The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History




The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Updated February 12, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44668




The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Summary
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant was created in the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). It
was born out of the welfare reform debates that spanned four decades, from the 1960s through the
1990s. These debates focused on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program,
which provided federal funding for state-run programs delivering assistance to needy families
with children. Historically, most families receiving assistance were headed by single mothers who
were not working for wages. Central issues in these debates were whether and how much single
mothers should be expected to work in paid employment, and whether the AFDC program itself
had disincentives to paid work and raising children in two-parent families.
In 1992, then-candidate Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it.” President Clinton
submitted his welfare reform proposal to Congress in June 1994, but Congress did not take any
action on it. A welfare reform proposal was included in the House Republican Contract with
America
document during the 1994 congressional campaign. This proposal would have altered,
but not replaced, AFDC. Immediately after the 1994 congressional campaign, with Republicans
taking control of both the House and the Senate, the new House leadership and Republican
governors crafted a proposal to end AFDC and replace it with the TANF block grant. This
proposal passed Congress as part of two separate pieces of legislation in 1995, but President
Clinton vetoed both.
In 1996, a revised proposal was offered and passed Congress. On August 22, 1996, President
Clinton signed PRWORA, which ended AFDC and created TANF. TANF is a broad-purpose
block grant to the states, which helps fund a wide range of benefits, services, and activities to
address the effects of, and root causes of, child poverty and economic disadvantage. Reflecting its
origins in debates over AFDC, most TANF policy revolves around the state programs of cash
assistance and work programs that the block grant helps fund.
Most TANF policies in effect in 2024 date back to PRWORA. The original funding provided in
that law for TANF expired at the end of FY2002 (September 30, 2002), and most of the
legislative activity since then has been to continue funding on a short-term basis. From FY2002 to
FY2006, TANF was funded by a series of short-term extensions. There was one long-term
extension of TANF funding—The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171)—which
extended it from FY2006 through the end of FY2010. The DRA also made some changes to
TANF work standards and established a program of competitive grants mostly to community-
based organizations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives. Since the end of
FY2010, TANF has again been funded by a series of short-term extensions. Most recently, the
Further Additional Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-35)
funds TANF through March 8, 2024. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) revised
TANF work standards and allows HHS to conduct pilots in up to five states to test alternative
performance systems related to work for TANF adult assistance recipients.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Brief History of AFDC .................................................................................................................... 1

The Early Years: 1930s through the 1950s ................................................................................ 2
The 1960s: Expansion to Two-Parent Families and Work ........................................................ 4
1969 to 1980: Negative Income Tax and Guaranteed Incomes ................................................. 5
1981 to 1993 .............................................................................................................................. 6
Work Requirements and Devolution ................................................................................... 6
Supporting Parents Earning Lower Wages ......................................................................... 6
Research and Experimentation ........................................................................................... 7
1992 to 1996: Ending “Welfare as We Know It” ...................................................................... 8
President Clinton’s Proposal ............................................................................................... 9
The Contract with America ................................................................................................. 9
A Block Grant for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ............................................. 9
The 1995 Budget Bill—First Veto ..................................................................................... 11
Final Agreement on H.R. 4— Second Veto ....................................................................... 11

Legislation Action in 1996 ...................................................................................................... 12
Major Differences Between AFDC and TANF .............................................................................. 12
Overview of Post-1996 TANF Legislation .................................................................................... 16
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ................................................................................................. 16
Attempts at Reauthorization: 2002-2004 ................................................................................ 17
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ......................................................................................... 17
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ............................................................... 18
TANF Legislation from 2010 to 2024 ..................................................................................... 18

Detailed Legislative Chronology ................................................................................................... 20
1996 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
1997 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
1998 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
1999 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
2000 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2002 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2003 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2004 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2005 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
2006 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
2008 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
2009 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
2010 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
2012 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
2013 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
2014 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
2015 ......................................................................................................................................... 24
2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 24
2017 ......................................................................................................................................... 24
2018 ......................................................................................................................................... 24
2019 ......................................................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 17 link to page 30 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

2020 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
2021 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
2022 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
2023 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
2024 ......................................................................................................................................... 26


Tables
Table 1. Selected Major Differences Between AFDC and TANF ................................................. 13

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 26


Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Introduction
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant was created by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). That
law ended the program of family cash assistance (sometimes called welfare) that dated back to the
New Deal era, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and folded its funding into
TANF, a broad-purpose block grant. The enactment of PRWORA was the culmination of a debate
about how to overhaul programs providing cash assistance to needy families with children—
specifically, those headed by single mothers—that spanned four decades: from the 1960s to the
1990s.
PRWORA provided both program authority and funding (appropriations) for TANF through the
end of FY2002.1 Most of the legislative activity on TANF since 2002 has been to extend the
program funding and financing authority for TANF. Most of these extensions did not change
TANF policy, though policy changes were included in extensions enacted in 2006, 2010, and
2012. Most recently, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act,
2024 (P.L. 118-35) extended TANF funding through March 8, 2024. Additionally, the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) revised TANF’s work standards.
This report will begin with a brief overview of the history of the AFDC program. That overview
will be followed by a summary of the differences between AFDC and TANF, and then the
changes made to TANF since 1996. The report concludes with a detailed chronology of TANF
legislation.
Brief History of AFDC
The modern form of family cash assistance dates to the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, and
state- or locally funded mothers’ pensions for fatherless families. The purpose of these programs
was to provide income to such families so that mothers could stay at home and care for their
children.
Federal funding for these programs was first provided in the Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-
271) through the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, later renamed the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children program (AFDC). Many of the later changes, and the welfare reform
debates of the 1960s to the 1990s, focused on issues of the expectations of paid work for single
mothers and whether providing cash to single mothers served as disincentives for both engaging
in paid work and marriage.
However, the history of the ADC/AFDC program touched many other facets of the well-being of
children and their families. ADC/AFDC provided federal funding for social services, medical
assistance, child care, and foster care. Each of these separate benefits and services were later spun
off into separate programs, with dedicated federal funding. While much of the focus of
ADC/AFDC was on the single mother (custodial parent), the program’s policies also touched on
noncustodial parents. The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was created, in great part,
to reimburse states and the federal government for the costs of providing family cash assistance to
single mothers, and making noncustodial fathers responsible for these costs. CSE has evolved
into a program that distributes child support payments collected from noncustodial parents to

1 Thus, though TANF is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, its funding is not a part of the
regular appropriations bill for the department.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

custodial parents, mostly to families that have never received or are no longer receiving cash
assistance.
The Early Years: 1930s through the 1950s
The Social Security Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-271) created the social insurance programs of Old Age
Benefits and unemployment compensation, where workers earned protection against lost wages
because of old age and involuntary unemployment. It also created federal funding for state
programs providing cash assistance for low-income aged persons, blind persons, and programs
for needy families with children where one parent (usually the father) was unable to support the
family.
The ADC program provided grants to the states to help finance programs to assist children who
were “deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the
home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent” and who lived with the other parent or a
relative. The legislative history of the 1935 act explicitly stated that the purpose of ADC
payments was to permit mothers to stay at home rather than work for pay outside the home:
The very phrases “mothers’ aid” and “mothers’ pensions” place an emphasis equivalent to
misconstruction of the intention of these laws. These are not primarily aids to mothers but
defense measures for children. They are designed to release from the wage-earning role the
person whose natural function is to give her children the physical and affectionate
guardianship necessary not alone to keep them from falling into social misfortune, but more
affirmatively to rear them into citizens capable of contributing to society.2
The intent of ADC to allow single mothers to stay home and raise their children was often met
with resistance at the state and local levels.3 It was also contrary to the reality that low-income
women, particularly women of color, were sometimes expected to, and often did, work.4 The
1935 Social Security Act left administration and many decisions about eligibility to the states.
States also determined ADC benefit amounts.
The 1935 act provided federal funding to pay benefits on behalf of the children in the family. The
Social Security Amendments of 1950 (PL 81-734) provided federal funding for one parent (or
other caretaker) as well.
The Social Security Amendments of 1956 (P.L. 84-881) added the goals of creating “self-
sufficiency” and strengthening family life to ADC, along with funding for services intended to
enable recipients to achieve these goals.
In the early years, families receiving ADC benefits were often headed by a widow or had a
disabled father.5 However, over time the natures of both the program and the families it aided

2 See the Report of the Committee on Economic Security to the President, transmitted to the President on January 15,
1935.
3 For a discussion of nonfinancial restrictions to cash assistance, including those related to work, in the earlier years of
ADC, see Winifred Bell, Aid to Dependent Children (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965).
4 Historically, non-White women had a higher labor force participation rate than did White women. This especially
held true for married women. For documentation of the increase in women’s labor force participation by marital status
and race, see Claudia Golden, “The Evolution of the Female Labor Force,” in Understanding the Gender Gap, An
Economic History of American Women
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 10-57.
5 An early look at the characteristics of families receiving assistance comes from a study of 16 states in 1942. In those
states, 41.4% of total families lacked support because of the death of a parent, usually the father. Additionally, 27.6%
of ADC families in those states lacked support because of the incapacity of one parent (again, usually the father).
Agnes Leisy, Families Receiving Aid to Dependent Children, October 1942, Federal Security Agency, Social Security
Board, March 1945.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

changed. The Social Security Amendments of 1939 (P.L. 76-379) added survivor benefits—
benefits paid to widows of deceased workers—to the program of old age benefits, renaming it
Old Age and Survivors Insurance. Survivor benefits, like old age benefits, were social insurance
benefits earned through work in a covered job and paid to spouses and children upon the death of
a worker or retiree. This provided an alternative, and broader, means of aiding widows and their
children. The Social Security Amendments of 1956 (P.L. 84-881) added Disability Insurance to
Old Age and Survivor Insurance, with the combined program now commonly referred to as
Social Security. These changes, too, provided broader means of aiding the types of families that
were originally assisted by ADC.
In the middle decades of the 20th Century, African-Americans comprised an increasing (but still
minority) share of individuals receiving assistance.6 Social Security coverage, including Survivor
protection, did not immediately extend to farm and domestic workers, occupations in which many
Blacks were employed. In 1940, 41% of employed Black men were reported as farm workers. In
that year, 60% of employed Black women were private household workers.7 A focus of the 1950
Social Security Amendments was to extend coverage to those in occupations that were excluded,
including farm and domestic workers.
Other factors also affected the composition of those receiving ADC. Historically and currently,
African-American children were more likely to live in single parent families, a population
targeted by ADC policy, and that disparity widened between 1940 to 1960.8 Both cultural and
economic factors have been discussed in the research that examines the higher likelihood of
Black children living in single parent families than White children.9 African-American families
also had lower incomes than did Whites.10
In the two decades after the program was launched, the families receiving ADC increasingly were
those where the father was alive but absent. The longevity of life improved during the 20th
Century, and, as mentioned above, Survivors Insurance provided a broader means to aid widows
and their children. Still, at the end of the 1950s, ADC assisted fewer than 1 million families
(776,115 in December 1959).

6 The report on the characteristics of families receiving assistance (cited above) in 1942 showed that in the 16 states
included in the study, 78.6% of the children were White. In 1953, it was reported that 63% of “families” were White. In
1958, 58% of families were White. See Social Security Administration, Bureau of Public Assistance, Characteristics
and Financial Circumstances of Families Receiving Aid to Dependent Children, Late 1958
, Bureau of Public
Assistance Report Number 42, undated. By 1969, half of the caseload was White. See U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Preliminary Report of Findings—1969 AFDC Study, MCSS
Report AFDC-1 (69), March 1970.
7 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Social and Economic Status of the Black Population in the
United States: An Historical View, 1790-1978
, Special studies, Series P-23, no. 80, June 1979, p. 74,
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1979/demo/p23-080.html.
8 See Steve Ruggles, “The Origins of African-American Family Structure,” American Sociological Review, vol. 59, no.
1 (February 1994), pp. 136-151. In 1940, 13.6% of Black children aged 0 to 14 lived in families with a single mother,
with the comparable percentage of 5.6% for White children. By 1960, 18.2% of Black children aged 0 to 14 lived with
a single mother, with the comparable percentage of 5.9% for White children.
9 Steve Ruggles, “The Origins of African-American Family Structure,” American Sociological Review, vol. 59, no. 1
(February 1994).
10 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Social and Economic Status of the Black Population in
the United States: An Historical View, 1790-1978
, Special studies, Series P-23, no. 80, June 1979, pp. 25-54,
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1979/demo/p23-080.html.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

The 1960s: Expansion to Two-Parent Families and Work
P.L. 87-31, enacted in 1961, first made cash assistance benefits available to families that included
two able-bodied parents, provided that one was unemployed. The authority to serve these families
was optional for states. It was also temporary at first (in response to an economic downturn), but
was later made permanent. In 1962, the program was renamed Aid to Families with Dependent
Children. The 1962 amendments, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (P.L. 87-543), also
established a community work and training program for adult AFDC recipients, largely intended
for men in two-parent families.11
AFDC eligibility rules were not affected by President Johnson’s War on Poverty legislation. The
centerpiece of the War on Poverty, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452),
authorized work experience demonstration programs for AFDC recipients. The Social Security
Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89-97) established Medicaid as a new, formal program that provided
health insurance linked to AFDC receipt; allowed states to use the Medicaid matching rate to
determine federal and state shares of AFDC expenditures, provided that a state had an approved
Medicaid plan; and allowed families with students up to age 21 to continue to receive AFDC.
The Social Security Amendments of 1967 (P.L. 90-248) enacted both financial incentives for
adult recipients to work and, for the first time, requirements for AFDC mothers to work. These
amendments required states to disregard from a family’s countable income some earnings when
determining its “need” and benefits. The amendments also created a new work program under
AFDC—the Work Incentive (WIN) Program—that expanded the population served by an AFDC-
related work program to women.
Administrative and Court Decisions Overruled State Policies that Denied
Assistance to Certain Families
The policy of assisting mothers so that they could raise children and be out of the paid workforce was met with
resistance at the state and local level. Multiple states adopted policies barring aid to certain families. Some states
ended aid to families with children born out of wedlock, considering them “unsuitable homes.” Other states
denied aid in households where a man was present. Some states also adopted so-called farm policies, requiring
able-bodied mothers and children over a certain (state-defined) age to work in seasonal agricultural employment.
A series of federal administrative and U.S. Supreme Court decisions ended some of the state practices that
removed families from cash assistance. For example, in January 1961 (during the Eisenhower Administration)
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Arthur Flemming issued a ruling (the Flemming Rule) declaring that
states could not deny families assistance by declaring the home “unsuitable.”12 (Congress in 1961 enacted
legislation that allowed federal funds to be used for the costs of foster care when children aided by ADC were
removed from their unsuitable homes by court order.) The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that states could not
deny aid to families because of the presence of a “man in the house.”13 In 1970, the Supreme Court held that
AFDC benefits were a matter of statutory entitlement to persons qualified to receive them and could not be
terminated without a pre-termination evidentiary hearing.14

11 For a discussion of the AFDC work programs, see CRS Report 95-761, EPW Work Programs for Welfare Recipients:
A Look at Past Efforts
, by Karen Spar, June 23, 1995 (available to congressional clients upon request).
12 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Aid to Dependent Children —
"Suitable Home" Requirements
, State Letter 452, January 17, 1961.
13 King v. Smith, 392 309 (1968).
14 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. (1970).
Congressional Research Service

4

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

1969 to 1980: Negative Income Tax and Guaranteed Incomes
The late 1960s marked the beginning of the debates (historically termed welfare reform) of
proposals to alter or completely replace AFDC. This occurred as AFDC’s costs and the number of
families receiving its benefits increased. From 1960 to 1969, the number of families receiving
AFDC increased from fewer than 1 million to 1.9 million. By 1973, the AFDC rolls had increased
to 3.1 million families.15
For the decade beginning in 1969, these proposals were based on the “negative income tax” (NIT)
concept. The NIT proposals would have provided a guaranteed income to families who had no
earnings (the “income guarantee” that was part of these proposals). For families with earnings,
the NIT would have provided for a gradual reduction in the benefit as earnings increased.16
President Nixon proposed to replace AFDC with an NIT-type program in 1969, the Family
Assistance Plan (FAP).17 This proposal also would have nationalized the program, with the
federal government paying the income guarantee and states able to supplement the federal
guarantee with their own funds. This legislation was not enacted; it passed the House twice but
never passed the Senate.18 In 1972, the Senate Finance Committee proposed to guarantee jobs—
rather than income—for parents of school-age children.19 That proposal, too, did not ultimately
pass.20
President Carter also proposed an NIT-based cash assistance program coupled with a public
service job program in 1977. President Carter’s proposals died in committee (they were never
reported to either the full House or Senate). A less ambitious proposal from President Carter in
1979 passed the House but did not pass the Senate.21

15 The increase in the number of families receiving assistance in the late 1960s and early 1970s was associated with a
change in public opinion about whether too much or too little was spent on welfare. Additionally, attitudes toward
women in the workplace had shifted from those that prevailed in the 1930s. For a discussion, see Steven M. Teles, “The
Collapse of One Consensus, the Rise of Another,” in Whose Welfare? AFDC and Elite Politics (Lawrence, KS:
University of Kansas Press, 1998), pp. 41-59.
16 The negative income tax is often associated with economist Milton Friedman, who in 1963 proposed such a plan. See
Milton Friedman, “Chapter XII, The Alleviation of Poverty,” in Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 190-195. Others, including economist James Tobin and Robert Lampman also developed the
idea of the negative income tax around the same time as Friedman.
17 U.S. President (Nixon), “Special Message to the Congress on Reform of the Nation’s Welfare System,” Public
Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1969
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1971), pp. 647-654.
18 For a contemporary account of the debate on President Nixon’s FAP proposal, see Vincent J. Burke and Vee Burke,
Nixon’s Good Deed: Welfare Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974). See also Daniel P. Moynihan, The
Politics of a Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance Plan
(New York: Vintage
Books, 1973).
19 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Social Security Amendment of 1972, Report to Accompany H.R.
1, to Amend the Social Security Act and Other Purposes, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., September 26, 1972, S. Rept. 92-1230
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1972).
20 However, the Social Security Amendments of 1972 did replace federal grant in aid programs to assist needy
individuals who are elderly, blind, and disabled with the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. SSI provides a
guaranteed cash income floor for those age 65 and older and those who meet its criteria of disability and blindness. For
a description of SSI, see CRS In Focus IF10482, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
21 U.S. President (Carter), “Welfare Reform,” 95th Cong., 1st sess., September 7, 1977, H.Doc. 95-205 (Washington,
DC: GPO, 1977). A description and analysis of President Carter’s welfare reform proposals can be found in
Congressional Budget Office, The Administration’s Welfare Reform Proposal: An Analysis of the Program for Better
Jobs and Income
, April 1, 1978, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21353.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

1981 to 1993
The period from 1981 to 1993 saw two large shifts in policies toward low-income families with
children. The 1981 proposals from the Reagan Administration that were adopted by Congress
emphasized maintaining a social safety net for the truly needy.22 The truly needy generally
defined those who could not work for pay. However, by mid-decade policies shifted in the
opposite direction, toward supporting the incomes of parents who earned low wages.
Work Requirements and Devolution
The proposals to change AFDC made by President Reagan at the beginning of his Administration
differed sharply from the earlier proposals of the 1960s and 1979s. They emphasized
requirements to work and limiting eligibility rather than work incentives.23 The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) limited the earnings disregard that was enacted in 1967
and set a gross income limit for AFDC eligibility, thus ending benefits for many families who
received assistance and worked in paid employment. It also gave states expanded authority to
require recipients to engage in community service or work experience programs (unpaid work) in
exchange for their AFDC benefit.
The early Reagan Administration proposals also emphasized devolution to the states in
decisionmaking, rather than nationalization. In 1982, President Reagan proposed to completely
devolve to the states family cash assistance for families with children.24 That proposal did not
pass.
Supporting Parents Earning Lower Wages
In the 1980s, there was increasing attention to welfare dependency. Research at that time showed
that while many mothers were on cash assistance for a short period of time, a substantial minority
of mothers remained on the rolls for long periods.25 Additionally, policymakers began to focus on

22 The terms “social safety net” and “truly needy” were used by President Reagan in submitting his economic proposals
to Congress in February 1981. Preserving the “social safety net,” revising entitlements to eliminate unintended benefits,
and reducing subsidies to middle- and upper-income groups were listed as guidelines that were applied for reducing the
budget. The economic message further said “The Administration’s insistence on this fundamental principle has meant
that programs benefiting millions of truly needy beneficiaries have not been affected by the spending control effort.”
See U.S. President (Reagan), "White House Report on the Program for Economic Recovery," Public Papers of the
President of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1981
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1982), p. 120. The detailed documents
transmitting President Reagan’s proposals for that year cited many of the proposals that would have curtailed AFDC
funding as targeting funds for the “truly needy,” ending benefits for families with higher incomes, or ending increases
in welfare families’ income once they are capable of meeting their own needs through employment.
23 Martin Anderson, a domestic and economic policy advisor to President Reagan, wrote in the late 1970s
The idea of using financial incentives to induce people to get off the welfare rolls is faulty in
principle. It attempts to persuade people to do something they should be required to do. [Emphasis
in the original.]
Martin Anderson, Welfare. The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States (Stanford, CA:
Hoover Institution Press, 1978), p. 162.
24 President Reagan proposed that the federal government assume full responsibility for Medicaid while AFDC and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, then called food stamps) be turned over to the states. See U.S.
President (Reagan), “Message to Congress Transmitting the Fiscal Year 1983 Budget,” Public Papers of the Presidents
of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1982 (In Two Books) January 1 to July 2, 1982
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), p.
133.
25 See Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood, Transitions from Welfare to Work, Urban Systems and Engineering Inc.,
Cambridge, MA, 1983; and David T. Ellwood, Targeting “Would-Be” Long-Term Recipients of AFDC, Mathematica
Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, 1986.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

the possibility that a single mother who left family cash assistance for work might be financially
worse off than if she did not work and continued to collect benefits. Such a single mother, who
might command relatively low wages in the labor force, risked losing health insurance from
Medicaid for herself and her children and faced work-related costs such as child care.
The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) established in AFDC the notion of mutual
responsibility between the cash assistance recipient and the state. It created the Job Opportunities
and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training program, which provided employment services, education, and
training for cash assistance recipients. It required participation in the JOBS program for certain
AFDC adults. The Family Support Act also mandated that states provide benefits for two-parent
families, though it was on more restrictive terms than those for single-parent families.
The Family Support Act also established the Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) program that
continued Medicaid coverage for a period of time for those who otherwise would have lost
eligibility for Medicaid when moving from AFDC assistance to work. Further, it guaranteed child
care for AFDC recipients engaged in work activities and provided time-limited (transitional) child
care for those who left AFDC for work. Subsequent legislation, enacted in 1990, further expanded
child care by creating a new block grant for those without a connection to AFDC, new matching
funds to subsidize child care for those at risk of receiving AFDC, a major expansion of the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC), and a phase-in of making children eligible for Medicaid based on
their families’ low income rather than being in a family receiving AFDC.
Research and Experimentation
Additionally, an era of experimentation on welfare-to-work initiatives began in the 1980s.26
President Reagan proposed legislation in 1987 that would have authorized states to conduct
demonstration projects that could have included AFDC and any other low-income assistance
programs. These demonstrations would have been overseen at the federal level by an Interagency
Low-Income Opportunity Board.27 The proposed legislation was not enacted. However, the
Reagan Administration, and subsequently the Administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill
Clinton, issued waivers of AFDC requirements under another provision of law to permit states to
conduct pilots and demonstrations of alternative work-related programs.28 Also funded was an
evaluation of the JOBS program created in the Family Support Act of 1988. That evaluation
focused on the impact of the mandatory participation requirements for certain AFDC recipients,
and differing strategies that were available to states under the JOBS program.
The research initiated in the 1980s and early 1990s generally found that mandatory participation
in programs providing employment services to AFDC recipients increased paid employment and
earnings temporarily and reduced receipt of assistance. (Most recipients eventually went to work,
even without participation mandates and employment services.29) However, unless the mandatory
participation requirement was also accompanied by supplementing the earnings of parents with
low wages, AFDC recipients were not made financially better off. Some of this research was
available at the time of the 1995-1996 debates. However, much of the research from this pre-

26 For a history of this experimentation, see Judith M. Gueron and Howard Rolston, Fighting for Reliable Evidence
(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2013).
27 U.S. Congress, House, Proposed Legislation—"Low-Income Opportunity Improvement Act of 1987,” Message from
the President of the United States, 100th Cong., 1st sess., February 26, 1987, H. Doc. 100-39 (Washington, DC: GPO,
1987).
28 The provision of law was Section 1115 of the Social Security Act.
29 Dan Bloom, What Does MDRC Research Really Say About Work Requirements, MDRC, June 2023,
https://www.mdrc.org/publication/what-does-mdrc-s-research-really-say-about-work-requirements.
Congressional Research Service

7

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

TANF era was released after 1996. For example, the long-term findings of the evaluation of the
AFDC participation requirements and the JOBS program (renamed the National Evaluation of
Welfare to Work Strategies) were not released until 2001.30
1992 to 1996: Ending “Welfare as We Know It”
The number of families receiving family cash assistance had been comparatively stable during the
period from 1982 to 1988. However, beginning in the summer of 1989 the number of families
receiving cash assistance began to increase once again. From 1988 to 1992, the number of
families receiving AFDC increased from 3.7 million to 4.9 million. The number of families
receiving AFDC would reach its all-time high in March 1994, at 5.1 million.31
Increases in the Number of Families Receiving AFDC and Reform Debates
Two chapters of the welfare reform debates began amid increases in the number of families receiving AFDC: the
unsuccessful argument to replace AFDC with a negative income tax beginning in 1969, and the ultimately
successful effort beginning in 1992 that led to its repeal as part of PRWORA.
The two periods of growth in families receiving AFDC had dissimilar causes. Research has found that the increase
in AFDC families that occurred in the late 1960s to early 1970s was predominately caused by an increase in the
rate at which eligible families applied for and received AFDC.32 Some reasons for increases in the share of eligible
families receiving benefits are administrative and court decisions that barred states from denying AFDC to certain
categories of families and increased legal advocacy on behalf of lower-income individuals to take-up benefits for
which they were eligible.
On the other hand, the 1988 to 1994 increase in families receiving AFDC was primarily driven by increases in the
number of families eligible for assistance—the rate at which families eligible for AFDC received them increased
only slightly.33 Research found that the increase in the number of AFDC-eligible families was caused by
demographic trends (increases in single mothers, particularly never-married mothers), the effects of the economic
downturn associated with the 1990-1991 recession, and a rise in families where only the child would be eligible for
assistance, the so-called child-only cases. For the last category of families, benefits were available only on behalf of
children because they are cared for by nonparent relatives, parents who are noncitizens, parents sanctioned for
failing to comply with participation requirements, or parents who were disabled and receiving SSI.34
Political Scientist Steven Teles noted in his book Whose Welfare that both times the number of families receiving
AFDC increased, public opinion pol ing found increasing sentiment that “too much” was being spent on welfare.35

30 Gale Hamilton et al., How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts
for Eleven Programs
, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, November 30, 2001, https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/how-effective-are-different-welfare-work-
approaches-five-year-adult-child-impacts-eleven-programs-0.
31 See CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions
, by Gene Falk and Patrick A. Landers.
32 The estimates are based on computer simulations of the number of people and families eligible for AFDC compared
with administrative totals on the number of people and families receiving AFDC. This was first published in U.S.
Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy, Studies in Public Welfare, Paper 12 (Part 1).
The Family, Poverty and Welfare Programs: Factors Influencing Family Instability. Participation in the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children Program
, committee print, prepared by Barbara Boland, 93rd Cong., 1st sess.,
November 4, 1972, Paper 12, Part I (Washington, DC: GPO, 1972), pp. 139-180. These estimates were subsequently
updated for technical reasons, though they also found that the dominant reason for the increase in the families receiving
assistance was an increase in the share of eligible families receiving benefits. See Patricia Ruggles and Richard C.
Michel, Participation Rates in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program: Trends for 1967 through 1984,
Urban Institute, April 1987.
33 Linda Giannarelli, What Was the TANF Participation in 2016?, Urban Institute, July 2019.
what_was_the_tanf_participation_rate_in_2016_0.pdf.
34 Rebecca Blank, “What Causes Public Assistance Caseload to Grow,” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 36, no. 1
(Winter 2001), pp. 87-88.
35 Steven Teles, Whose Welfare? AFDC and Elite Politics (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1998), p. 44.
Congressional Research Service

8

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

President Clinton’s Proposal
During the 1992 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as
we know it.” He stressed time-limited aid and expanded financial supports for those who did go
to work.36 The 1993 tax bill signed by President Clinton further expanded the EITC.
President Clinton made his welfare reform proposal in June 1994.37 It would have phased in a
two-year limit on AFDC receipt without work, followed by required participation in a wage-
paying work program after two years. It would also have expanded funding for training within the
first two years. It was estimated to increase child care costs for participants in the JOBS program
or the wage-paying work program. The proposal would have barred AFDC to unmarried minor
mothers.
President Clinton’s proposal was never considered by either the House or the Senate. However,
during the period before the enactment of PRWORA, the Administration granted additional
waivers of AFDC law to allow them to engage in welfare reform demonstration projects.38 Some
of these waivers were for small-scale demonstrations, but some were for statewide
demonstrations of state-designed cash assistance and work programs.
The Contract with America
Welfare reform was one of 10 legislative initiatives that was included in the Contract with
America
, developed by Republicans for the 1994 congressional campaign.39 The proposal in the
Contract with America would have required recipients to work after two years of AFDC (like the
Clinton Administration proposal), but it also would have imposed a lifetime five-year limit on
benefits. It would have barred AFDC to unwed minor mothers and would have imposed a “family
cap,” not increasing benefits for new babies born into AFDC families. Funding for AFDC and
child care would have been capped, with states given the option to receive AFDC as a block
grant.
A Block Grant for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
H.R. 4, as introduced at the start of the 104th Congress, was the Contract with America proposal.
However, immediately following the 1994 congressional election, House Republicans worked
with several Republican governors to craft an alternative proposal that would block grant funding
for AFDC and other social programs.40 The legislation considered by House committees reflected
the block grant proposals rather than the original H.R. 4 legislation. Legislation reported from the
House committees was bundled into an omnibus welfare reform bill that included the end of

36 David Ellwood, an advisor to President Clinton on matters relating to poverty and assistance, proposed, among other
things, in his 1988 book to both “make work pay so that working families are not poor” and “convert welfare into a
transitional system designed to provide serious but short-term financial, education, and social support for people who
are trying to cope with a temporary set-back.” See David T. Ellwood, Poor Support. Poverty and the American Family
(New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 238.
37 U.S. President (Clinton), Proposed Legislation, “Work and Responsibility Act of 1994,” 103rd Cong., 1st sess., June
21, 1994, H.Doc. 103-273 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1994).
38 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers, June 1997.
39 The text of the Contract with America can be found in the internet archive, https://web.archive.org/web/
19990427174200/http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html.
40 See Ron Haskins, “The House Initiates the Revolution,” in Work Over Welfare. The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare
Reform
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2006), pp. 82-105.
Congressional Research Service

9

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

AFDC and its replacement with TANF.41 That bill, the Personal Responsibility Act, substituting
for the original text of H.R. 4, passed the House on March 24, 1995.
H.R. 4, as passed by the House, formed the basis for all later bills considered and passed by the
104th Congress. It would have
• replaced AFDC and related programs of Emergency Assistance, and the work and
training program for AFDC recipients, with a block grant to the states for
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
• allotted TANF basic block grant funds to states based on recent expenditures in
AFDC and related programs;
• allowed states to spend their TANF grants on a broad range of benefits and
services;
• gradually phased in a requirement that 50% of the caseload be either working or
engaged in activities, but limited the ability of states to count education and
training toward that target; the requirement could also be met, fully or partially,
through caseload reduction (i.e., the caseload reduction credit);
• established a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance;
• prohibited unmarried minor parents from receiving cash assistance;
• prohibited states from increasing cash benefits when a new baby was born to a
family already on the rolls (the family cap); and
• limited need-tested benefits for noncitizens in need-tested programs, including
requiring that noncitizens be in the United States for five years before being
eligible for TANF.
The House-passed bill also consolidated AFDC-related child care funding with the block grant
created in 1990, and it increased funding for child care. However, it ended the guarantee that
those transitioning from family cash assistance to work be provided child care.
The Senate Finance Committee ordered H.R. 4 reported in May 1995. The Finance Committee
bill adopted a similar structure to the House bill. Different from the House bill, however, the
Senate Finance Committee bill
• would have continued a separate employment and training program;
• did not include a family cap; and
• did not include the prohibition on benefits to unmarried minor parents.
Disputes about the committee-reported measure over items such as the distribution of funds held
up consideration of the bill until August and September of 1995. Negotiations between party
leaders in the Senate, Senator Robert Dole for the Republicans and Senator Thomas Daschle for
the Democrats, produced an accord that also adopted the basic structure of the House bill but
made some substantial modifications. The compromise bill included

41 The House Ways and Means Committee and the committee now known as the Education and Labor Committee (then
known as the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee) both reported welfare reform legislation that
included TANF programs. The House Ways and Means-reported bill was H.R. 1157, The Welfare Transformation Act
of 1995. The bill reported from the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, which included
provisions related to TANF work requirements, was H.R. 999, the Welfare Reform Consolidation Act of 1995. The
House Rules Committee incorporated the committee bills, reconciled differences, and made other modifications, and
under a rule H.Res. 119 consolidated a number of committee bills into one substitute measure to be considered on the
floor as H.R. 4.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

• a requirement that states continue to spend some of their own funds (a
maintenance of effort [MOE] requirement) in order to receive their full block
grant funds;
• supplemental grants to states with high rates of population growth and/or low
historical welfare spending per poor child;
• a contingency fund for states experiencing economic need;
• a provision to allow aid to unmarried minor parents who were living in an adult
supervised setting; and
• “charitable choice” provisions to permit increased participation of faith-based
organizations in the delivery of TANF services.
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 4 on September 19, 1995.
The 1995 Budget Bill—First Veto
Following passage of H.R. 4 in the Senate, both the House and Senate began the process of
crafting legislation to implement the budget adopted for FY1996. On October 17, 1995, the
House Budget Committee reported its budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 2491), which included the
end of AFDC and its replacement with TANF. It passed the House on October 26, 1995. The
Senate version of the budget reconciliation bill also generally included the Senate-passed version
of the TANF proposal, and it passed on October 28, 1995. Conferees came to an agreement on the
budget reconciliation bill—including the end of AFDC and creation of TANF—on November 17,
1995. The House- and Senate-approved conference agreement was vetoed by President Clinton
on December 6, 1995. President Clinton’s veto message highlighted his opposition to cuts to
Medicare, Medicaid, the EITC, and child nutrition programs. The President said
On welfare reform, I strongly support real welfare reform that strengthens families and
encourages work and responsibility. But the provisions in this bill, when added to the EITC
cuts, would cut low-income programs too deeply.42
Final Agreement on H.R. 4— Second Veto
With the veto of the budget reconciliation bill, attention turned toward finalizing House-Senate
agreements on the stand-alone welfare reform bill (H.R. 4). A final conference report on H.R. 4
was filed on December 20, 1995. The final agreement included many of the modifications to
TANF that were adopted in the Senate, including
• a compromise maintenance of effort requirement;
• supplemental grants to states with high population growth and/or low historical
spending per poor child, but with limited funding; and
• a state option to impose a family cap.
President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4 on January 9, 1996. In vetoing the bill, the President remarked
The final welfare reform legislation should provide sufficient child care to enable recipients
to leave welfare to work; reward States for placing people in jobs; restore the guarantee of
health coverage for poor families; require States to maintain their stake in moving people

42 U.S. President (Clinton), “Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval Budget
Reconciliation Legislation,” Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton 1995, vol. II
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1996), p. 1853.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

from welfare to work; and protect States and families in the event of economic downturn
and population growth.43
The President also objected to policy changes not related to the TANF proposal, such as
provisions that would have cut spending in food stamps (now the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program), curtailed benefits for disabled children, restricted eligibility for noncitizens
to receive need tested benefits, cuts to school lunches, and changes to foster care and adoption
assistance.
Legislation Action in 1996
With the veto of H.R. 4, the National Governor’s Association (NGA) in February 1996 proposed
policies to modify that measure, including additional child care funds, additional contingency
funds for recessionary periods, and bonus payments for states that meet certain employment
outcomes.44 In May 1996, House and Senate Republicans introduced bills that reflected the
policies of the vetoed H.R. 4 and provided additional funding for child care, the TANF
contingency fund, and performance bonuses. H.R. 3734, the budget reconciliation bill for that
year, included these provisions together with a proposal to revise Medicaid.45 H.R. 3734 passed
the House on July 18, 1996. The Senate made a key modification to the bill by dropping its
Medicaid provisions. The provisions ending AFDC and creating TANF remained in H.R. 3734,
and it passed the Senate on July 23, 1996. A conference agreement on the bill was filed July 30,
1996; it passed the House on July 31, 1996, and the Senate on August 1, 1996.
President Clinton signed the legislation, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193), into law on August 22,
1996.46
Major Differences Between AFDC and TANF
PRWORA ended AFDC and related programs, and folded their funding into the broad-purpose
TANF block grant. Dedicated funding was ended to assist the specific population eligible for
family cash assistance. Instead, TANF is a broad-purpose block grant, and the states are permitted
to use their allotments (and associated state funds) “in any manner that is reasonably calculated”47
to achieve its broad goals.
Funding for the AFDC-related child care programs was consolidated into a separate funding
stream dedicated to child care.48 Some things did not change with the 1996 law. As was the case

43 U.S. President (Clinton), “Veto of H.R. 4” 104th Cong., 2nd sess., January 22, 1996, H. Doc. 104-164 (Washington,
DC: GPO, 1996).
44 For a discussion of the NGA proposal, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on
Human Resources, The National Governors Association Welfare Reform Proposal, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., February
20, 1996, Serial 104-48.
45 For more information, see CRS Report 98-814, Budget Reconciliation Legislation: Development and Consideration,
by Bill Heniff Jr.
46 In addition to ending AFDC and creating TANF, PRWORA retained cuts to SNAP (then called food stamps),
restrictions to noncitizen eligibility for need-tested programs, and changes to SSI benefits for disabled children.
President Clinton, in signing PRWORA, continued to object to the cuts to SNAP and restrictions on noncitizens
receiving need tested benefits.
47 Section 404(a)(1) of the Social Security Act.
48 These funds are, by statute, transferred to the lead agency for the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG). Combined discretionary funding authorized under the CCDBG and mandatory child care funds are
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

with AFDC, TANF programs are run by states (and sometimes localities), and they determine the
maximum benefits under the programs and set the income eligibility thresholds.
Table 1 summarizes some of the major differences between AFDC and TANF. It should be noted
that at the time of enactment of the 1996 law, many states were operating under waivers of the
AFDC rules that related to cash assistance. These waiver-imposed time limits, set different rules
for counting earnings than did the AFDC federal rules, and set different rules for work or
participation in job activities. TANF permitted states to continue programs operated under
waivers, even if the provisions of the waiver were inconsistent with TANF rules. The last of these
waivers expired in 2007.49
Table 1. Selected Major Differences Between AFDC and TANF
(At enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law)
Provision
AFDC
TANF
Statutory purpose
Encouraging the care of children in
Increase state flexibility to conduct
their own homes or in the homes
a program to achieve the fol owing
of relatives by enabling each state
four goals: (1) provide assistance to
to furnish financial assistance and
needy families so that children can
rehabilitation and other services to
be cared for in their own homes or
needy children and their parents or
homes of relatives, (2) end
other caretaker relatives. Help
dependence of needy parents on
parents or other caretaker relatives
government benefits, (3) reduce
attain or retain the capability for
out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and (4)
maximum self-support.
promote the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families.
Funding
Reimbursed states for a share of
A basic block grant to each state
their expenditures for AFDC,
based on the federal share of
Emergency Assistance (EA), and the
expenditures in AFDC, EA, and
Job Opportunity and Basic Skil s
JOBS in the early to mid-1990s. No
Training (JOBS) program. There
adjustments to this amount for
was no dol ar limit on federal
changes in circumstances.
funding for AFDC and EA. JOBS
Supplemental grants provided to 17
funding was subject to a dol ar limit
states that met criteria of having
nationally and for each state.
low historic spending on AFDC and

related programs per poor person
and high rates of population
growth.
Additional grants to states in a
contingency fund for economically
needy states. A total of $2 bil ion
was provided for the contingency
fund.
Bonus funds to states for achieving
performance on TANF’s goals and
in reducing out-of-wedlock
pregnancies.

consolidated into what is known as the Child Care and Development Fund. See CRS Report R44528, Trends in Child
Care Spending from the CCDF and TANF
, by Karen E. Lynch.
49 For more information, see CRS Report R42627, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare
Waivers
, by Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service

13

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Provision
AFDC
TANF

Funding was permanently
Funding for the TANF basic block
authorized, with annual
grant and bonus funds was
appropriations providing the budget
appropriated through FY2002.
authority for the program.
Funding for the TANF contingency
fund and supplemental grants was
provided through FY2001.
State funding
State funds were also required to
States required to expend a
finance a share of expenditures in
minimum amount of funds, at least
the AFDC, EA, and JOBS programs.
75% of what they spent in FY1994,
The state share was lower in states
on “TANF-eligible” families on cash,
with relatively low per-capita
child care, educational activities, and
incomes, and higher in states with
any other activity that achieves the
relatively high per-capita incomes.
TANF purpose and goals.
Use of funds
Reimbursed expenditures were for
TANF funds may be used for
cash assistance under AFDC,
activities that can be “reasonably
administration, and employment
calculated” to achieve TANF’s
and training services under JOBS.
statutory purpose and four goals.
EA reimbursed states for a share of
Also allows spending on activities in
their spending on programs to
prior law that might not meet that
address immediate, emergency
requirement.
needs.
Individual entitlement to benefits
Provided for the granting of an
TANF law “shall not be interpreted
opportunity for a fair hearing to any to entitle any individual or family to
individual whose claim for aid was
assistance under any State program
denied or was not acted upon with
funded [under TANF].”
reasonable promptness.
Time limit
No time limit on cash assistance.
Federal TANF funds cannot be used
to provide assistance to a family
with a head of household who has
received TANF for 60 months.
Hardship extensions beyond 60
months provided for up to 20% of
the caseload. Families without a
head of household receiving
benefits (e.g., child-only families) do
not have months counted toward
the time limit.
Other rules for cash assistance
States determined income eligibility
States determine income eligibility
programs
thresholds and benefit amounts.
thresholds and benefit amounts.
However, federal law established a
Requires that families receiving
gross income limit (185% of the
assistance be needy, but specifies no
state-determined need standard); an further federal rules for
asset test (no more than $1,000 in
determining financial eligibility and
countable assets); and rules for how benefit amounts. (TANF law has no
states count different forms of
gross income limit or federally
income, including earnings.
required resource limit.)
Congressional Research Service

14

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Provision
AFDC
TANF
Work and job preparation


requirements
Performance measure for
Set a percentage of the caseload
Sets a percentage of the caseload
states
that was not already working ful -
that must be working or engaged in
time that had to be engaged in
specified job preparation activities.
employment, education, or training
States are limited in counting
activities under the JOBS program.
education and training activities for
Categories of individuals exempt
adult (age 20 or older) recipients.
from the work requirements (see
Some families are disregarded from
below) were disregarded in
the calculation.
calculating the percentage engaged
States could also meet their work
in JOBS activities.
standards partially or ful y through
caseload reduction. States were
given credit toward their work
standard for the reduction in the
number of families receiving
assistance not attributable to policy
changes from FY1995 forward. The
credit reduced the percentage of
the caseload that must be working
or engaged in job preparation
activities.
Work-related requirements on Non-exempt adult recipients were
Decided by a recipient’s state.
individuals
required to participate in JOBS
activities. Individuals exempted
included those who were ill,
incapacitated, of advanced age,
needed in the home because of the
il ness or incapacitation of another
member of the household, a parent
of a child under age 3 (could be
lowered to under age 1 at the
option of the state), or in an area
where JOBS was not available.
Individuals who were working ful -
time in unsubsidized employment
were exempt from participation in
JOBS.
Activities to meet work-
JOBS program activities included
Required activities for individuals
related requirements
job search, education (including
decided by states. The performance
basic and remedial education, high
measure that applies to states lists
school completion, and post-
the countable activities, including
secondary education), on-the-job
unsubsidized employment, that
training, community work
count toward a state meeting its
experience, job skil s training, job
standard.
readiness activities, and diverting
assistance dol ars to subsidize
wages.
Sanctions on individuals for
Noncomplying recipients were
States are required to sanction
refusal to comply with work-
removed from the consideration of
those who refuse to comply with
related requirements
a family’s need, reducing the benefit. state work requirements. The
sanction may be either a pro-rata
reduction in the benefit or a
termination of the benefit.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service

15

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Overview of Post-1996 TANF Legislation
Most TANF policies in effect in 2024 date back to PRWORA. The original funding provided in
the 1996 law expired at the end of FY2002. Much of the legislative action since has been to
extend funding for the block grant. There were some temporary provisions (e.g., the Welfare-to-
Work Grant Program, Emergency Contingency Fund) that were enacted since PRWORA that are
no longer in place today. Some features of the 1996 law—such as supplemental grants and bonus
funds—no longer exist. There have also been a few additions to the law.
After peaking at 5.1 million families receiving AFDC in March 1994, the number of families
receiving assistance stood at 4.4 million in August 1996 (the month that PRWORA was enacted)
and declined to 2.4 million families by the end of the 1990s (December 1999). The period since
has shown a continued decline in the number of families receiving assistance, to about 1 million
in 2022.50
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA97, P.L. 105-33), enacted one year after PRWORA, made
a number of changes to TANF. It created a program providing additional funding dedicated to
financing work activities. The Welfare-to-Work Grant program (WTW) provided $3 billion for
two years, FY1998 and FY1999. Under the program, funding was divided, with 75% provided to
states and local workforce areas through a formula and 25% dedicated to competitive grants. The
WTW program was originally targeted at the hardest to serve TANF assistance recipients and
similarly disadvantaged noncustodial parents. The WTW grant program was administered by the
Department of Labor (DOL), not the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which
administers TANF. Subsequent legislation relaxed requirements for targeting services to the
hardest to serve, and as funds were spent more slowly than anticipated, the deadline for
expenditures was extended.
The BBA97 made several other permanent changes to TANF, including
• permitting a greater percentage of recipients to be counted as engaged in work
through education and training, but retaining a limit on counting such
participation;
• setting a statutory limit on transfers from TANF to the Social Services Block
Grant at 10%;51 and
• making technical corrections to the 1996 welfare reform bill, including technical
corrections to TANF.

50 This decline is attributable to both a reduction in the eligible population and a drop in the rate at which families
eligible for assistance receive benefits. The proportion of the decline between those two factors varies by year. During
the Great Recession, the estimated number of families eligible for TANF assistance almost reached the same level as
those estimated eligible for AFDC for 1994. Yet the number of families receiving TANF assistance in 2009 remained
more than 3 million below the number of families receiving AFDC in 1994. The population eligible for assistance and
the number of TANF assistance recipients fell during the economic expansion following the Great Recession. See CRS
Report R47503, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: The Decline in Assistance Receipt Among Eligible
Individuals
.
51 P.L. 105-178 set the TANF statutory limit for transfers to Title XX social services at 4.25%. Annual appropriation
bills since FY2001 have had special provisions to allow states to transfer up to 10% of their TANF block grant to Title
XX. See CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

Attempts at Reauthorization: 2002-2004
In February 2002, President George W. Bush made proposals for the reauthorization of the TANF
block grant and related proposals. The document, Working for Independence, outlined a five-year
reauthorization that would have
• funded the basic TANF block grant at the same level provided from FY1997
through FY2002 for an additional five years;
• provided mandatory child care funding through FY2007 at its FY2002 level
(with no inflation or other adjustment over the period FY2003-FY2007);
• provided dedicated funding for grants to promote healthy marriage;
• raised the work participation standard to a minimum of 70% of families with a
“work-eligible individual” that must be working or engaged in activities;
• required 40 hours per week of work or engagement in activities for full credit
toward meeting the standard, but allowed for partial credit for hours less than 40
hours per week;
• allowed states to count rehabilitative activities for three months on the rolls, but
narrowed the activities that counted after three months to work or community
service or work experience; and
• ended the caseload reduction credit against the work standards, replacing it with
a credit for recipients who left the rolls for work.
The Bush Administration proposals were incorporated (with some modifications) into bills that
passed the House in 2002 and 2003: H.R. 4737 (107th Congress) and H.R. 4 (108th Congress). A
major difference between the Bush Administration proposal and the House proposals of 2002 and
2003 was that the House proposals retained the caseload reduction credit and provided extra
credit to states that had large historical caseload reductions. Following House action, the Senate
Finance Committee reported substantially differing versions of each bill. The Senate Finance
Committee bills did not narrow the activities that could be counted toward the work participation
standard after three months, and they expanded the ability of states to count participation in
rehabilitative activities toward the TANF work participation standard. The Senate Finance
Committee bills would have replaced the caseload reduction credit with a credit based on
employed leavers, families diverted from the rolls, and families receiving work supports. The full
Senate never acted on either of the Senate Finance Committee-reported bills.
In the absence of reauthorization legislation, TANF program and funding authority was extended
on a temporary basis 13 times from 2002 to 2006.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
The early part of 2005 again saw committee action on legislation to reauthorize TANF. On March
9, 2005, the Senate Finance Committee ordered reported legislation that became S. 667 (109th
Congress). The following week, the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on
Human Resources considered H.R. 240 and sent it to the full committee. However, further action
on TANF reauthorization did not occur until the fall of 2005, when the House and Senate began
considering legislation under the budget reconciliation process.
The House passed as part of their reconciliation bill (the House amendment to S. 1932) a TANF
reauthorization that essentially incorporated the proposals passed by the House in 2002 and 2003
Congressional Research Service

17

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

and were contained in H.R. 240. The Senate version of the reconciliation bill contained no TANF
provisions.
The conference report on the budget reconciliation bill included TANF provisions different from
those that passed the House. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) included
• a long-term extension of TANF funding, through the end of FY2010;
• the elimination of performance bonuses to states;
• the establishment of a $150 million fund for research and competitive grants on
healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood, with $100 million per year for
healthy marriage initiatives and $50 million per year for responsible fatherhood
initiatives; and
• changes to TANF work standards, such as counting caseload reduction only from
2005 (rather than 1995) toward the work participation standards, requiring HHS
to define specific work activities that may count for each listed statutory work
activity, and requiring that states verify work activities of recipients.
The DRA also included an increase in mandatory child care funding from $2.717 billion per year
to $2.917 billion per year.
The conference report on the DRA passed the House on December 19, 2005. Congress finished
reconciling differences between the two chambers in February 2006.52 President Bush signed the
DRA into law as P.L. 109-171 on February 8, 2006.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The economy entered into a recession after December 2007, with a major financial crisis and
accelerating job loss occurring in late 2008. In response, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) passed Congress and was signed by President
Obama. ARRA included tax cuts; unemployment insurance provisions; and extra funding for
programs, including provisions to provide fiscal relief to states.
ARRA also included $5 billion for a new TANF Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) available to
be spent in FY2009 and FY2010. The ECF supplemented funding for the regular TANF
contingency fund, which itself was depleted in early FY2010. The ECF reimbursed states for 80%
of the cost of increased expenditures for basic assistance, short-term emergency aid, and
subsidized employment. ARRA also temporarily froze the TANF caseload reduction credit at
prerecession levels, through its application to the FY2011 work participation standards.
TANF Legislation from 2010 to 2024
The long-term extension of TANF enacted in the DRA expired at the end of FY2010 (September
30, 2010). Since then, Congress continued TANF program authority and funding through a series
of short-term extensions. TANF extensions have been incorporated into stop-gap continuing
resolutions or omnibus appropriations bills to fund all or most of the government, added to tax
bills, added to unrelated legislation, or passed as stand-alone legislation. (As used in this report,

52 The delay in adopting a final version of the DRA came when the conference report reached the Senate floor and a
point of order was raised against certain, non-TANF, provisions of the bill that violated the so-called Byrd Rule. Under
the Byrd rule, provisions of a budget reconciliation bill are considered extraneous and not in order if they do not have a
budget impact. The Senate further amended the bill to remove the extraneous provisions, requiring further action to
adopt a final version of the bill in the House. For a discussion of the Byrd rule, see CRS Report RL30862, The Budget
Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”
, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service

18

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

stand-alone legislation represents laws enacted that addressed only TANF and related programs.)
There were two gaps in funding for TANF during this period. Funding lapsed during broader
government shutdowns in October 2013 and beginning in December 2018. States were permitted
to draw on unspent, previously appropriated TANF funds to finance their TANF activities during
the shutdown.
While many of the short-term extensions of TANF funding did not make changes to TANF policy,
three extension laws did:
• The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA, P.L. 111-291), a bill to settle claims
against the federal government for certain Indian tribes, included a TANF
extension through the end of FY2011. It also altered funding for the healthy
marriage and responsible fatherhood programs, splitting the combined $150
million appropriation for them at $75 million for healthy marriage and $75
million for responsible fatherhood (it had previously been $100 million for
healthy marriage and $50 million for responsible fatherhood). Additionally, the
CRA required special one-time reports from the states on how they spend funds
and on individuals with no reported hours of work participation. The CRA also
provided funding for TANF supplemental grants only through June 30, 2011
(rather than September 30, 2011, the end of the fiscal year). Supplemental grants
were not funded for the last quarter of FY2011, nor any fiscal year thereafter.
• The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96)
extended TANF through the end of FY2012, and also permanently amended
TANF law to require states to act to prevent cash assistance recipients from
withdrawing their benefits at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) at strip clubs,
casinos, and liquor stores.
• The FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31) extended funding for
the TANF block grant for the remainder of FY2017 and for FY2018. It also
financed TANF-related research through a set-aside of 0.33% of the TANF basic
block grant appropriation. This reduced the TANF basic block grant to each state
by 0.33%.
In 2018, the House Ways and Means Committee reported legislation (H.R. 5861, 115th Congress)
that would have reauthorized and funded TANF for five years; revised TANF’s work rules to
measure employment outcomes rather than participation; required all assistance recipients to have
an individualized plan; required that all TANF funds be spent on families with incomes at or
below 200% of poverty; and required a minimum percentage of TANF funds to be spent on
assistance, work activities, or short-term economic aid. The bill was not considered by the full
House.
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) established a temporary $1 billion fund to
help states address the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 50 states, District of
Columbia, tribes, and territories53 could draw from the Pandemic Emergency Assistance Fund to
provide nonrecurrent, short-term benefits to needy families.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) altered TANF work standards, effective in
FY2026. It provided that, beginning that year, states would be given credit for “caseload
reduction for FY2015 forward” (rather than FY2005) and eliminated states’ ability to count
toward the work requirements families with assistance of an amount less than $35 funded with

53 The territories eligible for this fund are Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Congressional Research Service

19

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

MOE funds paid in programs outside of TANF. It also required states to report on employment
outcomes and allows HHS to conduct pilots in up to five states to test alternative performance
systems related to work for TANF adult assistance recipients.
Detailed Legislative Chronology
1996
P.L. 104-193, enacted August 22, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, established the block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families. Funds for most TANF grants were appropriated through FY2002; supplemental grants
and the TANF contingency fund were appropriated through FY2001. States were required to
implement TANF, and accept their block grant funding, by July 1, 1997, though they could opt to
implement earlier.
P.L. 104-327, enacted October 19, 1996, amended the transition rule from the pre-TANF
programs to TANF that limited total FY1997 federal funding for TANF and pre-TANF programs.
It changed the limit on funding to the states for FY1997 from an amount equal to their basic block
grant to an amount equal to their basic block grant plus, if they qualified, what they would have
received from the TANF contingency fund.
1997
P.L. 105-33, enacted August 5, 1997, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, raised the cap limiting the
counting of education as work from 20% to 30% of those considered engaged in work, and
temporarily removed from that cap teen parents engaged in education through FY1999; set the
maximum allowable TANF transfer to Title XX social services at 10% of the block grant (rather
than one-third of total transfers); and made technical corrections to P.L. 104-193. P.L. 105-33 also
established the Welfare-to-Work (WTW) grant program within TANF (funded at $3 billion over
two years, FY1998 and FY1999), but administered by the Department of Labor at the federal
level, with local administration by state workforce investment boards and competitive grantees.
P.L. 105-89, enacted November 19, 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, reduced the
contingency fund appropriation by $40 million.
1998
P.L. 105-178, enacted June 9, 1998, the Transportation Act for the 21st Century, permitted the use
of federal TANF funds as matching funds for reverse commuter grants. It also set the statutory
limit on TANF transfers to Title XX social services at 4.25% of the block grant. (Note that
subsequent annual appropriation bills restored the 10% limit on TANF transfers to SSBG.)
1999
P.L. 106-113, enacted November 29, 1999, an omnibus appropriations act, broadened eligibility
for recipients to be served by the WTW grant program and added limited authority for vocational
education or job training to be WTW activities.
Congressional Research Service

20

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

2000
P.L. 106-554, enacted December 21, 2000, an omnibus appropriation act, gave grantees two more
years to spend WTW grant funds (for a total of five years from the date of the grant award).
2002
P.L. 107-147, enacted March 9, 2002, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act, extended the
TANF supplemental grants and contingency funds, both of which had expired on September 30,
2001, through FY2002. Supplemental grants were extended at FY2001 levels.
P.L. 107-229, enacted September 30, 2002, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
basic grants, supplemental grants, bonus funds, and contingency funds (and other related
programs) through December 20, 2002.
P.L. 107-294, enacted November 22, 2002, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
and related funding through March 30, 2003.
2003
P.L. 108-7, enacted February 20, 2003, an omnibus appropriations act, extended TANF and
related funding through June 30, 2003.
P.L. 108-40, enacted June 30, 2003, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding
through September 30, 2003.
P.L. 108-89, enacted October 1, 2003, a multipurpose bill, included an extension of TANF and
related funding through March 31, 2004.
2004
P.L. 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004, a consolidated appropriations bill, rescinded all
remaining unspent WTW formula grant funds, effectively ending the WTW grant program.
P.L. 108-210, enacted March 31, 2004, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding
through June 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-262, enacted June 30, 2004, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding
through September 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-308, enacted September 30, 2004, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding
through March 31, 2005.
2005
P.L. 109-4, enacted March 25, 2005, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding
through June 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-19, enacted July 1, 2005, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF and related funding through
September 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-68, enacted September 21, 2005, allowed states to draw upon contingency funds to assist
those displaced by Hurricane Katrina. It also allowed Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (states
directly affected by Hurricane Katrina) to receive funds from the loan fund, with repayment of the
loan forgiven, and suspending penalties for failure to meet certain requirements for states directly
Congressional Research Service

21

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

affected by the hurricane. It allowed states or tribes to use unspent funds for any TANF benefit or
service provided to a family affected by Hurricane Katrina. It suspended TANF penalties for
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama for failure to comply with certain TANF requirements from
date of enactment through the end of FY2006.
The law also temporarily extended TANF grants through December 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-161, enacted December 30, 2005, a stand-alone bill, extended TANF grants through
March 30, 2006.
2006
P.L. 109-171, enacted February 8, 2006, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, extended most TANF
grants through FY2010 (supplemental grants were extended through the end of FY2008),
eliminated TANF bonus funds, established competitive grants within TANF for healthy marriage
and responsible fatherhood initiatives, revised the caseload reduction credit, and required HHS to
issue regulations to define specific activities that count toward the TANF work participation
standards as well as verify work and participation in activities.
2008
P.L. 110-275, enacted July 15, 2008, the Medicare Improvements and Patients and Providers Act
of 2008, included an extension of TANF supplemental grants through the end of FY2009.
2009
P.L. 111-5, enacted February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, established
a $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF) to reimburse states for increased costs
associated with the Great Recession for FY2009 and FY2010. The fund reimbursed states,
territories, and tribes for 80% of the increased costs of basic assistance, nonrecurrent short-term
benefits, and subsidized employment. The law also permitted states to freeze caseload reduction
credits at prerecession levels, allowed states to use TANF reserve funds for any benefit or service
(it was previously restricted to assistance), and extended supplemental grants through the end of
FY2010.
2010
P.L. 111-242, enacted September 30, 2010, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 3, 2010.
P.L. 111-290, enacted December 4, 2010, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding authority through December 18, 2010.
P.L. 111-291, enacted December 8, 2010, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, extended basic
TANF funding through the end of FY2011 (September 30, 2011) but provided supplemental
grants only through June 30, 2011. It also altered funding for the healthy marriage and
responsible fatherhood programs, splitting the combined $150 million appropriation for them at
$75 million for healthy marriage and $75 million for responsible fatherhood. The act required
one-time additional reporting on work activities and TANF expenditures.
Congressional Research Service

22

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

2011
P.L. 112-35, enacted September 30, 2011, the Short-Term TANF Extension Act, extended basic
TANF funding for three months, through December 31, 2011. No funding was provided for
TANF supplemental grants.
P.L. 112-78, enacted December 23, 2011, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of
2011, extended basic TANF funding for two months, through February 29, 2012.
2012
P.L. 112-96, enacted February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012, extended basic TANF funding for the remainder of FY2012 (to September 30, 2012). It
also prevented electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at liquor stores, casinos, and
strip clubs; states would be required to prohibit access to TANF cash at ATMs at such
establishments. It also required states to report TANF data in a manner that facilitates the
exchange of that data with other programs’ data systems.
P.L. 112-175, enacted September 28, 2012, a continuing resolution providing funding for the first
six months of FY2013, extended TANF funding through March, 2013.
2013
P.L. 112-275, enacted January 14, 2013, the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012, appropriated $612
million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2013 and FY2014, and reserved $2 million from
each of the two years’ appropriations for the activities of a commission to examine child welfare
fatalities.
P.L. 113-6, enacted March 26, 2013, an omnibus appropriations bill, extended TANF funding
through the remainder of FY2013.
P.L. 113-46, enacted October 17, 2013, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through January 15, 2014. (This resolution ended the government shutdown and a TANF
funding gap from October 1, 2013, through October 16, 2013.)
2014
P.L. 113-73, enacted January 15, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through January 18, 2014.
P.L. 113-76, enacted January 17, 2014, a consolidated appropriations act, extended TANF funding
for the remainder of FY2014 (through September 30, 2014).
P.L. 113-164, enacted September 19, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 11, 2014.
P.L. 113-202, enacted December 12, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 13, 2014.
P.L. 113-203, enacted December 13, 2014, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 17, 2014.
P.L. 113-235, enacted December 16, 2014, an omnibus appropriations act, extended TANF
funding through September 30, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

23

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

2015
P.L. 114-53, enacted September 30, 2015, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 11, 2015.
P.L. 114-96, enacted December 11, 2015, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 16, 2015.
P.L. 114-100, enacted December 16, 2015, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 22, 2015.
P.L. 114-113, enacted December 18, 2015, a consolidated appropriations act, extended TANF
funding for the remainder of FY2016 as part of an omnibus appropriations act.
2016
P.L. 114-223, enacted September 29, 2016, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 9, 2016.
P.L. 114-254, enacted December 10, 2016, extended TANF funding through April 28, 2017.
2017
P.L. 115-30, enacted April 28, 2017, extended TANF funding through May 5, 2017.
P.L. 115-31, the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2017, enacted May 5, 2017, extended TANF
funding for the remainder of FY2017 and through the end of FY2018. It provided that 0.33% of
the funding in the TANF basic block grant pay for TANF-related research activities. This reduced
the basic TANF block grant for each state by that percentage (0.33%). The act also required the
Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Labor, to
develop a database named “What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to
Move Welfare Recipients into Work,” to consist of research projects that deliver services to move
TANF recipients into work.
2018
P.L. 115-245, enacted September 28, 2018, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 7, 2018.
P.L. 115-298, enacted December 7, 2018, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 21, 2018.
2019
P.L. 116-4, the TANF Extension Act of 2019, enacted January 24, 2019, a stand-alone TANF bill,
extended TANF funding through June 30, 2019. (This legislation ended a TANF funding gap that
occurred after the expiration of P.L. 115-298 on December 21, 2018.)
P.L. 116-27, enacted July 5, 2019, a stand-alone TANF bill, extended TANF funding through
September 30, 2019.
P.L. 116-59, enacted September 27, 2019, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through November 21, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

24

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

P.L. 116-69, enacted November 21, 2019, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 20, 2019.
P.L. 116-94, enacted December 20, 2019, a consolidated appropriations bill, extended TANF
funding through May 22, 2020.
2020
P.L. 116-136, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), enacted
March 27, 2020, extended TANF funding through November 30, 2020.
P.L. 116-159, enacted October 1, 2020, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 11, 2020.
P.L. 116-215, enacted December 11, 2020, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 18, 2020.
P.L. 116-225, enacted December 18, 2020, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 20, 2020.
P.L. 116-226, enacted December 20, 2020, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 21, 2020.
P.L. 116-246, enacted December 22, 2020, a short-term continuing resolution, extended TANF
funding through December 28, 2020.
P.L. 116-260, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, enacted December 27, 2020, extended
TANF funding through September 30, 2021.
2021
P.L. 117-2, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, enacted March 11, 2021, established a
temporary $1 billion Emergency Pandemic Fund for states, territories, and tribes to address the
economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency funds must be used for “non-recurrent
short-term benefits.” Grantees have until the end of FY2022 to use funds. Grants that went
unused by that deadline were reallocated to applying states.
P.L. 117-43, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted September 30, 2021, extended TANF
funding through December 3, 2021.
P.L. 117-70, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted December 3, 2021, extended TANF
funding through February 18, 2022.
2022
P.L. 117-86, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted February 18, 2022, extended TANF
funding through March 11, 2022.
P.L. 117-95, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted March 11, 2022, extended TANF funding
through March 15, 2022.
P.L. 117-103, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, enacted March 15, 2022, extended
TANF funding through September 30, 2022. It also requires a certification in the TANF state plan
regarding state procedures to help victims of sexual harassment and survivors of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking who are applicants or potential applicants for TANF
assistance.
Congressional Research Service

25

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History

P.L. 117-180, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted September 30, 2022, extended TANF
funding through December 16, 2022.
P.L. 117-229, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted December 16, 2022, extended TANF
funding through December 23, 2022.
P.L. 117-264, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted December 23, 2022, extended TANF
funding through December 30, 2022.
P.L. 117-328, the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2023, enacted December 29, 2022, extended
TANF funding through September 30, 2023.
2023
P.L. 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, enacted June 3, 2023, altered TANF work
standards, effective in FY2026. It provided that, beginning that year, states would be given credit
for “caseload reduction for FY2015 forward” (rather than FY2005). It also eliminated a state’s
ability to count participation toward the TANF work standards if the family received assistance of
an amount less than $35 with MOE funds paid in programs outside of TANF. Beginning in
FY2025, it requires states to report on employment outcomes. Also beginning in that year, HHS
may conduct pilots in up to five states to test alternative performance systems related to work for
TANF adult assistance recipients. The law rescinded unobligated Emergency Pandemic Funds.
P.L. 118-15, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted September 30, 2023, extended TANF
funding through November 17, 2023.
P.L. 118-22, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted November 16, 2023, extended TANF
funding through February 2, 2024.
2024
P.L. 118-35, a short-term continuing resolution, enacted January 19, 2024, extended TANF
funding through March 8, 2024.




Author Information

Gene Falk

Specialist in Social Policy


Acknowledgments
This report received contributions from Emilie Stoltzfus, Karen Lynch, and Jessica Tollestrup of CRS’s
Domestic Social Policy Division. Additionally, the history of AFDC in this report drew a great deal upon
the work of Vee Burke, formerly of CRS’s Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service

26

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History



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

Congressional Research Service
R44668 · VERSION 26 · UPDATED
27