Order Code IB10140
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reauthorization:
An Overview of the Issues
Updated December 21, 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
Welfare Reauthorization Legislation
Trends Under Welfare Reform
Funding the TANF and Child Care Block Grants
TANF Work Requirements
Current Law Work Participation Standard
Welfare Reauthorization Revisions to TANF Work Participation Standards
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
12-21-05
Welfare Reauthorization: An Overview of the Issues
SUMMARY
The conference agreement on the spend-
single mothers) from welfare to work and on
ing budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932) in-
reducing welfare dependency.
cludes a scaled-back version of welfare
reauthorization legislation. The agreement
Following enactment of the 1996 wel-
would extend the basic Temporary Assistance
fare law, the cash welfare caseload fell from
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant at
4.8 million families in 1995 to 2.2 million in
current funding levels through FY2010; in-
2004, employment of single mothers has
crease the share of TANF families required to
increased substantially, and child poverty rates
participate in work activities; increase child
have fallen. However, many families who
care funding from current levels by $200
leave the welfare rolls remain poor. Out-of-
million per year ($1 billion over five years,
wedlock birth rates and children living in
FY2006-FY2010); provide federal cost-shar-
single-parent families remain at historical
ing for child support passed through to TANF
highs.
and former TANF families; provide up to
$100 million per year in demonstration grants
In February 2002, the Administration
for the promotion of “healthy marriages”; and
proposed its welfare reauthorization plan. The
establish $50 million per year for “responsible
debate was dominated by controversy over the
fatherhood” initiatives.
amount of child care funding and the Adminis-
tration’s proposed changes to TANF work
Excluded from the conference agreement
participation standards. The final agreement
on S. 1932 is a provision in the House-passed
reflects the same child care funding increase
version of the budget reconciliation bill that
that was provided in House-passed welfare
would have reduced the federal matching rate
reauthorization measures in 2002 and 2003
for child support enforcement programs,
($1 billion in additional mandatory child care
though the agreement does prevent federal
funding over five years). The 2005 Senate
matching of child support incentive payments
Finance Committee welfare reauthorization
reinvested in the program.
bill (S. 667) would have provided $6 billion in
additional child care funding over five years.
If enacted, the agreement would end a
Though the final agreement would require
four-year saga of legislative attempts to
states to increase the share of their families
reauthorize TANF and related programs.
participating in TANF work activities, it does
Since October 1, 2002, the program has oper-
not include the Administration’s proposal to
ated under a series of “temporary extension”
set a 40-hour workweek standard or revise the
measures.
activities that count toward the standard.
In 2004, 12.5 million children lived in
The reauthorization debate also reflected
families with incomes below the poverty line
a renewed focus on noncustodial parents
(a 17.3% child poverty rate). Research has
(usually fathers) and on family formation
shown that poverty can have negative conse-
issues. The budget agreement includes res-
quences on a child’s development. Children
ponsible fatherhood initiatives and a scaled-
depend upon their parents for support, and
back version of the President’s initiative to
most of the recent policy attention has focused
promote healthy marriages.
on initiatives to move poor parents (mostly
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

IB10140
12-21-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On December 21, 2005, the Senate passed S. 1932, the budget spending reconciliation
bill, which includes a scaled-back version of welfare reform reauthorization. The bill
extends funding for the basic TANF block grant through FY2010, increases the percentage
of TANF families that would be required to participate in work or work activities, revises
child support enforcement, and establishes healthy marriage promotion grants and
responsible fatherhood initiatives. It also provides for a one-year extension of the abstinence
education and Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) programs.
The House approved S. 1932 in the early-morning hours of December 19, 2005.
However, despite passing the bill, the Senate stripped three provisions (unrelated to welfare
reform) from the bill because they were found to run afoul of Senate rules regarding budget
reconciliation. Therefore, the House must take up the revised version of the measure. With
the current funding and authority for TANF and related programs set to expire on December
31, 2005, the House approved another in a series of temporary extension bills (H.R. 4635).
This bill would extend TANF and related programs through March 31, 2006.
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.
CRS-1

---

IB10140
12-21-05
Welfare Reauthorization Legislation
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 was taken on a long-term reauthorization.
While reauthorization legislation remained stalled, Congress passed measures to provide
stop-gap funding for the welfare programs. Under current law, the funding authority for
these programs is set to expire December 31, 2005.
Early in the 109th Congress, the Senate Finance Committee approved a welfare
reauthorization measure (S. 667), but it has yet to be considered by the full Senate. The
House Republican leadership introduced its welfare reauthorization bill (H.R. 240), which
closely tracks the President’s 2002 reauthorization proposal. The House-passed version of
the budget reconciliation bill included the reauthorization proposals contained in H.R. 240,
plus some additional provisions to reduce outlays in TANF-related programs.
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
CRS-2

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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
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 average,
4.8
2.3
2.2
-2.5
-0.1
millions of families)
Cash assistance spending (federal and
$21.9
$11.2
$10.4
-$10.7
-$0.8
state, billions of $, fiscal years)
Child poverty
Child poverty rates
20.2%
15.6%
17.3%
-4.6
1.7
Related children in poverty (millions)
14.0
11.0
12.5
-3.0
1.5
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 child
52.5%
69.1%
63.8%
16.6
-5.3
under age 6 employed.
General Economic Indicators
Unemployment rate
5.6%
4.0%
5.5%
-5.6
1.5
Employment (total nonfarm payrolls, in
117.3
131.8
131.5
14.5
-0.3
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
56.0
47.7
41.7
-8.3
-6.0
teens aged 15-19)
Percent of children living in married
72.9%
72.9%
71.8%
0.0
-1.1
couple families (March of each year)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
CRS-3

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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
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 the TANF, child care, and Transitional Medicaid funding proposals
included in the conference agreement on the budget reconciliation bill with the House-passed
reconciliation measure, and S. 667 as reported from the Senate Finance Committee. (For a
discussion of Transitional Medicaid, see CRS Report RL31698, Transitional Medical
Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by April Grady.) Note that while the basic TANF block
grant would be extended (at current funding levels) until FY2010 under the conference
agreement on the budget reconciliation bill, TANF supplemental grants would be extended
for only three years and TMA only one year. Further, previous welfare reauthorization
proposals had included $200 million per year in grants for healthy marriage promotion —
$100 million per year for matching grants to states and tribes and a second $100 million per
year in research and demonstration funding controlled by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The conference agreement scaled back funding for healthy marriage
promotion to $100 million in research and demonstration funding. An additional $50 million
in mandatory funding would be for responsible fatherhood initiatives. All existing TANF
bonuses — a High Performance Bonus based on states’ progress toward meeting the block
grant’s goals ($200 million per year) and a bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies
($100 million per year) — are eliminated.
Table 2. Summary of Funding Provisions
S. 667 (as reported by
the Senate Finance
Conference agreement
House-Passed Budget
Committee,
on the Budget
Reconciliation Bill
S.Rept. 109-51)
Reconciliation Bill
Basic TANF block grant
Extend basic TANF block Same as the House-passed Same.
grant through FY10 at budget reconciliation bill.
current levels ($16.5
billion per year).
Supplemental TANF
Extend supplemental S a m e a s H o u s e Extend supplemental
grants
grants at $319 million per reconciliation bill.
grants only through FY08.
year through FY09 only.
CRS-4

---

IB10140
12-21-05
S. 667 (as reported by
the Senate Finance
Conference agreement
House-Passed Budget
Committee,
on the Budget
Reconciliation Bill
S.Rept. 109-51)
Reconciliation Bill
Marriage promotion
Fund $200 million per S a m e a s H o u s e Up to $100 million per
grants
y e a r i n m a r r i a g e reconciliation bill. (Note: year in marriage
promotion grants. Reduce TANF bonuses are further p r o m o t i o n g r a n t s .
TANF bonuses from $300 reduced to pay for (Another $50 million per
million per year to $100 responsible fatherhood year is set aside for
million per year.
grants.)
responsible fatherhood
initiatives.) All TANF
bonuses ($300 million
eliminated).
Mandatory child care
Provide an additional $0.5 Provide an additional $6 Provide an additional $1
funding.
billion over five years billion over five years billion over five years
(FY2006-FY2010)
(FY2006-FY2010). The (FY2006-FY2010).
cost is partially offset by
changes to the earned
income tax credit (EITC)
and child tax credit.
Transitional Medical
No provision.
Extend 12-month TMA Extend 12-month TMA
Assistance (TMA)
for five years and allow for one year (through Dec.
states to waive reporting 31, 2006).
requirements. FY2005-
FY2010 cost: $4.2 billion.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The level of mandatory child care funding has been a contentious point of debate over
the past four years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that to maintain
the current level of child care subsidies over the next five years — maintain current child
care caseloads and average subsidy levels and keep pace with inflation — a total of $4.8
billion in extra federal or state funds would be needed. The current child care caseload
includes families on the cash welfare rolls, as well as other low-income, working families.
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 conference agreement ultimately included an increase of $200 million per year
(from $2.717 billion to $2.917 billion per year) in mandatory child care funding, or a total
increase of $1 billion over five years. The proposed increase reflects twice that proposed
earlier in the House-passed budget reconciliation bill ($0.5 billion), mirroring the funding
level passed by the House in welfare reauthorization measures of both 2002 and 2003. The
$1 billion increase stands in contrast to the proposed increase of $6 billion over five years
included in the bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee early in 2005 (S. 667).
The conference agreement’s $1 billion in additional federal child care funds would
require state matching. This “leverages” some additional state dollars for each new federal
child care dollar. If states drew down the full $1 billion, approximately $0.8 billion in state
CRS-5

---

IB10140
12-21-05
child care funds would also be expended, bringing the total new federal and state spending
for the child care block grant to about $1.8 billion.
However, the $1.8 billion in total new federal and state child care funds would be
insufficient to maintain current caseloads and average child care subsidies, and to keep pace
with inflation. In addition, the conference agreement has TANF work provisions (see below)
that, beginning in FY2007, are likely to substantially increase the share of TANF families
that would be required to work or participate in job readiness activities. This, too, is likely
to increase the demand for child care subsidies.
The child care and TANF block grants do not entitle families to child care subsidies.
Therefore, states could respond in a number of different ways (or combination of ways) to
inflationary pressures and the likely increase in the demand for child care subsidies caused
by stricter TANF work participation requirements:
! Increase funding from other sources, particularly TANF. TANF has
been a major contributor of child care funds, the second-largest spending
category next to cash assistance within TANF. States could allocate more
TANF spending to child care. However, a number of factors are likely to
limit TANF’s ability to contribute more child care funds, specifically: (1)
the block grant will remain frozen at the same levels as it was in FY1997
($16.5 billion) and inflation continues to erode the purchasing power of
those dollars; and (2) the conference agreement would have the likely effect
of increasing the percentage of TANF families that would have to participate
in work activities, increasing the TANF work costs in addition to child care
costs.
! Targeting more child care dollars to families receiving cash assistance.
As discussed above, in FY2001 only one in five families receiving subsidies
under the child care block grant received cash assistance. To meet the higher
child care costs due to the increase in TANF work participation standards,
states could target more child care dollars to families on TANF assistance,
reducing spending on subsidies for other low-income (“working poor”)
families.
! Restructuring child care subsidies to reduce their average costs. Under
both block grants, states determine subsidy levels and how much a family
has to contribute from their own income (co-payments). These rules can be
restructured to reduce the average child care subsidy per family.
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;
CRS-6

---

IB10140
12-21-05
! 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
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%. On average,
the FY2003 national work participation rate was about 30% — 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.
Welfare Reauthorization Revisions
to TANF Work Participation Standards
The 2002 Bush Administration welfare reauthorization proposals envisioned a
substantial rewrite of the TANF work participation standards. The participation standard
would have been raised from its current 50% to 70%; the caseload reduction credit would
have been replaced with a credit for employed welfare leavers; families would have had to
participate 40 hours per week; and, except for a three month period allowed for recipients
to focus solely on job search and short-term training, a minimum of 24 hours per week in
work or workfare would have been required for states to receive credit for a family’s
participation.
The House passed a slightly modified version of the Administration’s work proposal
three times — in 2002, 2003, and in the House-passed version of the budget reconciliation
CRS-7

---

IB10140
12-21-05
bill in 2005. Three times (in 2002, 2003, and S. 667 in 2005) the Senate Finance Committee
reported different modifications to the work rules, though none of these proposals passed the
full Senate. The Finance Committee approach was to generally expand the activities that
count toward the participation standards, in part by increasing the amount of education that
would have been countable under TANF work standards.
The conference agreement on the budget reconciliation bill (S. 1932) does not overhaul
TANF work participation standards. It retains the current 50% standard, current rules for the
minimum hours that count toward the participation standard, and current list of activities that
are creditable for work participation. However, the agreement makes the following changes:
! The caseload reduction credit is revised, so that work participation
standards are reduced only for caseload reductions that occur from
FY2005 into the future. This is effective beginning in FY2007. Thus,
absent further caseload declines, a state would face a 50% TANF work
participation standard in contrast to the much reduced standards they would
face uder current law.
! Count families in state-funded “Separate State Programs” (SSPs) in the
work participation rate calculation. Under current law, states may assist
TANF-like families in state-funded programs, and count spending in those
programs toward the TANF state spending requirement (known as the
“maintenance of effort” or MOE). Families in SSPs are not counted in the
work participation rates. The agreement provides that, beginning in
FY2007, families in SSPs are to be included in the participation rate
calculation. This prevents states from increasing their participation rate
simply by moving nonparticipating families into SSPs.
! Require HHS to develop standards for states to define work activities and
verify work participation. HHS is to develop regulations June 30, 2006 and
states would be required to implement procedures for verifying work by the
end of FY2006.
These changes are likely to increase required participation standards significantly for
states. The national average work participation rate in FY2003 was about 30% — so
requiring 50% of families to participate requires states to significantly boost their
participation. Further, work participation rates varied greatly among the states (see FY2003
work participation data at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/particip/
indexparticip.htm#2003.]; some states will have to increase their participation rates more
than others.
Child Support Enforcement, Responsible
Fatherhood Initiatives, Abstinence Education,
and Marriage Promotion
In 2004, children in families headed by a single mother had a poverty rate of 41.9%,
compared with a rate of 8.9% for children in families headed by a married couple. The
majority of poor children (in 2004, 57.2% 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
CRS-8

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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. The 109th Congress has continued the debate on which approach is more
effective.
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 and did not
directly address the marriage goals. The House and Senate welfare reauthorization bills and
the budget reconciliation conference agreement specifically include funding for programs
exclusively designed to promote marriage among low-income persons, which is 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 on 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, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.) The CSE program began in 1975
as a program to collect child support from the noncustodial parents of children on welfare.
If the child support collected on behalf of the welfare family was insufficient to lift the
family’s income above the state’s cash welfare eligibility limit the family received the
welfare cash benefit and the child support payment was distributed to reimburse the state and
CRS-9

---

IB10140
12-21-05
federal government for cash welfare costs in proportion to their assistance to the family. If,
however, the welfare family’s income, including the child support payment, exceeded the
state’s welfare cash benefit standard, the family’s cash welfare benefits were ended and the
family received the entire amount of child support collected on their behalf. 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 FY2004, a total of $21.9 billion was collected in child support (this is twice as much
as FY2003 cash assistance), with a little less than half (43%) collected on behalf of families
with no current or prior connection to the welfare system. The $21.9 billion collected in
FY2004 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 budget reconciliation conference agreement 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 agreement, 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 measure also would
give states financing incentives to send to former welfare families more of the child support
payments collected on their behalf. In addition, it would revise some child support
enforcement collection mechanisms and add others.
The budget reconciliation conference agreement includes provisions that would prohibit
the federal government from matching child support incentive payments reinvested in the
program and require states to assess a $25 annual fee for child support services provided to
families with no connection to the welfare system. (A House-passed provision to gradually
reduce (from FY2007-FY2010) the federal matching rate for child support administrative
expenditures from its current level of 66% to 50% is not included in the conference
agreement.)
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
support programs to promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial
parents, which have become known as “responsible fatherhood” programs.
CRS-10

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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 $76 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.)
The budget reconciliation conference agreement includes competitive grants of $50 million
per year for five years for responsible fatherhood programs.
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.
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. Since FY2003, the abstinence-only block
grant has been funded through temporary, short-term extensions. The block grant is currently
funded through December 31, 2005. 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. Although both the House and Senate welfare reauthorization
bills (H.R. 240 and S. 667) would authorize and appropriate funding for the abstinence-only
education block grant program through FY2010, the budget reconciliation conference
agreement appropriates funding for the program only through December 31, 2006.
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,
CRS-11

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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
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 $13 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-12

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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 budget reconciliation
conference agreement provides up to $100 million in funding for each of five years for
marriage promotion research and demonstration projects. Additionally it would provide $50
million per year for responsible fatherhood programs (as described earlier under Responsible
Fatherhood Initiatives).
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. Hearing on Welfare Reform
Reauthorization Proposals, February 10, 2005, witness list and testimony posted at
[ h t t p : / / w a ys a n d m e a n s . h o u s e . g o v / h e a r i n g s . a s p ? f o r m m o d e = d e t a i l &
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/wl03
1505.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 RL32682, Children in Poverty: Profile, Trends, and Issues, by Vee Burke, Tom
Gabe, and Gene Falk.
CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RL31698, Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by April
Grady.
CRS Report RL33157, Welfare Reauthorization: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Current
Law and Pending Welfare Reauthorization Proposals,by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish,
Carmen Solomon-Fears, and Emilie Stolzfus.
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, at [http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/
410809_welfare_leavers_synthesis.pdf].
CRS-13

---

IB10140
12-21-05
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, at
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS/5yr-11prog01/].
CRS-14

---