The Temporary Assistance for
December 17, 2019
Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant:
Gene Falk
Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Specialist in Social Policy

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of
Patrick A. Landers
benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the Personal
Analyst in Social Policy
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (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
For a copy of the full report,
on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk).
please call 7-5700 or visit
www.crs.gov.
TANF Funding and Expenditures. TANF provides fixed funding for the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, the territories, and American Indian tribes. The basic block grant totals $16.5 billion per year. States are also
required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.3 billion annually under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE)
requirement.
Though TANF is best known for funding assistance payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE
funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2018, expenditures on assistance totaled $6.7 billion—21%
of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. Assistance is often—but not exclusively—paid as cash. In addition to funding basic
assistance, 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 prekindergarten programs toward the MOE requirement.
The TANF Assistance Caseload. A total of 1.2 million families, composed of 3.1 million recipients, received TANF- or
MOE-funded assistance in September 2018. The bulk of the “recipients” were children—2.3 million in that month. The
assistance caseload is heterogeneous. The type of family once thought of as the “typical” assistance family—one with an
unemployed adult recipient—accounted for 31% of all families on the rolls in FY2017. Additionally, 31% of cash assistance
families had an employed adult, while 38% 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.
Assistance Benefits. TANF assistance benefit amounts are set by states. In July 2018, the maximum monthly benefit for a
family of three ranged from $1,039 in New Hampshire to $170 in Mississippi. Only New Hampshire (at 60% of the federal
poverty guidelines) had a maximum TANF assistance amount for this sized family in excess of 50% of poverty-level income.
Work Requirements. TANF’s main federal work requirement is actually a performance measure that applies to the states.
States determine the work rules that apply to individual recipients. TANF law requires states to engage 50% of all families
and 90% of two-parent families with work-eligible individuals in work activities, though these standards can be reduced by
“credits.” Therefore, the effective standards states face are often less than the 50% or 90% targets, and vary by state. In
FY2018, states achieved, on average, an all-family participation rate of 48.1% and a two-parent rate of 57.9%. In FY2018,
only Montana did not meet the all-family participation standard. This is a reduction from FY2012, when 16 states did not
meet that standard. In FY2018, seven jurisdictions did not meet the two-parent standard. States that do not meet work
standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 23 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. Appendix B presents a series of tables with state-level 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 Gene Falk).
Funding and Expenditures
What Is TANF’s Funding Status?
P.L. 116-69, the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Further Health Extenders Act
of 2019, extends TANF block grant funding through December 20, 2019.1 H.R. 1865, the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, as sent to the full House by the House Rules Committee
on December 17, 2019, would extend TANF funding through May 22, 2020.
How Are State TANF Programs Funded?
TANF programs are funded through a combination of federal and state funds. In FY2018, 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, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the
Virgin Islands, and American Indian tribes. 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 $10.3 billion per year for the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the territories.
How Much Has the Value of the TANF Basic Block Grant Changed
Over Time?
TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). A TANF basic block grant
amount—both nationally and for each state—was established in the 1996 welfare reform law. The
amount established in that law for the 50 states, District of Columbia, territories, and tribes was
$16.6 billion in total. From FY1997 through FY2016, that amount remained the same. It was not
adjusted for changes that occur over time, such as inflation, the size of the TANF assistance
caseload, or changes in the poverty population. During this period, the real (inflation-adjusted)
value of the block grant declined by one-third (33.1%). Beginning with FY2017, the state family
assistance grant was reduced by 0.33% from its historical levels to finance TANF-related research
and technical assistance. The reduced block grant amount is $16.5 billion.

1 Section 1502 of P.L. 116-69.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Table 1 shows the state family assistance grant, in both nominal (actual) and real (inflation-
adjusted) dollars for each year, FY1997 through FY2018. In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, the
FY2018 block grant was 36% below its value in FY1997.
Table 1. TANF Basic Block Grant Funding in Nominal and Constant Dollars
(In billions of $)
State Family
Assistance Grant: 50
State Family
Cumulative Percentage
States, DC, Tribes, and
Assistance Grant
Change (constant
Fiscal Year
Territories
Constant 1997 Dollars
dollars)
1997
$16.567
$16.567
1998
16.567
16.306
-1.6%
1999
16.567
15.991
-3.5
2000
16.567
15.498
-6.5
2001
16.567
15.020
-9.3
2002
16.567
14.792
-10.7
2003
16.567
14.456
-12.7
2004
16.567
14.124
-14.7
2005
16.567
13.680
-17.4
2006
16.567
13.190
-20.4
2007
16.567
12.893
-22.2
2008
16.567
12.345
-25.5
2009
16.567
12.382
-25.3
2010
16.567
12.182
-26.5
2011
16.567
11.859
-28.4
2012
16.567
11.585
-30.1
2013
16.567
11.394
-31.2
2014
16.567
11.217
-32.3
2015
16.567
11.179
-32.5
2016
16.567
11.082
-33.1
2017
16.512
10.820
-34.7
2018
16.512
10.564
-36.2
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?
In FY2018, a total of $31.3 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either
expended or transferred to other block grant programs. Assistance—ongoing benefits to families
to meet basic needs—represented 21% ($6.7 billion) of total FY2018 TANF and MOE dollars.
TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2018, $5.3 billion (17% of all TANF and
MOE funds) were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 23 link to page 26 link to page 29

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

Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). TANF work-related activities (including education
and training) were the third-largest TANF and MOE spending category at $3.3 billion, or 11% of
total TANF and MOE funds. TANF also helps low-wage parents by helping to finance state
refundable tax credits, such as state add-ons to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). TANF and
MOE expenditures on refundable tax credits in FY2018 totaled $2.8 billion, or 9% of total TANF
and MOE spending.
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, spending about $2.4 billion on such activities. TANF
and MOE funds also help fund state prekindergarten (pre-K) programs, with total FY2018
expenditures for that category at $2.6 billion. TANF and MOE funds are also used for short-term
and emergency benefits and a wide range of other social services. Figure 1 shows the uses of
federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2018.
Figure 1. Uses of TANF Funds by Spending Category, FY2018
(Dollars in billions)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Excludes TANF funds used in the territories and in
tribal TANF programs.
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 FY2018 (September 30, 2018, the most recent data currently available), a total of
$5.1 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 FY2018, states had made such commitments to spend—that is, had obligated—a total of $1.4
billion. At the end of FY2018, states had $3.7 billion of “unobligated balances.” These funds are
available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 shows unspent TANF funds
by state.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 30 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

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 assistance. There is no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF
benefits and services.
Assistance is defined as benefits provided to families to meet ongoing, basic needs.2 It is most
often paid in cash. However, some states use TANF or MOE funds to provide an “earnings
supplement” to working parents added to monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) allotments. These “earnings supplements” are paid separately from the regular TANF
cash assistance program. Additionally, TANF MOE dollars are used to fund food assistance for
immigrants barred from regular SNAP benefits in certain states. These forms of nutrition aid meet
an ongoing need, and thus are considered TANF assistance.
As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance accounts for about 24%
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 1.2 million families, composed of 3.1
million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded assistance in September 2018. The bulk of
the “recipients” were children—2.3 million in that month. For state-by-state assistance caseloads,
see Table B-4.
Table 2. TANF Assistance Caseload: September 2018
Families
1,175,335
Recipients
3,104,094
Child Recipients
2,280,173
Adult Recipients
823,921
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.

2 The definition of TANF assistance is not in statute. However, because the statutory language has most TANF
requirements triggered by a family receiving “assistance,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
regulations define assistance at 45 C.F.R. §260.31.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 link to page 20 link to page 32

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

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 TANF or its predecessor program, from July 1959 to September 2017. The
shaded areas of the figure represent months when the national economy was in recession. Though
the health of the national economy has affected the trend in the cash assistance caseload, the long-
term trend in receipt of cash assistance does not follow a classic countercyclical 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 have 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. By September 2018, the
assistance caseload had declined to 1.2 million families.
Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, July 1959-September 2018

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 September 2018, includes families receiving assistance
from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort
requirement. See Table A-1 for average annual data on families, recipients, adult recipients, and child recipients
of ADC, AFDC, and TANF cash assistance for 1961 to 2017.
Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash assistance families by state.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

What Are the Characteristics of Families Receiving TANF
Assistance?
Before PRWORA, the “typical” family receiving assistance has been headed by a single parent
(usually the mother) with one or two children. That single parent has also typically been
unemployed. However, over the past 20 years 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 TANF. In
FY1988, an estimated 84% of AFDC families were headed by an unemployed adult recipient. In
FY2016, families with an unemployed adult recipient represented 32% 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 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 FY2016, a monthly average of 485,000
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 represented
by families with employed adults and “child only” families has increased. In FY2017, families
with all adult recipients unemployed and families with employed adult recipients each
represented 31% of all assistance families. The latter category includes families in “earnings
supplement” programs separate from the regular TANF cash assistance program. “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
FY2017 was 38%. In FY2017, families with a nonrecipient, nonparent relative (grandparents,
aunts, uncles) represented 14% of all assistance families. Families with ineligible, noncitizen
adults or adults who have not reported their citizenship status made up 9% 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 FY2017.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 12

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

Figure 3. Characteristics of Assistance Families,
Selected Years FY1988 to FY2017

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 not meeting 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 2018.3 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-
parent family with two children.4 For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July

3 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).
4 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 substate geography.
Congressional Research Service

7

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

2018 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi to $1,039 per month in New Hampshire. The
map shows a regional pattern to the maximum monthly benefit paid, with lower benefit amounts
in the South than in other regions. Only New Hampshire (at 60% of the federal poverty
guidelines) had a maximum TANF cash assistance amount for this sized family in excess of 50%
of poverty-level income.5
Figure 4. TANF Cash Assistance Maximum Monthly Benefit Amounts for a Single
Parent Family with Two Children, 50 States and the District of Columbia, July 2018

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules
Database. The welfare rules database has information for the 50 states and District of Columbia. It does not have
information on TANF assistance programs in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands or tribal TANF
programs.
TANF Work Participation Standards
TANF’s main federal work requirement is actually a performance measure that applies to the
states, rather than individual recipients. States determine the work rules that apply to individual
recipients.
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.6 There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion

5 In 2017, the HHS poverty guidelines for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia for a family of three
was $1,702 per month. Higher poverty lines applied in Alaska ($2,126 per month for a family of three) and Hawaii
($1,933 per month for a family of three).
6 Families without a work-eligible individual are excluded from the participation rate calculation. It excludes families
Congressional Research Service

8

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

of a state’s caseload, requiring 90% of the state’s two-parent caseload to meet participation
standards.
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 do not 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 not meeting 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 (DRA, 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.
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

where the parent is a nonrecipient (for example, disabled receiving Supplemental Security Income or an ineligible
noncitizen) or the children in the family are being cared for by a nonparent relative (e.g., grandparent, aunt, uncle) who
does not receive assistance on his or her behalf.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 16

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

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
FY2018. For the period FY2002 through FY2011, states achieved an average all-families work
participation rate hovering around 30%. The work participation rate increased since then. In
FY2016, it exceeded 50% for the first time since TANF was established. However, it is important
to note that the increase in the work participation rate has not come from an increase in the
number of recipients in regular TANF assistance programs who are either working or in job
preparation activities. This increase stems mostly from states creating new “earnings supplement”
programs that use TANF funds to aid working parents in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) or who have left the regular TANF assistance programs
for work.7
Figure 5. National Average TANF Work Participation Rate for All Families,
FY2002-FY2018

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
How Many Jurisdictions Did Not Meet the All-Families Standard?
Figure 6 shows which states did not meet the TANF all-families work participation standards
from FY2006 through FY2018. Before FY2007, the first year that DRA was effective, only a few
jurisdictions did not meet TANF all-families work participation standards. However, in FY2007,
15 jurisdictions did not meet the all-families standard. 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 did not
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

7 See CRS In Focus IF10856, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Work Requirements.
Congressional Research Service

10

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

“freeze” of the caseload reduction credit expired, and states were generally required to meet
higher standards than in previous years.
The number of jurisdictions that did not meet the all-families standard declined over the FY2012
to FY2017 period. In FY2018, Montana was the only jurisdiction that did not meet the all-family
participation standard.
Congressional Research Service

11

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

Figure 6.States That Met or Did Not Meet the TANF All-Families Work Participation
Standard: FY2006-FY2018
(Changes to TANF work participation standard rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [DRA],
effective in FY2007)

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

12

link to page 18 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs

Have States Met the Two-Parent Work Participation Standard?
In addition to meeting a work standard for all families, TANF also imposes a second standard—
90%—for the two-parent portion of its cash assistance caseload. This standard can also be
lowered by caseload reduction.
Figure 7 shows whether each state met its two-parent work participation standard for FY2006
through FY2018. However, the display on the table is more complex than that for reporting
whether a state met or did not meet its “all family” rate.
A substantial number of states have reported no two-parent families subject to the work
participation standard. 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. 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.
For states with two-parent families in their caseloads, the table reports “Yes” for states that met
the two-parent standard, and “No” for states that did not meet the two-parent standard. Of the 29
jurisdictions that had two-parent families in their FY2018 TANF work participation calculation,
22 met the standard and 7 did not.

Congressional Research Service

13

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

Figure 7.Two-Parent TANF Work Participation Standard, Status by State: FY2006-
FY2018
(“Yes” indicates a state met the standard; “No” indicates the state did not meet the standard; and “NA”
means the standard was not applicable to the state in that year [no two-parent families in its caseload].)

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

14

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

Note: A “qual.” state is one that has two-parent families within its TANF or SSP caseload.
Congressional Research Service

15

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

Appendix A. Supplementary Tables
Table A-1. Trends in the Cash Assistance Caseload: 1961-2018

TANF Child Recipients
As a
As a
Percentage Percentage
Families
Recipients
Adults
Children
of All
of All Poor
Year
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
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
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
Congressional Research Service

16

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

TANF Child Recipients
As a
As a
Percentage Percentage
Families
Recipients
Adults
Children
of All
of All Poor
Year
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
(millions)
Children
Children
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
18.9
2015
1.609
4.126
1.155
2.971
4.0
20.4
2016
1.479
3.780
1.037
2.743
3.7
20.7
2017
1.358
3.516
0,930
2.577
3.5
20.1
2018
1.196
3.150
0.833
2.317
3.2
19.5
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.

Congressional Research Service

17

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

Table A-2. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Assistance by Family Category, Selected
Years, FY1988-FY2017

AFDC
TANF

1988
1994
2001
2006
2017
Number of Families Receiving Assistance
Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working
3,136,566
3,798,997
992,445
825,490
434,602
Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Working
243,573
378,620
420,794
259,001
435,259
Child-Only/SSI Parent
59,988
171,391
171,951
176,670
126,483
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent
47,566
184,397
125,900
153,445
133,173
Child-Only/Other Ineligible Parent
51,764
146,227
91,447
158,113
4,370
Child-Only/Caretaker Relative
188,598
328,290
255,984
261,944
198,103
Child-Only/Unknown
19,897
38,341
143,834
122,738
70,882
Totals
3,747,952
5,046,263
2,202,356
1,957,402
1,402,871
Percentage of All Families Receiving Assistance
Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working
83.7%
75.3%
45.1%
42.2%
31.0%
Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Working
6.5
7.5
19.1
13.2
31.0
Child-Only/SSI Parent
1.6
3.4
7.8
9.0
9.0
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent
1.3
3.7
5.7
7.8
9.5
Child-Only/Other Ineligible Parent
1.4
2.9
4.2
8.1
0.3
Child-Only/Caretaker Relative
5.0
6.5
11.6
13.4
14.1
Child-Only/Unknown
0.5
0.8
6.5
6.3
5.1
Totals
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, and FY2017 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: FY2001 through FY2017 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs)
with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For FY2017, TANF
families with an adult recipient include those families with “work-eligible” nonrecipient parents. These include
nonrecipient 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.

Congressional Research Service

18

Appendix B. State Tables
Table B-1. Use of FY2018 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
(Dollars in millions)
Emer-
Work,
gency
Other
Education,
Refund-
Pre-
Short-
Benefits
Child
and
able Tax
K/Head
Child
Administ-
Term
and
State
Assistance
Care
Training
Credits
Start
Welfare
ration
Benefits
Services
Totals
Alabama
$20.322
$5.869
$6.318
$0.000
$22.273
$40.456
$19.381
$34.229
$34.613
$183.461
Alaska
42.074
18.167
8.775
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.356
0.303
15.111
92.786
Arizona
41.697
2.547
0.377
0.000
0.000
227.246
19.510
9.483
33.361
334.222
Arkansas
4.099
15.515
14.674
0.000
108.351
0.330
13.143
4.079
4.985
165.175
California
2,329.995
742.572
1,778.602
0.000
0.000
0.003
536.493
254.368
951.812
6,593.846
Colorado
55.969
17.933
10.675
78.133
62.010
46.305
23.917
20.468
65.744
381.154
Connecticut
50.236
39.992
11.732
56.444
76.203
62.230
36.063
19.726
145.736
498.362
Delaware
13.868
76.442
3.791
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.521
2.649
16.273
116.543
District of Columbia
114.482
59.117
29.873
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.730
67.559
8.899
289.659
Florida
160.443
316.879
43.770
0.000
0.000
269.205
70.038
0.902
80.325
941.562
Georgia
95.550
22.183
10.626
0.000
0.000
247.792
19.767
4.672
89.556
490.146
Hawaii
28.603
11.042
41.180
0.000
0.181
0.536
13.425
5.701
98.041
198.708
Idaho
8.219
13.637
2.759
0.000
1.509
1.507
7.759
12.651
1.506
49.547
Illinois
31.883
593.251
19.252
66.150
106.476
242.283
0.062
0.740
83.502
1,143.599
Indiana
14.744
118.452
83.762
27.530
0.000
9.337
24.102
0.388
136.557
414.873
Iowa
33.549
58.003
10.485
25.939
0.000
55.569
5.965
0.298
21.696
211.506
Kansas
13.026
6.673
1.021
49.902
15.198
24.611
11.446
0.001
43.604
165.480
Kentucky
172.118
36.051
29.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.201
0.000
13.154
261.549
CRS-19

Emer-
Work,
gency
Other
Education,
Refund-
Pre-
Short-
Benefits
Child
and
able Tax
K/Head
Child
Administ-
Term
and
State
Assistance
Care
Training
Credits
Start
Welfare
ration
Benefits
Services
Totals
Louisiana
19.673
11.122
33.016
13.627
45.490
37.556
18.429
11.686
34.916
225.516
Maine
30.393
16.412
12.457
7.592
0.719
8.425
5.099
4.867
31.073
117.038
Maryland
111.809
7.336
28.247
152.658
58.188
26.017
21.845
42.786
51.461
500.347
Massachusetts
197.096
338.728
168.496
173.120
0.000
5.412
37.800
106.280
68.388
1,095.319
Michigan
168.726
27.829
4.868
47.087
187.157
98.198
53.241
66.007
750.442
1,403.556
Minnesota
85.569
156.198
61.434
152.779
5.700
0.000
54.632
24.678
22.180
563.170
Mississippi
7.283
1.715
28.282
0.000
0.000
20.758
16.345
0.000
60.413
134.797
Missouri
35.600
48.658
77.253
0.000
0.000
131.817
7.822
76.644
37.671
415.466
Montana
25.091
9.410
3.931
0.000
0.000
2.460
4.688
2.748
11.092
59.420
Nebraska
26.057
22.244
11.926
33.834
0.000
4.174
5.032
0.146
0.741
104.154
Nevada
38.178
16.590
1.489
0.000
0.000
15.604
8.163
2.721
20.390
103.135
New Hampshire
30.651
4.582
7.689
0.000
0.000
5.309
11.234
7.129
17.733
84.327
New Jersey
81.594
166.219
80.724
348.961
549.240
0.000
51.532
15.091
71.483
1,364.843
New Mexico
55.419
31.278
18.902
71.929
41.168
0.870
4.953
2.919
19.230
246.666
New York
1,489.959
577.447
131.513
1,403.065
498.970
247.188
417.750
313.621
308.739
5,388.252
North Carolina
36.847
216.874
5.437
0.000
120.828
124.292
44.812
5.421
42.710
597.221
North Dakota
3.934
1.074
3.893
0.000
0.000
28.739
4.255
0.019
1.212
43.127
Ohio
236.819
405.938
90.064
0.000
0.000
11.916
110.937
54.605
222.014
1,132.292
Oklahoma
29.493
39.188
9.354
0.000
12.079
14.304
8.623
3.155
30.506
146.702
Oregon
83.385
11.175
16.521
3.381
8.630
14.588
41.043
32.056
65.658
276.435
Pennsylvania
167.239
478.148
102.955
0.000
176.997
0.000
73.820
14.928
140.721
1,154.808
Rhode Island
25.472
40.366
9.874
22.705
0.000
23.308
8.839
24.855
12.235
167.654
CRS-20

Emer-
Work,
gency
Other
Education,
Refund-
Pre-
Short-
Benefits
Child
and
able Tax
K/Head
Child
Administ-
Term
and
State
Assistance
Care
Training
Credits
Start
Welfare
ration
Benefits
Services
Totals
South Carolina
52.919
4.085
33.401
0.000
26.382
5.050
18.931
0.000
23.993
164.761
South Dakota
15.094
0.803
3.517
0.000
0.000
4.863
2.016
3.451
2.896
32.639
Tennessee
18.417
0.000
7.592
0.000
85.990
0.000
26.241
0.000
0.187
138.426
Texas
53.170
0.000
84.856
0.000
340.550
240.425
77.213
3.802
62.412
862.428
Utah
18.920
23.452
22.689
0.000
7.767
3.750
13.811
2.963
25.509
118.861
Vermont
14.148
29.849
1.989
18.312
0.000
5.770
6.032
1.317
15.925
93.342
Virginia
67.733
37.011
39.856
0.000
4.383
8.160
40.268
4.727
76.812
278.950
Washington
135.807
227.095
101.517
0.000
39.450
0.000
122.470
58.065
374.341
1,058.746
West Virginia
26.206
16.242
0.473
0.000
0.000
31.757
14.329
12.749
25.317
127.074
Wisconsin
82.282
203.163
26.142
69.700
0.000
5.364
26.429
38.640
129.371
581.091
Wyoming
9.075
1.554
3.033
0.000
0.939
0.000
4.270
3.175
1.582
23.628

Totals
6,710.93 5,326.11
3,340.09
2,822.85
2,602.83
2,353.48
2,196.78
1,379.47
4,603.83
31,336.37
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Note: Excludes TANF funds used in the territories and in tribal TANF programs.

CRS-21

Table B-2. Uses of FY2018 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percentage of Total Federal TANF and State MOE
Spending
Emer-
Work,
gency
Other
Education
Refund-
Pre-
Short-
Benefits
Child
and
able Tax
K/Head
Child
Admin-
Term
and
State
Assistance
Care
Training
Credits
Start
Welfare
istration
Benefits
Services
Totals
Alabama
11.1%
3.2%
3.4%
0.0%
12.1%
22.1%
10.6%
18.7%
18.9%
100.0%
Alaska
45.3
19.6
9.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.3
16.3
100.0
Arizona
12.5
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
68.0
5.8
2.8
10.0
100.0
Arkansas
2.5
9.4
8.9
0.0
65.6
0.2
8.0
2.5
3.0
100.0
California
35.3
11.3
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
3.9
14.4
100.0
Colorado
14.7
4.7
2.8
20.5
16.3
12.1
6.3
5.4
17.2
100.0
Connecticut
10.1
8.0
2.4
11.3
15.3
12.5
7.2
4.0
29.2
100.0
Delaware
11.9
65.6
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
2.3
14.0
100.0
District of Columbia
39.5
20.4
10.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
23.3
3.1
100.0
Florida
17.0
33.7
4.6
0.0
0.0
28.6
7.4
0.1
8.5
100.0
Georgia
19.5
4.5
2.2
0.0
0.0
50.6
4.0
1.0
18.3
100.0
Hawaii
14.4
5.6
20.7
0.0
0.1
0.3
6.8
2.9
49.3
100.0
Idaho
16.6
27.5
5.6
0.0
3.0
3.0
15.7
25.5
3.0
100.0
Illinois
2.8
51.9
1.7
5.8
9.3
21.2
0.0
0.1
7.3
100.0
Indiana
3.6
28.6
20.2
6.6
0.0
2.3
5.8
0.1
32.9
100.0
Iowa
15.9
27.4
5.0
12.3
0.0
26.3
2.8
0.1
10.3
100.0
Kansas
7.9
4.0
0.6
30.2
9.2
14.9
6.9
0.0
26.3
100.0
Kentucky
65.8
13.8
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
5.0
100.0
Louisiana
8.7
4.9
14.6
6.0
20.2
16.7
8.2
5.2
15.5
100.0
Maine
26.0
14.0
10.6
6.5
0.6
7.2
4.4
4.2
26.5
100.0
CRS-22

Emer-
Work,
gency
Other
Education
Refund-
Pre-
Short-
Benefits
Child
and
able Tax
K/Head
Child
Admin-
Term
and
State
Assistance
Care
Training
Credits
Start
Welfare
istration
Benefits
Services
Totals
Maryland
22.3
1.5
5.6
30.5
11.6
5.2
4.4
8.6
10.3
100.0
Massachusetts
18.0
30.9
15.4
15.8
0.0
0.5
3.5
9.7
6.2
100.0
Michigan
12.0
2.0
0.3
3.4
13.3
7.0
3.8
4.7
53.5
100.0
Minnesota
15.2
27.7
10.9
27.1
1.0
0.0
9.7
4.4
3.9
100.0
Mississippi
5.4
1.3
21.0
0.0
0.0
15.4
12.1
0.0
44.8
100.0
Missouri
8.6
11.7
18.6
0.0
0.0
31.7
1.9
18.4
9.1
100.0
Montana
42.2
15.8
6.6
0.0
0.0
4.1
7.9
4.6
18.7
100.0
Nebraska
25.0
21.4
11.5
32.5
0.0
4.0
4.8
0.1
0.7
100.0
Nevada
37.0
16.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
15.1
7.9
2.6
19.8
100.0
New Hampshire
36.3
5.4
9.1
0.0
0.0
6.3
13.3
8.5
21.0
100.0
New Jersey
6.0
12.2
5.9
25.6
40.2
0.0
3.8
1.1
5.2
100.0
New Mexico
22.5
12.7
7.7
29.2
16.7
0.4
2.0
1.2
7.8
100.0
New York
27.7
10.7
2.4
26.0
9.3
4.6
7.8
5.8
5.7
100.0
North Carolina
6.2
36.3
0.9
0.0
20.2
20.8
7.5
0.9
7.2
100.0
North Dakota
9.1
2.5
9.0
0.0
0.0
66.6
9.9
0.0
2.8
100.0
Ohio
20.9
35.9
8.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
9.8
4.8
19.6
100.0
Oklahoma
20.1
26.7
6.4
0.0
8.2
9.8
5.9
2.2
20.8
100.0
Oregon
30.2
4.0
6.0
1.2
3.1
5.3
14.8
11.6
23.8
100.0
Pennsylvania
14.5
41.4
8.9
0.0
15.3
0.0
6.4
1.3
12.2
100.0
Rhode Island
15.2
24.1
5.9
13.5
0.0
13.9
5.3
14.8
7.3
100.0
South Carolina
32.1
2.5
20.3
0.0
16.0
3.1
11.5
0.0
14.6
100.0
South Dakota
46.2
2.5
10.8
0.0
0.0
14.9
6.2
10.6
8.9
100.0
CRS-23

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

Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2018
(September 30, 2018, in millions of dollars)
Obligated But
Unobligated and
State
Not Spent
Unspent
Alabama
$0.0
$86.4
Alaska
0.0
36.3
Arizona
0.0
49.4
Arkansas
20.4
53.4
California
257.8
0.0
Colorado
0.0
104.5
Connecticut
0.0
0.0
Delaware
0.6
14.1
District of Columbia
0.0
48.7
Florida
15.9
0.0
Georgia
10.7
66.8
Hawaii
20.7
280.6
Idaho
0.0
13.8
Illinois
0.0
0.0
Indiana
13.7
50.8
Iowa
0.7
0.0
Kansas
2.0
73.8
Kentucky
0.0
63.8
Louisiana
9.5
0.0
Maine
14.2
130.8
Maryland
0.0
8.6
Massachusetts
0.0
0.0
Michigan
0.0
56.1
Minnesota
0.0
58.0
Mississippi
0.0
8.4
Missouri
0.0
5.3
Montana
0.0
15.6
Nebraska
0.0
70.4
Nevada
0.0
32.8
New Hampshire
0.0
55.4
Congressional Research Service

25

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

Obligated But
Unobligated and
State
Not Spent
Unspent
New Jersey
10.9
11.1
New Mexico
0.0
88.7
New York
34.1
513.3
North Carolina
51.1
0.0
North Dakota
1.9
0.0
Ohio
542.3
0.5
Oklahoma
134.5
0.0
Oregon
0.0
13.8
Pennsylvania
77.4
430.7
Rhode Island
0.0
16.8
South Carolina
0.0
0.0
South Dakota
0.0
19.6
Tennessee
0.0
570.7
Texas
204.9
123.5
Utah
0.0
60.6
Vermont
0.0
0.0
Virginia
6.9
133.9
Washington
0.0
48.4
West Virginia
0.0
74.6
Wisconsin
0.0
175.6
Wyoming
4.5
25.4

Totals
1,434.9
3,691.1
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Note: Excludes TANF funds used in the territories and in tribal TANF programs.

Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF
Assistance by State, September 2018
State
Families
Recipients
Children
Adults
Alabama
8,182
18,425
15,032
3,393
Alaska
2,571
6,815
4,732
2,083
Arizona
7,372
15,106
12,084
3,022
Congressional Research Service

26

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

State
Families
Recipients
Children
Adults
Arkansas
2,859
6,357
4,767
1,590
California
409,043
1,331,457
940,730
390,727
Colorado
12,502
32,692
22,727
9,965
Connecticut
8,964
18,713
13,545
5,168
Delaware
3,761
10,450
6,272
4,178
District of Columbia
5,840
16,632
12,546
4,086
Florida
41,469
65,627
56,117
9,510
Georgia
10,484
20,246
18,353
1,893
Guam
491
1,083
929
154
Hawaii
4,274
11,653
8,294
3,359
Idaho
2,046
2,996
2,912
84
Illinois
11,048
21,810
19,689
2,121
Indiana
6,048
12,053
10,982
1,071
Iowa
9,650
23,295
17,746
5,549
Kansas
4,360
4,359
2,619
1,740
Kentucky
18,774
37,748
32,695
5,053
Louisiana
5,402
13,292
11,007
2,285
Maine
17,367
57,543
35,301
22,242
Maryland
17,352
42,996
32,025
10,971
Massachusetts
50,270
124,630
85,801
38,829
Michigan
12,338
30,453
24,978
5,475
Minnesota
16,973
40,370
31,246
9,124
Mississippi
4,040
7,907
6,399
1,508
Missouri
10,761
24,687
19,063
5,624
Montana
3,691
9,156
7,010
2,146
Nebraska
4,832
11,945
9,954
1,991
Nevada
9,023
22,836
17,191
5,645
New Hampshire
5,257
12,575
9,081
3,494
New Jersey
10,326
23,089
18,000
5,089
New Mexico
10,632
26,529
20,122
6,407
New York
122,363
313,143
221,544
91,599
North Carolina
14,574
25,263
22,791
2,472
North Dakota
984
2,453
2,072
381
Ohio
42,549
75,664
69,415
6,249
Oklahoma
6,176
13,696
11,958
1,738
Oregon
40,932
120,311
77,812
42,499
Pennsylvania
45,022
111,572
83,045
28,527
Congressional Research Service

27

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

State
Families
Recipients
Children
Adults
Puerto Rico
4,992
13,559
8,411
5,148
Rhode Island
4,197
9,954
7,274
2,680
South Carolina
8,314
18,326
15,449
2,877
South Dakota
2,952
5,944
5,489
455
Tennessee
20,951
45,131
36,178
8,953
Texas
26,109
56,501
49,307
7,194
Utah
3,546
8,438
6,290
2,148
Vermont
2,918
6,599
4,703
1,896
Virgin Islands
160
496
334
162
Virginia
20,513
35,157
27,510
7,647
Washington
37,270
88,286
60,717
27,569
West Virginia
6,572
12,845
10,768
2,077
Wisconsin
15,740
34,089
28,275
5,814
Wyoming
499
1,142
882
260
Totals
1,175,335
3,104,094
2,280,173
823,921
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,
September of Selected Years

Percentage Change to 2018 from
State
1994
2010
2017
2018
1994
2010
2017
Alabama
48,752
23,052
9,326
8,182
-83.2
-64.5
-12.3
Alaska
12,450
3,507
3,093
2,571
-79.3
-26.7
-16.9
Arizona
72,728
18,774
8,222
7,372
-89.9
-60.7
-10.3
Arkansas
25,298
8,469
3,072
2,859
-88.7
-66.2
-6.9
California
916,795
590,121
511,311
409,043
-55.4
-30.7
-20.0
Colorado
40,544
11,707
16,646
12,502
-69.2
6.8
-24.9
Connecticut
60,336
16,848
9,798
8,964
-85.1
-46.8
-8.5
Delaware
11,408
5,508
3,873
3,761
-67.0
-31.7
-2.9
District of Columbia
27,320
8,547
3,124
5,840
-78.6
-31.7
86.9
Florida
239,702
57,742
45,027
41,469
-82.7
-28.2
-7.9
Georgia
141,596
20,133
10,399
10,484
-92.6
-47.9
0.8
Guam
2,089
1,276
541
491
-76.5
-61.5
-9.2
Hawaii
21,312
9,953
4,937
4,274
-79.9
-57.1
-13.4
Idaho
8,635
1,820
1,928
2,046
-76.3
12.4
6.1
Congressional Research Service

28

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

Percentage Change to 2018 from
State
1994
2010
2017
2018
1994
2010
2017
Illinois
241,290
24,337
12,613
11,048
-95.4
-54.6
-12.4
Indiana
72,654
36,062
6,962
6,048
-91.7
-83.2
-13.1
Iowa
39,137
21,548
10,694
9,650
-75.3
-55.2
-9.8
Kansas
29,524
15,554
4,462
4,360
-85.2
-72.0
-2.3
Kentucky
78,720
30,875
20,785
18,774
-76.2
-39.2
-9.7
Louisiana
84,162
10,849
5,521
5,402
-93.6
-50.2
-2.2
Maine
22,322
15,377
18,452
17,367
-22.2
12.9
-5.9
Maryland
80,266
25,110
18,611
17,352
-78.4
-30.9
-6.8
Massachusetts
108,985
49,836
51,196
50,270
-53.9
0.9
-1.8
Michigan
215,873
67,241
13,846
12,338
-94.3
-81.7
-10.9
Minnesota
59,987
24,574
18,519
16,973
-71.7
-30.9
-8.3
Mississippi
55,232
11,895
4,891
4,040
-92.7
-66.0
-17.4
Missouri
91,875
39,262
12,452
10,761
-88.3
-72.6
-13.6
Montana
11,416
3,686
4,517
3,691
-67.7
0.1
-18.3
Nebraska
15,435
8,702
5,262
4,832
-68.7
-44.5
-8.2
Nevada
14,620
10,612
9,828
9,023
-38.3
-15.0
-8.2
New Hampshire
11,398
6,175
4,884
5,257
-53.9
-14.9
7.6
New Jersey
122,376
34,516
12,640
10,326
-91.6
-70.1
-18.3
New Mexico
34,535
21,223
11,066
10,632
-69.2
-49.9
-3.9
New York
461,751
154,936
132,675
122,363
-73.5
-21.0
-7.8
North Carolina
129,258
23,705
16,108
14,574
-88.7
-38.5
-9.5
North Dakota
5,410
1,996
1,105
984
-81.8
-50.7
-11.0
Ohio
244,099
105,140
54,161
42,549
-82.6
-59.5
-21.4
Oklahoma
46,572
9,388
6,797
6,176
-86.7
-34.2
-9.1
Oregon
40,504
31,751
43,754
40,932
1.1
28.9
-6.4
Pennsylvania
212,457
53,274
50,615
45,022
-78.8
-15.5
-11.1
Puerto Rico
57,337
13,371
7,000
4,992
-91.3
-62.7
-28.7
Rhode Island
22,776
6,758
4,466
4,197
-81.6
-37.9
-6.0
South Carolina
50,430
19,347
8,672
8,314
-83.5
-57.0
-4.1
South Dakota
6,601
3,291
3,030
2,952
-55.3
-10.3
-2.6
Tennessee
109,678
62,714
24,562
20,951
-80.9
-66.6
-14.7
Texas
284,973
51,931
28,839
26,109
-90.8
-49.7
-9.5
Utah
17,505
6,646
4,013
3,546
-79.7
-46.6
-11.6
Vermont
9,761
3,256
3,371
2,918
-70.1
-10.4
-13.4
Virgin Islands
1,146
537
197
160
-86.0
-70.2
-18.8
Virginia
74,257
37,448
22,232
20,513
-72.4
-45.2
-7.7
Congressional Research Service

29

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

Percentage Change to 2018 from
State
1994
2010
2017
2018
1994
2010
2017
Washington
101,542
70,200
35,284
37,270
-63.3
-46.9
5.6
West Virginia
40,279
10,496
7,113
6,572
-83.7
-37.4
-7.6
Wisconsin
75,086
24,746
16,318
15,740
-79.0
-36.4
-3.5
Wyoming
5,351
318
513
499
-90.7
56.9
-2.7
Totals
5,015,545 1,926,140 1,349,323 1,175,335
-76.6
-39.0
-12.9
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: Data for Puerto Rico are unavailable for September 2017. Total change excludes data for Puerto Rico
for all years. Caseload data for 2000 through 2017 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:
September 2018

Percentage of Total Families
Total
Single
Two
No
Fami-
Single
Two
No
Total
State
Parent Parent Parent
lies
Parent
Parent
Parent
Families
Alabama
3,272
42
4,868
8,182
40.0%
0.5%
59.5%
100.0%
Alaska
1,510
252
809
2,571
58.7
9.8
31.5
100.0
Arizona
2,718
114
4,540
7,372
36.9
1.5
61.6
100.0
Arkansas
1,462
59
1,338
2,859
51.1
2.1
46.8
100.0
California
251,231
27,704 130,108
409,043
61.4
6.8
31.8
100.0
Colorado
9,331
0
3,171
12,502
74.6
0.0
25.4
100.0
Connecticut
2,942
0
6,022
8,964
32.8
0.0
67.2
100.0
Delaware
994
9
2,758
3,761
26.4
0.2
73.3
100.0
District of Columbia
4,086
0
1,754
5,840
70.0
0.0
30.0
100.0
Florida
5,287
215
35,967
41,469
12.7
0.5
86.7
100.0
Georgia
1,982
0
8,502
10,484
18.9
0.0
81.1
100.0
Guam
86
27
378
491
17.5
5.5
77.0
100.0
Hawaii
2,577
611
1,086
4,274
60.3
14.3
25.4
100.0
Idaho
84
0
1,962
2,046
4.1
0.0
95.9
100.0
Illinois
2,199
0
8,849
11,048
19.9
0.0
80.1
100.0
Indiana
1,366
40
4,642
6,048
22.6
0.7
76.8
100.0
Iowa
4,682
390
4,578
9,650
48.5
4.0
47.4
100.0
Kansas
1,806
206
2,348
4,360
41.4
4.7
53.9
100.0
Kentucky
4,308
382
14,084
18,774
22.9
2.0
75.0
100.0
Louisiana
2,268
0
3,134
5,402
42.0
0.0
58.0
100.0
Maine
9,178
6,529
1,660
17,367
52.8
37.6
9.6
100.0
Congressional Research Service

30

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

Percentage of Total Families
Total
Single
Two
No
Fami-
Single
Two
No
Total
State
Parent Parent Parent
lies
Parent
Parent
Parent
Families
Maryland
10,651
281
6,420
17,352
61.4
1.6
37.0
100.0
Massachusetts
34,435
3,029
12,806
50,270
68.5
6.0
25.5
100.0
Michigan
4,646
0
7,692
12,338
37.7
0.0
62.3
100.0
Minnesota
9,185
0
7,788
16,973
54.1
0.0
45.9
100.0
Mississippi
1,481
0
2,559
4,040
36.7
0.0
63.3
100.0
Missouri
6,301
0
4,460
10,761
58.6
0.0
41.4
100.0
Montana
1,792
282
1,617
3,691
48.6
7.6
43.8
100.0
Nebraska
1,984
0
2,848
4,832
41.1
0.0
58.9
100.0
Nevada
4,161
680
4,182
9,023
46.1
7.5
46.3
100.0
New Hampshire
3,304
37
1,916
5,257
62.8
0.7
36.4
100.0
New Jersey
5,745
59
4,522
10,326
55.6
0.6
43.8
100.0
New Mexico
5,057
675
4,900
10,632
47.6
6.3
46.1
100.0
New York
77,545
2,508
42,310
122,363
63.4
2.0
34.6
100.0
North Carolina
1,772
24
12,778
14,574
12.2
0.2
87.7
100.0
North Dakota
381
0
603
984
38.7
0.0
61.3
100.0
Ohio
5,322
345
36,882
42,549
12.5
0.8
86.7
100.0
Oklahoma
1,738
0
4,438
6,176
28.1
0.0
71.9
100.0
Oregon
27,855
6,521
6,556
40,932
68.1
15.9
16.0
100.0
Pennsylvania
27,889
471
16,662
45,022
61.9
1.0
37.0
100.0
Puerto Rico
4,490
251
251
4,992
89.9
5.0
5.0
100.0
Rhode Island
2,959
164
1,074
4,197
70.5
3.9
25.6
100.0
South Carolina
2,877
0
5,437
8,314
34.6
0.0
65.4
100.0
South Dakota
455
0
2,497
2,952
15.4
0.0
84.6
100.0
Tennessee
8,052
224
12,675
20,951
38.4
1.1
60.5
100.0
Texas
7,194
0
18,915
26,109
27.6
0.0
72.4
100.0
Utah
1,564
0
1,982
3,546
44.1
0.0
55.9
100.0
Vermont
1,322
277
1,319
2,918
45.3
9.5
45.2
100.0
Virgin Islands
131
0
29
160
81.9
0.0
18.1
100.0
Virginia
11,114
0
9,399
20,513
54.2
0.0
45.8
100.0
Washington
17,561
7,313
12,396
37,270
47.1
19.6
33.3
100.0
West Virginia
1,572
0
5,000
6,572
23.9
0.0
76.1
100.0
Wisconsin
4,956
192
10,592
15,740
31.5
1.2
67.3
100.0
Wyoming
223
19
257
499
44.7
3.8
51.5
100.0
Totals
609,083
59,932 506,320 1,175,335
51.8
5.1
43.1
100.0
Congressional Research Service

31

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

Author Information

Gene Falk
Patrick A. Landers
Specialist in Social Policy
Analyst in Social Policy

Acknowledgments
Jameson Carter and Mariam Ghavalyan updated information in this report. Karen Lynch contributed to the
discussion of the TANF funding lapse and legislation to fund TANF in FY2019. Amber Wilhelm and
Calvin DeSouza produced this report’s data visualizations.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL32760 · VERSION 190 · UPDATED
32