ȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŘŗǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŘŝŜŖȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
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, The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing
and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk). 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 basic block grant is not adjusted for inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload (see
“Caseload,” below). It has lost 25% of its value (purchasing power) to inflation from FY1997
through FY2008. 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 FY2006, expenditures on activities associated with a “traditional”
cash welfare program—cash benefits, administrative costs, and spending on work activities—
totaled only $15 billion, a little more than 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.
Cash Welfare Caseload. In June 2008, 1.7 million families, consisting of 3.9 million recipients,
received TANF- or MOE-funded cash welfare. The cash welfare caseload is very heterogenous.
The type of family historically thought of as the “typical” cash welfare family—one with an
unemployed, adult recipient—accounted for less than half (45%) of all cash welfare families in
FY2006. Another 13% of cash welfare families had an employed adult, while 42% of all families
had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g. grandparents, aunts uncles)
caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and noncitizen parents.
Cash Welfare Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 2006, the maximum
monthly benefit for a family of 3 ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. Benefits in
all states represent a fraction of poverty-level income. In the median state (Illinois), the maximum
monthly benefit for a family of three of $396 represents 29% of poverty-level income.
Cash Welfare Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and
90% of two-parent families in work activities. Through FY2006, these participation standards
were reduced for caseload reduction from FY1995. In FY2006, states achieved average work
participation rates of 32.5% for all families and 45.9% for two-parent families. Beginning in
FY2007, the 50% and 90% standards will be reduced for caseload reduction from FY2005 (rather
than FY1995), requiring many states to raise participation to meet these standards.
ȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Topics ................................................................................................................................. 1
Is the Cash Welfare Caseload Rising Because of the Current Recession?.......................... 1
How Can States Pay for Any Caseload Increases Caused by the Recession?..................... 1
Will the TANF Contingency Fund Run Out of Money? ..................................................... 2
What is the “Excess MOE” Regulation Proposal?.............................................................. 2
May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients?.................................................. 3
History ............................................................................................................................................. 3
When was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant
Created? ........................................................................................................................... 3
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?...................................................... 3
Funding and Expenditures............................................................................................................... 4
What is TANF’s Current Funding Level? ........................................................................... 4
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation?........................ 5
How Have States Used TANF Funds? ................................................................................ 5
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? .......................................................... 7
The Caseload ................................................................................................................................... 7
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services?................. 7
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Cash
Welfare? ........................................................................................................................... 7
How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare With Historical
Levels?............................................................................................................................. 8
What Are the Characteristics of Cash Welfare Families? ................................................... 8
TANF Cash Benefits...................................................................................................................... 10
How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? ...................................... 10
How Have 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? .................................. 16
ȱ
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2006, by Major Benefit or
Service Category .......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Families Receiving Cash Welfare: July 1959-June 2008 ................................................. 8
Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Welfare Caseload: FY2006...................................................... 9
ȱ
Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, FY2006-
FY2010......................................................................................................................................... 4
ȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars.......................................................... 5
Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008.......................................... 7
Table 4. Maximum TANF Cash Welfare Benefits by Family Size, July 2006 ...............................11
Table 5. Maximum Benefits for a Family of Three by State: In July of Selected Years and
as a Percent of the Poverty Guidelines....................................................................................... 14
Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs, FY2003-FY2006.................... 17
Table A-2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2006 ..................................................... 17
Table A-3. Cash Welfare Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2006................... 18
Table A-4. Selected Characteristics of Families Receiving AFDC or TANF/MOE Cash
Welfare, Selected Years 1988-2006............................................................................................ 19
Table B-1. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category.................................................. 20
Table B-2. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category, as a Percent of Total
Federal TANF and State MOE Funding ..................................................................................... 22
Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2006............................................................... 25
Table B-4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008 .................................................. 26
Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, 1994, 2001, 2007, and 2008 ......... 28
Table B-6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2006, by State................................................ 30
¡ȱ
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables .............................................................................................. 17
Appendix B. State Tables .............................................................................................................. 20
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 31
ȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
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 TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
Nationally, the available data do not show an increase in the cash welfare caseload as yet. The
latest “official” data on the cash welfare caseload from the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), show that from June 2007 to June 2008, the cash welfare caseload had declined
nationally 2.5%.
However, more recent data suggests that the cash welfare caseload is rising in at least some states.
In Florida, the cash welfare caseload in December 2008 was 10% above the June 2008 level, with
much of the increase occurring during the three months October to December. On a year-to-year
basis, the cash welfare caseload in California increased 5.9% from September 2007 to September
2008. On the other hand, more recent data from New York (the state with the second largest cash
welfare caseload) show no increase through September 2008.
The current level and historical trends in the cash welfare caseload is discussed later in this
report.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱǵȱ
TANF has provided states with fixed funding since FY1997. The sharp decline in the cash
welfare caseload (see the discussion below) meant that money was “freed-up” from lower cash
welfare costs that were allocated to other benefits and services that could be paid for with TANF
funds. These include a wide range of benefits and services for disadvantaged families, including
financial aid for child care; refundable tax credits for the working poor; transportation aid; pre-
Kindergarten programs; after-school programs; activities to help families who experienced, or
were at-risk of, child abuse and neglect; pregnancy prevention programs; responsible fatherhood
programs; and programs to promote healthy marriages.
The fixed nature of TANF funding imposes some financial risk on states. Generally, states bear
the risk of increased costs from a cash welfare caseload rise. However, TANF provides states with
two sources of extra funding in the case of such as cash welfare caseload increase. First, states
were given the ability to build up “reserve” funds with unused TANF grants that could be saved
without fiscal year limit. The latest data on these funds are fairly old (September 30, 2007), with
unspent and uncommitted state balances totaling $1.9 billion. They also provide only a small
cushion, given the size of TANF federal spending and state maintenance of effort (MOE)
spending (about $25 billion per year).
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Second, TANF includes a “contingency fund” that provides extra matching grants for states that
meet criteria of economic need—either high and rising unemployment or increased food stamp
(renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) caseloads. This permits the federal
government to share in the risks of a caseload rise stemming from economic circumstances. The
maximum contingency fund grant for a fiscal year is 20% of the state’s basic block grant.
However, the contingency fund was not used during the last recession (2001). Currently 43 states
meet the economic need criteria for eligibility for contingency funds. As of mid-December 2008,
11 states have either received or indicated that they would apply for funds.
States that do not draw upon these extra sources of funds can also finance an increase in cash
welfare costs by reducing TANF spending on some of the other activities listed above.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ǵȱ
At the beginning of the current fiscal year (FY2009), the contingency fund had $1.3 billion. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the fund will remain solvent through the end
of FY2009, but run out of money sometime in FY2010. However, these estimates are subject to a
lot of uncertainty. Whether the fund will be exhausted depends on whether a few large states,
such as California and New York, currently not drawing contingency funds, begin to do so.
(California is currently economically eligible, New York is not.)
For example, if only the 11 states that are currently either drawing funds or have applied for funds
receive them for the remainder of the fiscal year, the fund will be able to pay them their full grant
all year. Under this scenario, a balance of more than $700 million will remain at the end of this
fiscal year. However, if California is added to the current 11 states drawing funds and they receive
their maximum contingency fund grant—California can draw up to $747 million in a year—the
fund would be exhausted before the end of FY2009. There are other scenarios, such as New York
becoming eligible and some other large states also drawing funds, in which the fund would be
exhausted before the end of FY2009 as well.
ȱȱȱȃ¡ȱȄȱȱǵȱ
On August 8, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed to eliminate
what is known as the “excess MOE credit” toward the TANF work participation standards.
TANF sets numerical work participation standards for its welfare caseload: 50% for all families
(90% for its two-parent families). For each state, this standard is reduced one percentage point for
each percent decline in its welfare caseload since FY2005. The “excess MOE credit” is basically
an add-on to the “caseload reduction credit,” allowing states to claim credit for cash welfare cases
funded by state funds in excess of what they are required to spend under TANF maintenance of
effort (MOE) rules. It reduces TANF work participation standards beyond the reduction allowed
under the basic caseload reduction credit. The excess MOE credit is not a part of TANF law; it
was created by regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
in 1999.
A Hypothetical Example. This example shows how the caseload reduction credit and the “excess
MOE credit” could affect the FY2007 participation standards (on the basis of a caseload
reduction between FY2005 and FY2006). For simplicity, assume a caseload in FY2005 of 100
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
families and a caseload in FY2006 of 90 families. However, of the 90 families in FY2006, 10
were funded by “excess MOE.” The caseload reduction credit would be based on 100 families in
FY2005 and 80 families in FY2006, yielding a credit of 10 percentage points for normal caseload
reduction and 10 percentage points for the 10 families funded by “excess MOE.” That is, the state
would receive a 20 percentage point credit, reducing their effective (after credit) participation
standard to 30%.
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
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.
¢ȱ
ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ ȱ
ǵȱ
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.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱŗşşŜȱ ǵȱ
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-35) included provisions establishing “welfare-to-
work” grants for FY1998 and FY1999 and made several other policy and 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, 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 A-1 for a listing of the temporary extensions.)
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
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.)
ȱȱ¡ȱ
ȱȱȂȱȱȱǵȱ
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 the DRA extended
most TANF funding through FY2010, it extended supplemental grants only through FY2008. P.L.
110-275 extended supplemental grants through FY2009.
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.
Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
FY2006-FY2010
(in millions of $)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Basic block grant
16,478
16,478
16,478
16,478
16,478
Supplemental
grants
319 319 319 319 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
17,050
16,731
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), on the basis of data in a U.S. Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) Cost Estimate, S. 1932, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, January 27, 2006, modified to account for P.L.
110-275, which extended supplemental grants through FY2009.
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.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǵȱ
From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2008 (ended September 30, 2008),
the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 25%. On the basis of the September 2008
inflation projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the block grant will decline in
value by 30% from FY1997 through FY2010.
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
Fiscal Year
Value of the Block Grant
Cumulative Loss of
(in Billions of
Value
FY1997 Dollars)
(in percent)
1997 16.5
0
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 12.8
-22
2008 12.3
-25
2009 11.8
-28
2010 11.6
-30
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-FY2008 using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Constant dollars for FY2009
through FY2010 are based on the inflation assumptions of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
published in September 2008.
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱǵȱ
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 FY2006. In
FY2006, 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 $14.7 billion, or a little more than half
(52%) of all funds.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2006, 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). FY2006 TANF and MOE expenditures on child care totaled $3.5
billion and transfers to CCDF totaled $1.9 billion, adding up to a $5.4 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 accounting system poorly captures expenditures
associated with spending on the child welfare system.1
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2006,
by Major Benefit or Service Category
Other
Transfers to
expenditures, SSBG, 3%
17%
Basic (cash)
assistance, 35%
Family formation
expenditures, 3%
Other work
supports, 6%
Transfers to
Administrative
CCDF, 7%
expenditures, 8%
Child care
Work program
expenditures,
expenditures, 8%
12%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
See Appendix A, Table A-2, for dollar amounts associated with each of these categories. For
state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Appendix B, Table B-1 and Table B-2.
1 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.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱǵȱ
At the end of FY2006 (September 30, 2006), a total of $4.0 billion of federal TANF funding had
been neither transferred nor spent. However, some of that $4 billion represented funds that states
had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2006, states had made such commitments
to spend—that is, obligations—totaling $1.9 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 because
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 $2.2 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated balance.” These funds are
available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 in Appendix B shows unspent
TANF funds by state.
ȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȬȱȱȬȱȱȱǵȱ
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.
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȱȱȬȱ
ȱǵȱ
Table 3 provides cash welfare caseload information for June 2008. A total of 1.7 million families
composed of 3.9 million recipients received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in June 2008. The bulk
of the “recipients” were children—3 million children in that month. For state-by-state cash
assistance caseloads, see Table B-4 in Appendix B.
Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008
Category Number
Families 1,677,808
Recipients 3,937,086
Children 3,008,822
Adult Recipients
917481
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of 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.
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ǵȱ
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 1.7 million families currently on the cash assistance
rolls represent their lowest level since 1969. Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash
welfare families by state.
Figure 2. Families Receiving Cash Welfare: July 1959-June 2008
6
s
March 1994:
n
5.1 million
io 5
ill
M
4
3
June 2008:
1.7 million
2
1
0
6
-59
-62 -65
-74 -77
-83
-8
-89 -92
-01 -04
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul-68Jul-71 Jul
Jul
Jul-80Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul
Jul-95Jul-98 Jul
Jul
Jul-07
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
Historically, the “typical” cash welfare family has been headed by a single parent (usually the
mother) with one or two children. The single parent has also typically been unemployed.
However, the cash welfare caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the
composition of the rolls. Today, less than half of all cash welfare families are headed by an
unemployed, adult recipient. A little more than four out of 10 cash welfare families had no adult
recipient at all, with the adults in the family ineligible for aid and the benefits paid only on behalf
of the child (these are known as “child-only” families). This shift occurred because the caseload
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
decline was concentrated among the families thought of as the “typical” cash welfare family, and
welfare-to-work efforts have been concentrated on this population.
Figure 3. shows the composition of the cash welfare caseload in FY2006. Families with an adult,
unemployed recipient represent 45% of all cash welfare families. Families with an employed (in a
regular job) adult recipient, who receive cash welfare as an earnings supplement, comprise an
additional 13% of the cash welfare rolls. Within the “child-only” portion of the caseload, families
with a parent (usually a disabled parent) receiving SSI and the children receiving TANF as a
supplement to that benefit represent 9% of the cash welfare caseload. Families that are made up
of children living with a non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) represent 13% of
the cash welfare caseload. Families of child citizens living with ineligible parents who are
noncitizens or who have not reported their citizenship status make up 8% of the total cash welfare
caseload. The remainder of the cash welfare caseload represents child recipients for whom data
on the adults with whom they live is not available.
Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Welfare Caseload: FY2006
"Child-Only" Families
Total child-only families:
42% of the total
Other
12%
Noncitizen or
unknown
citizenship of parent
8%
Family with
adult/not employed
Nonparent
45%
Caretaker
13%
S S I Parent
9%
Family with
adult/employed
13%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the FY2006 TANF National Data Files. Note: Family
with an adult/unemployed includes families reported as “child-only” but sanctioned.
As previously discussed, the composition of the caseload has changed considerably over time.
Table A-3 shows the change in this categorization of families over time. Table A-4 provides
some additional information on the composition of the caseload.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
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 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state and family size as of July
2006.2 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.3
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. The maximum
monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e.g., no earned or
unearned income) and 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.
The table also shows the benefit amounts relative to poverty-level income. TANF pays a family in
cash only a fraction of poverty level income (as officially determined and published by the
Department of Health and Human Services). For a family of three, in the “median state” (Illinois,
ranked 26th among the 50 states and District of Columbia), a July 2006 monthly payment of $396
equalled 28.6% of poverty-level income. At the extreme, Alaska’s benefit equalled the highest
percentage of poverty-level income (53.4% of Alaska’s poverty guideline, which is higher than
that for the lower 48 states), whereas Mississippi paid the lowest percentage, 12.3%, for a family
of three.
2 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 the Urban Institute’s welfare rules database.
3 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 paid in Suffolk County ($783 per month for a family
of three) than in New York City.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Table 4. Maximum TANF Cash Welfare Benefits by Family Size, July 2006
Maximum Benefits By Family Size ($)
Maximum Benefits as a Percent of the
2006 HHS Poverty Guildelines (%)
State
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Alabama 165
190
215
245
275
305
20.2
17.3
15.5
14.7
14.1
13.7
Alaska
514 821 923 1,025 1,127 1,229 50.4 59.7 53.4 49.2 46.2 44.0
Arizona 204
275
347
418
490
561
25.0
25.0
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
Arkansas
81 162 204 247 286 331 9.9 14.7 14.7 14.8 14.7 14.8
California
359 584 723 862 980 1101 44.0 53.1 52.3 51.7 50.3 49.3
Colorado
99 280 356 432 512 590
12.1 25.5 25.7 25.9 26.3 26.4
Connecticut 402
513
636
741
835
935
49.2
46.6
46.0
44.5
42.8
41.9
Delaware 201
270
338
407
475
544
24.6
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.4
24.4
District of Columbia
257
320
407
498
573
674
31.5
29.1
29.4
29.9
29.4
30.2
Florida 180
241
303
364
426
487
22.0
21.9
21.9
21.8
21.8
21.8
Georgia 155
235
280
330
378
410
19.0
21.4
20.2
19.8
19.4
18.4
Hawaii 335
452
570
687
805
922
35.7
35.7
35.8
35.8
35.9
35.9
Idaho 309
309
309
309
309
309
37.8
28.1
22.3
18.5
15.8
13.8
Illinois 223
292
396
435
509
572
27.3
26.5
28.6
26.1
26.1
25.6
Indiana 139
229
288
346
405
463
17.0
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.7
Iowa 183
361
426
495
548
610
22.4
32.8
30.8
29.7
28.1
27.3
Kansas 267
352
429
497
558
619
32.7
32.0
31.0
29.8
28.6
27.7
Kentucky 186
225
262
328
383
432
22.8
20.5
18.9
19.7
19.6
19.3
Louisiana 122
188
240
284
327
366
14.9
17.1
17.3
17.0
16.8
16.4
Maine 230
363
485
611
733
856
28.2
33.0
35.1
36.7
37.6
38.3
Maryland 220
386
490
592
686
755
26.9
35.1
35.4
35.5
35.2
33.8
Massachusetts 418
518
618
713
812
912
51.2
47.1
44.7
42.8
41.6
40.8
Michigan 276
371
459
563
659
792
33.8
33.7
33.2
33.8
33.8
35.5
Ȭŗŗȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Maximum Benefits By Family Size ($)
Maximum Benefits as a Percent of the
2006 HHS Poverty Guildelines (%)
Minnesota 250
437
532
621
697
773
30.6
39.7
38.5
37.3
35.7
34.6
Mississippi 110
146
170
194
218
242
13.5
13.3
12.3
11.6
11.2
10.8
Missouri 136
234
292
342
388
431
16.7
21.3
21.1
20.5
19.9
19.3
Montana 221
298
375
452
530
607
27.1
27.1
27.1
27.1
27.2
27.2
Nebraska 222
293
364
435
506
577
27.2
26.6
26.3
26.1
25.9
25.8
Nevada 230
289
348
407
467
526
28.2
26.3
25.2
24.4
23.9
23.6
New Hampshire
489
556
625
688
748
829
59.9
50.5
45.2
41.3
38.4
37.1
New Jersey
162
322
424
488
552
616
19.8
29.3
30.7
29.3
28.3
27.6
New Mexico
231
310
389
469
548
627
28.3
28.2
28.1
28.1
28.1
28.1
New
York
414 501 691 825 964 1059 50.7 45.5 50.0 49.5 49.4 47.4
North Carolina
181
236
272
297
324
349
22.2
21.5
19.7
17.8
16.6
15.6
North Dakota
282
378
477
573
670
767
34.5
34.4
34.5
34.4
34.4
34.3
Ohio 245
336
410
507
593
660
30.0
30.5
29.6
30.4
30.4
29.6
Oklahoma 180
225
292
361
422
483
22.0
20.5
21.1
21.7
21.6
21.6
Oregon 317
404
471
578
675
773
38.8
36.7
34.0
34.7
34.6
34.6
Pennsylvania 215
330
421
514
607
687
26.3
30.0
30.4
30.8
31.1
30.8
Rhode Island
327
449
554
634
714
794
40.0
40.8
40.0
38.0
36.6
35.6
South Carolina
143
192
240
289
338
387
17.5
17.5
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
South Dakota
371
454
508
561
614
668
45.4
41.3
36.7
33.7
31.5
29.9
Tennessee
95 142 185 226 264 305
11.6 12.9 13.4 13.6 13.5 13.7
Texas
93 193 223 268 298 342
11.4 17.5 16.1 16.1 15.3 15.3
Utah 274
380
474
555
632
696
33.6
34.5
34.3
33.3
32.4
31.2
Vermont 459
560
665
751
842
904
56.2
50.9
48.1
45.1
43.2
40.5
Virginia 242
323
389
451
537
587
29.6
29.4
28.1
27.1
27.5
26.3
Washington 349
440
546
642
740
841
42.7
40.0
39.5
38.5
37.9
37.7
West Virginia
262
301
340
384
420
460
32.1
27.4
24.6
23.0
21.5
20.6
ȬŗŘȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Maximum Benefits By Family Size ($)
Maximum Benefits as a Percent of the
2006 HHS Poverty Guildelines (%)
Wisconsin
0 673 673 673 673 673 0.0 61.2 48.7 40.4 34.5 30.1
Wyoming 195
320
340
340
360
360
23.9
29.1
24.6
20.4
18.5
16.1
Median
223 320 396 469 548 610 27.3 29.1 28.6 28.1 28.1 27.3
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). TANF cash welfare benefits are from the Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Database. For states that
have varied benefits by geographic area, the benefits shown on the table represent the maximum paid in the state except for in New York (New York City is shown) and
Michigan (Wayne County, which includes Detroit is shown). Poverty guidelines are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Ȭŗřȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
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 5 compares the July 2005 benefit for a family of three (single-parent
family) with the benefits paid in July of 1981, 1988, and 1996. It also shows the maximum benefits as a
percent of poverty-level income. The poverty guidelines are adjusted each year for inflation. The table
shows a decline in the value of cash welfare over time. In 1981, the maximum benefit for a family of
three in the median state represented about half of poverty-level income. In 2006, the maximum benefit in
the median state of $396 represented 29% of poverty-level income.
Table 5. Maximum Benefits for a Family of Three by State:
In July of Selected Years and as a Percent of the Poverty Guidelines
Maximum Benefits for a
Maximum Benefits as a % of
Family of Three ($)
the Poverty Guidelines for a
Family of Three (%)
State
1981 1988 1996 2006 1981 1988 1996 2006
Alabama 118
118
164
215
20.0
14.6
15.2
15.5
Alaska 571
779
923
923
77.4
77.2
68.3
53.4
Arizona 202
293
347
347
34.3
36.3
32.1
25.1
Arkansas 161
204
204
204
27.3
25.3
18.9
14.7
California 506
663
596
723
85.9
82.1
55.1
52.3
Colorado 379
356
356
356
64.3
44.1
32.9
25.7
Connecticut 498 623 636 636 84.5 77.2 58.8 46.0
Delaware 266
319
338
338
45.1
39.5
31.2
24.4
District of
286 379 415 407 48.5 46.9 38.4 29.4
Columbia
Florida 195
275
303
303
33.1
34.1
28.0
21.9
Georgia 183
270
280
280
31.1
33.4
25.9
20.2
Hawaii 468
515
712
570
69.0
55.4
57.2
35.8
Idaho 305
304
317
309
51.8
37.6
29.3
22.3
Illinois 302
342
377
396
51.3
42.4
34.9
28.6
Indiana 255
288
288
288
43.3
35.7
26.6
20.8
Iowa 360
394
426
426
61.1
48.8
39.4
30.8
Kansas 353
427
429
429
59.9
52.9
39.7
31.0
Kentucky 188
218
262
262
31.9
27.0
24.2
18.9
Louisiana 173
190
190
240
29.4
23.5
17.6
17.3
Maine 301
416
418
485
51.1
51.5
38.6
35.1
Maryland 270
377
373
490
45.8
46.7
34.5
35.4
Massachusetts 379 539 565 618 64.3 66.7 52.2 44.7
ȬŗŚȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Maximum Benefits for a
Maximum Benefits as a % of
Family of Three ($)
the Poverty Guidelines for a
Family of Three (%)
Michigan 397
436
459
459
67.4
54.0
42.4
33.2
Minnesota 446
532
532
532
75.7
65.9
49.2
38.5
Mississippi 96
120
120
170
16.3
14.9
11.1
12.3
Missouri 248
282
292
292
42.1
34.9
27.0
21.1
Montana 259
359
438
375
44.0
44.5
40.5
27.1
Nebraska 350
364
364
364
59.4
45.1
33.7
26.3
Nevada 241
330
348
348
40.9
40.9
32.2
25.2
New
326 496 550 625 55.3 61.4 50.8 45.2
Hampshire
New Jersey
360 424
424
424
61.1
52.5
39.2
30.7
New Mexico
220 264
389
389
37.3
32.7
36.0
28.1
New York
429 539
577
691
72.8
66.7
53.3
50.0
North
192 266 272 272 32.6 32.9 25.1 19.7
Carolina
North Dakota 334 371
431
477
56.7
45.9
39.8
34.5
Ohio 263
309
341
410
44.6
38.3
31.5
29.6
Oklahoma 282
310
307
292
47.9
38.4
28.4
21.1
Oregon 321
412
460
471
54.5
51.0
42.5
34.0
Pennsylvania 332 402 421 421 56.4 49.8 38.9 30.4
Rhode Island
367 517
554
554
62.3
64.0
51.2
40.0
South Carolina 129 201
200
240
21.9
24.9
18.5
17.3
South
Dakota 321 366 430 508 54.5 45.3 39.8 36.7
Tennessee 122
173
185
185
20.7
21.4
17.1
13.4
Texas 118
184
188
223
20.0
22.8
17.4
16.1
Utah 348
376
426
474
59.1
46.6
39.4
34.3
Vermont 518
629
636
665
87.9
77.9
58.8
48.1
Virginia 310
354
354
389
52.6
43.8
32.7
28.1
Washington 415
492 546 546 70.4 60.9 50.5 39.5
West Virginia
206 249
253
340
35.0
30.8
23.4
24.6
Wisconsin 444
517
517
673
75.4
64.0
47.8
48.7
Wyoming 315
360
360
340
53.5
44.6
33.3
24.6
Median 305
360
377
396
51.8 44.6 34.9 28.6
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. July 2006 benefit data are from
the Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Database. July 1981, 1988, and 1996 data are from CRS
surveys of the states. Poverty-level income is on the basis of the HHS poverty thresholds for each
year.
Ȭŗśȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
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.4
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. Through FY2006, states were given credit for caseload declines that occurred since
FY1995.
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.
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 FY2005 to
FY2006, the national average decline in the overall cash welfare caseload was about 6% If the average
state is given a caseload reduction credit equal to this decline, the average state will see its effective
participation standards reduced by six percentage points—from 50% to 44%.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱǵȱ
In FY2006, the national average work participation rate for all families achieved by states was 32.5%.
The participation rate within TANF achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was
45.9%. 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 FY2006, most states were in compliance with TANF work participation standards, but Indiana and
Guam failed to meet the standard for all families and Arkansas, the District of Columbia and Guam failed
to meet the standards for two-parent families. See Table B-6 in Appendix B for FY2006 participation
rates for all states. FY2006 was the last fiscal year before the new work participation standard rules
placed into law by the DRA became effective (see above).
4 Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.
ȬŗŜȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ¢ȱȱ
Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2006
Public Law
Time Period
Notes
P.L. 107-229
Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002
Extension as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 107-294
Jan. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2003
Extension as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 108-7
Apr. 1, 2003-June 30, 2003
Extension as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
P.L. 108-40
July 1, 2003-Sept. 30, 2003
Free-standing bill that amended the Social Security Act to extend TANF
and related programs.
P.L. 108-89
Oct. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2004
Multipurpose bill that extended programs through the first half of FY2004.
P.L. 108-210
Apr. 1, 2004-June 30, 2004
Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the program through
June 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262
July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004
Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the program through
Sept. 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308
Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005 Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs
through Mar. 31, 2005.
P.L. 109-4
Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005
Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs
through June 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-19
July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005
Free-standing bill that extended funding authority for the programs
through Sept. 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-68
Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 2005
Bill to provide extra funding to help states 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, 2006
Free-standing bill that extended funding 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).
Table A-2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2006
Dollars
% of Total Expenditures
Benefit or Service Category
(in billions)
and Transfers
Basic (cash) assistance
9.9
34.8
Administrative expenditures
2.4
8.5
Work program expenditures
2.4
8.3
Child care expenditures
3.5
12.5
Transfers to CCDF
1.9
6.6
Other work supports
1.7
6.0
Family formation expenditures
0.9
3.3
Other expenditures
4.7
16.6
Transfers to SSBG
1.0
3.4
Ȭŗŝȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Dollars
% of Total Expenditures
Benefit or Service Category
(in billions)
and Transfers
Total expenditures
25.6
90.0
Total transfers
2.9
10.0
Total 28.4
100.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Table A-3. Cash Welfare Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2006
1988
1994
2006
Total number of families ($)
3,747,950
5,046,263
1,957,402
Family with an adult/all adult recipients unemployed
3,136,566
3,798,997
825,490
Family with an adult/an adult recipient employed
243,573
378,621
313,457
Child-only case/SSI Parent
59,988
171,391
178,094
Child-only case/caretaker relative
188,598
328,290
260,233
Child-only case/qualified noncitizen parent
47,565 184,397
147,499
or parent of unknown alienage
Child-only case/other ineligible parent
51,763
146,226
112,927
Child-only case/unknown
19,897
38,341
119,702
Total number of families (%)
100.0
100.0
100.0
Family with an adult/all adult recipients unemployed
83.7
75.3
42.2
Family with an adult/an adult recipient employed
6.5
7.5
16.0
Child-only case/SSI Parent
1.6
3.4
9.1
Child-only case/caretaker relative
5.0
6.5
13.3
Child-only case/qualified noncitizen parent
1.3 3.7
7.5
or parent of unknown alienage
Child-only case/other ineligible parent
1.4
2.9
5.8
Child-only case/unknown
0.5
0.8
6.1
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the 1988 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; the
1994 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; and the 2006 TANF National Data File.
Note: For FY2001 and FY2006, the cash welfare caseload includes those whose benefits were funded from TANF dollars
as well as those whose benefits were funded with MOE dollars under SSPs. Family with an adult, unemployed includes
families reported as “child-only” who are under a sanction.
ȬŗŞȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Table A-4. Selected Characteristics of Families Receiving AFDC
or TANF/MOE Cash Welfare, Selected Years 1988-2006
1988 1994 2006
Average monthly number of families
3,748
5,046
1,957
Average number of family members
2.8
2.8
2.9
Median number of family members
3
3
3
Number of Adult Recipients (thousands)
One
Adults
3,039 3,757
975
Two or More Adults
340
420
109
No
Adults
368
869
873
Number of Adult Recipients (% of total families)
One
Adults
81.1
74.5
49.8
Two or More Adults
9.1
8.3
5.6
No
Adults
9.8
17.2
44.6
Number of Child Recipients (% of total families)
One
42.5
42.6
49.0
Two
30.2
30.0
27.4
Three
15.8
15.6
13.4
Four or more
9.9
9.6
8.0
Age of Youngest Child (% of total families)
Infant and Age 1
24.6
22.3
27.4
Infant
NA
11.2
13.7
Age
1
NA
16.9
12.0
Age 2 to Age 5
33.5
34.6
28.6
Age 6 to Age 12
28.0
26.3
28.6
Age 13 and older
11.5
10.9
17.1
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the 1988 AFDC Quality Control
Public Use Data File; the 1994 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; the 2001 TANF
National Data File; and the 2006 TANF National Data File.
Note: For FY2001 and FY2006, the cash welfare caseload includes those whose benefits were
funded from TANF dollars as well as those whose benefits were funded with MOE dollars under
SSPs
Ȭŗşȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱȱ
Table B-1. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
($ in millions)
Child
Basic
Care
Other
(Cash) Admini- Work Expen- Transfers Work Family
Transfers
State
Assistance strative Program ditures to CCDF Supports Formation Other to SSBG Total
Alabama 34.6
14.2
15.6
6.2
8.6
3.7
2.4
30.6
10.4
126.4
Alaska 36.4
6.7
10.4
12.9
12.4
0.9
0.6
1.9
4.1
86.3
Arizona 137.1
34.3
14.7
33.2
0.0
7.3
0.0
82.7
22.6
331.9
Arkansas 15.3
10.6
14.7
20.5
7.5
4.6
2.8
6.0
-1.7
80.2
California 3,479.7 608.8
515.7
882.1
89.8
156.7 14.5
622.8
181.4
6,551.6
Colorado 63.0
18.5
0.9
0.9
12.1
8.8
0.1
117.3
14.6
236.2
Connecticut 124.1 35.2
34.9
23.0 0.0 5.1 79.1
167.8 26.4
495.6
Delaware 18.3
6.1
1.3
34.6
0.0
12.9
0.6
2.7
2.8
79.4
District of
62.1 18.1
20.7
62.7 18.5 0.0 13.7
16.1 4.0
215.9
Columbia
Florida 169.5
69.4
83.6
251.4
122.5
7.6
6.9
220.1
62.3
993.2
Georgia 95.7
22.3
75.6
22.2
-29.7
14.1
35.9
315.8
20.1
572.1
Hawaii 84.7
17.7
37.9
14.7
5.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
9.8
171.2
Idaho 7.2
2.4
7.7
1.2
8.7
0.3
2.4
17.6
1.4
49.1
Illinois 123.5
25.1
71.4
406.1
0.0
19.9
1.2
334.5
33.4
1,015.1
Indiana 108.7
34.6
8.6
15.2
11.0
41.9
1.6
105.4
2.0
329.0
Iowa 73.9
12.3
17.9
5.7
21.8
5.7
15.3
34.8
13.0
200.5
Kansas 62.8
8.7
3.4
16.3
21.7
36.7
0.0
24.1
7.2
180.9
Kentucky 100.6
17.2
23.9
21.0
54.4
7.3
0.0
20.0
0.0
244.4
Louisiana 44.8
24.5
9.7
0.0
37.9
4.0
57.8
42.6
16.4
237.7
Maine 65.2
7.2
2.2
13.9
15.1
15.9
0.0
3.7
3.3
126.5
Maryland 106.3
39.4
28.8
31.7
10.3
109.4
33.0
8.4
22.8
390.1
Massachusetts 320.4 35.1 22.0
193.9 91.9 77.9 29.8
115.2 45.9
932.0
Michigan 422.3
109.5
98.2
181.9
134.3
0.7
105.3
268.7
68.0
1,388.9
Minnesota 129.1 46.0
69.5
33.8
74.3
77.7 0.0
46.7
4.8
481.8
Mississippi 22.3 4.6
18.8
-1.4
19.2
14.7
5.7
9.3
9.0
102.2
Missouri 122.2
14.3
28.0
59.5
23.0
0.0
11.6
87.9
21.7
368.2
Montana 16.5
5.5
11.4
1.6
5.1
0.0
0.4
7.4
2.0
49.8
Nebraska 63.3
6.6
15.9
6.5
9.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
101.4
Nevada 33.0
13.9
0.9
2.8
0.0
6.6
0.0
9.7
0.8
67.8
New
34.9 8.5
7.8
4.6 4.2 0.9 1.3
12.2
1.1
75.7
Hampshire
ȬŘŖȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Child
Basic
Care
Other
(Cash) Admini- Work Expen- Transfers Work Family
Transfers
State
Assistance strative Program ditures to CCDF Supports Formation Other to SSBG Total
New Jersey
77.7
93.0
147.3
15.3
54.9
31.8
208.4 12.0
15.6 656.1
New Mexico
73.6
4.2
10.6
2.9
33.8
1.1
0.0 16.3
0.0 142.4
New York
1,623.8
451.5
209.4 102.0
548.6
828.3
177.9 848.1
123.5 4,913.0
North
94.4 12.0
46.8
105.1 72.2 4.4 -0.2
-12.2 4.5
327.0
Carolina
North
10.5 3.7
2.4
0.7 0.0 1.6 2.3
10.6
0.0
31.7
Dakota
Ohio 330.6
106.4
60.3
301.7
0.0
21.6
67.5
232.0
72.8
1,192.9
Oklahoma 27.7
22.7
0.0
42.8
29.5
20.5
5.3
32.1
14.8
195.3
Oregon 88.6
34.1
21.3
11.5
0.0
9.2
0.0
86.6
0.0
251.4
Pennsylvania 392.9 91.9
162.0
169.3 92.7 37.8 37.1
102.8 15.1
1,101.6
Rhode Island
65.0
14.1
6.0
31.5
20.0
0.3
0.0 27.2
4.3 168.3
South
38.5 8.1
8.1
4.1 0.0 1.9 2.7
81.9
10.0
155.3
Carolina
South Dakota
12.2
2.4
4.1
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
9.4
2.1
31.0
Tennessee 103.7 32.9
36.8
38.1
53.6 9.3 0.0
45.6
10.3
330.3
Texas 138.9
94.3
73.0
26.8
0.0
1.0
3.8
393.2
31.2
762.3
Utah 36.9
14.2
35.0
7.0
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.8
5.3
101.1
Vermont 34.6
6.3
0.7
6.4
9.2
15.3
0.0
0.8
4.7
78.0
Virginia 135.7
42.1
40.8
39.0
3.0
6.4
1.0
26.0
14.6
308.5
Washington 284.4 46.0
186.7
74.0
105.1 3.3 0.0
38.8 9.7
748.2
West Virginia
37.3
24.9
1.4
20.9
0.0
16.7
-0.1 14.0
10.9 126.0
Wisconsin 110.9 27.8
38.8
180.3
62.9
58.6
12.1
11.8
14.7
517.9
Wyoming 10.5
0.9
0.5
3.3
3.7
1.8
0.0
6.1
0.0
26.7
Totals
9,906.0 2,410.8 2,364.3 3,542.0 1,877.9 1,714.7
940.1 4,715.8 974.0 28,445.7
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
ȬŘŗȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Table B-2. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category,
as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding
Basic (Cash) Adminis-
Work Child Care
Transfers Other Work
Family
Transfers
State
Assistance
trative Program Expenditures
to CCDF
Supports Formation
Other to SSBG
Total
Alabama
27.4
11.3
12.3 4.9 6.8 2.9 1.9 24.2 8.3
100.0
Alaska
42.2 7.8
12.1 14.9 14.3 1.1 0.7 2.2 4.8
100.0
Arizona
41.3
10.3 4.4 10.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 24.9 6.8
100.0
Arkansas 19.1
13.3
18.3
25.5
9.4
5.7
3.5
7.4
-2.1
100.0
California
53.1 9.3 7.9 13.5 1.4 2.4 0.2 9.5 2.8
100.0
Colorado
26.7 7.8 0.4 0.4 5.1 3.7 0.0 49.7 6.2
100.0
Connecticut 25.1
7.1
7.0
4.6
0.0
1.0
16.0
33.9
5.3
100.0
Delaware
23.1 7.7 1.7 43.6 0.0 16.3 0.8 3.4 3.5
100.0
District of
28.8 8.4 9.6 29.0 8.6 0.0 6.3 7.4 1.9
100.0
Columbia
Florida
17.1 7.0 8.4 25.3 12.3 0.8 0.7 22.2 6.3
100.0
Georgia
16.7 3.9
13.2 3.9 -5.2 2.5 6.3 55.2 3.5
100.0
Hawaii
49.4
10.3
22.2 8.6 2.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.7
100.0
Idaho
14.7 5.0
15.8 2.4 17.8 0.6 4.8 35.9 2.9
100.0
Illinois
12.2 2.5 7.0 40.0 0.0 2.0 0.1 32.9 3.3
100.0
Indiana
33.0
10.5 2.6 4.6 3.3 12.7 0.5 32.0 0.6
100.0
Iowa
36.9 6.1 8.9 2.9 10.9 2.9 7.6 17.4 6.5
100.0
Kansas
34.7 4.8 1.9 9.0 12.0 20.3 0.0 13.3 4.0
100.0
Kentucky
41.1 7.1 9.8 8.6 22.3 3.0 0.0 8.2 0.0
100.0
Louisiana 18.8
10.3
4.1
0.0
15.9
1.7
24.3
17.9
6.9
100.0
Maine
51.6 5.7 1.8 11.0 11.9 12.6 0.0 2.9 2.6
100.0
Maryland
27.3
10.1 7.4 8.1 2.6 28.1 8.5 2.2 5.8
100.0
Massachusetts
34.4 3.8 2.4 20.8 9.9 8.4 3.2 12.4 4.9
100.0
Michigan
30.4 7.9 7.1 13.1 9.7 0.0 7.6 19.3 4.9
100.0
ȬŘŘȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Basic (Cash) Adminis-
Work Child Care
Transfers Other Work
Family
Transfers
State
Assistance
trative Program Expenditures
to CCDF
Supports Formation Other
to SSBG
Total
Minnesota
26.8 9.5
14.4 7.0 15.4 16.1 0.0 9.7 1.0
100.0
Mississippi
21.9
4.5
18.4 -1.4 18.8 14.4 5.6 9.1 8.8
100.0
Missouri
33.2 3.9 7.6 16.1 6.2 0.0 3.1 23.9 5.9
100.0
Montana
33.1
10.9
23.0 3.1 10.2 0.0 0.7 14.9 4.0
100.0
Nebraska
62.4 6.5
15.7 6.4 8.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
100.0
Nevada
48.7
20.6 1.4 4.2 0.0 9.7 0.0 14.3 1.2
100.0
New
Hampshire 46.2
11.3
10.4 6.1 5.5 1.2 1.7 16.1 1.5
100.0
New Jersey
11.8
14.2
22.4
2.3
8.4
4.8
31.8
1.8
2.4
100.0
New
Mexico
51.7 2.9 7.5 2.0 23.7 0.8 0.0 11.4 0.0
100.0
New
York
33.0 9.2 4.3 2.1 11.2 16.9 3.6 17.3 2.5
100.0
North Carolina
28.9
3.7
14.3
32.1
22.1
1.3
-0.1
-3.7
1.4
100.0
North
Dakota
33.1
11.7 7.6 2.2 0.0 5.0 7.2 33.3 0.0
100.0
Ohio
27.7 8.9 5.1 25.3 0.0 1.8 5.7 19.5 6.1
100.0
Oklahoma
14.2
11.6 0.0 21.9 15.1 10.5 2.7 16.4 7.6
100.0
Oregon
35.3
13.6 8.5 4.6 0.0 3.7 0.0 34.5 0.0
100.0
Pennsylvania
35.7 8.3
14.7 15.4 8.4 3.4 3.4 9.3 1.4
100.0
Rhode
Island
38.6 8.4 3.5 18.7 11.9 0.2 0.0 16.1 2.6
100.0
South
Carolina 24.8 5.2 5.2 2.6 0.0 1.2 1.8 52.7 6.4
100.0
South
Dakota
39.2 7.7
13.1 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 30.2 6.9
100.0
Tennessee
31.4
10.0
11.1 11.5 16.2 2.8 0.0 13.8 3.1
100.0
Texas
18.2
12.4 9.6 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 51.6 4.1
100.0
Utah
36.5
14.1
34.6 6.9 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.8 5.2
100.0
Vermont
44.3 8.1 0.9 8.2 11.8 19.6 0.0 1.0 6.1
100.0
Virginia
44.0
13.6
13.2 12.6 1.0 2.1 0.3 8.4 4.7
100.0
Washington
38.0 6.2
25.0 9.9 14.0 0.4 0.0 5.2 1.3
100.0
West Virginia
29.6
19.8
1.1
16.6
0.0
13.2
-0.1
11.1
8.7
100.0
ȬŘřȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Basic (Cash) Adminis-
Work Child Care
Transfers Other Work
Family
Transfers
State
Assistance
trative Program Expenditures
to CCDF
Supports Formation Other
to SSBG
Total
Wisconsin
21.4 5.4 7.5 34.8 12.1 11.3 2.3 2.3 2.8
100.0
Wyoming
39.1 3.2 1.9 12.4 13.8 6.6 0.0 22.9 0.0
100.0
Totals
34.8 8.5 8.3 12.5 6.6 6.0 3.3 16.6 3.4
100.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ȬŘŚȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2006
(September 30, 2006, $ in millions)
Obligated by
Unobligated and
Total
State
Unexpended Funds
Unspent Funds
Unspent Funds
Alabama $3.5
$52.4
$56.0
Alaska 37.3
1.0
38.4
Arizona 16.3
0.0
16.3
Arkansas 4.0
99.9
104.0
California 408.9
0.0
408.9
Colorado 0.0
85.1
85.1
Connecticut 0.0
0.0
0.0
Delaware 1.0
2.1
3.2
District of Columbia
11.0
35.4
46.4
Florida 35.6
0.0
35.6
Georgia 39.3
124.0
163.3
Hawaii 37.4
108.5
145.9
Idaho 6.5
0.0
6.5
Illinois 0.0
0.0
0.0
Indiana 64.7
0.0
64.7
Iowa 5.2
19.2
24.4
Kansas 0.0
1.3
1.3
Kentucky 0.0
57.5
57.5
Louisiana 34.1
0.0
34.1
Maine 0.0
5.5
5.5
Maryland 13.5
110.2
123.8
Massachusetts 7.1
0.0
7.1
Michigan 0.0
0.0
0.0
Minnesota 69.6
0.0
69.6
Mississippi 5.0
30.4
35.4
Missouri 15.7
0.0
15.7
Montana 0.6
35.7
36.3
Nebraska 0.8
5.2
5.9
Nevada 0.0
25.6
25.6
New Hampshire
0.0
43.4
43.4
New Jersey
9.6
136.8
146.4
New Mexico
0.0
29.2
29.2
New York
200.6
157.4
358.0
North Carolina
239.0
3.5
242.5
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Obligated by
Unobligated and
Total
State
Unexpended Funds
Unspent Funds
Unspent Funds
North Dakota
0.0
19.3
19.3
Ohio 403.0
431.1
834.2
Oklahoma 0.0
100.3
100.3
Oregon 0.0
43.8
43.8
Pennsylvania 23.6
2.4
26.0
Rhode Island
0.0
5.5
5.5
South Carolina
0.0
49.2
49.2
South Dakota
0.0
19.4
19.4
Tennessee 0.0
160.2
160.2
Texas 197.5
0.0
197.5
Utah 0.0
52.7
52.7
Vermont 0.0
0.0
0.0
Virginia 2.9
1.9
4.8
Washington 0.0
18.5
18.5
West Virginia
0.0
31.2
31.2
Wisconsin 0.0
0.0
0.0
Wyoming 2.5
45.9
48.5
Totals 1,896.1
2,150.8
4,046.9
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Table B-4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008
State Families
Recipients
Children Adult
Recipients
Alabama 17,121 39,404 30,678 8,726
Alaska 3,073 8,091 5,597 2,494
Arizona 34,910 74,356 56,539 17,817
Arkansas 8,217
18,600
13,819 4,781
California 491,562 1,208,868 961,377 247,491
Colorado 8,484 20,584 16,165 4,419
Connecticut
18,759 38,657 27,073 11,584
Delaware 4,096 8,492 6,849 1,643
District of Columbia
5,293
11,582
9,515
2,067
Florida 49,112 80,104 67,758 12,346
Georgia 21,345 37,461 35,241 2,220
Guam 3,072
10,783 NR NR
Hawaii 5,212 12,570 9,391 3,179
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
State Families
Recipients
Children Adult
Recipients
Idaho 1,479
2,173
2,060
113
Illinois 24,276
55,837
47,436
8,401
Indiana 39,779 113,627 86,227 27,400
Iowa
18,289 45,710 31,660 14,050
Kansas 11,946
30,004
20,800 9,204
Kentucky 28,597 57,370 45,457 11,913
Louisiana 9,969
21,560 19,105 2,455
Maine 11,503 33,353 22,000 11,353
Maryland 19,672 45,377 34,052 11,325
Massachusetts
45,317 90,043 61,647 28,396
Michigan 64,123
166,179
122,706 43,473
Minnesota 21,510 47,411 36,441 10,970
Mississippi 11,130 22,768 17,525 5,243
Missouri 36,137 86,897 60,244 26,653
Montana 2,961 7,357 5,352 2,005
Nebraska 6,665 15,879 12,528 3,351
Nevada 7,171
18,190
13,751
4,439
New
Hampshire
4,280 8,560 6,434 2,126
New
Jersey 33,258 79,047 55,975 23,072
New Mexico
13,425
34,790
26,761
8,029
New
York 152,587 377,059 274,304 102,755
North Carolina
23,722
44,414
37,234
7,180
North
Dakota
1,992 4,939 3,610 1,329
Ohio 80,411
173,257
131,838
41,419
Oklahoma 7,790 16,448 13,929 2,519
Oregon 20,144 46,898 34,423 12,475
Pennsylvania
48,437 116,567 88,000 28,567
Puerto
Rico 11,797 31,678 21,629 10,049
Rhode Island
8,012
18,758
13,299
5,459
South Carolina
14,982
33,735
26,379
7,356
South Dakota
2,799
5,682
4,866
816
Tennessee 52,492 133,291 97,735 35,556
Texas 51,211 112,738 97,508 15,230
Utah
4,926 12,139 8,764 3,375
Vermont 3,761 8,803 5,995 2,808
Virgin
Islands
409 1,179 851 328
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
State Families
Recipients
Children Adult
Recipients
Virginia 30,895 68,453 49,361 19,092
Washington
53,173 121,771 84,753 37,018
West Virginia
8,694
19,359
14,009
5,350
Wisconsin 17,586 37,787 31,790 5,997
Wyoming 245 447 382 65
Totals 1,677,808
3,937,086
3,008,822 917,481
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Note: “NR” denotes not reported.
Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance,
1994, 2001, 2007, and 2008
Percentage
Change
June
June
June
June June 1994- June 2007-
State
1994
2001
2007
2008 June 2008 June 2008
Alabama
49,482 18,214 17,554 17,121 -65.4 -2.5
Alaska
12,977 5,996 3,284 3,073 -76.3 -6.4
Arizona
71,530 33,446 35,232 34,910
-51. -0.9
Arkansas 25,892
12,093
8,447
8,217
-68.3
-2.7
California
919,535 516,478 470,099 491,562
-46.5
4.6
Colorado
41,378 10,653 10,230 8,484 -79.5 -17.1
Connecticut
59,701 27,495 20,632 18,759 -68.6 -9.1
Delaware
11,239 5,342 3,916 4,096 -63.6 4.6
District of Columbia
27,443
16,144
5,975
5,293
-80.7
-11.4
Florida
239,232 57,733 46,710 49,112 -79.5 5.1
Georgia
139,566 49,339 24,005 21,345 -84.7 -11.1
Guam
1,973 2,639 3,072 3,072 55.7 0.0
Hawaii 20,844
18,209
6,398
5,212
-75.0
-18.5
Idaho
8,739 1,297 1,560 1,479 -83.1 -5.2
Illinois
242,740 59,723 28,599 24,276 -90.0 -15.1
Indiana
72,881 44,207 40,403 39,779 -45.4 -1.5
Iowa
39,813 21,537 19,752 18,289 -54.1 -7.4
Kansas
30,020 13,105 14,096 11,946 -60.2 -15.3
Kentucky
79,225 35,398 29,173 28,597 -63.9 -2.0
Louisiana
85,741 24,104 10,787 9,969 -88.4 -7.6
Maine
22,641 11,238 11,073 11,503 -49.2 3.9
Maryland
79,706 29,126 19,341 19,672 -75.3 1.7
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Percentage
Change
June
June
June
June June 1994- June 2007-
State
1994
2001
2007
2008 June 2008 June 2008
Massachusetts
110,108 41,610 44,619 45,317 -58.8 1.6
Michigan
222,472 71,415 73,283 64,123 -71.2 -12.5
Minnesota
63,043 39,236 26,646 21,510 -65.9 -19.3
Mississippi
55,183 15,903 11,366 11,130 -79.8 -2.1
Missouri
92,265 49,163 38,764 36,137 -60.8 -6.8
Montana
12,004 5,094 3,230 2,961 -75.3 -8.3
Nebraska 15,649
10,343
6,819
6,665
-57.4
-2.3
Nevada
14,207 7,692 7,043 7,171 -49.5 1.8
New
Hampshire
11,591 5,716 4,994 4,280 -63.1 -14.3
New
Jersey
122,536 46,057 34,177 33,258 -72.9 -2.7
New
Mexico
33,732 18,233 13,716 13,425 -60.2 -2.1
New
York
460,590 221,757 155,495 152,587
-66.9 -1.9
North
Carolina
131,065 41,719 24,857 23,722 -81.9 -4.6
North
Dakota
5,725 3,031 2,068 1,992 -65.2 -3.7
Ohio
247,886 82,195 77,005 80,411 -67.6 4.4
Oklahoma 46,864
13,881
8,921
7,790
-83.4
-12.7
Oregon
41,982 16,438 18,741 20,144 -52.0 7.5
Pennsylvania
211,431 81,543 61,948 48,437 -77.1 -21.8
Puerto
Rico
58,484 25,582 13,122 11,797 -79.8 -10.1
Rhode Island
22,737
16,070
8,501
8,012
-64.8
-5.8
South
Carolina
51,590 18,807 14,479 14,982 -71.0 3.5
South
Dakota
6,868 2,670 2,871 2,799 -59.2 -2.5
Tennessee
109,339 60,600 60,777 52,492 -52.0 -13.6
Texas 282,902
127,539
59,794
51,211
-81.9
-14.4
Utah
17,536 7,387 5,123 4,926 -71.9 -3.8
Vermont
10,006 5,500 4,500 3,761 -62.4 -16.4
Virgin
Islands
1,106 679 418 409 -63.0 -2.2
Virginia
75,020 29,547 31,578 30,895 -58.8 -2.2
Washington
104,243 57,618 49,519 53,173 -49.0 7.4
West Virginia
40,379
14,953
9,335
8,694
-78.5
-6.9
Wisconsin
76,458 18,598 17,266 17,586 -77.0 1.9
Wyoming
5,751 493 252 245 -95.7 -2.8
Totals
5,043,050 2,170,585 1,721,565 1,677,808
-66.7
-2.5
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
Table B-6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2006, by State
All
Two-Parent
State
Families (%)
Families (%)
United States
32.5
45.9
Alabama 41.6
a
Alaska 45.6
54.2
Arizona 29.6
67.5
Arkansas 27.9
22.3
California 22.2
a
Colorado 30.0
35.2
Connecticut 30.8 a
Delaware 25.3
a
Dist. Of Columbia
17.1
13.1
Florida 41.0
a
Georgia 64.9
a
Guam 0.0
0.0
Hawaii 37.3
a
Idaho 44.2
39.2
Illinois 53.0
a
Indiana 26.7
a
Iowa 39.0
a
Kansas 77.2
82.3
Kentucky 44.6
51.3
Louisiana 38.4
42.5
Maine 26.6
a
Maryland 44.5
a
Massachusetts 13.6 a
Michigan 21.6
26.2
Minnesota 30.3
a
Mississippi 35.5
a
Missouri 18.7
a
Montana 79.2
83.3
Nebraska 32.0
a
Nevada 47.8
a
New Hampshire
24.1
a
New Jersey
29.2
a
New Mexico
42.3
54.5
New York
37.8
48.9
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǻǼȱȱ DZȱȱ
ȱ
All
Two-Parent
State
Families (%)
Families (%)
North Carolina
32.4
54.0
North Dakota
51.9
a
Ohio 54.9
55.5
Oklahoma 32.9
a
Oregon 15.2
22.6
Pennsylvania 26.1
32.5
Puerto Rico
13.1
a
Rhode Island
24.9
94.3
South Carolina
49.5
64.7
South Dakota
57.9
a
Tennessee 57.2
a
Texas 42.0
a
Utah 42.5
a
Vermont 22.2
33.9
Virgin Islands
14.5
a
Virginia 53.9
a
Washington 36.1
43.1
West Virginia
26.2
a
Wisconsin 36.2
17.1
Wyoming 77.2
75.9
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of
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.
ȱȱ ȱ
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ