Order Code RL32760
The Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant:
Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Updated August 1, 2007
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Summary
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide
range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was
created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). Its funding was recently
extended through FY2010 by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). This
report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe
TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748). It will be updated.
Funding and Expenditures. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk
of which is provided in a $16.5 billion-per-year basic block grant. States are required
in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a
maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. The $16.5 billion basic block grant,
which will be provided to states through FY2010, represents the same basic block
grant as provided in the 1996 welfare reform law. The grant is not adjusted for
inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload (see “Caseload,” below). It has lost
20% of its value (purchasing power) to inflation from FY1997 through FY2006.
Though TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for needy
families with children, the block grant and associated state MOE funds are used for
a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2005, expenditures on activities
associated with a “traditional” cash welfare program — cash benefits themselves
($11 billion), administrative costs, and spending on work activities — totaled only
half of total TANF and MOE funds. TANF also contributes funds for child care and
services for children who have been, or are at risk of, abuse and neglect.
Caseload. Though only about half of federal and state expenditures are
associated with cash welfare, the “TANF caseload” number commonly discussed is
the number of families and recipients receiving cash welfare. Information is not
available on families and individuals who receive TANF benefits and services other
than cash welfare. In September 2006, 1.9 million families, consisting of 4.6 million
recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash welfare. The “typical” welfare
family is headed by a single mother with one or two children. However, the cash
welfare caseload is very heterogenous. In FY2004, about four out of 10 cash welfare
families were “child-only” cases — families in which the adult is ineligible for cash
in his or her own right.
Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In January 2005, the maximum
monthly benefit for a family of 3 ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi.
Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and
90% of two-parent families in work activities. These participation standards are
reduced for caseload reduction from FY2005. In FY2004 (the last year for which
data are available), states achieved average work participation rates of 32% for all
families and 47% for two-parent families. Most states are likely to have to increase
work participation in order to achieve the FY2007 TANF work participation
standards.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Can TANF Recipients Be in a Four-Year College Degree Program? . . 1
May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients? . . . . . . . . . . 2
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
When was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant Created? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Funding and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What is TANF’s Current Funding Level? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because
of Inflation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Have States Used TANF Funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Caseload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits
and Services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF-
or MOE-Funded Cash Welfare? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare
With Historical Levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What Are the Characteristics of the “Typical” Cash Welfare Family? . 9
What is a TANF “Child-Only” Family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TANF Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? . . . . . 12
How Have TANF Cash Benefits Changed Over Time? . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? . 16
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? . . 17
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. State Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Figures
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2005,
By Major Benefit or Service Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Welfare,
July 1959 to September 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3. Composition of Cash Welfare “Child-Only” Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

---

List of Tables
Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005, FY2006-FY2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, September 2006 . . 8
Table 4. Cash Welfare “Child-Only Cases,” FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5. TANF Maximum Cash Benefits for Single-Parent Families,
By Family Size, January 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 6. Cash Welfare Benefits for a Family of Three (Single-Parent
Family), January 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table A1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table A2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table A3. Number of Cash Welfare Families, Adult and Child Recipients,
By Selected Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table A4. Composition of Cash Welfare Families By Selected
Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table B1. Use of FY2005 TANF and MOE Funds by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table B2. Use of FY2005 TANF and MOE Funds by Category,
as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table B3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table B4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, September 2006 . . . . . . . 28
Table B5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, September
1994, September 2000, September 2005, and September 2006 . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table B6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2004, by State . . . . . . . . . . . 32

---

The Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant:
Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Introduction
This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended to
serve as a quick reference to provide easy access to information and data. This report
does not provide information on TANF program rules. For such information, see
CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: A Primer on Financing and Requirements for State Programs, by Gene Falk.
Current Topics
Can TANF Recipients Be in a Four-Year College Degree Program?
Yes. Federal law does not prohibit states from having their TANF recipients in a
four-year program, and supporting a college education is a legal use of TANF funds.
However, participation in a four-year college degree program often cannot be counted
— as the sole or primary work activity of a recipient — toward the TANF work
participation standards that states must meet.
States are penalized for failing to meet TANF work participation standards as
an incentive for them to engage recipients in activities that can be counted toward the
work standards. Whether participation in a four-year college program can be counted
toward meeting these work standards depends on whether it is “defined” as a
creditable work activity.
Prior to FY2007, states themselves “defined” which specific work activities
counted toward TANF work participation standards within the context of 12 listed
federal categories. However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171)
required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue regulations
to establish uniform definitions for TANF work activities. These regulations were
issued (in interim final form) on June 29, 2006.1
Before implementation of these HHS regulations, some states defined
participation in a four-year college program as either “vocational educational
1 See text of the regulations at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanfregs/tfinrule.pdf].
See also CRS Report RS22490, TANF: A Guide to the New Definitions of What Counts as
Work Participation, by Gene Falk.

---

CRS-2
training” or “job skills training directly related to employment.” In defining the
“vocational educational training” activity, HHS specifically said that participation in
a four-year college program cannot count. However, the HHS regulations define “job
skills training directly related to employment” as either specific or general education
related to employment. The definition of this activity does not specifically address
whether college courses applied toward a four-year degree may be “job skills
training” that would be counted toward TANF participation standards. Further, “job
skills training directly related to employment” cannot be the sole or primary work
activity for many recipients (single parents with a child age 6 or older and those in
two-parent families).
May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients? Yes. The
1996 welfare reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for welfare
recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104-
193.)
In addition to this option, the 1996 welfare reform law contained two other
provisions related to drug abuse and TANF applicants or recipients. The law
established a lifetime ban on eligibility for TANF and food stamps for those
convicted of a drug-related felony. However, states may either opt out entirely or
modify and limit this lifetime ban. (See Section 115 of P.L. 104-193.)
Further, TANF allows states to establish Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs)
for their TANF families. The IRP may require participation in a substance abuse
treatment program. A family may be sanctioned for failure to comply with its IRP.
In 2005, the House passed a measure (S. 1932 as passed by the House) that
would have required states to conduct drug testing of welfare recipients and end
benefits for families with members who failed a certain number of drug tests. This
provision was part of a broad welfare reauthorization that was included in the House-
passed version of S. 1932. However, this provision was not included in the final,
scaled-back welfare reauthorization that was ultimately included in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (see “Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?,”
below).
History
When was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant Created? The TANF block grant was created by the 1996 welfare
reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). TANF replaced the program of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), which dated back to the Social Security Act of 1935,
and several other related programs.
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? The Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-35) included provisions establishing “welfare-to-work”
grants for Fiscal Years (FYs) 1998 and 1999, and made several other policy and

---

CRS-3
technical changes to TANF. No new welfare-to-work grants were made after
FY1999.
The original funding authority for TANF ended on September 30, 2002. Over
the four-year period of 2002-2005, Congress considered, but did not pass, legislation
to modify and reauthorize TANF (see CRS Report RL33418, Welfare
Reauthorization in the 109th Congress: An Overview, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish,
and Carmen Solomon-Fears). Over this four-year period, Congress passed 12
“temporary extensions” of TANF and related programs as stop-gap measures until
it could reach agreement on a longer-term reauthorization. (See Appendix A, Table
A1 for a listing of the temporary extensions.)
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) includes a long-term
extension of funding for TANF through FY2010. It also requires most states to either
raise participation in work activities among families receiving cash welfare from
TANF, or further reduce the cash assistance rolls; it establishes $100 million per year
in TANF research and technical assistance funds for “healthy marriage promotion”
initiatives; and it provides $50 million per year for “responsible fatherhood
initiatives.” (For a discussion of TANF provisions in the DRA, see CRS Report
RS22369, TANF, Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood
Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.)
Funding and Expenditures
What is TANF’s Current Funding Level? The DRA provides funding for
TANF through FY2010. The basic block grant is funded at $16.5 billion per year
(for the 50 states and the District of Columbia) through FY2010. This was its
original level, as established in the 1996 welfare reform law. The DRA also funds
several grants and research in addition to the basic block grant, as shown on Table
1. Though most TANF funding currently runs though FY2010, the DRA extended
supplemental grants only through FY2008.
Readers should note that the DRA provides the funding authority (an
appropriation, not just authorization) in advance through FY2010. TANF funding
is not provided in annual appropriations.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided
in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, FY2006-FY2010
($ in millions)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Basic block grant
$16,478 $16,478
16,478
16,478
16,478
Supplemental grants
319
319
319
0
0
Funding for the territories
77
78
78
78
78
Marriage Promotion/healthy
fatherhood
150
150
150
150
150
TANF research
15
15
15
15
15
Census Bureau research on
welfare reform
10
10
10
10
10
Total federal funds (without
contingency funds)
17,049
17,050
17,050
16,731
16,731
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data in a U.S. Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) Cost Estimate, S. 1932, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, January 27, 2006.
In addition to federal TANF funds, states are required in total to contribute, from
their own funds, at least $10.4 billion per year for TANF-related activities for low-
income families with children. This level of state funding, known as maintenance-of-
effort (MOE) funding, was also established in the 1996 welfare law, and has not since
been changed.
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of
Inflation? From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2006
(ended September 30, 2006), the real value of the TANF block grant declined by a
measure of one-fifth (20%). Based on the current inflation projections of the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the block grant will decline in value by 27%
from FY1997 through FY2010.

---

CRS-5
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
Value of the Block Grant
Cumulative Loss of
Fiscal Year
in Billions of FY1997 Dollars
Value (in percent)
1997
16.5
—
1998
16.2
-2%
1999
15.9
-3%
2000
15.4
-6%
2001
14.9
-9%
2002
14.7
-11%
2003
14.4
-13%
2004
14.1
-15%
2005
13.6
-17%
2006
13.1
-20%
2007
12.9
-22%
2008
12.6
-24%
2009
12.3
-25%
2010
12.1
-27%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Constant dollars were
computed using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Actual inflation was
used to compute constant dollars for FY1997-FY2006 using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Constant dollars for FY2007 through FY2010 are based on the inflation assumptions of the
U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), published in January 2007.
How Have States Used TANF Funds? TANF is best known as a funding
source of cash welfare benefits for needy families with children. However, states
have considerable discretion in using TANF funds, and have used them for a wide
range of benefits and services.
Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds
in FY2005. In FY2005, a total of $28.4 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE
expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs. The
three expenditure categories commonly associated with “welfare” for needy families
with children — cash benefits, administrative costs, and work activities — accounted
for only a little more than half (53%) of all funds.
TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2005, 19% of all
TANF funds used were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care
block grant (the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). FY2005 TANF and
MOE expenditures on child care totaled $3.2 billion and transfers to CCDF totaled
$1.9 billion, adding up to a $5.1 billion contribution to child care funding from
TANF.
TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system, which provides
foster care, adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either
have experienced or are at risk of child abuse or neglect. However, TANF’s

---

CRS-6
accounting system poorly captures expenditures associated with spending on the
child welfare system.2
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2005,
By Major Benefit or Service Category
Total Expenditures and Transfers = $28.4 Billion
Transfers to
Other
SSBG, 3%
Expenditures, 16%
Family Formation
Expenditures, 3%
Other Work
Basic (cash)
Supports, 6%
Assistance, 38%
Transfers to
CCDF, 7%
Child Care
Expenditures, 11%
Administrative
Work Program
Expenditures, 8%
Expenditures, 8%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
See Appendix A, Table A2, for dollar amounts associated with each of these
categories. For state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Appendix
B, Table B1 and Table B2.
2 For a discussion of the short-comings of TANF financial data reporting, see the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in
States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant, GAO-06-414, March 2006. For an estimate of
TANF’s contribution to child welfare agencies’ funding, see Scarcella et al, The Cost of
Protecting Vulnerable Children V, Urban Institute, May 2006.

---

CRS-7
How Much Is Spent on Child Care from Both the TANF
and the Child Care and Development Fund?
Figure 1, above, shows that TANF is a major contributor to child care funding. In
addition, there is a separate block grant specifically dedicated to child care, known as the
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). A frequently asked question is: “How much
are we spending on child care from both TANF and the child care block grant?”

It is not possible to answer that question by simply adding together the information
from TANF and CCDF. This is because some of the money recorded for child care in
TANF is also considered an expenditure under CCDF. Thus, adding the amount of
TANF and MOE funds used for child care to CCDF expenditures would “double count”
some child care spending.

First, federal law allows up to 30% of the TANF block grant to be transferred to
CCDF. These transfers will result in CCDF expenditures when the transfers are actually
spent. Thus, TANF transfers should be subtracted from the TANF child care figure so
that this spending is not double-counted.

Second, some TANF MOE money can also be counted toward a separate CCDF
MOE. Adjustments have to be made to avoid double-counting some state child care
spending as both TANF and CCDF MOE spending.

Making these adjustments, CRS estimates that child care spending from both TANF
and CCDF totaled $11.7 billion in FY2005.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? At the end of
FY2005 (September 30, 2005), a total of $3.9 billion of federal TANF funding had
been neither transferred nor spent. However, some of that $3.9 billion represented
funds that states had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2005, states
had made such commitments to spend — that is, obligations — totaling $1.8 billion.
Generally, obligations are binding commitments to spend, and they come in the form
of contracts and grants to provide benefits and services. However, the definition of
“obligation” varies from program to program, and since TANF essentially consists
of 54 different programs (one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the
territories), what constitutes an obligation may vary.
The remaining $2.1 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated balance.”
These funds are available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B3
in Appendix B shows unspent TANF funds by state.

---

CRS-8
The Caseload
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and
Services? This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus
on families receiving only ongoing assistance (generally cash welfare), with no
complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. As
discussed in the previous section of this report, a little less than half of all TANF
funds are used on activities not considered part of a traditional “welfare” program.
Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving
“assistance” are very likely to undercount the number of families receiving any
TANF-funded benefit or service.
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-
Funded Cash Welfare? Table 3 provides cash welfare caseload information for
September 2006.3 A total of 1.9 million families composed of 4.6 million recipients
received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in September 2006.4 The bulk of the
“recipients” were children — 3.4 million children in that month. For state-by-state
cash assistance caseloads, see Table B3 in Appendix B.
Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload,
September 2006
Total families
1,900,860
Total recipients
4,576,134
Total children
3,440,210
Total adults
1,125,141
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
Note: The number of total recipients is greater than the sum of total children and total adults because
HHS reported total recipient data but not total children or total adult data for Guam.
3 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released caseload data for
October 2006 through December 2006. However, these data are not comparable to the
caseload data reported before October 2006 for some states. Therefore, at this time, this
report uses cash welfare caseload data through September 2006.
4 These numbers may differ from other reported cash welfare caseload figures, which often
reflect only the caseload within the TANF program while excluding the caseload in MOE-
funded, separate state programs. In September 2006, within TANF alone, there were 1.8
million families composed of 4.1 million recipients. That month, in separate state programs
financed from MOE funds, there were 144,000 families composed of 480,000 recipients.
Note that if a family received assistance from both TANF and SSP programs in a month, the
family would be double-counted in the total cash welfare caseload. That “double count” is
likely to be small. Unduplicated caseload data from TANF and SSPs are not available on
a monthly basis.

---

CRS-9
How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare With
Historical Levels? The number of families receiving cash welfare peaked in
March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The cash welfare caseload fell rapidly in the late
1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before leveling off in 2001. Beginning
again in 2004 the caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than
observed in the late 1990s.
Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families
receiving cash welfare, from July 1959 to the present. The 1.9 million families
currently on the cash assistance rolls represent their lowest level since 1970. Table
B3 shows recent trends in the number of cash welfare families by state.
Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Welfare,
July 1959 to September 2006
6,000,000
Historic Peak:
March 1994
5.1 Million Families
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
September 2006:
1.9 Million Families
1,000,000
0
3
7
-59
-61
-63
-65
-67
-71
-75
-77
-79
-81
-8
-85
-87
-89
-91
-93
-9
-01
-03
-05
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul-69Jul
Jul-73Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul-95Jul
Jul-99Jul
Jul
Jul
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
What Are the Characteristics of the “Typical” Cash Welfare Family?
The most common cash welfare family comprises a single mother with one child.
The majority of both the adults and children on the cash welfare caseload are racial
or ethnic minorities. Many of the children on the cash welfare caseload are young:
in FY2004, 40% of the children in cash welfare families were under the age of 6.
However, the welfare caseload is heterogenous. Some basic facts about the
caseload for FY2004:
! Single-parent families comprised an estimated 53% of all cash
assistance families. The second-most common cash assistance
family had no adult recipients — totaling 41% of all cash assistance

---

CRS-10
families (See Child-Only Cases, below). Only 6% of cash
assistance families had two adult recipients.
! The average family size on the cash benefit rolls was about three
persons.
! Most adult recipients (86%) were women.
! The majority of the cash assistance caseload are racial or ethnic
minorities. Among adult recipients, 37% were African-American,
20% were Hispanic, and 37% were white non-Hispanic.
! An estimated 23% of cash welfare adults were employed.
See Table A3 and Table A4 in Appendix A for a summary of selected
characteristics of families, adults and children receiving cash welfare in FY2004, and
how these characteristics compare with those of the caseload in FY1994 and FY2000.
What is a TANF “Child-Only” Family? A child-only family (or case) is
one in which there are no adult recipients. Of course, children in families receiving
cash welfare are in the care of an adult. However, benefits are paid to the family on
behalf of only the children — the adult is not considered a recipient, and often his or
her “needs” are not considered in determining how much is paid to the family.
“Child-only” families are exempt from the federal TANF time limit on benefit
receipt.5 Through FY2006, “child-only” families have also been excluded from
determinations of a state’s TANF work participation rate. Beginning in FY2007,
under provisions of new HHS regulations adopted to implement the Deficit
Reduction Act, some “child-only” families will be counted in determining the work
participation rate.
In FY2004, “child-only” cases comprised 41% of all cash assistance families
— up considerably from the FY1994 percentage of 17% of all cash assistance
families. Moreover, the number of child-only families (845,000) was greater in
FY2004 than it was in FY1994.
“Child-only” families are themselves a heterogeneous group. In some instances,
child recipients are living with their parents, but the parents are ineligible for
assistance because they are ineligible noncitizens, are recipients of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), have been sanctioned for failure to meet a program
requirement, or have reached a state time limit on aid to an adult recipient. In other
cases, the children are not living with their parents, but rather with a caretaker
relative such as a grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc.
Figure 3, below, summarizes the characteristics of child-only cases, dividing
them into three groups: families headed by an ineligible caretaker parent (58% of all
“child-only” families), families headed by a caretaker relative (31% of “child only”
families), and families for which information was not available about who was
responsible for caring for the child. (Readers should note that these data are state-
5 TANF prohibits states from using federal funds to provide assistance to families with an
adult for more than five years (60 months). However, up to 20% of the TANF assistance
caseload may be extended beyond five years for reason of hardship, and states may use
MOE funds to assist families that have been on the rolls for five years or more.

---

CRS-11
reported — some states did not report information on adults who are not recipients
themselves in cash welfare families.) Table 4, below, provides some limited detail
on child-only family heads. Data are limited because states were not required to
report certain characteristics of adult non-recipients (e.g., their citizenship or whether
they had reached a state time limit), and because of poor reporting by some states on
these persons.
Figure 3. Composition of Cash Welfare “Child-Only” Cases
Unknow n, 11%
Caretaker
Ineligible Parent,
Relative, 31%
58%
Total Number of Child-Only Cash Welfare Families = 845,000
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of
the FY2004 TANF national data files.
Table 4. Cash Welfare “Child-Only Cases,” FY2004
Number
Percent of all
(in thousands)
child-only cases
Total child-only families
845
100.0%
Ineligible parent
486
57.6
Receives SSI
206
24.4
Other
281
33.2
Caretaker relative
265
31.3
Grandparent
149
17.6
Other
116
13.7
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of
the FY2004 TANF national data files.

---

CRS-12
Child-Only Cases and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
As mentioned above, certain welfare reform provisions such as time limits
and work requirements do not apply to “child-only” cases. TANF law and
regulations do not define who in a family must be counted as a recipient, leaving
states to decide whether to include or exclude family members (such as adults).

However, the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 required the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations determining when
a parent of a recipient child must be included in TANF work participation standard
calculations. These regulations were released in interim, final form on June 29,
2006. They require states to include in the participation rate calculation families
who have non-recipient adult parents who have been removed from the family
because of a sanction (e.g., failure to participate in work) or because of a state time
limit on an adult receiving TANF. The regulations permit states, on a case-by-case
basis, to include in the participation calculations adult non-recipient parents who
receive SSI, but might meet participation standards because of their work through
programs such as “Ticket to Work.”

The HHS regulations promulgated under the Deficit Reduction Act do not
affect non-parent, non-recipient adults in TANF families (e.g., grandparents).
TANF Cash Benefits
How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? There
are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a
family. (There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash
benefits, though all states do so.) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the
states.
Table 5 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state and family
size as of January 2005.6 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single parent
family with children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types
such as two-parent families or “child-only” cases. States also vary their benefits by
other factors such as housing costs and sub-state geography. In general, the table
shows the highest benefit amounts paid in the state, though the Michigan amount is
for Wayne County (Detroit) and the New York benefit is for New York City.7
6 States are not required to report to the federal government their cash welfare benefit
amounts in either the TANF state plan (under section 402 of the Social Security Act) or in
annual program reports (under section 407 of the Social Security Act). The benefit amounts
in this report are from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) survey of state TANF
financial eligibility rules and benefit levels. CRS last conducted this survey for the month
of January 2005.
7 In Michigan, higher maximum benefits were paid in Washtenaw County ($489 per month
for a family of three) than in Wayne County. In New York, higher maximum benefits were
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying bigger
families larger cash benefits on the presumption that larger families have greater
financial needs. In January 2005, for the average cash welfare family (a family of
three), the maximum monthly benefit in the median state was $389, with a range
from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi.
The maximum monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no
other income (e.g., no earned or unearned income) who complies with program rules.
Families with income other than TANF often are paid a reduced benefit. Moreover,
some families are financially sanctioned for failure to meet a program requirement
(e.g., a work requirement), and are also paid a lower benefit.
Table 5. TANF Maximum Cash Benefits
for Single-Parent Families, By Family Size, January 2005
State
1 2 3 4 5 6
Alabama
$165
$190
$215
$245
$275
$305
Alaska
0
821
923
1,025
1,127
1,229
Arizona
204
275
347
418
489
561
Arkansas
81
162
204
247
286
331
California
359
584
723
862
980
1,101
Colorado
214
280
356
432
512
590
Connecticut
402
513
636
741
835
935
Delaware
201
270
338
407
475
544
District of Columbia
239
298
379
463
533
627
Florida
180
241
303
364
426
487
Georgia
155
235
280
330
378
410
Hawaii 335
452
570
687
805
922
Idaho
309
309
309
309
309
309
Illinois
223
292
396
435
509
572
Indiana
139
229
288
346
405
463
Iowa
183
361
426
495
548
610
Kansas
267
352
429
497
558
619
Kentucky
186
225
262
328
383
432
Louisiana
122
188
240
284
327
366
Maine
230
363
485
611
733
856
Maryland
216
380
482
583
675
743
Massachusetts
418
518
618
713
812
912
Michigan 276
371
459
563
659
792
Minnesota
250
437
532
621
697
773
Mississippi
110
146
170
194
218
242
7 (...continued)
paid in Suffolk County ($783 per month for a family of three) than in New York City.

---

CRS-14
State
1 2 3 4 5 6
Missouri
136
234
292
342
388
431
Montana
251
328
405
482
560
637
Nebraska
222
293
364
435
506
577
Nevada
231
289
348
407
466
525
New Hampshire
489
556
625
688
748
829
New Jersey
162
322
424
488
552
616
New Mexico
231
310
389
469
548
627
New York
414
501
691
825
964
1,059
North Carolina
181
236
272
297
324
349
North Dakota
282
378
477
573
670
767
Ohio
223
305
373
461
539
600
Oklahoma
180
225
292
361
422
483
Oregon
310
395
460
565
660
755
Pennsylvania
215
330
421
514
607
687
Rhode Island
327
449
554
634
714
794
South Carolina
121
163
205
248
290
333
South Dakota
366
448
501
553
606
659
Tennessee
95
142
185
226
264
305
Texas
93
193
223
268
298
342
Utah
274
380
474
555
632
696
Vermont
503
604
709
795
885
946
Virginia
242
323
389
451
537
587
Washington
349
440
546
642
740
841
West Virginia
262
301
340
384
420
460
Wisconsin
0
673
673
673
673
673
Wyoming
195
320
340
340
360
360
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS survey of state
TANF financial eligibility and benefit rules.
How Have TANF Cash Benefits Changed Over Time? The large
variation in TANF cash welfare benefits is not new. Even before the 1996 welfare
reform law, states determined benefit amounts.
Most states do not regularly adjust benefits for the effects of inflation. Some
states have not changed their benefit levels in many years. Table 6 compares the
January 2005 benefit for a family of three (single-parent family) with the benefits
paid in January 1996, 2000, and 2002. In inflation-adjusted terms, the benefits
declined in value by 19% in states that paid the same benefit in January 2005 as in
January 1996.

---

CRS-15
Table 6. Cash Welfare Benefits for a Family of Three
(Single-Parent Family), January 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2005
Percent change in
real (inflation-
adjusted) dollars:
State
1996
2000
2002
2005
1996-2005
Alabama
$164
$164
$164
$215 6.1%
Alaska
923
923
923
923 -19.0
Arizona
347
347
347
347 -19.0
Arkansas
204
204
204
204 -19.0
California
596
626
679
723 -1.8
Colorado
356
356
356
356 -19.0
Connecticut
636
636
636
636 -19.0
Delaware
338
338
338
338 -19.0
District of Columbia
415
379
379
379
-26.1
Florida
303
303
303
303 -19.0
Georgia
280
280
280
280 -19.0
Hawaii 712
570
570
570
-35.2
Idaho
317
293
293
309 -21.1
Illinois
377
377
377
396 -15.0
Indiana
288
288
288
288 -19.0
Iowa
426
426
426
426 -19.0
Kansas
429
429
429
429 -19.0
Kentucky
262
262
262
262 -19.0
Louisiana
190
190
240
240 2.3
Maine
418
461
485
485 -6.1
Maryland 373
417
472
482
4.6
Massachusetts
565
565
618
618 -11.4
Michigan
459
459
459
459 -19.0
Minnesota
532
532
532
532 -19.0
Mississippi
120
170
170
170 14.7
Missouri
292
292
292
292 -19.0
Montana
438
469
494
405 -25.1
Nebraska
364
364
364
364 -19.0
Nevada
348
348
348
348 -19.0
New Hampshire
550
575
600
625
-8.0
New Jersey
424
424
424
424
-19.0
New Mexico
389
439
389
389
-19.0
New York
577
577
577
691
-3.0
North Carolina
272
272
272
272
-19.0
North Dakota
431
457
477
477
-10.4
Ohio
341
373
373
373 -11.4

---

CRS-16
Percent change in
real (inflation-
adjusted) dollars:
State
1996
2000
2002
2005
1996-2005
Oklahoma
307
292
292
292 -23.0
Oregon
460
460
460
460 -19.0
Pennsylvania
421
421
421
421 -19.0
Rhode Island
554
554
554
554
-19.0
South Carolina
200
204
205
205
-17.0
South Dakota
430
430
469
501
-5.7
Tennessee
185
185
185
185 -19.0
Texas
188
201
201
223 -4.0
Utah
416
451
474
474 -7.7
Vermont
633
708
709
709 -9.3
Virginia
354
354
389
389 -11.0
Washington
546
546
546
546 -19.0
West Virginia
253
328
453
340
8.8
Wisconsin
517
673
673
673 5.4
Wyoming
360
340
340
340 -23.5
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS survey of state
TANF financial eligibility and benefit rules.
TANF Work Participation Standards
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet?
The TANF statute requires states to have 50% of their caseload meet standards of
participation in work or activities — that is, a family member must be in specified
activities for a minimum number of hours.8 There is a separate participation standard
that applies to the two-parent portion of a state’s caseload, requiring 90% of the
state’s two-parent caseload to meet participation standards. States that fail the TANF
work participation standards are penalized by a reduction in their block grant
amounts.
However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a “caseload
reduction credit.” The caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard
one percentage point for each percent decline in the caseload. Beginning in FY2007,
states will be credited only with caseload declines that have occurred since FY2005.
The FY2007 effective (after-credit) standard will be based on caseload declines from
FY2005 to FY2006. The FY2008 effective standard will be based on caseload
declines from FY2005 to FY2007. States are not given credit for caseload declines
that result from new restrictions on eligibility enacted by states since FY2005.
8 Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

---

CRS-17
The currently available caseload data do not tell what the effective (after-credit)
participation standards will be for FY2007. However, cash welfare caseloads have
declined over the past year. From the first nine months of FY2005 to the first nine
months of FY2006, the national average decline in the overall cash welfare caseload
was about 6% (see Table B3 in Appendix B). If this is sustained over the entire
fiscal year and is not a result of restrictive policy changes, the average state will see
its effective participation standards reduced by six percentage points — from 50%
to 44%.
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?
In FY2004, the national average work participation rate for all families achieved by
states was 32%. The participation rate within TANF achieved nationwide for the
two-parent portion of the caseload was 47.4%. This implies that many states would
have to raise their participation rates from historical levels to comply with the
FY2007 TANF work participation standards.
In FY2004, all jurisdictions except Guam met TANF work participation
standards. A more generous caseload reduction credit, counting caseload declines
from FY1995, was in effect that year. In FY2004, Arkansas, the District of
Columbia, Guam, and Washington failed to meet the two-parent standard. See Table
B5 in Appendix B for FY2004 participation rates for all states.

---

CRS-18
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables
Table A1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2006
Public Law
Time Period
Notes
P.L. 107-229
Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31,
Extension as part of a continuing
2002
resolution.
P.L. 107-294
Jan. 1, 2003-Mar. 31,
Extension as part of a continuing
2003
resolution.
P.L. 108-7
Apr. 1, 2003-June 30,
Extension as part of the Consolidated
2003
Appropriations Act.
P.L. 108-40
July 1, 2003-Sept. 30,
Free-standing bill that amended the Social
2003
Security Act to extend TANF and related
programs.
P.L. 108-89
Oct. 1, 2003-Mar. 31,
Multipurpose bill that extended programs
2004
through the first half of FY2004.
P.L. 108-210
Apr. 1, 2004-June 30,
Free-standing bill that extended funding
2004
authority for the program through June
30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262
July 1, 2004-Sept. 30,
Free-standing bill that extended funding
2004
authority for the program through Sept.
30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308
Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31,
Free-standing bill that extended funding
2005
authority for the programs through Mar.
31, 2005.
P.L. 109-4
Apr. 1, 2005-June 30,
Free-standing bill that extended funding
2005
authority for the programs through June
30, 2005.
P.L. 109-19
July 1, 2005-Sept. 30,
Free-standing bill that extended funding
2005
authority for the programs through Sept.
30, 2005.
P.L. 109-68
Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31,
Bill to provide extra funding to help states
2005
provide benefits to families affected by
Hurricane Katrina, suspend certain
requirements in states affected by the
hurricane, and extend the funding
authority for the programs through Dec.
31, 2005.
P.L. 109-161
Jan. 1, 2006-Mar. 31,
Free-standing bill that extended funding
2006
authority for the programs through March
31, 2006. Reduced the bonus for reducing
out-of-wedlock births for FY2006-
FY2010 to offset the costs of the
temporary extension.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

---

CRS-19
Table A2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2005
Dollars
Percent of Total Expenditures
Category
(in billions)
(and Transfers)
Basic (cash) assistance
$10.7
37.8%
Administrative expenditures
2.4
8.4
Work program expenditures
2.2
7.6
Child care expenditures
3.2
11.2
Transfers to CCDF
1.9
6.8
Other work supports
1.7
5.8
Family formation expenditures
0.8
3.0
Other expenditures
4.6
16.2
Transfers to SSBG
0.9
3.2
Total Expenditures
25.6
89.9
Total Transfers
2.9
10.1
Total
28.4
100.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-20
Table A3. Number of Cash Welfare Families, Adult and Child
Recipients, By Selected Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004
Percent
Percent
1994
2000
2004 Change,
Change,
1994-2004
2000-2004
Number of families (in thousands)
5,046
2,297
2,129
-57.8
-7.3
Average family size
2.8
3.0
2.9
1.9
-4.5
Characteristics of families (numbers of families in thousands)
Number of adult recipients
With one adult recipient
3,757
1,370
1,133
-69.8
-17.3
With two adult recipients
411
163
125
-69.7
-23.2
Subtotal: with adult recipients
4,169
1,532
1,258
-69.8
-17.9
With no adult recipients
869
761
871
0.3
14.5
Number of children in family
One child
2,148
996
1,012
-52.9
1.6
Two children
1,514
655
598
-60.5
-8.6
Three or more children
1,272
598
477
-62.5
-20.3
Number of adult recipients
4,610
1,751
1,398
-69.7
-20.1
Characteristics of adult recipients (numbers in thousands)
Gender
Women
4,022
1,516
1,209
-69.9
-20.3
Men
587
234
190
-67.7
-19.2
Employment status
Employed
384
485
316
-17.9
-35.0
Not employed
4,182
848
699
-83.3
-17.5
Race/ethnicity
White (Non-Hispanic)
1,870
573
511
-72.7
-10.8
African-American
1,559
604
513
-67.1
-15.1
Hispanic
862
407
281
-67.4
-31.0
Othera
319
132
75
-76.5
-43.4
Number of child recipients
9,753
4,619
3,980
-59.2
-13.8
(numbers in thousands)
Age
Infants
559
293
279
-50.1
-4.9
1 or 2
1,765
583
553
-68.7
-5.1
3 or 4
1,507
589
517
-65.7
-12.2
5
651
297
231
-64.5
-22.1
6 to 12
3,520
1,906
1,501
-57.4
-21.3
13 or older
1,732
948
896
-48.3
-5.5
Race/ethnicity
White (Non-Hispanic)
3,220
1,233
1,109
-65.6
-10.1
African-American
3,701
1,754
1,509
-59.2
-14.0
Hispanic
2,064
1,210
1,067
-48.3
-11.7
Other
488
309
234
-52.0
-24.3
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of the FY1994
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control data file and the FY2000 and FY2004 TANF
National data files.
a. Includes persons who reported multiple racial affiliations.

---

CRS-21
Table A4. Composition of Cash Welfare Families By Selected
Characteristics, FY1994, FY2000, and FY2004
Percentage
Percentage
1994
2000
2004 point change, point change,
1994-2004
2000-2004
Percent of Total Families
Number of Adult Recipients
One
74.5
59.6
53.2
-21.2
-6.4
Two or more
8.2
7.1
5.9
-2.3
-1.2
Subtotal: with adult recipients
82.6
66.7
59.1
-23.5
-7.6
None
17.2
33.1
40.9
23.7
7.8
Number of Children
One
42.6
43.4
47.6
5.0
4.2
Two
30.0
28.5
28.1
-1.9
-0.4
Three or more
25.2
26.1
22.4
-2.8
-3.7
Percent of Total Adult Recipients
Gender
Women
87.2
86.6
86.4
-0.8
-0.2
Men
12.7
13.4
13.6
0.8
0.2
Employment Status
Employed
8.3
27.7
22.6
14.2
-5.1
Race/Ethnicity
White (Non-Hispanic)
40.6
32.8
36.6
-4.0
3.8
African-American
33.8
34.5
36.7
2.9
2.2
Hispanic
18.7
23.3
20.1
1.4
-3.2
Othera
6.9
7.5
5.4
-1.6
-2.2
Percent of Child Recipients
Age
Infants
5.7
6.3
7.0
1.3
0.7
1 or 2
18.1
12.6
13.9
-4.2
1.3
3 or 4
15.4
12.8
13.0
-2.5
0.2
5
6.7
6.4
5.8
-0.9
-0.6
6 to 12
36.1
41.3
37.7
1.6
-3.6
13 or older
17.8
20.5
22.5
4.8
2.0
Race/Ethnicity
White (Non-Hispanic)
33.0
26.7
27.9
-5.2
1.2
African-American
37.9
38.0
37.9
0.0
-0.1
Hispanic
21.2
26.2
26.8
5.7
0.6
Other
5.0
6.7
5.9
0.9
-0.8
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS analysis of the FY1994
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control data file and the FY2000 and FY2004 TANF
National data files.
a. Includes persons who reported multiple racial affiliations.

---

CRS-22
Appendix B. State Tables
Table B1. Use of FY2005 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
($ in millions)
Adminis-
Work
Family
trative
program
Child care
formation
Other
Basic (cash)
expen-
expen-
expen-
Transfers to Other work
expen-
expen-
Transfers to
State
assistance
ditures
ditures
ditures
CCDF
supports
ditures
ditures
SSBG
Total
Alabama
$47.4
$12.4
$15.8
$6.2
$4.1
$3.7
$1.9
$36.0
$10.4
$137.9
Alaska
41.1
5.8
11.8
12.8
15.2
0.7
0.6
1.3
3.1
92.5
Arizona
160.1
38.5
18.5
9.9
0.0
3.5
0.0
68.1
23.0
321.6
Arkansas
18.5
7.7
12.2
14.8
7.5
5.1
2.5
5.6
2.4
76.6
California
3,503.7
557.3
436.7
669.4
412.6
151.1
22.1
542.3
128.2
6,423.2
Colorado
75.1
21.1
1.2
1.9
2.7
8.4
0.1
106.0
15.0
231.5
Connecticut
125.7
29.3
23.9
12.3
0.0
18.2
74.1
175.3
26.7
485.5
Delaware
19.3
5.8
0.0
23.7
-4.3
12.5
0.0
0.0
2.4
59.4
District of Columbia
66.3
14.9
19.9
39.4
18.5
0.0
2.8
12.7
3.9
178.4
Florida
184.2
93.0
81.8
242.3
122.5
7.3
11.3
248.5
62.3
1,053.2
Georgia
117.3
19.0
86.8
22.2
0.0
13.6
31.5
229.6
14.1
534.2
Hawaii
81.7
14.3
20.6
10.6
10.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
10.0
148.7
Idaho
7.3
2.2
7.7
0.8
8.7
0.3
2.5
19.1
1.4
50.0
Illinois
122.2
23.7
85.6
415.3
0.0
20.2
1.2
330.3
17.5
1,015.9
Indiana
113.2
40.5
7.3
15.3
5.0
39.4
1.6
89.4
2.0
313.7
Iowa
75.7
13.4
18.3
5.1
25.3
4.7
8.3
36.1
12.8
199.7
Kansas
65.4
8.4
1.7
7.9
21.4
36.0
0.0
34.9
4.3
180.1
Kentucky
104.9
16.6
27.6
20.9
54.4
5.8
0.0
40.5
0.0
270.7
Louisiana
51.3
26.1
12.5
5.2
19.6
8.0
51.2
32.0
16.4
222.4
Maine
90.0
5.9
2.1
13.7
8.9
12.8
0.0
2.3
4.9
140.7
Maryland
124.3
36.0
28.1
29.8
0.0
100.5
21.6
8.6
22.9
371.8
Massachusetts
331.6
28.4
19.1
183.6
91.9
70.7
0.6
54.6
45.9
826.3
Michigan
412.0
94.5
83.7
226.9
130.9
1.5
102.1
254.6
43.9
1,350.1
Minnesota
137.3
45.2
70.8
40.0
22.6
57.7
0.0
41.3
0.0
415.0
Mississippi
26.9
5.3
15.1
4.9
19.5
13.2
7.3
6.1
9.8
108.2
Missouri
124.9
20.3
32.3
61.3
27.4
0.0
7.4
52.8
21.7
348.0

---

CRS-23
Adminis-
Work
Family
trative
program
Child care
formation
Other
Basic (cash)
expen-
expen-
expen-
Transfers to Other work
expen-
expen-
Transfers to
State
assistance
ditures
ditures
ditures
CCDF
supports
ditures
ditures
SSBG
Total
Montana
19.8
5.3
11.2
1.3
1.9
0.0
0.4
5.9
1.8
47.6
Nebraska
54.0
5.8
11.8
6.5
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
87.1
Nevada
33.1
16.6
1.3
4.0
0.0
5.6
0.3
8.9
1.2
71.2
New Hampshire
35.3
7.1
8.8
4.6
5.5
1.1
1.2
4.8
3.9
72.1
New Jersey
440.9
82.9
45.4
26.4
0.0
52.1
350.7
-4.6
15.4
1,009.2
New Mexico
74.8
7.2
12.2
2.9
29.6
1.9
1.2
27.1
2.0
159.0
New York
1,761.8
380.8
200.2
102.0
381.8
753.6
39.5
732.0
119.8
4,471.5
North Carolina
108.4
39.1
62.4
117.4
86.0
6.5
0.1
114.0
5.6
539.5
North Dakota
11.2
3.4
2.6
2.4
0.0
1.5
2.2
10.3
0.0
33.6
Ohio
316.4
132.3
77.7
220.7
0.0
25.3
10.2
207.5
74.3
1,064.3
Oklahoma
33.2
15.8
0.0
62.1
30.8
26.3
3.8
33.1
15.4
220.5
Oregon
105.1
26.9
22.3
9.5
0.0
15.5
0.0
89.5
0.0
268.8
Pennsylvania
407.1
99.5
179.8
129.8
116.8
45.9
31.9
296.3
29.4
1,336.5
Rhode Island
72.1
14.5
7.1
51.3
8.8
0.3
0.0
22.7
1.1
177.9
South Carolina
73.4
21.1
55.5
4.1
1.5
7.3
6.9
61.3
20.0
251.0
South Dakota
11.6
2.9
3.4
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.6
10.9
2.2
32.6
Tennessee
120.8
28.8
25.4
31.3
57.7
5.9
0.0
21.0
9.1
300.0
Texas
181.1
121.3
86.1
22.6
0.0
2.7
7.6
429.2
61.1
911.7
Utah
45.2
19.7
30.9
9.5
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.9
3.0
110.8
Vermont
36.1
6.7
0.6
8.3
9.2
14.9
0.0
0.9
4.7
81.5
Virginia
143.1
46.5
51.0
22.0
3.0
7.4
0.6
19.0
15.3
308.0
Washington
261.9
45.4
93.7
69.1
103.0
3.8
0.0
51.1
7.9
635.9
West Virginia
43.0
25.0
2.6
20.5
0.0
10.0
15.2
7.7
11.0
135.0
Wisconsin
115.5
35.6
33.3
168.7
64.2
62.4
16.5
14.0
13.4
523.5
Wyoming
6.6
1.0
0.4
3.0
3.7
2.4
0.0
18.8
0.0
36.0
Total
10,739.0
2,376.6
2,166.9
3,197.1
1,937.4
1,650.0
840.2
4,610.3
922.4
28,439.9
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-24
Table B2. Use of FY2005 TANF and MOE Funds by Category,
as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding
Adminis-
Work
Family
trative
Program
Child
Formation
Other
Basic (Cash)
Expen-
Expen-
Care
Transfers Other Work
Expen-
Expen-
Transfers
State
Assistance
ditures
ditures
Expenditures
to CCDF
Supports
ditures
ditures
to SSBG
Total
Alabama
34.4
9.0
11.4
4.5
3.0
2.7
1.4
26.1
7.5
100.0
Alaska
44.4
6.3
12.7
13.9
16.4
0.8
0.7
1.5
3.4
100.0
Arizona
49.8
12.0
5.7
3.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
21.2
7.2
100.0
Arkansas
24.2
10.1
16.0
19.4
9.8
6.7
3.3
7.4
3.2
100.0
California
54.5
8.7
6.8
10.4
6.4
2.4
0.3
8.4
2.0
100.0
Colorado
32.5
9.1
0.5
0.8
1.2
3.6
0.0
45.8
6.5
100.0
Connecticut
25.9
6.0
4.9
2.5
0.0
3.8
15.3
36.1
5.5
100.0
Delaware
32.5
9.7
0.0
39.9
-7.2
21.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
100.0
District of Columbia
37.2
8.4
11.2
22.1
10.4
0.0
1.6
7.1
2.2
100.0
Florida
17.5
8.8
7.8
23.0
11.6
0.7
1.1
23.6
5.9
100.0
Georgia
22.0
3.6
16.2
4.2
0.0
2.5
5.9
43.0
2.6
100.0
Hawaii
55.0
9.6
13.9
7.1
6.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
6.7
100.0
Idaho
14.6
4.4
15.3
1.6
17.5
0.5
5.0
38.1
2.9
100.0
Illinois
12.0
2.3
8.4
40.9
0.0
2.0
0.1
32.5
1.7
100.0
Indiana
36.1
12.9
2.3
4.9
1.6
12.6
0.5
28.5
0.6
100.0
Iowa
37.9
6.7
9.2
2.5
12.7
2.3
4.2
18.1
6.4
100.0
Kansas
36.3
4.7
1.0
4.4
11.9
20.0
0.0
19.4
2.4
100.0
Kentucky
38.7
6.1
10.2
7.7
20.1
2.1
0.0
15.0
0.0
100.0
Louisiana
23.1
11.8
5.6
2.3
8.8
3.6
23.0
14.4
7.4
100.0
Maine
64.0
4.2
1.5
9.8
6.3
9.1
0.0
1.6
3.5
100.0
Maryland
33.4
9.7
7.6
8.0
0.0
27.0
5.8
2.3
6.2
100.0
Massachusetts
40.1
3.4
2.3
22.2
11.1
8.6
0.1
6.6
5.6
100.0
Michigan
30.5
7.0
6.2
16.8
9.7
0.1
7.6
18.9
3.3
100.0
Minnesota
33.1
10.9
17.1
9.6
5.5
13.9
0.0
10.0
0.0
100.0
Mississippi
24.8
4.9
14.0
4.6
18.1
12.2
6.7
5.6
9.0
100.0
Missouri
35.9
5.8
9.3
17.6
7.9
0.0
2.1
15.2
6.2
100.0
Montana
41.6
11.2
23.5
2.8
3.9
0.0
0.8
12.4
3.7
100.0
Nebraska
62.0
6.6
13.6
7.5
10.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

---

CRS-25
Adminis-
Work
Family
trative
Program
Child
Formation
Other
Basic (Cash)
Expen-
Expen-
Care
Transfers Other Work
Expen-
Expen-
Transfers
State
Assistance
ditures
ditures
Expenditures
to CCDF
Supports
ditures
ditures
to SSBG
Total
Nevada
46.6
23.3
1.8
5.6
0.0
7.9
0.5
12.5
1.8
100.0
New Hampshire
48.9
9.9
12.2
6.4
7.6
1.5
1.6
6.6
5.3
100.0
New Jersey
43.7
8.2
4.5
2.6
0.0
5.2
34.8
-0.5
1.5
100.0
New Mexico
47.0
4.5
7.7
1.8
18.6
1.2
0.8
17.1
1.3
100.0
New York
39.4
8.5
4.5
2.3
8.5
16.9
0.9
16.4
2.7
100.0
North Carolina
20.1
7.2
11.6
21.8
15.9
1.2
0.0
21.1
1.0
100.0
North Dakota
33.2
10.2
7.8
7.2
0.0
4.4
6.5
30.6
0.0
100.0
Ohio
29.7
12.4
7.3
20.7
0.0
2.4
1.0
19.5
7.0
100.0
Oklahoma
15.1
7.2
0.0
28.2
13.9
11.9
1.7
15.0
7.0
100.0
Oregon
39.1
10.0
8.3
3.5
0.0
5.8
0.0
33.3
0.0
100.0
Pennsylvania
30.5
7.4
13.5
9.7
8.7
3.4
2.4
22.2
2.2
100.0
Rhode Island
40.5
8.2
4.0
28.9
4.9
0.2
0.0
12.8
0.6
100.0
South Carolina
29.2
8.4
22.1
1.6
0.6
2.9
2.7
24.4
8.0
100.0
South Dakota
35.8
8.9
10.5
2.5
0.0
0.4
1.7
33.6
6.7
100.0
Tennessee
40.3
9.6
8.5
10.4
19.2
2.0
0.0
7.0
3.0
100.0
Texas
19.9
13.3
9.4
2.5
0.0
0.3
0.8
47.1
6.7
100.0
Utah
40.8
17.8
27.9
8.5
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.8
2.7
100.0
Vermont
44.3
8.2
0.8
10.2
11.3
18.3
0.0
1.2
5.8
100.0
Virginia
46.5
15.1
16.6
7.2
1.0
2.4
0.2
6.2
5.0
100.0
Washington
41.2
7.1
14.7
10.9
16.2
0.6
0.0
8.0
1.2
100.0
West Virginia
31.9
18.5
1.9
15.2
0.0
7.4
11.2
5.7
8.2
100.0
Wisconsin
22.1
6.8
6.4
32.2
12.3
11.9
3.2
2.7
2.6
100.0
Wyoming
18.5
2.9
1.1
8.3
10.3
6.6
0.0
52.3
0.0
100.0
Total
37.8
8.4
7.6
11.2
6.8
5.8
3.0
16.2
3.2
100.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-26
Table B3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2005
($ in millions)
Obligated but
Unobligated and
Total
Unexpended
Unexpended
Unspent
State
Funds
Funds
Funds
Alabama
$6.1
$31.6
$37.7
Alaska
8.4
22.4
30.8
Arizona
28.1
0.0
28.1
Arkansas
0.2
97.8
98.0
California
387.3
0.0
387.3
Colorado
0.0
77.5
77.5
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
0.0
Delaware
1.5
6.2
7.7
District of Columbia
9.6
53.6
63.3
Florida
33.7
0.0
33.7
Georgia
44.4
146.8
191.2
Hawaii
67.2
79.6
146.7
Idaho
6.8
0.0
6.8
Illinois
0.0
0.0
0.0
Indiana
44.4
21.4
65.7
Iowa
6.4
19.9
26.3
Kansas
0.0
0.8
0.8
Kentucky
0.0
48.7
48.7
Louisiana
29.0
6.3
35.4
Maine
0.0
5.5
5.5
Maryland
7.8
101.5
109.3
Massachusetts
0.0
7.7
7.7
Michigan
0.1
45.7
45.8
Minnesota
77.2
34.1
111.3
Mississippi
3.7
15.8
19.5
Missouri
38.7
0.0
38.7
Montana
0.0
33.4
33.4
Nebraska
0.0
8.7
8.7
Nevada
0.0
19.8
19.8
New Hampshire
0.0
48.4
48.4
New Jersey
187.6
0.0
187.6
New Mexico
1.0
20.7
21.8
New York
184.8
221.3
406.0
North Carolina
57.9
0.0
57.9
North Dakota
0.0
15.6
15.6
Ohio
420.3
473.3
893.6
Oklahoma
0.0
86.9
86.9
Oregon
0.0
36.8
36.8
Pennsylvania
0.9
0.0
0.9
Rhode Island
0.0
6.1
6.1
South Carolina
0.0
40.0
40.0

---

CRS-27
Obligated but
Unobligated and
Total
Unexpended
Unexpended
Unspent
State
Funds
Funds
Funds
South Dakota
0.7
19.9
20.6
Tennessee
2.1
117.9
119.9
Texas
181.7
0.0
181.7
Utah
0.0
44.6
44.6
Vermont
0.0
0.0
0.0
Virginia
0.0
14.7
14.7
Washington
0.0
18.4
18.4
West Virginia
0.0
13.6
13.6
Wisconsin
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wyoming
5.7
41.3
47.0
Totals
1,843.1
2,104.3
3,947.3
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-28
Table B4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload,
September 2006
Total
Child
Adult
State
Families
Recipients
Recipients
Recipients
Alabama
19,385
45,722
35,440
10,282
Alaska
3,348
8,921
6,220
2,701
Arizona
38,086
83,434
62,893
20,541
Arkansas
8,596
17,847
13,562
4,285
California
477,441
1,169,137
936,895
232,242
Colorado
12,972
33,201
24,372
8,829
Connecticut
21,543
46,651
32,049
14,602
Delaware
5,462
12,295
9,285
3,010
District of Columbia
15,871
38,803
29,613
9,190
Florida
50,289
82,511
69,897
12,614
Georgia
27,553
51,653
46,816
4,837
Guam
3,072
10,783
NR
NR
Hawaii
9,336
26,240
17,831
8,409
Idaho
1,767
2,881
2,526
355
Illinois
34,376
84,244
67,216
17,028
Indiana
42,835
124,627
95,049
29,578
Iowa
20,450
47,279
30,474
16,805
Kansas
16,974
44,290
30,097
14,193
Kentucky
32,436
67,790
51,855
15,935
Louisiana
11,183
25,200
21,621
3,579
Maine
11,000
31,628
21,323
10,305
Maryland
19,049
43,068
32,697
10,371
Massachusetts
49,034
100,047
68,468
31,579
Michigan
89,806
238,766
170,656
68,110
Minnesota
30,176
78,884
55,965
22,919
Mississippi
12,594
25,966
20,055
5,911
Missouri
43,520
110,618
75,073
35,545
Montana
3,487
8,978
6,320
2,658
Nebraska
12,653
33,026
22,914
10,112
Nevada
6,548
15,814
12,148
3,666
New Hampshire
6,251
14,219
9,788
4,431
New Jersey
41,363
105,527
73,886
31,641
New Mexico
16,175
41,073
29,765
11,308
New York
169,727
431,995
307,877
124,118
North Carolina
28,514
55,096
44,833
10,263
North Dakota
2,409
6,056
4,341
1,715
Ohio
77,746
165,068
126,673
38,395
Oklahoma
9,534
20,738
17,246
3,492
Oregon
18,045
40,582
30,272
10,310
Pennsylvania
89,967
230,646
165,152
65,494
Puerto Rico
13,917
37,372
26,364
11,008
Rhode Island
11,813
30,028
21,545
8,483

---

CRS-29
Total
Child
Adult
State
Families
Recipients
Recipients
Recipients
South Carolina
17,889
41,900
31,010
10,890
South Dakota
2,840
6,099
5,115
984
Tennessee
67,487
179,319
128,483
50,836
Texas
68,408
159,256
131,653
27,603
Utah
6,247
14,910
11,368
3,542
Vermont
4,792
11,882
7,722
4,160
Virgin Islands
453
1,305
975
330
Virginia
33,908
79,550
55,760
23,790
Washington
53,267
128,595
89,743
38,852
West Virginia
11,051
24,696
18,038
6,658
Wisconsin
17,910
39,353
32,786
6,567
Wyoming
305
565
485
80
Totals
1,900,860
4,576,134
3,440,210
1,125,141
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Note: “NR” denotes not reported.

---

CRS-30
Table B5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance,
September 1994, September 2000, September 2005,
and September 2006
Percentage Change
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept. 2005- Sept. 1994-
State
1994
2000
2005
2006
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2006
Alabama
48,752
18,763
20,727
19,385
-6.5
-60.2
Alaska
12,450
6,720
3,526
3,348
-5.0
-73.1
Arizona
72,728
34,940
42,539
38,086
-10.5
-47.6
Arkansas
25,298
12,150
8,487
8,596
1.3
-66.0
California
916,795
527,597
499,074
477,441
-4.3
-47.9
Colorado
40,544
10,547
15,214
12,972
-14.7
-68.0
Connecticut
60,336
28,353
23,196
21,543
-7.1
-64.3
Delaware
11,408
5,856
5,819
5,462
-6.1
-52.1
District of Columbia
27,320
16,868
16,907
15,871
-6.1
-41.9
Florida
239,702
64,525
57,648
50,289
-12.8
-79.0
Georgia
141,596
51,262
38,053
27,553
-27.6
-80.5
Guam
2,089
2,760
3,072
3,072
0.0
47.1
Hawaii
21,312
19,887
9,926
9,336
-5.9
-56.2
Idaho
8,635
1,278
1,815
1,767
-2.6
-79.5
Illinois
241,290
74,054
38,822
34,376
-11.5
-85.8
Indiana
72,654
38,912
50,784
42,835
-15.7
-41.0
Iowa
39,137
19,386
22,148
20,450
-7.7
-47.7
Kansas
29,524
12,832
18,126
16,974
-6.4
-42.5
Kentucky
78,720
37,249
34,082
32,436
-4.8
-58.8
Louisiana
84,162
26,422
15,353
11,183
-27.2
-86.7
Maine
22,322
11,614
11,064
11,000
-0.6
-50.7
Maryland
80,266
30,732
24,840
19,049
-23.3
-76.3
Massachusetts
108,985
43,215
48,970
49,034
0.1
-55.0
Michigan
215,873
69,216
80,529
89,806
11.5
-58.4
Minnesota
59,987
39,005
30,781
30,176
-2.0
-49.7
Mississippi
55,232
15,492
14,828
12,594
-15.1
-77.2
Missouri
91,875
49,879
45,075
43,520
-3.4
-52.6
Montana
11,416
4,406
3,842
3,487
-9.2
-69.5
Nebraska
15,435
10,180
13,118
12,653
-3.5
-18.0
Nevada
14,620
6,473
7,352
6,548
-10.9
-55.2
New Hampshire
11,398
5,738
6,342
6,251
-1.4
-45.2
New Jersey
122,376
49,323
47,961
41,363
-13.8
-66.2
New Mexico
34,535
22,461
17,691
16,175
-8.6
-53.2
New York
461,751
242,486
185,335
169,727
-8.4
-63.2
North Carolina
129,258
44,287
31,724
28,514
-10.1
-77.9
North Dakota
5,410
2,928
2,892
2,409
-16.7
-55.5
Ohio
244,099
91,654
81,161
77,746
-4.2
-68.1
Oklahoma
46,572
13,564
11,238
9,534
-15.2
-79.5
Oregon
40,504
15,907
19,060
18,045
-5.3
-55.4
Pennsylvania
212,457
86,962
98,448
89,967
-8.6
-57.7

---

CRS-31
Percentage Change
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept. 2005- Sept. 1994-
State
1994
2000
2005
2006
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2006
Puerto Rico
57,337
28,555
14,450
13,917
-3.7
-75.7
Rhode Island
22,776
17,115
12,845
11,813
-8.0
-48.1
South Carolina
50,430
17,740
18,880
17,889
-5.2
-64.5
South Dakota
6,601
2,757
2,853
2,840
-0.5
-57.0
Tennessee
109,678
58,015
71,036
67,487
-5.0
-38.5
Texas
284,973
133,294
82,251
68,408
-16.8
-76.0
Utah
17,505
8,530
8,630
6,247
-27.6
-64.3
Vermont
9,761
5,818
4,959
4,792
-3.4
-50.9
Virgin Islands
1,146
831
439
453
3.2
-60.5
Virginia
74,257
30,596
36,584
33,908
-7.3
-54.3
Washington
101,542
56,961
57,617
53,267
-7.5
-47.5
West Virginia
40,279
12,781
12,316
11,051
-10.3
-72.6
Wisconsin
75,086
17,927
18,869
17,910
-5.1
-76.1
Wyoming
5,351
528
330
305
-7.6
-94.3
Totals
5,015,545 2,257,331 2,049,628
1,900,860
-7.3
-62.1
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-32
Table B6. TANF Work Participation Rates
for FY2004, by State
All
Two-Parent
State
Families
Families
United States
32.2
47.4
a
Alabama
37.9
Alaska
43.6
52.8
Arizona
25.5
65.6
Arkansas
27.3
34.4
a
California
23.1
Colorado
34.7
37.5
a
Connecticut
24.3
a
Delaware
22.1
Dist. of Columbia
18.2
20.1
a
Florida
40.4
a
Georgia
24.8
Guam
0.0
0a
Hawaii
70.5
Idaho
41.0
37.1
a
Illinois
46.1
a
Indiana
36.3
a
Iowa
50.0
Kansas
88.0
93.7
Kentucky
38.1
51.2
Louisiana
35.4
38
a
Maine
32.1
a
Maryland
16.0
Massachusetts
60.0
65.4
Michigan
24.5
35.7
a
Minnesota
26.8
a
Mississippi
21.0
a
Missouri
19.5
Montana
92.7
95.7
a
Nebraska
34.5
a
Nevada
34.5
a
New Hampshire
30.2
a
New Jersey
34.6
New Mexico
46.2
55.3
New York
37.8
48.3
North Carolina
31.4
47.2
a
North Dakota
25.3
Ohio
65.2
68.4
a
Oklahoma
33.2
Oregon
32.1
35.5
Pennsylvania
7.1
15
a
Puerto Rico
7.5

---

CRS-33
All
Two-Parent
State
Families
Families
Rhode Island
23.7
94.9
South Carolina
53.7
55.9
a
South Dakota
54.8
a
Tennessee
50.6
a
Texas
34.2
a
Utah
26.2
Vermont
24.9
38.2
a
Virgin Islands
10.6
a
Virginia
50.1
Washington
35.4
31.1
a
West Virginia
11.7
Wisconsin
61.3
33.1
Wyoming
77.8
87.5
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based
on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
a. State did not serve two-parent families within its TANF program in
FY2004.

---