Order Code IB10140
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reauthorization:
An Overview of the Issues
Updated February 14, 2006
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
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB10140
02-14-06
Welfare Reauthorization: An Overview of the Issues
SUMMARY
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
reducing welfare dependency.
109-171, S. 1932) includes a scaled-back
version of welfare reauthorization legislation.
Following enactment of the 1996 wel-
It extends the basic Temporary Assistance for
fare law, the cash welfare caseload fell from
Needy Families (TANF) block grant at cur-
4.8 million families in 1995 to 2.2 million in
rent funding levels through FY2010; increases
2004, employment of single mothers has
the share of TANF families required to partici-
increased substantially, and child poverty rates
pate in work activities; increases child care
have fallen. However, many families who
funding from current levels by $200 million
leave the welfare rolls remain poor. Out-of-
per year ($1 billion over five years, FY2006-
wedlock birth rates and children living in
FY2010); provides federal cost-sharing for
single-parent families remain at historical
child support passed through to TANF and
highs.
former TANF families; provides up to $100
million per year in demonstration grants for
In February 2002, the Administration
the promotion of “healthy marriages”; and
proposed its welfare reauthorization plan. The
establishes $50 million per year for “responsi-
debate was dominated by controversy over the
ble fatherhood” initiatives.
amount of child care funding and the Adminis-
tration’s proposed changes to TANF work
The final version of the Deficit Reduc-
participation standards. The Deficit Reduc-
tion Act excluded a provision in the House-
tion Act has the same child care funding
passed version of the bill that would have
increase that was provided in House-passed
reduced the federal matching rate for child
welfare reauthorization measures in 2002 and
support enforcement programs, though the
2003 ($1 billion in additional mandatory child
agreement does prevent federal matching of
care funding over five years). The 2005
child support incentive payments reinvested in
Senate Finance Committee welfare
the program.
reauthorization bill (S. 667) would have pro-
vided $6 billion in additional child care fund-
Enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act
ing over five years. Though the final agree-
ends a four-year saga of legislative attempts to
ment requires states to increase the share of
reauthorize TANF and related programs.
their families participating in TANF work
Since October 1, 2002, the program has oper-
activities, it does not include the Administra-
ated under a series of “temporary extension”
tion’s proposal to set a 40-hour workweek
measures.
standard or revise the activities that count
toward the standard.
In 2004, 12.5 million children lived in
families with incomes below the poverty line
The reauthorization debate also reflected
(a 17.3% child poverty rate). Research has
a renewed focus on noncustodial parents
shown that poverty can have negative conse-
(usually fathers) and on family formation
quences on a child’s development. Children
issues. The budget agreement includes res-
depend upon their parents for support, and
ponsible fatherhood initiatives and a scaled-
most of the recent policy attention has focused
back version of the President’s initiative to
on initiatives to move poor parents (mostly
promote healthy marriages.
single mothers) from welfare to work and on
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10140
02-14-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-171, S. 1932), the budget spending reconciliation bill, which includes a scaled-back
version of welfare reform reauthorization. The act 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.
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 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.
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;
CRS-1

IB10140
02-14-06
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
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
CRS-2

IB10140
02-14-06
Change (for rates,
percentage point change
is shown)
1995
2000
2004
1995-2000
2000-2004
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).
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.
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 (S. 1932) included the reauthorization proposals contained in
H.R. 240, plus some additional provisions to reduce outlays in TANF-related programs. The
conference agreement on S. 1932 included a scaled-back version of welfare reauthorization.
The agreement received final Congressional clearance on February 1, 2006 and President
Bush signed the measure into law (P.L. 109-171) on February 8, 2006.
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
02-14-06
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 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 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 Deficit Reduction Act scales back funding for healthy marriage promotion to $100
million in research and demonstration funding. An additional $50 million in mandatory
funding is 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
House-Passed Budget
Committee,
Deficit Reduction Act of
Reconciliation Bill
S.Rept. 109-51)
2005 (as enacted)
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.
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).
CRS-4

IB10140
02-14-06
S. 667 (as reported by
the Senate Finance
House-Passed Budget
Committee,
Deficit Reduction Act of
Reconciliation Bill
S.Rept. 109-51)
2005 (as enacted)
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 Deficit Reduction Act includes an increase of $200 million per year (from $2.717
billion to $2.917 billion per year) in federal mandatory child care funding, or a total increase
of $1 billion over five years. The 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 Deficit Reduction Act’s $1 billion in additional federal child care funds requires
state matching. This “leverages” some additional state dollars for each new federal child
care dollar. If states draw down the full $1 billion, approximately $0.8 billion in state child
care funds will 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 is estimated to
be insufficient to maintain current caseloads and average child care subsidies, and to keep
pace with inflation as projected by the CBO. In addition, the Deficit Reduction Act 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.
CRS-5

IB10140
02-14-06
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;
! 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
CRS-6

IB10140
02-14-06
participants. Further, TANF data show that participation in activities is not universal. In
FY2004, states reported that of about 1.4 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 FY2004 there were 19 states with
declines of 50% or more, reducing the effective (after credit) standard to 0%. On average,
the FY2004 national work participation rate was 32% — all jurisdictions except Guam,
Indiana, and Mississippi 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
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 Deficit Reduction Act 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 Deficit Reduction Act makes the following changes:
CRS-7

IB10140
02-14-06
! 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
have faced under prior 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 by June 30, 2006
and states will 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 FY2004 was 32% — so requiring
50% of families to participate requires states to significantly boost their participation.
Further, work participation rates varied greatly among the states (see FY2004 work
participation data at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/particip/indexparticip.htm#2004];
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
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
CRS-8

IB10140
02-14-06
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 Deficit Reduction Act specifically includes 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 RS22380, Child Support Enforcement:
Program Basics
, 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 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
CRS-9

IB10140
02-14-06
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 Deficit Reduction Act provides 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 new law, 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. Specifically, P.L. 109-171 allows states to pay up to
$100 per month in child support collected on behalf of a TANF (or foster care) family ($200
per month to a family with two or more children) to the family and not require the state to
pay the federal government the federal share of those payments. The measure also gives
states financing incentives to send to former welfare families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and pre- and post- welfare arrearages —
including child support arrearages collected through the federal income tax refund offset
program). In addition, it revises some child support enforcement collection mechanisms and
adds others.
The Deficit Reduction Act includes provisions that (1) establish a $25 annual user fee
for individuals who have never been on TANF but receive CSE services and who received
at least $500 in any given year, (2) reduce the CSE federal matching rate for the laboratory
costs associated with establishing paternity from 90% to 66%, and (3) eliminate the federal
match on CSE incentive payments that states, in compliance with federal law, reinvest back
into the CSE program. (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 final bill.)
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.
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
CRS-10

IB10140
02-14-06
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, welfare reauthorization bills would have established 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 Deficit Reduction Act includes competitive grants of $50 million per year for five years
in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public
and nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood
initiatives.

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. 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 Deficit
Reduction Act 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,
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
CRS-11

IB10140
02-14-06
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; these projects are now generally referred to as the community-based
abstinence education program. Funding for the community-based abstinence education
program amounted to $20 million in FY2001, $40 million in FY2002, $55 million in
FY2003, $70 million in FY2004, $100 million in FY2005, and $110 million in FY2006. 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-FY2004, and $13 million in FY2005 and FY2006.
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
02-14-06
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 Deficit Reduction Act
provides up to $100 million in funding for each of five years (FY2006 through FY2010) 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).
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 RS22380, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RS22377, Child Support Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-171), 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 Stoltzfus.
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].
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/].
crsphpgw
CRS-13