TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Majority Discussion Draft of May 8, 2018

TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Majority Discussion Draft of May 8, 2018

link to page 2

Updated December 12, 2018
TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee
Majority Discussion Draft of May 8, 2018
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
child in poverty. Thus, the allocation of matching grants
block grant provides grants to states, tribes, and the
based on child poverty would change the distribution of
territories for a wide range of benefits and services that seek
funds. States with relatively low grants per poor child
to address the effects of and root causes of child poverty
would gain funds; those with relatively high grants per poor
and economic disadvantage. Funding is set to expire on
child would lose funds. The Congressional Research
December 22, 2018, for TANF and related programs
Service (CRS) estimates that funding changes would range
providing mandatory child care funding and responsible
from an increase of 118% for Texas (assuming it draws
fatherhood and healthy marriage grants. On May 8, 2018,
down its full match) to a decline of 19.5% for the District of
the House Ways and Means Committee majority released a
Columbia.
“discussion draft” bill that would make policy changes and
fund TANF through FY2023.
Figure 1. TANF Basic Block Grants Per Child in
Poverty, by State
TANF Purpose and Goals
FY2018 Grants; 2016 Child Poverty Counts
Under current law, TANF’s purpose is to increase state
flexibility to achieve four statutory goals: (1) provide
assistance for needy families so that children may remain in
their own homes; (2) end dependence of needy parents on
government benefits through work, job preparation, and
marriage; (3) reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4)
promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families. The discussion draft would add a fifth statutory
goal: to reduce the number of children in poverty by
increasing the employment entry, retention, and
advancement of their parents.
TANF Financing
For FY2018, TANF provides grants to states in its basic
block grant ($16.5 billion total) and contingency funds
($608 million). The TANF allocation to the states dates
back to the 1996 welfare reform law, and is based on
spending in the pre-TANF programs in the early- to mid-
1990s. In addition to federal funds, TANF requires states to
spend a minimum of $10.3 billion per year in their own
funds on TANF or TANF-related programs. This is known

as the maintenance of effort requirement (MOE).
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Census
This discussion draft would extend funding for the basic
Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE).
block grant through FY2023 at its current national level, but
change its structure. The basic block grant would have two
Use of TANF Grants
components: a fixed amount and a capped matching grant.
Under current law, states may expend federal TANF funds
The fixed portion of the grant would be 75% of its FY2018
and count as MOE funds expenditures on benefits and
grant. States would still have to fulfill an MOE requirement
services that aim to further TANF’s broad purpose and
to receive these funds, albeit at a reduced level (75% of
statutory goals. Figure 2 shows TANF and MOE spending
their FY2018 MOE requirement). Remaining funds would
by category. Spending on basic assistance, which includes
be provided to each state as a capped matching grant, with
the monthly cash assistance checks that TANF is best
its expenditures on “core” activities related to assistance
known for, totaled $7.4 billion out of $30.9 billion, or 24%
and work activities matched at its Medicaid matching rate
of TANF spending. Work activity spending of $2.8 billion
(Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP). Each
accounted for an additional 9% of TANF spending. TANF
state’s proportion of children living in poverty determines
funds are also used for child care, child welfare services
the allocation of its matching grant.
(related to children in, or at risk of, foster care), early
childhood programs, youth, and state spending on healthy
Figure 1 shows TANF grants per poor child under current
marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.
law. It shows that state grants are not evenly divided per
https://crsreports.congress.gov

TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Majority Discussion Draft of May 8, 2018
Figure 2. TANF and MOE Expenditures in FY2016
Universal Engagement
The term universal engagement means the state attempts to
get all or nearly all TANF work-eligible recipients working
or in activities. This is not in current law, though it was
included in several proposals to reauthorize TANF during
the 2002 to 2005 period. Under current law, states must
assess the employability of adult TANF recipients. States
then have the option of developing an individual
responsibility plan (IRP) that sets forth an employment
goal, obligations of the individual, and the services the state
will provide. Currently, 37 states and the District of
Columbia have an IRP requirement.

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from
The discussion draft replaces the optional IRP with a
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
mandatory Individual Opportunity Plan (IOP) within 60

days of a work-eligible individual becoming eligible for
assistance. The plan must include an agreement in which
The discussion draft limits spending from the capped
the individual acknowledges receipt of publicly-funded
matching grant to “core” assistance and work programs.
benefits; set forth the obligation of the individual to
Further, it prohibits direct spending within TANF for child
participate in work or work preparation activities; establish
care and child welfare services, requiring states to instead
an employment goal and planned actions to achieve the
transfer those funds to the Child Care and Development
goal; and describe the job counseling and other services the
Block Grant (CCDBG) and the Promoting Safe and Stable
state will provide. The IOP would be signed by the
Families (PSSF) programs. It would allow transfers to the
recipient, and there would be a requirement to meet with
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
the recipient to review progress under the IOP every 90
programs as well as CCDBG and PSSF of up to 50% of the
days. The draft uses the current minimum hours standard
fixed portion of the grant. Within that limit, PSSF transfers
for the WPR as a standard for individual recipients. As
can be no more than 10% of that portion of the grant. It
under current law, states would determine sanctions that
eliminates the current authority for states to transfer funds
would reduce benefits for families with an individual who
to the Social Services Block Grant. Further, the draft limits
does not comply with work and plan requirements.
TANF direct and TANF funds transferred to WIOA to be
spent on families with incomes of 200% of the federal
Performance Outcome Measures
poverty level or less.
The discussion draft bill requires the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a system of
Work Requirements
assessing program outcomes based on measures used in the
Current TANF rules for engagement of assistance recipients
WIOA system. These outcomes would measure job entry,
in work fall within the context of meeting the minimum
job retention and the median wages of those who exit
work participation rate (WPR). The minimum WPR is a
TANF assistance. Also, for recipients under the age of 24
performance standard for the state; it does not apply
who lack a high school diploma, the measures will consider
directly to individual recipients. States that do not meet the
whether or not they received a high school diploma or
WPR are at risk of a reduction in their federal TANF funds.
equivalent while on the program. These outcome measures
would replace the WPR in assessing the performance of
In order to meet the current TANF work participation
states. States would negotiate state-specific performance
standard, states must have 50% of “all families” and 90% of
levels with HHS. States that do not achieve those
families with two parents either working or engaged in
performance levels would be at risk of a reduction in their
activities. A state may lower these percentages by reducing
federal TANF funds.
its caseload. There are rules for what activities count, and
minimum hours per week of participation required, for a
Related Funding Streams
family to be counted by the state toward meeting its
The draft would provide annual appropriations at current
minimum WPR. Work in an unsubsidized job and
law levels for the Child Care Entitlement to States ($2.917
participation in job preparation activities count toward
billion) through FY2023. These mandatory child care funds
meeting the standard.
are integrated with discretionary CCDBG funds at the state
level. The draft does not address healthy marriage and
States have generally met their minimum WPR through
responsible fatherhood grants or the TANF contingency
either caseload reduction or by having parents in families
fund, which are also scheduled to expire at the end of
receiving assistance work in unsubsidized jobs. In FY2016,
FY2018.
less than a quarter of all non-employed work-eligible
individuals were engaged in activities in a typical month
Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy
(see CRS In Focus IF10856, Temporary Assistance for
Jameson A. Carter, Research Assistant
Needy Families: Work Requirements). The discussion draft
would replace the WPR with: (1) a universal engagement
Mariam Ghavalyan, Research Assistant
requirement; and (2) new performance standards for the
IF10886
states, based on employment and educational outcomes.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Majority Discussion Draft of May 8, 2018

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 | IF10886 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED