The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions

November 21, 2016 (RL32760)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Figures

Tables

Appendixes

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 [author name scrubbed]).

TANF Funding and Expenditures. 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.

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 FY2015, expenditures on basic assistance (cash assistance) totaled $7.8 billion—25% 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. Some states also count expenditures in pre-kindergarten programs toward the MOE requirement.

Cash Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.5 million families, composed of 3.7 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in June 2016. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.7 million in that month. The cash assistance caseload is heterogeneous. The type of family historically thought of as the "typical" cash assistance family—one with an unemployed adult recipient—accounted for 35% of all families on the rolls in FY2015. Additionally, 29% 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 2015, 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 (Kansas), the maximum monthly benefit of $429 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 FY2014 states achieved, on average, an all-family participation rate of 36.6% and a two-parent rate of 30.8%. That year, 9 jurisdictions failed the all-family standard, and 18 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.


The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions

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 a discussion of TANF rules, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by [author name scrubbed].

Funding and Expenditures

How Are TANF Programs Funded?

TANF programs are funded through a combination of federal and state funds. In FY2017, TANF has two federal grants to states. The bulk of the TANF funding is in a basic block grant to the states, totaling $16.5 billion for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. There is also a contingency fund available that provides extra federal funds to states that meet certain conditions.

Additionally, states are required to expend a minimum amount of their own funds for TANF and TANF-related activities under what is known as the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. States are required to spend at least 75% of what they spent in FY1994 on TANF's predecessor programs. The minimum MOE amount, in total, is $10.4 billion per year for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

How Much Has the TANF Basic Block Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation?

TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193).The TANF basic block grant amount—both nationally and for each state—was established in the 1996 welfare reform law. It has not been adjusted for changes since then, such as inflation, the size of the TANF assistance caseload, or changes in the poverty population.

From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2016 (ended September 30, 2016), the real (inflation-adjusted) value of the TANF block grant declined by 33.1%. Table 1 shows the impact of inflation on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2016.

Table 1. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Constant Dollars

Fiscal Year

TANF Basic Block Grant

Value of the TANF Basic Block Grant in FY1997 Dollars

Cumulative Change in the Value of the TANF Basic Block Grant from FY1997 (FY1997 dollars)

1997

$16.488

$16.488

 

1998

16.488

16.223

-1.6%

1999

16.488

15.918

-3.5

2000

16.488

15.428

-6.4

2001

16.488

14.946

-9.4

2002

16.488

14.725

-10.7

2003

16.488

14.388

-12.7

2004

16.488

14.061

-14.7

2005

16.488

13.614

-17.4

2006

16.488

13.130

-20.4

2007

16.488

12.829

-22.2

2008

16.488

12.284

-25.5

2009

16.488

12.324

-25.3

2010

16.488

12.119

-26.5

2011

16.488

11.806

-28.4

2012

16.488

11.528

-30.1

2013

16.488

11.343

-31.2

2014

16.488

11.162

-32.3

2015

16.488

11.128

-32.5

2016

16.488

11.025

-33.1

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 all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

How Have States Used TANF Funds?

Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2015. In FY2015, a total of $31.7 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs. Basic assistance, ongoing benefits to families to meet basic needs, represented 25% ($7.8 billion) of total FY2015 TANF and MOE dollars.

TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2015, 17% 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. It provides short-term and emergency benefits for families with immediate and crisis needs. Some states also count as MOE dollars their expenditures on pre-kindergarten programs.

Figure 1. Uses of TANF and MOE Funds, FY2015

(Dollars in billions)

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

See Table A-1 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.

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 FY2015 (September 30, 2015, the latest data currently available), a total of $3.7 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 FY2015, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.4 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 FY2015, states had $2.3 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 basic assistance, with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. Assistance includes monthly cash assistance benefits provided to families to meet ongoing, basic needs. It also includes other ongoing benefits to meet basic needs, such as food assistance added to monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotments in California for working parents or food assistance for immigrants barred from regular SNAP benefits in certain states.

As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance accounts for about 25% of all TANF expenditures. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving "assistance" are 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 "Assistance"?

Table 2 provides assistance caseload information. A total of 1.5 million families, composed of 3.7 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded assistance in June 2016. The bulk of the "recipients" were children—2.7 million in that month. For state-by-state assistance caseloads, see Table B-4.

Table 2. TANF Assistance Caseload: June 2016

Total Families

1,471,307

Total Recipients

3,746,955

Total Adults

1,020,494

Total Children

2,726,461

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 Assistance Caseload Level Compare with Historical Levels?

Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving assistance, from July 1959 to June 2016. Before 1997, these are families that received cash assistance from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. From 1997 onward, these are families that received assistance from TANF.

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 assistance peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The 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 1.7 million families in August 2008, peaking in December 2010 at close to 2.0 million families. In June 2016, the assistance caseload had declined to 1.5 million families.

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-June 2016

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 June 2016, includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement. See Table A-2 for average annual data on families, recipients, adult recipients, and child recipients of ADC, AFDC, and TANF cash assistance for 1961 to 2015.

Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash assistance families by state.

What Are the Characteristics of Families Receiving TANF Assistance?

Historically, the "typical" family receiving assistance 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 assistance caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the composition of the rolls. Figure 3 shows the change in the size and composition of the assistance caseload under both AFDC (1988 and 1994) and under TANF. In FY1988, 84% of AFDC families were headed by an unemployed adult recipient. In FY2015, families with an unemployed adult recipient represented 35% of all cash assistance families. This decline occurred, in large part, as the number of families headed by unemployed adult recipients declined more rapidly than other components of the cash assistance caseload. In FY1994, a monthly average of 3.8 million families per month who received AFDC cash assistance had adult recipients who were not working. In FY2015, a monthly average of 578,000 families per month had adult recipients or work-eligible individuals, with no adult recipient or work-eligible individual working.

With the decline in families headed by unemployed adults, the share of the caseload that represent families with employed adults and "child only" families has increased. In FY2015, families with employed adult recipients represented 29% of all assistance families. "Child-only" families are those where no adult recipient receives benefits in their own right; the family receives benefits on behalf of its children. The share of the caseload that was child-only in FY2015 was 36%. In FY2015, families with a non-recipient, non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles) represented 13% of all assistance families. Families with ineligible, noncitizen adults or adults who have not reported their citizenship status made up 10% of the assistance caseload in that year. Families where the parent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the children received TANF made up 9% of all assistance families in FY2015.

Figure 3. Characteristics of Assistance Families,
Selected Years FY1988 to FY2015

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the TANF national data files.

Notes: TANF cash assistance caseload includes families receiving assistance in state-funded programs counted toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.

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.

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.

Figure 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state for a single mother caring for two children (family of three) in July 2015.1 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-parent family with two children.2 For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 2015 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $923 per month in Alaska. The map shows a regional pattern to the maximum monthly benefit paid, with lower benefit amounts in the South than in other regions. In all states, the maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family was less than 50% of poverty-level income.3

Figure 4. TANF Cash Assistance Maximum Monthly Benefit Amounts for a Single Parent Family with Two Children, July 2015

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the Urban Institute's Welfare Rules Database.

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 and by year.

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.

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 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), a law enacted in response to the sharp economic downturn of 2007-2009, held states "harmless" for caseload increases affecting the work participation standards for FY2009 through FY2011. It did so by allowing states to "freeze" caseload reduction credits at pre-recession levels through the FY2011 standards.

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).

Figure 5 shows the national average all-families work participation rate for FY2002 through FY2014. For the period FY2002 through FY2011, states achieved an average all-families work participation rate hovering around 30%. In FY2012, the average all-families work participation rate ticked up to 34.4%. In that year, states faced higher work participation standards because the "freeze" to the caseload reduction credit enacted in ARRA expired. In FY2014, the all-family work participation rate increased to 36.6%. The increase in the work participation rate over the FY2012 to FY2014 period is because of an increase in the percent of families working while also receiving some form of TANF assistance, rather than an increase in non-employed individuals participating in job readiness activities.5

Figure 5. National Average TANF Work Participation Rate for All Families, FY2002-FY2014

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

How Many Jurisdictions Have Failed the All-Families Standard?

Table 3 shows which states failed the TANF all-families work participation standards from FY2002 through FY2014. Before FY2007, only a few jurisdictions failed to meet TANF all-families work participation standards. However, in FY2007, 15 jurisdictions failed to meet the all-families standard. FY2007 was the first year in which policies under the DRA were effective. This number declined to 9 in FY2008 and 8 in FY2009.

In FY2012, despite the uptick in the national average work participation rate, 16 states failed to meet the all-family standard, the largest number of states that did not meet their participation standards in any one year since the enactment of TANF. FY2012 was the year that ARRA's "freeze" of the caseload reduction credit expired, and states were generally required to meet higher standards than in previous years.

In FY2014, the number of jurisdictions that failed the all-family work participation standard declined to 9. The 9 jurisdictions are California, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, and Guam. California and Guam have failed their all-family work standards for all years, FY2007 through FY2014.

For state-by-state information on FY2014 caseload reduction credits, effective (after credit) standards, and work participation rates related to the "all families" standard, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Work Participation Rates for FY2014, TANF-ACF-IM-2016-04, July 2016, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-acf-im-2016-04.

Table 3. States Failing TANF All-Families Work Participation Standard: FY2002-FY2014

(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

2012

2013

2014

Alabama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Arizona

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Colorado

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Connecticut

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delaware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District of Columbia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

Florida

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawaii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idaho

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Illinois

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indiana

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kansas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Maryland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

Minnesota

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

X

X

X

 

Montana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevada

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

New Hampshire

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Dakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohio

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

Pennsylvania

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

Puerto Rico

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rhode Island

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

South Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

South Dakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Washington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

West Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wisconsin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

X

Wyoming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guam

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Virgin Islands

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

1

2

1

2

3

15

9

8

8

9

16

11

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 4 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2002 through FY2014. 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-parent families subject to the work participation standard.6 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. Of the 28 jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their FY2014 TANF work participation calculation, 10 met the standard and 18 did not.

Table 4. Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2002-FY2014

("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

2012

2013

2014

Alabama

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Alaska

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

Arizona

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Arkansas

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

California

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Colorado

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Connecticut

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Delaware

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

District of Columbia

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Florida

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

Georgia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Hawaii

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Idaho

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Illinois

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Indiana

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

Iowa

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Kansas

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Kentucky

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Louisiana

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Maine

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Maryland

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Massachusetts

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

NA

YES

YES

YES

Michigan

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Minnesota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Mississippi

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Missouri

NO

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Montana

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

Nebraska

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Nevada

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

New Hampshire

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

New Jersey

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

New Mexico

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

New York

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

North Carolina

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

North Dakota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ohio

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Oklahoma

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Oregon

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NA

YES

Pennsylvania

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Puerto Rico

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Rhode Island

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

South Carolina

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

South Dakota

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Tennessee

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NA

NO

NO

Texas

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Utah

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Vermont

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Virginia

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Washington

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

West Virginia

NO

NO

NA

NA

NA

NO

NA

NA

YES

NA

NA

NA

NA

Wisconsin

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Wyoming

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Guam

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Virgin Islands

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Number of Jurisdictions without Two-Parent Families

24

25

29

29

29

24

26

27

25

27

27

27

26

Number of Jurisdictions with Two-Parent Families

30

29

25

25

25

30

28

27

29

27

27

27

28

Number of Jurisdictions Meeting Two-Parent Standard

25

25

21

23

21

22

22

20

23

22

7

9

10

Number of Jurisdictions Failing Two-Parent Standard

5

4

4

2

3

7

6

7

6

5

20

18

18

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

Appendix A. Supplementary Tables

Table A-1. Uses of Federal TANF and State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Dollars, FY2015

 

Billions of Dollars

Percentage of Total Federal TANF and MOE Dollars

Basic assistance

$7.8

24.6%

Administrative expenditures

2.2

7.0

Work program expenditures

2.1

6.7

Emergency and short-term benefits and services

1.3

4.1

Child care expenditures

5.4

16.9

Pre-K and early childhood services

1.9

6.0

Refundable tax credits

2.6

8.1

Child welfare services

2.3

7.3

Other Services

6.1

19.3

Totals

31.7

100.0

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

Table A-2. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961 to 2015

 

 

 

 

 

TANF Child Recipients

Year

Families (millions)

Recipients (millions)

Adults (millions)

Children (millions)

As a Percentage of All Children

As a Percentage of All Poor 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

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

2012

1.852

4.402

1.104

3.298

4.4

20.3

2013

1.726

4.042

0.993

3.050

4.1

19.1

2014

1.650

3.957

1.007

2.950

4.0

18.8

2015

1.609

4.126

1.155

2.971

4.0

20.3

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

Notes: NA denotes not available. During transition reporting from AFDC to TANF, caseload statistics on adult and child recipients were not collected. For those years, TANF children as a percent of all children and percent of all poor children were estimated by HHS and published in Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors, Annual Report to Congress, Table TANF 2, p. A-7. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/14/indicators/rpt_indicators.pdf.

Table A-3. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category, Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2015

 

1988

1994

2001

2006

2013

2015

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working

3,136,566

3,798,997

992,445

825,490

781,473

578,482

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Working

243,573

378,620

420,794

259,001

302,079

467,298

Child-Only/SSI Parent

59,988

171,391

171,951

176,670

156,215

141,176

Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent

47,566

184,397

125,900

153,445

196,103

162,418

Child-Only/Caretaker Relative

188,598

328,290

255,984

261,944

234,499

208,836

Child-Only/Other

71,661

184,567

235,282

280,851

79,054

77,872

Totals

3,747,952

5,046,263

2,202,356

1,957,402

1,749,424

1,636,082

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working

83.7%

75.3%

45.1%

42.2%

44.7%

35.4%

Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Working

6.5

7.5

19.1

13.2

17.3

28.6

Child-Only/SSI Parent

1.6

3.4

7.8

9.0

8.9

8.6

Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent

1.3

3.7

5.7

7.8

11.2

9.9

Child-Only/Caretaker Relative

5.0

6.5

11.6

13.4

13.4

12.8

Child-Only/Other

1.9

3.7

10.7

14.3

4.5

4.8

Totals

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, FY2013, and FY2015 TANF National Data Files.

Notes: FY2001 through FY2015 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For FY2013 and FY2015, TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit. For FY2001 and FY2006, such families cannot be identified and are classified as "child-only" families.

Appendix B. State Tables

Table B-1. Use of FY2015 TANF and MOE Funds by Category

(Dollars in millions)

State

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work Program

Short-Term and Emergency Benefits

Child Care

Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood Programs

Refundable Tax Credits

Child Welfare Services

Other Benefits and Services

Totals

Alabama

$31.6

$14.0

$3.5

$27.3

$5.9

$16.5

$0.0

$29.8

$41.5

$170.0

Alaska

46.2

4.4

10.0

0.0

18.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.1

87.4

Arizona

27.1

58.1

7.6

32.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

228.0

115.9

468.9

Arkansas

9.2

15.7

15.9

7.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

95.9

144.3

California

2,838.7

587.7

652.4

242.7

896.1

0.0

0.0

1.0

1,419.7

6,638.3

Colorado

76.9

17.4

10.7

8.1

30.6

62.9

4.8

44.1

86.1

341.7

Connecticut

69.8

43.6

16.4

13.2

56.3

83.6

0.0

54.9

168.0

505.7

Delaware

20.4

4.0

6.0

2.5

48.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.4

95.0

District of Columbia

70.2

6.3

37.4

51.7

59.5

0.0

20.0

0.0

21.8

266.9

Florida

177.2

81.7

47.4

0.8

329.3

0.0

0.0

270.4

83.2

990.1

Georgia

64.5

17.6

11.3

0.1

22.2

0.0

0.0

269.3

154.5

539.4

Hawaii

52.3

16.6

98.2

0.7

20.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

98.5

288.5

Idaho

7.8

5.4

5.2

10.4

10.2

1.6

0.0

1.5

1.3

43.3

Illinois

68.5

2.5

21.0

0.9

868.2

46.2

42.6

232.8

92.1

1,374.8

Indiana

20.4

23.7

15.0

0.0

100.6

0.0

31.9

0.0

103.6

295.2

Iowa

40.4

8.1

13.0

0.2

49.3

0.0

26.9

52.0

28.9

218.8

Kansas

19.6

9.0

3.4

0.0

10.3

14.1

46.9

23.3

32.0

158.6

Kentucky

139.8

14.4

32.7

0.0

46.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.5

254.1

Louisiana

18.8

16.3

28.6

11.1

5.2

68.5

17.0

30.5

33.8

229.9

Maine

40.5

5.3

3.1

4.5

9.6

5.4

2.8

1.2

12.9

85.2

Maryland

111.4

31.2

33.6

67.0

25.9

86.2

161.7

33.3

51.6

601.8

Massachusetts

266.2

34.7

9.8

96.7

331.9

0.9

116.0

14.9

241.1

1,112.2

Michigan

149.7

57.0

4.7

70.9

21.5

205.1

45.8

93.9

726.2

1,374.9

Minnesota

84.9

39.8

56.4

29.6

135.2

5.7

174.9

0.0

19.3

545.8

Mississippi

11.4

3.3

16.6

0.0

19.1

0.0

0.0

16.8

26.7

93.9

Missouri

77.1

5.8

26.8

175.2

44.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

90.8

420.1

Montana

16.6

5.2

12.1

1.5

10.4

0.0

0.0

2.6

4.2

52.6

Nebraska

24.0

5.0

15.1

0.0

23.5

0.0

36.8

4.3

0.2

109.0

Nevada

45.9

11.3

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

32.5

90.8

New Hampshire

15.4

8.4

4.2

2.2

8.8

0.0

0.0

0.8

7.8

47.6

New Jersey

190.7

59.5

85.0

15.2

111.9

455.8

195.1

0.0

68.7

1,181.9

New Mexico

52.7

7.8

11.1

0.0

30.5

6.1

48.3

0.2

79.2

235.9

New York

1,574.5

390.1

158.7

221.4

414.3

233.7

1,510.3

337.2

625.3

5,465.4

North Carolina

52.3

43.8

8.7

4.9

190.8

100.6

0.0

121.1

45.1

567.3

North Dakota

4.8

4.2

3.4

0.0

1.1

0.0

0.0

23.9

1.3

38.6

Ohio

270.7

122.1

70.0

55.3

378.3

0.0

0.0

7.2

175.9

1,079.6

Oklahoma

28.3

18.9

12.0

8.0

76.6

11.8

0.0

17.5

41.5

214.8

Oregon

126.4

49.4

20.3

30.8

13.0

8.1

2.0

8.0

89.7

347.7

Pennsylvania

215.2

82.8

105.5

14.7

378.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

227.0

1,023.4

Rhode Island

20.4

12.6

9.7

0.0

30.5

0.0

6.4

0.0

88.8

168.3

South Carolina

40.8

22.4

18.1

0.0

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

95.0

180.4

South Dakota

14.0

2.9

4.0

2.9

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.9

3.2

28.7

Tennessee

80.7

35.8

32.8

0.0

32.0

61.8

0.0

0.0

11.9

254.9

Texas

58.1

51.4

74.1

4.4

0.0

374.5

0.0

364.4

71.9

998.9

Utah

21.6

5.8

29.9

2.5

19.7

0.6

0.0

0.5

20.7

101.2

Vermont

17.7

7.2

0.2

2.7

32.6

0.0

19.9

3.4

13.5

97.2

Virginia

82.8

20.7

49.7

2.2

37.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

79.6

272.5

Washington

154.1

75.9

160.9

44.8

209.1

48.7

0.0

0.0

355.8

1,049.3

West Virginia

24.0

28.7

0.7

1.5

9.1

0.0

0.0

13.0

50.7

127.5

Wisconsin

120.2

28.4

37.3

37.5

173.5

0.0

62.5

3.7

119.5

582.7

Wyoming

4.9

7.1

0.5

3.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.1

28.0

Totals

7,797.4

2,231.0

2,111.5

1,309.0

5,351.8

1,898.4

2,572.5

2,308.7

6,108.8

31,689.1

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

Table B-2. Use of FY2015 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percentage of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding

State

Basic Assistance

Administration

Work Program

Short-Term and Emergency Benefits

Child Care

Pre-Kindergarten and Early Childhood Programs

Refundable Tax Credits

Child Welfare Services

Other Benefits and Services

Totals

Alabama

18.6%

8.2%

2.1%

16.0%

3.5%

9.7%

0.0%

17.5%

24.4%

100.0%

Alaska

52.9

5.0

11.5

0.0

21.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.3

100.0

Arizona

5.8

12.4

1.6

6.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

48.6

24.7

100.0

Arkansas

6.4

10.9

11.0

5.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.4

100.0

California

42.8

8.9

9.8

3.7

13.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.4

100.0

Colorado

22.5

5.1

3.1

2.4

8.9

18.4

1.4

12.9

25.2

100.0

Connecticut

13.8

8.6

3.2

2.6

11.1

16.5

0.0

10.9

33.2

100.0

Delaware

21.4

4.2

6.3

2.6

51.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.1

100.0

District of Columbia

26.3

2.4

14.0

19.4

22.3

0.0

7.5

0.0

8.2

100.0

Florida

17.9

8.3

4.8

0.1

33.3

0.0

0.0

27.3

8.4

100.0

Georgia

12.0

3.3

2.1

0.0

4.1

0.0

0.0

49.9

28.6

100.0

Hawaii

18.1

5.8

34.0

0.2

6.9

0.0

0.0

0.7

34.2

100.0

Idaho

18.0

12.4

12.0

23.9

23.5

3.7

0.0

3.4

3.1

100.0

Illinois

5.0

0.2

1.5

0.1

63.1

3.4

3.1

16.9

6.7

100.0

Indiana

6.9

8.0

5.1

0.0

34.1

0.0

10.8

0.0

35.1

100.0

Iowa

18.5

3.7

5.9

0.1

22.5

0.0

12.3

23.8

13.2

100.0

Kansas

12.4

5.7

2.1

0.0

6.5

8.9

29.6

14.7

20.2

100.0

Kentucky

55.0

5.7

12.9

0.0

18.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.1

100.0

Louisiana

8.2

7.1

12.4

4.8

2.3

29.8

7.4

13.3

14.7

100.0

Maine

47.5

6.2

3.6

5.2

11.3

6.3

3.3

1.5

15.1

100.0

Maryland

18.5

5.2

5.6

11.1

4.3

14.3

26.9

5.5

8.6

100.0

Massachusetts

23.9

3.1

0.9

8.7

29.8

0.1

10.4

1.3

21.7

100.0

Michigan

10.9

4.1

0.3

5.2

1.6

14.9

3.3

6.8

52.8

100.0

Minnesota

15.6

7.3

10.3

5.4

24.8

1.0

32.0

0.0

3.5

100.0

Mississippi

12.1

3.5

17.7

0.0

20.3

0.0

0.0

17.9

28.5

100.0

Missouri

18.4

1.4

6.4

41.7

10.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.6

100.0

Montana

31.6

9.9

23.1

2.9

19.7

0.0

0.0

5.0

8.0

100.0

Nebraska

22.0

4.6

13.9

0.0

21.6

0.0

33.8

4.0

0.2

100.0

Nevada

50.5

12.4

1.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

35.8

100.0

New Hampshire

32.3

17.6

8.9

4.6

18.5

0.0

0.0

1.7

16.4

100.0

New Jersey

16.1

5.0

7.2

1.3

9.5

38.6

16.5

0.0

5.8

100.0

New Mexico

22.4

3.3

4.7

0.0

12.9

2.6

20.5

0.1

33.6

100.0

New York

28.8

7.1

2.9

4.1

7.6

4.3

27.6

6.2

11.4

100.0

North Carolina

9.2

7.7

1.5

0.9

33.6

17.7

0.0

21.4

8.0

100.0

North Dakota

12.3

10.8

8.7

0.0

2.9

0.0

0.0

61.8

3.5

100.0

Ohio

25.1

11.3

6.5

5.1

35.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

16.3

100.0

Oklahoma

13.2

8.8

5.6

3.7

35.7

5.5

0.0

8.1

19.3

100.0

Oregon

36.4

14.2

5.8

8.9

3.7

2.3

0.6

2.3

25.8

100.0

Pennsylvania

21.0

8.1

10.3

1.4

36.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.2

100.0

Rhode Island

12.1

7.5

5.7

0.0

18.1

0.0

3.8

0.0

52.8

100.0

South Carolina

22.6

12.4

10.0

0.0

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

52.7

100.0

South Dakota

48.8

10.2

13.9

10.1

2.8

0.0

0.0

3.2

11.0

100.0

Tennessee

31.6

14.1

12.9

0.0

12.5

24.2

0.0

0.0

4.7

100.0

Texas

5.8

5.1

7.4

0.4

0.0

37.5

0.0

36.5

7.2

100.0

Utah

21.3

5.7

29.5

2.5

19.5

0.6

0.0

0.5

20.4

100.0

Vermont

18.2

7.4

0.2

2.8

33.5

0.0

20.5

3.5

13.9

100.0

Virginia

30.4

7.6

18.2

0.8

13.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.2

100.0

Washington

14.7

7.2

15.3

4.3

19.9

4.6

0.0

0.0

33.9

100.0

West Virginia

18.8

22.5

0.5

1.1

7.1

0.0

0.0

10.2

39.7

100.0

Wisconsin

20.6

4.9

6.4

6.4

29.8

0.0

10.7

0.6

20.5

100.0

Wyoming

17.4

25.2

2.0

12.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

43.2

100.0

Totals

24.6

7.0

6.7

4.1

16.9

6.0

8.1

7.3

19.3

100.0

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

Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2015

(September 30, 2015, in millions of dollars)

State

Obligated but not Spent

Unobligated

Total Unspent Funds

Alabama

$11.3

$41.8

$53.1

Alaska

0.0

57.4

57.4

Arizona

0.0

0.3

0.3

Arkansas

33.4

10.9

44.3

California

175.1

0.0

175.1

Colorado

0.0

38.9

38.9

Connecticut

0.0

0.0

0.0

Delaware

0.4

9.6

9.9

District of Columbia

0.0

90.0

90.0

Florida

43.8

0.0

43.8

Georgia

32.1

10.0

42.1

Hawaii

8.6

110.9

119.5

Idaho

0.0

30.4

30.4

Illinois

0.0

0.0

0.0

Indiana

323.9

5.3

329.2

Iowa

20.4

1.8

22.2

Kansas

1.0

58.8

59.8

Kentucky

0.0

30.2

30.2

Louisiana

12.9

0.0

12.9

Maine

0.0

92.0

92.0

Maryland

0.0

0.0

0.0

Massachusetts

0.0

0.0

0.0

Michigan

0.0

57.4

57.4

Minnesota

83.1

0.0

83.1

Mississippi

0.0

35.8

35.8

Missouri

16.1

0.0

16.1

Montana

0.0

42.4

42.4

Nebraska

0.0

60.0

60.0

Nevada

6.4

0.0

6.4

New Hampshire

0.0

58.0

58.0

New Jersey

0.0

14.6

14.6

New Mexico

93.5

0.0

93.5

New York

70.4

111.6

182.0

North Carolina

16.0

0.0

16.0

North Dakota

0.0

11.0

11.0

Ohio

227.5

124.8

352.3

Oklahoma

52.4

0.0

52.4

Oregon

0.0

22.1

22.1

Pennsylvania

55.9

469.8

525.8

Rhode Island

0.0

10.3

10.3

South Carolina

24.5

0.0

24.5

South Dakota

0.0

20.5

20.5

Tennessee

0.0

244.3

244.3

Texas

124.8

0.0

124.8

Utah

0.0

120.9

120.9

Vermont

0.0

0.2

0.2

Virginia

0.1

78.1

78.2

Washington

0.0

45.9

45.9

West Virginia

0.0

22.4

22.4

Wisconsin

0.0

88.1

88.1

Wyoming

4.6

24.2

28.7

Totals

1,438.1

2,250.4

3,688.5

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 Assistance by State, June 2016

State

Families

Recipients

Children

Adults

Alabama

10,399

23,557

18,723

4,834

Alaska

3,088

8,466

5,757

2,709

Arizona

9,767

20,048

15,812

4,236

Arkansas

3,532

7,772

5,925

1,847

California

565,079

1,632,867

1,146,682

486,185

Colorado

16,288

43,003

30,419

12,584

Connecticut

10,938

21,562

15,621

5,941

Delaware

4,925

13,992

8,555

5,437

District of Columbia

4,569

11,157

8,674

2,483

Florida

46,763

76,021

64,626

11,395

Georgia

12,464

23,764

21,629

2,135

Guam

879

1,930

1,591

339

Hawaii

6,135

17,050

11,699

5,351

Idaho

1,942

2,817

2,760

57

Illinois

14,809

32,551

27,860

4,691

Indiana

7,735

15,357

13,852

1,505

Iowa

11,871

29,303

21,494

7,809

Kansas

5,186

11,883

9,009

2,874

Kentucky

23,012

45,512

37,412

8,100

Louisiana

5,630

13,284

11,279

2,005

Maine

20,473

66,217

40,095

26,122

Maryland

20,699

51,285

37,653

13,632

Massachusetts

53,792

129,660

89,113

40,547

Michigan

16,064

39,018

31,408

7,610

Minnesota

19,160

44,700

35,048

9,652

Mississippi

5,631

11,086

8,680

2,406

Missouri

15,633

35,883

26,556

9,327

Montana

3,124

7,776

5,973

1,803

Nebraska

5,183

12,658

10,490

2,168

Nevada

9,313

23,564

17,909

5,655

New Hampshire

4,827

11,681

8,244

3,437

New Jersey

16,730

37,898

28,560

9,338

New Mexico

11,408

28,925

21,700

7,225

New York

142,249

364,807

259,249

105,558

North Carolina

15,250

27,127

24,073

3,054

North Dakota

1,069

2,592

2,165

427

Ohio

56,834

105,525

92,672

12,853

Oklahoma

7,019

15,590

13,419

2,171

Oregon

49,565

149,867

94,845

55,022

Pennsylvania

57,283

142,627

104,292

38,335

Puerto Rico

8,229

22,429

13,928

8,501

Rhode Island

3,889

9,112

6,668

2,444

South Carolina

9,369

20,508

16,974

3,534

South Dakota

3,037

5,967

5,412

555

Tennessee

29,889

66,896

51,426

15,470

Texas

28,087

60,428

53,577

6,851

Utah

3,894

9,552

7,007

2,545

Vermont

3,373

7,822

5,472

2,350

Virgin Islands

254

797

538

259

Virginia

22,522

48,654

36,538

12,116

Washington

37,021

79,563

53,530

26,033

West Virginia

7,147

14,527

11,576

2,951

Wisconsin

17,806

39,250

31,470

7,780

Wyoming

473

1,068

822

246

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

1,471,307

3,746,955

2,726,461

1,020,494

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.

Table B-5. Number of Needy Families with Children Receiving Assistance by State, June of Selected Years

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage Change to 2016 from

State

1994

2007

2010

2015

2016

1994

2010

2014

Alabama

49,482

17,554

21,288

12,742

10,399

-79.0%

-51.2%

-18.4%

Alaska

12,977

3,284

3,475

3,176

3,088

-76.2

-11.1

-2.8

Arizona

71,530

35,232

31,919

10,766

9,767

-86.3

-69.4

-9.3

Arkansas

25,892

8,447

8,268

4,477

3,532

-86.4

-57.3

-21.1

California

919,535

470,099

578,950

611,379

565,079

-38.5

-2.4

-7.6

Colorado

41,378

10,230

11,675

16,731

16,288

-60.6

39.5

-2.6

Connecticut

59,701

20,632

16,957

12,807

10,938

-81.7

-35.5

-14.6

Delaware

11,239

3,916

5,322

4,449

4,925

-56.2

-7.5

10.7

District of Columbia

27,443

5,975

7,373

5,646

4,569

-83.4

-38.0

-19.1

Florida

239,232

46,710

56,706

48,630

46,763

-80.5

-17.5

-3.8

Georgia

139,566

24,005

20,134

12,975

12,464

-91.1

-38.1

-3.9

Guam

1,973

874

1,296

1,048

879

-55.4

-32.2

-16.1

Hawaii

20,844

6,398

9,663

7,267

6,135

-70.6

-36.5

-15.6

Idaho

8,739

1,560

1,744

1,831

1,942

-77.8

11.4

6.1

Illinois

242,740

28,723

22,087

18,161

14,809

-93.9

-33.0

-18.5

Indiana

72,881

40,403

34,409

8,756

7,735

-89.4

-77.5

-11.7

Iowa

39,813

19,752

21,345

12,854

11,871

-70.2

-44.4

-7.6

Kansas

30,020

14,096

14,183

5,762

5,186

-82.7

-63.4

-10.0

Kentucky

79,225

29,173

30,130

24,485

23,012

-71.0

-23.6

-6.0

Louisiana

85,741

10,787

10,256

5,040

5,630

-93.4

-45.1

11.7

Maine

22,641

12,628

14,675

22,594

20,473

-9.6

39.5

-9.4

Maryland

79,706

19,341

24,153

17,627

20,699

-74.0

-14.3

17.4

Massachusetts

110,108

44,619

48,975

57,413

53,792

-51.1

9.8

-6.3

Michigan

222,472

73,283

66,433

20,044

16,064

-92.8

-75.8

-19.9

Minnesota

63,043

26,646

24,146

18,695

19,160

-69.6

-20.6

2.5

Mississippi

55,183

11,366

11,931

6,468

5,631

-89.8

-52.8

-12.9

Missouri

92,265

38,762

38,308

27,026

15,633

-83.1

-59.2

-42.2

Montana

12,004

3,230

3,665

2,936

3,124

-74.0

-14.8

6.4

Nebraska

15,649

6,819

8,486

5,252

5,183

-66.9

-38.9

-1.3

Nevada

14,207

7,043

10,499

10,432

9,313

-34.4

-11.3

-10.7

New Hampshire

11,591

4,992

6,202

5,361

4,827

-58.4

-22.2

-10.0

New Jersey

122,536

34,177

33,540

22,684

16,730

-86.3

-50.1

-26.2

New Mexico

33,732

13,716

19,737

11,562

11,408

-66.2

-42.2

-1.3

New York

460,590

155,495

155,302

148,134

142,249

-69.1

-8.4

-4.0

North Carolina

131,065

24,857

23,384

13,917

15,250

-88.4

-34.8

9.6

North Dakota

5,725

2,068

1,958

1,137

1,069

-81.3

-45.4

-6.0

Ohio

247,886

77,005

103,198

58,954

56,834

-77.1

-44.9

-3.6

Oklahoma

46,864

8,921

9,021

6,887

7,019

-85.0

-22.2

1.9

Oregon

41,982

18,741

30,811

55,888

49,565

18.1

60.9

-11.3

Pennsylvania

211,431

61,948

51,683

63,272

57,283

-72.9

10.8

-9.5

Puerto Rico

58,484

13,122

13,257

10,291

8,229

-85.9

-37.9

-20.0

Rhode Island

22,737

8,381

7,404

4,711

3,889

-82.9

-47.5

-17.4

South Carolina

51,590

14,479

17,843

10,026

9,369

-81.8

-47.5

-6.6

South Dakota

6,868

2,871

3,247

2,965

3,037

-55.8

-6.5

2.4

Tennessee

109,339

60,777

61,851

36,316

29,889

-72.7

-51.7

-17.7

Texas

282,902

59,794

50,171

30,995

28,087

-90.1

-44.0

-9.4

Utah

17,536

5,123

6,641

3,787

3,894

-77.8

-41.4

2.8

Vermont

10,006

4,500

3,131

3,259

3,373

-66.3

7.7

3.5

Virgin Islands

1,106

418

513

343

254

-77.0

-50.5

-25.9

Virginia

75,020

31,576

37,276

24,557

22,522

-70.0

-39.6

-8.3

Washington

104,243

49,519

70,099

31,917

37,021

-64.5

-47.2

16.0

West Virginia

40,379

9,335

9,619

7,343

7,147

-82.3

-25.7

-2.7

Wisconsin

76,458

17,266

23,435

22,415

17,806

-76.7

-24.0

-20.6

Wyoming

5,751

252

337

335

473

-91.8

40.4

41.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

5,043,050

1,720,920

1,898,111

1,594,525

1,471,307

-70.8

-22.5

-7.7

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

Notes: Caseload data for 2000 through 2016 include those families in Separate State Programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.

Table B-6. TANF Assistance Families by Number of Parents by State: June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

As a Percent of Total Assistance Families

State

Single Parent

Two Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Single Parent

Two Parent

No Parent

Total Families

Alabama

4,629

79

5,691

10,399

44.5

0.8

54.7

100.0

Alaska

1,859

397

832

3,088

60.2

12.9

26.9

100.0

Arizona

3,672

230

5,865

9,767

37.6

2.4

60.0

100.0

Arkansas

1,788

52

1,692

3,532

50.6

1.5

47.9

100.0

California

310,431

107,237

147,411

565,079

54.9

19.0

26.1

100.0

Colorado

9,229

1,375

5,684

16,288

56.7

8.4

34.9

100.0

Connecticut

5,878

0

5,060

10,938

53.7

0.0

46.3

100.0

Delaware

1,897

0

3,028

4,925

38.5

0.0

61.5

100.0

District of Columbia

2,484

0

2,085

4,569

54.4

0.0

45.6

100.0

Florida

7,570

461

38,732

46,763

16.2

1.0

82.8

100.0

Georgia

2,062

0

10,402

12,464

16.5

0.0

83.5

100.0

Guam

191

65

623

879

21.7

7.4

70.9

100.0

Hawaii

3,639

1,152

1,344

6,135

59.3

18.8

21.9

100.0

Idaho

57

0

1,885

1,942

2.9

0.0

97.1

100.0

Illinois

3,935

0

10,874

14,809

26.6

0.0

73.4

100.0

Indiana

1,741

115

5,879

7,735

22.5

1.5

76.0

100.0

Iowa

6,254

697

4,920

11,871

52.7

5.9

41.4

100.0

Kansas

2,198

300

2,688

5,186

42.4

5.8

51.8

100.0

Kentucky

6,664

610

15,738

23,012

29.0

2.7

68.4

100.0

Louisiana

1,979

0

3,651

5,630

35.2

0.0

64.8

100.0

Maine

10,914

7,706

1,853

20,473

53.3

37.6

9.1

100.0

Maryland

13,142

379

7,178

20,699

63.5

1.8

34.7

100.0

Massachusetts

35,298

3,697

14,797

53,792

65.6

6.9

27.5

100.0

Michigan

6,580

0

9,484

16,064

41.0

0.0

59.0

100.0

Minnesota

9,751

0

9,409

19,160

50.9

0.0

49.1

100.0

Mississippi

2,386

0

3,245

5,631

42.4

0.0

57.6

100.0

Missouri

9,954

0

5,679

15,633

63.7

0.0

36.3

100.0

Montana

1,526

188

1,410

3,124

48.8

6.0

45.1

100.0

Nebraska

2,272

0

2,911

5,183

43.8

0.0

56.2

100.0

Nevada

3,897

800

4,616

9,313

41.8

8.6

49.6

100.0

New Hampshire

3,362

25

1,440

4,827

69.6

0.5

29.8

100.0

New Jersey

10,296

0

6,434

16,730

61.5

0.0

38.5

100.0

New Mexico

5,445

890

5,073

11,408

47.7

7.8

44.5

100.0

New York

91,506

3,242

47,501

142,249

64.3

2.3

33.4

100.0

North Carolina

2,806

112

12,332

15,250

18.4

0.7

80.9

100.0

North Dakota

426

0

643

1,069

39.9

0.0

60.1

100.0

Ohio

10,443

958

45,433

56,834

18.4

1.7

79.9

100.0

Oklahoma

2,171

0

4,848

7,019

30.9

0.0

69.1

100.0

Oregon

34,123

8,539

6,903

49,565

68.8

17.2

13.9

100.0

Pennsylvania

33,164

690

23,429

57,283

57.9

1.2

40.9

100.0

Puerto Rico

7,354

458

417

8,229

89.4

5.6

5.1

100.0

Rhode Island

2,161

162

1,566

3,889

55.6

4.2

40.3

100.0

South Carolina

3,534

0

5,835

9,369

37.7

0.0

62.3

100.0

South Dakota

555

0

2,482

3,037

18.3

0.0

81.7

100.0

Tennessee

14,447

123

15,319

29,889

48.3

0.4

51.3

100.0

Texas

6,851

0

21,236

28,087

24.4

0.0

75.6

100.0

Utah

1,843

0

2,051

3,894

47.3

0.0

52.7

100.0

Vermont

1,616

355

1,402

3,373

47.9

10.5

41.6

100.0

Virgin Islands

219

0

35

254

86.2

0.0

13.8

100.0

Virginia

12,453

0

10,069

22,522

55.3

0.0

44.7

100.0

Washington

17,336

5,527

14,158

37,021

46.8

14.9

38.2

100.0

West Virginia

2,250

0

4,897

7,147

31.5

0.0

68.5

100.0

Wisconsin

6,477

393

10,936

17,806

36.4

2.2

61.4

100.0

Wyoming

200

23

250

473

42.3

4.9

52.9

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

744,915

147,037

579,355

1,471,307

50.6

10.0

39.4

100.0

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.

Author Contact Information

[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Social Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

1.

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).

2.

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.

3.

In 2015, the HHS poverty guidelines for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia for a family of 3 was $1,674 per month. Higher poverty lines applied in Alaska ($2,093 per month for a family of 3) and Hawaii ($1,925 per month for a family of 3).

4.

Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

5.

The TANF work participation rate increased from 29.5% in FY2011 to 36.6% in FY2014, 7.1 percentage points. The share of families with a member meeting the work standards and engaged in unsubsidized employment increased from 16.6% in FY2011 to 25.8% in FY2014. This 9.2 percentage point increase was greater than the 7.1 percentage point increase in the overall work participation rate.

6.

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.