Welfare Reauthorization: An Overview of the Issues

Order Code IB10140
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reauthorization:
An Overview of the Issues
Updated May 8, 2006
Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Trends Under Welfare Reform
Welfare Reauthorization Legislation
Funding the TANF and Child Care Block Grants
TANF Work Requirements
1996 Law Work Participation Standard
Revisions to TANF Work Participation Standards
Child Support Enforcement,
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives,
Abstinence Education, and Marriage Promotion
Child Support Enforcement
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives
Abstinence Education
Marriage Promotion
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB10140
05-08-06
Welfare Reauthorization: An Overview of the Issues
SUMMARY
Enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act
TANF work participation standards. The
(DRA) of 2005 (P.L. 109-171, S. 1932) on
reauthorization debate also reflected a re-
February 8, 2006 marked the end of a
newed focus on noncustodial parents (usually
four-year saga of legislative attempts to
fathers) and on family formation issues. The
reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy
DRA includes responsible fatherhood initia-
Families (TANF) and related programs. The
tives and a scaled-back version of the Presi-
original TANF law was enacted in 1996, and
dent’s initiative to promote healthy marriages.
authorized five years of funding, through
The DRA ultimately included the same child
September 2002. Between October 1, 2002
care funding increase that was proposed in
and the DRA’s passage, the program operated
House-passed welfare reauthorization mea-
under a series of 12 “temporary extension”
sures in 2002 and 2003 ($1 billion in addi-
measures. Efforts to pass comprehensive
tional mandatory child care funding over five
freestanding welfare legislation during that
years).
period failed to reach fruition.
In the 108th Congress, legislation intro-
Instead, a scaled-back version of welfare
duced in the Senate likewise proposed a $1
reauthorization legislation was ultimately
billion increase over five years; however,
included in broader budget spending reconcili-
Senator Snowe led efforts pressing for a larger
ation legislation. The Deficit Reduction Act
increase. The bill that emerged from the
of 2005 extends and maintains the basic
109th Congress’ Finance Committee in March
TANF block grant at a funding level of $16.5
2005 (S. 667) reflected those efforts, with a
billion annually through FY2010; increases
proposed increase of $6 billion over five
the share of TANF families required to partici-
years. However, S. 667 was one of the
pate in work activities; increases child care
free-standing welfare measures that was not
funding by $200 million per year over the
taken up by the full Senate, and the child care
FY2005 level of $2.7 billion, for
funding increase was set at $1 billion in the
FY2006-FY2010 (i.e. a total increase of $1
final passage of the DRA. With respect to the
billion); provides federal cost-sharing for
work requirement issue, while the DRA re-
child support passed through to TANF and
quires states to increase the share of their
former TANF families, but prevents federal
families participating in TANF work activi-
matching of child support incentive payments
ties, it does not include the Administration’s
reinvested in the program; provides up to
original proposal to set a 40-hour workweek
$100 million per year in demonstration grants
standard or revise the activities that count
for the promotion of “healthy marriages”; and
toward it.
establishes $50 million per year for “responsi-
ble fatherhood” initiatives.
The cash welfare caseload fell from 4.8
million families in 1995 to 2.2 million in
The Administration originally proposed
2004, employment of single mothers has
its welfare reauthorization plan in February
increased, and child poverty rates have fallen.
2002. The debate then — and throughout the
However, many families who leave the wel-
following four years — was dominated by
fare rolls remain poor. Out-of-wedlock birth
controversy over child care funding levels and
rates and children living in single-parent
the Administration’s proposed changes to
families remain at historical highs.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10140
05-08-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-171, S. 1932), the budget spending reconciliation bill, which includes a scaled-back
version of welfare reform reauthorization. The act extends funding for the basic Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant through FY2010, increases the
percentage of TANF families that will be required to participate in work or work activities,
increases funding for child care, revises the Child Support Enforcement program, and
establishes healthy marriage promotion grants and responsible fatherhood initiatives. It also
provides for a one-year extension of the abstinence education and Transitional Medical
Assistance (TMA) programs.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In 2004, there were 12.5 million children living in families with incomes below the
poverty line (17.3% of all children in families). Children are dependent upon their parents
for economic support, and much of the focus of policy for poor and low-income families
with children has been on welfare reform initiatives to move parents (mostly single mothers)
from welfare to work through requiring and rewarding work and reducing welfare
dependency.
A number of well-known factors increase the risk of a child being in poverty, such as
being in a family headed by a single mother, without a worker, and in which the
breadwinners have low educational attainment. Children who are African-American or
Hispanic are more at risk than white children to be in poverty. Research has also shown that
poverty has negative consequences on a child’s development, which could affect the child’s
life chances as an adult.
This brief focuses on programs and policy initiatives raised in the context of reviewing
and reauthorizing welfare programs: TANF, the Child Care and Development Block Grant,
Child Support Enforcement, Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA), Abstinence Education,
initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood, and initiatives to promote rearing children in
married-couple families.
Trends Under Welfare Reform
The 1996 welfare reform law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193) was a major piece of social legislation, most
known for ending the cash welfare entitlement for needy families with children, creating the
TANF block grant, setting a five-year time limit on aid, and requiring more work from
welfare recipients. The law also restructured child care programs, combining programs for
cash assistance recipients and other working poor families; modified the Child Support
Enforcement program; restricted eligibility for noncitizens in various welfare programs;
restricted eligibility for disabled children in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
program; and made changes to the Food Stamp program.
CRS-1

IB10140
05-08-06
The goals of welfare reform include reducing welfare dependency through work, job
preparation and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and promoting the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. TANF gives states a great deal of latitude
in designing their programs, resulting in each state having a different program with a
different story to tell. In their TANF-funded cash welfare programs, many states tightened
work rules, requiring applicants to search for work even before being certified eligible for
aid. Most states adopted tougher penalties on families where a member refused to comply
with work requirements. However, states also adopted features that liberalized eligibility,
particularly for families where recipients went to work once on the rolls. For example, in
most states families are allowed to keep more of their welfare benefits as their earnings
increase, have a car, and accumulate more assets. Spending on child care has increased.
Table 1 shows various social and economic indicators for the post-welfare reform
period. The period following welfare reform saw the cash welfare caseload plummet and
child poverty rates drop to levels not seen since the 1970s. Employment of single mothers
increased dramatically. Progress was more muted, or could be less tied to changes in policy,
on a number of other fronts. The rate at which teenagers became pregnant declined, but that
was a continuation of a trend that became evident before the mid-1990s. The percent of
children born out-of-wedlock continued to increase, though at a rate slower than during
previous periods. Further, much of the progress occurred during the period 1995 to 2000.
In 2001, the economy entered a recession. Since then, national caseloads have generally held
steady (some states saw increases; others decreases). Employment of single mothers has
been down from its historical high in 2000, although is still higher than its 1995 level. The
number of children living in families headed by a married couple decreased slightly from
2000 to 2003. Child poverty rates increased again from 2000 to 2004.
Welfare dependency has been viewed as both a result of and a cause of chronic poverty.
Welfare caseloads and child poverty simultaneously declined during the late 1990s.
However, the welfare caseload declined faster than child poverty, meaning that cash welfare
touches a smaller share of the poor than it did before welfare reform. Further, despite the
decline in welfare dependency, children are still more likely to be poor than the elderly and
nonaged adults, and out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood remain at historical highs
despite the halving of the cash welfare caseload.
CRS-2

IB10140
05-08-06
Table 1. Economic and Social Indicators, Selected Years
Change (for rates,
percentage point change
is shown)
1995
2000
2004
1995-2000
2000-2004
Cash welfare
Cash welfare caseload (monthly average,
4.8
2.3
2.2
-2.5
-0.1
millions of families)
Cash assistance spending (federal and
$21.9
$11.2
$10.4
-$10.7
-$0.8
state, billions of $, fiscal years)
Child poverty
Child poverty rates
20.2%
15.6%
17.3%
-4.6
1.7
Related children in poverty (millions)
14.0
11.0
12.5
-3.0
1.5
Employment of single mothers
Percent of single mothers employed
64.0%
75.5%
72.0%
11.6
-3.5
Percent of single mothers with a child
52.5%
69.1%
63.8%
16.6
-5.3
under age 6 employed.
General Economic Indicators
Unemployment rate
5.6%
4.0%
5.5%
-5.6
1.5
Employment (total nonfarm payrolls, in
117.3
131.8
131.5
14.5
-0.3
millions)
Change (for rates,
percentage point change
is shown)
1995
2000
2003
1995-2000
2000-2003
Percent of children born out-of-wedlock
32.2%
33.2%
34.6%
1.0
1.4
Teen pregnancy rate (per 1,000 female
56.0
47.7
41.7
-8.3
-6.0
teens aged 15-19)
Percent of children living in married
72.9%
72.9%
71.8%
0.0
-1.1
couple families (March of each year)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Welfare Reauthorization Legislation
The original funding authority for TANF, mandatory child care, and state grants for
abstinence education provided in the 1996 welfare law expired at the end of FY2002
(September 30, 2002). President Bush submitted his welfare reauthorization proposals to
Congress in February 2002. Though Congress debated welfare legislation throughout the
three years 2002 through 2004, no final action was taken on a long-term reauthorization
during the 107th and 108th Congresses. While reauthorization legislation remained stalled,
Congress passed measures to provide stop-gap funding for the welfare programs, and such
was the case through 2005. As in previous years, efforts to pass comprehensive free-standing
welfare legislation in the first session of the 109th Congress were unsuccessful. However,
a scaled-back version of welfare reauthorization legislation was ultimately included in
broader budget spending reconciliation legislation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-171).
In crafting the DRA (S. 1932/P.L. 109-171), only one of the chambers initially included
welfare reauthorization provisions in reconciliation legislation. The Senate-passed version
CRS-3

IB10140
05-08-06
of S. 1932 contained no welfare-related provisions prior to conference. The House, on the
other hand, adopted as part of its initial budget reconciliation bill select reauthorization
proposals had been approved earlier by the Ways and Means Human Resources
Subcommittee and the Education and Workforce Committee as part of H.R. 240, a welfare
bill. Although the full Senate had failed to act on welfare reauthorization legislation prior
to assembling and considering the DRA, early in the 109th Congress, the Senate Finance
Committee did approve a welfare reauthorization measure. Note that while technically S.
667 could still be considered by the full Senate, and H.R. 240 could be considered by the
House, there is no expectation that either will receive any further action, in light of the
Deficit Reduction Act’s enactment and its inclusion already of significant elements of
welfare reauthorization legislation.
Funding the TANF and Child Care Block Grants
The 1996 welfare law converted and consolidated several federal-state matching grant
programs into the TANF and child care block grants. Most TANF funding is provided in a
fixed, basic annual grant of $16.5 billion (50 states and D.C). This amount represents the
peak federal contribution made to pre-TANF programs in the mid-1990s. The basic block
grant is fixed; it neither increases nor decreases with changes in the cash assistance caseload.
Moreover, it is not adjusted for inflation. The child care block grant has two major parts: (1)
discretionary funding, which is determined in annual appropriations; and (2) mandatory
funding, with appropriations found in the 1996 welfare reform law. The 1996 law included
gradual increases in mandatory child care funding. Total child care funding has been
essentially flat since FY2002.
Table 2 compares the TANF, child care, and Transitional Medicaid funding provisions
included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 with the House-passed reconciliation measure,
and S. 667 as reported from the Senate Finance Committee. As mentioned earlier, the Senate
did not include comparable provisions in its reconciliation measure prior to conference, nor
did it pass a freestanding welfare bill earlier in the session.
Note that while the basic TANF block grant is extended and maintained at the annual
amount of $16.5 billion until FY2010 under the DRA (P.L. 109-171), TANF supplemental
grants are extended for only three years and TMA only one year. Further, previous welfare
reauthorization proposals had included $200 million per year in grants for healthy marriage
promotion — $100 million per year for matching grants to states and tribes and a second
$100 million per year in research and demonstration funding controlled by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS). The Deficit Reduction Act scales back funding for
healthy marriage promotion to $100 million in research and demonstration funding. An
additional $50 million in mandatory funding is for responsible fatherhood initiatives. All
existing TANF bonuses — a High Performance Bonus based on states’ progress toward
meeting the block grant’s goals ($200 million per year) and a bonus for reducing
out-of-wedlock pregnancies ($100 million per year) — are eliminated.
CRS-4

IB10140
05-08-06
Table 2. Summary of Funding Provisions
S. 667 (as reported by
the Senate Finance
Deficit Reduction Act of
House-Passed Budget
Committee,
2005 (as enacted, P.L.
Reconciliation Bill
S.Rept. 109-51)
109-171)
Basic TANF block grant
Extend basic TANF block Same as the House-passed Same.
grant through FY10 at budget reconciliation bill.
current levels ($16.5
billion per year).
Supplemental TANF
Extend supplemental S a m e a s H o u s e Extend supplemental
grants
grants at $319 million per reconciliation bill.
grants only through FY08.
year through FY09 only.
Marriage promotion
Fund $200 million per S a m e a s H o u s e Up to $100 million per
grants
y e a r i n m a r r i a g e reconciliation bill. (Note: year in marriage
promotion grants. Reduce TANF bonuses are further p r o m o t i o n g r a n t s .
TANF bonuses from $300 reduced to pay for (Another $50 million per
million per year to $100 responsible fatherhood year is set aside for
million per year.
grants.)
responsible fatherhood
initiatives.) All TANF
bonuses ($300 million)
eliminated.
Mandatory child care
Provide an additional $0.5 Provide an additional $6 Provide an additional $1
funding.
billion over five years billion over five years billion over five years
(FY2006-FY2010).
(FY2006-FY2010). The (FY2006-FY2010).
cost is partially offset by
changes to the earned
income tax credit (EITC)
and child tax credit.
Transitional Medical
No provision.
Extend 12-month TMA Extend 12-month TMA
Assistance (TMA)
for five years and allow for one year (through Dec.
states to waive reporting 31, 2006).
requirements. FY2005-
FY2010 cost: $4.2 billion.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
The level of mandatory child care funding has been a contentious point of debate over
the past four years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that to maintain
the current level of child care subsidies over the five years covered by the DRA — that is,
to maintain current child care caseloads and average subsidy levels and keep pace with
inflation — a total of $4.8 billion in extra federal or state funds would be needed. The
current child care caseload includes families on the cash welfare rolls, as well as other
low-income, working families. In FY2001, only one in five families aided by the child care
block grant received TANF cash assistance — the other four families were either former
TANF families (in the transition from welfare to work) or were working poor families
without a connection to the cash welfare program.
The Deficit Reduction Act includes an increase of $200 million per year (from $2.717
billion to $2.917 billion per year) in federal mandatory child care funding, or a total increase
CRS-5

IB10140
05-08-06
of $1 billion over five years. The increase reflects twice that proposed earlier in the
House-passed budget reconciliation bill ($0.5 billion), mirroring the funding level passed by
the House in welfare reauthorization measures of both 2002 and 2003. The $1 billion
increase stands in contrast to the proposed increase of $6 billion over five years included in
the bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee early in 2005 (S. 667).
The Deficit Reduction Act’s $1 billion in additional federal child care funds requires
state matching. This “leverages” some additional state dollars for each new federal child
care dollar. If states draw down the full $1 billion, approximately $0.8 billion in state child
care funds will also be expended, bringing the total new federal and state spending for the
child care block grant to about $1.8 billion.
However, the $1.8 billion in total new federal and state child care funds is estimated to
be insufficient to maintain current caseloads and average child care subsidies, and to keep
pace with inflation as projected by the CBO. In addition, the Deficit Reduction Act has
TANF work provisions (see below) that, beginning in FY2007, are likely to substantially
increase the share of TANF families that will be required to work or participate in job
readiness activities. This, too, is likely to increase the demand for child care subsidies.
The child care and TANF block grants do not entitle families to child care subsidies.
Therefore, states could respond in a number of different ways (or combination of ways) to
inflationary pressures and the likely increase in the demand for child care subsidies caused
by stricter TANF work participation requirements:
! Increase funding from other sources, particularly TANF. TANF has
been a major contributor of child care funds, the second-largest spending
category next to cash assistance within TANF. States could allocate more
TANF spending to child care. However, a number of factors are likely to
limit TANF’s ability to contribute more child care funds, specifically: (1)
the block grant will remain frozen at the same levels as it was in FY1997
($16.5 billion) and inflation continues to erode the purchasing power of
those dollars; (2) the DRA will have the likely effect of increasing the
percentage of TANF families that will have to participate in work activities,
increasing the TANF work costs in addition to child care costs, and (3)
allocating additional funding to child care would mean cutting back on other
initiatives that have been funded with TANF dollars, for instance TANF’s
contribution to funding child welfare benefits and services for children who
have been subject to, or are at risk of, abuse, neglect, or family breakup.
! Target more child care dollars to families receiving cash assistance. As
discussed above, in FY2001 only one in five families receiving subsidies
under the child care block grant received cash assistance. To meet the higher
child care costs due to the increase in TANF work participation standards,
states could target more child care dollars to families on TANF assistance,
reducing spending on subsidies for other low-income (“working poor”)
families.
! Restructure child care subsidies to reduce their average costs. Under
both block grants, states determine subsidy levels and how much a family
CRS-6

IB10140
05-08-06
has to contribute from their own income (co-payments). These rules can be
restructured to reduce the average child care subsidy per family.
TANF Work Requirements
TANF requires states to run “mandatory” work and job preparation programs, setting
participation requirements and sanctioning families (reducing or ending benefits) that do not
comply with them. Mandatory participation requirements can help achieve a number of
different policy objectives, including:
! Enforcing the notion that recipients are obligated to support their families
through work; that is, they must “do something” in exchange for their
benefits;
! Having recipients engage in activities that will enhance their ability to
compete in the labor market and ultimately leave welfare for work; and
! Deterring those who have other means of support (e.g., those already
working but not reporting income to the welfare office or participating in the
underground economy) from applying and receiving benefits.
Most states have generally adopted a “work-first” approach to implementing their
programs, emphasizing rapid entry into the labor force through up-front job search.
Evaluations of such programs indicate that they do increase employment and reduce welfare
receipt. However, these programs have generally not been found to raise the incomes of
participants. Further, TANF data show that participation in activities is not universal. In
FY2004, states reported that of about 1.4 million adult recipients of cash assistance, 57%
were not working or in a job preparation activity for a month. (Note that these adults are not
reported in an activity. States may underreport activity that is not countable toward TANF
work participation standards.)
1996 Law Work Participation Standard
Nominally, the 1996 TANF law set a participation standard that requires 50% of
families with an adult to be engaged in work. A separate standard of 90% applies to the
two-parent component of the caseload. However, the actual participation standards states
face are usually far lower than the nominal participation standards. TANF law provides a
“caseload reduction credit,” which reduces the 50% standard by one percentage point for
each percent decline in the cash assistance caseload that occurred since FY1995 (pre-welfare
reform). Many states have had large caseload declines, and in FY2004 there were 19 states
with declines of 50% or more, reducing the effective (after credit) standard to 0%. On
average, the FY2004 national work participation rate was 32% — all jurisdictions except
Guam, Indiana, and Mississippi met their work participation standard, though most with rates
well below the nominal 50% standard found in TANF law.
The large caseload reduction credits have lessened the impact of the participation
standards. They have allowed states to have more participants in “noncreditable” activities
(e.g., education) and perhaps led to lower overall participation.
CRS-7

IB10140
05-08-06
Revisions to TANF Work Participation Standards
The 2002 Bush Administration welfare reauthorization proposals envisioned a
substantial rewrite of the TANF work participation standards. The participation standard
would have been raised from 50% to 70%; the caseload reduction credit would have been
replaced with a credit for employed welfare leavers; families would have had to participate
40 hours per week; and, except for a three month period allowed for recipients to focus solely
on job search and short-term training, a minimum of 24 hours per week in work or workfare
would have been required for states to receive credit for a family’s participation.
The House passed a slightly modified version of the Administration’s work proposal
three times — in 2002, 2003, and in the House-passed version of the budget reconciliation
bill in 2005. Three times (in 2002, 2003, and S. 667 in 2005) the Senate Finance Committee
reported different modifications to the work rules, though none of these proposals passed the
full Senate. The Finance Committee approach was to generally expand the activities that
count toward the participation standards, in part by increasing the amount of education that
would have been countable under TANF work standards.
The Deficit Reduction Act does not overhaul TANF work participation standards. It
retains the current 50% standard, current rules for the minimum hours that count toward the
participation standard, and current list of activities that are creditable for work participation.
However, the Deficit Reduction Act makes the following changes:
! The caseload reduction credit is revised, so that work participation
standards are reduced only for caseload reductions that occur from
FY2005 into the future.
This is effective beginning in FY2007. Thus,
absent further caseload declines, a state will face a 50% TANF work
participation standard in contrast to the much reduced standards they would
have faced under prior law.
! Will count families in state-funded “Separate State Programs” (SSPs)
in the work participation rate calculation. Under current law, states may
assist TANF-like families in state-funded programs, and count spending in
those programs toward the TANF state spending requirement (known as the
“maintenance of effort” or MOE). Families in SSPs are not counted in the
work participation rates. The DRA provides that, beginning in FY2007,
families in SSPs are to be included in the participation rate calculation. This
prevents states from increasing their participation rate simply by moving
nonparticipating families into SSPs.
! Requires HHS to develop regulations to define work activities and
standards for verifying work participation. The 1996 welfare reform law
established TANF participation standards, minimum hours requirements,
and a list of 12 activities that count toward meeting the standards, but left
much of the detail in operating and enforcing these standards to the states.
For example, HHS regulations go no further than federal law in defining
work activities, permitting states to flesh out what these activities mean in
practice. A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found
that the lack of uniformity in work definitions and procedures for verifying
CRS-8

IB10140
05-08-06
participation means “there is no standard basis for interpreting states’ [work
participation] rates, and the rates cannot effectively be used to assess and
compare states’ performance.” The DRA requires HHS to issue reguatlions
by June 30, 2006 to further define TANF work activities; require uniform
methods for reporting hours of work; and determine the circumstances in
which parents must be considered included in the family “assistance unit”
(and thus the family included in the work participation calculation).
These changes are likely to increase required participation standards significantly for
states. The national average work participation rate in FY2004 was 32% — so requiring
50% of families to participate requires states to significantly boost their participation.
Child Support Enforcement,
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives,
Abstinence Education, and Marriage Promotion
In 2004, children in families headed by a single mother had a poverty rate of 41.9%,
compared with a rate of 8.9% for children in families headed by a married couple. The
majority of poor children (in 2004, 57.2% of all poor children in families) live in families
headed by a single mother. Welfare-to-work initiatives have focused on getting such single
mothers into the workforce. While there has been a sharp increase in work among single
mothers, many single mothers and their children remain poor. The fifth annual TANF report
states “welfare reform has been very successful at getting a significant portion of cases into
the workplace and into second and sometimes third jobs, but it has been less effective in
keeping them employed full-time and in achieving substantial wage or career growth
.” The
sixth annual TANF report indicates that in FY2002 the average monthly earnings of TANF
recipients who were employed was $678 or $8,136 per year (the poverty level for a
three-person family in 2002 was $1,196 per month or $14,348 for the year). Child support
payments are now recognized as a very significant income source for single-parent families.
Increasingly, attention has focused on the role of the noncustodial parent, usually the
father, in the economic support and development of his children. Research has shown that
low-income fathers tend to face some of the same issues as do low-income mothers, such as
being very likely to work intermittently and/or in low-wage jobs, thereby limiting their ability
to help support their children. These findings, together with a growing sentiment that
noncustodial fathers are more likely to be “dead broke” than “deadbeats,” have fostered a
more sympathetic view of noncustodial fathers. Beginning in 1996, Congress has considered
bills that would specifically authorize funding for programs designed to help noncustodial
fathers meet both their financial and emotional responsibilities to their children (also
including components related to marriage promotion and effective parenting). These
programs are generally referred to as “responsible fatherhood” programs.
In recognition of the often negative, long-term consequences associated with teenage
pregnancy, Congress has provided funding for the prevention of teenage and out-of-wedlock
pregnancies. Reducing nonmarital pregnancy, especially among teenagers, was an important
focus of the 1996 welfare law. In recent years, funding has shifted toward abstinence
education rather than comprehensive sexual education as the preferred way to reduce teenage
CRS-9

IB10140
05-08-06
pregnancy. The 109th Congress has continued the debate on which approach is more
effective.
The goals of welfare reform include reducing welfare dependency through work, job
preparation and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and promoting the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Although the 1996 welfare reform law
did reflect a new interest in marriage for welfare families, most of the policy changes
implemented after the 1996 law focused almost exclusively on encouraging work and did not
directly address the marriage goals. The Deficit Reduction Act specifically includes funding
for programs exclusively designed to promote marriage among low-income persons, which
is seen by its supporters as a way to improve the economic well-being and development of
children.
Child Support Enforcement
Though much of the media focus on welfare reform in the mid-1990s was on TANF and
its work and time limit requirements, the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program has
also been undergoing change. (See CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Enforcement:
Program Basics
, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.) The CSE program began in 1975 as a program
to collect child support from the noncustodial parents of children on welfare. If the child
support collected on behalf of the welfare family was insufficient to lift the family’s income
above the state’s cash welfare eligibility limit the family received the welfare cash benefit
and the child support payment was distributed to reimburse the state and federal government
for cash welfare costs in proportion to their assistance to the family. If, however, the welfare
family’s income, including the child support payment, exceeded the state’s welfare cash
benefit standard, the family’s cash welfare benefits were ended and the family received the
entire amount of child support collected on their behalf. In addition to cost-recovery efforts
with regard to welfare families, the CSE program has always collected child support on
behalf of nonwelfare families in an effort to prevent them from coming onto the welfare
rolls. Over time, the CSE program has evolved from a program whose primary focus was
cost-recovery to a program that is focusing on service delivery.
In FY2004, a total of $21.9 billion was collected in child support (this is twice as much
as FY2003 cash assistance), with a little less than half (43%) collected on behalf of families
with no current or prior connection to the welfare system. The $21.9 billion collected in
FY2004 was nearly double pre-welfare reform CSE collections. Though the increase in child
support collections shows some progress in getting noncustodial parents to help support their
children, collections totaled only 18% of the total obligations in support orders in the CSE
program. According to an Urban Institute study, on average child support constitutes 17%
of family income for households that receive it. For poverty-level children whose families
do not receive TANF, child support constitutes about 30% of family income.
The 1996 welfare reform law established several new enforcement collection
mechanisms to obtain child support from noncustodial parents and created an array of
database systems of wage and employment information to find parents delinquent in their
payments. The law also revised rules so as to pay more child support collected on behalf of
former welfare families to the family.
CRS-10

IB10140
05-08-06
The Deficit Reduction Act provides financial incentives to states that send more child
support collected on behalf of families on welfare to the family itself (rather than retained
as reimbursement for welfare costs). Under the new law, the federal government will pay
for a share of support passed through to welfare families as long as that support does not
reduce the family’s welfare benefit. Specifically, P.L. 109-171 allows states to pay up to
$100 per month in child support collected on behalf of a TANF (or foster care) family ($200
per month to a family with two or more children) to the family and not require the state to
pay the federal government the federal share of those payments. The measure also gives
states financing incentives to send to former welfare families the full amount of child support
collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and pre- and post-welfare arrearages —
including child support arrearages collected through the federal income tax refund offset
program). In addition, it revises some child support enforcement collection mechanisms and
adds others.
The Deficit Reduction Act includes provisions that (1) establish a $25 annual user fee
for individuals who have never been on TANF but receive CSE services and who received
at least $500 in any given year, (2) reduce the CSE federal matching rate for the laboratory
costs associated with establishing paternity from 90% to 66%, and (3) eliminate the federal
match on CSE incentive payments that states, in compliance with federal law, reinvest back
into the CSE program. (A House-passed provision to gradually reduce — from
FY2007-FY2010 — the federal matching rate for child support program expenditures from
its current level of 66% to 50% is not included in the final bill.)
Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives
Enforcement of child support orders is only one dimension of current efforts to connect
noncustodial parents (usually fathers) with their children. In the hopes of improving the lives
of children living in single-parent families, government and public and private organizations
support programs to promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial
parents, which have become known as “responsible fatherhood” programs.
Research has recognized that low-income noncustodial fathers have similar problems
in the workforce as do single mothers — low wages and intermittent employment. Some
responsible fatherhood programs focus on employment skills, in part to help noncustodial
parents meet their child support obligations. In addition, responsible fatherhood programs
generally teach a variety of social skills, including parenting education, responsible
decision-making, conflict resolution, coping with stress, and appropriate disciplinary
practices. Responsible fatherhood programs also usually provide a peer support component.
Some programs also include funding for media campaigns to advertise to the public the
importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to
their children.
The TANF block grant is one potential source of funding for responsible fatherhood
initiatives. Moreover, welfare reauthorization bills would have established categorical
competitive grants, ranging from $20 million to $76 million per year, to community and
faith-based organizations for responsible fatherhood initiatives. (See CRS Report RL31025,
Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.)
The Deficit Reduction Act includes competitive grants of $50 million per year for five years
in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public
CRS-11

IB10140
05-08-06
and nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations, for responsible fatherhood
initiatives.
Currently, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provides $1.5
million annually to fund Responsible Fatherhood demonstrations under Section 1115 of the
Social Security Act. Projects are presently being funded in the following eight states:
California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and
Wisconsin.
Abstinence Education
Teenage pregnancy and nonmarital births were central issues in the 1996 welfare reform
debate. The United States has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births among the
industrialized countries. One 1996 study found that 40% of young women become pregnant
at least once before they reach the age of 20. Most research indicates that at least 80% of
these pregnancies are unintended.
The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193, Section 510 of the Social Security Act)
provided $50 million per year for five years, FY1998-FY2002, in federal funds for an
abstinence education formula block grant program. Since FY2003, the abstinence-only block
grant has been funded through temporary, short-term extensions. Funds must be requested
by states when they solicit Maternal and Child Health (MCH) block grant funds, and must
be used exclusively for the teaching of abstinence. To receive federal funding, a state must
match every $4 in federal funds with $3 in state funds. Although both the House and Senate
welfare reauthorization bills (H.R. 240 and S. 667) proposed to authorize and appropriate
funding for the abstinence-only education block grant program through FY2010, the Deficit
Reduction Act appropriates funding for the program (at the same annual level) only through
December 31, 2006.
To ensure that the abstinence-only message is not diluted, the law stipulated that the
term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program that teaches —
(1) the social, psychological, and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity; (2)
abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all
school-age children; (3) abstinence is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock
pregnancy, STDs, and associated health problems; (4) a mutually faithful monogamous
relationship within marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; (5) sexual
activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; (6)
bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the
child’s parents, and society; (7) young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol
and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and (8) the importance of attaining
self-sufficiency before engaging in sex.
Beginning with FY2001, several appropriation bills have included funding for
abstinence-only education, in addition to the abstinence education block grant program. This
funding was provided through HHS via the Special Projects of Regional and National
Significance (SPRANS) program for abstinence education to bolster the abstinence-only
message for adolescents aged 12 through 18; these projects are now generally referred to as
the community-based abstinence education program. Funding for the community-based
abstinence education program amounted to $20 million in FY2001, $40 million in FY2002,
CRS-12

IB10140
05-08-06
$55 million in FY2003, $70 million in FY2004, $100 million in FY2005, and $110 million
in FY2006. In addition, the Adolescent Family Life (AFL) program (enacted in 1981 by P.L.
97-35) provides funding for matters related to adolescent sexuality, pregnancy, and parenting.
Funding for abstinence-only education under the AFL program amounted to $9 million in
FY2001, $10 million in FY2002-FY2004, and $13 million in FY2005 and FY2006.
The debate over whether teens should be given the unambiguous and exclusive message
that sex outside of marriage is wrong, or a more comprehensive message that tells teenagers
that they should not engage in sexual activities, but if they do they should practice “safe sex,”
is very controversial. Advocates of the more comprehensive approach to sex education argue
that today’s youth need information and decision-making skills to make realistic and
practical decisions about whether to engage in sexual activities. They contend that such an
approach allows young people to make informed decisions regarding abstinence, gives them
the information they need to set relationship limits and to resist peer pressure, and also
provides them with information on the use of contraceptives and the prevention of sexually
transmitted diseases. Advocates of the abstinence education approach argue that teenagers
need to hear a single, unambiguous message that sex outside of marriage is wrong and
harmful to their physical and emotional health. They contend that youth can and should be
empowered to say no to sex. They argue that supporting both abstinence and birth control
is hypocritical and undermines the strength of an abstinence-only message.
Marriage Promotion
Research indicates that children in families headed by both of their biological parents
“do better” on an array of child development outcomes (higher academic achievement, lower
teenage child bearing, lower levels of delinquency, etc.) than children living in single-parent
families. Much of this is due to the lower incomes of children in single-parent families, but
the statistical association between family type and child outcomes holds even when
considering families of equivalent incomes. However, in a note of caution, these better
outcomes hold only when a child lives with both of his or her biological parents — they do
not apply to stepchildren. Further, there are concerns about promoting marriage when some
relationships are violent. Additionally, there is the caveat to interpreting social science
research that “correlation does not equal causation.” The actual cause of the difference in
child outcomes could be differences in characteristics and behaviors (some not observed for
purposes of statistical study) associated with married versus unmarried parents.
The Administration is currently funding research to address the question of whether
marriage promotion programs could achieve their goals. HHS is currently conducting
large-scale research projects to evaluate the impact of marriage promotion. Actual findings
regarding the impacts of these programs are several years away. The Deficit Reduction Act
provides up to $100 million in funding for each of five years (FY2006 through FY2010) for
marriage promotion research and demonstration projects. Additionally it would provide $50
million per year for responsible fatherhood programs (as described earlier under Responsible
Fatherhood Initiatives).
CRS-13

IB10140
05-08-06
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Blank, Rebecca, and Ron Haskins. The New World of Welfare. Brookings Institution Press,
2001.
DeParle, Jason. American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End
Welfare. Viking Press. 2004.
Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, ed. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. Russell
Sage Foundation, 1997.
CRS Report RL32817, Child Care Issues in the 109th Congress, by Melinda Gish.
CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics, by Carmen
Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RS22377, Child Support Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-171), by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RL32682, Children in Poverty: Profile, Trends, and Issues, by Vee Burke, Tom
Gabe, and Gene Falk.
CRS Report RL31025, Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to Their Children, by
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
CRS Report RL31698, Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by April
Grady.
CRS Report RL33157, Welfare Reauthorization: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Current
Law and Pending Welfare Reauthorization Proposals, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish,
Carmen Solomon-Fears, and Emilie Stoltzfus.
McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What
Helps. Harvard University Press, 1994.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Final Synthesis Reporting of Findings
from ASPE’s “Leavers” Grants, 2001, at [http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/
410809_welfare_leavers_synthesis.pdf].
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education. National
Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies: How Effective Are Different
Welfare-to-Work Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven
Programs, 2001
, at [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/NEWWS/5yr-11prog01/].
United States Government Accountability Office. GAO-06-414. Better Information Needed
to Understand Trends in States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant. March 2006.
— GAO-05-821. Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF
Work Participation is Measured Consistently Across States. August 2005.
crsphpgw
CRS-14