Order Code RL34206
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):
Issues for the 110th Congress
October 9, 2007
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):
Issues for the 110th Congress
Summary
Enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) ended
more than four years of congressional debate on “reauthorizing” the block grant of
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The DRA extended funding for
most TANF grants through FY2010, except TANF supplemental grants which expire
after FY2008. Supplemental grants go to 17 states that have high population growth
or low historic funding in TANF’s predecessor programs per poor person.
TANF is best known as the funding source for welfare benefits for low-income
families with children. In 2005, about two million families per month received
TANF cash welfare, down from the historical high of five million families receiving
cash welfare in the mid-1990s. In 2005, about three in ten poor children were in
families that received TANF cash welfare. However, TANF funds a wide range of
“nonwelfare” benefits and services for needy families with children. In FY2005,
spending on activities related to traditional cash welfare accounted for a little more
than half of total TANF funding, while other “nonwelfare” activities accounted for
the remainder. Still, most issues that Congress has debated in the past, and will
potentially consider in the 110th Congress, relate to TANF cash welfare.
The DRA revised the rules relating to TANF work participation standards for
families receiving welfare, by requiring states to either increase participation in
activities or reduce their welfare caseloads to meet these numerical performance
standards. Many states had to act quickly to avoid failing these standards, which were
effective in FY2007. Further, states must engage 90% of their two-parent welfare
caseload in activities — a fairly high standard that President Bush’s FY2008 budget
seeks to eliminate. The DRA also required the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to issue regulations defining the specific activities that may be
counted toward the participation standards. The regulations, published June 29,
2006, clarified that the participation standards focus on work or short-term job
preparation. This raises old issues of whether a “work-first” orientation is best for
those who have barriers to employment, such as very low levels of educational
attainment or disabilities.
Congress might consider proposals left over from TANF reauthorization
proposals, but not included in DRA, to loosen some rules for nonwelfare spending,
such as allowing carry-over funds to be used for nonwelfare benefits and services and
to consider any TANF child care or transportation benefits “nonwelfare” and not
subject to the rules associated with welfare benefits. Congress might also consider
improving the information available on how TANF funds are used for nonwelfare
benefits. Additionally, legislation that affects foster care, child welfare services for
abused and neglected children, and child care funding would have an effect on
TANF, since large amounts of TANF “nonwelfare” dollars are used to supplement
dedicated federal and state funding for these programs. This report will be updated
as legislative events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The 109th Congress: The Deficit Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Extension of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Work Participation Standards and Verifying Work Participation . . . . . . . . . 6
Revision to the Caseload Reduction Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Counting Families in Separate State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Definitions of Work Activities and Work Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Promoting Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives . . . . . 8
Potential Legislative Issues for the 110th Congress Related to Families
Receiving Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Meeting the FY2007 TANF Work Participation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Two-Parent Participation Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
What Activities Count Toward the Participation Standards? . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Secondary and Adult Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Vocational Educational Training and Post-Secondary Education . . . . 16
Rehabilitative Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Kinship Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Child Support Pass-Through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Further Caseload Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Potential Legislative Issues in the 110th Congress Related to
“Nonwelfare” TANF Benefits and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Allowing Carry-Over Funds to Be Spent on “Nonwelfare”
Benefits and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Treatment of Child Care and Transportation Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Reporting on “Nonwelfare” Benefits and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Oversight of Competitive Grants to Promote Healthy Marriages
and Responsible Fatherhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Legislative Issues in the 110th Congress Related to TANF Funding . . . . . . . . . . 25
Supplemental Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TANF Recession Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Reserve Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TANF Contingency Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TANF Loan Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Child Care and Child Welfare Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Additional Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

List of Figures
Figure 1. Uses of TANF and MOE Funds in FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. Time Line for DRA’s Changes to TANF Work
Participation Standards: 2005-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3. Percentage of Teen Parents and Adults Receiving Cash Welfare
Who Lack a High School Diploma or Equivalent: FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 4. Barriers to Work Reported by Welfare Recipients
(Six-State Study) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 5. Percentage Change in the Number of Families Receiving
Cash Welfare, FY1996-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Tables
Table 1. Welfare Receipt, Economic, and Social Indicators for Selected Years . 3
Table 2. TANF Work Participation Activities and Their Limitations . . . . . . . . 14
Table 3. TANF Supplemental Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table A1. Estimated FY2005 Participation Rates by State (Combined
TANF and SSP Participation Rate, Using Rules in Effect in FY2005) . . . . 30
Table A2. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Families,
By Family Type, FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table A3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Families by Family Type,
As a Percent of Total Cash Welfare Families, FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table A4. TANF Basic Block Grant (State Family Assistance Grant
or SFAG) and Supplemental Grants, Per Poor Child in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 35

---

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF): Issues for the 110th Congress
Introduction
The block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is best
known as a funding source for cash welfare for low-income families with children.
However, the block grant also funds a wide range of benefits and services for
economically disadvantaged families. It also funds activities to help achieve the
goals of reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and raising children in two-parent
families.
TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), with the
funding originally slated to expire at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2002. Congress
debated reauthorization of the block grant during the 107th through the 109th
Congresses.1 Comprehensive legislation to reauthorize and revise TANF did not
pass during this period, and the program operated on the basis of a series of
temporary extensions.2 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171)
included a slimmed down version of welfare reauthorization that:
! extended TANF funding through FY2010, though TANF
“supplemental grants” (discussed below) were extended only
through FY2008;
! revised the work requirements that apply to welfare recipients; and
! established new funding for competitive grants to demonstrate
initiatives to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood.
A decision on whether and how to extend TANF supplemental grants, which go
to 17 states in the South and West on the basis of low historic levels of welfare
funding and high population growth, beyond September 30, 2008, is the only “must-
do” task related to TANF in the 110th Congress. However, Congress might examine
1 For a discussion of the issues raised during the welfare reform debate, see CRS Report
RL33418, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109th Congress, An Overview, by Gene Falk,
Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears. This report discusses proposals that were
included in “comprehensive” welfare reauthorization proposals considered by Congress
during 2002 to 2005. “Comprehensive welfare reauthorization proposals” refers to bills
that either passed the House or were reported from the Senate Finance Committee. These
bills were H.R. 4737 in the 107th Congress; H.R. 4 in the 108th Congress; and the House-
passed version of S. 1932 in the 109th Congress.
2 For a listing of the temporary extensions, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene
Falk, Table A1.

---

CRS-2
the impact of DRA’s provisions related to TANF work participation standards for
welfare recipients. Additionally, in light of renewed interest in issues related to
poverty and disadvantaged families with children, interest might be raised in the
flexibility states have to use TANF funds for a wide range of “non-welfare”
activities.
Use of the Term “Welfare” in This Report

This report makes a distinction between “welfare” and “nonwelfare” spending within
TANF. The purpose of this distinction is to emphasize that TANF funds a wide range of
activities that go well beyond what is traditionally thought of as “welfare” and related
administrative and work program costs.

In this report, the nontechnical term “TANF welfare” is used to denote what is technically
referred to within TANF as “assistance.” TANF’s implementing regulations define
“assistance” as payments to families to meet ongoing basic needs, such as food, clothing,
shelter, utilities, household goods, and other personal expenses. This generally conforms
to what most people call “welfare.” There are broader uses of the term “welfare,” which
may include most benefits and services paid on the basis of financial need. However, in
this report, the term welfare is used in a narrow sense.

“Nonwelfare” is used to describe activities such as TANF-funded work supports, such
as child care and transportation aid; TANF-funded refundable tax credits; and TANF
activities related to family formation issues. In technical terms (from TANF’s
implementing regulations), these types of activities are given the label of
“nonassistance.”
Background and Context
TANF is the block grant created in the 1996 welfare reform law that replaced
the New Deal program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC
provided monthly cash welfare benefits to needy families with children, with most
of these families headed by single mothers. Concerns that AFDC helped create
disadvantage by discouraging work and breaking up families dominated welfare
reform debates from 1970 onward, culminating in the 1996 welfare reform law.3
Some of the most visible policies of the 1996 welfare reform law are TANF work
requirements for welfare recipients, time limits on the receipt of welfare, and the end
of a federal entitlement to welfare for needy families with children.
3 A large body of literature that attempted to empirically estimate the impact of welfare on
work effort and family structure developed prior to the 1990s. This literature is reviewed
in Moffitt, Robert, “Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System,” Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol 20, No. 1 (March 1992), p. 1-61. The literature review concluded that the
available empirical evidence at the time showed that welfare reduced labor supply (work
effort) and “weakly” affected family structure. However, the magnitude of these effects
indicated that the effect of welfare was not large enough to fully explain the trends in work
effort for single mothers or family structure.

---

CRS-3
The monthly TANF cash welfare benefit, like the monthly AFDC benefit before
it, is determined by the states, and benefit amounts vary widely among the states. In
January 2005, the monthly cash benefit in California was $723 for a family of three.4
The California benefit amount is high relative to many other states, though even that
benefit is only a fraction (54%) of poverty-level income. In Alabama, a family of
three received $215 per month (16% of poverty-level income).
Table 1 shows selected economic and social indicators for 1995, 2000, and
2005. As shown, the cash welfare caseload plummeted from 5 million to 2 million
families over this period. Most of that caseload decline occurred from 1995 to 2000,
though recently the cash welfare caseload has fallen again. The number of children
in families receiving cash welfare fell from 9.1 million to 3.8 million from 1995 to
2005. Work among single mothers (who head most welfare families) increased from
1995 to 2000, with some slippage in the 2000-2005 period. However, despite the
decline in receipt of cash welfare and increase in work among single mothers,
improvements in other social and economic indicators have been less dramatic. The
child poverty rate did fall from 1995 to 2000, but the 2005 rate of 17.6% is higher
than in 2000. There remained almost 13 million children living in families with
incomes below the poverty threshold in 2005. Further, the percentage of babies born
out-of-wedlock in 2005 was 36.8% — an all-time high.
Table 1. Welfare Receipt, Economic, and
Social Indicators for Selected Years
1995
2000
2005
Cash welfare caseload (monthly average,
4.8
2.3
2.1
millions of families)
Number of children in families receiving
9.1
4.5
3.8
cash welfare (monthly average, millions)
Child poverty rate
20.8%
16.2%
17.6%
Number of poor children (millions)
14.7
11.6
12.9
Ratio of children in families receiving
61.5%
38.1%
28.9%
cash welfare to all poor children
(expressed as a percent)a
Employment rate for single mothers
64.0%
75.5%
71.2%
Out-of-wedlock birth ratio
32.2%
33.2%
36.8%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and National Center for
Health Statistics.
a. This is the average monthly number of child cash welfare recipients in TANF and MOE programs
in the 50 states and District of Columbia divided by the total number of poor persons under age
18 for the year.
4 For more detail on cash welfare benefit amounts under TANF see CRS Report RL32760,
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions, by Gene Falk.

---

CRS-4
Cash welfare reaches far fewer disadvantaged children than it did prior to
welfare reform. The ratio of the average monthly number of children in families
receiving cash welfare to the total number of children in poverty declined from about
six out of ten in 1995 to less than three out of ten in 2005.
TANF is not just a welfare program. The 1996 law granted states permission
to use funds for a wide range of benefits, services, and activities to address some of
the social and economic ills afflicting disadvantaged families with children. States
may use their funds in any manner “reasonably calculated” to further TANF’s
purpose, which is to provide states with the flexibility to achieve four goals set in
statute:
(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may live in their
own homes or in the homes of relatives;
(2) end dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting
work, job preparation, and marriage;
(3) reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
(4) promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Given the fixed funding of the TANF block grant, states are able to use the
savings from the welfare caseload decline to fund other “nonwelfare” benefits,
services, and activities. Total funding in the TANF “system” comprises both the
federal block grant to states and a state’s own funds spent to meet a maintenance of
effort (MOE) requirement. Figure 1 shows the uses of TANF and MOE funds in
FY2005. It shows that the categories typically associated with a traditional cash
welfare program — cash benefits, administrative costs, and work activities —
accounted for only a little more than half of total TANF funds. Thus, TANF has the
potential to make an impact on disadvantaged families with children through both its
“nonwelfare” benefits, services, and activities, as well as its “welfare” component.

---

CRS-5
Figure 1. Uses of TANF and MOE Funds in FY2005
Total Expenditures and Transfers = $28.4 Billion
Transfers to
SSBG
Other
3%
expenditures
16%
Basic (cash)
Family
assistance
formation
38%
expenditures
3%
Other work
supports
6% Transfers to
CCDF
7%
Child care
Administrative
expenditures
Expenditures
11%
8%
Work program
expenditures
8%
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Note: SSBG means the Social Services Block Grant, Title XX of the Social Security Act. CCDF
means the Child Care and Development Fund.

---

CRS-6
The 109th Congress: The Deficit Reduction Act
Enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) ended
more than four years of congressional debate on “reauthorizing” the TANF block
grant. Over the 2002 to 2005 period, Congress passed twelve temporary extensions
of the program while more comprehensive reauthorization bills remained pending.
The DRA included a slimmed down version of reauthorization, extending TANF
funding and making some limited policy changes.5 Many of the policy changes
proposed in the reauthorization bills considered from 2002 to 2005 were not included
in the DRA, and some of those changes may be revived for legislation in the 110th
Congress. Additionally, DRA’s changes to the TANF work participation standards
have met with some criticism that also might spur proposals in this Congress.
This section provides a brief summary of the DRA provisions affecting TANF.
For more detail, please see CRS Report RS22369, TANF, Child Care, Marriage
Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act, by
Gene Falk.
Extension of Funding
The DRA extended most TANF funding through FY2010. However, TANF
supplemental grants (discussed in some detail below) were extended only through
FY2008. Therefore, the 110th Congress may consider whether to further extend these
grants. Additionally, the DRA eliminated two TANF bonus funds: the first bonus
($200 million per year) was for states that achieved high performance on measures
relating to achieving TANF goals; the second ($100 million per year) was for states
that reduced out-of-wedlock birth ratios without increasing abortions.
Work Participation Standards and
Verifying Work Participation
The 1996 welfare reform law established work participation standards for a
state’s welfare caseload. States that fail these participation standards could be
financially penalized by a reduction in their block grants. The TANF work
participation standards are numerical standards computed in the aggregate for a
state’s cash welfare caseload. The participation standards are
5 The DRA was a budget reconciliation bill. A budget reconciliation bill is considered on
a legislative “fast-track” in the Senate, in that consideration is time-limited and cannot be
delayed by a filibuster. A Senate rule known as the “Byrd Rule” (after West Virginia
Senator Robert Byrd) provides that a Senator can raise a point of order on a reconciliation
bill provision that makes a policy change that has no budgetary impact. To overcome such
a point of order, 60 votes are needed or the provision is stricken from the bill. Many
provisions in the comprehensive welfare reauthorization bills that changed policy but had
no estimated budgetary impact were not included in the final version of the DRA. For more
information on the “Byrd Rule,” see CRS Report RL30862, The Budget Reconciliation
Process: The Senate’s Byrd Rule, by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-7
! 50% for all families; and
! 90% for the two-parent portion of its cash welfare caseload.
These standards may be met either by engaging welfare adult and teen parents in
specified work and job preparation activities or through reductions in the TANF cash
welfare caseload.
Revision to the Caseload Reduction Credit. The 1996 welfare reform
law provided states with credit for caseload reduction that occurred from FY1995.
The caseload reduction credit provided a state with a one percentage point reduction
in its participation standards for each percent decline in its TANF cash welfare
caseload from FY1995. The large caseload declines that occurred subsequent to
FY1995 meant that most states had large reductions in the standards they were
required to meet; for many states, the effective (after credit) participation standard
was reduced to 0%.
The DRA revised the caseload reduction credit, so that states will receive credit
only for future welfare caseload reduction. Beginning in FY2007, states receive
credit for caseload reductions measured from FY2005 forward. The effect of this
change is much smaller caseload reduction credits for FY2007 and higher effective
(after credit) participation standards. Like the prior law caseload reduction credit,
states are not given credit for caseload declines estimated to come from policy
changes that restrict eligibility for welfare benefits.
Counting Families in Separate State Programs. Under the 1996 welfare
reform law, states could provide welfare to families using state MOE funds and not
count those families when determining whether the state met its work participation
standard. States could designate families receiving welfare from MOE funds as
being assisted by “separate state programs” outside of the TANF program. This
effectively exempted the family from TANF’s work participation standards. The
most common use of separate state programs was to house a state’s two-parent
welfare caseload and avoid the 90% participation standard, but states also used
separate state programs for other populations such as college students and the
disabled.
The DRA requires, beginning in FY2007, that states count families receiving
cash welfare in separate state programs when determining work participation rates.
This effectively ends the exemption from TANF work participation standards for
families placed in separate state programs.
Definitions of Work Activities and Work Verification. Before the DRA,
the operational details of state work programs were generally left to the states.
Federal law lists 12 categories of activities that count toward the participation
standards, but regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration from the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) explicitly allowed states to define
the specific activities counted in these categories. HHS also left to states how work
participation would be verified (i.e., how to determine whether a recipient scheduled
to be in an activity actually performed that activity).

---

CRS-8
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a 2005 report, found that the
lack of further definition for what counts as work led to a wide-range of state
practices, particularly with respect to education and rehabilitative activities.6 GAO
concluded that this led to an “inconsistent” measurement of work across states and
recommended that HHS regulate what counts as work. The DRA required HHS to
issue regulations providing a consistent definition of work activities and describing
procedures for states to verify work activity. These regulations were issued in
interim, final form on June 29, 2006.7 In terms of defining work activities, the
regulations:
! explicitly limited counting education and training (these limits are
discussed below).
! required that rehabilitative activities (including mental health and
substance abuse) be included in the time-limited job search and
readiness category, a category of activities that can be counted
toward the participation standards for only up to six weeks (12
weeks under some circumstances) in a fiscal year.
The DRA-required regulations set standards for supervising activities, with
many job preparation activities requiring daily supervision. They also set rules for
states to submit “work verification plans” to HHS.
Finally, DRA required HHS to regulate situations where the parent in a family
must be considered when determining whether a state meets the work participation
standards. Included in the June 29, 2006 regulations was a requirement that states
include families with nonrecipient adults who have been “removed” from the welfare
caseload because of a state time limit or sanction for failure to meet program
requirements. The regulations also permitted states to exclude families where the
adult(s) is (are) needed in the home to care for a disabled family member.
Promoting Healthy Marriage and
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives
The DRA established within TANF new competitive grants totaling $150
million per year for research and demonstration projects to promote “healthy”
marriages and responsible fatherhood. The marriage promotion grants are generally
for nonwelfare services (and not necessarily restricted to low-income families) such
as advertising campaigns, education in high schools on the value of marriage, and
education in “social skills.” The “responsible fatherhood” grants attempt to reach
noncustodial parents with education in “social skills” as well as job training.
6 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise
Oversight to Help Ensure TANF Work Participation is Measured Consistently Across States.
GAO-05-821. August 2005.
7 For more detail, see CRS Report RS22490, TANF: A Guide to the New Definitions of What
Counts Toward the Work Participation Standards, by Gene Falk.

---

CRS-9
Potential Legislative Issues for the 110th Congress
Related to Families Receiving Welfare
Though “welfare” now accounts for only a little more than half of all TANF and
MOE funding, many of the issues Congress might consider in the 110th Congress
relate to the rules and requirements for families receiving welfare. Most issues focus
on TANF’s work participation standards, which raise two groups of issues. First, the
DRA’s changes are effective in FY2007 — giving states little time to change their
policies if change is needed to meet the new participation standards. Additionally,
the 90% standard for the two-parent component of the caseload is a high standard to
meet. The second group of issues is old, as historically Congress has debated and
struggled with the role of education, training, and how to deal with ill and disabled
recipients in welfare-to-work programs.
Meeting the FY2007 TANF Work Participation Standards
The change in the caseload reduction credit — beginning in FY2007, providing
credit only for caseload reduction from FY2005 — means that many states had to
either quickly raise participation in activities or reduce their caseloads to meet
TANF’s work participation standards. States had little warning that participation
would have to be raised so quickly (see time-line in Figure 2). All comprehensive
TANF reauthorization bills considered during the 2002-2005 period provided for a
greater phase-in of higher participation standards. The DRA method for revising the
caseload reduction credit was not a part of the reconciliation bills that separately
passed the House and the Senate and became public only with the conference report
on the bill in mid December 2005 — nine and one half months before the beginning
of FY2007, when the new higher standards became effective.
At the same time that many states have to raise participation levels to meet
TANF work participation standards, DRA required HHS to issue regulations to
define work activities (an issue discussed later in this report). These regulations were
published June 29, 2006, and required some states to change what activities count
toward participation standards. The regulations also required states to submit “work
verification plans” detailing how they will comply with the new law. HHS required
preliminary plans to be submitted by September 30, 2006, with final, approved plans
required by September 30, 2007.

---

CRS-10
Figure 2. Time Line for DRA’s Changes to TANF Work Participation Standards: 2005-2007
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

---

CRS-11
Many states are likely to have to raise participation from pre-DRA levels to
meet the new work participation standards. For FY2007, most states are likely to
receive a caseload reduction credit. The national average decline for FY2005 to
FY2006 in the cash welfare caseload was 6%. Actual caseload reduction credits
might be higher or lower: states are not given credit for caseload reduction that
results from restricting eligibility, but might get additional credit if the state is aiding
cases using state dollars in excess of the TANF MOE.8 Assuming that the average
state receives a credit equal to the caseload decline, the national average effective all-
family participation standard would be 44% for FY2007. (The two-parent standard
is discussed below.) This is substantially higher than the estimated national average
participation rate for FY2005 of 32%.9 Moreover, there was large variation in the
estimated FY2005 participation rate across states: 11 states had estimated
participation rates under 25%, while seven states had estimated participation rates
in excess of 50%. (See Appendix, Table A1 for a state-by-state estimate of the
FY2005 participation rate.)
States that fail to meet TANF work participation standards may be penalized by
up to a 5% reduction in their block grant for the first year of noncompliance, though
the penalty is reduced by the “degree” of noncompliance. Penalties increase for each
subsequent year that a state fails to meet the standards. However, states can either
avoid or delay the penalty for failing to meet the FY2007 participation standard by
either entering into a corrective compliance plan or claiming reasonable cause. HHS
has already publically announced that it would consider requests to avoid the penalty
based on reasonable cause if a state’s legislature had not met in time to enact program
changes needed to meet the FY2007 requirement. S. 1461 (Rockefeller) would
prohibit HHS from penalizing a state for failing to meet participation standards for
the period of time (FY2007) while HHS and the state is negotiating its work
verification plan and for one year thereafter.

Two-Parent Participation Standard
President Bush’s FY2008 budget proposal would eliminate the higher, 90%
work participation standards required of two-parent welfare families. All welfare
reauthorization proposals that received action in 2002 through 2005 sought to
8 Under existing regulations, for purposes of the caseload reduction credit, the FY2006
caseload may be reduced pro-rata for states that spend more of their own funds toward the
TANF MOE. That is, the state only needs to count the caseload that is aided by required
state spending under the TANF MOE.
9 The FY2005 participation rate estimates discussed in this report represent CRS estimates
of participation rates in both TANF and State Maintenance of Effort, Separate State
Programs (MOE-SSP programs). The estimates do not reflect DRA rule changes, as data
for FY2005 are insufficient to fully estimate how changes such as including certain child-
only families in the participation rate and changes in the definition of work activities will
affect the participation rate. HHS did estimate the effect of some of these changes using
FY2005 data and estimated a national average participation rate of 31% — very similar to
this report’s 32%.

---

CRS-12
eliminate the separate standard,10 except the slimmed down version of welfare
reauthorization included in the conference report on the DRA. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that eliminating the two-parent standard would cost
$26 million over five years (FY2008-FY2012). In the 110th Congress, H.R. 3188
(Weller) would eliminate the two-parent standard. Additionally, the elimination of
the two-parent standard is included in broader “responsible fatherhood” legislation
proposed in H.R. 3395 (Davis-Il) and S. 1626 (Bayh).
The higher participation standard for two parent families on welfare dates back
to pre-TANF policies under the Family Support Act of 1988. That act first required
states to provide welfare for two-parent families; before then it was optional. The
Family Support Act also established participation standards in the pre-1996
education, employment, and training program for welfare families. Higher
participation standards and stricter work requirements for two parent families
responded to criticisms that extending welfare to two-parent families without work
could promote more welfare dependency.11
The two-parent component of the cash welfare caseload remained relatively
small even after the 1988 expansions and subsequently after states liberalized
eligibility for two-parent families under TANF. In FY2006, the two-parent caseload
averaged 98,000 families per month, or 5% of the total cash welfare caseload.
(There is a great deal of variation across states in the share of the cash welfare
caseload that consists of two parent families. See Appendix Tables A2 and A3 for
a state-by-state breakdown of the two-parent caseload versus the one-parent and no-
parent caseload in FY2006.)
Though the number of two-parent families on cash welfare has remained small,
work participation rates for this category of families never reached the high levels
envisioned either under the Family Support Act or TANF. In FY2005, the national
work participation rate for two-parent families in both TANF and separate state
programs was 36% — only a few percentage points higher than the all families work
participation rate of 32%.
As previously noted, many states avoided having to meet the 90% two-parent
standard by placing the two-parent component of their caseload in separate state
programs. In FY2006 (the latest year for which official TANF work participation
data are available), 19 states had all of their two-parent cash welfare families in
separate state programs. Other states generally met the standard, in part, through
caseload reduction measured from FY1995. (Arkansas and the District of Columbia
failed the two-parent standard.) The combination of the two DRA changes —
counting families in separate state programs and providing a credit for welfare
caseload declines only from FY2005 — means that many states are in jeopardy of
failing the two-parent standard.
10 S. 667, reported from the Senate Finance Committee in 2005, would have eliminated the
90% standard but retained higher hours requirements for two-parent families.
11 For an overview of the debate on the Family Support Act, see “After Years of Debate,
Welfare Reform Clears,” 1988 CQ Almanac, Washington, Congressional Quarterly. p. 349-
364.

---

CRS-13
Failure to meet the two-parent participation standard by itself is likely to result
in a fairly small penalty to the states. Under HHS regulations, the maximum penalty
for failure to meet the two-parent participation standard would be pro-rated based on
the share of the cash welfare caseload that consists of two-parent families. However,
this would not be the case if a state failed both the all-family and two-parent
participation standards. The rules penalize a state more heavily if they fail both
standards than if they fail one of the two standards.12
Additionally, the high two-parent participation standard potentially encourages
states to calculate ways to “game” TANF rules. Through December 2006, 11 states
had dropped serving two-parent families with TANF or MOE funds. States are no
longer reporting information on these families, though states may have shifted to
serving these families with state-only funds outside of the TANF-MOE system.
What Activities Count Toward the Participation Standards?
Federal law lists 12 categories of activities that count toward TANF work
participation standards. Table 2 lists these 12 categories and any statutory limitation
that might apply to counting participation in these categories. The statutory list
influences the content of state work programs for cash welfare recipients, since these
are the categories of activities that count toward meeting the numerical performance
standards states must meet or risk being penalized.
The federal participation standards reflect a “work-first” approach, which
emphasizes job seeking and relatively rapid attachment to either a job or an activity
to work off welfare benefits. All pre-employment activities are subject to limits. Job
search and readiness is usually limited to 6 weeks in a fiscal year (12 weeks under
certain circumstances). Education and training are subject to limits, including a 12-
month lifetime limit for counting vocational educational training. For adults,
education and training other than vocational educational training counts only in
conjunction with other activities more closely related to work. Teen parents (under
the age of 20) may be deemed engaged in work through education.
12 See regulations at 45 CFR 261.51.

---

CRS-14
Table 2. TANF Work Participation Activities
and Their Limitations

Activity
Statutory Limitations
Unsubsidized employment
Subsidized private sector employment
Subsidized public sector employment
Work experience
On-the-job training
Job search and readiness
Limited to 6 weeks in a fiscal year, 12
weeks under some circumstances. Only
four consecutive weeks may be counted.
Community service programs
Vocational educational training
Limited to 12 months in a lifetime. Only
30% of those engaged in work may be
counted as participating through either
vocational educational training or teen
parents deemed engaged in work through
education.
Job skills training directly related to
Usually countable only in conjunction
employment
with work.
Education directly related to employment
Usually countable only in conjunction
with work and only for those who do not
have a high school degree
Satisfactory attendance at secondary
Usually countable only in conjunction
school or in a course of study leading to a
with work and only for those who do not
certificate of general equivalence
have a high school degree.
Provision of child care services to an
individual participating in a community
service program
Source: Congressional Research Service.
The “work-first” approach to work participation is part of a long-standing
controversy over the effectiveness of different approaches to getting welfare
recipients off the rolls and into jobs. “Work-first” approach advocates often point to
research conducted in the 1990s that found that when the work-first and education-
focused programs were directly compared, the long-term impact of education-
focused programs on increasing earnings and reducing welfare receipt was no greater
and sometimes smaller than programs that focus on job seeking and quick attachment
to a job.13 Additionally, the impact of “work-first” programs occurs faster.
13 This is based on the findings of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work (NEWWS).
NEWWS was designed specifically to test the relative effectiveness of “work-first”
programs emphasizing job search against programs that emphasized education and training.
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education.
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: How Effective are Different Welfare to
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
However, the evaluated programs with the largest increases in earnings and
reductions in welfare tended to have a strong work message like the “work-first”
programs but provided some flexibility for education and training. For example,
large impacts were attributed to a program operated in Portland, Oregon during the
1990s, that, like other “work-first” programs, had job search as its most common
activity. However, Portland program recipients also often participated in education
or in both job search and education during the two years following entry into the
program more often than in other evaluated programs. In Portland, job search and
education were typically done sequentially, not simultaneously.14
Additionally, a fairly large proportion of adults on welfare are either ill or
disabled, are taking care of ill or disabled children, have mental health issues, or have
been victims of domestic violence.
The Clinton Administration explicitly side-stepped the issue of whether TANF’s
work activities should accommodate activities designed to address “barriers” to
work, allowing states themselves to interpret the 12 federal categories of activities
and decide what specific activities were countable toward the participation standard.15
The comprehensive welfare reauthorization proposals considered during 2002 to
2005 differed considerably in their approach to education and disabilities, reflecting
the old controversies.
Secondary and Adult Education. In FY2005, 41% of TANF adult and
teen parents lacked a high school diploma or equivalent. TANF allows states to
count teen parents (under age 20) as meeting TANF work participation requirements
through education. For recipients age 20 and older, participation in activities to make
progress toward a General Educational Development (GED) credential, adult basic
education (ABE), and English as a Second Language (ESL) can generally be counted
only in combination with work. Figure 3 shows that while teen parents are most
likely to lack a high school diploma or equivalent, parents in their early 20s also are
likely to lack this educational credential. Almost half of all 20 to 22-year olds
receiving TANF cash welfare lack a high school degree or its equivalent.
13 (...continued)
Work Approaches? 2001.
14 The statement that participation in job search and education typically did not occur
simultaneously is based on an unpublished CRS analysis of participation patterns in the
Portland NEWWS program and discussions with MDRC researchers who evaluated the
program.
15 See the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making, Federal Register Vol 62, No. 224, November
20, 1997, pp. 62137-62138.

---

CRS-16
Figure 3. Percentage of Teen Parents and Adults Receiving Cash
Welfare Who Lack a High School Diploma or Equivalent: FY2005
Teen
65%
20 to 22
48%
23 to 24
42%
25 to 29
38%
30 to 34
36%
35 and older
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2005 TANF National Data Files.
The DRA-mandated HHS regulations and subsequent guidance issued under
DRA clarify that participation in GED, ABE, and ESL can be counted only in
combination with work for adult recipients.16 Before DRA, states sometimes
embedded these activities as components of work experience, community service, or
vocational educational training. The HHS regulations generally require that such
“embedded” activities be of a short-term nature.
Vocational Educational Training and Post-Secondary Education.
Very few TANF adult recipients have a college degree or other post-secondary
credential. Wages are strongly related to educational attainment — and having a
college degree matters when considering the earnings capacity of a parent. In 2004,
17% of all parents with just a high school diploma worked at a wage rate that would
have left a family of three in poverty even if they worked full-time all year. In
contrast, only 9% of those parents with an associate’s degree (and 6% of parents with
a bachelor’s degree) worked at a wage rate that would have left a family of three in
poverty even if they worked full-time all year.17
16 The regulations generally restrict education and training for those age 20 and older to the
three categories: (1) job skills training directly related to employment; (2) education directly
related to employment; and (3) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or in a course
of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence. For single parents, these activities
are countable only if the recipient participates in “core” activities (those without restrictions
on Table 2) for an average of at least 20 hours per week in a month.
17 See CRS Report RL33615, Parents’ Work and Family Economic Well-Being, by Thomas
(continued...)

---

CRS-17
Before the DRA, states used a variety of practices to permit recipients to engage
in post-secondary education without adversely affecting a state’s TANF work
participation rate. The combination of DRA’s statutory provisions and the HHS
regulations sharply curtail these practices. Vocational educational training —
countable for 12 months in a cash welfare recipient’s lifetime — was a category that
states used to count at least part of the participation in college programs. The HHS
regulations promulgated under the DRA restrict states to counting as vocational
educational training only post-secondary certificate or two-year degree programs.
College courses toward a four-year or higher degree are not countable as vocational
educational training under the HHS regulations.
Some states created separate state MOE programs to support welfare parents
who were in a college degree program. The DRA statutorily eliminated the effective
“exemption” of families with an adult college student from participation standards
by requiring that families in separate state MOE counts count toward the TANF work
participation standards.
Rehabilitative Activities. Research has consistently shown that a fairly large
share of families receiving cash welfare have non-educational barriers to work.18
Pre-TANF law exempted from participation requirements the ill and incapacitated19
and those needed in the home to care for an ill or disabled family member. TANF
made no such exemption.
Studies show that at least one-third of TANF adults have disabilities, and one
in four families on TANF include a child with an impairment.20 Though federal
benefits are available for disabled persons, such as the Supplemental Security Income
Program (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI),21 cash welfare has
often served as a way-station for those awaiting determination that they are eligible
for them. The SSI and SSDI disability determination process can take months or
even span several years if the initial application is turned down and appealed.
17 (...continued)
Gabe and Gene Falk.
18 The TANF national data reported by states do not include information on disabilities or
other barriers to employment. The research is discussed below.
19 HHS regulations required that illness be determined on the basis of medical evidence and
that a physician or licensed psychologist determine that a physical or mental impairment
prevents the individual from engaging in employment or training.
20 See Nadel, Mark, Steve Wamhoff, and Michael Wiseman. “Disability, Welfare Reform,
and Supplemental Security Income,” in Social Security Bulletin. Vol 65, No. 3, January
2005, pp. 14-30.
21 The standard for federal disability benefits from either Social Security Disability
Insurance (SSDI) or SSI is “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason
of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to
result in death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less
than 12 months...” The social security standard for disability is all or nothing: a person
either is determined disabled or not and thus eligible for benefits or not, with no accounting
for “degree” of disability.

---

CRS-18
Additionally, TANF may provide benefits to those who have impairments that are not
permanent or considered severe enough to qualify them for SSI or SSDI.
Further, research by the GAO concluded that former TANF cash welfare
recipients with physical or mental impairments are less likely to be employed than
those without impairments. When those with impairments do get jobs, they tend to
be at lower wages than for those without impairments.22 As discussed below, many
families dealing with disability have — like those considered easier to employ — left
the welfare rolls and contributed to the caseload decline.
HHS conducted a study in six states23 to examine employment barriers within
their single parent, cash welfare caseloads. Figure 4 shows the percent of recipients
in six states in the HHS study with selected barriers to employment. It shows the
most common barrier was mental health issues, reported as a barrier by 30% of all
recipients. Having a child with a disability or special needs was the second most
common barrier (29%), followed by a recipient’s own physical health issue (21%).
Figure 4. Barriers to Work Reported by Welfare Recipients
(Six-State Study)
Mental Health Problem
30%
Child with health
29%
program/special needs
Physical health
21%
problem
Severe domestic
14%
violence in past year
Learning disability
13%
Criminal record
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data in Hauan, Susan and Sarah Douglas.
Potential Employment Liabilities Among TANF Recipients: A Synthesis of Data from Six State TANF
Caseload Studies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. October 2004.
22 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Welfare Reform: Former TANF Recipients with
Impairments Less Likely to Be Employed and More Likely to Receive Federal Supports.
GAO-03-210. December 2002.
23 The six states are Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, and
South Carolina.

---

CRS-19
Rehabilitative activities, including vocational rehabilitation, mental health
services, and substance abuse, are not explicitly mentioned in federal law as activities
that would count toward TANF work participation standards. Before DRA, states
defined these activities inconsistently across the 12 federally listed categories of work
activities that are countable toward the standards. Some states offered certain
rehabilitative services, but did not count rehabilitative activities toward the federal
work participation standards. Some states placed disabled recipients into “separate
state MOE programs,” effectively exempting them from work participation standards,
a practice not permitted under DRA.
The HHS regulations issued under the DRA place such rehabilitative activities
under the time-limited job search and readiness category. Activities in this category
are countable for up to six weeks in a fiscal year — 12 weeks under certain
conditions that many, but not all, states currently meet. No more than four
consecutive weeks of job search or readiness may be counted. The time limit applies
to all activities within this category. This sets up a “zero-sum” situation: a week
spent in job search reduces the period of time that rehabilitative activities can be
counted by one week, and vice-versa.
Further, the HHS regulations allow states to count “supported work” programs
for disabled recipients as either subsidized employment or on-the-job training
(depending on the content of the program). “Supported work” programs in the
vocational rehabilitation system combine employment with various support services.
HHS regulations also permit states to exempt from work participation requirements,
and exclude when calculating participation rates, families with adults needed in the
home to care for a disabled child.
S. 1730 (Smith) would allow states to create an individualized employability
plan for a disabled adult or an adult caring for a disabled family member and count
them toward the TANF participation standards. The bill would also allow states to
exempt from the participation standards applicants for SSI and those who would
temporarily meet the SSI standard for disability.
Kinship Care
TANF cash aid is usually talked about in the context of families with children
where the parents do not work, sometimes because of barriers to employment or
stable employment, or who face low wages. However, a sizeable share of the TANF
cash aid caseload - approximately 500,000 children out of the 3.8 million children
on the rolls in FY2005 - is comprised of children living with relatives, such as
grandparents, aunts or uncles. Many children living with relatives are doing so by
private or public arrangement - where a relative has simply assumed responsibility
for the children of parents who cannot or will not care for and support them. Others,
however, are caring for children who are in foster care. In this second situation a
court - typically because of the abuse or neglect of a child by his/her parents - has
ordered the child removed from the home of his/her parents and has given the state
child welfare agency care and placement responsibility for the child.
Children ordered to foster care who are placed by the child welfare agency with
non-relatives receive a monthly foster care maintenance payment to cover their

---

CRS-20
“room and board.” However, foster children who are placed by the child welfare
agency with relatives sometimes receive a TANF payment. While a TANF payment
is typically worth much less than a foster care payment, relative caregivers are nearly
always eligible for TANF payment and may turn to it for financial support because
they do not meet the eligibility requirements for federally supported foster care. In
particular, those criteria provide that any foster family home where a child is placed
must meet state licensing requirements in order for the state to seek federal
reimbursement of a foster care maintenance payment. Many relatives cannot meet (or
do not wish to undergo) state foster care licensing procedures.
S. 661 (Clinton) and H.R. 2188 (Davis, IL) could increase relative access to
federally supported foster care maintenance payments by permitting states to
establish separate licensing standards for relatives, which - provided the standards
ensured children’s safety - could include less restrictive requirements than those for
non-relatives. Though these bills do not amend the TANF program itself, they can
affect the TANF cash aid caseload by permitting greater access to an alternative
source of federal help for relative caregivers raising children. That is, they could
transfer these families from the TANF cash aid caseload to the foster care caseload.
Child Support Pass-Through
Families receiving TANF cash welfare are required to assign (turn over rights
to) child support received from noncustodial parents to the state to reimburse it and
the federal government for their welfare costs. States may pay some or all of that
child support to the family but must pay the cost of that “passed-through” child
support. The DRA gave states a financial incentive to pass-through some child
support to families receiving cash welfare, by having the federal government share
the cost of the first $100 in monthly child support — $200 for a family of two or
more children — in passed through child support, so long as the receipt of that child
support by the family does not affect a family’s TANF eligibility or benefit amount.24
H.R. 896 (Ryan) would require all child support paid by noncustodial parents
to be passed-through to a TANF cash welfare family. However, H.R. 896 would
leave it up to the states to decide whether the child support received by the family
would affect TANF eligibility or decrease the TANF cash welfare benefit amount.
Further Caseload Decline
Discussions of the new TANF work participation standards have tended to focus
on the need to increase the number of recipients engaged in countable activities.
However, a state could meet the increased standards by either increasing engagement
in activities or producing further caseload declines. Thus, the DRA gives states a
strong incentive to attempt to further cut their caseloads. By reducing its caseload,
a state would get credit against its work participation standards for additional
24 For an analysis of the DRA child support pass-through provisions, see CRS Report
RL34105, The Financial Impact of Child Support on TANF Families: Simulation for
Selected States, by Carmen Solomon-Fears and Gene Falk.

---

CRS-21
caseload declines.25 Further, with fixed federal funding through FY2010, either
keeping a family off or moving a family off the TANF cash welfare rolls helps the
state meet the work participation standards without having to spend additional funds
to engage its adult members in work. The resulting caseload decline would free up
money to help maintain funding for the “nonwelfare” activities funded through
TANF.
Figure 5. Percentage Change in the Number of Families
Receiving Cash Welfare, FY1996-FY2006
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
96
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0

7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
1









9
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
0.0%
-0.2% -0.6%
-2.0%
-0.9%
-4.0%
-3.3%
-6.0%
-6.1%
-6.6%
-8.0%
-10.0%
-12.0%
-11.9%
-14.0% -13.4%
-16.0%
-16.4%
-18.0%
-20.0%
-18.7%
Figure 5 shows that the national cash welfare caseload has recently resumed its
decline, after being relatively constant for a number of years. During the FY2005 to
FY2006 period, the number of families receiving TANF cash welfare fell by 6.1%
— the largest decline since FY2000 to FY2001.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
The most common metric used to evaluate welfare policies is whether they
lower welfare caseloads, and caseload decline is the most cited indicator of the
success of welfare reform. A TANF goal is to “end dependency on government
benefits,” and lower cash welfare caseloads help achieve that end. To the degree that
receipt of welfare itself helps create disadvantage, a smaller role for cash welfare in
25 As discussed above, states are not given credit for caseload declines estimated as
stemming from policy changes that restrict eligibility. However, there are a number of
actions states can take to reduce their caseloads without explicit policy changes — most
obviously by greater enforcement of existing requirements.

---

CRS-22
society could be viewed as a positive outcome. Families that work are eligible for
benefits outside of the cash welfare system, and some of these benefits such as the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP) have increased their role in supporting families with children while the role
of cash welfare has diminished.
However, the TANF welfare caseload decline raises questions about the
economic security of those who face barriers to work or cannot achieve steady work.
The available evidence indicates that the TANF caseload decline has been broad-
based: the decline has affected both those who were “work-ready” as well as those
considered “hard-to-serve.” The Urban Institute, using data from their National
Survey of American Families, estimated that from 1997 through 2002, the share of
welfare recipients with specified barriers to work had changed little. However, the
share of recent welfare leavers with barriers such as health conditions that limit work
and poor mental health has increased.26 Despite the increased role of programs that
supplement and support work, the declining role of welfare might leave families with
barriers to work or without steady work with a diminished safety net to support their
children.
Potential Legislative Issues in the 110th Congress
Related to “Nonwelfare” TANF
Benefits and Services
The savings to government budgets from the cash welfare caseload decline
remain within the TANF system for states to use in any manner reasonably calculated
to achieve the broad purposes of the block grant. In FY2005, almost half of all
TANF and MOE funding — totaling $13 billion — was available to states for
benefits, services, and activities other than those associated with traditional cash
welfare programs. TANF funds are used for a wide range of activities often
discussed in the debate about ways to combat poverty: providing early childhood
programs, supporting post-secondary education, job retention and advancement
programs, and helping noncustodial parents. Thus, while TANF cash welfare reaches
only about three in ten poor children, TANF’s nonwelfare benefits and services can
have a much broader reach into the population of disadvantaged children and their
families.
The “nonwelfare” component of TANF is much less debated than its traditional
cash welfare programs and activities for a number of reasons. First, the information
TANF requires of states to describe the “nonwelfare” component of TANF precludes
a comprehensive and systematic examination of these activities. A 2006 GAO report
found that “reporting and oversight mechanisms have not kept pace with the evolving
26 Loprest, Pamela and Sheila Zedlewski. The Changing Role of Welfare in the Lives of
Low-Income Families with Children. Urban Institute, August 2006. p. 28.

---

CRS-23
role in TANF budgets, leaving information gaps at the national level related to the
numbers served and how states use funds to meet welfare reform goals....”27
Second, on the basis of what is known, a great deal of TANF’s “nonwelfare”
spending goes to two other federal-state program areas: child care and child welfare.
(Child welfare means foster care, adoption assistance, and other benefits and services
for children who either have been, or are at risk of, abuse and neglect.) Both of these
areas have their own dedicated funding streams, which are supplemented with
considerable dollars by TANF. Both of these areas also have their own policy
debates which, while related to TANF, are sometimes conducted independently of
TANF debates.
The welfare reauthorization proposals considered by Congress during 2002
through 2005 included two relatively “technical” issues (use of carry-over funds and
whether certain services are classified as “welfare”) that were not in the final DRA
agreement.28 These two issues and two others relating to “nonwelfare” uses of TANF
and MOE funds are discussed below.
Allowing Carry-Over Funds to Be Spent on “Nonwelfare”
Benefits and Services
Current law allows states to reserve unused block grant funds without fiscal year
limit only for the purpose of paying cash welfare benefits. This was intended as a
reserve fund for states to draw on during recessions when it was presumed that the
cash welfare caseload could increase. The Bush Administration’s 2002 welfare
reauthorization plan, and all comprehensive reauthorization proposals considered by
Congress during the 2002-2005 period, would have allowed TANF carry-over funds
to be used for any TANF benefit or service. The proposal was not included in the
final version of DRA.
Treatment of Child Care and Transportation Aid
Under current regulations, child care and transportation aid for nonworking
families is considered “welfare.” (Child care and transportation aid for working
families is considered “nonwelfare.”) As such, receipt of these benefits by a family
triggers TANF requirements, such as the five-year time limitation on federally funded
benefits, subjection to the work participation standards, and assignment of child
support.
27 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to
Understand Trends in the States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant. Report GAO-06-414.
March 2006.
28 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that those two policy changes did not
have a budgetary impact. Therefore, they had the potential to spur objections under the
Senate’s “Byrd Rule” discussed earlier in footnote 5.

---

CRS-24
The Bush Administration’s 2002 welfare reauthorization proposal, and all
comprehensive welfare reauthorization proposals, would have permitted child care
and transportation aid for nonworking recipients to be considered a “nonwelfare”
benefit and service and hence not subject to TANF requirements. This proposal was
not included in the final version of DRA.
Reporting on “Nonwelfare” Benefits and Services
TANF’s detailed reporting requirements focus on families receiving cash
welfare. The statutory reporting requirements date back to the 1996 welfare reform
law, and the reporting requirements in regulations were promulgated in the wake of
that law — before it became clear that the cash welfare caseload was dramatically
declining and that the money saved from the caseload decline was being used in the
diverse ways allowed by the TANF block grant. The “TANF caseload” that is often
cited represents families receiving TANF welfare, excluding those families that
receive only “nonwelfare” benefits and services. It thus understates the number of
families benefitting from TANF-funded benefits, services, and activities.
In annual program reports due after the close of the fiscal year, states are
required to provide information on all “programs” funded with MOE dollars, with
a description of the types of benefits and services provided and the number of
beneficiaries receiving them. These program reports do not capture the same
information for nonwelfare programs funded with federal TANF dollars.
Additionally, program expenditure information collected by HHS fails to capture
spending for child welfare benefits and services as a category (it is subsumed in other
more general categories). The result is an incomplete picture of how TANF and
MOE dollars are spent and how many families benefit from them.
The Bush Administration’s 2002 welfare reauthorization proposal would have
required reporting on nonwelfare benefits and services. All of the comprehensive
welfare reauthorization bills except one (Senate Finance Committee-reported H.R.
4737, 107th Congress) considered during 2002-2005 included provisions to extend
the annual program report information from covering the use of only MOE dollars
to covering both TANF and MOE dollars. This would have required states to
provide a description and caseload number for all “programs” and activities funded
with TANF and MOE funds.
Additionally, the 2005 Senate Finance Committee bill would have required that
the child care reporting system be extended to TANF-funded child care so that it
would be possible to determine both numbers of families receiving this benefit as
well as their characteristics (e.g. income, demographic information).
No reporting changes were included in the final version of DRA that was
enacted.

---

CRS-25
Oversight of Competitive Grants to Promote
Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood
Though much of the controversy during the welfare reauthorization debate
focused on cash welfare recipients — and their work requirements — a major
component of the Bush Administration’s 2002 welfare reform proposals was to
provide grants to promote “healthy marriages.” These initiatives were “nonwelfare”
initiatives, education in social skills as well as campaigns in schools and in the media
on the importance of marriage.
The DRA included a $150 million per year appropriation for competitive grants
to promote “healthy marriages” and “responsible fatherhood.” About $100 million
per year of these funds are for “research, demonstrations, and technical assistance”
related to promotion of healthy marriages. HHS awarded five-year grants to a
variety of organizations from this appropriation.29 This amount of funding is large
relative to other available funds for research and demonstrations under TANF.
(TANF has a $15 million appropriation for both state and federally initiated research
projects; HHS also receives an appropriation for research, which was $5.7 million for
FY2007.) Congress might conduct oversight to examine how these projects are
likely to improve the research base from which programs to promote healthy
marriage may be evaluated.
Legislative Issues in the 110th Congress
Related to TANF Funding
The DRA extended the bulk of federal TANF and MOE funding through
FY2010. However, DRA continued supplemental grants only through FY2008,
making a decision on its extension beyond then the business of the 110th Congress.
Further, Congress might consider the long-standing issue of recession funds.
Perhaps the greatest impact on TANF funds can come from legislation not
amending TANF itself but related to either child care or child welfare financing. The
two program areas use TANF and MOE funds for substantial supplements to
dedicated federal and state funding provided for them.
Supplemental Grants
The bulk of federal funding for TANF is in a fixed basic block grant, with its
amount determined by the amount of funding a state received under pre-1996 welfare
and related programs. Each state’s basic grant has been frozen since FY1997: it is
neither adjusted for inflation nor for changing circumstances (population or TANF
cash welfare caseload). The TANF block grant formula also has the effect of
“locking in” historical levels of funding, which reflected the pre-1996 welfare
policies of states.
29 The listing of grantees can be found at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/hmabstracts/
index.htm].

---

CRS-26
During the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, concerns were raised that
the fixed block grant disadvantaged two sets of states: (1) those that paid relatively
low welfare benefits and consequently had low federal grants relative to poverty in
the state; and (2) high population growth states. The supplemental grants were added
to TANF to target additional funds to such states.
Seventeen states qualify for supplemental grants. From FY1998 through
FY2001, supplemental grants grew each year until they reached $319 million. They
have been frozen at that level since. The DRA extended supplemental grants at $319
million per year until the end of FY2008. Table 3 shows the 17 states that receive
supplemental grants and the grant amount. The table shows the amount of TANF
funding each of these states would lose if Congress does not extend supplemental
grants beyond FY2008.
Table 3. TANF Supplemental Grants
($ in millions)
Supplemental
State
Grant
Alabama
11.093
Alaska
6.888
Arizona
23.925
Arkansas
6.218
Colorado
13.570
Florida
60.406
Georgia
37.283
Idaho
3.498
Louisiana
17.027
Mississippi
9.036
Montana
1.133
Nevada
3.734
New Mexico
6.553
North Carolina
36.110
Tennessee
21.565
Texas
52.708
Utah
8.704
Totals
319.450
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-27
Supplemental grants, at $319 million per year, have only a small impact on the
pattern of welfare funding relative to the number of poor children in a state. The
basic TANF block grant provides a range of funding per poor child, from $2,824 in
New York to $314 in Texas.30 Supplemental grants increase funding at the low end
of that range, but their impact is limited. Texas receives $34 per poor child in
supplemental grants, raising its total TANF grant to $348 per poor child. (See
Appendix Table A4 for state-by-state information on grants per poor child.)
TANF Recession Funds
TANF’s fixed block grant led to concerns that funding might be insufficient in
the event of a recession. Therefore, the 1996 welfare reform law included three
provisions intended to allow states to supplement their annual block grant in the case
of a recession. A state may:
! reserve or “save” funds during periods of economic growth to be
used to pay for any increased costs associated with a recession;
! draw from a “contingency fund,” if it meets criteria of economic
need, expends extra state funds to reach a level of 100% of FY1994
state spending, and also expends extra state funds to match federal
contingency funds; and
! obtain interest-bearing loans from the federal government that would
have to be repaid.
TANF was only tested by one recession — the relatively shallow 2001
recession. However, during and after that recession, employment among single
mothers slumped some and child poverty increased. On a national level, the cash
welfare caseload did not respond as it remained relatively constant during the period
2001 to 2004 when child poverty increased.
Reserve Funds. Unspent TANF funds have sometimes been seen not as
“reserves” to save in the case of a recession but as an indicator of lack of need. The
Bush Administration’s 2002 welfare reauthorization proposal and all except one of
the comprehensive reauthorization bills considered during 2002-2005 allowed states
to designate either some or all of their unspent monies as “contingency” reserve
funds.
TANF Contingency Fund. No state drew funds from the TANF contingency
fund during or immediately after the 2001 recession. There were two major reasons
states failed to draw down contingency funds during a recession. First, states would
have had to increase spending from their own funds before they could qualify for the
first matching contingency dollar. Second, many states failed to meet the criteria of
economic need based on high and increasing unemployment rates and food stamp
caseloads during the recession.
30 These amounts are based on the TANF grant per poor child in 2005. State child poverty
information is from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS).

---

CRS-28
Ironically, a few states drew upon contingency funds in 2005 and 200631 — well
after the 2001 recession had ended. They qualified based on high food stamp
caseloads. The 1996 law provided that a state would be considered economically
needy for contingency funds if a state’s food stamp caseload was 10% higher than its
adjusted caseload during the corresponding period in FY1994 or FY1995. (FY1994
and FY1995 are adjusted downward for immigrants made ineligible for food stamps
by the 1996 welfare reform law.) Food stamp caseloads, unlike cash welfare
caseloads, did increase with the 2001 recession and have remained historically high.
The food stamp contingency fund trigger is also expressed in terms of number of
participants, rather than a rate of receipt, in a state. Population growth over the 12-
or 13-year period means that the number of participants in a state can be higher than
in the base years, even if the rate at which people in the state receive food stamps
declined.
The 2002 Bush Administration welfare reauthorization proposal and all
comprehensive reauthorization bills considered during the 2002-2005 period would
have made some changes to the contingency fund. Reauthorization proposals
emanating from the Senate Finance Committee would have made more far-reaching
changes to the contingency fund. They would have eliminated matching
requirements and made the unemployment and food stamp criteria for qualifying for
contingency funds more sensitive to recent economic changes. The last contingency
fund proposal reported from the Senate Finance Committee (S. 667, 109th Congress)
would have saved money over a five-year period by making it less likely for a state
to qualify during periods of economic growth but more likely for states to qualify
during economic downturns.
TANF Loan Fund. TANF includes a loan fund, so that states running short
of TANF grants could borrow funds from the federal government. These loans
would have to be repaid with interest. Aside from loans to states affected by
Hurricane Katrina that were forgiven, no state has drawn a loan from the fund. The
Bush Administration’s 2002 welfare reauthorization proposal and all comprehensive
reauthorization proposals considered during 2002-2005 would have eliminated the
loan fund. However, DRA extended the TANF loan fund through FY2010.
Child Care and Child Welfare Financing
As discussed above, TANF supplements federal funding for both the child care
block grant and the various federal programs that help fund foster care, adoption
assistance, and child welfare services. The supplement provided by TANF is fairly
large. In FY2005, total TANF and MOE funding for child care totaled about $5
billion, which reflected both transfers to the Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF) and expenditures within the TANF program. At 18% of total TANF and
MOE funding, child care is the second largest category next to cash welfare within
TANF. Expenditures on child welfare activities — for example, foster care and
services for families with children who have been abused and neglected or are at-risk
of abuse and neglect — cannot be derived directly from TANF’s financial reporting
31 This is in addition to funds drawn from the contingency fund in FY2005 and FY2006 to
aid evacuee victims of Hurricane Katrina under P.L. 109-68.

---

CRS-29
system. The Urban Institute, on the basis of a survey of the states, reported that in
state FY2004, TANF’s contribution to child welfare agency funding totaled $3.0
billion.
Thus, child care and child welfare services together account for more than half
(at least $8 billion of the $13 billion) of TANF and MOE funding available for
“nonwelfare” activities. Therefore, legislation affecting either child care or child
welfare financing could have an impact on how much funding is available for
TANF’s other activities. The Congressional Budget Resolution for FY2008
(S.Con.Res. 21) provides a “deficit-neutral” reserve fund to increase child care
funding by up to $5 billion (though the increased cost would have to be offset).
Legislation affecting child welfare funding would also have an impact on
TANF. As discussed above, legislation has been introduced that would allow
nonparent relatives caring for children to be eligible for federal foster care payments
— some of these relatives currently rely on TANF cash welfare. This change could
transfer some cases out of TANF and onto the foster care rolls, freeing up some
TANF dollars. Other long-standing child welfare financing issues, if resolved, could
also affect the amount of TANF and MOE funds used by the child welfare system.32
Conclusion
With regard to TANF, Congress faces a decision on whether to extend
supplemental grants before they expire at the end of FY2008. Congress might
consider further a wide range of TANF issues. A number of them stem from policy
changes made by Congress in the DRA. These issues also touch on some that have
been long-debated, such as the role of education and training in helping recipients
move from welfare-to-work and achieving self-sufficiency.
Even absent a scheduled reauthorization of TANF, this may be an opportune
time to reconsider TANF issues and the role the block grant can play to help
disadvantaged families with children. The context that TANF operates in has
changed considerably from the time of the welfare reform debates in the early and
mid-1990s. The cash welfare caseload has declined substantially and incentives are
in place for states to seek further caseload declines. Non-welfare support for the
working poor has increased, both with TANF-funded benefits and services (e.g.,
child care) and from other programs (e.g., Earned Income Tax Credit and State
Childrens’ Health Insurance Program).
The “nonwelfare” part of TANF has the potential to help disadvantaged families
with children through new and innovative ways. Whether that is happening is an
open question given the information gap on these activities. Illuminating TANF’s
“nonwelfare” side might recast future discussions about TANF to reflect the
changing context in which the block grant operates.
32 See CRS Report RL32849, Child Welfare Financing: An Issue Overview, by Emilie
Stoltzfus.

---

CRS-30
Appendix A. Additional Tables
Table A1. Estimated FY2005 Participation Rates by State
(Combined TANF and SSP Participation Rate,
Using Rules in Effect in FY2005)
Estimated FY2005
Estimated FY2005
Two-Parent
State
All Families Rate (%)
Participation Rate (%)
Alabama
39.1
28.1
Alaska
44.4
44.9
Arizona
25.1
59.9
Arkansas
31.8
47.1
California
28.3
34.9
Colorado
27.2
31.2
Connecticut
29.4
33.2
Delaware
27.5
24.8
District of Columbia
23.0
36.1
Florida
38.6
33.2
Georgia
60.2
44.8
Hawaii
32.8
23.6
Idaho
40.9
44.5
Illinois
41.8
61.7
Indiana
34.8
32.9
Iowa
44.9
43.5
Kansas
89.1
91.8
Kentucky
35.2
53.0
Louisiana
37.2
37.4
Maine
29.8
34.4
Maryland
20.1
18.4
Massachusetts
16.8
14.8
Michigan
21.9
30.7
Minnesota
29.0
25.7
Mississippi
29.3
0.0
Missouri
22.4
20.9
Montana
81.3
79.5
Nebraska
26.2
25.7
Nevada
39.7
39.5
New Hampshire
30.4
32.1
New Jersey
33.2
26.3
New Mexico
43.9
56.2
New York
39.2
40.7
North Carolina
30.0
54.9
North Dakota
28.6
0.0
Ohio
60.9
60.0
Oklahoma
36.6
0.0
Oregon
13.4
25.8
Pennsylvania
18.0
18.4

---

CRS-31
Estimated FY2005
Estimated FY2005
Two-Parent
State
All Families Rate (%)
Participation Rate (%)
Rhode Island
21.0
19.5
South Carolina
45.2
60.8
South Dakota
60.0
0.0
Tennessee
15.8
15.7
Texas
43.0
55.9
Utah
34.3
41.5
Vermont
23.6
30.4
Virginia
27.7
33.3
Washington
39.4
32.6
West Virginia
17.0
21.4
Wisconsin
51.9
21.2
Wyoming
85.9
81.0
National Average
32.1
35.8
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Table A2. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Families,
By Family Type, FY2006
Single-
Two-
No-
Parent
Parent
Parent
Total
State
Families
Families
Familiesa
Families
Alabama
10,260
295
8,974
19,528
Alaska
2,117
472
1,025
3,614
Arizona
20,419
407
18,726
39,551
Arkansas
3,872
118
4,187
8,177
California
225,640
38,432
223,550
487,622
Colorado
8,403
933
5,131
14,468
Connecticut
12,572
1,321
8,203
22,096
Delaware
2,932
105
2,572
5,609
District of Columbia
9,007
124
6,814
15,945
Florida
13,005
876
39,731
53,612
Georgia
8,034
86
23,747
31,867
Guam
NR
NR
NR
NR
Hawaii
5,665
1,367
2,400
9,432
Idaho
369
26
1,423
1,818
Illinois
18,236
244
18,704
37,184
Indiana
25,218
2,241
19,679
47,138
Iowa
14,287
1,520
5,276
21,083
Kansas
11,403
1,229
4,600
17,232
Kentucky
15,329
617
17,146
33,092
Louisiana
3,537
82
8,301
11,920
Maine
7,859
585
2,773
11,216

---

CRS-32
Single-
Two-
No-
Parent
Parent
Parent
Total
State
Families
Families
Familiesa
Families
Maryland
13,065
115
8,712
21,892
Massachusetts
28,434
2,828
16,670
47,932
Michigan
51,717
4,135
27,101
82,953
Minnesota
17,726
3,036
9,763
30,525
Mississippi
6,364
0
7,053
13,417
Missouri
30,091
3,171
11,085
44,348
Montana
2,048
434
1,330
3,812
Nebraska
8,270
1,006
3,542
12,818
Nevada
3,334
314
3,381
7,028
New Hampshire
3,944
275
2,051
6,270
New Jersey
28,700
1,940
12,147
42,786
New Mexico
10,360
700
5,835
16,895
New York
108,129
7,433
62,403
177,966
North Carolina
10,817
257
19,098
30,172
North Dakota
1,991
0
701
2,692
Ohio
33,250
3,187
43,048
79,485
Oklahoma
3,960
38
6,211
10,208
Oregon
9,736
674
8,733
19,143
Pennsylvania
61,525
4,536
28,635
94,696
Puerto Rico
11,274
0
3,051
14,325
Rhode Island
7,211
932
4,145
12,287
South Carolina
9,780
660
7,659
18,099
South Dakota
989
0
1,834
2,823
Tennessee
50,804
679
17,893
69,376
Texas
25,724
1,939
45,075
72,738
Utah
4,499
29
2,964
7,492
Vermont
3,155
536
1,083
4,774
Virgin Islands
305
0
129
434
Virginia
21,579
1,440
11,957
34,975
Washington
29,508
5,701
20,876
56,085
West Virginia
5,558
630
5,306
11,495
Wisconsin
6,532
284
11,470
18,286
Wyoming
67
2
239
308
Totals
1,028,608
97,990
834,140
1,960,738
(Except for Guam)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
a. “No-Parent Families” are those in which the adults in the family or households are not
themselves considered recipients of assistance. In these families benefits are paid only on
behalf of the child. These families are sometimes called “child-only” families for the purposes
of TANF.

---

CRS-33
Table A3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Families
by Family Type, As a Percent of Total
Cash Welfare Families, FY2006
Single-
Two-
No-
Parent
Parent
Parent
Total
State
Families
Families
Families
Families
Alabama
52.5
1.5
46.0
100.0
Alaska
58.6
13.1
28.4
100.0
Arizona
51.6
1.0
47.3
100.0
Arkansas
47.4
1.4
51.2
100.0
California
46.3
7.9
45.8
100.0
Colorado
58.1
6.4
35.5
100.0
Connecticut
56.9
6.0
37.1
100.0
Delaware
52.3
1.9
45.9
100.0
District of Columbia
56.5
0.8
42.7
100.0
Florida
24.3
1.6
74.1
100.0
Georgia
25.2
0.3
74.5
100.0
Guam
NR
NR
NR
NR
Hawaii
60.1
14.5
25.4
100.0
Idaho
20.3
1.4
78.3
100.0
Illinois
49.0
0.7
50.3
100.0
Indiana
53.5
4.8
41.7
100.0
Iowa
67.8
7.2
25.0
100.0
Kansas
66.2
7.1
26.7
100.0
Kentucky
46.3
1.9
51.8
100.0
Louisiana
29.7
0.7
69.6
100.0
Maine
70.1
5.2
24.7
100.0
Maryland
59.7
0.5
39.8
100.0
Massachusetts
59.3
5.9
34.8
100.0
Michigan
62.3
5.0
32.7
100.0
Minnesota
58.1
9.9
32.0
100.0
Mississippi
47.4
0.0
52.6
100.0
Missouri
67.9
7.2
25.0
100.0
Montana
53.7
11.4
34.9
100.0
Nebraska
64.5
7.8
27.6
100.0
Nevada
47.4
4.5
48.1
100.0
New Hampshire
62.9
4.4
32.7
100.0
New Jersey
67.1
4.5
28.4
100.0
New Mexico
61.3
4.1
34.5
100.0
New York
60.8
4.2
35.1
100.0
North Carolina
35.9
0.9
63.3
100.0
North Dakota
73.9
0.0
26.1
100.0
Ohio
41.8
4.0
54.2
100.0
Oklahoma
38.8
0.4
60.8
100.0
Oregon
50.9
3.5
45.6
100.0
Pennsylvania
65.0
4.8
30.2
100.0

---

CRS-34
Single-
Two-
No-
Parent
Parent
Parent
Total
State
Families
Families
Families
Families
Puerto Rico
78.7
0.0
21.3
100.0
Rhode Island
58.7
7.6
33.7
100.0
South Carolina
54.0
3.6
42.3
100.0
South Dakota
35.0
0.0
65.0
100.0
Tennessee
73.2
1.0
25.8
100.0
Texas
35.4
2.7
62.0
100.0
Utah
60.1
0.4
39.6
100.0
Vermont
66.1
11.2
22.7
100.0
Virgin Islands
70.3
0.0
29.7
100.0
Virginia
61.7
4.1
34.2
100.0
Washington
52.6
10.2
37.2
100.0
West Virginia
48.4
5.5
46.2
100.0
Wisconsin
35.7
1.6
62.7
100.0
Wyoming
21.8
0.7
77.5
100.0
National Average
52.5
5.0
42.5
100.0
(Except for Guam)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).

---

CRS-35
Table A4. TANF Basic Block Grant (State Family
Assistance Grant or SFAG) and Supplemental Grants,
Per Poor Child in 2005
Total SFAG Plus
Supplemental
Supplemental
SFAG Per
Grant Per
Grant Per Poor
State
Poor Child ($)
Poor Child ($)
Child ($)
Texas
314
34
348
Arkansas
345
38
383
Alabama
350
42
392
Mississippi
384
40
424
South Carolina
437
0
437
Nevada
491
42
532
Idaho
492
54
546
Louisiana
514
53
567
South Dakota
659
0
659
Virginia
664
0
664
Tennessee
658
74
732
North Carolina
674
80
754
Oklahoma
769
0
769
Arizona
707
76
783
Georgia
705
79
784
Indiana
794
0
794
Kentucky
840
0
840
Missouri
848
0
848
Florida
789
85
873
Colorado
822
82
904
Nebraska
922
0
922
Kansas
1,022
0
1,022
New Mexico
1,014
53
1,067
Utah
962
109
1,071
Oregon
1,104
0
1,104
Illinois
1,115
0
1,115
West Virginia
1,155
0
1,155
Montana
1,127
28
1,156
Delaware
1,162
0
1,162
New Hampshire
1,374
0
1,374
Iowa
1,426
0
1,426
Ohio
1,440
0
1,440
North Dakota
1,475
0
1,475
Maryland
1,546
0
1,546
Pennsylvania
1,562
0
1,562
New Jersey
1,603
0
1,603
Maine
1,667
0
1,667
Michigan
1,688
0
1,688
Wyoming
1,769
0
1,769
Wisconsin
1,799
0
1,799
Washington
1,844
0
1,844

---

CRS-36
Total SFAG Plus
Supplemental
Supplemental
SFAG Per
Grant Per
Grant Per Poor
State
Poor Child ($)
Poor Child ($)
Child ($)
Minnesota
1,917
0
1,917
Rhode Island
2,026
0
2,026
California
2,114
0
2,114
Vermont
2,345
0
2,345
Massachusetts
2,364
0
2,364
District of Columbia
2,623
0
2,623
Hawaii
2,645
0
2,645
Alaska
2,389
259
2,648
Connecticut
2,811
0
2,811
New York
2,824
0
2,824
National Average
1,234
24
1,258
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). TANF grants are from the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). Poor child count represents estimates by state of the
number of persons under 18 who lived in families below the poverty line based on the 2005
American Community Survey.

---