The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
October 11, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41781
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Summary
Under current law, the bulk of funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
block grant to the states expires at the end of 2011 (December 31, 2011). P.L. 112-35 provided a
short-term (three-month) extension of the basic TANF block grant, healthy marriage and
responsible fatherhood competitive grants, and mandatory child care grants for the first quarter of
FY2012, which began on October 1, 2011. It did not provide funds for TANF supplemental
grants.
The short-term extension of TANF defers major budget and policy decisions related to the block
grant. Most federal TANF policy focuses on historical concerns related to cash assistance for
needy families with children, which led to the 1996 welfare law 15 years ago. However, TANF
has evolved into a funding stream that funds a wide range of economic aid and human services
that address economic and social disadvantage for families with children. In FY2009, only 28%
of all federal TANF and associated state dollars were used for basic monthly cash assistance.
There is little information available for oversight and assessment of the non-cash uses of TANF
and related state funds. In reauthorizing or extending TANF, Congress might consider the need
for expanded data collection on activities other than cash assistance, as well as the need for a
method that allows for the assessment of the effectiveness of TANF-funded programs and
activities.
The recent recession was the first long and deep one since the enactment of the 1996 welfare law.
TANF’s contingency fund, established in 1996 to provide extra grants during recessions, was
exhausted in early FY2010. Congress created a $5 billion temporary Emergency Contingency
Fund (ECF) for FY2009 and FY2010 that provided extra funding to help pay for increased cash
assistance caseloads, short-term aid, and subsidized employment. The ECF expired on September
30, 2010. After December 2010, there are no additional contingency funds available for the
remainder of FY2011. Congress might consider policy alternatives to provide states with extra
funding during the next economic downturn.
A TANF-funded activity that was substantially expanded during the recent economic downturn
was subsidized employment. The ECF provided $1.3 billion for subsidized employment for an
estimated 262,500 slots during the lifetime of the fund. TANF-funded subsidized employment can
be for those on the assistance rolls as well as other low-income parents, caretakers, or youth.
Congress might consider ways to encourage states to continue subsidized employment activities,
including providing dedicated funding for this activity and/or considering participation in
subsidized employment for individuals not receiving ongoing assistance when assessing state
TANF performance.
Additionally, most traditional welfare reform issues have focused on families headed by a single
mother. Current law provides TANF grants to community-based organizations, for initiatives to
promote both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. However, poor noncustodial fathers,
like their poor single mother counterparts, tend to have low levels of educational attainment,
weak attachment to work, and health barriers to employment. They might also have a criminal
record. Congress might examine ways to expand TANF-funded work and employment services
for disadvantaged noncustodial fathers.
Congressional Research Service

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
TANF: The Basics............................................................................................................................ 4
Financing ................................................................................................................................... 4
State Cash Assistance Benefits .................................................................................................. 5
Requirements for Families Receiving Cash Assistance............................................................. 5
Issues in Extending or Reauthorizing TANF ................................................................................... 6
TANF and the Federal Budget................................................................................................... 6
Supplemental Grants ................................................................................................................. 7
Assessing the Performance of TANF-Funded Activities........................................................... 8
Challenges in Assessing TANF Beyond Cash Assistance ................................................... 9
Assessing Welfare-to-Work Activities............................................................................... 10
Assessing How TANF Serves the Needs of the “Child-Only” Caseload .......................... 13
TANF’s Responsiveness To a Recession ................................................................................. 13
Subsidized Employment.......................................................................................................... 15
Fathers ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Recent Chronology ........................................................................................................................ 17
Legislation in the 112th Congress................................................................................................... 17
Additional Reading........................................................................................................................ 18

Figures
Figure 1. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds: FY2009............................................................. 5
Figure 2. National Average TANF Work Participation Rates
Under Federal Rules: FY2000-FY2009...................................................................................... 10

Tables
Table 1. Selected Economic and Social Indicators for Families with Children, Selected
Years from 1995 to 2009 .............................................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Congressional Budget Office Baseline for Major TANF Grants ....................................... 7
Table A-1. TANF Grants Per Poor Child: Basic Block Grant Only (State Family
Assistance Grant) and Basic Block Grants with TANF Supplemental Grants ........................... 19
Table A-2. Number of Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Family Type: 2007 and
2009 ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Table A-3. Employment-Population Ratios by Family Type 2007 and 2009 ................................ 21
Table A-4. Impact of Unemployment Compensation on Child Poverty Rates, Selected
Years Associated with Recessions .............................................................................................. 22

Congressional Research Service

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Appendixes
Appendix. Additional Tables ......................................................................................................... 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Introduction
The 112th Congress will decide whether, and on what terms, to extend the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and related programs. TANF was created in the 1996
welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), and is best known for helping states pay for their cash
assistance programs for very low-income families with children. However, TANF also helps
states finance a wide range of benefits and services that seek to either ameliorate the effects of or
address the root causes of economic disadvantage among families with children.
Under current law, the bulk of TANF funding and the authority for states to operate TANF
programs will expire at the end of 2011 (December 31, 2011). P.L. 112-35 provides a three-month
extension through the end of the calendar year of the basic TANF block grant, healthy marriage
and responsible fatherhood competitive grants, and mandatory child care grants.1 It does not fund
TANF supplemental grants, which expired on June 30, 2011. TANF contingency funds (that
address extra spending during economic downturns) received an FY2012 appropriation through
legislation enacted in 2010 (P.L. 111-242).
This report provides an overview of potential issues that might arise during a discussion of
extending TANF funding or a long-term reauthorization. It does not go into detail on TANF
program rules or necessarily provide the most up-to-date data on TANF. For a non-technical
overview, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant:
An Introduction. For a report that details TANF program rules, see CRS Report RL32748, The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing
and Federal Requirements. For current data on TANF, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions.
Background
TANF is a product of the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, which ended four decades of
legislative efforts to either substantially revamp or replace the system of providing cash
assistance to needy families with children. Cash assistance programs date back to the state- and
locally funded “mothers’ pension” programs of the early 1900s; the federal government first
funded these programs under the Social Security Act of 1935.
The visibility of cash assistance programs increased in the 1960s, when caseload increases raised
concerns about their cost and effects. The welfare reform debates from the late 1960s to the mid-
1990s focused on issues related to families headed by a single mother (which comprised most of
the families on the assistance rolls during that period), and, specifically, concerns that welfare
itself helped contribute to economic disadvantage of families with children. Social science
research showed that cash assistance provided to non-working families was a disincentive for the
single mother to go to work.2 Additionally, there was much discussion that a system of cash
welfare targeted toward single parent families contributed to the rise in single, female-headed

1 Under prior law, the bulk of TANF funding was set to expire on September 30, 2011.
2 Robert Moffitt, “Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 30,
no. 1 (March 1992), pp. 1-61.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

families. The research evidence on the effects of cash assistance on family structure is less
conclusive than it is on the effects of cash assistance on work.3
There were other policy concerns about the adequacy of cash assistance benefits. Cash assistance
programs were run at the state and local level, with large variations in eligibility criteria and
benefit amounts. The cash assistance programs also provided limited aid to the working poor.
Research conducted in the 1980s and the early 1990s indicated that while many families received
cash assistance for short periods of time, some families experienced long-term welfare
dependency. Further, other research showed that mandatory welfare-to-work programs could be
effective in moving families from the assistance rolls into employment. Thus, a policy requiring
participation in activities that could lead to employment addressed the concern that receipt of cash
assistance discouraged work.
TANF was created in the 1996 welfare law. The basic rules of TANF are discussed below.
However, TANF was only a part of a series of policy changes that addressed the many policy
concerns raised by cash assistance programs. The changes in low-income assistance policies of
the mid-1990s were the culmination of a shift in emphasis away from providing a safety net for
families without earnings to supporting the “working poor,” particularly through expansions of
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).4
Table 1 shows the cash assistance caseload in the context of related economic and social
indicators for families with children for 1995 through 2009. The table shows that some of the
circumstances of 2009 were very different from those of 1995. The cash assistance rolls are
significantly diminished and reach a far smaller share of poor children than in 1995. The rate at
which single mothers work is even higher in 2009 than in 1995 (despite the recession), and the
poverty rate for children living in families headed by mothers is lower in 2009 than in 1995.
However, some of the indicators of social and economic disadvantage commonly associated with
welfare issues have changed little or have even worsened in an era of lower cash assistance
caseloads. The poverty rate for all children declined in the late 1990s—but this improvement was
ephemeral, as the child poverty rate increased in the 2000s even before the onset of the recession
that began in December 2007. The rate at which children are born to unmarried mothers climbed
in the 2000s, reaching a historical high. The continued high rates of child poverty and children
being born into and living in single-mother families raise policy issues. Research has linked both
being raised in a poor family and being raised in a single-parent family to lower chances of
success later in life. That is, while many poor children and many children raised by a single
parent do well, these factors increase the likelihood that a child will fail in school or suffer other
negative outcomes.

3 In his review of the effects of the U.S. welfare system, published in 1992 and cited above, Moffitt concluded that the
welfare system affected family structure “weakly.” The studies he reviewed were econometric analyses that used
variation in welfare benefits to seek to explain the family status of mothers. The experimental evidence about this effect
is much more ambiguous. Further, in the post-welfare period, particularly in the 2000-2008 period, the time series
relationship between single-parent families and welfare receipt changed. Cash welfare receipt declined, while the
percentage of babies born out-of-wedlock and the percent of children in single-parent families increased.
4 For a discussion, see CRS Report R41823, Low-Income Assistance Programs: Trends in Federal Spending, by Gene
Falk.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Table 1. Selected Economic and Social Indicators for Families with Children,
Selected Years from 1995 to 2009
Indicator 1995
2000
2007
2009
Number of families
4.8 2.3 1.7 1.8
receiving cash
assistance (monthly
average) in millions
Number of
9.1 4.5 3.1 3.3
children receiving
cash assistance
(monthly average)
in millions
Federal and state
$31.1 $14.0 $9.5 $9.3
expenditures on
cash assistance (in
billions of constant
2009 dol ars)
Child poverty rate
20.8%
16.2%
18.0%
20.7%
Number of poor
14.7 11.6 13.3 15.5
children
(in millions)
Employment rate
64.0% 75.5% 72.8% 67.8%
for single mothers
Poverty rate for
50.3% 40.1% 43.0% 44.4%
children living in
single-parent
families
Percent of births
32.2% 33.2% 39.7% 41.0%
out-of-wedlock

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Census Bureau.

It should be noted that the diminishment of state-based cash assistance does not mean that overall
spending for the poor or poor families with children has also declined. On the contrary,
expansions of the EITC and a new refundable portion of the child tax credit, along with increases
in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps), and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) have resulted in higher levels of outlays for total need-tested aid to low-
income families, including low-income families with children.5

5 H.R. 1135, the Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (Representative Jordan) would cap overall spending for need-tested
programs as a whole (as defined in the bill) at their FY2007 level plus inflation. If enacted, this could affect TANF
funding. Under the bill, projected spending on need-tested benefits in excess of the cap would trigger a process for the
congressional budget process to enforce the cap.
For an overview of spending trends for low-income assistance programs, see CRS Report R41823, Low-Income
Assistance Programs: Trends in Federal Spending, by Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

TANF: The Basics
Financing
The bulk of federal TANF funding is in a basic block grant to states that totals $16.5 billion per
year. States are also required to expend a certain amount of their own funds on TANF-related
programs, under what is called a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement, equal to a total
minimum of $10.4 billion per year. The basic block grant and MOE amounts, both nationally and
for each state, were set back in the original 1996 welfare law based on what states were spending
in pre-1996 programs, and they have not been changed since. They are not adjusted for inflation
or any other changes in national or state conditions (cash assistance caseloads, population, child
poverty, etc.). In addition to the basic block grant, there are additional federal supplemental grants
and contingency funds for states that are discussed later in this report. TANF also includes
competitive grants for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives.
The statutory purpose of TANF is to increase the flexibility of states to achieve four goals:
1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their
own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job
preparation, work, and marriage;
3. prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish
annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these
pregnancies; and
4. encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
This statutory purpose is more than a symbolic statement of policy. States may use their TANF
funds (and to a certain extent MOE funds) in any manner they “reasonably calculate” could
further this purpose and achieve these goals. Figure 1 shows nationally how federal TANF and
state MOE funds were used in FY2009. Basic assistance, the category of expenditure most
commonly associated with TANF, represents only 28% of all TANF and MOE funds used in
FY2009. TANF also provides substantial support to state child care subsidy programs; additional
work supports such as the refundable portion of state tax credits (state versions of the EITC); and
a wide range of spending in the “other” category, on activities such as providing services to
families with children at-risk of being placed in foster care, early childhood education programs
(e.g., pre-K programs), programs for youths, and responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage
programs.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Figure 1. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds: FY2009
(dollars in billions)
Basic Assistance,
$9.3
Other, $10.9
Administration,
$2.5
Other Work
Work Programs,
Supports, $2.6
$2.4
Child Care, $5.9

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
State Cash Assistance Benefits
Federal law gives states complete latitude in determining the rules of their cash assistance
programs. States set rules for determining how low a family’s income must be to qualify for
assistance as well as the amount paid. In July 2009, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of
three ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. The wide variation in benefit amounts is
not a result of the 1996 welfare reform law; under pre-1996 policies, states also set benefit levels
that varied greatly among the states.
Requirements for Families Receiving Cash Assistance
The most well-known features of both TANF and the 1996 welfare reform law are the
requirements that apply to families receiving cash assistance that include an adult recipient: work
requirements and time limits. The main TANF work requirement is actually a performance
measure that applies to states rather than individual recipients. TANF time limits prohibit states
from aiding a family with an adult for more than 60 months (five years). However, states have
considerable flexibility in implementing time limits.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Issues in Extending or Reauthorizing TANF
The current funding and program authority for TANF comes from a one-year extension of the
program enacted in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291). The Claims Resolution Act
provided TANF funding through the end of FY2011, though it funded TANF supplemental grants
only through June 30, 2011, and provided for no additional contingency (recession-related) funds
for the remainder of FY2011.
President Obama’s FY2012 budget proposes that TANF funding be extended at least through the
end of FY2012. The budget also sets forth some general principles the Administration is seeking
to further in a long-term reauthorization of TANF:
When TANF reauthorization is considered, the Administration would be interested in
exploring with Congress a variety of strategies to strengthen the program’s ability to improve
outcomes for families and children, including helping more parents succeed as workers by
building on the recent successes with subsidized employment, using performance indicators
to drive program improvement; and preparing the program to respond more effectively in the
event of a future economic downturn.6
The remainder of this report will use the Administration’s budget request and general principles
as a framework for discussing TANF issues before the 112th Congress. It will first discuss general
budget issues and supplemental grants that are the main focus of the President’s FY2012 budget
request. A discussion of TANF performance measurement, its response to recessions, and
subsidized employment follow. In addition, the report will briefly address a related issue of
responsible fatherhood initiatives, as the Administration put forward a responsible fatherhood
agenda in its FY2012 budget. For each issue, it provides a listing of policy options that generally
have been drawn from proposals made in the past. Also, see “Additional Reading,” below, for
documents from organizations that provide policy options that might be addressed in TANF
reauthorization.
TANF and the Federal Budget
A TANF reauthorization this year would be conducted in a climate shaped by the recent large
budget deficits at the federal level and the need to balance operating budgets at the state level. In
addition to the near-term fiscal situation, the budget outlook over the long term poses challenges
created by projected increases in health care and retirement costs at the federal level and at the
state and local levels. TANF itself is subject to proposed reductions. H.R. 1135 (Representative
Jordan) would reduce the TANF basic block grant by a little more than $1.0 billion per year,
reducing each state’s basic block grant by 6%.
TANF is a mandatory spending program, as its grants are entitlements to the states. TANF
funding is provided in authorizing legislation rather than annual appropriation bills. As a
mandatory spending program, it is subject to both the pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring tax or
spending offsets to any increases in spending, and the “cut-as-you-go” rules in the House,
requiring spending offsets for any increases in TANF spending.

6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FY2012 Budget In Brief , February 2011, p. 95.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Cuts or spending increases are measured relative to the “baseline.” In general, the baseline is the
level of funding necessary to continue current policies. Table 2 shows the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) March 2011 baseline for TANF for FY2011 through FY2016. In general, the TANF
baseline for future years is the same as it is for the last year for which funding is provided under
current law (in this case, FY2011). Because TANF grants are set in statute, there is no adjustment
for inflation or other conditions (cash assistance caseload, population growth) in constructing the
baseline.
Supplemental grants (discussed in further detail below) are not continued in the baseline beyond
the current fiscal year. This is because a provision in TANF law says the baseline should assume
no further supplemental grants beyond its current funding authorization (in the case of FY2011,
June 30, 2011). Thus, under congressional budget rules, the cost of extending supplemental grants
beyond June 30, 2011, would have to be offset.
Table 2. Congressional Budget Office Baseline for Major TANF Grants
(Grant awards for FY2011 through FY2016, dol ars in millions)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
State family
$16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489
assistance grant
Supplemental
210a 0 0 0 0 0
grants
Marriage and
150 150 150 150 150 150
fatherhood
grants
Contingency
335b 612 612 612 612 612
Funds
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
a. President Obama’s FY2012 budget reports $211 million in supplemental grants for FY2011.
b. President Obama’s FY2012 budget reports $334 million in contingency funds for FY2011.
Supplemental Grants
As discussed above, the TANF basic block grant and MOE were set back in the 1996 welfare
reform law. Each state’s block grant funding level is based on federal grants to states in the pre-
1996 welfare programs; the MOE is based on state spending in the pre-1996 programs. The basic
block grant and MOE are frozen, not adjusted for changes in a state’s economic or demographic
circumstances. During debates on the legislation that became the 1996 welfare law, it was thought
that this “freeze” would particularly disadvantage two sets of states: (1) those that have high rates
of population growth and that would experience steeper declines than other states in their per-
capita grants; and (2) those that paid relatively low benefit amounts under pre-1996 welfare
programs and thus would have low federal grants compared to poverty in the state.
To address this issue, Congress provided TANF supplemental grants to certain qualifying states
based on historical population growth and historical grants per poor person. In total, 17 states
qualified for supplemental grants: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress


Supplemental grants reduced the disparities in TANF funding among the states in terms of grants
per poor child. However, this reduction was small. (See Table A-1 for supplemental grants per
poor child by state.) Supplemental grants themselves had been frozen since FY2001, and even at
their full funding level some states with high population growth and increases in child poverty
(e.g., Texas and Nevada) saw continuing declines in their grants per poor child. However, further
addressing the issue of disparities in grants per poor child would require either additional funding
or a redistribution of existing funds from states with relatively high grants per poor child to states
with lower grants per poor child.
From FY2001 through FY2010, supplemental grants totaled $319 million per year.7 In order to
keep the legislation that extended TANF through FY2011 cost neutral, FY2011 supplemental
grants were funded only through June 30, 2011, and at a reduced rate.8 The three-month TANF
extension (P.L. 112-35) does not fund TANF supplemental grants for the first quarter of FY2012.
To continue TANF after December 31, 2011, Congress must once again act, providing another
opportunity to consider supplemental grants. However, since supplemental grants are not included
in the CBO baseline, the cost of extending them would have to be offset.
Assessing the Performance of TANF-Funded Activities
All of the current TANF performance measures focus on the cash assistance caseload. In the past,
TANF attempted to assess a broad range of outcomes through measures used to award two
bonuses: the High Performance Bonus and the bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
The High Performance Bonus awarded grants based on state rankings of nationally based
welfare-to-work measures (job entry, job retention, wage gains), receipt in the state of work
supports9, and the percent of children in a state living in two-parent families. The bonus for
reduction in out-of-wedlock pregnancies was awarded based on state rankings of out-of-wedlock
birth ratios, with a proviso that such reductions could not stem from increases in abortions. These
two bonuses were repealed in 2006. A key issue was that these broad outcome measures could not
be tied to what states were doing in their TANF programs.
The repeal of the TANF bonuses means that the main performance measure currently used to
assess state programs is the TANF work participation standard that applies to families receiving
cash assistance. This measurement reflects the major welfare reform policy concerns that led to
the 1996 welfare law, but it is out of step with the way states currently use TANF funds.

7 The original 1996 welfare law funded supplemental grants through FY2001. These grants lapsed for a period, from
October 1, 2001 (the beginning of FY2002) through the enactment of P.L. 107-147 on March 9, 2002, which provided
the full $319 million in supplemental grants for FY2002.
8 The Claims Resolution Act constrained supplemental grant funding by providing that the sum of the cost of extending
supplemental grants and contingency funds could not exceed a certain amount. Ultimately, FY2011 funding for
supplemental grants amounted to 66% of the full $319 million states historically received. HHS provided the 17
qualifying states with their full supplemental grants in the first and second quarter of FY2011, and a reduced grant in
the third quarter of FY2011.
9 The measures relating to support of work were: (1) the food stamp (now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program) participation rate among low-income families with a worker; (2) enrollment in Medicaid or the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) of former cash assistance recipient families; and (3) the percentage of
eligible children who receive child care subsidies in a state and the co-payments families receiving subsidies must pay
relative to income.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Challenges in Assessing TANF Beyond Cash Assistance
Should Congress wish to measure and assess TANF beyond its cash assistance programs, a
number of challenges would have to be addressed. Relative to the information that states are
currently required to provide the federal government, measuring and assessing the broader range
of TANF activities would require: (1) more detailed descriptions of the programs and activities
that states are conducting in order to know what policies are actually being assessed; (2) more
detailed data on how much money is spent for these programs and activities in order to know how
much effort a state is making in a particular policy area; and (3) measuring program outcomes
and impacts to permit assessments of whether programs are effective.
The one-year extension of TANF in the Claims Resolution Act included a requirement that states
submit supplemental expenditure reports in 2011 detailing program expenditures on activities
such as child welfare payments, child welfare services, emergency aid, domestic violence
services, mental health and addiction services, education and youth programs, early childhood
development programs, and TANF-funded expenditures on juvenile justice. These are not
categories in the existing TANF expenditure report.
The additional reporting required for 2011 in the Claims Resolution Act indicates that Congress
recognized that a part of the TANF story is not being told. Obtaining more detailed information
imposes additional reporting burdens on the states. However, for the long term, Congress could
modify TANF’s existing requirements to obtain such information rather than require additional
reports. Existing reports include TANF plans, which are prospective documents that states must
submit before receiving their block grants, quarterly reports on expenditures and caseloads, and a
retrospective annual report. Options for modifying these reports include
• changing the requirements for state plans to (1) describe all TANF-funded
programs and activities; (2) submit information in a standardized form, for better
comparisons across states; (3) relate each program or activity to a TANF goal; (4)
establish goals and outcome measures for the program or activity; and (5)
provide a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the activity;
• requiring additional detail in quarterly expenditure reports, such as the additional
information required for the supplemental reports under the Claims Resolution
Act; and
• expanding quarterly caseload reporting to include additional, selected TANF-
funded benefits and services (e.g., require reporting on participants in subsidized
jobs); Congress potentially also could expand relevant reporting systems in
certain related programs (e.g., child care reporting system) to include TANF-
funded services.
In terms of requiring an assessment of TANF-funded activities, Congress could ask the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to re-establish some national measures and
assess programs in that manner. However, because each state may use TANF’s flexibility
differently, another option would be to have each state set its own goals and provide an annual
assessment for how these goals are being met in retrospective annual reports.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Assessing Welfare-to-Work Activities
As discussed above, the TANF work participation standard is the main performance measure used
to assess the block grant. It relates to only one facet of what states do with TANF. It also affects a
relatively small population (particularly when compared with the historical welfare caseload).
However, the work participation standard reflects the welfare-to-work philosophy that helped to
create TANF. Additionally, it reflects efforts to help a very disadvantaged population (those who
have come on the cash assistance rolls) reintegrate into the workforce.
TANF’s work participation standards are numerical performance measures that set target rates of
participation in work and self-sufficiency activities for a state’s cash assistance caseload as a
whole. They do not apply directly to recipients, though they may help shape the types of
requirements states place on individuals. The TANF statute sets a target that 50% of all families
with an adult recipient should be engaged in specified work or self-sufficiency activities for at
least a certain number of hours per week each month. It also sets a separate two-parent work
participation standard, with a target of 90% for these families.
Figure 2 shows that the national average work participation rate for all families has been fairly
stable over the period from FY2000 to FY2009 at a level well below 50%. The rate has hovered
around 30% for the entire period.
Figure 2. National Average TANF Work Participation Rates
Under Federal Rules: FY2000-FY2009
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Notes: Official rate under federal rules means the work participation rate for all families excluding activities and
exemptions under grandfathered “waivers” of pre-1996 rules. Under the 1996 law, a state that obtained such
waiver was permitted to continue operating until its expiration. The last waiver expired in 2007.
Most states have met their individual state standards because the actual, effective standard they
face is lower than 50% because of credits. A state receives credit toward meeting its participation
standard through caseload reductions and also for spending in excess of what is counted toward
the MOE.
The calculation of the work participation rate is fairly complex. Almost all activities that one
would typically think of as helping a recipient achieve self-sufficiency count in some manner
toward the TANF work standard—including educational and rehabilitative activities. However,
the law places limits on counting pre-employment activities. The combination of job search and
job readiness activities, which includes rehabilitative activities, is only countable for up to 12
weeks in a fiscal year. Vocational educational training, which includes post-secondary education,
is only countable for one year in a recipient’s lifetime. Completing secondary school or obtaining
a General Educational Development (GED) credential for those age 20 or older are countable
only in conjunction with activities more closely associated with work. Teen parents engaged in
education may be considered as engaged in activities countable toward the standard. However,
the combination of teen parents engaged in education and those engaged by virtue of vocational
educational training cannot count for more than 30% of all families engaged in work or activities
countable toward the standards.
The only activities that count without limit are unsubsidized employment, subsidized
employment, on-the-job training, and working off a cash assistance benefit through work
experience or community service. The limits on counting pre-employment activities of job search,
rehabilitation, and education raise both measurement and policy issues. In terms of measurement,
they raise questions about whether the work participation rate adequately measures state effort in
moving families from welfare-to-work. An alternative, broader measure that reports the percent of
adult recipients engaged in any activity for any number of hours shows somewhat higher rates of
engagement, but little change in the trend (fluctuating between 42% and 45% for FY2000 through
FY2008). This broader measure might also understate total engagement if states fail to report
participation that does not count toward the official standard. The Claims Resolution Act included
a provision to require states to make a supplemental report on engagement, focusing on activities
that do not count toward the official standard.
Additionally, the work participation rate only captures activities for those on the rolls. States may,
and have, used TANF funds for employment and education activities for low-income parents who
are not on the cash assistance rolls. A major recent example, discussed below, is subsidized
employment.
To address the measurement issues, Congress might seek to
• require states to report activities even if they don’t count toward the TANF work
participation standard;
• require the calculation of a second, broader measure of participation in self-
sufficiency activities that could be developed to complement the existing, current
participation standard; this could include employment and training activities for
those not on the assistance rolls, such as subsidized employment and
participation of low-income parents in TANF-funded community college
programs.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

The policy question is whether the work participation standard achieves the goal of engaging a
sufficient number of recipients in activities that could lead to employment. The credits against the
participation standard have diluted its effect. If Congress would seek to raise the rate at which
recipients engage in activities, the major issue would be determining what rate is achievable and
under what circumstances. Welfare-to-work programs evaluated before the 1996 law, even the
successful ones, failed to achieve a 50% monthly participation rate.10 The natural dynamics of the
cash assistance caseload—new recipients coming on to the rolls and awaiting assignments, and
others leaving—can depress monthly participation rates. A 90% participation rate for two-parent
families has generally been considered difficult to achieve, and many states have withdrawn their
two-parent families from TANF to avoid the necessity of achieving that standard.11 Most of the
past proposals for changing the participation standard focused on expanding either education or
rehabilitative activities (e.g., vocational rehabilitation for physical disabilities; mental health or
substance abuse treatment, etc.). The evaluation literature found that education-focused programs,
while effective in moving families from welfare-to-work, were not more effective than “work-
first” programs even over a relatively long (five-year) time period. However, since that research
was completed, a new generation of programs has emerged in the education arena that shows
promise in addressing the factors that might have limited the effectiveness of education-focused
programs (for example, progressing in an educational program).12 Little definitive research has
been done on the effectiveness of rehabilitative activities on cash assistance recipients. Moreover,
it should be noted that the “work-first” approach evaluated in welfare-to-work studies emphasized
job search—itself only countable for up to 12 weeks in the fiscal year under the current work
participation rules.
Policy options to address the policies of work participation among cash assistance families
include
• strengthening the participation standard by eliminating credits against them, so
that only participation in activities helps states achieve the work participation
rate;
• expanding the exemptions from families being considered in the participation
rate calculation, such as allowing an optional exemption for the first month on
the rolls to allow states time to engage a recipient in activities;
• eliminating the 90% participation standard for two-parent families; and
• allowing broader measures of participation—that count more or even all pre-
employment activities—to be used against the standard rather than the current
work participation rate; the broader measure could also count selected activities
of those not receiving ongoing cash assistance, such as subsidized employment.

10 See Gayle Hamilton, The JOBS Evaluation: Monthly Participation Rates and Factors Affecting Participation Levels
in Welfare-to-Work Programs, MDRC, July 1995, http://www.mdrc.org/publications/217/execsum.pdf.
11 In FY2009, 27 jurisdictions did not have any two-parent families in TANF or MOE-funded assistance programs.
12 For example, see Susan Scrivener and Erin Coghlan, Opening Doors to Student Success: A Synthesis of Findings
from an Evaluation at Six Community Colleges , MDRC, Policy Brief, March 2011, http://www.mdrc.org/publications/
585/policybrief.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Assessing How TANF Serves the Needs of the “Child-Only” Caseload
Welfare-to-work and the work participation standard reflect policies that apply to families with an
adult recipient. However, a large share of the TANF assistance caseload does not have an adult
recipient. In September 2010, 41% of all TANF assistance families had no adult receiving
benefits on their own behalf—all benefits were paid on behalf of the children in the families. This
portion of the caseload, known as the “child-only” caseload, reflects families in a range of
circumstances. This includes families where (1) the parents receive Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), usually on the basis of disability; (2) the children are living with non-parent
caretakers, such as grandparents; and (3) citizen children are living with TANF-ineligible
noncitizens.
There is little federal policy that affects this portion of the cash assistance caseload. Moreover,
there is little in the way of performance measurement for these families. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked to conduct a study on the TANF’s “child-only”
families.
TANF’s Responsiveness To a Recession
The “Great Recession” of 2007-2009 represents the first deep and long economic slump since the
enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law. During the recession and its aftermath, the cash
assistance caseload increased nationally and in most states. Though the cash assistance caseload
fell during the first months of the recession, the caseload increased beginning in August of 2008.
From July 2008 to December 2010, the cash assistance caseload increased by 16%, adding about
273,000 families to the monthly benefit rolls. Under TANF, the cash assistance rolls continued to
be much diminished from their pre-1996 welfare reform levels. The number of families receiving
benefits in December 2010—1.9 million—is well below the number receiving benefits—5.1
million—at the peak of the cash assistance caseload in March 1994, well after the end of the
1990-1991 recession.
Whether the 16% rise in the TANF cash assistance caseload was an adequate response to the
recession is difficult to answer. Not all demographic groups were hit equally hard by the
recession. The unemployment rate for men was well above that for women, though young women
and young single mothers, who represent most TANF cash adult recipients, had higher rates of
unemployment than older, married women (see Table A-2 and Table A-3 for changes in
unemployment and employment by family type). Additionally, TANF’s response is best viewed in
the context of the response of all assistance programs. The front-line program of income support
during a recession is Unemployment Insurance (UI). During the 2007-2009 recession and
thereafter, the share of the unemployed receiving UI was higher than during any recession since
the 1970s.13 Moreover, UI receipt had a greater effect on reducing poverty in the most recent
recession—including poverty among children living with single mother—than it did during either
the 1990-1991 or the 2001 recessions. Much of the impact of UI on incomes and poverty is owed
to the legislated, ad-hoc extensions of benefits (beyond the 26 weeks of regular UI benefits

13 See CRS Report R41777, Antipoverty Effects of Unemployment Insurance, by Thomas Gabe and Julie M. Whittaker.
For the impact of unemployment insurance on child poverty rates, see Table A-4.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

usually available). Taken together, all transfer programs had a substantial impact in mitigating the
income loss during the 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath.14
Further, TANF responded to the recession in ways other than through increases in the cash
assistance caseload. As discussed below, TANF also funded subsidized jobs in response to the
recession and provided emergency, short-term aid to families. Participants in subsidized
employment and receiving short-term aid are not counted in the TANF assistance caseload
figures.
However, the experience of the 2007-2009 recession raises a number of policy concerns. First,
some of the policies outside of TANF to aid families during the recession—particularly the
extensions of UI benefits—are not part of permanent policy, but rather were temporary measures
enacted to respond to the recession. There is no assurance that Congress will be able or willing to
respond to future recessions in the same manner.
Second, the 1996 welfare law included a $2 billion contingency fund, most of which was still
available at the beginning of FY2008. However, the fund was exhausted in early FY2010 based
on grants made to relatively few states (18 states and the District of Columbia). Many states
failed to qualify for regular contingency funds because of its requirement that states expend more
than 100% of what they spent in FY1994 to receive matching grants.
Congress augmented the regular contingency fund by creating a temporary, Emergency
Contingency Fund (ECF), funded at $5 billion for two years, FY2009 and FY2010. The ECF only
financed expenditures for basic assistance, short-term non-recurrent aid, and subsidized jobs.
However, it allowed states to access these funds based on increased expenditures in these
categories from the recent pre-recession years rather than increases from pre-welfare reform
levels. The ECF rules expanded access to extra funding and 52 of the 54 jurisdictions operating
TANF drew ECF grants. However, the ECF also is not part of permanent law, and it expired on
September 30, 2010.
Finally, the story of how TANF responds to the recession is ongoing, given the persistent high
rate of unemployment through 2011. There are no additional available contingency funds for the
remainder of FY2011. The lack of contingency funding occurs as some of the long-term
unemployed exhaust even their extended benefits.
The most likely options for Congress to address TANF’s ability to respond to a future recession
are through changes to the contingency fund. Congress might consider adding new funding to the
contingency fund or establishing policies that would structure aid (though, given budget
constraints, not necessarily automatically provide funding) that would be available in future
recessions. Congress might consider the following:
• Revising the requirement that states spend more than 100% of what they spent in
FY1994. Like the ECF, proposals approved by the Senate Finance Committee
(but not acted on by the full Senate) during the 2002-2005 period would have
allowed access to contingency funds on the basis of increased expenditures from
recent, pre-recession years, rather than linking it to increased spending from
FY1994 levels.

14 See CRS Report R41917, Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2009,
by Thomas Gabe.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

• Narrowing the types of expenditures reimbursed to target economic aid to
families, such as basic assistance, short-term emergency aid, and subsidized
employment. This would help ration extra funding, which otherwise might be
diverted into fiscal relief that could be simply re-financing existing state
spending on human services.
• Revising the economic criteria for allowing access to the contingency fund. This
might help target aid to periods when a state experiences its next economic
slump. The current economically needy criteria for states—particularly the
criterion that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP ) caseloads be
at least 10% above pre-welfare reform levels—are likely to be met by many
states long after the recent recession has ended.
Subsidized Employment
Despite the focus on work during the 1996 welfare reform debate, subsidized employment has
been a relatively small part of TANF throughout most of its history. However, the ECF (discussed
above) provided grants of $1.3 billion to help finance subsidized employment during FY2009 and
FY2010. The ECF was estimated to have funded 262,500 job slots during its lifetime.15 TANF-
funded subsidized employment programs can be for those who are on the cash assistance rolls, or
for those who are not receiving cash assistance but qualify for TANF: needy custodial parents,
noncustodial parents, nonparent caretaker relatives (grandparents, aunts, and uncles) or youth.
That is, a subsidized job can be provided in lieu of cash assistance or to certain persons (e.g.,
noncustodial parents) who are unlikely to receive TANF cash assistance.
Subsidized employment programs can benefit individual participants by providing job experience
for those with limited work histories, filling gaps in employment histories for those who are
unemployed for long periods of time, and keeping an individual attached to the labor force.
Subsidized employment programs can also provide more income for families than TANF cash
assistance benefits provide. In July 2009, a participant working 30 hours per week in a subsidized
job paying the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) earned more than the maximum benefit
available for a family of three in all states.16 Subsidized employment programs can also benefit
communities by producing goods or services that are of value to the community.
However, a more difficult question to answer is whether subsidized employment programs
actually create jobs. While programs must comply with non-displacement requirements (cannot
use a subsidized job to fill a position where someone is on layoff), this does not mean that all
subsidized employment positions reflect jobs that otherwise would not exist. Research on public
sector, public service jobs in the 1970s found that state and local governments did to some degree
substitute subsidized jobs for regular public sector jobs. The applicable research is more limited
on whether subsidized private sector jobs can substitute for regular jobs. One of the Obama
Administration’s “general principles” for reauthorization of TANF is to build on recent
experience with TANF subsidized employment. Congress could consider

15 LaDonna Pavetti, Liz Schott, and Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Creating Subsidized Employment Opportunities for Low-
Income Parents: The Legacy of the TANF Emergency Fund , Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for
Law and Social Policy, February 16, 2011.
16 This statement assumes that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) at least offsets income and payroll taxes.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

• establishing a dedicated funding stream for subsidized employment; and/or
• creating non-financial inducements for states to expand their subsidized
employment programs, such as counting participation in subsidized employment
for those not on the ongoing cash assistance rolls toward a state’s work
participation standard.
Fathers
The current cash assistance programs date their lineage to “mothers’ pension” programs, and most
of the policy concerns in past welfare reform debates have focused on families headed by a single
mother. The circumstances of the fathers of children living with single mothers—today, more
likely to be alive but absent from the household rather than deceased—have received far less
policy attention until recently.
Noncustodial fathers are expected to help support their children through the payment of child
support. Child support collections through the Federal-State Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
program increased dramatically in the post-welfare reform period, rising 73% in inflation-
adjusted terms between FY1995 and FY2009. Total CSE collections stood at $26.4 billion in the
recession year FY2009. Despite the successes of the CSE program in increasing collections, the
CSE program collected only 64% of the total amount of current support that was due and an even
smaller proportion (7%) of past-due support.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) established within the TANF program two
categorical, competitive grant programs to fund healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood
initiatives. For FY2006 through FY2010, the grants were funded at about $100 million per year
for healthy marriage activities and $50 million per year for responsible fatherhood activities.
These programs fund grants to community-based organizations, to operate initiatives that focus
on providing training in “soft-skills” (e.g., social skills, conflict resolution) to help either couples
or noncustodial fathers. TANF’s one year extension in the Claims Resolution Act provided equal
funding at $75 million each for these two sets of activities, though the Administration solicited
grantees who would take a more comprehensive approach to fatherhood issues, integrating
employment services with soft-skills training.
One common characterization of noncustodial fathers who fail to pay their child support is that of
a “dead-beat” dad. However, research has shown that some of these fathers are themselves poor.
These fathers—like their single mother counterparts—tend to have lower levels of educational
attainment and face above-average rates of health barriers to employment. Long-term economic
and social trends reflect some of the challenges to policies that would further involve men in the
lives of their children. Wages of men in general have been stagnant—the inflation-adjusted
median annual earnings of a man working full-time all year peaked in 1973—and for men with
lower levels of educational attainment, wages have fallen. Fathers face an additional barrier to
supporting their children—high rates of incarceration. In 2009, 949 per 100,000 males were
incarcerated versus 67 per 100,000 females. For African-American males, the incarceration rate
was 3,119 per 100,000. While fathers who are in prison have obvious constraints on their ability
to support their children, the stigma of having a criminal record is an employment barrier faced
by ex-offenders.17

17 For a discussion of policies affecting noncustodial parents, usually fathers, see CRS Report R41431, Child Well-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Congress has a number of options should it wish to expand programs focused on fathers. It could
create a new funding stream within the CSE program for this purpose. Or Congress might
consider ways states could make more extensive use of existing TANF funds to serve
disadvantaged noncustodial parents by, for example,
• continuing DRA-established programs, possibly emphasizing activities such as
employment services in addition to training in social skills;
• providing states with the incentive to expand subsidized jobs programs for
noncustodial parents; an example of such an incentive is allowing states to count
participants in subsidized employment who are not recipients of ongoing cash
assistance toward the TANF work participation standard;
• establishing a TANF state plan requirement that requires states to discuss and set
goals for noncustodial parents; this could be paired with requiring states to assess
their efforts at aiding noncustodial parents.
Recent Chronology
February 8, 2006
Enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which provided
TANF funding through September 30, 2010.
September 30, 2010
Enactment of the First Continuing Appropriation for FY2011 (P.L. 111-242),
providing funding for TANF through December 3, 2010. It also appropriates to the
TANF contingency fund $506 million for FY2011 and $612 million for FY2012.
December 4, 2010
Enactment of the Second Continuing Appropriation for FY2011 (P.L. 111-290),
providing funding for TANF through December 18, 2010.
December 8, 2010
Enactment of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) that provides
funding for TANF through September 30, 2011. However, TANF supplemental
grants are funded only through June 30, 2011. Provides that no further contingency
funds may be obligated for FY2011.
February 14, 2011
President Obama submits his FY2012 budget proposal. Provides “general principles”
to consider when Congress considers reauthorizing TANF.
Sept 30, 2011
Enactment of the Short-Term TANF Extension Act (P.L. 112-35) that provides a
three-month extension of TANF funding through December 31, 2011.
Legislation in the 112th Congress
S. 943 (Hatch) would require states to establish policies that prevent the use of TANF cash
assistance in any transaction that occurs in a liquor store, a casino, or a strip club. States that fail
to implement a policy could be penalized with a funding reduction of up to 5% of the state family
assistance grant.
H.R. 628 (Cleaver) establishes a $20 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund for FY2011
through FY2018. It provides funding for increases in cash assistance, non-recurrent short-term
benefits, and subsidized employment.

(...continued)
Being and Noncustodial Fathers, by Carmen Solomon-Fears, Gene Falk, and Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

H.R. 1135 (Jordan) and H.R. 1167 (Jordan) Similar bills; both would reduce the TANF basic
block grant to $15.5 billion. Also, both would set an overall cap on spending for need-tested
benefits, enforced through the congressional budget process.
H.R. 2277 (Doggett) would extend TANF supplemental grants through the end of FY2011
(September 30, 2011).
H.R. 2943 (Geoff Davis) would extend TANF basic, healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood, and mandatory child care grants (and certain other TANF funds) through December
31, 2011. Passed the House, September 21, 2011; passed the Senate, September 23, 2011.
S. 83 (Vitter) and H.R. 1769 (Boustany) would require states to operate drug testing programs
for recipients of TANF assistance and would require states to sanction individuals who fail drug
tests.
Additional Reading
The American Public Human Services Association and the National Association of State TANF
Administrators, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Recommendations for
Reauthorization, December 2010, http://www.aphsa.org/Home/Doc/APHSA-
NASTATANFRecommendations.pdf.
Katherine Bradley and Robert Rector, Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare
Entitlements: Principles of Reform and Next Steps, Heritage Foundation, June 24, 2010,
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2427.pdf.
Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Goals for TANF Reauthorization, Center for Law and Social Policy
January 24, 2011, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/TANF-Reauthorization-
Goals.pdf.


Congressional Research Service
18

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Appendix. Additional Tables
Table A-1. TANF Grants Per Poor Child: Basic Block Grant Only (State Family
Assistance Grant) and Basic Block Grants with TANF Supplemental Grants
Number of poor children are as measured in the 2009 American Community Survey; states ranked based
on their State Family Assistance Grant per poor child
SFAG Plus
SFAG Plus
Supplemental
Supplemental
Grants Funded
Grants Funded
at $211 Million
at $319 Million
Per Year
Per Year
(current law
(historical level
FY2011 level
of
of
State Family Assistance Grant
supplemental
supplemental
State
(SFAG)
grants)
grants)
Texas $293
$324
$314
Arkansas 300
333
322
Alabama 339
380
366
Mississippi 373
412
399
Nevada 373
405
394
South Carolina
385
385
385
Idaho 426
472
457
Tennessee 547
609
588
Arizona 559
619
598
Georgia 582
648
625
North Carolina
599
670
646
Louisiana 612
675
654
South Dakota
617
617
617
Virginia 625
625
625
Colorado 646
711
689
Florida 660
731
707
Indiana 665
665
665
Kentucky 710
710
710
Utah 732
815
786
Oklahoma 738
738
738
Missouri 746
746
746
Kansas 840
840
840
Nebraska 875
875
875
Delaware 964
964
964
Montana 981
1,006
998
Congressional Research Service
19

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

SFAG Plus
SFAG Plus
Supplemental
Supplemental
Grants Funded
Grants Funded
at $211 Million
at $319 Million
Per Year
Per Year
(current law
(historical level
FY2011 level
of
of
State Family Assistance Grant
supplemental
supplemental
State
(SFAG)
grants)
grants)
New Mexico
984
1,035
1,018
Illinois
989 989
989
Oregon 1,022
1,022
1,022
Iowa 1,202
1,202
1,202
West Virginia
1,243
1,243
1,243
Ohio 1,246
1,246
1,246
New Hampshire
1,259
1,259
1,259
Wyoming 1,364
1,364
1,364
North Dakota
1,455
1,455
1,455
New Jersey
1,482
1,482
1,482
Wisconsin 1,484
1,484
1,484
Maryland 1,487
1,487
1,487
Michigan 1,492
1,492
1,492
Minnesota 1,540
1,540
1,540
Pennsylvania 1,542
1,542
1,542
Washington 1,612
1,612
1,612
Maine 1,729
1,729
1,729
California 2,022
2,022
2,022
Massachusetts 2,475
2,475
2,475
Rhode Island
2,518
2,518
2,518
Hawai 2,520
2,520
2,520
Alaska 2,751
3,049
2,948
Connecticut 2,753
2,753
2,753
District of Columbia
2,795
2,795
2,795
New York
2,813
2,813
2,813
Vermont 2,871
2,871
2,871




National Average
1,125
1,147
1,139
Minimum 293
324
314
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Notes: Child poverty is measured as the number of persons under age 18 living in families below the poverty
level as measured in the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS).

Table A-2. Number of Unemployed and Unemployment Rate
by Family Type: 2007 and 2009
Number of Unemployed

(in thousands)
Unemployment Rate

2007
2009 Difference 2007
2009 Difference
Family heads and spouses with own children



Married mothers
549
1,027
478
3.1
5.8
2.8
Married fathers
615
1,559
944
2.5
6.6
4.1
Single mothers
654
1,094
439
8.0
13.6
5.7
Single fathers
136
331
195
6.2
15.0
8.9
Subtotal 1,954
4,010
2,056
3.7
7.8
4.1







Others






Married wives
500
1,031
530
2.6
5.2
2.7
Married husbands
547
1,422
875
4.9
6.5
1.6
Other women
1,520
2,712
1,191
5.0
8.5
3.5
Other men
2,562
5,081
2,520
7.8
15.2
7.4
Subtotal 5,129
10,246
5,116
5.0
9.6
4.6







Total 7,083
14,256
7,173
4.5
9.0
4.5
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Surveys, 2007 and 2009.
Notes: This table was prepared by Gerald Mayer of the Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional
Research Service (CRS).

Table A-3. Employment-Population Ratios by Family Type 2007 and 2009
2007
2009
Difference
Family heads and spouses with own children
Married wives
66.7
65.5
-1.2
Married husbands
90.8
86.5
-4.3
Single women
70.4
65.5
-4.9
Single Men
84.0
74.7
-9.3
Subtotal 77.6
74.2
-3.4
Congressional Research Service
21

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

2007
2009
Difference
Others



Married wives
53.6
52.6
-0.9
Married husbands
60.6
58.2
-2.4
Other women
58.1
56.5
-1.5
Other men
62.5
56.0
-6.5
Subtotal 58.9
55.9
-3.0




Total 64.2
60.8
-3.4
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Surveys, 2007 and 2009.
Notes: This table was prepared by Gerald Mayer of the Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional
Research Service (CRS).

Table A-4. Impact of Unemployment Compensation on Child Poverty Rates,
Selected Years Associated with Recessions

1993 2002 2009
All Children



Pre-UC poor
23.3
17.3
22.0
Officially poor
22.7
16.7
20.7
Difference
-0.6
-0.6
-1.3





Children living in single female-headed families
Pre-UC poor
54.9
40.9
46.6
Officially poor
54.3
39.8
45.1
Difference
-0.6
-1.1
-1.6
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Surveys, selected years.


Congressional Research Service
22

---

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Author Contact Information

Gene Falk

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


Acknowledgments
Meredith Peterson prepared the summary of TANF legislation introduced in the 112th Congress.

Congressional Research Service
23

---