Order Code IB10140
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reauthorization:
Overview of the Issues
Updated October 11, 2005
Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Trends Under Welfare Reform
Funding the TANF and Child Care Block Grants
TANF Work Requirements
Current Law Work Participation Standard
Reauthorization Proposals
Participation Standards
Hours Requirements
Activities
Sanctions Policy
Child Support Enforcement, Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives,
Abstinence Education, and Marriage Promotion
Child Support Enforcement
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives
Abstinence Education
Marriage Promotion
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB10140
10-11-05
Welfare Reauthorization: An Overview of the Issues
SUMMARY
In 2004, 12.5 million children lived in
the FY2005-FY2010 cost would be $10.2
families with incomes below the poverty line
billion. It would increase child care funding
(a 17.3% child poverty rate). Research has
by $6 billion over the five years, an amount
shown that poverty can have negative conse-
partially offset by changes to the earned in-
quences on a child’s development. Children
come and other tax credits. About 40% of this
depend upon their parents for support, and
bill’s cost arises from extending for five years
most of the recent policy attention has focused
a provision of Medicaid law that provides up
on initiatives to move poor parents (mostly
to 12 months of Transitional Medical Assis-
single mothers) from welfare to work and on
tance (TMA) for recipients who are leaving
reducing welfare dependency.
welfare for work.
Following enactment of the 1996 wel-
H.R. 240 and S. 667 differ in their work
fare law, the cash welfare caseload fell from
requirements for cash welfare recipients. S.
4.8 million families in 1995 to 2.2 million in
667 would raise work participation standards;
2003, employment of single mothers has
expand states’ ability to count education and
increased substantially, and child poverty rates
activities to remove “work barriers” toward
have fallen. However, many families who
those standards; and raise the hours for the
leave the welfare rolls remain poor. Out-of-
standard workweek to 24 for single parents
wedlock birth rates and children living in
with pre-schoolers and 34 for other single
single-parent families remain at historical
parents (higher hours for two-parent families).
highs.
H.R. 240 also would raise work participation
standards, narrow the focus activities count-
Since 2002, Temporary Assistance for
able toward those standards to work or
Needy Families (TANF) and related programs
workfare, and establish a standard 40-hour
have been funded through temporary, short-
workweek.
term extensions. Most recently, P.L. 109-68,
a bill that provides extra funds for states to
Both bills reflect increasing attention on
respond to the effects of Hurricane Katrina,
the role of noncustodial parents, usually the
extended the program through December 31,
father, in providing both economic and social
2005.
support for their children. The bills would
modify the child support enforcement program
Early in the 109th Congress, legislation
to provide federal cost-sharing for child sup-
received committee action in both the House
port collected from noncustodial parents to
(H.R. 240) and Senate (S. 667). However,
TANF and former TANF families; establish
Congress subsequently approved a budget
“responsible fatherhood” initiatives, to ad-
resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) in April 2005.
dress concerns ranging from employment to
The budget resolution does not allow enough
social skills; continue the abstinence-only
funding for the increased costs of either H.R.
education block grant at $50 million per year;
240 or S. 667 without provisions to offset the
and provide $200 million per year in TANF
costs. The Congressional Budget Office’s
funds for marriage promotion grants. S. 667
preliminary estimate of the total cost of H.R.
requires that participation in marriage promo-
240 (FY2005 through FY2010) is $3.0 billion.
tion activities be voluntary and that programs
As for the Senate bill (S. 667), CBO estimates
consider domestic violence concerns.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10140
10-11-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
P.L. 109-68, which provides additional TANF funding and waives certain TANF
requirements for states affected by Hurricane Katrina, extended TANF through December
31, 2005. However, P.L. 109-68 did not extend the related programs of 12-month
transitional medicaid and abstinence education state grants, which are scheduled to expire
on September 30, 2005. H.R. 3971, which passed the House October 6, 2005, would provide
for an extension of 12-month transitional Medicaid and abstinence education through
December 31, 2005. The Senate did not accept that measure (which included provisions
to aid those affected by Hurricane Katrina). Instead, the Senate sent back to the House a
proposal to extend TANF, transitional medicaid, and abstinence education through March
31, 2006. (Note: This issue brief discusses issues in long-term welfare reauthorization
legislation, not the legislative response to Hurricane Katrina. For a discussion of TANF
legislation related to Katrina, see CRS Report RS22246, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF): Its Role in Response to the Effects of Hurricane Katrina
, by Gene Falk.)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In 2004, there were 12.5 million children living in families with incomes below the
poverty line (17.3% of all children in families). Children are dependent upon their parents
for economic support, and much of the focus of policy for poor and low-income families
with children has been on welfare reform initiatives to move parents (mostly single mothers)
from welfare to work through requiring and rewarding work and reducing welfare
dependency.
A number of well-known factors increase the risk of a child being in poverty, such as
being in a family headed by a single mother, without a worker, and in which the
breadwinners have low educational attainment. Children who are African-American or
Hispanic are more at risk than white children to be in poverty. Research has also shown that
poverty has negative consequences on a child’s development, which could affect the child’s
life chances as an adult.
The 109th Congress is reviewing a number of programs that aid poor and low-income
families with children. These programs include the TANF and child care block grants, child
support enforcement, abstinence education, transitional Medicaid (known as Transitional
Medical Assistance), Head Start, and the Workforce Investment Act. Other potential policy
initiatives, such as social security and tax reform, also would likely affect low-income
families with children. This brief focuses on programs and policy initiatives that are being
raised in the context of reviewing and reauthorizing welfare programs: TANF, the Child Care
and Development Block Grant, Child Support Enforcement, Transitional Medical Assistance
(TMA), Abstinence Education, initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood, and initiatives
to promote rearing children in married-couple families.
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). President Bush submitted his welfare reauthorization proposals to
Congress in February 2002. Though Congress debated welfare legislation throughout the
three years 2002 through 2004, no final action has been taken on a long-term reauthorization.
CRS-1

IB10140
10-11-05
While reauthorization legislation remained stalled, Congress on ten separate occasions
passed measures to provide stop-gap funding for the welfare programs. The latest such
measure (P.L. 109-68) provides funding through December 31, 2005. However, early in the
109th Congress the Senate Finance Committee approved long-term reauthorization legislation
(S. 667, S.Rept. 109-51), and a bill (H.R. 240) is also moving through House committees.
While these bills have many similarities, key differences include funding levels for child
care and work requirements for cash assistance recipients.
Trends Under Welfare Reform
The 1996 welfare reform law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) was a major piece of social legislation, most
known for ending the cash welfare entitlement for needy families with children, creating the
TANF block grant, setting a five-year time limit on aid, and requiring more work from
welfare recipients. The law also restructured child care programs, combining programs for
cash assistance recipients and other working poor families; modified the Child Support
Enforcement program; restricted eligibility for noncitizens in various welfare programs;
restricted eligibility for disabled children in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program; and made changes to the Food Stamp program.
The goals of welfare reform include reducing welfare dependency through work, job
preparation and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and promoting the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. TANF gives states a great deal of latitude
in designing their programs, resulting in each state having a different program with a
different story to tell. In their TANF-funded cash welfare programs, many states tightened
work rules, requiring applicants to search for work even before being certified eligible for
aid. Most states adopted tougher penalties on families where a member refused to comply
with work requirements. However, states also adopted features that liberalized eligibility,
particularly for families where recipients went to work once on the rolls. For example, in
most states families are allowed to keep more of their welfare benefits as their earnings
increase, have a car, and accumulate more assets. Spending on child care has increased.
Table 1 shows various social and economic indicators for the post-welfare reform
period. The period following welfare reform saw the cash welfare caseload plummet and
child poverty rates drop to levels not seen since the 1970s. Employment of single mothers
increased dramatically. Progress was more muted, or could be less tied to changes in policy,
on a number of other fronts. The rate at which teenagers became pregnant declined, but that
was a continuation of a trend that became evident before the mid-1990s. The percent of
children born out-of-wedlock continued to increase, though at a rate slower than during
previous periods. Further, much of the progress occurred during the period 1995 to 2000.
In 2001, the economy entered a recession. Since then, national caseloads have generally held
steady (some states saw increases; others decreases). Employment of single mothers has
been down from its historical high in 2000. The number of children living in families headed
by a married couple decreased slightly from 2000 to 2003. Child poverty rates increased
again from 2000 to 2004.
Welfare dependency has been viewed as both a result of and a cause of chronic poverty.
Welfare caseloads and child poverty simultaneously declined during the late 1990s.
However, the welfare caseload declined faster than child poverty, meaning that cash welfare
CRS-2

IB10140
10-11-05
touches a smaller share of the poor than it did before welfare reform. Further, despite the
decline in welfare dependency, children are still more likely to be poor than the elderly and
nonaged adults, and out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood remain at historical highs
despite the halving of the cash welfare caseload.
Table 1. Economic and Social Indicators — Selected Years
Change (for rates,
percentage point
change is shown)
1995
2000
2004
1995-2000 2000-2004
Cash welfare
Cash welfare caseload (monthly
4.8
2.3
2.2
-2.5
-0.1
average, millions of families)
Cash assistance spending (federal
$21.9
$11.2
$10.4
-$10.7
-$0.8
and state, billions of $ ,fiscal years)
Child poverty
Child poverty rates
20.2%
15.6%
17.3%
-4.6
1.7
Related children in poverty
14.0
11.0
12.5
-3.0
1.5
(millions)
Employment of single mothers
Percent of single mothers employed
64.0%
75.5%
72.0%
11.6
-3.5
Percent of single mothers with a
52.5%
69.1%
63.8%
16.6
-5.3
child under age 6 employed.
General Economic Indicators
Unemployment rate
5.6%
4.0%
5.5%
-5.6
1.5
Employment (total nonfarm payrolls,
117.3
131.8
131.5
14.5
-0.3
in millions)
Change (for rates,
percentage point change
is shown)
1995
2000
2003
1995-2000
2000-2003
Percent of children born out-of-
wedlock
32.2%
33.2%
34.6%
1.0
1.4
Teen pregnancy rate (per 1,000
female teens aged 15-19)
56.0
47.7
41.7
-8.3
-6.0
Percent of children living in married
couple families (March of each year)
72.9%
72.9%
71.8%
0.0
-1.1
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Funding the TANF and Child Care Block Grants
The 1996 welfare law converted and consolidated several federal-state matching grant
programs into the TANF and child care block grants. Most TANF funding is provided in a
fixed, basic annual grant of $16.5 billion (50 states and D.C). This amount represents the
CRS-3

IB10140
10-11-05
peak federal contribution made to pre-TANF programs in the mid-1990s. The basic block
grant is fixed; it neither increases nor decreases with changes in the cash assistance caseload.
Moreover, it is not adjusted for inflation. The child care block grant has two major parts: (1)
discretionary funding, which is determined in annual appropriations; and (2) mandatory
funding, with appropriations found in the 1996 welfare reform law. The 1996 law included
gradual increases in mandatory child care funding. Total child care funding has been
essentially flat since FY2002.
Table 2 compares funding proposals in the President’s FY2006 budget, H.R. 240, and
S. 667 for the TANF, child care block grants, and Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA)
under Medicaid. The budget resolution for FY2006 approved by Congress (H.Con.Res. 95)
basically has sufficient funding for the policies proposed in the President’s budget.
However, the resolution does not provide funding without offset for a continuation of 12
months of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) for families that move from welfare to
work. If the 12-month TMA provision were to expire, recipients who move from welfare to
work would receive four months of TMA under a separate provision of law (See CRS
Report RL31698, Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by April Grady).
The budget resolution itself does not change policies or fund specific programs and activities.
However, it acts as a blueprint for later Congressional action on matters that affect spending
and revenues, and there are procedures (points of order) for enforcing the resolution. In the
House, such points of order may be waived by the rule adopted to consider the bill. In the
Senate, budget points of order may be waived by a vote of 60 senators.
According to preliminary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, the total
five-year cost of H.R. 240 (FY2005 through FY2010) is $3.0 billion. Unless offset, the
budget resolution does not provide sufficient funding to increase child care funding by $1
billion over five years. On the Senate side, the CBO estimate of the total FY2005-FY2010
cost of S. 667 is $10.2 billion. Again, unless offset, the budget resolution does not provide
sufficient funding for the policies in this bill. S. 667 increases child care funding by $6
billion over the five years, but this funding is partially offset by changes to the earned income
and other tax credits. About 40% of the cost of S. 667 is in extending a modified TMA
program for five years.
CRS-4

IB10140
10-11-05
Table 2. Summary of Funding Provisions in the President’s FY2006
Budget and Welfare Reauthorization Bills (H.R. 240 and S. 667)
H.R. 240 (as approved
S. 667 (as reported by
by the House Ways
President’s FY2006
the Senate Finance
and Means Human
Budget
Committee,
Resources
S.Rept. 109-51)
Subcommittee)
Basic TANF
Extend basic TANF
Same as President’s
Same as President’s
block grant
block grant at current
budget.
budget.
levels ($16.5 billion per
year).
Supplemental
Extend supplemental
Extend supplemental
Same as H.R. 240.
TANF grants
TANF grants paid to 17
grants at $319 million
states at current levels
per year through FY09
($319 million per year).
only.
Marriage
Fund $200 million per
Same as the President’s
Similar to H.R. 240
promotion
year in marriage
budget.
($100 million of these
grants
promotion grants
grants begin in
beginning in FY2005.
FY2006). Bonuses are
Reduce TANF bonuses
further reduced to pay
from $300 million per
for responsible
year to $100 million
fatherhood grants.
per year.
Mandatory
Extend funding at
Provide an additional
Provide an additional
child care
current levels ($2.717
$1 billion over 5 years
$6 billion over 5 years
funding.
billion annually).
(FY2006-FY2010)
(FY2006-FY2010).
The cost is partially
offset by changes to the
earned income tax
credit (EITC) and child
tax credit.
Transitional
Extend 12-month TMA
Extend 12-month TMA
Extend 12-month TMA
Medical
for one year and allow
for one year. Offset
for 5 years and allow
Assistance
states to waive income
part of this cost. FY05-
states to waive
(TMA)
reporting. FY05-10
FY10 net cost: $0.6
reporting requirements.
cost: $0.9 billion.
billion.
FY05-FY10 cost: $4.2
billion.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
A major area of disagreement in the pending proposals is in mandatory funding for the
child care block grant. The President’s FY2006 budget proposes no increase in child care
funding. H.R. 240 would add $1 billion over five years to the current level of mandatory
child care funding; S. 667 would add $6 billion over the same period (FY2006-FY2010).
Prospectively, two primary factors will affect how much, and for whom, child care will
be supported under the two block grants: (1) inflation, which erodes the value of the dollar
over time, so that the same level of funding buys less in the way of child care services; and
CRS-5

IB10140
10-11-05
(2) potential increases in the demand for child care stemming from increasing TANF work
requirements, which is a central part of the pending welfare reauthorization proposals.
Table 3 shows Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the additional funding
required to keep pace with inflation and to cover costs (both child care and work-related)
associated with the proposed increases in work requirements for welfare recipients under
both bills. CBO estimates that to keep pace with inflation alone, an additional $4.8 billion
over five years would be needed to maintain the current level of child care services
supported by federal and state spending associated with the TANF and child care block
grants. Furthermore, CBO estimates the costs of providing additional child care services
stemming from the increased work requirements for TANF recipients that would be imposed
by each of the pending bills. H.R. 240 has the potential to require greater participation from
more families than does S. 667, and therefore the costs of providing additional child care for
cash welfare families is higher under the House bill. Note the CBO estimate of additional
child care costs from the stiffer TANF work requirements are based on a stipulation that
states would attempt to meet the requirements within the TANF program. CBO itself notes
that it believes that states will attempt to reduce the costs associated with the higher work
requirement by shifting TANF families into state-funded programs.
Table 3. Estimates of the Five-Year (FY2006 through FY2010) Child
Care Cost Increases from Inflation and from Changes in the TANF
Work Participation Standards Proposed in H.R. 240 and S. 667
($ in billions)
H.R. 240
S. 667
Increased child care costs due to inflation
$4.8
$4.8
Increased child care costs attributable to changes in TANF
4.1
0.9
work participation standards
Total increase in child care costs
8.3*
5.4*
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
made in 2005.
*Some of the potential costs of raising TANF work standards is attributable to inflation. Therefore, the total
is less than the sum of the increased costs shown individually for inflation and the potential costs from raising
TANF work participation standards.
These increased costs reflect estimates of the amount needed to sustain current levels
of child care financed from federal and state funds under both the child care and TANF block
grants. It also is the estimate for maintaining the current level of child care subsidies for all
families — those on the cash welfare rolls and other low-income families that receive
subsidies. In FY2001, only one in five families aided by the child care block grant received
TANF cash assistance — the other four families were either former TANF families (in the
transition from welfare to work) or were working poor families without a connection to the
cash welfare program.
The Bush Administration, while proposing no funding increases for the child care block
grant, has pointed to TANF as a potential source for additional child care dollars. TANF has
CRS-6

IB10140
10-11-05
been a major contributor of child care funds, and a legislative change proposed in both of the
pending welfare reauthorization bills would allow unspent and uncommitted TANF funds
(“carry-over” dollars) to be used for any TANF activity, including the provision of child
care. At the end of FY2003, these carry-over dollars totaled $2.3 billion. However, a
number of factors are likely to limit TANF’s ability to contribute additional child care
dollars. The pending reauthorization proposals would freeze TANF funding at current levels.
In FY2010, the TANF block grant will be at the same funding level as it was in FY1997, and
inflation is projected to erode its value by 25%. Though TANF built up carry-over funds in
its early years (as the caseload declined and states were slow to commit TANF funds to other
activities), more recently states have committed TANF funds to a wide range of programs
and activities and have been spending at rates higher than the annual block grant by drawing
on carryover funds. Further, the pending welfare reauthorization proposals would raise
TANF work participation standards, and, absent a caseload decline or states moving families
out of TANF into state-funded programs, increase work costs within the TANF program.
In addition to federal child care grants and TANF funds, another potential source of
increased child care funding is state monies. Federal child care funds can leverage additional
state funds by requiring matching. S. 667 provides an additional $6 billion over five years
in federal child care funding, of which $1.5 billion is subject to matching requirements.
Proposals to significantly increase child care spending offered in the Senate over the past
several years have tended to rely mostly on federal funds, given tight state budgets during the
recent economic slump. However, in light of recent improvements in the states’ fiscal
outlook, Congress might consider relying further on state monies to increase child care
funding.
TANF Work Requirements
TANF requires states to run “mandatory” work and job preparation programs, setting
participation requirements and sanctioning families (reducing or ending benefits) that do not
comply with them. Mandatory participation requirements can help achieve a number of
different policy objectives, including:
! Enforcing the notion that recipients are obligated to support their families
through work; that is, they must “do something” in exchange for their
benefits;
! Having recipients engage in activities that will enhance their ability to
compete in the labor market and ultimately leave welfare for work; and
! Deterring those who have other means of support (e.g., those already
working but not reporting income to the welfare office or participating in the
underground economy) from applying and receiving benefits.
Most states have generally adopted a “work-first” approach to implementing their
programs, emphasizing rapid entry into the labor force through up-front job search.
Evaluations of such programs indicate that they do increase employment and reduce welfare
receipt. However, these programs have generally not been found to raise the incomes of
participants. Further, TANF data show that participation in activities is not universal. In
FY2003, states reported that of about 1.5 million adult recipients of cash assistance, 57%
were not working or in a job preparation activity for a month. (Note that these adults are not
CRS-7

IB10140
10-11-05
reported in an activity. States may underreport activity that is not countable toward TANF
work participation standards.)
Current Law Work Participation Standard
Nominally, current TANF law sets a participation standard that requires 50% of families
with an adult to be engaged in work. A separate standard of 90% applies to the two-parent
component of the caseload. However, the actual participation standards states face are
usually far lower than the nominal participation standards. TANF law provides a “caseload
reduction credit,” which reduces the 50% standard by one percentage point for each percent
decline in the cash assistance caseload that occurred since FY1995 (pre-welfare reform).
Many states have had large caseload declines, and in FY2003 there were 20 states with
declines of 50% or more, reducing the effective (after credit) standard to 0%. In FY2003, the
national work participation rate was 31% — all states except Nevada and Guam met their
work participation standard, though most with rates well below the nominal 50% standard
found in TANF law.
The large caseload reduction credits have lessened the impact of the participation
standards. They have allowed states to have more participants in “noncreditable” activities
(e.g., education) and perhaps led to lower overall participation.
Reauthorization Proposals
Both H.R. 240 and S. 667 seek to raise participation of cash welfare recipients in work
or self-sufficiency activities. There are two major features of the pending proposals:
! “Universal engagement” requirements in both bills require each family with
an adult recipient to have a “family self-sufficiency plan” within 60 days that
includes goals for employment and self-sufficiency and specifies activities
assigned to recipients intended to help the family meet these goals; and
! Increases in the TANF work participation standards that states must meet.
Most reauthorization proposals considered by Congress over the last four years have
included a form of “universal engagement” (all families must have a plan), though the details
differ among the proposals. A major area of controversy in the reauthorization debate has
been the work participation standards. Table 4 provides a comparison of the changes in
TANF work participation standards under H.R. 240 and S. 667. There are both similarities
and differences in the approaches taken to increasing TANF work standards.
CRS-8

IB10140
10-11-05
Table 4. Comparison of Proposed Changes in TANF Work
Participation Standards in H.R. 240 and S. 667
H.R. 240
S. 667
Participation
Increases participation standard
Same as H.R. 240.
standards
from current 50% to 70% in
FY2010.
Credits against the
Revises caseload reduction credit
Caps credits and, in FY2008,
participation
so that standards are reduced only
replaces caseload reduction credit
standards
for future caseload reduction.
with an credit for families that
Provides credit for large caseload
leave welfare for employment.
declines from FY1995 to FY2001.
Cap sets a floor on the
participation standard of 50%
(after credits).
Activities
Narrows the creditable activities
Retains all current law activities
countable toward
for most hours in most months to
and allows states to count
the standards
employment, subsidized
additional activities. An expanded
employment, on-the-job training,
list of activities applies during 3
community service and work
months in a 24-month period and
experience. Allows states to
for activities to supplement work.
define activities for 3 months in a
Rehabilitative activities count for
24-month period (4 months to
6 months or (under certain
complete a training program) and
circumstances) longer. Also
for activities to supplement work.
provides state options for counting
post-secondary education, further
rehabilitative activities, and caring
for a disabled family member as
work activities.
Hour Requirement
Full credit is earned at 40 hours
Full credit is earned for a single-
per week. Partial credit is earned
parent family without a pre-school
beginning at 24 hours per week.
child at 34 hours per week. Single
parents with pre-school children
receive full credit at 24 hours per
week. Single parents earn partial
credit beginning at 20 hours per
week. Higher hours requirements
apply to two-parent families.
Participation Standards. Both H.R. 240 and S. 667 ultimately would set the
participation standard at 70% of the caseload, though there are differences in the credits that
would create a lower effective (after-credit) standard that states would actually have to meet.
Under the House bill, most states would have to have continual caseload reductions in order
to have an effective standard below 70%. Under the Senate Finance Committee bill, states
would receive credit for the percent of the caseload that leaves the rolls for employment and
for other specified employed families (e.g., those receiving TANF-funded child care and
transportation aid) such that most states would likely receive the maximum employment
credit for FY2010 (20 percentage points) and face a 50% effective rate.
CRS-9

IB10140
10-11-05
Hours Requirements. To be counted as a participant, current TANF law requires
at least 20 hours per week of participation for a single parent with a preschool child, and 30
hours for other families. H.R. 240 would set a 40-hour per week standard for a state to
receive full credit for a family’s participation. S. 667 also raises the hours standard, but by
less. It retains a lower hours standard for single parents with a pre-school child, raising the
hours required for full credit to 24 per week. Single parents with older children would be
required to participate for 34 hours per week to receive full credit, and higher hours standards
would apply to two-parent families. Importantly, however, both bills would provide for
partial crediting for families that participate a sufficient number of hours but fewer than
required for full credit.
The 40-hour per week work schedule — if sustained all year — would lift the combined
income of a typical cash assistance family (of three persons) above the poverty line, counting
net earnings, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. For recipients in activities
designed to prepare them to enter the workforce, it also “simulates” a full workweek and thus
might help in the transition to work, as any required adjustment to balance home and a full-
time job would be made before the first day of employment. However, most recipients
currently participate for less than 40 hours per week. In the economy as a whole,
nonsupervisory, private sector workers average 34 hours per week. While most jobs in the
U.S. economy are full-time jobs (defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] as 35 hours
per week), welfare recipients have characteristics that make them more likely than others to
land a part-time job. Also important is whether the job provides steady employment or not.
Average hours per week are averaged over a month, and any missed workdays, including sick
days, days spent caring for an ill child, or unemployment, are factored into that average.
Activities. Federal law lists 12 activities that count toward meeting the work
participation standard. The law differentiates between a set of “core” activities designed to
be a recipient’s only or primary activity and supplemental activities. Under current law, the
“core activities” are work, work experience, community service, on-the-job training, up to
six weeks of job search and readiness and vocational education limited to one year.
Supplemental activities are generally education and training activities, which generally only
count in conjunction with core activities.
H.R. 240 and S. 667 differ significantly in the types of activities countable as core
activities toward the participation standards. H.R. 240 narrows the list of core activities by
eliminating job search and vocational education. Instead, the bill would give states almost
total discretion to define activities that would be countable for three months in a 24-month
period (four months to complete training), but once those months are exhausted the only
activities that would count toward the work participation standards are work, on-the-job
training, community service, or work experience. Moreover, since job search and vocational
education would be countable as sole or primary activities only during the three (or four)
months that states would have discretion, any weeks of participation in job search would
reduce the number of weeks of vocational education counted toward the participation
standards.
On the other hand, S. 667 retains the current law list of core activities. It too provides
states additional discretion by permitting states to count an expanded list of activities for
three months in a 24-month period (longer for rehabilitative activities). However, this
CRS-10

IB10140
10-11-05
additional discretion is provided in addition to, rather than instead of, six weeks of job search
and 12 months of vocational educational training which are retained as “core” activities.
Role of Education. Implicit in the differences in countable activities in H.R. 240
and S. 667 is a debate over the proper role of education in welfare-to-work programs. H.R.
240 imparts a very strong “work” message — after a short period of time, recipients would
be required to either have found a job or be assigned work in subsidized employment,
community service, or work experience. Research on welfare-to-work programs has found
that the message matters, and that programs with a strong message emphasizing finding work
have seen impacts on increasing employment and reducing the welfare rolls.
S. 667 retains the current law allowance of 12 months of vocational education and gives
states the ability to count basic education for six months and gives them the option to operate
a “Parents as Scholars” program and to count recipients in a two- or four-year college degree
program toward meeting the participation standards.
Education has long been looked to as a means not only to increase employment and
reduce welfare rolls, but to increase the earnings and incomes of participants. In the general
population, one of the strongest relationships observed is that higher levels of educational
attainment translate into higher wages, with the largest returns to education going to those
with a college degree. About half of all adults on cash welfare lack even a high school
degree. However, the currently available research fails to show that education-focused
programs outperform “work-first” programs in increasing employment, earnings, and
incomes of welfare recipients even over a five-year period. Some of this is attributable to
the fact that education-focused programs tend to increase participation among high school
dropouts in adult education programs, which research has shown often fail by themselves to
substantially raise earnings above what is provided for by welfare. Only some of the
evaluated programs raised participation in postsecondary education, with further research
needed to make a statement about the effectiveness of postsecondary education on those
recipients (high school graduates) eligible to go on to college. (See CRS Report RL32505,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Vocational Education: Policy and Practice.)
Both H.R. 240 and S. 667 expand the ability of states to count vocational education and
post-secondary education as a “supplemental” activity, once a family has sufficient hours in
core activities. There is currently research underway to evaluate education as a “post-
employment” activity, though final impact findings are still several years in the future.
Sanctions Policy
Sanctions make participation in work or activities mandatory — noncompliance results
in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefit. Current law requires states to sanction
families who refuse to comply with work rules, but allows states to determine the size of the
sanction. Some researchers believe that sanctions have been more important than time limits
to families on assistance, as those characteristics that make them most likely to reach time
limits also have the characteristics that make them most likely to fail to comply with work
rules. Many states end benefits for families who violate work rules, but the two largest states
in terms of caseloads (California and New York) do not impose such “full family sanctions.”
H.R. 240 would require states to adopt “full family sanctions” for families who totally refuse
to comply with work rules. The importance of sanctions has also raised other concerns,
CRS-11

IB10140
10-11-05
including that recipients often do not understand program rules and unknowingly violate
them and draw a sanction. S. 667 would require states to conduct some type of review of the
family’s circumstances before imposing a sanction.
Child Support Enforcement, Responsible
Fatherhood Initiatives, Abstinence Education,
and Marriage Promotion
In 2003, children in families headed by a single mother had a poverty rate of 41.7%,
compared with a rate of 8.6% for children in families headed by a married couple. The
majority of poor children (in 2003, 57.4% of all poor children in families) live in families
headed by a single mother. Welfare-to-work initiatives have focused on getting such single
mothers into the workforce. While there has been a sharp increase in work among single
mothers, many single mothers and their children remain poor. The fifth annual TANF report
states “welfare reform has been very successful at getting a significant portion of cases into
the workplace and into second and sometimes third jobs, but it has been less effective in
keeping them employed full-time and in achieving substantial wage or career growth
.” The
sixth annual TANF report indicates that in FY2002 the average monthly earnings of TANF
recipients who were employed was $678 or $8,136 per year (the poverty level for a three-
person family in 2002 was $1,196 per month or $14,348 for the year). Child support
payments are now recognized as a very significant income source for single-parent families.
Increasingly, attention has focused on the role of the noncustodial parent, usually the
father, in the economic support and development of his children. Research has shown that
low-income fathers tend to face some of the same issues as do low-income mothers, such as
being very likely to work intermittently and/or in low-wage jobs, thereby limiting their ability
to help support their children. These findings, together with a growing sentiment that
noncustodial fathers are more likely to be “dead broke” than “deadbeats,” have fostered a
more sympathetic view of noncustodial fathers. Beginning in 1996, Congress has considered
bills that would specifically authorize funding for programs designed to help noncustodial
fathers meet both their financial and emotional responsibilities to their children (also
including components related to marriage promotion and effective parenting). These
programs are generally referred to as “responsible fatherhood” programs.
In recognition of the often negative, long-term consequences associated with teenage
pregnancy, Congress has provided funding for the prevention of teenage and out-of-wedlock
pregnancies. Reducing nonmarital pregnancy, especially among teenagers, was an important
focus of the 1996 welfare law. In recent years, funding has shifted toward abstinence
education rather than comprehensive sexual education as the more effective way to reduce
teenage pregnancy. It is likely that the 109th Congress will continue the debate on which
approach is more effective.
As noted earlier, the goals of welfare reform include reducing welfare dependency
through work, job preparation and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
promoting the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Although the 1996 welfare
reform law did reflect a new interest in marriage for welfare families, most of the policy
changes implemented after the 1996 law focused almost exclusively on encouraging work
CRS-12

IB10140
10-11-05
and did not directly address the marriage goals. The Bush Administration’s welfare
reauthorization plan specifically includes funding for programs exclusively designed to
promote marriage among low-income persons, seen by its supporters as a way to improve the
economic well-being and development of children.
Child Support Enforcement
Though much of the media focus of welfare reform in the mid-1990s was on TANF and
its work and time limit requirements, the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program has
also been undergoing change. (See CRS Report 97-408, Child Support Enforcement: Recent
Reforms and Potential Issues
.) The CSE program began in 1975 as a program to collect
child support from the noncustodial parents of children on welfare, which was then retained
by the federal government and the states as reimbursement for welfare costs. In addition to
cost-recovery efforts with regard to welfare families, the CSE program has always collected
child support on behalf of nonwelfare families in an effort to prevent them from coming onto
the welfare rolls. Over time, the CSE program has evolved from a program whose primary
focus was cost-recovery to a program that is focusing on service delivery.
In FY2003, a total of $21.2 billion was collected in child support (this is twice as much
as FY2003 cash assistance), with a little over half collected on behalf of families with no
current or prior connection to the welfare system. The $21.2 billion collected in FY2003 was
nearly double pre-welfare reform CSE collections. Though the increase in child support
collections shows some progress in getting noncustodial parents to help support their
children, collections totaled only 18% of the total obligations in support orders in the CSE
program. According to an Urban Institute study, on average child support constitutes 17%
of family income for households that receive it. For poverty-level children whose families
do not receive TANF, child support constitutes about 30% of family income.
The 1996 welfare reform law established several new enforcement collection
mechanisms to obtain child support from noncustodial parents and created an array of
database systems of wage and employment information to find parents delinquent in their
payments. The law also revised rules so as to pay more child support collected on behalf of
former welfare families to the family.
The pending reauthorization proposals would provide financial incentives to states that
send more child support collected on behalf of families on welfare to the family itself (rather
than retained as reimbursement for welfare costs). Under the proposals, the federal
government would pay for a share of support passed-through to welfare families as long as
that support did not reduce the family’s welfare benefit. The reauthorization proposals also
would give states financing incentives to send to former welfare families more of the child
support payments collected on their behalf. In addition, they would revise some child
support enforcement collection mechanisms and add others.
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives
Enforcement of child support orders is only one dimension of current efforts to connect
noncustodial parents (usually fathers) with their children. In the hopes of improving the lives
of children living in single-parent families, government and public and private organizations
CRS-13

IB10140
10-11-05
support programs to promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial
parents, which have become known as “responsible fatherhood” programs.
Research has recognized that low-income noncustodial fathers have similar problems
in the workforce as do single mothers — low wages and intermittent employment. Some
responsible fatherhood programs focus on employment skills, in part to help noncustodial
parents meet their child support obligations. In addition, responsible fatherhood programs
generally teach a variety of social skills, including parenting education, responsible decision-
making, conflict resolution, coping with stress, and appropriate disciplinary practices.
Responsible fatherhood programs also usually provide a peer support component. Some
programs also include funding for media campaigns to advertise to the public the importance
of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children.
The TANF block grant is one potential source of funding for responsible fatherhood
initiatives. Moreover, the pending welfare reauthorization bills would establish categorical
competitive grants, ranging from $20 million to $75 million per year, to community and
faith-based organizations for responsible fatherhood initiatives. (See CRS Report RL31025,
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.)
Currently, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provides $1.5
million annually to fund Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the
Social Security Act. Projects are presently being funded in the following eight states:
California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and
Wisconsin. These projects attempt to improve the employment and earnings of under- and
unemployed noncustodial parents and to motivate them to become more financially and
emotionally involved in the lives of their children.
Abstinence Education
Teenage pregnancy and nonmarital births were central issues in the 1996 welfare reform
debate. The United States has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births among the
industrialized countries. One 1996 study found that 40% of young women become pregnant
at least once before they reach the age of 20. Most research indicates that at least 80% of
these pregnancies are unintended.
The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193, Section 510 of the Social Security Act)
provided $50 million per year for five years, FY1998-FY2002, in federal funds for an
abstinence education formula block grant program. Funds must be requested by states when
they solicit Maternal and Child Health (MCH) block grant funds, and must be used
exclusively for the teaching of abstinence. To receive federal funding, a state must match
every $4 in federal funds with $3 in state funds.
To ensure that the abstinence-only message is not diluted, the law stipulated that the
term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program that teaches —
(1) the social, psychological, and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity; (2)
abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school-
age children; (3) abstinence is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy,
STDs, and associated health problems; (4) a mutually faithful monogamous relationship
within marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; (5) sexual activity outside
CRS-14

IB10140
10-11-05
of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; (6) bearing children
out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and
society; (7) young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use
increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and (8) the importance of attaining
self-sufficiency before engaging in sex.
Beginning with FY2001, several appropriation bills have included funding for
abstinence-only education. This funding was provided through the Department of Health and
Human Services via the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS)
program for abstinence education to bolster the abstinence-only message for adolescents aged
12 through 18. Funding for the SPRANS program for abstinence education amounted to
$20 million in FY2001, $40 million in FY2002, $55 million in FY2003, $70 million in
FY2004, and $100 million in FY2005. In addition, the Adolescent Family Life (AFL)
program (enacted in 1981 by P.L. 97-35) provides funding for matters related to adolescent
sexuality, pregnancy, and parenting. Funding for abstinence-only education under the AFL
program amounted to $9 million in FY2001, $10 million in FY2002, $10 million in FY2003,
$10 million in FY2004, and $31 million in FY2005.
The debate over whether teens should be given the unambiguous and exclusive message
that sex outside of marriage is wrong, or a more comprehensive message that tells teenagers
that they should not engage in sexual activities, but if they do they should practice “safe sex,”
is very controversial. Advocates of the more comprehensive approach to sex education argue
that today’s youth need information and decision-making skills to make realistic and
practical decisions about whether to engage in sexual activities. They contend that such an
approach allows young people to make informed decisions regarding abstinence, gives them
the information they need to set relationship limits and to resist peer pressure, and also
provides them with information on the use of contraceptives and the prevention of sexually
transmitted diseases. Advocates of the abstinence education approach argue that teenagers
need to hear a single, unambiguous message that sex outside of marriage is wrong and
harmful to their physical and emotional health. They contend that youth can and should be
empowered to say no to sex. They argue that supporting both abstinence and birth control
is hypocritical and undermines the strength of an abstinence-only message.
Marriage Promotion
Research indicates that children in families headed by both of their biological parents
“do better” on an array of child development outcomes (higher academic achievement, lower
teenage child bearing, lower levels of delinquency, etc.) than children living in single-parent
families. Much of this is due to the lower incomes of children in single-parent families, but
the statistical association between family type and child outcomes holds even when
considering families of equivalent incomes. However, in a note of caution, these better
outcomes hold only when a child lives with both of his or her biological parents — they do
not apply to stepchildren. Further, there are concerns about promoting marriage when some
relationships are violent. Additionally, there is the caveat to interpreting social science
research that “correlation does not equal causation.” The actual cause of the difference in
child outcomes could be differences in characteristics and behaviors (some not observed for
purposes of statistical study) associated with married versus unmarried parents.
CRS-15

IB10140
10-11-05
The Administration is currently funding research to address the question of whether
marriage promotion programs could achieve their goals. HHS is currently conducting large-
scale research projects to evaluate the impact of marriage promotion. Actual findings
regarding the impacts of these programs are several years away. The welfare reauthorization
proposals would provide up to $200 million in funding each year for marriage promotion
activities. These activities are similar to those in responsible fatherhood programs in that
they would teach social skills (e.g., responsible decision-making, conflict resolution, coping
with stress). Most marriage promotion programs also include funding for media campaigns.
The marriage promotion grants in H.R. 240 and S. 667 differ in several respects. S. 667
includes provisions to assure the participation in marriage promotion activities is voluntary,
and prohibits states from sanctioning welfare families for not participating in such activities.
S. 667 also includes requirements that those receiving grants to operate marriage promotion
programs consult with organizations with expertise in dealing with victims of domestic
violence in developing their applications for marriage promotion grants.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. Hearing on Welfare Reform
Reauthorization Proposals
, Feb. 10, 2005, witness list and testimony posted at
[http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=373&comm=2].
House Educational and the Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Welfare Reform: Reauthorization of Work and Child Care, witness list and testimony posted
at [http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/109th/21st/welfare031505/wl031505.htm].
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Blank, Rebecca, and Ron Haskins. The New World of Welfare. Brookings Institution Press,
2001.
DeParle, Jason. American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End
Welfare. Viking Press. 2004.
Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, ed. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. Russell
Sage Foundation, 1997.
CRS Report RL32817, Child Care Issues in the 109th Congress, by Melinda Gish.
CRS Report 97-408, Child Support Enforcement: Recent Reforms and Potential Issues, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RL32937, Child Support Enforcement: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current
Law and Welfare Reauthorization Bills (S. 667 and H.R. 240), by Carmen Solomon-
Fears.
CRS Report RL32682, Children in Poverty: Profile, Trends, and Issues, by Vee Burke,
TomGabe, and Gene Falk.
CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS-16

IB10140
10-11-05
CRS Report RL32834. TANF Reauthorization: Side-by-Side Comparison of Current Law,
S. 667, and H.R. 240 (TANF Provisions), by Gene Falk.
CRS Report RL31698. Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by
April Grady.
McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What
Helps. Harvard University Press, 1994.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Final Synthesis Reporting of Findings
from ASPE’s “Leavers” Grants, 2001, [http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410809_
welfare_leavers_synthesis.pdf].
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education. National
Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work
Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs,
2001,
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS/5yr-11prog01/].
CRS-17