.0
-45.5
4.5
32.8
Yes
Louisiana
50.0
-59.0
0.0
34.6
Yes
Maine
50.0
-47.5
2.5
27.7
Yes
Maryland
50.0
-43.5
6.5
9.1
Yes
Massachusetts 50.0
-45.1
4.9
61.0
Yes
Michigan
50.0
-62.0
0.0
25.3
Yes
Minnesota
50.0
-35.2
14.8
25.0
Yes
Mississippi
50.0
-37.4
12.6
17.2
Yes
Missouri
50.0
-45.0
5.0
28.0
Yes
Montana
50.0
-48.0
2.0
85.9
Yes
Nebraska
50.0
-25.8
24.2
33.4
Yes
Nevada
50.0
-23.8
26.2
22.3
No
New Hampshire
50.0
-43.9
6.1
28.2
Yes
New Jersey
50.0
-58.2
0.0
35.0
Yes
New Mexico
50.0
-41.6
8.4
42.0
Yes
New York
50.0
-60.1
0.0
37.1
Yes
North Carolina
50.0
-52.6
0.0
25.3
Yes
North Dakota
50.0
-38.0
12.0
27.0
Yes
Ohio
50.0
-57.2
0.0
62.3
Yes
Oklahoma
50.0
-53.2
0.0
29.2
Yes
Oregon
50.0
-54.0
0.0
60.0
Yes
Pennsylvania
50.0
-60.6
0.0
9.9
Yes
Puerto Rico
50.0
-46.9
3.1
6.1
Yes
Rhode Island
50.0
-30.8
19.2
24.3
Yes
South Carolina
50.0
-47.6
2.4
54.3
Yes
South Dakota
50.0
-37.6
12.4
46.1
Yes
Tennessee
50.0
-38.4
11.6
42.7
Yes

---

CRS-16
Effective
Statutory
Caseload
(after
Actual
participation
reduction
credit)
participation
State met
State
standard
credit
standard)
rate
standard?
Texas
50.0
-50.3
0.0
28.1
Yes
Utah
50.0
-33.0
17.0
28.1
Yes
Vermont
50.0
-42.9
7.1
24.3
Yes
Virgin Islands
50.0
-50.2
0.0
5.0
Yes
Virginia
50.0
-56.8
0.0
44.6
Yes
Washington
50.0
-41.8
8.2
46.2
Yes
West Virginia
50.0
-58.7
0.0
14.2
Yes
Wisconsin
50.0
-51.9
0.0
67.2
Yes
Wyoming
50.0
-87.0
0.0
83.0
Yes
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-17
Table A6. TANF Work Participation Standards and Rates for
Two-Parent Families, FY2003, by State
Effective
Statutory
Caseload
(after
Actual
participation
reduction
credit)
participation
State met
State
standard
credit
standard)
rate
standard?
Alabama
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Alaska
90.0
48.8
41.2
44.6
Yes
Arizona
90.0
36.9
53.1
55.3
Yes
Arkansas
90.0
46.7
43.3
31.8
No
California
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Colorado
90.0
67.3
22.7
40.1
Yes
Connecticut
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Delaware
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dist. of Col.
90.0
49.0
41.0
19.6
No
Florida
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Georgia
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Guam
90.0
0.0
90.0
0.0
No
Hawaii
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Idaho
90.0
80.4
9.6
42.3
Yes
Illinois
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Indiana
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Iowa
90.0
61.1
28.9
39.2
Yes
Kansas
90.0
8.3
81.7
87.1
Yes
Kentucky
90.0
81.0
9.0
46.2
Yes
Louisiana
90.0
59.0
31.0
39.0
Yes
Maine
90.0
79.9
10.1
29.2
Yes
Maryland
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Massachusetts 90.0
45.1
44.9
73.9
Yes
Michigan
90.0
83.6
6.4
36.2
Yes
Minnesota
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mississippi
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Missouri
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Montana
90.0
48.0
42.0
95.7
Yes
Nebraska
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nevada
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Hampshire
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Jersey
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Mexico
90.0
41.6
48.4
52.0
Yes
New York
90.0
79.3
10.7
52.2
Yes
North Carolina
90.0
52.6
37.4
49.2
Yes
North Dakota
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ohio
90.0
80.3
9.7
67.8
Yes
Oklahoma
90.0
53.2
36.8
50.5
Yes
Oregon
90.0
54.0
36.0
52.7
Yes
Pennsylvania
90.0
83.5
6.5
8.8
Yes
Puerto Rico
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rhode Island
90.0
30.8
59.2
94.9
Yes
South Carolina
90.0
47.6
42.4
50.6
Yes
South Dakota
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tennessee
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA

---

CRS-18
Effective
Statutory
Caseload
(after
Actual
participation
reduction
credit)
participation
State met
State
standard
credit
standard)
rate
standard?
Texas
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Utah
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vermont
90.0
54.3
35.7
37.5
Yes
Virgin Islands
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Virginia
90.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Washington
90.0
48.4
41.6
44.3
Yes
West Virginia
90.0
58.7
31.3
25.2
No
Wisconsin
90.0
68.7
21.3
40.3
Yes
Wyoming
90.0
87.0
3.0
91.5
Yes
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---