The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) created a $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to help states, Indian tribes, and the territories pay for additional economic aid to families during the current economic downturn. It was part of a package of tax and benefit program provisions aimed at stemming the decline in family incomes and purchasing power caused by increased unemployment. The ECF was a temporary fund for two years, FY2009 and FY2010, and expired on September 30, 2010. All of the available $5 billion was awarded by the fund’s expiration date to states, tribes, and territories.

Though the economy grew in the last half of 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010, unemployment remained high. Historically, the trend in the cash welfare caseload has sometimes followed economic conditions, but sometimes not. After the 1990-1991 recession, welfare caseloads actually peaked in March 1994 before beginning their decline. The 111th Congress considered legislation in 2010 to extend the ECF beyond September 30, 2010. However, though the House twice passed bills to extend the ECF, none of these measures received Senate approval. A provision of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) extended the basic TANF program through the end of FY2011 without the ECF.

TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for low-income families, but it actually provides funds for a wide range of benefits and services to ameliorate the effects of, or address the root causes of, economic disadvantage among families with children. While TANF funds a wide range of both economic aid and human services to families with children, the ECF was limited to funding three categories of expenditures: basic assistance, a category that most closely resembles traditional cash welfare; non-recurrent short-term (e.g., emergency) aid; and subsidized employment. These categories typically are those that provide direct aid to families, rather than fund services. States, Indian tribes, and the territories were reimbursed 80% of the costs of increased expenditures in these categories. To qualify for ECF grants for increased basic assistance expenditures, a state, tribe, or territory had to aid more families on its assistance rolls than it did in FY2007 or FY2008. Qualification of states, tribes, and territories for ECF grants supporting short-term aid or subsidized employment were dependent only on increased expenditures from FY2007 or FY2008. ARRA placed a limit on total ECF and other TANF contingency fund payments to states, at a combined 50% of a state’s basic block grant over the two years, FY2009 and FY2010.

A total of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands had their applications for ECF grants approved. Additionally, 25 tribes and tribal organizations had approved ECF applications. Of the total $5 billion awarded, $1.6 billion was for basic assistance, $2.1 billion for short-term aid, and $1.3 billion for subsidized employment. Twelve states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington State) have received their maximum ECF grants.

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

December 22, 2010 (R41078)

Summary

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) created a $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to help states, Indian tribes, and the territories pay for additional economic aid to families during the current economic downturn. It was part of a package of tax and benefit program provisions aimed at stemming the decline in family incomes and purchasing power caused by increased unemployment. The ECF was a temporary fund for two years, FY2009 and FY2010, and expired on September 30, 2010. All of the available $5 billion was awarded by the fund's expiration date to states, tribes, and territories.

Though the economy grew in the last half of 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010, unemployment remained high. Historically, the trend in the cash welfare caseload has sometimes followed economic conditions, but sometimes not. After the 1990-1991 recession, welfare caseloads actually peaked in March 1994 before beginning their decline. The 111th Congress considered legislation in 2010 to extend the ECF beyond September 30, 2010. However, though the House twice passed bills to extend the ECF, none of these measures received Senate approval. A provision of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) extended the basic TANF program through the end of FY2011 without the ECF.

TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for low-income families, but it actually provides funds for a wide range of benefits and services to ameliorate the effects of, or address the root causes of, economic disadvantage among families with children. While TANF funds a wide range of both economic aid and human services to families with children, the ECF was limited to funding three categories of expenditures: basic assistance, a category that most closely resembles traditional cash welfare; non-recurrent short-term (e.g., emergency) aid; and subsidized employment. These categories typically are those that provide direct aid to families, rather than fund services. States, Indian tribes, and the territories were reimbursed 80% of the costs of increased expenditures in these categories. To qualify for ECF grants for increased basic assistance expenditures, a state, tribe, or territory had to aid more families on its assistance rolls than it did in FY2007 or FY2008. Qualification of states, tribes, and territories for ECF grants supporting short-term aid or subsidized employment were dependent only on increased expenditures from FY2007 or FY2008. ARRA placed a limit on total ECF and other TANF contingency fund payments to states, at a combined 50% of a state's basic block grant over the two years, FY2009 and FY2010.

A total of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands had their applications for ECF grants approved. Additionally, 25 tribes and tribal organizations had approved ECF applications. Of the total $5 billion awarded, $1.6 billion was for basic assistance, $2.1 billion for short-term aid, and $1.3 billion for subsidized employment. Twelve states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington State) have received their maximum ECF grants.


The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

Introduction

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) created an Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The fund expired on September 30, 2010. It helped states, Indian tribes, and territories pay for additional costs of providing economic aid to families during the current economic downturn for FY2009 and FY2010.

TANF

The TANF block grant provides states, Indian tribes, and territories with federal funding for a wide range of benefits and services to ameliorate the effects of, or address the root causes of, economic disadvantage for families with children. The bulk of federal TANF funding is in a basic block grant of $16.5 billion. Under the basic block grant, each state receives an amount that has remained the same, without adjustment, since the 1996 welfare reform law. States—taken together—are also required to contribute a minimum of $10.4 billion to TANF-funded or related programs under a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. This amount, too, has not been adjusted since the 1996 welfare reform law.

TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for very low-income families with children. However, states may use TANF funds "in any manner reasonably calculated" to help states achieve the broad statutory purpose of the block grant. In FY2009, only 28% of federal and related state TANF funds were expended on basic assistance, the category of spending that most closely corresponds to traditional cash welfare. The cash welfare rolls had declined to 1.7 million families by July 2008, down from a historical peak of 5.1 million families in March 1994. TANF also provided considerable funding for state subsidized child care programs, programs that address child abuse and neglect, pregnancy prevention programs, youth programs, and early childhood development (e.g., pre-Kindergarten) programs.

Absent additional TANF funds, the limited and fixed nature of the block grant means that states bear the full cost of increased costs (e.g., increases in cash welfare). To share this risk during periods of recession, the 1996 welfare reform law created a $2 billion Contingency Fund. This fund, hereafter in this report called the "regular" contingency fund, provides capped matching grants to states that meet criteria of economic need and increased state spending to help states meet recession-related costs.

The Emergency Contingency Fund

The overall cash assistance caseload began to rise in August 2008. From March 2008 to March 2010, the national caseload increased by 13%—with some states experiencing faster caseload growth. The regular TANF contingency fund provided 19 states with additional funding in FY2009 and early FY2010. However, some states (e.g., California and Florida) experienced substantial increases in their TANF cash assistance caseloads, and met the criterion of economic need required to draw regular contingency funds, but failed to draw them because of the increased state spending requirement of the regular fund.

The ARRA included a number of provisions related to taxes and benefit payments, designed to partially offset the declines in family income and purchasing power resulting from the increased joblessness caused by the recession. As part of this package, the ARRA established within TANF a $5 billion ECF for FY2009 and FY2010. The ECF provided states, tribes, and territories with capped additional funding to help meet additional costs or create new programs to respond to the current economic downturn. Subject to a cap on state grants from the ECF, the fund paid states, tribes, and territories 80% of the increased costs of expenditures in the three categories of expenditures discussed below.

What Types of Benefits and Services Are Funded from the Emergency Fund?

While TANF funds a wide range of economic aid and human services to families, the ECF reimbursed for only three categories of activities: basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term aid, and subsidized employment. These categories typically are those that provide direct aid to families, rather than fund services.

Basic Assistance

This category represents spending on what most people think of as cash welfare. Generally, it is a monthly check (or deposit on an electronic benefit card) to help very low-income families meet ongoing basic needs. In order to qualify for funding for increased basic assistance, a state must experience both an increase in the number of families receiving assistance benefits as well as an increase in expenditures for basic assistance. To determine eligibility for ECF grants on the basis of increased cash assistance, the average number of families receiving cash assistance in a current fiscal quarter in FY2009 or FY2010 was compared with the number of families receiving cash assistance in the comparable quarter in the "base year." The base year was defined as either FY2007 or FY2008, whichever had the lowest cash assistance caseload. If a state, tribe, or territory experienced an increase in the cash assistance caseload, it was reimbursed for 80% of the increased costs (if any) of basic assistance from the comparable quarter in the base year to the current quarter.

Non-recurrent Short-Term Aid

This category represents spending on aid that is to meet a specific family situation and aid is limited to a four-month timeframe. States, tribes, and territories had broad latitude in defining the types of "short-term aid" that they provide to families under the ECF. Moreover, short-term aid was provided to families both on and off the cash assistance rolls. If a family received only non-recurrent short-term aid, and not ongoing TANF assistance, that family was not subject to the rules that apply to TANF cash welfare families (e.g., work participation, time limit, and child support enforcement requirements).

Unlike basic assistance, which required both increased expenditures and that more families be assisted, ECF funding for non-recurrent short-term aid was based solely on increased expenditures. The expenditures on non-recurrent short-term aid in a current quarter in FY2009 or FY2010 were compared with expenditures in the comparable quarter in the base year. The base year for non-recurrent short-term aid was either FY2007 or FY2008, whichever had the lowest expenditures for this category of expenditures. The base year for non-recurrent short-term aid could have been different from that used to determined ECF eligibility for basic assistance. The ECF reimbursed 80% of the increased expenditures on short-term non-recurrent aid from the comparable quarter in the base year to the current quarter.

Subsidized Employment

This category represents work subsidies: payments to employers or third parties to help cover the costs of employee wages, benefits, supervision, and training. The subsidized job could have been in the private or public sector. As with non-recurrent short-term aid, states were permitted to subsidize jobs for those on the cash assistance rolls as well as for other persons. If a person's only ongoing TANF benefit was an employment subsidy, his or her family was not subject to the rules that apply to TANF families receiving cash welfare.

To draw ECF grants for subsidized employment, a state only needed to show that it had increased its expenditures for subsidized employment. The comparison used to determine increased costs for subsidized employment was the same type of comparison used for short-term benefits, as discussed above. Expenditures for subsidized employment for a current quarter in FY2009 or FY2010 were compared to those in the comparable quarter in the base year. The base year for subsidized employment was FY2007 or FY2008, whichever year had the lowest expenditures in the category, and could have differed from the base years used for basic assistance and short-term non-recurrent aid. The ECF reimbursed 80% of the increased expenditures on subsidized employment from the comparable quarter in the base year to the current quarter.

What Are the State Caps for Emergency Funds?

Each state was limited on what they can draw combined from the ECF and the TANF regular contingency fund. Over the two-year period, FY2009 and FY2010, a state could draw up to 50% of its basic block grant from the two funds.

What Are the Rules for the State 20% "Match"?

The ECF did not pay for the full increase in expenditures for basic assistance, short-term aid, or subsidized employment. It provided for an 80% reimbursement for these increased costs. This is sometimes referred to as an 80% match rate, though this is somewhat misleading because states, tribes, and territories did not need to come up with "new money" to cover the remaining 20%. They were able to use funding reallocated from other activities funded from the basic TANF block grant or MOE monies to cover these costs.

Additionally, states were permitted to count the value of in-kind, third party payments toward the 20%. This was particularly important for subsidized employment. According to guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the state could have counted the value of employers' supervisory time toward the 20%. The limit on supervisory time was 25% of an employee's wage.

State, Tribe, and Territorial Use of TANF Emergency Funds

At the end of FY2010 (September 30, 2010), all $5 billion appropriated to the ECF was awarded to states, tribes, and territories. Figure 1 shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of spending. The figure shows cumulative grant awards. It shows that $1.6 billion, 32% of the total grant awards, was to help finance increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $2.1 billion, 41% of the total, was for non-recurrent short-term aid and $1.3 billion, 26% of the total, was for subsidized employment.

Figure 1. TANF Emergency Contingency Fund Grant Awards, by Category

(cumulative grant awards through September 30, 2010; dollars in millions)

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

A total of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were awarded ECF funds. Only Wyoming and Guam failed to receive ECF grants. Table 2 shows ECF grant awards by category of expenditures, showing the dollar awards in each category as well as the percent of the total awards for each category by state. Most of these jurisdictions (48) were awarded funds for increases in their basic assistance caseload, with 44 jurisdictions awarded funds for non-recurrent short-term aid and 42 jurisdictions receiving funds for subsidized employment. Only three states (Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) received funding only for basic assistance.

Table 1. TANF Emergency Fund Awards by Category and State

Awards through September 30, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of Total Grant Awards by Category

State

Basic Assistance

Non-recurrent, Short-Term Benefits

Subsidized Employment

Total

Basic Assistance

Non-recurrent, Short-Term Benefits

Subsidized Employment

Total

Alabama

8,179,366

26,539,077

8,152,334

42,870,777

19.1%

61.9%

19.0%

100.0%

Alaska

2,686,871

0

399,112

3,085,983

87.1

0.0

12.9

100.0

Arizona

1,681,050

2,683,331

0

4,364,381

38.5

61.5

0.0

100.0

Arkansas

397,511

2,281,915

3,895,256

6,574,682

6.0

34.7

59.2

100.0

California

729,014,687

116,051,960

408,475,824

1,253,542,471

58.2

9.3

32.6

100.0

Colorado

20,667,626

16,828,765

504,089

38,000,480

54.4

44.3

1.3

100.0

Connecticut

3,747,760

20,691,201

14,525,628

38,964,589

9.6

53.1

37.3

100.0

Delaware

3,716,569

4,380,496

383,588

8,480,653

43.8

51.7

4.5

100.0

District of Columbia

9,608,595

12,962,560

18,670,030

41,241,185

23.3

31.4

45.3

100.0

Florida

45,120,059

6,000,231

129,415,634

180,535,924

25.0

3.3

71.7

100.0

Georgia

0

14,233,050

69,170,715

83,403,765

0.0

17.1

82.9

100.0

Hawaii

4,034,398

7,443,977

15,779,837

27,258,212

14.8

27.3

57.9

100.0

Idaho

342,598

787,085

0

1,129,683

30.3

69.7

0.0

100.0

Illinois

7,881,240

50,695,275

194,274,376

252,850,891

3.1

20.0

76.8

100.0

Indiana

0

26,762,466

0

26,762,466

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Iowa

10,360,082

21,047,151

2,941,843

34,349,076

30.2

61.3

8.6

100.0

Kansas

3,730,652

24,468,295

49,831

28,248,778

13.2

86.6

0.2

100.0

Kentucky

6,657,538

0

42,467,534

49,125,072

13.6

0.0

86.4

100.0

Louisiana

828,097

81,157,894

0

81,985,991

1.0

99.0

0.0

100.0

Maine

16,323,136

8,572,626

0

24,895,762

65.6

34.4

0.0

100.0

Maryland

35,425,091

30,104,495

2,275,539

67,805,125

52.2

44.4

3.4

100.0

Massachusetts

60,781,710

50,342,322

0

111,124,032

54.7

45.3

0.0

100.0

Michigan

10,817,543

221,304,665

483,649

232,605,857

4.7

95.1

0.2

100.0

Minnesota

21,720,738

54,573,532

13,715,660

90,009,930

24.1

60.6

15.2

100.0

Mississippi

1,010,947

1,059,777

25,775,641

27,846,365

3.6

3.8

92.6

100.0

Missouri

4,496,414

26,410,614

18,396,554

49,303,582

9.1

53.6

37.3

100.0

Montana

4,894,474

196,867

5,069,870

10,161,211

48.2

1.9

49.9

100.0

Nebraska

1,329,803

14,821,305

0

16,151,108

8.2

91.8

0.0

100.0

Nevada

15,367,631

0

0

15,367,631

100.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

New Hampshire

10,539,850

0

0

10,539,850

100.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

New Jersey

15,444,746

167,856,265

18,716,401

202,017,412

7.6

83.1

9.3

100.0

New Mexico

29,041,372

0

0

29,041,372

100.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

New York

32,487,094

664,960,813

25,575,383

723,023,290

4.5

92.0

3.5

100.0

North Carolina

1,079,984

66,615,420

11,682,450

79,377,854

1.4

83.9

14.7

100.0

North Dakota

0

0

5,738,155

5,738,155

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Ohio

188,166,414

0

56,528,928

244,695,342

76.9

0.0

23.1

100.0

Oklahoma

4,798,976

10,514,037

11,497,886

26,810,899

17.9

39.2

42.9

100.0

Oregon

71,769,906

8,069,486

3,559,923

83,399,315

86.1

9.7

4.3

100.0

Pennsylvania

1,982,443

34,684,149

60,968,938

97,635,530

2.0

35.5

62.4

100.0

Puerto Rico

4,951,644

23,452,679

2,824,914

31,229,237

15.9

75.1

9.0

100.0

Rhode Island

0

3,312,197

4,817,051

8,129,248

0.0

40.7

59.3

100.0

South Carolina

14,852,567

2,366,878

1,870,892

19,090,337

77.8

12.4

9.8

100.0

South Dakota

2,756,713

1,191,419

2,944,619

6,892,751

40.0

17.3

42.7

100.0

Tennessee

23,540,074

6,480,000

20,280,246

50,300,320

46.8

12.9

40.3

100.0

Texas

6,012,275

149,158,301

87,957,799

243,128,375

2.5

61.3

36.2

100.0

Utah

14,174,693

893,607

393,564

15,461,864

91.7

5.8

2.5

100.0

Vermont

1,256,956

11,331,500

797,980

13,386,436

9.4

84.6

6.0

100.0

Virgin Islands

745,624

0

379,990

1,125,614

66.2

0.0

33.8

100.0

Virginia

24,328,366

5,528,294

1,911,323

31,767,983

76.6

17.4

6.0

100.0

Washington

95,860,723

1,287,246

17,179,333

114,327,302

83.8

1.1

15.0

100.0

West Virginia

10,081,710

37,129,561

2,883,577

50,094,848

20.1

74.1

5.8

100.0

Wisconsin

13,150,098

33,118,681

4,236,495

50,505,274

26.0

65.6

8.4

100.0

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

In addition, 25 tribes and tribal organizations were awarded ECF grants. These grants total $14.2 million.

Twelve states (Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington State) received their maximum allotment of contingency funds, and some others were close to receiving their maximums. As discussed above, states, tribes, and territories were limited to receiving only up to 50% of their basic TANF block grant in combined grants from the regular and emergency contingency funds over the two years, FY2009 and FY2010. Table 2 shows state awards from the regular TANF contingency fund and the ECF, comparing the sum of these awards with their maximum grants. States are sorted in descending order, so that states closest to exhausting their maximum allotments are shown at the top of the table.

Table 2. Maximum and Actual Regular and Emergency Contingency Fund Grants for FY2009 and FY2010

Cumulative grant awards through September 30, 2010

State

Maximum Allotments for the Regular Contingency and Emergency Contingency Funds

Amount Received in FY2009 and FY2010 for the Regular Contingency Fund

Amount Approved in FY2009 and FY2010 for Emergency Contingency Fund

Total Contingency Funds

Total Contingency Funds as a Percent of Maximum Allotment for Both Contingency Funds

Colorado

68,028,345

30,027,866

38,000,480

68,028,346

100.0

Delaware

16,145,491

7,664,838

8,480,653

16,145,491

100.0

Maryland

114,549,016

46,743,891

67,805,125

114,549,016

100.0

Michigan

387,676,429

155,070,572

232,605,857

387,676,429

100.0

Nevada

21,953,759

6,586,128

15,367,631

21,953,759

100.0

New Jersey

202,017,412

0

202,017,412

202,017,412

100.0

New Mexico

55,289,050

26,247,678

29,041,372

55,289,050

100.0

New York

1,221,465,301

498,442,011

723,023,290

1,221,465,301

100.0

North Carolina

151,119,800

71,741,946

79,377,854

151,119,800

100.0

Oregon

83,399,315

0

83,399,315

83,399,315

100.0

Tennessee

95,761,899

45,461,579

50,300,320

95,761,899

100.0

Washington

190,477,249

76,149,947

114,327,302

190,477,249

100.0

Texas

243,128,376

0

243,128,375

243,128,375

99.9

Louisiana

81,985,993

0

81,985,991

81,985,991

99.9

District Of Columbia

46,304,908

3,460,624

41,241,185

44,701,809

96.5

Massachusetts

229,685,558

109,039,904

111,124,032

220,163,936

95.9

Kansas

50,965,531

18,687,361

28,248,778

46,936,139

92.1

Alabama

46,657,604

0

42,870,777

42,870,777

91.9

West Virginia

55,088,155

0

50,094,848

50,094,848

90.9

Utah

37,804,738

17,947,254

15,461,864

33,409,118

88.4

Puerto Rico

35,781,251

 

31,229,237

31,229,237

87.3

Illinois

292,528,480

0

252,850,891

252,850,891

86.4

Hawaii

49,452,394

15,234,745

27,258,212

42,492,957

85.9

South Carolina

49,983,912

23,729,141

19,090,337

42,819,478

85.7

Virgin Islands

1,423,282

0

1,125,614

1,125,614

79.1

Wisconsin

157,249,677

62,899,871

50,505,274

113,405,145

72.1

Arkansas

28,366,429

13,466,554

6,574,682

20,041,236

70.7

California

1,829,937,521

0

1,253,542,471

1,253,542,471

68.5

Minnesota

131,717,035

0

90,009,930

90,009,930

68.3

Ohio

363,984,130

0

244,695,342

244,695,342

67.2

South Dakota

10,639,826

0

6,892,751

6,892,751

64.8

Florida

281,170,060

0

180,535,924

180,535,924

64.2

Mississippi

43,383,789

0

27,846,365

27,846,365

64.2

Maine

39,060,445

0

24,895,762

24,895,762

63.7

Vermont

23,676,591

0

13,386,436

13,386,436

56.5

Nebraska

28,756,801

0

16,151,108

16,151,108

56.2

New Hampshire

19,260,631

0

10,539,850

10,539,850

54.7

Kentucky

90,643,835

0

49,125,072

49,125,072

54.2

Montana

19,019,558

0

10,161,211

10,161,211

53.4

Iowa

65,496,976

0

34,349,076

34,349,076

52.4

Arizona

100,116,349

47,525,377

4,364,381

51,889,758

51.8

Georgia

165,370,870

0

83,403,765

83,403,765

50.4

Missouri

108,525,870

0

49,303,582

49,303,582

45.4

North Dakota

13,199,905

0

5,738,155

5,738,155

43.5

Virginia

79,142,586

0

31,767,983

31,767,983

40.1

Oklahoma

72,640,721

0

26,810,899

26,810,899

36.9

Connecticut

133,394,054

0

38,964,589

38,964,589

29.2

Pennsylvania

359,749,653

0

97,635,530

97,635,530

27.1

Indiana

103,399,555

0

26,762,466

26,762,466

25.9

Rhode Island

47,510,794

0

8,129,248

8,129,248

17.1

Alaska

23,210,407

0

3,085,983

3,085,983

13.3

Idaho

15,206,281

0

1,129,683

1,129,683

7.4

Wyoming

9,250,265

0

0

0

0.0

Guam

3,465,478

0

0

0

0.0

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

Proposals to Extend the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

The TANF ECF was enacted as a temporary measure to help finance extra economic support to families to help them weather the recession. Though the economy grew in the last half of 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010, unemployment remained high. Unemployment is typically considered a "lagging" indicator and falls only after an economic expansion has already been underway for some time. Historically, the trend in the cash welfare caseload has sometimes followed economic conditions, but sometimes not. After the 1990-1991 recession, welfare caseloads actually peaked in March 1994, before beginning their decline.

President Obama's FY2011 budget proposal sought to establish a new Emergency Fund for FY2011. It would have been funded at $2.5 billion for that year. The House voted twice in 2010 to extend the ECF, though such proposals failed to clear the Senate. A provision of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) extended the basic TANF program through the end of FY2011 without the ECF.