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 August 23, 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 September 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 December 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 FY2004, states transferred $2.7 billion to other block grants (15.9% of the
TANF block grant): $1.9 billion to the child care block grant and $0.8 billion to the
Social Services Block Grant. As of September 30, 2004 (end of FY2004), there
remained a total of $3.8 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? . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? . . 6
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-December 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
List of Tables
Table 1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table A1. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance:
December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table A2. TANF Transfers to the Child Care and Social Services
Block Grant, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 IB10140, 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 September 30, 2005. Congress thus faces the issue
of welfare reauthorization.
How Many Times Has Congress Enacted Temporary Extensions of
TANF? H.R. 3021, signed by the President July 1, 2005 (P.L. 109-19), was the tenth
temporary extension of TANF. Table 1 provides a listing of the laws that have
extended TANF, up to the latest extension, which runs until September 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
Mul t i purpose bill t hat ext ended
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.
P.L. 109-19
July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005.
Free-standing bill to extend funding
authority for the programs through
Sept. 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
1 Available online from the White House website at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2002/02/welfare-reform-announcement-book.pdf].

CRS-3
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.
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 December 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 December 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
December 2004. Table A1 shows state-by-state the number of families receiving
cash welfare in December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004.

CRS-4
Figure 1. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash
Welfare: October 1976-December 2004
6,000,000
March 1994:
5.1 million families
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
December 2004:
2.1 million families
1,000,000
0
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
t-7
t-7
t-8
t-8
t-8
t-8
t-8
t-9
t-9
t-9
t-9
t-9
t-0
t-0
t-0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
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).
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 August
2005, the block grant would decline by 26% from FY1997 through FY2010. Table
2
shows the value of the basic TANF block grant from FY1997 through FY2010 in
constant 1997 dollars.

CRS-5
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
Value of the Block
Grant in Bilions 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
13.6
-17%
2006
13.3
-20%
2007
13.0
-21%
2008
12.7
-23%
2009
12.4
-25%
2010
12.2
-26%
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 August. 2005.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Been Transferred to the Child
Care and Social Service Block Grants? In FY2004 (the latest year for which
data are available) states transferred a total of $2.7 billion (15.9% of the block grant):
$1.9 billion (11.2% of the TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $0.8
billion (4.7% of the block grant) to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). See
Table A2 for transfers by state.
Cumulatively over the lifetime of TANF (FY1997-FY2004), a total of $21.0
billion (15.9% of the block grant) has been transferred: $13.5 billion (10.2% of the
TANF block grant) to the child care block grant and $7.5 billion (5.7% 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
FY2004 (September 30, 2004, the latest data available), a total of $3.8 billion of
TANF block grants had not either been transferred or spent. This represents 2.8%
of all TANF grants provided to the states over the FY1997-FY2004 period.
Some of the $3.8 billion in unspent TANF funds represents funds for
commitments that states already made. Through the end of September 2004, states
had made commitments to spend — obligations — that have yet to result in
expenditures totaling $1.9 billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments

CRS-6
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 $1.9 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.
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:
December 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2004
Percentage Change to Dec 04
from
State
Dec-94
Dec-00
Dec-03
Dec-04
Dec-94
Dec-00
Dec-03
Alabama
47,903
18,959
19,745
21,119
-55.9
11.4
7.0
Alaska
12,370
5,586
4,900
4,577
-63.0
-18.1
-6.6
Arizona
72,158
32,156
52,170
45,917
-36.4
42.8
-12.0
Arkansas
25,047
11,132
10,695
8,771
-65.0
-21.2
-18.0
California
923,358
529,918
493,139
511,175
-44.6
-3.5
3.7
Colorado
40,244
10,623
14,654
15,076
-62.5
41.9
2.9
Connecticut
60,965
27,694
24,939
24,265
-60.2
-12.4
-2.7
Delaware
11,227
5,543
5,830
5,866
-47.8
5.8
0.6
District of Columbia
27,420
16,675
17,617
17,727
-35.4
6.3
0.6
Florida
238,682
65,111
61,413
66,974
-71.9
2.9
9.1
Georgia
141,154
51,393
58,004
46,336
-67.2
-9.8
-20.1
Hawaii
21,489
19,243
12,543
11,574
-46.1
-39.9
-7.7
Idaho
8,953
1,309
1,844
1,887
-78.9
44.2
2.3
Illinois
241,091
69,941
35,401
39,488
-83.6
-43.5
11.5
Indiana
69,933
40,683
54,983
52,010
-25.6
27.8
-5.4
Iowa
38,022
20,436
21,589
21,494
-43.5
5.2
-0.4
Kansas
28,838
12,567
16,156
17,441
-39.5
38.8
8.0
Kentucky
76,824
36,754
35,728
35,569
-53.7
-3.2
-0.4
Louisiana
82,792
26,435
21,215
17,184
-79.2
-35.0
-19.0
Maine
22,025
11,417
10,982
11,676
-47.0
2.3
6.3
Maryland
80,890
30,660
29,776
27,864
-65.6
-9.1
-6.4
Massachusetts
105,769
42,829
50,420
49,586
-53.1
15.8
-1.7
Michigan
209,695
69,055
79,051
81,007
-61.4
17.3
2.5
Minnesota
61,343
37,830
39,213
32,657
-46.8
-13.7
-16.7
Mississippi
53,221
15,825
19,769
17,272
-67.5
9.1
-12.6
Missouri
91,802
50,788
48,586
47,807
-47.9
-5.9
-1.6
Montana
11,660
4,697
5,349
4,743
-59.3
1.0
-11.3
Nebraska
15,013
9,941
12,170
11,930
-20.5
20.0
-2.0
Nevada
15,559
6,932
9,995
8,339
-46.4
20.3
-16.6
New Hampshire
11,078
5,586
6,113
6,232
-43.7
11.6
1.9
New Jersey
120,908
48,284
45,363
48,416
-60.0
0.3
6.7
New Mexico
34,854
21,856
17,606
18,083
-48.1
-17.3
2.7
New York
463,692
234,866
195,972
194,689
-58.0
-17.1
-0.7
North Carolina
128,848
45,199
39,124
36,466
-71.7
-19.3
-6.8
North Dakota
5,309
2,886
3,190
2,873
-45.9
-0.5
-9.9
Ohio
236,298
86,563
84,781
84,937
-64.1
-1.9
0.2
Oklahoma
45,893
14,548
14,921
13,691
-70.2
-5.9
-8.2
Oregon
39,967
16,033
18,223
19,836
-50.4
23.7
8.9
Pennsylvania
208,949
84,175
85,198
96,642
-53.7
14.8
13.4
Puerto Rico
56,132
26,956
18,211
15,544
-72.3
-42.3
-14.6
Rhode Island
22,599
16,725
14,533
13,620
-39.7
-18.6
-6.3
South Carolina
50,251
18,110
19,973
18,629
-62.9
2.9
-6.7
South Dakota
6,521
2,750
2,809
2,842
-56.4
3.3
1.2
Tennessee
105,616
58,585
73,538
73,236
-30.7
25.0
-0.4
Texas
281,011
133,685
118,536
98,721
-64.9
-26.2
-16.7
Utah
17,240
7,641
9,081
4,730
-72.6
-38.1
-47.9
Vermont
9,707
5,577
5,183
5,088
-47.6
-8.8
-1.8

CRS-8
Percentage Change to Dec 04
from
Virginia
74,203
30,479
35,077
37,725
-49.2
23.8
7.5
Washington
102,603
57,077
56,640
58,719
-42.8
2.9
3.7
West Virginia
39,546
14,129
16,340
13,607
-65.6
-3.7
-16.7
Wisconsin
73,714
17,915
22,400
21,748
-70.5
21.4
-2.9
Wyoming
5,400
569
382
336
-93.8
-40.9
-12.0
Guam
2,088
2,554
3,072
3,072
47.1
20.3
0.0
Virgin Islands
1,264
771
539
504
-60.1
-34.6
-6.5
Totals
4,979,138 2,235,651 2,174,681 2,147,317
-56.9
-4.0
-1.3
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, FY2004
($ in millions)
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
State
Percent
Percent
Percent
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
grants
grants
grants
Alabama
19.9
18.7
10.6
10.0
30.6
28.7
Alaska
15.4
24.2
3.5
5.5
18.9
29.8
Arizona
0.0
0.0
22.6
9.8
22.6
9.8
Arkansas
16.2
24.6
2.7
4.1
18.9
28.7
California
305.2
8.3
87.2
2.4
392.4
10.6
Colorado
28.1
18.8
15.0
10.0
43.1
28.8
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
26.7
10.0
26.7
10.0
Delaware
3.2
9.8
3.3
10.0
6.5
19.8
District of Columbia
18.5
15.7
3.9
3.3
22.4
19.0
Florida
122.5
19.4
62.3
9.8
184.8
29.2
Georgia
29.7
8.1
19.7
5.4
49.4
13.4
Hawaii
7.8
7.9
9.8
10.0
17.6
17.9
Idaho
6.8
19.1
3.6
10.0
10.3
29.1
Illinois
0.0
0.0
34.0
5.8
34.0
5.8
Indiana
4.1
1.9
2.0
0.9
6.1
2.8
Iowa
27.6
20.3
11.9
8.8
39.5
29.0
Kansas
21.5
21.2
4.3
4.3
25.8
25.5
Kentucky
46.3
25.1
0.0
0.0
46.3
25.1
Louisiana
22.1
12.3
16.3
9.1
38.4
21.3
Maine
7.7
9.6
6.9
8.6
14.6
18.1
Maryland
20.3
8.0
22.9
9.0
43.2
17.0
Massachusetts
91.9
19.7
45.9
9.8
137.8
29.5
Michigan
0.0
0.0
26.9
3.4
26.9
3.4
Minnesota
25.0
8.9
4.8
1.7
29.8
10.6
Mississippi
2.8
2.9
9.8
10.0
12.7
12.9
Missouri
25.0
11.0
21.7
9.5
46.7
20.5
Montana
2.0
4.3
2.0
4.3
4.0
8.7
Nebraska
9.0
14.8
0.0
0.0
9.0
14.8
Nevada
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
New Hampshire
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
New Jersey
51.2
12.3
15.5
3.7
66.7
16.0
New Mexico
33.0
28.4
2.0
1.7
35.0
30.2
New York
408.0
16.5
122.0
4.9
530.0
21.5
North Carolina
83.8
24.8
6.4
1.9
90.2
26.7
North Dakota
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ohio
0.0
0.0
75.6
10.0
75.6
10.0
Oklahoma
29.5
19.6
14.8
9.8
44.3
29.4

CRS-10
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
State
Percent
Percent
Percent
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
grants
grants
grants
Oregon
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pennsylvania
165.9
22.9
0.0
0.0
165.9
22.9
Rhode Island
13.1
13.9
0.4
0.4
13.5
14.3
South Carolina
1.3
1.3
10.0
9.6
11.3
10.9
South Dakota
0.0
0.0
2.2
10.0
2.2
10.0
Tennessee
54.1
24.3
0.0
0.0
54.1
24.3
Texas
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Utah
0.0
0.0
5.3
6.0
5.3
6.0
Vermont
9.2
18.8
4.7
9.6
14.0
28.4
Virginia
16.8
10.1
15.8
9.5
32.6
19.6
Washington
95.5
24.5
10.7
2.7
106.2
27.3
West Virginia
0.0
0.0
11.4
10.0
11.4
10.0
Wisconsin
65.2
20.0
13.4
4.1
78.6
24.1
Wyoming
0.0
0.0
1.9
9.5
1.9
9.5
Total
1905.3
11.2
793.1
4.7
2698.4
15.9
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
State
Percent
Percent
Percent
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
grants
grants
grants
Alabama
165.1
18.6
88.7
10.0
253.8
28.6
Alaska
102.9
22.1
32.1
6.9
135.0
29.0
Arizona
103.6
5.6
174.4
9.4
278.0
15.0
Arkansas
33.2
7.2
11.4
2.5
44.6
9.6
California
2430.8
8.3
442.2
1.5
2873
9.8
Colorado
179.6
16.2
97.4
8.8
276.9
25.0
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
185.0
8.5
185.0
8.5
Delaware
9.6
3.8
13.6
5.4
23.2
9.3
District of Columbia
122.1
14.3
34.2
4.0
156.4
18.3
Florida
782.7
16.0
446.2
9.1
1228.9
25.1
Georgia
204.3
7.3
181.1
6.5
385.4
13.8
Hawaii
52.8
7.2
28.9
4.0
81.7
11.2
Idaho
46.3
18.3
18.5
7.3
64.8
25.6
Illinois
272.4
6.3
338.2
7.8
610.6
14.1
Indiana
292.2
17.1
74.3
4.4
366.4
21.5
Iowa
152.7
14.7
83.5
8.0
236.2
22.7
Kansas
88.8
10.8
69.6
8.4
158.4
19.2
Kentucky
281.7
19.2
64.7
4.4
346.4
23.7
Louisiana
312.0
22.5
49.1
3.5
361.1
26.0
Maine
60.6
9.7
40.0
6.4
100.6
16.1
Maryland
182.5
9.9
160.4
8.7
342.9
18.6
Massachusetts
751.3
20.2
349.5
9.4
1100.8
29.6
Michigan
296.5
4.7
401.7
6.4
698.2
11.0
Minnesota
164.3
8.1
126.2
6.3
290.5
14.4
Mississippi
103.3
13.8
64.6
8.6
167.9
22.4
Missouri
147.7
8.4
139.5
7.9
287.2
16.3
Montana
52.4
14.7
22.2
6.2
74.6
20.9
Nebraska
45.0
9.7
4.4
0.9
49.4
10.6
Nevada
0.0
0.0
7.0
1.9
7.0
1.9
New Hampshire
1.3
0.4
2.9
0.9
4.3
1.3
New Jersey
364.5
11.6
262.8
8.3
627.3
19.9
New Mexico
170.0
17.9
6.0
0.6
176.0
18.5
New York
1978.8
10.3
1731.4
9.0
3710.2
19.2
North Carolina
464.6
18.1
55.5
2.2
520.1
20.3
North Dakota
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
Ohio
359.7
6.1
587.3
10.0
947.0
16.1
Oklahoma
239.1
19.9
119.5
10.0
358.6
29.9

CRS-12
Transfers to
Transfers to SSBG
Total transfers
CCDBG
State
Percent
Percent
Percent
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
Dollars
of total
grants
grants
grants
Oregon
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pennsylvania
541.5
9.8
196.4
3.5
737.9
13.3
Rhode Island
40.4
5.6
6.9
1.0
47.3
6.6
South Carolina
14.1
1.8
64.6
8.1
78.8
9.8
South Dakota
13.9
8.2
17.1
10.0
31.0
18.2
Tennessee
356.4
21.1
15.6
0.9
372.0
22.1
Texas
164.3
3.9
200.1
4.7
364.4
8.6
Utah
3.7
0.6
37.2
5.5
41.0
6.1
Vermont
58.0
15.1
37.0
9.6
95.0
24.7
Virginia
154.5
12.3
118.3
9.4
272.8
21.7
Washington
646.9
20.8
89.7
2.9
736.6
23.7
West Virginia
15.4
1.8
51.0
5.8
66.4
7.6
Wisconsin
433.6
16.8
176.7
6.8
610.3
23.6
Wyoming
15.5
8.6
17.9
9.9
33.3
18.5
Total
13,473.2
10.2
7,542.6
5.7
21,015.8
15.9
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, 2004
($ in millions)
Obligated but
Unobligated and
State
Total unspent funds
unspent
unspent
Alabama
9.7
22.7
32.4
Alaska
9.3
11.6
20.9
Arizona
25.1
0.0
25.1
Arkansas
0.1
86.0
86.0
California
249.1
0.0
249.1
Colorado
66.2
0.0
66.2
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
0.0
Delaware
1.2
3.9
5.1
District of Columbia
1.5
46.9
48.4
Florida
99.3
0.0
99.3
Georgia
17.9
160.8
178.7
Hawaii
10.9
113.5
124.4
Idaho
9.8
0.0
9.8
Illinois
0.0
0.0
0.0
Indiana
43.8
0.0
43.8
Iowa
5.7
20.4
26.2
Kansas
0.0
5.2
5.2
Kentucky
3.9
62.3
66.2
Louisiana
16.8
0.0
16.8
Maine
0.0
27.6
27.6
Maryland
7.1
66.5
73.6
Massachusetts
1.5
5.1
6.6
Michigan
0.0
111.4
111.4
Minnesota
0.0
69.6
69.6
Mississippi
6.5
1.8
8.3
Missouri
30.7
0.0
30.7
Montana
1.0
20.7
21.8
Nebraska
7.5
0.0
7.5
Nevada
1.2
15.3
16.5
New Hampshire
0.0
47.6
47.6
New Jersey
86.0
94.1
180.2
New Mexico
16.7
13.9
30.6
New York
193.8
239.7
433.6
North Carolina
62.6
0.0
62.6
North Dakota
0.0
12.4
12.4
Ohio
484.8
336.2
821
Oklahoma
74.4
18.1
92.5
Oregon
46.1
0.0
46.1
Pennsylvania
64.0
142.1
206.1
Rhode Island
0.0
0.0
0.0
South Carolina
0.0
1.5
1.5
South Dakota
0.7
22.2
22.9

CRS-14
Obligated but
Unobligated and
State
Total unspent funds
unspent
unspent
Tennessee
4.7
16.0
20.7
Texas
176.8
2.7
179.5
Utah
0.0
17.5
17.5
Vermont
0.0
0.0
0.0
Virginia
14.0
0.0
14.0
Washington
0.0
3.5
3.5
West Virginia
0.0
3.8
3.8
Wisconsin
0.1
22.5
22.6
Wyoming
13.0
41.1
54.1
Total
1863.5
1886.5
3750
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
Statutory
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
State
participation
reduction
(after credit)
participation
standard?
standard
credit
standard)
rate
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
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
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

CRS-16
Statutory
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
State
participation
reduction
(after credit)
participation
standard?
standard
credit
standard)
rate
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
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
Statutory
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
State
participation
reduction
(after credit)
participation
standard?
standard
credit
standard)
rate
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
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

CRS-18
Statutory
Caseload
Effective
Actual
State met
State
participation
reduction
(after credit)
participation
standard?
standard
credit
standard)
rate
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
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).