.

The Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant:
Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
January 6, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32760

c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Summary
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits
and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare
reform law (P.L. 104-193). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF;
it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal
Requirements, by Gene Falk).
TANF Funding. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk of which is provided in a $16.5
billion-per-year basic federal block grant. States are also required in total to contribute, from their
own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement.
Federal and State TANF Expenditures. Though TANF is best known for funding cash
assistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for
a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2013, expenditures on basic assistance (cash
assistance) totaled $8.7 billion—28% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. TANF also
contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of being,
abused and neglected.
Cash Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.7 million families, composed of 4.0 million recipients,
received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in December 2013. The bulk of the “recipients” were
children—3.0 million in that month. The cash assistance caseload is very heterogeneous. The type
of family historically thought of as the “typical” cash assistance family—one with an unemployed
adult recipient—accounted for less than half of all families on the rolls in FY2012. Additionally,
18% of cash assistance families had an employed adult, while 36% of all TANF families were
“child-only” and had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults
receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g., grandparents,
aunts, uncles) caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and ineligible
noncitizen parents.
Cash Assistance Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 2013, the maximum
monthly benefit for a family of three ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. Benefits
in all states represent a fraction of poverty-level income. In the median jurisdiction (the District of
Columbia), the maximum monthly benefit of $428 for a family of three represents 26% of
poverty-level income.
Cash Assistance Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and
90% of two-parent families in work activities. However, these standards are reduced by the
amount of a state’s caseload reduction from FY2005. Further, states may get an extra credit
against these standards by spending more than required under the TANF MOE. Therefore, the
effective standards states face are often less than the 50% or 90% targets, and vary by state. In
FY2011, states achieved an all-family participation rate of 29.5% and a two-parent rate of 32.0%.
That year, nine jurisdictions failed the all-family standard, and five jurisdictions failed the two-
parent standard. States that fail to meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a
reduction in their block grant.

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Topics .................................................................................................................................. 1
What Is TANF’s Current Funding Status? ................................................................................. 1
What Is TANF’s Funding Level? ............................................................................................... 1
May States Require Drug Testing of TANF Cash Assistance Recipients? ................................ 2
What Are TANF’s Rules for Drug Felons? ................................................................................ 2
What Are TANF’s Rules for Substance Abuse Treatment? ....................................................... 2
What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative? .................................................................... 3
Has Any State Formally Applied for a “Waiver” of TANF Work Participation
Standards? .............................................................................................................................. 3
What TANF Legislation Saw Action in the 113th Congress? ..................................................... 3
History ............................................................................................................................................. 3
When Was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant
Created? .................................................................................................................................. 3
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? ............................................................ 4
Funding and Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 5
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? .............................. 5
How Have States Used TANF Funds? ....................................................................................... 6
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? ................................................................. 7
The Caseload ................................................................................................................................... 7
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services? ....................... 7
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Cash
Assistance? ............................................................................................................................. 7
How Does the Current Cash Assistance Caseload Level Compare with Historical
Levels? ................................................................................................................................... 8
What Are the Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families? ..................................................... 9
TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? ................ 11
TANF Work Participation Standards ............................................................................................. 13
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? ....................................... 13
Have There Been Changes in the Work Participation Rules Enacted Since the 1996
Welfare Reform Law? .......................................................................................................... 14
What Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved? .................................................... 14
What Has Been the National Average All-Family Work Participation Rate? .................... 14
How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard From FY2002
Through FY2011? .......................................................................................................... 15
Have States Met the Two-Parent Work Participation Standard? ....................................... 17
Are States that Recently Failed the TANF Work Standards Being Penalized? ................. 20

Figures
Figure 1. Uses of TANF Federal Grants and State MOE Funds: FY2013 ....................................... 6
Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-December 2013 ................. 9
Figure 3. Composition of the TANF Cash Assistance Caseload, FY2012 ..................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Figure 4. National Average TANF Work Participation Rates for All Families: FY2002-
FY2011 ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. Federal Funding for TANF Grants: FY2007 Through FY2015 ......................................... 1
Table 2. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars ..................................................... 5
Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: December 2013 ............................................................ 8
Table 4. Maximum TANF Cash Assistance Benefit Amount for a Single Mother Caring
for Two Children, by State, July 2013 ........................................................................................ 11
Table 5. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2011 ........ 16
Table 6. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State:
FY2002-FY2011 ......................................................................................................................... 18
Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006 ..................................................... 21
Table A-2. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2015 ..................................................... 22
Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2013 .................................. 23
Table A-4. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2013 ............................................... 23
Table B-1. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category .................................................. 26
Table B-2. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total
Federal TANF and State MOE Funding ..................................................................................... 29
Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2013 ............................................................... 32
Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash
Assistance by State: December 2013 .......................................................................................... 33
Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Assistance by State,
December of Selected Years ....................................................................................................... 35
Table B-6. TANF Families by Number of Parents in Assisted Unit by State: December
2013 ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Table B-7. TANF All-Family Work Participation Rate by State: FY2002 Through FY2011 ........ 39
Table B-8. TANF Two-Parent Work Participation Rate: FY2002-FY2011 ................................... 41

Appendixes
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables .............................................................................................. 21
Appendix B. State Tables ............................................................................................................... 26

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 42

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Introduction
This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended to serve as a quick reference to provide easy
access to information and data. This report does not provide information on TANF program rules.
For such information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.
For a non-technical overview of TANF, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Block Grant: An Overview, by Gene Falk.
Current Topics
What Is TANF’s Current Funding Status?
P.L. 113-235, the omnibus appropriation act for FY2015, extends TANF funding through
September 30, 2015.1
What Is TANF’s Funding Level?
Table 1 shows TANF funding for FY2007 through FY2015. The bulk of TANF funding is in a
basic block grant (the state family assistance grant), which provides annual funding totaling $16.5
billion for the 50 states and District of Columbia. This grant amount was established in the 1996
welfare reform law and has not been changed since then.
FY2015 funding for TANF grants is the same as in previous years, except for the TANF
contingency fund. A total of $583 million is available for FY2015 contingency fund grants to
states, compared with $610 million in FY2014. A total FY2015 contingency fund appropriation of
$608 million includes set-asides of $15 million for HHS TANF research activities and $10
million for Census Bureau research activities related to TANF, leaving $583 million for
contingency fund grants to states.
Table 1. Federal Funding for TANF Grants: FY2007 Through FY2015
(Dollars in millions)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
State family assistance grant
$16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489 $16,489
Supplemental
grants
319 319 319 319 211 0 0 0 0
Healthy marriage/responsible
150 150 150 150 150 150 150
150 150
fatherhood grants
Grants to the territories
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
Grants for tribal work
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8
programs

1 See Section 228 of Division G of P.L. 113-235
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Contingency
fund
59 428
1,107 212 334 612 610a 610a 583b
Emergency
contingency
fund

617
4,383
Totals
17,103 17,472 18,768 21,639 17,270 17,337 17,335 17,335 17,308
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from HHS.

a. P.L. 112-275 appropriated $612 mil ion to the TANF contingency fund for FY2013 and FY2014, and
reserved $2 million in each year of these funds for a commission on child abuse and neglect fatalities. Thus,
$610 million was available for FY2013 and FY2014 TANF contingency fund grants to states.
b. P.L. 113-235 appropriated $608 mil ion to the TANF contingency fund for FY2015 and FY2016, but sets
aside from those funds $15 million for HHS welfare research activities and $10 million for U.S. Census
Bureau activities related to welfare research.
In addition to federal TANF funds, states are required in total to contribute, from their own funds,
at least $10.4 billion per year for TANF-related activities for low-income families with children.
This level of state funding, known as maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding, was also established
in the 1996 welfare law and has not been changed since then.
May States Require Drug Testing of TANF Cash Assistance
Recipients?
Yes. The 1996 assistance reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for assistance
recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104-193.) However,
specific state policies regarding drug testing raise constitutional issues. For a discussion of states
that require drug testing in TANF and related programs, see CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing
and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by Maggie McCarty et
al. See also CRS Report R42326, Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing
Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits, by David H. Carpenter.
What Are TANF’s Rules for Drug Felons?
The 1996 welfare reform law established a lifetime ban on eligibility for TANF and food stamps
for those convicted of a drug-related felony. However, states may either opt out entirely or modify
and limit this lifetime ban. (See Section 115 of P.L. 104-193.)
What Are TANF’s Rules for Substance Abuse Treatment?
States may use TANF funds for substance abuse treatment. Federal TANF dollars cannot be used
for “medical services,” but can be used for “non-medical” treatment such as counseling. State
MOE dollars can be used for medical services connected with substance abuse treatment.
TANF requires states to conduct an employability assessment of adult recipients, and allows
states to establish Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs) for their TANF families. The IRP may
require participation in a substance abuse treatment program. A family may be sanctioned for
failure to comply with its IRP.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Additionally, a state may engage recipients in substance abuse treatment and count that activity
toward its work participation standard, though such an activity is counted only for a limited
period of time. Substance abuse treatment is considered a “job readiness” activity; a state may
count job search and job readiness activities for a maximum of 12 weeks in a year toward its
work participation standards.
What Is the Administration’s “Waiver” Initiative?
On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would
accept applications for “waivers” of the TANF work participation standards. In general, these are
waivers of the way the performance of state welfare-to-work programs are assessed, the federal
work participation standards. For a discussion, see CRS Report R42627, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare Waivers, by Gene Falk.
Has Any State Formally Applied for a “Waiver” of TANF Work
Participation Standards?
As of December 10, 2014, no state had formally applied for a waiver of TANF work participation
standards under the Administration’s waiver initiative.
What TANF Legislation Saw Action in the 113th Congress?
In the 113th Congress, the House passed H.R. 890 on March 13, 2013. The bill would have
prevented the Administration’s July 12, 2012, work waiver initiative from being implemented,
while also barring any future waivers of the TANF work participation standards. The Senate did
not act on the bill.
Additionally, the House passed H.R. 4137, the Preserve Welfare for Needs Not Weed Act, on
September 16, 2014. It would have required states to establish procedures to prevent recipients of
TANF cash assistance from accessing benefits electronically in establishments that sell marijuana.
Current TANF law requires states to establish procedures to prevent such electronic access
(through Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) or Point of Sale devices) in casinos, adult
entertainment establishments, and liquor stores. H.R. 4137 would have added establishments that
offer marijuana for sale to that list. The bill did not distinguish between establishments that offer
marijuana for sale for recreational or medical purposes. The Senate did not act on the bill.
History
When Was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant Created?
The TANF block grant was created by the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). PRWORA is also
referred to in this report as the 1996 welfare reform law. TANF replaced the program of Aid to
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which dated back to the Social Security Act of 1935,
and several other related programs.
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) included provisions establishing “welfare-to-
work” grants for FY1998 and FY1999 and made several other policy and technical changes to
TANF. No new welfare-to-work grants were made after FY1999.
The original funding authority for TANF ended on September 30, 2002. Over the four-year period
from 2002 through 2005, Congress considered, but did not pass, legislation to modify and
reauthorize TANF (see CRS Report RL33418, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109th Congress: An
Overview, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears). Over this four-year period,
Congress passed 12 “temporary extensions” of TANF and related programs as stop-gap measures
until it could reach agreement on a longer-term reauthorization. (See Appendix A, Table A-1 for
a listing of the temporary extensions.)
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) included a long-term extension of
funding for TANF through FY2010. It also modified TANF work participation standards;
established $100 million per year in TANF research and technical assistance funds for “healthy
marriage promotion” initiatives; and provided $50 million per year for “responsible fatherhood
initiatives.” (For a discussion of TANF provisions in the DRA, see CRS Report RS22369, TANF,
Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood Provisions in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.) The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L.
111-291) provided that healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives would be funded
at $75 million each for FY2011. Funding extension legislation continued these activities for
FY2012 through FY2015 at $75 million for responsible fatherhood and $75 million for healthy
marriage initiatives.
P.L. 112-96 (the law that extended the payroll tax cut through 2012) provided TANF funding
through the end of FY2012. It provided FY2012 funding for the basic TANF block grant, healthy
marriage and responsible fatherhood competitive grants, and certain other funds at their FY2011
levels. It did not provide FY2012 funding for TANF supplemental grants.
In addition, P.L. 112-96
• prevents electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at liquor stores,
casinos, and strip clubs; states are required to prohibit access to TANF cash at
Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) at such establishments; and
• requires states to report TANF data in a manner that facilitates the exchange of
that data with other programs’ data systems.
Legislation that extended TANF funding for FY2013 through FY2015 did not include policy
changes.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Funding and Expenditures
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because
of Inflation?
From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2014 (ended September 30, 2014),
the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 32.3%. Table 2 shows the impact of inflation
on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2014. On average, the
TANF basic block grant has lost 2.3% of its value each year over that period.
Table 2. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars
Cumulative
Value of the Basic
Change in Value of
TANF Block Grant
the Basic Block
in FY1997 Dollars
Grant from
Fiscal Year
($ in billions)
FY1997 Levels
1997 $16.5

1998 16.2 -1.6%
1999 15.9 -3.5
2000 15.4 -6.4
2001 14.9 -9.4
2002 14.7 -10.7
2003 14.4 -12.7
2004 14.1 -14.7
2005 13.6 -17.4
2006 13.1 -20.4
2007 12.8 -22.2
2008 12.3 -25.5
2009 12.3 -25.3
2010 12.1 -26.5
2011 11.8 -28.4
2012 11.5 -30.1
2013 11.3 -31.2
2014 11.2 -32.3

Average Annual Rate of Change in the Value
-2.3%
of the Block Grant
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Notes: Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index for al Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

How Have States Used TANF Funds?
TANF is best known as a funding source of cash assistance benefits for needy families with
children. However, states have considerable discretion in using TANF funds, and have used them
for a wide range of benefits and services.
Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2013. In
FY2013, a total of $31.6 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either
expended or transferred to other block grant programs. Basic assistance, the category that most
closely reflects cash assistance, represented 28% ($8.7 billion) of total FY2013 TANF and MOE
dollars.
TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2013, 16% of all TANF funds used were
either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and
Development Fund, or CCDF). TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system,
which provides foster care, adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either
have experienced or are at risk of experiencing child abuse or neglect. However, TANF’s
accounting system does a poor job of capturing expenditures associated with spending on the
child welfare system. Most TANF funding for these programs is subsumed in the catch-all “other”
expenditure category.
Figure 1. Uses of TANF Federal Grants and State MOE Funds: FY2013
(Total = $31.6 Billion)
Basic Assistance
Other
28%
Expenditures
34%
Administration
7%
Child Care
Other Work
16%
Work Program
Supports
Expenditures
9%
6%

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
See Appendix A, Table A-3 for dollar amounts of total federal TANF and state MOE funds
associated with each of these categories. For state-specific information on the use of TANF funds,
see Table B-1 and Table B-2.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent?
TANF law permits states to “reserve” unused funds without time limit. This permits flexibility in
timing of the use of TANF funds, including the ability to “save” funds for unexpected
occurrences that might increase costs (such as recessions or natural disasters).
At the end of FY2013 (September 30, 2013, the latest data currently available), a total of $3.0
billion of federal TANF funding remained neither transferred nor spent. However, some of these
unspent funds represent monies that states had already committed to spend later. At the end of
FY2013, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.5
billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments to spend, and they come in the form of
contracts and grants to provide benefits and services. However, the definition of “obligation”
varies from program to program, and because TANF essentially consists of 54 different programs
(one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the territories), what constitutes an obligation
may vary.
At the end of FY2013, states also had $1.5 billion of “unobligated balances.” These funds are
available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 shows unspent TANF funds
by state.
The Caseload
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits
and Services?
This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving
only ongoing cash assistance, with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF
benefits and services. As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance
accounts for about 28% of all TANF expenditures. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements
that pertain to families receiving “assistance” are very likely to undercount the number of families
receiving any TANF-funded benefit or service.
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-
Funded Cash Assistance?
Table 3 provides cash assistance caseload information. A total of 1.7 million families, composed
of 4.0 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in December 2013. The bulk of
the “recipients” were children—3.0 million in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance
caseloads, see Appendix B.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table 3. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload: December 2013
Total Families
1,668,051
Total Recipients
3,922,340
Total Children
2,953,437
Total Adults
968,903
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: TANF cash assistance caseload includes families receiving assistance in state-funded programs counted
toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.
How Does the Current Cash Assistance Caseload Level Compare
with Historical Levels?
Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving cash
assistance, from July 1959 to December 2013. The shaded areas of the figure represent months
when the national economy was in recession. Though the health of the national economy affected
the trend in the cash assistance caseload, the long-term trend in receipt of cash assistance does not
follow a classic counter-cyclical pattern. (Such a pattern would have the caseload rise during
economic slumps, and then fall again during periods of economic growth.) Factors other than the
health of the economy (demographic trends, policy changes) also influenced the caseload trend.
The figure shows two periods of sustained caseload increases: the period from the mid-1960s to
the mid-1970s and a second period from 1988 to 1994. The number of families receiving cash
assistance peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The cash assistance caseload fell rapidly
in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before leveling off in 2001. In 2004, the
caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than in the late 1990s.
During the recent 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath, the caseload began to rise from its post-
welfare reform low in August 2008 (1.7 million families), peaking in December 2010 at close to
2.0 million families. By December 2013, the cash assistance caseload had declined to
approximately match its post-welfare reform low at about 1.7 million families.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-December 2013
(Families in millions)
6
Historic Peak:
5.1 million families
March 1994
5
4
3
2
Dec. 2013:
1.7 million
families
1
0
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
l-5
l-6
l-6
l-6
l-6
l-6
l-7
l-7
l-7
l-7
l-7
l-8
l-8
l-8
l-8
l-8
l-9
l-9
l-9
l-9
l-9
l-0
l-0
l-0
l-0
l-0
l-1
l-1
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
-Ju
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: Shaded areas denote months when the national economy was in recession. Information represents
families receiving cash assistance from Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), and TANF. For October 1999 through December 2013, includes families receiving assistance
from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirement. See Table A-4 for annual average data on families, recipients, adult recipients, and child
recipients of ADC/AFDC and TANF cash assistance for 1961 to 2013.
Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash assistance families by state.
What Are the Characteristics of Cash Assistance Families?
Historically, the “typical” cash assistance family has been headed by a single parent (usually the
mother) with one or two children. The single parent has also typically been unemployed.
However, the cash assistance caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the
composition of the rolls. Today, less than half of all cash assistance families are headed by an
unemployed adult recipient. Almost 4 in 10 of all cash assistance families had no adult recipient
or work-eligible individual at all, with the adults in the family ineligible for aid and the benefits
paid only on behalf of the child (these are known as “child-only” families). This shift occurred
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

because the caseload decline was concentrated among the families thought of as the “typical”
cash assistance families, and welfare-to-work efforts have been concentrated on this population.
Figure 3 shows the composition of the cash assistance caseload in FY2012. Families with an
unemployed adult recipient represent 45% of all cash assistance families. Families with an
employed (in a regular job) adult recipient, who receive cash assistance as an earnings
supplement, comprise an additional 18% of the cash assistance rolls. Within the “child-only”
portion of the caseload, families with a parent (usually a disabled parent) receiving SSI and the
children receiving TANF as a supplement to that benefit represent 9% of the cash assistance
caseload. Families that are made up of children living with a non-parent relative (grandparents,
aunts, uncles, etc.) represent 12% of the cash assistance caseload. Families of child citizens living
with ineligible parents who are noncitizens or who have not reported their citizenship status make
up 11% of the total cash assistance caseload. The remainder of the cash assistance caseload
represents child recipients for whom data on the adults they live with are not available.
Figure 3. Composition of the TANF Cash Assistance Caseload, FY2012
Child-Only/Other
Child-
4.2%
Only/Nonparent
Caretaker(s)
12.4%
Family with
Child-
Adult(s)/ Not
Only/Noncitizen
Employed
Parent(s)
45.2%
10.8%
Child-Only/SSI
Parent(s)
9.1%
Family with
Adult(s)/Employed
18.4%

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable
toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Families with an adult include families with
nonrecipient parents who are “work-eligible.” Most non-recipient parents who are “work-eligible” are those
who have reached time limits or have been sanctioned off the rol s in states that permit continuation of aid to
children of such parents.

For more information on the characteristics and the changes in the composition of the cash
assistance caseload, see CRS Report R43187, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):
Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload, by Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family
Receive in TANF Cash Per Month?
There are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a family.
(There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash benefits, though all
states do so.) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the states.
Table 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state for a single mother caring for
two children (family of three) in July 2013.2 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-
parent family with two children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types
such as two-parent families or “child-only” cases. States also vary their benefits by other factors
such as housing costs and sub-state geography.
Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying larger cash benefits to larger
families on the presumption that they have greater financial needs. The maximum monthly cash
benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e.g., no earned or unearned
income) and complies with program rules. Families with income other than TANF often are paid
a reduced benefit. Moreover, some families are financially sanctioned for failure to meet a
program requirement (e.g., a work requirement), and are also paid a lower benefit.
The table also shows the benefit amounts relative to poverty-level income. TANF pays a family in
cash only a fraction of poverty level income (as officially determined and published by the
Department of Health and Human Services). For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit
paid in July 2013 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi (10.4% of poverty-level income) to
$923 per month in Alaska (45.4% of poverty-level income).3
Table 4. Maximum TANF Cash Assistance Benefit Amount for a Single Mother
Caring for Two Children, by State, July 2013
Maximum Benefit as
a Percent of the
2013 Poverty
Maximum Benefit
Guidelines
Alabama $215
13.2%
Alaska 923
45.4
Arizona 277
17.0
Arkansas 204
12.5
California 638
39.2
Colorado 462
28.4

2 States are not required to report to the federal government their cash assistance benefit amounts in either the TANF
state plan (under Section 402 of the Social Security Act) or in annual program reports (under Section 411 of the Social
Security Act). The benefit amounts shown are from the “Welfare Rules Database,” maintained by the Urban Institute
and funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
3 Different poverty thresholds, with greater dollar amounts, apply in Alaska than in the 48 contiguous states and the
District of Columbia. New York’s benefit of $789 per month represents 48.5% of the poverty guidelines that apply in
the 48 contiguous states and District of Columbia.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Maximum Benefit as
a Percent of the
2013 Poverty
Maximum Benefit
Guidelines
Connecticut 674
41.4
Delaware 338
20.8
District of Columbia
428
26.3
Florida 303
18.6
Georgia 280
17.2
Hawai 610
32.6
Idaho 309
19.0
Illinois 432
26.5
Indiana 288
17.7
Iowa 426
26.2
Kansas 429
26.4
Kentucky 262
16.1
Louisiana 240
14.7
Maine 485
29.8
Maryland 576
35.4
Massachusetts 618
38.0
Michigan 492
30.2
Minnesota 532
32.7
Mississippi 170
10.4
Missouri 292
17.9
Montana 510
31.3
Nebraska 364
22.4
Nevada 383
23.5
New Hampshire
675
41.5
New Jersey
424
26.1
New Mexico
380
23.3
New York
789
48.5
North Carolina
272
16.7
North Dakota
477
29.3
Ohio 458
28.1
Oklahoma 292
17.9
Oregon 506
31.1
Pennsylvania 421
25.9
Rhode Island
554
34.0
South Carolina
223
13.7
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Maximum Benefit as
a Percent of the
2013 Poverty
Maximum Benefit
Guidelines
South Dakota
582
35.8
Tennessee 185
11.4
Texas 271
16.7
Utah 498
30.6
Vermont 640
39.3
Virginia 389
23.9
Washington 478
29.4
West Virginia
340
20.9
Wisconsin 653
40.1
Wyoming 616
37.8
Source: : Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules
Database.
For additional information on TANF benefit amounts by state, see CRS Report R43634,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Eligibility and Benefit Amounts in State TANF
Cash Assistance Programs, by Gene Falk.
TANF Work Participation Standards
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet?
The TANF statute requires states to have 50% of their caseload meet standards of participation in
work or activities—that is, a family member must be in specified activities for a minimum
number of hours.4 There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion
of a state’s caseload, requiring 90% of the state’s two-parent caseload to meet participation
standards. States that fail the TANF work participation standards are at risk of being penalized by
a reduction in their block grant amounts.
However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a “caseload reduction credit.”
The caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard one percentage point for each
percentage point decline in a state’s caseload. Additionally, under a regulatory provision, a state
may get “extra” credit for caseload reduction if it spends more than required under the TANF
MOE. Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% and 90% targets,
and vary by state.

4 Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Have There Been Changes in the Work Participation Rules Enacted
Since the 1996 Welfare Reform Law?
The 50% and 90% target standards that states face, as well as the caseload reduction credit, date
back to the 1996 welfare reform law. However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171)
made several changes to the work participation rules effective in FY2007:
• The caseload reduction credit was changed to measure caseload reduction from
FY2005, rather than the original law’s FY1995.
• The work participation standards were broadened to include families receiving
cash aid in “separate state programs.” Separate state programs are programs run
with state funds, distinct from a state’s “TANF program,” but with expenditures
countable toward the TANF MOE.
• HHS was instructed to provide definition to the allowable TANF work activities
listed in law. HHS was also required to define what is meant by a “work-eligible”
individual, expanding the number of families that are included in the work
participation calculation.
• States were required to develop plans and procedures to verify work activities.
What Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?
HHS computes two work participation rates for each state that are then compared with the
effective (after-credit) standard to determine if it has met the TANF work standard. An “all-
families” work participation rate is computed and compared with the all-families effective
standard (50% minus the state’s caseload reduction credit). HHS also computes a two-parent
work participation rate that is compared with the two-parent effective standard (90% minus the
state’s caseload reduction credit).
What Has Been the National Average All-Family Work Participation Rate?
Figure 4 shows the national average all-families work participation rate for FY2002 through
FY2011. For that period, states have achieved an all-families work participation rate hovering
around 30%. In FY2011, the all-families work participation rate was 29.5%. This is well below
the statutory target of 50% for all families, but most (not all) states met the standard because of
credits against the 50% standard.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Figure 4. National Average TANF Work Participation Rates for All Families:
FY2002-FY2011
50%
45%
40%
35%
28.9%
29.4%
30.3%
30.6%
29.7%
29.4%
29.4%
29.0%
29.5%
30%
27.5%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: FY2002 through FY2006 work participation rates are based on federal work participation standard rules.
They exclude the effects of “grandfathered” waivers of pre-1996. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the
option to continue their pre-reform “waiver” programs and have their work participation rates based on the
rules of the state waivers, not the federal rules. The last of these pre-1996 waivers expired in 2006. The all
family work participation rates for FY2002 through FY2006 that include the effect of the waivers are slightly
higher than the rates shown here.
How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard From FY2002
Through FY2011?
Table 5 shows which states failed the TANF all-families work participation standards from
FY2002 through FY2011. Before FY2007 (the first year policies under the DRA were effective),
only a few jurisdictions failed to meet TANF all-families work participation standards. In
FY2006, three jurisdictions failed the standard, and that was the greatest number that failed the
standards over the FY2002 through FY2006 period.
However, in FY2007 15 jurisdictions failed to meet the all-families standard. This number
declined to 9 in FY2008 and 8 in FY2009. In FY2011 (the most recent year for which data are
available), 9 jurisdictions failed to meet the standard. Of these, 6 (California, Maine, Ohio,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Guam) failed the standards in all years in the period FY2007 through
FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table 5. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard:
FY2002-FY2011
(Changes to TANF Work Participation Standard Rules Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA)
Effective in FY2007)

Pre-DRA
Post-DRA
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California
X
X
X
X
X
Colorado

Connecticut
X
Delaware

District
of
Columbia
X
X
X
Florida

Georgia

Hawai

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana
X
X
X
Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky
X
Louisiana

Maine
X
X
X
X
X
Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan
X
X X
X
Minnesota

X

Mississippi

Missouri
X
X X
Montana

Nebraska

Nevada
X X
New Hampshire

New Jersey

New
Mexico
X
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Pre-DRA
Post-DRA
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio
X
X
X
X
X
Oklahoma

Oregon
X
X
X
X
X
Pennsylvania

Puerto
Rico
X
X
X
X
X
Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

X

Virginia

Washington

West
Virginia
X
X
Wisconsin

Wyoming

Guam
X X X X X X X X X X
Virgin
Islands
X

Totals
1 2 1 2 3 15 9 8 8 9
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Have States Met the Two-Parent Work Participation Standard?
In addition to meeting a work standard for all families, TANF also imposes a second, 90%
standard for the two-parent portion of its cash assistance caseload. This standard too can be
reduced for caseload reduction.
Table 6 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2002
through FY2011. However, the display on the table is more complex than that for reporting
whether a state failed its “all family” rate. A substantial number of states have reported no two-
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

parent families subject to the work participation standard.5 These states are denoted on the table
with an “NA,” indicating that the two-parent standard was not applicable to the state in that year.
For states with two-parent families in its caseload, the table reports “Yes” for states that met the
two-parent standard, and “No” for states that failed the two-parent standard.
In FY2011, 27 jurisdictions reported that no two-parent families were included in the TANF work
participation standard calculation. Of the 27 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their
TANF work participation calculation, 22 met the standard and 5 did not.
Table 6. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State:
FY2002-FY2011
(“Yes” indicates a state met the standard; “No” indicates the state failed to meet the standard; and “NA”
means the standard was not applicable to the state in that year [no two-parent families in its caseload].)

Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Post-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Alabama
NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES
Alaska
YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO YES
Arizona
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Arkansas
NO NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES YES
California
NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES
Colorado
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Connecticut
NA NA NA NA NA YES NA NA NA NA
Delaware
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
District
of
Columbia
NO NO NO NO NO NA NA NA NA NA
Florida
NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES
Georgia
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Hawai
NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NA YES YES
Idaho
YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA
Illinois
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Indiana
NA NA NA NA NA NO YES YES YES YES
Iowa
YES YES NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES
Kansas
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Kentucky
YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES
Louisiana
YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA
Maine
YES YES NA NA NA YES NO NO NO NO

5 Before the changes made by the DRA were effective, a number of states had their two-parent families in separate state
programs that were not included in the work participation calculation. When DRA brought families receiving assistance
in separate state programs into the work participation rate calculations, a number of states moved these families into
solely-state-funded programs. These are state-funded programs with expenditures not countable toward the TANF
maintenance of effort requirement, and hence are outside of TANF’s rules.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Post-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Maryland
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Massachusetts
YES YES YES YES MA NA YES YES YES NA
Michigan
YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA
Minnesota
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mississippi
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Missouri
NO NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Montana
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Nebraska
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nevada
NA NA NA NA NA NO NO NO NO NO
New
Hampshire
YES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
New
Jersey
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
New
Mexico
YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES
New
York
YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA NA
North
Carolina
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
North
Dakota
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ohio
YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES
Oklahoma
NA YES NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Oregon
YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO
Pennsylvania
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Puerto
Rico
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Rhode
Island
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO
South
Carolina
YES YES YES YES YES YES NA NA NA NA
South
Dakota
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Tennessee
NA NA NA NA NA YES YES YES YES YES
Texas
NA NA NA NA NA YES NA NA NA NA
Utah
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vermont
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Virginia
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Washington
YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
West
Virginia
NO NO NA NA NA NO NA NA YES NA
Wisconsin
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Wyoming
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Guam
NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO
Virgin
Islands
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Pre- Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) Post-Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number
of
Jurisdictions
without
Two-Parent
Families 24 25 29 29 29 24 26 27 25 27
Number
of
Jurisdictions
with
Two-Parent
Families
30 29 25 25 25 30 28 27 29 27
Number
of
Jurisdictions
Meeting
Two-Parent
Standard 25 25 21 23 21 22 22 20 23 22
Number
of
Jurisdictions
Failing
Two-Parent
Standard 5 4 4 2 3 7 6 7 6 5
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Are States that Recently Failed the TANF Work Standards Being Penalized?
States that fail to meet the TANF work participation standard are at risk of being penalized
through a reduction in their block grant. However, penalties can be forgiven if a state claims, and
the Secretary of HHS finds, that it had “reasonable cause” for failing the standard. Penalties can
also be forgiven for states that enter into “corrective compliance plans,” and subsequently meet
the work standard.
Failure to meet the two-parent standard alone typically has smaller financial consequences for the
state than failure to meet the all-family standard or failure to meet both the all-family and two-
parent standards. Under HHS regulations, if a state fails only the two-parent standard, the penalty
reduction in the block grant is prorated for the share of the overall cash assistance caseload that
represents two-parent families. Two-parent families typically account for a small share of the
overall cash assistance caseload.
HHS has yet to provide information on whether states that failed to meet the TANF work
standards for the period FY2007 through FY2011 have been penalized.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Appendix A. Supplementary Tables
Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006
Public Law
Time Period
Notes
P.L. 107-229
Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002
Extension as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 107-294
Jan. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2003
Extension as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 108-7
Apr. 1, 2003-June 30, 2003
Extension as part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act.
P.L. 108-40
July 1, 2003-Sept. 30, 2003
Free-standing bill that amended the Social Security
Act to extend TANF and related programs.
P.L. 108-89
Oct. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2004
Multipurpose bill that extended programs through
the first half of FY2004.
P.L. 108-210
Apr. 1, 2004-June 30, 2004
Freestanding bill that extended funding authority
for the program through June 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262
July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004
Freestanding bill that extended funding authority
for the program through Sept. 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308
Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005
Freestanding bill that extended funding authority
for the programs through Mar. 31, 2005.
P.L. 109-4
Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005
Freestanding bill that extended funding authority
for the programs through June 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-19
July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005
Freestanding bill that extended funding authority
for the programs through Sept. 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-68
Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 2005
Bill to provide extra funding to help states provide
benefits to families affected by Hurricane Katrina,
suspend certain requirements in states affected by
the hurricane, and extend the funding authority for
the programs through December 31, 2005.
P.L. 109-161
Jan. 1, 2006-Mar. 31, 2006
Freestanding bill that extended funding authority
for the programs through March 31, 2006. It
reduced the bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock
births for FY2006-FY2010 to offset the costs of the
temporary extension.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table A-2. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2015
Public Law
Time Period
Notes
P.L. 111-242
Oct. 1, 2010-Dec. 3, 2010
Extension as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 111-290
Dec. 4, 2010-Dec. 7, 2010
Extension as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 111-291
Dec. 8, 2010-Sept. 30, 2011
Extension as part of the Claims Resolution Act of
(except supplemental grants,
2010. It funded supplemental grants only through
Dec. 8, 2010-June 30, 2011)
the first three quarters of FY2011 and at a reduced
rate.
P.L. 112-35
Oct. 1, 2011-Dec. 31, 2011
Free-standing bill to extend TANF for three
months. No funding for TANF supplemental grants.
P.L. 112-78
Jan 1, 2012-February 21, 2012
Extension of TANF for two months, as part of a bill
to provide a two-month extension for the 2011
payrol tax reduction, extended unemployment
compensation, and other expiring provisions.
P.L. 112-96
February 22, 2012-Sept. 30, 2012
Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2012
included as part of a bill to extend the 2011 payroll
tax reduction, unemployment compensation, and
other expiring provisions.
P.L. 112-175
Oct. 1, 2011-March 27, 2013
Extension of TANF for the first six months of
FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 113-6
March 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013
Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2013 as
part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 113-46
Oct. 17, 2013-Jan 15, 2014
Extension of TANF as a part of a continuing
resolution. The resolution ended the “government
shutdown,” and a TANF funding gap between Oct
1 and Oct 16, 2013
P.L. 113-73
Jan. 16, 2014-Jan. 18, 2014
Extension of TANF funding as part of a short-term
continuing resolution.
P.L. 113-76
Jan 19, 2014-Sept. 30, 2014
Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of
FY2014 as part of an omnibus appropriation act.
P.L. 113-164
Oct. 1, 2014-Dec 11, 2014
Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 11, 2014,
as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 113-202
Dec. 12, 2014-Dec 13, 2014
Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 13, 2014,
as part of a short-term continuing resolution.
P.L. 113-203
Dec 14, 2014-Dec 17, 2014
Extension of TANF funding through Dec. 17, 2014,
as part of a short-term continuing resolution.
P.L. 113-235
Dec. 18, 2014-Sept. 30, 2015
Extension of TANF funding for the remainder of
FY2015 as part of an omnibus appropriations act.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2013
(Dollars in Billions)
Percent of Total
Federal TANF
and State MOE

Billions of Dollars
Dollars
Basic Assistance
$8.7
27.6%
Administration 2.3
7.2
Work Program Expenditures
2.0
6.4
Child Care
5.0
15.8
Other Work Supports
2.8
9.0
Other Expenditures
10.7
33.9
Totals 31.6
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Table A-4. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2013

TANF Child Recipients
As a
As a
Percent of
Percent of
All
All Poor
Year Families
Recipients Adults

Children
Children
Children
1961
0.873 3.363 0.765 2.598 3.7% 14.3%
1962
0.939 3.704 0.860 2.844 4.0 15.7
1963
0.963 3.945 0.988 2.957 4.1 17.4
1964
1.010 4.195 1.050 3.145 4.3 18.6
1965
1.060 4.422 1.101 3.321 4.5 21.5
1966
1.096 4.546 1.112 3.434 4.7 26.5
1967
1.220 5.014 1.243 3.771 5.2 31.2
1968
1.410 5.702 1.429 4.274 5.9 37.8
1969
1.696 6.689 1.716 4.973 6.9 49.7
1970
2.207 8.462 2.250 6.212 8.6 57.7
1971
2.763 10.242 2.808 7.435 10.4 68.5
1972
3.048 10.944 3.039 7.905 11.1 74.9
1973
3.148 10.949 3.046 7.903 11.2 79.9
1974
3.219 10.847 3.041 7.805 11.2 75.0
1975
3.481 11.319 3.248 8.071 11.8 71.2
1976
3.565 11.284 3.302 7.982 11.8 76.2
1977
3.568 11.015 3.273 7.743 11.6 73.9
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

TANF Child Recipients
As a
As a
Percent of
Percent of
All
All Poor
Year Families
Recipients Adults

Children
Children
Children
1978
3.517 10.551 3.188 7.363 11.2 72.8
1979
3.509 10.312 3.130 7.181 11.0 68.0
1980
3.712 10.774 3.355 7.419 11.5 63.2
1981
3.835 11.079 3.552 7.527 11.7 59.2
1982
3.542 10.358 3.455 6.903 10.8 49.6
1983
3.686 10.761 3.663 7.098 11.1 50.1
1984
3.714 10.831 3.687 7.144 11.2 52.3
1985
3.701 10.855 3.658 7.198 11.3 54.4
1986
3.763 11.038 3.704 7.334 11.5 56.0
1987
3.776 11.027 3.661 7.366 11.5 56.4
1988
3.749 10.915 3.586 7.329 11.4 57.8
1989
3.798 10.992 3.573 7.419 11.5 57.9
1990
4.057 11.695 3.784 7.911 12.1 57.9
1991
4.497 12.930 4.216 8.715 13.2 59.8
1992
4.829 13.773 4.470 9.303 13.9 59.9
1993
5.012 14.205 4.631 9.574 14.1 60.0
1994
5.033 14.161 4.593 9.568 13.9 61.7
1995
4.791 13.418 4.284 9.135 13.1 61.5
1996
4.434 12.321 3.928 8.600 12.3 58.7
1997 3.740
10.376
NA
NA 10.0
50.1
1998 3.050
8.347
NA
NA 8.1
42.9
1999 2.578
6.924
NA
NA 6.7
39.4
2000
2.303 6.143 1.655 4.479 6.1 38.1
2001
2.192 5.717 1.514 4.195 5.7 35.3
2002
2.187 5.609 1.479 4.119 5.6 33.6
2003
2.180 5.490 1.416 4.063 5.5 31.3
2004
2.153 5.342 1.362 3.969 5.4 30.2
2005
2.061 5.028 1.261 3.756 5.1 28.9
2006
1.906 4.582 1.120 3.453 4.6 26.7
2007
1.730 4.075 0.956 3.119 4.2 23.2
2008
1.701 4.005 0.946 3.059 4.1 21.6
2009
1.838 4.371 1.074 3.296 4.4 21.2
2010
1.919 4.598 1.163 3.435 4.6 20.9
2011
1.907 4.557 1.149 3.408 4.6 20.9
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008

.

Appendix B. State Tables
Table B-1. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
(Dollars in millions)
Other
Child
Work
Other
State Basic
Assistance
Administration
Work
Care
Supports
Expenditures Total
Alabama $45.9
$24.4
$21.0
$5.5
$3.8
$70.3
$170.9
Alaska
38.7
4.6 12.6 27.4
0.6
5.4 89.2
Arizona -21.8
44.4
8.8
10.1
0.2
337.7
379.4
Arkansas 13.2
14.0
23.5
8.6
3.2
94.2
156.6
California
3,225.3
556.6 507.3 840.4 183.5
1,718.7 7,031.8
Colorado
70.7
20.7 2.1 1.2 8.3
212.7 315.7
Connecticut
81.3
29.3 16.1 35.5
4.9
318.1 485.2
Delaware 12.9
-0.2
1.4
57.2
0.0
11.9
83.2
District of Columbia
59.0
7.4
37.4
76.4
16.0
57.4
253.7
Florida 173.2
30.3
58.4
342.7
5.5
387.4
997.5
Georgia 47.5
15.7
-0.7
22.2
20.1
389.1
493.9
Hawai
64.1
14.9 94.7 13.0
4.0
53.9 244.5
Idaho 6.5
5.6
6.2
10.8
0.3
16.8
46.3
Illinois 81.0
27.5
31.1
645.5
25.1
350.7
1,160.9
Indiana
28.9
18.0 16.0 77.7 33.9
104.9 279.3
Iowa
54.1
7.1 15.9 44.2 13.3
76.1 210.7
Kansas 27.5
13.5
0.4
22.5
54.2
55.5
173.6
Kentucky
102.1
11.9 34.1 74.4 21.7
33.5 277.7
Louisiana
25.7
20.4 6.4 5.2 19.0
145.1 221.7
CRS-26
c11173008

.

Other
Child
Work
Other
State Basic
Assistance
Administration
Work
Care
Supports
Expenditures Total
Maine 49.8
2.7
12.4
9.9
11.9
9.2
95.9
Maryland
139.2
61.2 36.3 24.2 147.6
175.9 584.2
Massachusetts 338.7
33.3
6.5
296.2
109.3
354.3
1,138.4
Michigan
206.6
180.5 81.0 19.5 51.6
890.4 1,429.6
Minnesota
94.1
46.3 54.7 53.7 134.7
53.4 437.0
Mississippi
16.7
3.2 33.0 19.1 16.8
17.6 106.4
Missouri
101.3
9.4 17.4 42.3
0.0
232.7 403.1
Montana
15.3
8.4 12.1 10.0
0.0
7.8 53.6
Nebraska
24.2
3.5 19.4 23.5 36.0
2.3 108.9
Nevada
43.5
8.1 1.8 0.0 1.1
35.5 90.1
New
Hampshire
23.9
12.0 6.9 8.8 1.3
20.1 73.0
New
Jersey
304.0
81.5 87.6 73.2 190.5
558.1 1,295.0
New Mexico
53.1
10.7
8.7
36.3
47.6
57.1
213.5
New
York
1,606.0
333.9 124.4 536.9 1,432.6
1,576.8 5,610.7
North Carolina
59.1
47.8
42.6
172.3
60.8
240.4
623.0
North
Dakota
5.1
4.0 4.0 1.0 1.3
18.5 33.9
Ohio 301.9
146.0
36.1
382.0
9.9
126.5
1,002.3
Oklahoma 19.8
23.9
0.0
70.0
25.7
59.6
199.0
Oregon
141.8
37.3 17.1 11.1
3.8
112.8 324.0
Pennsylvania 271.5
80.0
78.1
395.4
9.5
208.2
1,042.8
Rhode Island
42.4
16.2
9.4
24.4
13.6
80.4
186.4
South Carolina
34.8
19.1
20.1
4.1
1.9
150.3
230.2
South
Dakota
12.6
2.8 4.2 0.8 0.1
7.1 27.6
CRS-27
c11173008

.

Other
Child
Work
Other
State Basic
Assistance
Administration
Work
Care
Supports
Expenditures Total
Tennessee
108.2
31.4 71.2 29.5
0.0
77.7 318.1
Texas
75.4
68.3 87.8 26.8
5.6
591.0 854.9
Utah
23.2
7.6 18.0 10.5
0.3
18.1 77.6
Vermont 20.0
7.1
0.1
28.9
24.9
11.4
92.5
Virginia
100.5
22.3 52.7 30.8
8.7
66.0 281.0
Washington
201.7
59.9 159.5 130.7
2.5
308.9 863.3
West Virginia
31.0
26.2
1.8
10.4
29.8
45.4
144.6
Wisconsin 134.2
23.0
34.2
200.0
47.8
164.7
603.9
Wyoming
2.5
7.4 1.8 3.7 0.0
17.5 32.8

Totals
8,737.9
2,290.9 2,033.7 5,006.5 2,844.8
10,735.3 31,649.2
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notes: Negative entries denote adjustments for prior year reporting changes.
CRS-28
c11173008

.

Table B-2. Use of FY2013 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding
Other
Basic
Child
Work
Other
State
Assistance Administration Work Care
Supports
Expenditures Total
Alabama 26.9%
14.3%
12.3%
3.2%
2.2%
41.1%
100.0%
Alaska 43.3
5.2
14.1
30.7
0.6
6.0
100.0
Arizona -5.8
11.7
2.3
2.7
0.1
89.0
100.0
Arkansas 8.4
8.9
15.0
5.5
2.0
60.2
100.0
California 45.9
7.9
7.2
12.0
2.6
24.4
100.0
Colorado 22.4
6.6
0.7
0.4
2.6
67.4
100.0
Connecticut 16.8
6.0
3.3
7.3
1.0
65.6
100.0
Delaware 15.5
-0.2
1.7
68.7
0.0
14.3
100.0
District of Columbia
23.3
2.9
14.8
30.1
6.3
22.6
100.0
Florida 17.4
3.0
5.8
34.4
0.6
38.8
100.0
Georgia 9.6
3.2
-0.1
4.5
4.1
78.8
100.0
Hawai 26.2
6.1
38.7
5.3
1.6
22.0
100.0
Idaho 14.2
12.1
13.5
23.3
0.6
36.4
100.0
Illinois 7.0
2.4
2.7
55.6
2.2
30.2
100.0
Indiana 10.4
6.4
5.7
27.8
12.1
37.6
100.0
Iowa 25.7
3.4
7.5
21.0
6.3
36.1
100.0
Kansas 15.8
7.8
0.2
13.0
31.2
32.0
100.0
Kentucky 36.8
4.3
12.3
26.8
7.8
12.1
100.0
Louisiana 11.6
9.2
2.9
2.4
8.6
65.4
100.0
Maine 51.9
2.8
12.9
10.3
12.4
9.6
100.0
Maryland 23.8
10.5
6.2
4.1
25.3
30.1
100.0
Massachusetts 29.8
2.9
0.6
26.0
9.6
31.1
100.0
CRS-29
c11173008

.

Other
Basic
Child
Work
Other
State
Assistance Administration Work Care
Supports
Expenditures Total
Michigan 14.5
12.6
5.7
1.4
3.6
62.3
100.0
Minnesota 21.5
10.6
12.5
12.3
30.8
12.2
100.0
Mississippi 15.7
3.0
31.0
17.9
15.8
16.5
100.0
Missouri 25.1
2.3
4.3
10.5
0.0
57.7
100.0
Montana 28.6
15.7
22.6
18.6
0.0
14.5
100.0
Nebraska 22.3
3.2
17.8
21.6
33.0
2.1
100.0
Nevada 48.2
9.0
2.0
0.0
1.3
39.4
100.0
New Hampshire
32.7
16.4
9.5
12.0
1.8
27.5
100.0
New Jersey
23.5
6.3
6.8
5.7
14.7
43.1
100.0
New Mexico
24.9
5.0
4.1
17.0
22.3
26.8
100.0
New York
28.6
6.0
2.2
9.6
25.5
28.1
100.0
North Carolina
9.5
7.7
6.8
27.7
9.8
38.6
100.0
North Dakota
15.0
11.7
11.9
3.0
3.8
54.6
100.0
Ohio 30.1
14.6
3.6
38.1
1.0
12.6
100.0
Oklahoma 10.0
12.0
0.0
35.2
12.9
29.9
100.0
Oregon 43.8
11.5
5.3
3.4
1.2
34.8
100.0
Pennsylvania 26.0
7.7
7.5
37.9
0.9
20.0
100.0
Rhode Island
22.7
8.7
5.1
13.1
7.3
43.2
100.0
South Carolina
15.1
8.3
8.7
1.8
0.8
65.3
100.0
South Dakota
45.7
10.0
15.3
2.9
0.4
25.7
100.0
Tennessee 34.0
9.9
22.4
9.3
0.0
24.4
100.0
Texas 8.8
8.0
10.3
3.1
0.6
69.1
100.0
Utah 29.9
9.8
23.2
13.5
0.3
23.3
100.0
CRS-30
c11173008

.

Other
Basic
Child
Work
Other
State
Assistance Administration Work Care
Supports
Expenditures Total
Vermont 21.7
7.7
0.1
31.2
27.0
12.3
100.0
Virginia 35.8
7.9
18.8
11.0
3.1
23.5
100.0
Washington 23.4
6.9
18.5
15.1
0.3
35.8
100.0
West Virginia
21.4
18.1
1.3
7.2
20.6
31.4
100.0
Wisconsin 22.2
3.8
5.7
33.1
7.9
27.3
100.0
Wyoming 7.5
22.5
5.4
11.1
0.0
53.4
100.0

Totals 27.6
7.2
6.4
15.8
9.0
33.9
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notes: Negative entries denote adjustments for prior year reporting changes.
CRS-31
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2013
(September 30, 2013, in millions of dollars)
Total
Obligated but
Unspent
State
not Spent
Unobligated
Funds
Alabama $3.7
$10.6
$14.3
Alaska 0.0
69.7
69.7
Arizona 2.7
0.0
2.7
Arkansas 18.3
16.0
34.3
California 8.4
0.0
8.4
Colorado 0.0
19.1
19.1
Connecticut 0.0
6.3
6.3
Delaware 9.6
10.4
20.0
District of Columbia
6.5
54.4
60.9
Florida 29.6
0.5
30.1
Georgia 21.2
60.9
82.1
Hawai 5.8
59.5
65.2
Idaho 31.7
0.0
31.7
Illinois 0.0
16.0
16.0
Indiana 238.1
21.7
259.7
Iowa 14.1
3.0
17.1
Kansas 11.6
32.3
43.9
Kentucky 0.0
3.5
3.5
Louisiana 0.0
0.0
0.0
Maine 0.0
24.6
24.6
Maryland 4.9
0.0
4.9
Massachusetts 0.0
0.0
0.0
Michigan 0.0
42.4
42.4
Minnesota 0.0
161.4
161.4
Mississippi 4.0
7.9
11.9
Missouri 22.3
-0.2
22.1
Montana 0.4
42.7
43.1
Nebraska 0.0
59.6
59.6
Nevada 0.0
12.7
12.7
New Hampshire
0.0
13.2
13.2
New Jersey
32.4
37.5
69.9
New Mexico
50.2
0.0
50.2
New York
273.4
104.0
377.4
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Total
Obligated but
Unspent
State
not Spent
Unobligated
Funds
North Carolina
192.6
3.5
196.1
North Dakota
0.0
15.8
15.8
Ohio 201.3
34.0
235.4
Oklahoma 53.3
0.0
53.3
Oregon 0.0
17.9
17.9
Pennsylvania 52.1
300.1
352.2
Rhode Island
0.0
0.0
0.0
South Carolina
0.0
12.4
12.4
South Dakota
0.0
14.9
14.9
Tennessee 0.0
59.3
59.3
Texas 152.7
0.0
152.7
Utah 0.0
109.2
109.2
Vermont 0.0
0.0
0.0
Virginia 5.1
33.9
39.0
Washington 69.5
0.0
69.6
West Virginia
0.0
0.1
0.1
Wisconsin 0.0
12.9
12.9
Wyoming 3.2
21.2
24.5

Totals 1,518.7
1,525.0
3,043.7
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF
Cash Assistance by State: December 2013
State
Families
Recipients
Children
Adults
Alabama 18,394
44,511
33,232
11,279
Alaska 3,439
9,186
6,221
2,965
Arizona 14,036
31,709
22,980
8,729
Arkansas 6,395
14,518
10,433
4,085
California 533,081
1,284,440
1,010,939
273,501
Colorado 17,270
45,454
32,220
13,234
Connecticut 14,335
28,553
20,119
8,434
Delaware 4,792
13,475
8,233
5,242
District of Columbia
4,388
11,159
8,235
2,924
Florida 53,087
93,559
77,244
16,315
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

State
Families
Recipients
Children
Adults
Georgia 16,481
32,290
28,480
3,810
Guam 1,342
3,284
2,531
753
Hawaii 8,865
25,641
17,032
8,609
Idaho 1,843
2,762
2,625
137
Illinois 20,354
45,141
37,320
7,821
Indiana 11,195
22,758
20,194
2,564
Iowa 16,126
40,675
28,719
11,956
Kansas 7,553
18,291
13,312
4,979
Kentucky 29,488
59,662
47,635
12,027
Louisiana 6,151
13,835
12,079
1,756
Maine 26,609
55,384
30,691
24,693
Maryland 21,310
51,801
38,044
13,757
Massachusetts 71,012
168,647
113,949
54,698
Michigan 30,316
69,758
52,710
17,048
Minnesota 22,267
49,474
37,857
11,617
Mississippi 9,260
19,293
14,254
5,039
Missouri 32,161
77,551
53,125
24,426
Montana 3,487
7,648
5,624
2,024
Nebraska 6,379
15,232
12,378
2,854
Nevada 11,914
31,302
22,656
8,646
New Hampshire
6,080
14,903
10,120
4,783
New Jersey
28,894
68,809
49,106
19,703
New Mexico
13,206
35,807
27,210
8,597
New York
153,078
391,474
280,567
110,907
North Carolina
18,575
35,846
30,338
5,508
North Dakota
1,366
3,422
2,730
692
Ohio 64,371
125,618
104,417
21,201
Oklahoma 7,270
15,998
13,541
2,457
Oregon 43,762
112,924
75,116
37,808
Pennsylvania 69,667
172,295
124,050
48,245
Puerto Rico
12,088
35,452
22,240
13,212
Rhode Island
5,815
14,030
9,675
4,355
South Carolina
11,770
26,726
21,102
5,624
South Dakota
3,204
6,438
5,592
846
Tennessee 50,850
122,730
89,577
33,153
Texas 38,460
85,256
74,837
10,419
Utah 4,382
10,756
7,842
2,914
Congressional Research Service
34
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

State
Families
Recipients
Children
Adults
Vermont 3,083
6,737
4,902
1,835
Virgin Islands
432
1,284
916
368
Virginia 28,857
63,346
46,199
17,147
Washington 42,747
98,448
68,071
30,377
West Virginia
8,862
19,337
14,391
4,946
Wisconsin 27,522
66,896
49,176
17,720
Wyoming 380
815
651
164

Totals 1,668,051
3,922,340
2,953,437
968,903
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: Caseload data include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the
TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.
Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Cash Assistance
by State, December of Selected Years

Percent Change to Dec. 2013 from Dec ...
State
1994 2007 2010 2012 2013 1994
2007
2012
Alabama
47,903 18,584 24,212 20,914 18,394
-61.6%
-1.0%
-12.0%
Alaska
12,370 2,989 3,572 3,654 3,439
-72.2
15.1
-5.9
Arizona
72,158 37,122 19,366 17,078 14,036
-80.5
-62.2
-17.8
Arkansas
25,047 8,741 8,632 7,383 6,395
-74.5
-26.8
-13.4
California
923,358 477,465 601,286 571,728 533,081
-42.3
11.6
-6.8
Colorado
40,244
9,094
8,064
14,687
17,270
-57.1 89.9 17.6
Connecticut
60,965 19,424 16,750 15,148 14,335
-76.5
-26.2
-5.4
Delaware
11,227 3,997 5,745 5,083 4,792
-57.3
19.9
-5.7
District of Columbia
27,420
5,237
9,410
6,812
4,388
-84.0
-16.2
-35.6
Florida
238,564 48,608 58,144 55,507 53,087
-77.7
9.2
-4.4
Georgia
141,154 22,740 20,686 18,738 16,481
-88.3
-27.5
-12.0
Guam
2,088 NA 1,260 1,319 1,342
-35.7
NA
1.7
Hawai
21,489 6,621 10,240 9,801 8,865
-58.7
33.9
-9.6
Idaho
8,953 1,527 1,848 1,866 1,843
-79.4
20.7
-1.2
Illinois
241,091 20,562 27,177 20,323 20,354
-91.6
-1.0
0.2
Indiana
69,933 31,103 31,461 13,878 11,195
-84.0
-64.0
-19.3
Iowa
38,022 19,762 21,037 18,348 16,126
-57.6
-18.4
-12.1
Kansas
28,838
12,853
15,647
9,129
7,553 -73.8 -41.2 -17.3
Kentucky
76,824 29,323 31,336 30,840 29,488
-61.6
0.6
-4.4
Louisiana
82,792
11,106
11,117
8,619
6,151 -92.6 -44.6 -28.6
Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Percent Change to Dec. 2013 from Dec ...
State
1994 2007 2010 2012 2013 1994
2007
2012
Maine
22,025 12,235 15,435 28,737 26,609
20.8
117.5
-7.4
Maryland
80,890 20,466 26,160 23,069 21,310
-73.7
4.1
-7.6
Massachusetts
105,769 52,473 51,179 65,681 71,012
-32.9
35.3
8.1
Michigan
209,695 69,327 67,596 41,309 30,316
-85.5
-56.3
-26.6
Minnesota
61,343 26,387 24,726 23,469 22,267
-63.7
-15.6
-5.1
Mississippi
53,221 11,631 12,078 10,891 9,260
-82.6
-20.4
-15.0
Missouri
91,802 39,054 39,617 36,911 32,161
-65.0
-17.6
-12.9
Montana
11,660 3,192 3,694 3,266 3,487
-70.1
9.2
6.8
Nebraska
15,427 7,515 8,406 6,895 6,379
-58.7
-15.1
-7.5
Nevada
15,559 7,410 11,066 10,600 11,914
-23.4
60.8
12.4
New
Hampshire
11,078 4,497 6,168 6,381 6,080
-45.1
35.2
-4.7
New
Jersey
113,293 34,175 35,153 33,046 28,894
-74.5
-15.5
-12.6
New
Mexico
34,854 12,195 21,664 16,389 13,206
-62.1
8.3
-19.4
New
York
463,692 155,798 158,133 158,323 153,078
-67.0
-1.7
-3.3
North
Carolina
128,848 24,544 23,639 21,001 18,575
-85.6
-24.3
-11.6
North
Dakota
5,309 2,072 1,931 1,489 1,366
-74.3
-34.1
-8.3
Ohio
236,298 80,629 103,513 71,095 64,371
-72.8
-20.2
-9.5
Oklahoma
45,893 8,951 9,472 8,282 7,270
-84.2
-18.8
-12.2
Oregon
39,967 19,299 33,123 44,899 43,762
9.5
126.8
-2.5
Pennsylvania
208,949 55,389 59,034 74,212 69,667
-66.7
25.8
-6.1
Puerto
Rico
56,132 12,356 14,621 13,392 12,088
-78.5
-2.2
-9.7
Rhode
Island
22,599 8,349 6,778 6,362 5,815
-74.3
-30.4
-8.6
South
Carolina
50,251 14,428 19,038 13,388 11,770
-76.6
-18.4
-12.1
South
Dakota
6,521 2,904 3,290 3,268 3,204
-50.9
10.3
-2.0
Tennessee
105,616 55,161 63,150 53,888 50,850
-51.9
-7.8
-5.6
Texas
281,011 57,002 52,972 43,306 38,460
-86.3
-32.5
-11.2
Utah
17,240 5,140 6,811 4,614 4,382
-74.6
-14.7
-5.0
Vermont
9,707 4,242 3,335 3,674 3,083
-68.2
-27.3
-16.1
Virgin
Islands
1,264 399 511 425 432 -65.8
8.3
1.6
Virginia
74,203 31,041 37,105 32,242 28,857
-61.1
-7.0
-10.5
Washington
102,603 52,013 69,805 49,541 42,747
-58.3
-17.8
-13.7
West
Virginia
39,546 8,725 10,676 9,144 8,862
-77.6
1.6
-3.1
Wisconsin
73,714 17,788 25,270 24,920 27,522
-62.7
54.7
10.4
Wyoming
5,400 265 312 335 380 -93.0
43.4
13.4

Total
4,971,819 1,703,910 1,952,451 1,795,299 1,668,051
-66.4
-2.2
-7.1
Congressional Research Service
36
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: Caseload data for 2007 through 2013 include those families in Separate State Programs with
expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.
Table B-6. TANF Families by Number of Parents in Assisted Unit by State:
December 2013
Single
Two
No
Single
Two
No
State
Parent
Parent
Parent
Totals
Parent
Parent
Parent
Alabama
10,886
205 7,303 18,394 59.2% 1.1% 39.7%
Alaska
2,149 371 919 3,439
62.5 10.8 26.7
Arizona 7,618
492
5,926
14,036
54.3
3.5
42.2
Arkansas 3,826
152
2,417
6,395
59.8
2.4
37.8
California 250,617
50,353
232,111
533,081
47.0
9.4
43.5
Colorado 10,017
1,240
6,013
17,270
58.0
7.2
34.8
Connecticut 8,360
0
5,975
14,335
58.3
0.0
41.7
Delaware 1,658
23
3,111
4,792
34.6
0.5
64.9
District of Columbia
2,990
0
1,398
4,388
68.1
0.0
31.9
Florida 12,841
628
39,618
53,087
24.2
1.2
74.6
Georgia 3,746
0
12,735
16,481
22.7
0.0
77.3
Guam
418 184 740 1,342
31.1 13.7 55.1
Hawai
5,160 2,089 1,616 8,865
58.2 23.6 18.2
Idaho 137
0
1,706
1,843
7.4
0.0
92.6
Illinois 6,910
0
13,444
20,354
33.9
0.0
66.1
Indiana 3,215
123
7,857
11,195
28.7
1.1
70.2
Iowa 9,878
871
5,377
16,126
61.3
5.4
33.3
Kansas 3,871
476
3,206
7,553
51.3
6.3
42.4
Kentucky 10,570
689
18,229
29,488
35.8
2.3
61.8
Louisiana 1,724
0
4,427
6,151
28.0
0.0
72.0
Maine
23,450 635 2,524
26,609
88.1 2.4 9.5
Maryland 13,771
0
7,539
21,310
64.6
0.0
35.4
Massachusetts 45,481
5,174
20,357
71,012
64.0
7.3
28.7
Michigan 17,022
0
13,294
30,316
56.1
0.0
43.9
Minnesota 11,746
0
10,521
22,267
52.8
0.0
47.2
Mississippi 4,266
0
4,994
9,260
46.1
0.0
53.9
Missouri 24,809
0
7,352
32,161
77.1
0.0
22.9
Montana 1,735
300
1,452
3,487
49.8
8.6
41.6
Nebraska 2,949
0
3,430
6,379
46.2
0.0
53.8
Nevada
5,826 1,380 4,708 11,914
48.9 11.6 39.5
New Hampshire
4,591
70
1,419
6,080
75.5
1.2
23.3
Congressional Research Service
37
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Single
Two
No
Single
Two
No
State
Parent
Parent
Parent
Totals
Parent
Parent
Parent
New Jersey
20,584
0
8,310
28,894
71.2
0.0
28.8
New Mexico
6,493
1,052
5,661
13,206
49.2
8.0
42.9
New York
96,191
2,830
54,057
153,078
62.8
1.8
35.3
North Carolina
5,064
222
13,289
18,575
27.3
1.2
71.5
North Dakota
692
0
674
1,366
50.7
0.0
49.3
Ohio 16,353
2,139
45,879
64,371
25.4
3.3
71.3
Oklahoma 2,457
0
4,813
7,270
33.8
0.0
66.2
Oregon 38,498
0
5,264
43,762
88.0
0.0
12.0
Pennsylvania 48,995
979
19,693
69,667
70.3
1.4
28.3
Puerto Rico
8,973
730
2,385
12,088
74.2
6.0
19.7
Rhode Island
3,545
449
1,821
5,815
61.0
7.7
31.3
South Carolina
5,825
0
5,945
11,770
49.5
0.0
50.5
South Dakota
846
0
2,358
3,204
26.4
0.0
73.6
Tennessee 31,964
272
18,614
50,850
62.9
0.5
36.6
Texas 10,419
0
28,041
38,460
27.1
0.0
72.9
Utah 2,262
0
2,120
4,382
51.6
0.0
48.4
Vermont 1,413
211
1,459
3,083
45.8
6.8
47.3
Virgin
Islands
432
0
0 432
100.0 0.0 0.0
Virginia 17,620
0
11,237
28,857
61.1
0.0
38.9
Washington 22,143
3,987
16,617
42,747
51.8
9.3
38.9
West Virginia
3,948
0
4,914
8,862
44.5
0.0
55.5
Wisconsin 15,017
893
11,612
27,522
54.6
3.2
42.2
Wyoming 136
12
232
380
35.8
3.2
61.1

Totals 872,107
79,231
716,713
1,668,051
52.3
4.7
43.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: Caseload data for 2007 through 2013 include those families in Separate State Programs with
expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.
Congressional Research Service
38
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table B-7. TANF All-Family Work Participation Rate by State:
FY2002 Through FY2011
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
United
States 28.9% 27.5% 29.4% 30.3% 30.6% 29.75 29.4% 29.4% 29.0% 29.5%
Alabama
37.3 37.1 37.9 38.6 41.6 34.0 37.4 32.4 37.1 40.6
Alaska
39.6 41.1 43.6 45.7 45.6 46.8 42.8 37.2 33.3 38.5
Arizona
25.9 13.4 25.5 30.3 29.6 30.0 27.8 27.1 29.1 33.5
Arkansas
21.4 22.4 27.3 28.3 27.9 35.3 38.8 37.1 34.1 36.1
California
27.3 24.0 23.1 25.9 22.2 22.3 25.1 26.8 26.2 27.8
Colorado
35.9 32.5 34.7 25.8 30.0 27.3 32.3 37.8 33.6 32.1
Connecticut 26.6 30.6 24.3 33.8 30.8 28.8 25.3 34.4 37.2 59.2
Delaware
11.7 18.2 22.1 22.6 25.3 32.7 48.8 37.5 38.8 39.0
District of
16.4 23.1 18.2 23.5 17.1 35.0 49.6 23.5 15.0 20.0
Columbia
Florida
30.4 33.1 40.4 38.0 41.0 64.2 42.4 46.1 47.5 44.8
Georgia
8.2 10.9 24.8 57.2 64.9 54.2 59.0 57.1 67.5 66.0
Hawai
32.5 34.6 40.3 35.5 37.3 28.7 34.4 40.3 47.6 51.2
Idaho
40.7 43.7 41.0 39.9 44.2 53.0 59.5 52.0 49.5 51.6
Illinois
58.4 57.8 46.1 43.0 53.0 55.5 42.6 49.3 49.1 44.1
Indiana
45.3 40.3 36.3 30.9 26.7 27.5 29.4 17.5 19.2 19.5
Iowa
51.2 45.1 50.0 47.8 39.0 40.2 41.1 35.4 34.8 37.6
Kansas
37.6 32.4 88.0 86.7 77.2 12.8 19.6 23.9 27.2 27.6
Kentucky
32.4 32.8 38.1 39.7 44.6 38.2 38.0 37.3 46.4 52.5
Louisiana
38.7 34.6 35.4 34.6 38.4 42.2 40.0 34.4 27.4 25.3
Maine
44.5 27.7 32.1 28.3 26.6 21.9 11.4 16.8 19.7 19.1
Maryland
8.3 9.1 16.0 20.5 44.5 46.7 36.9 44.0 40.7 43.6
Massachusetts 9.2 8.4 10.3 12.6 13.6 17.0 44.7 47.5 22.2 7.3
Michigan
28.9 25.3 24.5 22.0 21.6 28.0 33.6 27.9 22.8 26.6
Minnesota
31.2 25.0 26.8 28.9 30.3 28.1 29.9 29.8 40.2 43.9
Mississippi
18.5 17.2 21.0 22.6 35.5 61.9 63.2 67.5 66.3 65.1
Missouri
25.4 28.0 19.5 20.0 18.7 14.0 14.2 13.2 17.5 14.4
Montana
37.9 37.4 86.7 83.1 79.2 46.4 44.2 44.2 51.6 49.0
Nebraska
22.8 29.4 34.5 31.8 32.0 23.0 51.2 50.3 49.5 51.9
Nevada
21.6 22.3 34.5 42.3 47.8 34.0 42.1 39.4 37.6 37.8
New
32.6 28.2 30.2 24.6 24.1 42.0 47.4 46.5 46.6 49.2
Hampshire
New
Jersey
36.4 35.0 34.6 29.0 29.2 33.0 18.9 20.1 19.9 17.5
New
Mexico 42.7 42.0 46.2 41.6 42.3 36.4 37.5 43.1 42.5 42.0
New
York
38.5 37.1 37.8 35.2 37.8 38.0 37.3 33.4 35.0 33.8
Congressional Research Service
39
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
North
Carolina 27.4 25.3 31.4 27.5 32.4 32.4 24.5 32.3 37.1 49.5
North
Dakota 30.4 27.0 25.3 31.4 51.9 58.7 50.2 61.0 68.7 67.6
Ohio
56.1 62.2 65.2 58.3 54.9 23.7 24.5 23.3 23.1 27.3
Oklahoma
26.7 29.2 33.2 34.0 32.9 38.1 29.2 23.0 24.3 24.9
Oregon
8.0 14.7 32.1 14.9 15.2 14.7 24.1 9.5 8.4 14.1
Pennsylvania 10.4 9.9 7.1 15.2 26.1 48.9 38.6 45.8 46.0 39.3
Puerto
Rico
5.6 6.1 7.5 13.1 13.1 8.2 11.6 8.7 8.6 11.8
Rhode
Island 24.6 24.3 23.7 24.2 24.9 26.8 17.5 13.8 12.0 11.0
South
Carolina 30.2 28.6 53.7 54.3 49.5 53.3 51.7 45.1 37.2 37.3
South
Dakota 42.5 46.1 54.8 57.5 57.9 53.5 62.2 59.4 61.4 56.7
Tennessee
14.3 13.4 13.0 14.3 16.8 45.9 25.2 25.5 26.5 27.4
Texas
21.1 28.1 34.2 38.9 42.0 34.6 29.3 37.0 36.1 39.4
Utah
27.9 28.1 26.2 30.3 42.5 49.8 37.6 32.6 33.8 26.3
Vermont
21.4 24.3 24.9 22.4 22.2 22.4 23.2 29.0 34.9 40.5
Virginia
22.6 29.9 50.1 46.3 53.9 43.5 45.4 44.3 42.9 44.0
Washington 49.8 46.2 35.4 38.6 36.1 25.4 18.3 23.0 24.2 15.0
West
Virginia 19.2 14.2 11.7 16.3 26.2 15.4 17.6 19.6 25.9 32.9
Wisconsin
69.4 67.2 61.3 44.3 36.2 36.7 37.1 39.9 42.5 37.6
Wyoming
82.9 83.0 77.8 82.1 77.2 65.4 50.5 61.3 63.4 68.7
Guam
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.3
Virgin
Islands 17.7 5.0 10.6 16.9 14.5 17.1 15.5 7.1 9.2 8.4
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: FY2002 through FY2006 work participation rates are based on federal work participation standard rules.
They exclude the effects of “grandfathered” waivers of pre-1996. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the
option to continue their pre-reform “waiver” programs and have their work participation rates based on the
rules of the state waivers, not the federal rules. The last of these pre-1996 waivers expired in 2006. The all-
family work participation rates for FY2002 through FY2006 that include the effect of the waivers are slightly
higher than the rates shown here.
Congressional Research Service
40
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table B-8. TANF Two-Parent Work Participation Rate: FY2002-FY2011
(NA denotes not applicable; state has no two-parent families in the participation rate calculation)
State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
United
States
44.2% 41.8% 45.% 40.8% 45.9% 35.7% 27.6% 28.3% 33.4% 32.0%
Alabama
NA NA NA NA NA 29.1 28.1 24.7 28.6 34.3
Alaska
44.5 44.6 52.8 54.7 54.2 58.6 47.0 40.5 35.3 62.6
Arizona
52.2 55.3 65.6 74.2 67.5 72.1 64.3 62.6 72.8 73.0
Arkansas
24.4 31.8 34.4 45.9 22.3 19.2 32.0 21.7 21.5 24.8
California
NA NA NA NA NA 31.7 26.5 28.6 35.6 33.9
Colorado
45.6 40.1 37.5 32.1 35.2 31.4 30.8 33.3 28.6 23.6
Connecticut
NA NA NA NA NA 26.8 NA NA NA NA
Delaware
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
District
of
Columbia
13.4 19.6 20.1 35.9 13.1 NA NA NA NA NA
Florida
NA NA NA NA NA 59.4 37.5 54.4 56.4 56.1
Georgia
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Hawai
NA NA NA NA NA NA 70.4 NA 56.3 63.7
Idaho
40.2 42.3 37.1 41.4 39.2 NA NA NA NA NA
Illinois
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Indiana
NA NA NA NA NA 30.7 31.4 17.8 18.7 16.0
Iowa
41.6 39.2 NA NA NA 39.7 39.8 27.0 28.0 32.6
Kansas
38.5 30.3 93.7 92.8 82.3 12.1 15.5 25.6 28.9 31.0
Kentucky
43.7 46.2 51.2 48.9 51.3 48.1 38.8 35.1 42.7 49.6
Louisiana
57.2 39.0 38.0 37.0 42.5 NA NA NA NA NA
Maine
58.2 29.2 NA NA NA 30.1 8.6 16.6 17.2 18.7
Maryland
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Massachusetts
12.9 12.0 15.4 13.5 NA NA 96.4 92.8 90.1 NA
Michigan
46.5 36.2 35.7 30.4 26.2 NA NA NA NA NA
Minnesota
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mississippi
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Missouri
27.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Montana
54.8 55.9 90.8 85.4 83.3 55.8 51.6 58.7 57.2 58.6
Nebraska
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nevada
NA NA NA NA NA 45.7 51.4 46.8 45.2 46.3
New
Hampshire 30.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
New
Jersey
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
New
Mexico
57.5 52.0 55.3 57.5 54.5 47.2 50.9 63.0 57.4 49.2
New
York
56.3 52.2 48.3 43.4 48.9 NA NA NA NA NA
North
Carolina 46.7 49.2 47.2 44.7 54.0 53.6 51.3 46.6 60.9 66.7
Congressional Research Service
41
c11173008

.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

State
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
North
Dakota
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ohio
60.0 67.8 68.4 58.1 55.5 29.3 27.9 23.1 25.4 29.5
Oklahoma
NA 50.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Oregon
18.9 23.4 35.5 21.1 22.6 12.6 11.1 5.9 7.2 7.4
Pennsylvania
11.0 8.8 15.0 17.7 32.5 89.8 79.8 84.2 86.8 61.6
Puerto
Rico
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Rhode
Island
93.8 94.9 94.9 95.1 94.3 98.5 94.5 13.6 9.2 8.3
South
Carolina
30.1 25.5 55.9 63.7 64.7 88.0 NA NA NA NA
South
Dakota
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Tennessee
NA NA NA NA NA 44.1 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Texas
NA NA NA NA NA 59.2 NA NA NA NA
Utah
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vermont
32.7 37.5 38.2 35.8 33.9 31.6 31.8 24.0 38.2 45.7
Virginia
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Washington
50.7 44.3 31.1 37.7 43.1 25.2 17.2 18.6 22.3 14.8
West
Virginia
26.5 25.2 NA NA NA 16.4 NA NA 89.6 NA
Wisconsin
39.3 40.3 33.1 25.5 17.1 20.9 31.6 33.0 31.1 22.0
Wyoming
93.8 91.5 87.5 65.2 75.9 74.1 69.4 75.7 48.5 80.4
Guam
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5
Virgin
Islands
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: FY2002 through FY2006 work participation rates are based on federal work participation standard rules.
They exclude the effects of “grandfathered” waivers of pre-1996. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the
option to continue their pre-reform “waiver” programs and have their work participation rates based on the
rules of the state waivers, not the federal rules. The last of these pre-1996 waivers expired in 2006. The all-
family work participation rates for FY2002 through FY2006 that include the effect of the waivers are slightly
higher than the rates shown here.

Author Contact Information

Gene Falk

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

Congressional Research Service
42
c11173008