TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Discussion Draft of July 10, 2015

TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Discussion Draft of July 10, 2015

November 3, 2015
TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee
Discussion Draft of July 10, 2015
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
statutory goals to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
block grant provides grants to states, tribes, and the
promote two-parent families without a needs-test.
territories for a wide range of benefits and services that seek
to address the effects of and root causes of child poverty
The discussion draft would impose a needs-test for all
and economic disadvantage. It and related programs
TANF funds, set at 200% of the federal poverty level. It
providing mandatory child care funding and responsible
would phase-in a prohibition on counting toward the MOE
fatherhood and healthy marriage grants have been operating
donated third-party expenditures (i.e., the value of TANF-
on annual “temporary extensions” since 2010.
related expenditures made by non-governmental entities in
a state). The discussion draft leaves further restrictions on
On July 10, 2015, the House Ways and Means Committee
TANF’s use of funds as an open issue.
released a “discussion draft” bill that would fund TANF
and certain related programs through FY2020. It would
Current law permits states to transfer up to 30% of TANF
also make other changes to TANF policies.
funding to the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG).
TANF Purpose and Goals
The discussion draft would also allow states to transfer up
Under current law, TANF’s purpose is to increase state
to 10% of TANF funds to child welfare services provided
flexibility to achieve four statutory goals: (1) provide
under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, while
assistance for needy families so that children may remain in
maintaining the total transfer limit for all three programs at
their own homes; (2) end dependence of needy parents on
30% of the total block grant. Under current law, individuals
government benefits through work, job preparation, and
served by TANF funds transferred to the SSBG must have
marriage; (3) reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4)
incomes below 200% of poverty. The draft would expand
promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
this restriction to children and families served by TANF
families. The discussion draft would add a fifth statutory
transfers to the CCDBG, but would not similarly restrict
goal: reduce poverty by increasing employment entry,
TANF transfers to child welfare programs.
retention, and advancement.
Work Requirements
TANF Funding
Because TANF is a block grant, federal TANF
For FY2015, TANF provides grants to states in its basic
requirements apply to states rather than individual
block grant (national total $16.5 billion) and contingency
recipients. Most TANF debates on work requirements
funds ($583 million). In addition to federal funds, TANF
focus on performance measures that apply to states. Under
requires states to spend a minimum of $10.4 billion per year
current law, state performance is measured based on the
in their own funds on TANF or TANF-related programs.
percentage of their cash assistance families on the rolls who
This is known as the state maintenance of effort
are engaged in work or work-related activities. The
requirement (MOE).
discussion draft would revise these rules for measuring
engagement in activities for those on the rolls, and would
The discussion draft would extend the TANF basic block
also establish a new performance system to measure work
grant through FY2020. The grants to states would be
and earnings after families have left the rolls.
reduced slightly to reserve funding for TANF research and
technical assistance. In addition, beginning in FY2018 a
Current law requires that states have a specified percentage
portion of each state’s grant would be reserved, and paid
of their families on the rolls engaged in work or work-
only if the state met certain employment outcome
related activities, with the statute setting target standards of
performance standards. The discussion draft would end the
50% for all families and 90% for two-parent families.
TANF contingency fund, replacing it with an Opportunity
However, these targets are reduced by credits for (1)
Fund (discussed below). The MOE requirement would be
caseload reduction; and (2) families aided by state spending
maintained under the discussion draft.
beyond what is required under the MOE. In FY2012, the
effective, after-credit target standards ranged from 0% (4
Uses of TANF Funds
states) to 50% (10 states and Guam). A state’s effective
States have broad leeway in determining how they use
target standard is compared with its actual work
federal TANF funds and what state expenditures may count
participation rate (WPR). A state’s WPR represents the
toward the MOE requirement. States determine which
percentage of its cash assistance families engaged in work
families are “needy” for purposes of both their TANF cash
or job preparation activities for at least a minimum number
assistance programs and the other TANF benefits and
of hours per week. The rules for computing the WPR
services. Further, TANF may fund activities related to the
emphasize work or participation in work-related activities;
https://crsreports.congress.gov

TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Discussion Draft of July 10, 2015
participation in pre-employment activities such as education
Responsible Fatherhood and
and training, job search, and job readiness is limited. A
Healthy Marriage
state with a WPR that does not meet or exceed its effective
In addition to basic TANF funds, current law authorizes
(after-credit) target is at risk of a reduction in its TANF
competitive grants (mostly to community-based
block grant.
organizations) to promote healthy marriage and responsible
fatherhood initiatives. The Healthy Marriage Promotion and
The discussion draft would eliminate the 90% two-parent
Responsible Fatherhood grants program was established in
standard. It would also eliminate the credits states may
2006, with about $100 million annually for healthy
receive that reduce their target standards, which would raise
marriage promotion and $50 million annually for
the effective all-family standard to 50% for all states
responsible fatherhood activities (for each of FY2006-
regardless of their caseload reduction or excess state
FY2010). Beginning with FY2011, federal law has
spending. The discussion draft would also ease some
specified that the $150 million in annual funding for the
restrictions on counting pre-employment job preparation
grants be split equally between healthy marriage and
activities in computing the WPR, particularly by expanding
responsible fatherhood activities.
the ability of states to count education, training, job search,
rehabilitative, and “soft skills” activities. It would provide
The discussion draft would extend funding for the grants
partial credit to states for families engaged in activities for
through FY2020. It would expand the definitions of healthy
fewer hours than required for full credit.
marriage and responsible fatherhood activities and require
that an increasing percentage of total grant funding be used
The discussion draft would require states to track the
on the development and implementation of evidence-based
employment and earnings of those who left TANF for one
healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood
year after exit. It would measure the percentage of TANF
programs. Like current law, the $150 million annual
leavers employed at two and four calendar quarters after
appropriation would be divided equally between healthy
exit, as well as the earnings change between those two
marriage and responsible fatherhood activities.
quarters. States would negotiate the performance standards
for these measures with the Department of Health and
Child Care
Human Services (HHS). A portion of the state’s basic
In addition to basic TANF funds, current law separately
block grant would be reserved beginning in FY2018, and
authorizes and directly appropriates mandatory funding for
paid only if the state met these negotiated performance
the Child Care Entitlement to States (CCES). The CCES
measures.
was last reauthorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(P.L. 106-171), which established an annual funding level
In addition to changing performance measures, the
of $2.9 billion through FY2010. Since then, the CCES has
discussion draft would require states to have an
been funded at the same level by a series of short-term
individualized opportunity plan in place for its adult
extensions. The discussion draft would extend CCES
recipients and periodically review progress under that plan.
funding at $2.9 billion through FY2020.
Under current law, the development of an individualized
plan is a state option.
Current law requires CCES grants to be integrated, at the
state level, with discretionary allotments from the CCDBG
Demonstration Projects
and to be spent according to CCDBG act rules. The
Under current law, states may conduct demonstration
CCDBG was reauthorized through FY2020 by the CCDBG
projects and have certain federal requirements waived to
Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-186). Among many other changes,
conduct them. In July 2012, HHS said it would consider
the 2014 reauthorization law amended the CCDBG
state applications for waivers of the TANF work
allocation formula by establishing new reservations for
participation performance measures to conduct such
training and technical assistance, as well as research,
demonstrations. The discussion draft would prohibit HHS
demonstrations, and evaluation. The reauthorization law
from waiving federal requirements with respect to the work
also allowed for increases in the reservation for tribes and
participation performance measures.
tribal organizations under certain circumstances. The
discussion draft includes no such revisions to the CCES
The discussion draft would establish specific demonstration
allocation formula.
projects within a new Opportunity Fund (totaling $608
million per year). Under the discussion draft, states could
Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy
conduct demonstrations on intensive case management for
Karen E. Lynch, Specialist in Social Policy
TANF cash assistance recipients; subsidized employment;
Carmen Solomon-Fears, Specialist in Social Policy
social impact partnerships; two-generation interventions;
and training for in-demand jobs.
IF10315

https://crsreports.congress.gov

TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Discussion Draft of July 10, 2015

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.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10315 · VERSION 2 · NEW