The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
September 20, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41078
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Summary
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) created a $5 billion
Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant to help states, Indian tribes, and the territories pay for additional economic
aid to families during the current economic downturn. It was part of a package of tax and benefit
program provisions aimed at stemming the decline in family incomes and purchasing power
caused by increased unemployment. The ECF is a temporary fund for two years, FY2009 and
FY2010, and thus is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2010. On August 31, 2010, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the full $5 billion in the fund
will be used by the states, tribes, and territories by the end of FY2010.
TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for low-income families, but it actually
provides funds for a wide range of benefits and services to ameliorate the effects of, or address
the root causes of, economic disadvantage among families with children. While TANF funds a
wide range of both economic aid and human services to families with children, the ECF is limited
to funding three categories of expenditures: basic assistance, a category that most closely
resembles traditional cash welfare; non-recurrent short-term (e.g., emergency) aid; and subsidized
employment. These categories typically are those that provide direct aid to families, rather than
fund services. States, Indian tribes, and the territories are reimbursed 80% of the costs of
increased expenditures in these categories. To qualify for ECF grants for increased basic
assistance expenditures, a state, tribe, or territory must aid more families on its assistance rolls
than it did in FY2007 or FY2008. Qualification of states, tribes, and territories for ECF grants
supporting short-term aid or subsidized employment is dependent only on increased expenditures
from FY2007 or FY2008. ARRA placed a limit on total ECF and other TANF contingency fund
payments to states, at a combined 50% of a state’s basic block grant over the two years, FY2009
and FY2010.
Through September 16, 2010, a total of 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands had their applications for ECF grants approved. Additionally, 31 tribes and tribal
organizations had approved ECF applications. Total awards from these approved applications
were $4.3 billion. Of the total, $1.4 billion was for basic assistance, $1.8 billion for short-term
aid, and $1.1 billion for subsidized employment. Eleven states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland,
Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Washington state) have received their maximum ECF grants.
Though the economy grew in the last half of 2009 and the first half of 2010, unemployment
remained high. Historically, the trends in cash welfare caseload have sometimes followed
economic conditions, but sometimes not. After the 1990-1991 recession, welfare caseloads
actually peaked in March 1994 before beginning their decline. President Obama’s FY2011 budget
proposed continuing emergency funds through FY2011. Thus far in 2010, the House has twice
passed bills that included extensions to the ECF in 2010; proposals that included ECF extensions
have also been before the Senate during the year but have not passed. Most recently, an ECF
extension was included in an “extenders” package, a Senate amendment to the House-passed H.R.
4849. The proposal would have provided $1.5 billion to the ECF in FY2011, and allowed states to
receive up to 30% of their basic block grant in ECF funds. The amendment was offered on
September 16, 2010, but no agreement was reached on its consideration in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
TANF ......................................................................................................................................... 1
The Emergency Contingency Fund.............................................................................................. 1
What Types of Benefits and Services Are Funded from the Emergency Fund? ....................... 2
Basic Assistance.............................................................................................................. 2
Non-recurrent Short-Term Aid......................................................................................... 2
Subsidized Employment.................................................................................................. 3
What Are the State Caps for Emergency Funds? .................................................................... 3
What Are the Rules for the State 20% “Match”?.................................................................... 3
Do States Receive Emergency Funds Prospectively or Retrospectively? ................................ 4
State, Tribe, and Territorial Use of TANF Emergency Funds........................................................ 4
Proposals to Extend the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund..................................................... 9

Figures
Figure 1. TANF Emergency Contingency Fund Grant Awards, by Category................................. 5

Tables
Table 1. TANF Emergency Fund Awards by Category and State .................................................. 5
Table 2. Maximum and Actual Regular and Emergency Contingency Fund Grants for
FY2009 and FY2010................................................................................................................ 7

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10

Congressional Research Service

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Introduction
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) created an
Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant. The fund helps states, Indian tribes, and territories pay for additional costs of
providing economic aid to families during the current economic downturn for FY2009 and
FY2010. Thus, under current law, the fund expires on September 30, 2010. President Obama’s
FY2011 budget proposes a new Emergency Fund; the budget proposal also proposes some
modifications to the emergency funds. This report describes the TANF ECF as well as proposals
to extend and modify TANF emergency funding.
TANF
The TANF block grant provides states, Indian tribes, and territories with federal funding for a
wide range of benefits and services to ameliorate the effects of, or address the root causes of,
economic disadvantage for families with children. The bulk of federal TANF funding is in a basic
block grant of $16.5 billion. Under the basic block grant, each state receives an amount that has
remained the same, without adjustment, since the 1996 welfare reform law. States—taken
together—are also required to contribute a minimum of $10.4 billion to TANF-funded or related
programs under a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. This amount, too, has not been
adjusted since the 1996 welfare reform law.
TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for very low-income families with
children. However, states may use TANF funds “in any manner reasonably calculated” to help
states achieve the broad statutory purpose of the block grant. In FY2009, only 28% of federal and
related state TANF funds were expended on basic assistance, the category of spending that most
closely corresponds to traditional cash welfare. The cash welfare rolls had declined to 1.7 million
families by July 2008, down from a historical peak of 5.1 million families in March 1994. TANF
also provided considerable funding for state subsidized child care programs, programs that
address child abuse and neglect, pregnancy prevention programs, youth programs, and early
childhood development (e.g., pre-Kindergarten) programs.
Absent additional TANF funds, the limited and fixed nature of the block grant means that states
bear the full cost of increased costs (e.g., increases in cash welfare). To share this risk during
periods of recession, the 1996 welfare reform law created a $2 billion Contingency Fund. This
fund, hereafter in this report called the “regular” contingency fund, provides capped matching
grants to states that meet criteria of economic need and increased state spending to help states
meet recession-related costs. TANF itself is funded through the end of FY2010. Thus,
congressional action is needed to continue the program after September 30, 2010.
The Emergency Contingency Fund
The overall cash assistance caseload began to rise in August 2008. From March 2008 to March
2010, the national caseload increased by 13%—with some states experiencing faster caseload
growth. The regular TANF contingency fund provided 19 states with additional funding in
FY2009 and early FY2010. However, some states (e.g., California and Florida) experienced
substantial increases in their TANF cash assistance caseloads, and met the criterion of economic
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

need required to draw regular contingency funds, but failed to draw them because of the increased
state spending requirement of the regular fund.
The ARRA included a number of provisions related to taxes and benefit payments, designed to
partially offset the declines in family income and purchasing power resulting from the increased
joblessness caused by the recession. As part of this package, the ARRA established within TANF
a $5 billion ECF for FY2009 and FY2010. The ECF provides states, tribes, and territories with
capped additional funding to help meet additional costs or create new programs to respond to the
current economic downturn. Subject to a cap on state grants from the ECF, the fund pays states,
tribes, and territories 80% of the increased costs of expenditures in the three categories of
expenditures discussed below.
The regular contingency fund was depleted in early FY2010. On August 30, 2010, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that existing ECF grants plus
pending applications would exhaust all $5 billion in available funding. Thus, absent congressional
action, there are no additional TANF funds to address the continuing effects of the recession.
What Types of Benefits and Services Are Funded from the
Emergency Fund?
While TANF funds a wide range of economic aid and human services to families, the ECF
reimburses only three categories of activities: basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term aid, and
subsidized employment. These categories typically are those that provide direct aid to families,
rather than fund services.
Basic Assistance
This category represents spending on what most people think of as cash welfare. Generally, it is a
monthly check (or deposit on an electronic benefit card) to help very low-income families meet
ongoing basic needs. In order to qualify for funding for increased basic assistance, a state must
experience both an increase in the number of families receiving assistance benefits as well as an
increase in expenditures for basic assistance. To determine eligibility for ECF grants on the basis
of increased cash assistance, the average number of families receiving cash assistance in a current
fiscal quarter in FY2009 or FY2010 is compared with the number of families receiving cash
assistance in the comparable quarter in the “base year.” The base year is defined as either FY2007
or FY2008, whichever had the lowest cash assistance caseload. If a state, tribe, or territory
experience an increased in the cash assistance caseload, it is reimbursed for 80% of the increased
costs (if any) of basic assistance from the comparable quarter in the base year to the current
quarter.
Non-recurrent Short-Term Aid
This category represents spending on aid that is to meet a specific family situation and aid is
limited to a four-month timeframe. States, tribes, and territories have broad latitude in defining
the types of “short-term aid” that they provide to families under the ECF. Moreover, short-term
aid can be provided to families both on and off the cash assistance rolls. If a family receives only
non-recurrent short-term aid, and not ongoing TANF assistance, that family is not subject to the
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

rules that apply to TANF cash welfare families (e.g., work participation, time limit, and child
support enforcement requirements).
Unlike basic assistance that requires more families to be assisted as well as increased
expenditures to qualify for ECF grants on that basis, the ECF may be provided for non-recurrent
short-term aid solely on the basis of increased expenditures. The expenditures on non-recurrent
short-term aid in a current quarter in FY2009 or FY2010 are compared with expenditures in the
comparable quarter in the base year. The base year for non-recurrent short-term aid is either
FY2007 or FY2008, whichever had the lowest expenditures for this category of expenditures. The
base year for non-recurrent short-term aid can be different from that used to determined ECF
eligibility for basic assistance. The ECF reimburses 80% of the increased expenditures on short-
term non-recurrent aid from the comparable quarter in the base year to the current quarter.
Subsidized Employment
This category represents work subsidies: payments to employers or third parties to help cover the
costs of employee wages, benefits, supervision, and training. The subsidized job can be in the
private or public sector. As with non-recurrent short-term aid, states may subsidize jobs for those
on the cash assistance rolls as well as for other persons. If a person’s only ongoing TANF benefit
is an employment subsidy, his or her family is not subject to the rules that apply to TANF families
receiving cash welfare.
To draw ECF grants for subsidized employment, a state only needs to show that it has increased
its expenditures for subsidized employment. The comparison used to determine increased costs
for subsidized employment is the same type of comparison used for short-term benefits, as
discussed above. Expenditures for subsidized employment for a current quarter in FY2009 or
FY2010 is compared to those in the comparable quarter in the base year. The base year for
subsidized employment is FY2007 or FY2008, whichever year had the lowest expenditures in the
category, and can differ from the base years used for basic assistance and short-term non-
recurrent aid. The ECF reimburses 80% of the increased expenditures on subsidized employment
from the comparable quarter in the base year to the current quarter.
What Are the State Caps for Emergency Funds?
Each state is limited on what they can draw combined from the ECF and the TANF regular
contingency fund. Over the two-year period, FY2009 and FY2010, a state can draw up to 50% of
its basic block grant from the two funds.
What Are the Rules for the State 20% “Match”?
The ECF does not pay for the full increase in expenditures for basic assistance, short-term aid, or
subsidized employment. It provides for an 80% reimbursement for these increased costs. This is
sometimes referred to as an 80% match rate, though this is somewhat misleading because states,
tribes, and territories need not come up with “new money” to cover the remaining 20%. They
may use funding reallocated from other activities funded from the basic TANF block grant or
MOE monies to cover these costs.
Additionally, states are permitted to count the value of in-kind, third party payments toward the
20%. This is particularly important for subsidized employment. According to guidance from the
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the state may count the value of employers’
supervisory time toward the 20%. The limit on supervisory time is 25% of an employee’s wage.
Do States Receive Emergency Funds Prospectively
or Retrospectively?
States may apply for the ECF either prospectively or retroactively. That is, they can apply for
ECF grants to help finance expected increases in basic assistance, short-term aid, or subsidized
employment expenditures in the upcoming quarter. (For example, a state may apply in June 2010
to help finance expected expenditures in the July-September 2010 quarter.) Additionally, they can
use the ECF to reimburse themselves for past increases in expenditures. Under current law and
rules, states have until September 1, 2010, to apply for ECF grants to reimburse increased
expenditures in any quarter during FY2009 and FY2010. States that are retrospectively
reimbursed for past increases in expenditures may use ECF grants on any allowable activity that
can be funded using TANF grants.
State, Tribe, and Territorial Use of TANF
Emergency Funds
As of September 16, 2010, states, tribes, and territories have been awarded $4.3 billion of the
total $5 billion appropriated. Figure 1 shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of
spending. The figure shows cumulative grant awards. It shows that $1.4 billion, 33% of the total
grant awards, was to help finance increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $1.8
billion, 42% of the total, was for non-recurrent short-term aid and $1.1 billion, 25% of the total,
was for subsidized employment.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Figure 1. TANF Emergency Contingency Fund Grant Awards, by Category
(cumulative grant awards through September 16, 2010; dollars in millions)
Subsidized
Employment,
$1,065
Basic
Assistance,
$1,431
Short-Term Aid,
$1,805

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Through September 16, 2010, 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands have been awarded ECF funds. Table 2 shows ECF grant awards by category of
expenditures. Most of these jurisdictions (47) were awarded funds for increases in their basic
assistance caseload, with 42 jurisdictions awarded funds for non-recurrent short-term aid and 38
jurisdictions receiving funds for subsidized employment.
Table 1. TANF Emergency Fund Awards by Category and State
Awards through September 16, 2010
Non-recurrent
Subsidized
State Basic
Assistance
Short-Term Benefits
Employment
Alabama
X X X
Alaska X


Arizona X
X

Arkansas
X X X
California
X X X
Colorado
X X X
Connecticut X X X
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Non-recurrent
Subsidized
State Basic
Assistance
Short-Term Benefits
Employment
Delaware
X X X
District
of
Columbia
X X X
Florida
X X X
Georgia
X
X
Hawai
X X X
Idaho X
X

Illinois
X X X
Indiana


Iowa
X X X
Kansas X
X

Kentucky X

X
Louisiana X
X

Maine X
X

Maryland
X X X
Massachusetts X X
Michigan
X X X
Minnesota
X X X
Mississippi
X X X
Missouri
X
X
Montana
X X X
Nebraska X
X

Nevada X


New Hampshire
X


New
Jersey X X X
New Mexico
X


New
York
X X X
North
Carolina X X X
North Dakota


X
Ohio X

X
Oklahoma
X X X
Oregon
X X X
Pennsylvania X X X
Puerto Rico
X


Rhode Island

X
X
South
Carolina X X X
South
Dakota X X X
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Non-recurrent
Subsidized
State Basic
Assistance
Short-Term Benefits
Employment
Tennessee
X X X
Texas
X X X
Utah
X X X
Vermont
X X X
Virgin Islands
X

X
Virginia
X X X
Washington X X X
West Virginia
X
X

Wisconsin
X X X
Wyoming


Number of jurisdictions
47
42
38
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S .Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
In addition, 21 tribes and tribal organizations have been awarded ECF grants as of September 10,
2010. These grants total $13.1 million.
Eleven states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington state) have already received their
maximum allotment of contingency funds, with some others close to having received their
maximums. As discussed above, states, tribes, and territories are limited to receiving only up to
50% of their basic TANF block grant in combined grants from the regular and emergency
contingency funds over the two years, FY2009 and FY2010.
Table 2 shows state awards from the regular TANF contingency fund and the ECF, comparing the
sum of these awards with their maximum grants. States are sorted in descending order, so that
states closest to exhausting their maximum allotments are shown at the top of the table.
Table 2. Maximum and Actual Regular and Emergency Contingency Fund Grants for
FY2009 and FY2010
Cumulative grant awards through September 16, 2010
Maximum
Total
Allotments
Contingency
for the
Amount
Amount
Funds as a
Regular
Received in
Approved in
Percent of
Contingency
FY2009 and
FY2009 and
Maximum
and
FY2010 for
FY2010 for
Allotment
Emergency
the Regular
Emergency
Total
for Both
Contingency Contingency Contingency
Contingency
Contingency
State
Funds
Fund
Fund
Funds
Funds
Colorado 68,028,345
30,027,866
38,000,480
68,028,346
100.0
Delaware 16,145,491
7,664,838
8,480,653
16,145,491
100.0
Maryland 114,549,016
46,743,891
67,805,125
114,549,016
100.0
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Maximum
Total
Allotments
Contingency
for the
Amount
Amount
Funds as a
Regular
Received in
Approved in
Percent of
Contingency
FY2009 and
FY2009 and
Maximum
and
FY2010 for
FY2010 for
Allotment
Emergency
the Regular
Emergency
Total
for Both
Contingency Contingency Contingency
Contingency
Contingency
State
Funds
Fund
Fund
Funds
Funds
Michigan 387,676,429
155,070,572
232,605,857
387,676,429
100.0
Nevada 21,953,759
6,586,128
15,367,631
21,953,759
100.0
New Jersey
202,017,412
0
202,017,412
202,017,412
100.0
New Mexico
55,289,050
26,247,678
29,041,372
55,289,050
100.0
New York
1,221,465,301
498,442,011
723,023,290
1,221,465,301
100.0
North Carolina
151,119,800
71,741,946
79,377,854
151,119,800
100.0
Tennessee 95,761,899
45,461,579
50,300,320
95,761,899
100.0
Washington 190,477,249
76,149,947
114,327,302
190,477,249
100.0
District Of Columbia
46,304,908
3,460,624
41,241,185
44,701,809
96.5
Massachusetts 229,685,558
109,039,904
111,124,032
220,163,936
95.9
Oregon 83,399,315
0
78,853,250
78,853,250
94.5
Illinois
292,528,480 0
252,850,891 252,850,891 86.4
South Carolina
49,983,912
23,729,141
16,106,990
39,836,131
79.7
Hawai 49,452,394
15,234,745
21,389,581
36,624,326
74.1
Wisconsin 157,249,677
62,899,871
50,505,274
113,405,145
72.1
Kansas 50,965,531
18,687,361
16,586,172
35,273,533
69.2
Minnesota 131,717,035
0
90,009,930
90,009,930
68.3
Ohio 363,984,130
0
244,695,341
244,695,341
67.2
Texas 243,128,376
0
161,205,970
161,205,970
66.3
South Dakota
10,639,826
0
6,892,751
6,892,751
64.8
Maine 39,060,445
0
24,895,762
24,895,762
63.7
Utah 37,804,738
17,947,254
6,130,330
24,077,584
63.7
Arkansas 28,366,429
13,466,554
3,635,775
17,102,329
60.3
Louisiana 81,985,993
0
48,213,373
48,213,373
58.8
Vermont 23,676,591
0
13,386,435
13,386,435
56.5
New Hampshire
19,260,631
0
10,539,850
10,539,850
54.7
Kentucky 90,643,835
0
49,125,072
49,125,072
54.2
Montana 19,019,558
0
10,161,211
10,161,211
53.4
Iowa 65,496,976
0
34,349,075
34,349,075
52.4
Arizona 100,116,349
47,525,377
4,225,426
51,750,803
51.7
Alabama 46,657,604
0
23,687,644
23,687,644
50.8
California 1,829,937,521
0
922,708,976
922,708,976
50.4
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Maximum
Total
Allotments
Contingency
for the
Amount
Amount
Funds as a
Regular
Received in
Approved in
Percent of
Contingency
FY2009 and
FY2009 and
Maximum
and
FY2010 for
FY2010 for
Allotment
Emergency
the Regular
Emergency
Total
for Both
Contingency Contingency Contingency
Contingency
Contingency
State
Funds
Fund
Fund
Funds
Funds
Virgin Islands
1,423,282

709,783
709,783
49.9
Florida 281,170,060
0
136,271,486
136,271,486
48.5
Mississippi 43,383,789
0
19,237,627
19,237,627
44.3
North Dakota
13,199,905
0
5,738,155
5,738,155
43.5
Georgia 165,370,870
0
65,991,373
65,991,373
39.9
Missouri 108,525,870
0
43,092,476
43,092,476
39.7
Virginia 79,142,586
0
26,080,718
26,080,718
33.0
Oklahoma 72,640,721
0
23,132,267
23,132,267
31.8
Connecticut 133,394,054
0
38,964,590
38,964,590
29.2
Pennsylvania 359,749,653
0
97,635,530
97,635,530
27.1
Nebraska 28,756,801
0
6,342,232
6,342,232
22.1
Rhode Island
47,510,794
0
8,129,248
8,129,248
17.1
Puerto Rico
35,781,251

5,476,400
5,476,400
15.3
West Virginia
55,088,155
0
5,889,536
5,889,536
10.7
Idaho 15,206,281
0
1,129,683
1,129,683
7.4
Alaska 23,210,407
0
1,280,895
1,280,895
5.5
Indiana 103,399,555
0
0
0
0.0
Wyoming 9,250,265

0
0
0.0
Guam 3,465,478
0
0
0
0.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

Proposals to Extend the TANF Emergency
Contingency Fund
The TANF ECF was enacted as a temporary measure to help finance extra economic support to
families to help them weather the recession. Under current law, the ECF expires on September 30,
2010. Though the economy grew in the last half of 2009 and the first half of 2010, unemployment
remained high. Unemployment is typically considered a “lagging” indicator and falls only after
an economic expansion has already been underway for some time. Historically, the trends in cash
welfare caseload have sometimes followed economic conditions, but sometimes not. After the
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

1990-1991 recession, welfare caseloads actually peaked in March 1994, before beginning their
decline.
Under current law, the ECF expires on September 30, 2010. President Obama’s FY2011 budget
proposal seeks to establish a new Emergency Fund for FY2011. It would be funded at $2.5 billion
for that year. (The budget proposal would also replenish the regular contingency fund.) The
Administration’s proposal would raise the reimbursement rate for subsidized employment to
100%, as well as allow ECF reimbursement for work-related and support services.
The House has voted twice in 2010 to extend TANF emergency funds through FY2011, though
such proposals have failed to clear the Senate. An emergency fund extension first passed the
House on March 24, 2010, as a provision of H.R. 4849. It also passed as a House amendment to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 on May 28, 2010.
Proposals that have included an ECF extension have been before the Senate several times in
2010, but none have passed thus far. The latest proposal was offered as part of an extenders
package that would be a substitute amendment to the House-passed versions of H.R. 4849. It was
offered on the Senate floor on September 16, 2010, but no agreement was reached on how to
consider the package. Under this proposal, $1.5 billion would be provided in ECF funds. States
would receive up to 30% of their basic TANF block grants for continued increases in
expenditures on basic assistance, short-term aid, and subsidized employment. It would continue
to reimburse states for 80% of the increased cost of these expenditures. The proposal would
eliminate the separate requirement that to receive ECF grants for basic assistance, a state would
have to experience an increase in the number of families receiving basic assistance. It would also
allow subsidized employment expenditures on those who have exhausted or are about to exhaust
their unemployment insurance benefits.

Author Contact Information

Gene Falk

Specialist in Social Policy
gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344


Congressional Research Service
10

---