The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
October 6, 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 was a temporary fund for two years, FY2009 and
FY2010, and expired on September 30, 2010. All of the available $5 billion was awarded by the
fund’s expiration date to states, tribes, and territories.
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 was
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 were 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 had to 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 were 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.
A total of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands had their
applications for ECF grants approved. Additionally, 25 tribes and tribal organizations had
approved ECF applications. Of the total $5 billion awarded, $1.6 billion was for basic assistance,
$2.1 billion for short-term aid, and $1.3 billion for subsidized employment. Twelve states
(Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, 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. Basic TANF funding was
also scheduled to expire on September 30, 2010. TANF was extended through December 3, 2010,
as part of a government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242), but the ECF was not extended.
Congress did provide a $506 million appropriation for the TANF “regular” contingency fund
(created in the 1996 welfare law), which is currently the source of any additional federal TANF
funds to meet additional costs associated with the lingering effects of the 2007-2009 recession.
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
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................................. 4

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 ........................................................................................................ 9

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 expired on September 30, 2010. It helped states, Indian tribes, and
territories pay for additional costs of providing economic aid to families during the current
economic downturn for FY2009 and FY2010. This report describes the TANF ECF as well as
proposals offered in 2010 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 is currently funded via a government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242) through
December 3, 2010. An extension of ECF funding was not included in the continuing resolution.
Rather, Congress appropriated $506 million to the “regular” contingency fund for FY2011. (The
original $2 billion was depleted in early FY2010.)
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
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

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
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 provided 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 paid states,
tribes, and territories 80% of the increased costs of expenditures in the three categories of
expenditures discussed below.
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
reimbursed for 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 was compared with the number of families receiving cash
assistance in the comparable quarter in the “base year.” The base year was defined as either
FY2007 or FY2008, whichever had the lowest cash assistance caseload. If a state, tribe, or
territory experienced an increase in the cash assistance caseload, it was 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 had broad latitude in defining the
types of “short-term aid” that they provide to families under the ECF. Moreover, short-term aid
was provided to families both on and off the cash assistance rolls. If a family received only non-
recurrent short-term aid, and not ongoing TANF assistance, that family was not subject to the
rules that apply to TANF cash welfare families (e.g., work participation, time limit, and child
support enforcement requirements).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Unlike basic assistance, which required both increased expenditures and that more families be
assisted, ECF funding for non-recurrent short-term aid was based solely on increased
expenditures. The expenditures on non-recurrent short-term aid in a current quarter in FY2009 or
FY2010 were compared with expenditures in the comparable quarter in the base year. The base
year for non-recurrent short-term aid was either FY2007 or FY2008, whichever had the lowest
expenditures for this category of expenditures. The base year for non-recurrent short-term aid
could have been different from that used to determined ECF eligibility for basic assistance. The
ECF reimbursed 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 could have been
in the private or public sector. As with non-recurrent short-term aid, states were permitted to
subsidize jobs for those on the cash assistance rolls as well as for other persons. If a person’s only
ongoing TANF benefit was an employment subsidy, his or her family was not subject to the rules
that apply to TANF families receiving cash welfare.
To draw ECF grants for subsidized employment, a state only needed to show that it had increased
its expenditures for subsidized employment. The comparison used to determine increased costs
for subsidized employment was 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 were compared to those in the comparable quarter in the base year. The base year for
subsidized employment was FY2007 or FY2008, whichever year had the lowest expenditures in
the category, and could have differed from the base years used for basic assistance and short-term
non-recurrent aid. The ECF reimbursed 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 was 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 could draw up to 50%
of its basic block grant from the two funds.
What Are the Rules for the State 20% “Match”?
The ECF did not pay for the full increase in expenditures for basic assistance, short-term aid, or
subsidized employment. It provided 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 did not need to come up with “new money” to cover the remaining 20%.
They were able to use funding reallocated from other activities funded from the basic TANF
block grant or MOE monies to cover these costs.
Additionally, states were permitted to count the value of in-kind, third party payments toward the
20%. This was particularly important for subsidized employment. According to guidance from the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the state could have counted the value of
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

employers’ supervisory time toward the 20%. The limit on supervisory time was 25% of an
employee’s wage.
State, Tribe, and Territorial Use of TANF Emergency Funds
At the end of FY2010 (September 30, 2010), all $5 billion appropriated to the ECF was awarded
to states, tribes, and territories. Figure 1 shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of
spending. The figure shows cumulative grant awards. It shows that $1.6 billion, 32% of the total
grant awards, was to help finance increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $2.1
billion, 41% of the total, was for non-recurrent short-term aid and $1.3 billion, 26% of the total,
was for subsidized employment.
Figure 1. TANF Emergency Contingency Fund Grant Awards, by Category
(cumulative grant awards through September 30, 2010; dollars in millions)
Subsidized
Employment,
Basic
$1,321
Assistance,
$1,605
Short-Term Aid,
$2,074

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
A total of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were awarded
ECF funds. Only Wyoming and Guam failed to receive ECF grants. Table 2 shows ECF grant
awards by category of expenditures, showing the dollar awards in each category as well as the
percent of the total awards for each category by state. Most of these jurisdictions (48) were
awarded funds for increases in their basic assistance caseload, with 44 jurisdictions awarded
funds for non-recurrent short-term aid and 42 jurisdictions receiving funds for subsidized
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

employment. Only three states (Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) received funding
only for basic assistance.
Table 1. TANF Emergency Fund Awards by Category and State
Awards through September 30, 2010





Percent of Total Grant Awards by Category
Non-
Non-
recurrent,
recurrent,
Short-
Short-
Basic
Term
Subsidized
Basic
Term
Subsidized
State
Assistance
Benefits
Employment
Total
Assistance
Benefits
Employment
Total
Alabama
8,179,366
26,539,077 8,152,334
42,870,777 19.1% 61.9% 19.0% 100.0%
Alaska 2,686,871 0
399,112
3,085,983
87.1 0.0 12.9 100.0
Arizona 1,681,050
2,683,331
0
4,364,381
38.5 61.5 0.0 100.0
Arkansas 397,511
2,281,915
3,895,256
6,574,682 6.0 34.7 59.2 100.0
California 729,014,687
116,051,960
408,475,824
1,253,542,471 58.2
9.3
32.6
100.0
Colorado 20,667,626
16,828,765 504,089
38,000,480 54.4
44.3
1.3
100.0
Connecticut 3,747,760
20,691,201 14,525,628 38,964,589
9.6
53.1
37.3
100.0
Delaware 3,716,569
4,380,496 383,588
8,480,653 43.8 51.7
4.5 100.0
District of
Columbia
9,608,595 12,962,560 18,670,030 41,241,185
23.3 31.4 45.3 100.0
Florida 45,120,059
6,000,231
129,415,634
180,535,924
25.0 3.3 71.7 100.0
Georgia 0
14,233,050
69,170,715
83,403,765
0.0
17.1
82.9
100.0
Hawai 4,034,398
7,443,977
15,779,837
27,258,212
14.8 27.3 57.9 100.0
Idaho 342,598
787,085 0
1,129,683
30.3
69.7
0.0
100.0
Illinois 7,881,240 50,695,275 194,274,376 252,850,891
3.1 20.0 76.8 100.0
Indiana 0
26,762,466
0
26,762,466
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
Iowa 10,360,082
21,047,151
2,941,843
34,349,076
30.2
61.3 8.6 100.0
Kansas 3,730,652
24,468,295
49,831
28,248,778
13.2 86.6 0.2 100.0
Kentucky 6,657,538
0
42,467,534
49,125,072 13.6
0.0 86.4 100.0
Louisiana 828,097
81,157,894
0
81,985,991 1.0 99.0 0.0 100.0
Maine 16,323,136
8,572,626
0
24,895,762
65.6 34.4 0.0 100.0
Maryland 35,425,091
30,104,495 2,275,539
67,805,125 52.2 44.4
3.4
100.0
Massachusetts 60,781,710 50,342,322
0 111,124,032
54.7
45.3
0.0
100.0
Michigan 10,817,543
221,304,665 483,649
232,605,857 4.7 95.1
0.2 100.0
Minnesota 21,720,738
54,573,532 13,715,660
90,009,930 24.1
60.6
15.2
100.0
Mississippi 1,010,947
1,059,777
25,775,641
27,846,365 3.6
3.8
92.6
100.0
Missouri 4,496,414
26,410,614
18,396,554
49,303,582 9.1 53.6 37.3 100.0
Montana 4,894,474
196,867
5,069,870
10,161,211 48.2 1.9 49.9 100.0
Nebraska 1,329,803
14,821,305
0
16,151,108 8.2 91.8
0.0 100.0
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund






Percent of Total Grant Awards by Category
Non-
Non-
recurrent,
recurrent,
Short-
Short-
Basic
Term
Subsidized
Basic
Term
Subsidized
State
Assistance
Benefits
Employment
Total
Assistance
Benefits
Employment
Total
Nevada 15,367,631
0
0
15,367,631
100.0 0.0
0.0 100.0
New
Hampshire
10,539,850 0 0
10,539,850
100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
New Jersey
15,444,746 167,856,265
18,716,401
202,017,412
7.6
83.1
9.3
100.0
New Mexico
29,041,372
0
0
29,041,372
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
New York
32,487,094 664,960,813
25,575,383
723,023,290
4.5
92.0
3.5
100.0
North
Carolina
1,079,984 66,615,420 11,682,450 79,377,854
1.4 83.9 14.7 100.0
North
Dakota
0 0
5,738,155
5,738,155
0.0 0.0
100.0 100.0
Ohio 188,166,414 0
56,528,928
244,695,342
76.9 0.0 23.1 100.0
Oklahoma 4,798,976
10,514,037
11,497,886
26,810,899 17.9 39.2
42.9
100.0
Oregon 71,769,906
8,069,486
3,559,923
83,399,315 86.1 9.7
4.3 100.0
Pennsylvania 1,982,443
34,684,149 60,968,938 97,635,530
2.0
35.5
62.4
100.0
Puerto Rico
4,951,644
23,452,679
2,824,914
31,229,237
15.9
75.1
9.0
100.0
Rhode Island
0
3,312,197
4,817,051
8,129,248
0.0
40.7
59.3
100.0
South
Carolina
14,852,567 2,366,878 1,870,892 19,090,337
77.8 12.4 9.8 100.0
South Dakota
2,756,713
1,191,419
2,944,619
6,892,751
40.0
17.3
42.7
100.0
Tennessee 23,540,074
6,480,000 20,280,246
50,300,320 46.8
12.9
40.3
100.0
Texas 6,012,275
149,158,301
87,957,799
243,128,375
2.5
61.3 36.2 100.0
Utah 14,174,693
893,607
393,564
15,461,864
91.7 5.8 2.5 100.0
Vermont 1,256,956
11,331,500 797,980
13,386,436 9.4 84.6
6.0 100.0
Virgin Islands
745,624
0
379,990
1,125,614
66.2
0.0
33.8
100.0
Virginia 24,328,366
5,528,294
1,911,323
31,767,983 76.6 17.4 6.0 100.0
Washington 95,860,723 1,287,246 17,179,333
114,327,302
83.8
1.1
15.0
100.0
West Virginia
10,081,710
37,129,561
2,883,577
50,094,848
20.1
74.1
5.8
100.0
Wisconsin 13,150,098
33,118,681 4,236,495
50,505,274 26.0
65.6
8.4
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S .Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
In addition, 25 tribes and tribal organizations were awarded ECF grants. These grants total $14.2
million.
Twelve states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington state) received their maximum
allotment of contingency funds, and some others were close to receiving their maximums. As
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

discussed above, states, tribes, and territories were 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 30, 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
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
Oregon 83,399,315
0
83,399,315
83,399,315
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
Texas 243,128,376
0
243,128,375
243,128,375
99.9
Louisiana 81,985,993
0
81,985,991
81,985,991
99.9
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
Kansas 50,965,531
18,687,361
28,248,778
46,936,139
92.1
Alabama 46,657,604
0
42,870,777
42,870,777
91.9
West Virginia
55,088,155
0
50,094,848
50,094,848
90.9
Utah 37,804,738
17,947,254
15,461,864
33,409,118
88.4
Puerto Rico
35,781,251

31,229,237
31,229,237
87.3
Illinois
292,528,480 0
252,850,891 252,850,891 86.4
Hawai 49,452,394
15,234,745
27,258,212
42,492,957
85.9
South Carolina
49,983,912
23,729,141
19,090,337
42,819,478
85.7
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
Virgin Islands
1,423,282
0
1,125,614
1,125,614
79.1
Wisconsin 157,249,677
62,899,871
50,505,274
113,405,145
72.1
Arkansas 28,366,429
13,466,554
6,574,682
20,041,236
70.7
California 1,829,937,521
0
1,253,542,471
1,253,542,471
68.5
Minnesota 131,717,035
0
90,009,930
90,009,930
68.3
Ohio 363,984,130
0
244,695,342
244,695,342
67.2
South Dakota
10,639,826
0
6,892,751
6,892,751
64.8
Florida 281,170,060
0
180,535,924
180,535,924
64.2
Mississippi 43,383,789
0
27,846,365
27,846,365
64.2
Maine 39,060,445
0
24,895,762
24,895,762
63.7
Vermont 23,676,591
0
13,386,436
13,386,436
56.5
Nebraska 28,756,801
0
16,151,108
16,151,108
56.2
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
34,349,076
34,349,076
52.4
Arizona 100,116,349
47,525,377
4,364,381
51,889,758
51.8
Georgia 165,370,870
0
83,403,765
83,403,765
50.4
Missouri 108,525,870
0
49,303,582
49,303,582
45.4
North Dakota
13,199,905
0
5,738,155
5,738,155
43.5
Virginia 79,142,586
0
31,767,983
31,767,983
40.1
Oklahoma 72,640,721
0
26,810,899
26,810,899
36.9
Connecticut 133,394,054
0
38,964,589
38,964,589
29.2
Pennsylvania 359,749,653
0
97,635,530
97,635,530
27.1
Indiana 103,399,555
0
26,762,466
26,762,466
25.9
Rhode Island
47,510,794
0
8,129,248
8,129,248
17.1
Alaska 23,210,407
0
3,085,983
3,085,983
13.3
Idaho 15,206,281
0
1,129,683
1,129,683
7.4
Wyoming 9,250,265
0
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).
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

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. 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 1990-1991 recession, welfare caseloads actually peaked
in March 1994, before beginning their decline.
The ECF expired on September 30, 2010. TANF itself was funded up to that date by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). TANF funding was extended through the government-
wide continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242) through December 3, 2010. This extension did not
provide funds for the ECF. The continuing resolution did appropriate $506 million for the
“regular” contingency fund, which now becomes the source of additional federal funding to cope
with increased costs associated with the lingering effects of the 2007-2009 recession.
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 House has voted twice in 2010 to
extend the ECF, 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.


Author Contact Information

Gene Falk

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


Congressional Research Service
9

---