Welfare Reform: TANF Provisions Related to Marriage and Two-Parent Families

Welfare Reform: TANF Provisions Related to Marriage and Two-Parent Families

Order Code RL31170
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reform: TANF Provisions Related to
Marriage and Two-Parent Families
October 30, 2001
Gene Falk and Jill Tauber
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Welfare Reform: TANF Provisions Related to
Marriage and Two-Parent Families
Summary
The impact of welfare policies on discouraging or encouraging marriage has
long been a topic of discussion. Welfare programs, by providing single parents with
the economic means to support their children, are thought to discourage marriage.
Federal policies in place before the 1996 welfare reform law restricted the use of
federal funding for cash aid for needy families with children with two able-bodied
parents in the home. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant, created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), ended federal
constraints on aid to two-parent families. TANF goes further, however, by
establishing a statutory goal to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families. States may spend TANF funds on a wide range of activities (services) for
cash welfare recipients and other families toward the achievement of this goal.
Moreover, TANF has a “High Performance Bonus” that, beginning in FY2002, will
pay a total of $10 million to the 10 states with the greatest increase in the percent of
children living in married couple families.
TANF does, however, have an especially high work participation requirement
for two-parent families receiving cash welfare: in FY2002, 90% of two-parent
families, compared with 50% of all families, must be engaged in work to avoid the
loss to the state of some TANF funds (though work participation standards are
reduced for caseload reduction). Some states have failed FY1997-FY1999 two-
parent work participation standards; some have used TANF’s flexibility to move
two-parent families into state-funded programs that are free of TANF requirements.
As of spring 2001, 35 states had cash welfare eligibility standards for two-
parent families that are the same as for single parents. These states eliminated
special restrictions in place before welfare reform that might have been a
disincentive to marry or form a two-parent family. (However, some of these states
aided two-parent families ineligible for federally funded cash welfare with their own
funds before welfare reform.) Some states have special benefits for two-parent
families. West Virginia pays a “marriage incentive” bonus, providing an extra $100
per month for a family formed by marriage while on welfare.
States report that they provide a wide range of services to promote the
formation or maintenance of two-parent families. However, states reported spending
only a total of $113 million on these services in FY2000, one-half of 1% of total
TANF expenditures. These include services aimed not only at promoting married
two-parent families, but two-parent families in general (including noncustodial
parents, who live outside of the child’s home). Such services include “fatherhood
initiatives”; employment and training services for noncustodial parents; and
mentoring, family education, and similar services.
A number of legislative proposals related to two-parent families have been
raised. These include eliminating the higher two-parent family work participation
rate, which might be a disincentive for states to serve two-parent families. Some
have called for federal action to spur states to spend more to promote marriage,
including an idea to “earmark” a portion of the block grant for marriage activities.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TANF Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Two-Parent Families or “Married Couple” Families? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Promotion of Marriage and the “High Performance Bonus” . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TANF Cash Welfare Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Federal Work Participation Standards for Two-Parent Families . . . . . . . . . 6
Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Required Hours of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Caseload Reduction Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
States That Failed to Meet Two-Parent Work Requirements . . . . . . . 8
Separate State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Evolution of Restrictions on Two-Parent Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The AFDC Unemployed Parent (UP) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Welfare Recipients Who Marry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Differences in Cash Benefits for Two-Parent Versus
Single-Parent Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
TANF Services to Promote Two-Parent Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
“Fatherhood Initiatives” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Employment Services for Noncustodial Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Potential Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Two-Parent Family Work Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Modify the TANF Goals To Promote the Formation and
Maintenance of Married Two-Parent Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
An “Earmark” for Marriage Activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The TANF High Performance Bonus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Information and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
List of Figures
Figure 1. TANF Goals, Use of Funds, and Performance Bonuses . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2. FY2000 Federal and State TANF Expenditures ($ in millions) . . . . . . 4
List of Tables
Table 1. Required Participation Standards in Federal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Required Hours of Activity to Meet All Family and
Two-Parent Family Participation Rates: FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. States That Failed TANF’s Two-Parent Work Participation
Standards, FY1997-FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Nonfinancial Eligibility Requirements for Families with
Two Able-Bodied Parents Under TANF (as of Spring 2001) . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 5. Special Benefit Rules for Two-Parent or Married Couple Families
(January 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 6. TANF Activities to Promote the Formation and Maintenance of
Two-Parent Families: FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Acknowledgment
This report benefitted from the substantive contributions of a number of
members of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Emilie Stoltzfus and Vee
Burke developed the CRS information base containing the contents of FY1999-
FY2000 TANF state plans. Vee Burke, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears
made many contributions to the information and analysis in this report.

Welfare Reform: TANF Provisions
Related to Marriage and
Two-Parent Families
Introduction
The impact of welfare policies on discouraging or encouraging marriage has
long been a topic of discussion. Welfare programs, by providing single parents with
the economic means to support their children, are thought to discourage marriage by
their nature.1 The negative economic effects of single motherhood are well-known.
In 2000, the poverty rate for children raised in female-headed families was 39%
compared with 8% for children raised in married couple families.2
Federal funding for cash welfare for needy families with children was originally
restricted to single parent families with children and to those in which the second
parent was incapacitated. States were first given permission to aid needy families
with children with two able-bodied parents in 1961, and were only required to aid
them as recently as October 1990. Even so, federal policies in place before the 1996
welfare reform law restricted federal funding for cash aid for two-parent families.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, created in
the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), replaced Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) as the primary source of federal funding for cash
welfare to assist families with children. Under both programs, states administered
cash welfare and designed programs within federal rules. TANF, however, gives
broader discretion to the states in program design. Federal rules under AFDC
restricted eligibility for families with two able-bodied parents. These rules were also
seen as a disincentive for two parents to live in the household and possibly marry.
TANF permits states to set their own policies for two-parent families, allowing states
to remove such disincentives (and most have done so). TANF also permits states
to spend funds to promote marriage and two-parent families. These can be activities
both within and outside of their cash welfare programs. Indeed, three of the four
statutory purposes of TANF relate to either promoting marriage, reducing out-of-
wedlock pregnancies, or promoting two-parent families.
This report discusses:
1See: Moffitt, Robert. Incentive effects of the U.S. welfare system: A Review. Journal of
Economic Literature, 20, p. 27-31.
2U.S. Bureau of the Census. Poverty in the United States: 2000. Report P60-214.
September 2001.

CRS-2
! TANF goals for promoting marriage and two-parent families and their
implications for the use of TANF block grant funds;
! TANF cash welfare programs as they relate to two-parent families, including
special federal work participation requirements and eligibility rules for these
families; and
! The degree to which states have used TANF funds for services to promote the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Federal TANF Law: Statutory Purposes and
Accountability for Performance
The 1996 welfare law created the TANF block grant. It replaced categorical
grant programs that helped states pay cash welfare benefits to needy families with
children under AFDC, provided education and job training for AFDC adults (the Job
Opportunity and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program), and provided emergency
assistance (EA) for families with children. TANF permits states to use their block
grant funds for activities for which they were allowed to spend federal funds under
pre-TANF programs, and also for other purposes that were not part of the earlier
welfare programs.
TANF Goals
Federal TANF law lists four goals, two of which are considered “family
formation” goals of having children within marriage or encouraging two-parent
families:
! Preventing and reducing the occurrences of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
! Encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Additionally, there is a third TANF goal:
! Ending dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting
job preparation, work, and marriage.
This third goal considers promoting marriage as a means toward achieving the goal
of reducing welfare dependency.
The list of statutory goals has consequences in terms of the uses of TANF funds
and consideration of a state’s performance in meeting federal goals. Figure 1
provides an overview of the relationship between TANF’s statutory goals, use of
TANF funds, and state accountability for performance. TANF permits states to use
block grant funds (and state spending, discussed later) in “any manner reasonably
calculated” to achieve any of the program’s goals. States are held accountable for
meeting TANF goals through penalties for failure to meet certain requirements (e.g.,
work participation standards). For certain measured outcomes, they may receive
bonuses.

CRS-3
Figure 1. TANF Goals, Use of Funds, and Performance Bonuses
Federal law sets goals for state TANF
Programs
States may expend federal block grant (and state “maintenance of
effort”) funds on activities “reasonably calculated” to accomplish
TANF’s goals
State Performance visa-vis goals measured and rewarded:
Beginning in FY2002, High Performance Bonus includes measure
to pay bonuses to states with the greatest increase in percent of
children living in married couple families.
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Two-Parent Families or “Married Couple” Families? The goals of the
program regarding two-parent families are not limited to marital unions. Not all
two-parent families are married couple families. For example, two cohabiting
parents of a child represent a “two-parent,” but not a married couple family.
Moreover, the TANF goal regarding two-parent families might not even relate to two
parents living in the same household. Some states report that they advance the
TANF goal to promote two-parent families through initiatives that seek to have both
parents be active in their children’s lives, such as responsible “fatherhood” initiatives
that focus on the noncustodial parents of children.
Use of Funds
TANF block grants and associated state funds are a funding stream, not a single
program, that can be used in any number of programs and activities at the state and
local level to achieve the goals of TANF law. TANF replaced AFDC as the major
source of cash welfare for needy families with children. However, it gives states
flexibility to both provide cash assistance and fund a wide range of activities to
achieve its goals—including its goals related to promoting the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families.

CRS-4
In FY2000, total TANF and associated state spending was $22.8 billion.3 The
largest category of spending was for ongoing cash welfare (basic assistance), which
amounted to half of total expenditures. Though cash welfare was the largest
category, the amount spent and share of total spending by states on cash welfare has
declined substantially from the mid-1990s. Under TANF’s predecessor programs,
in FY1995 cash welfare expenditures totaled $21.9 billion or 73% of total spending.
As cash welfare spending declined, states allocated more funds to other
activities consistent with TANF purposes. Thus, as shown in Figure 2, FY2000
expenditures on services to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families were $112.8 million, or about one-half of 1% of total TANF and associated
state expenditures. Expenditure categories related to supporting work, such as child
care, accounted for far more spending than those devoted to TANF’s family
formation goals.
Figure 2. FY2000 Federal and State TANF Expenditures
($ in millions)
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
3This reflects expenditures from the TANF block grant (excluding those made in the Child
Care and Development Fund (CCDF), or the Social Services Block Grant from TANF
transfers) plus state expenditures reported for the TANF maintenance of effort requirement
(MOE). Child care expenditures reported for the TANF MOE that could be “double
counted” toward an MOE in CCDF are subtracted from the expenditures shown in this
report.

CRS-5
Even though a relatively small share of total TANF expenditures were for
services to promote two-parent families, states did undertake initiatives within their
cash welfare programs that could be interpreted as promoting two-parent families.
Spending for such initiatives does not appear in TANF categories associated with
services; such expenditures would be reported as cash welfare spending.
Promotion of Marriage and the “High Performance Bonus”
TANF pays bonuses for “high performing states,” which are those rated most
successful in achieving the goals of TANF. A state’s bonus award for a fiscal year
is based on its performance in the previous fiscal year, and may not exceed 5% of the
state’s family assistance grant. The 1996 welfare reform law appropriated $1 billion
to provide bonuses for 5 years (averaging $200 million per year) for states that
demonstrate “high performance” toward achieving TANF’s statutory goals. The law
directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consult with state
organizations and others to develop the criteria for awarding bonuses.
Through FY2001, bonuses were paid based on performance related to moving
families into employment. HHS issued regulations on August 30, 2000 establishing
criteria for awarding high performance bonuses beginning in FY2002. In addition
to work measures, the regulations establish both work support (e.g., participation in
food stamps, health insurance, and child care, and child care affordability) and a
family formation measure for awarding high performance bonuses.4 The family
formation measure is the increase in the percentage of children in the state who
reside in married couple families. Awards will be based on rankings of the
percentage point change for states that want to compete on this measure. Data will
be based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau.5 Of the $200 million per year
awarded, $10 million will be paid on this basis.
TANF Cash Welfare Programs
TANF gives states almost complete flexibility in the design and operation of
their cash welfare programs. States also had considerable discretion in the design
of their AFDC programs, determining standards of “need” for eligibility and benefit
amounts. However, the AFDC program had federal rules that prescribed who was
eligible for benefits, what types and the amount of income to consider when
determining a family’s eligibility and amounts of cash welfare, and special
restrictions for two-parent families. TANF ended federal rules regarding categories
of families eligible for assistance and the counting of income; it also ended federal
rules restricting assistance for two-parent families.
4See: 45 CFR 270.4(f). Regulation published in the Federal Register, August 30, 2000. p.
52853.
5In the preamble to regulations for the TANF High Performance Bonus, HHS said that it will
use data from the Census Bureau’s Census 2000 Supplemental Survey and the Census Long-
Form transitional database for awarding bonuses in FY2002 and FY2003. It will use, if
available, information from the American Community Survey for FY2004 and later years.

CRS-6
This section describes the rules states use under TANF to determine eligibility
for two-parent families in their cash welfare programs. It discusses:
! Special work participation requirements that apply to two-parent families
receiving cash welfare;
! Special eligibility restrictions used for two-parent families;
! Different benefit amounts provided in some states for two-parent or married
couple families; and
! Rules regarding continued eligibility for benefits when a welfare recipient
marries.
Federal Work Participation Standards
for Two-Parent Families
Federal TANF law sets work participation standards for states. A specified
percentage of families with an adult must participate in creditable work activities for
a certain number of hours. The law has two sets of standards: one for all families
with an adult; and a second, more stringent standard for “two parent families.” The
all-family participation rate is based on the activities of both single and two-parent
families; the two-parent participation rate is based only on the activities of two-
parent families. Federal regulations require states to define a family as two-parent
if it has two adults with at least one child in common. (Two-parent family is not
defined in federal law.) The two adults may or may not be married.
Participation Rates. Table 1 shows the statutory work participation
standards for all families and two-parent families. For FY1999 and later years, the
law requires 90% of two-parent families to engage in creditable work activities. In
contrast, the all-family rate reaches its maximum of 50% in FY2002. (The all-family
participation rate started at 25% in FY1997 and has increased 5 percentage points
each year.) However, the statutory participation standards for all families and two-
parent families may be reduced for caseload reduction (discussed below).
Table 1. Required Participation Standards in Federal Law
(actual rates are lowered for caseload declines)
All families with an
adult recipient
Two-parent families
FY1997
25%
75%
FY1998
30%
75%
FY1999
35%
90%
FY2000
40%
90%
FY2001
45%
90%
FY2002
50%
90%
Source: Sections 407(a)(1) and 407(a)(2) of the Social Security Act.
Required Hours of Work. The two-parent participation standard has both
a higher participation rate and a requirement for more hours of creditable activity
than applies for the all-family rate. Generally, for purposes of the two-parent

CRS-7
participation standard, one or both adults in a two-parent family must be engaged in
work activities for at least 35 hours per week to be counted as a participant toward
the federal work participation standards. This hour requirement rises to 55 hours if
the two-parent family receives federally-subsidized child care. The two parents may
“split” the hours requirement between them. That is, for a two-parent family that is
required to work 35 hours, one parent may be engaged in activities for 20 hours
while the other works the remaining 15 hours.
Table 2 compares the required hours for a family to be considered participating
for the purposes of the all-family rate and the two-parent family rate. These are for
families headed by adults; separate rules apply for teen parents. It should be noted
that a two-parent family that has sufficient hours to be counted as a participant for
the all-family rate, but not the two-parent family rate, is counted as a participant for
the all-family standard.
The law enumerates 12 creditable activities that count toward the participation
standards. Eight are considered “priority” activities, and generally relate to either
work in a job or working off a welfare benefit (i.e., workfare). The other four are
education or job training, and there are restrictions as to the circumstances under
which a state may count these activities.
Table 2. Required Hours of Activity to Meet All Family and
Two-Parent Family Participation Rates: FY2002a
Required hours of
Required hours of
participation for all
participation for the
Family category
family rate
two-parent rate
Single parent families
30 hours a week, 20 of
35 hours a week, 30 of
with a child 6 or older.
which must be in a priority
which must be in a
activity (priority activities
priority activity.
Two-parent families that
defined below).
do not receive federally
subsidized child care.
Families with a child
20 hours a week.
Same as above: 35 hours
under age 6.
or 55 hours if a family
receives federally
subsidized child care.
Families that receive
Same as above: 30 hours a
55 hours, at least 50 of
federally subsidized child
week, 20 of which must be
which must be in a
care.
in a priority activity (priority
priority activity.
activities defined below).
Note: The eight priority activities are: (1) unsubsidized employment; (2) subsidized private sector
employment; (3) subsidized public sector employment; (4) work experience; (5) on-the-job training;
(6) job search and readiness; (7) community service; and (8) provision of child care services to a
community service participant. The four education and training activities are: (9) vocational
educational training; (10) job skills training directly related to employment; (11) education directly
related to employment, for those without a high school diploma or equivalent; and (12) satisfactory
attendance at a secondary school, for those without a high school diploma or equivalent.
a Hour rules for families to count as participants for the all-family rate took effect in FY2000 (rising
from 20 hours in FY1997). Hour rules for two-parent families have been the same since FY1997, the
start of TANF.

CRS-8
The Caseload Reduction Credit. TANF law provides that work
participation standards are to be reduced by 1 percentage point for each percent
decline in a state’s caseload that has occurred since FY1995. Only declines not
attributable to more restrictive federal or state policies are creditable against work
participation standards. The law did not specify whether the two-parent rate was to
be reduced based on overall caseload decline for all families or the caseload decline
for two-parent families. Regulations permit states to choose which caseload decline
to use for determining the effective two-parent participation rate (the participation
rate after the application of the caseload reduction credit).
Because the number of families receiving cash welfare has declined
substantially (nationally by more than 50% from FY1995 through FY2000), caseload
reduction credits have brought down effective participation rates well below the
statutory participation rates in most states. In FY1999 (the last year for which this
information has been computed), 23 states had their all-family participation rate
reduced to zero (from 35%). Though caseload reduction credits have reduced two-
parent participation standards as well, they remained high relative to the all-family
rates.
States That Failed to Meet Two-Parent Work Requirements. TANF
law requires HHS to penalize states that fail to meet federal work participation
standards. The penalty is 5% of the basic block grant for the first year a state fails
to meet these standards. If a state fails to meet the standard in subsequent years, its
penalty is increased by 2 percentage points each year (i.e., 7% for failure in 2
consecutive years, 9% for failure in 3 consecutive years) to a maximum of 21%.
However, the law gives the Secretary of HHS the authority to impose this penalty
based on “degree of noncompliance.” By regulation, HHS reduces the penalty for
failure to meet the two-parent work participation rate based on the share of a state’s
total caseload that comprises two-parent families.
From FY1997 through FY1999, all states and the District of Columbia met the
work participation standards for all families. However, some states failed to meet
the tougher two-parent standards. Table 3 shows the states that failed to meet the
two-parent standards for FY1997 through FY1999.

CRS-9
Table 3. States That Failed TANF’s Two-Parent Work
Participation Standards, FY1997-FY1999
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
Alabama*
Alaska
Alaska
District of Columbia
Arizona
Arkansas
Iowa
Delaware
Colorado
Kansas
Minnesota
District of Columbia
Maine
Nebraska
Minnesota
Mississippi*
New Mexico
Nebraska
Missouri
North Carolina
New Mexico
Nevada
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
New Jersey
Rhode Island
West Virginia
North Carolina
Texas
Ohio
Washington
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
*State not penalized. Penalty under the $500 threshold for imposing a penalty on the state.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information in: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Program. Third Annual Report to Congress. August 2000.
The number of states penalized for failure to meet two-parent work participation
standards has decreased each year. However, this does not mean that more states are
meeting two-parent work participation standards. An increasing number of states
have moved two-parent families into separate state programs. This is discussed in
the next section.
Separate State Programs. As previously discussed, TANF and associated
state spending is a funding stream, not a single program. State spending associated
with TANF is made under a federal MOE requirement, which requires states to
spend at least 75% (80% if they fail to meet a TANF work requirement) of the
amount they spent from their own funds in FY1994.
The law requires MOE spending to be made for “TANF eligible families” to
provide or support cash benefits, administration, child care, job training and
education (though not educational expenditures for the general population), and other
activities consistent with TANF goals. These expenditures could be under any
program–either the “state TANF program” or a separate state program.6 The major
distinction between expenditures under the TANF and a separate state program is
6Further, expenditures under the “state TANF program” may be either commingled with
federal funds or segregated. If state expenditures are commingled with federal funds, all
rules applicable to the use of federal TANF funds apply to state funds as well. However, if
state expenditures under the “state TANF program” are segregated from those made with
federal funds, certain rules do not apply: the federal 60-month time limit, restrictions on aid
to teen parents, etc. See: CRS Report RL30723, Welfare Reform: Federal Grants and
Financing Rules Under TANF, by Gene Falk. p. 24-34.

CRS-10
whether TANF requirements apply. If a family receives cash welfare under the
“state TANF program” it is included in work participation calculations. On the other
hand, if a family receives cash welfare under a separate state program, it is not
included in work participation calculations.
According to the most recent information available, 20 jurisdictions reported
that they aided two-parent families in separate state programs: Alabama, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New
Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, the Virgin Islands, and Virginia. States have not reported that they
changed eligibility requirements when they moved two-parent families from the
“state TANF program” to a separate state program. Additionally, many note that
they still subject two-parent families to federal work requirements (i.e., more hours)
even though those families were moved into separate state programs. However,
there is no information available about families in separate state programs.
Evolution of Restrictions on Two-Parent Eligibility
Federally funded aid to families with two able-bodied adults has been limited
for most of the period following the establishment of AFDC in 1935. States were
first given the option to aid two-parent families in 1961. However, it was not until
relatively recently that federally-funded welfare was available to two-parent families
nationwide (1990), and even then it was under special restrictive eligibility rules.
States began expanding eligibility for two-parent families under “waivers” of federal
AFDC rules in the 1990s, and TANF has no federal rules and restrictions for
eligibility of two-parent families.
The AFDC Unemployed Parent (UP) Program. The Aid to Dependent
Children (ADC) program enacted in the Social Security Act of 1935 provided grants
to states to help them assist needy children with a deceased, absent, or incapacitated
parent. States could not receive federal funds to help assist families with two able-
bodied parents. Indeed, until 1950 federally-reimbursed ADC benefits could be paid
only on behalf of the child.7
Federal funding for cash aid to families with two able-bodied parents was first
provided on a temporary basis in 1961. States were given the option to aid families
with an unemployed parent from May 1, 1961 to June 30, 1962. Legislation enacted
in 1962 extended federal funding for the unemployed parent (UP) program for 5
years. The Social Security Amendments of 1967 made permanent the state option
to provide AFDC to two-parent families.
The AFDC two-parent program continued as a state option until the enactment
of the Family Support Act of 1988. As of October 1, 1989, 29 jurisdictions had an
AFDC-UP program in place while 25 did not. States newly required to operate an
UP program (did not have a program operating as of September 26, 1988), were
given the option to limit benefits to 6 months in any 12 month period. Figure 3
7All ADC cases were “child-only” assistance units. The Social Security Amendments of
1950 permitted states to include the needy caretaker relative (usually the mother) in the
payment.

CRS-11
displays federal requirements and state options under the AFDC-UP program as it
was operated from October 1990 through August 1996.
Figure 3. Federal Requirements and Options for AFDC-Unemployed Parent
Programs: October 1990-August 1996
Federal Law Restrictions for AFDC-UP Eligibility:
100-hour rule. Principal wage earner had to be employed fewer than 100 hours
per month. More than 99 hours permitted only if work was of a temporary nature
as evidenced by meeting the 100-hour standard in the previous 2 months. (This
rule was by regulation.)
Work history requirement. Six or more quarters of work earning at least $50, in
a 13-week calendar quarter period ending within 1 year of application for AFDC-
UP. Work history requirement could also be met by receipt of unemployment
compensation within the same 1-year period.
Waiting period. Unemployed for at least 30 days.
Ineligibility if refused work or training. Parent ineligible if he/she refused an
offer of work or training within 30 days before the receipt of aid.
Unemployment compensation. A parent eligible for unemployment
compensation required to file for and accept benefits. (Unemployment
compensation benefits reduced AFDC-UP payments.)
State Options for AFDC-UP:
Time Limit. States that did not have an AFDC-UP program in operation on
September 26, 1988 permitted to limit AFDC-UP benefits to 6 months in any 12-
month period. States that time-limited AFDC-UP required to provide assurances
that it had a program of education and training for AFDC-UP parents.
Pay-After-Performance. States permitted to require up to 40 hours of
participation in education and training and pay benefits only after the performance
of assigned work activities.

CRS-12
Waivers. Under AFDC, states could apply for “waivers” of federal
requirements to conduct welfare reform experiments. In total, 41 states
experimented with a waiver of at least one of the federal AFDC-UP restrictions
during the period before the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law.8 Waivers of
AFDC-UP requirements were often done with other changes to the programs (e.g.,
stricter work requirements, time limits, etc.).
States were required to evaluate their welfare reform experiments as a condition
of waiving federal rules. Some evaluations of waivers were terminated when states
converted to TANF (and no longer required waivers). Other evaluations did not
report outcomes related to either being in a two-parent family or marriage (e.g., the
AFDC-UP waivers were part of a larger welfare reform experiment). Those that did
report outcomes related to being in a two-parent family or marriage usually found
that the welfare reform program had no impact on them. One program did find a
positive impact on marriage and marriage stability for some groups: Minnesota’s
Family Investment Program (MFIP).9
TANF. The 1996 welfare reform law ended the AFDC program, including its
special rules for two-parent families. Under TANF:
! States determine eligibility for all needy families, including those with two
able-bodied adults. The restrictions on eligibility for two-parent families that
existed under the AFDC-UP program were eliminated with TANF.
! The entitlement to individuals for benefits that existed under AFDC was
ended. Additionally, the requirement that states operate a program for two-
parent families was eliminated.
As of spring 2001, 35 states have eliminated special restrictions on two-parent
families imposed by the AFDC-UP program. However, some states had previously
aided at least some families ineligible for AFDC-UP in their state-funded General
Assistance (GA) programs.10 For example, New York had a GA program for those
families not eligible for federal assistance. Sometimes the GA program was more
limited than the AFDC-UP program. For example, California provided up to 3
months of benefits in a year to a family that was unemployed (by the 100-hour rule)
but did not qualify for AFDC-UP. Pennsylvania provided GA benefits to two-parent
families with children under the age of 13 that did not qualify for AFDC-UP.
Table 4 provides information about the rules currently used for able-bodied,
two-parent families by state. It first describes whether the state reports that it uses
8See: 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.
9See discussion in: CRS Report RL30724, Welfare Reform Research: What Have We
Learned Since the Family Support Act of 1988? by Christine Devere, Gene Falk, and Vee
Burke.
10AFDC-UP restricted the categories of families for whom states could claim federal
financial participation in paying for their benefits, rather than categories of families states
could aid with their own funds. TANF permits states to use federal funds to help pay for
benefits of some families that were previously financed through state-only GA programs.

CRS-13
the same eligibility criteria for two-parent families versus other families. If the state
had special rules for two-parent families, the table provides detail on whether it
retained an “unemployment” or work history requirement or both. The table does
not include information about higher work participation standards that states may
impose on two-parent families. It also does not contain information about
ineligibility for refusing work or training, waiting periods, and applicant job search
requirements, because these requirements now often apply more broadly to all adult
recipients.
The table shows that 35 states pay benefits to two-parent families on the same
basis as for single-parent families. One state, North Dakota, does not pay benefits
to families with two able-bodied adults.

CRS-14
Table 4. Nonfinancial Eligibility Requirements for Families with Two Able-Bodied Parents
Under TANF (as of Spring 2001)
State pays benefits to
two-parent families on
Limit on hours of work
same basis as single
to be eligible for
Work history
State
parents?
benefits?
requirement?
Other limitations
Alabama
Yes
Alaska
Yes
During July, August, and
September the maximum
benefit to two-parent families
(both parents able to work) is
reduced by 50%.
Arizona
No
No
Yes
Benefits limited to 6 months
in a 12-month period. Benefits
paid only after parents comply
with assigned work activities.
Arkansas
Yes
California
No
Yes. 100-hour rule is
No
applied to new applicants.
It is not applied to
recipient families.
Colorado
Yes
Connecticut
Yes
Delaware
Yes
District of Columbia
No
Yes. Less than 35 hours a
Yes. Six or more quarters
week for at least 60 days.
of work (earning at least
$50) during a 39-month
period.
Florida
Yes
Georgia
No
No
Yes. Requires “recent
connection” to the
workforce.
Hawaii
Yes
Idaho
Yes
Illinois
Yes
Indiana
No
Yes. 100-hour rule
Yes
applies to applicants only.
Iowa
Yes
Kansas
Yes
Kentucky
No
Yes. 100-hour rule.
Yes
Louisiana
Yes

CRS-15
State pays benefits to
two-parent families on
Limit on hours of work
same basis as single
to be eligible for
Work history
State
parents?
benefits?
requirement?
Other limitations
Maine
No
Yes. 100 hours for new
Yes
applicants (within 30 days
before application or
eligibility), 130 hours in
each subsequent month
for recipients.
Maryland
Yes
Massachusetts
No
No
Yes
Michigan
Yes
Minnesota
Yes
Mississippi
No
Yes
Yes. Waived for parents
under age 21.
Missouri
Yes
Montana
Yes
Nebraska
Yes
Nevada
Yes
New Hampshire
No
Yes. 100 hour rule.
Yes.
New Jersey
Yes
New Mexico
Yes
New York
Yes
North Carolina
Yes
North Dakota
No. No benefits for
families with two able-
bodied adults.
Ohio
Yes
Oklahoma
No
No
Yes
An adjustment period of
continued benefits for up to 3
months is provided for families
when a TANF recipient marries
or no longer meets criteria as
“unemployed.”
Oregon
No
No
Yes. Unemployed from
a job that provided more
than 100 hours of work
per month.
Pennsylvania
No
No
Yes
Rhode Island
Yes
South Carolina
Yes

CRS-16
State pays benefits to
two-parent families on
Limit on hours of work
same basis as single
to be eligible for
Work history
State
parents?
benefits?
requirement?
Other limitations
South Dakota
No
Yes. 100 hour rule.
Yes. Gross earnings
within the past 6 months
must total at least
$1,500.
Tennessee
No
Yes. 100 hour rule.
Texas
Yes
Utah
Yes
Vermont
Yes
Virginia
Yes
Washington
Yes
West Virginia
Yes
Wisconsin
Yes
Wyoming
Yes
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information in TANF state plans, annual program reports, state
regulations, state public assistance manuals, and the State Policy Documentation Project (SPDP) of the Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

CRS-17
Welfare Recipients Who Marry. Marriage is one of the routes off of
welfare. TANF “leaver” studies indicate that between 2% and 9% of those who left
welfare recently did so because of marriage.11 A new spouse often brings additional
income to the family, making its income too high for further assistance. Though a
TANF recipient might marry someone who is a biological parent of her children (or
at least one child), she might also marry someone else who would become a step-
parent to her children.
The laws determining the financial responsibility of step-parents to their step-
children are determined by the states. A 1995 review of federal and state laws’
treatment of step-parent’s rights and obligations found that state laws did not provide
uniform or clear definitions, with many states silent on the subject.12 Some states
had what was known as “the law of general applicability,” which requires a step-
parent, who is ceremonially married to the child’s natural/adoptive parent and who
is legally obligated to support such child, to support the stepchild to the same extent
as a natural/adoptive parent.
Beginning in 1982, the AFDC program required that a portion of the income of
a step-parent be “deemed” available to the spouse and children for purposes of
AFDC eligibility and benefits. However, step-parents themselves were generally
ineligible for AFDC. That is, they could not be part of the assistance unit upon
which benefits were based. Some states did permit step-parents to be eligible for
AFDC as persons “essential” to the well-being of a child. Further, in states that
required step-parents to assume financial responsibility for the children of their new
spouse (law of general applicability), the step-parent was treated by AFDC in the
same manner as the biological parents.
TANF has no federal rules regarding the treatment of step-parents. States
decide whether and how much to count step-parent income and assets when
determining eligibility for cash aid. They also decide whether to include step-parents
in the cash assistance unit. Unfortunately, the available information in state plans,
annual program reports, and even state laws and regulations is insufficient to
provide a state-by-state description of how step-parents are treated in determining
TANF eligibility and benefits. However, some states have reported that they
initiated special rules regarding step-parents. For example:
! Mississippi and Oklahoma disregard the income of a step-parent for 6 months;
! Maryland disregards the income of a step-parent whose income is less than
50% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL); and
! Alaska, Colorado (if step-parent is not legally responsible for the child), and
North Dakota fully disregard the income and assets of a step-parent.
11See: CRS Report RL30882, Welfare Reform Research: What Do We Know About Those
Who Leave Welfare? by Christine Devere. This is lower than the rates reported in studies
of “welfare dynamics,” such as David Ellwood and Mary Jo Bane’s work in the early and
mid-1980s. These studies required that a woman be off of welfare for at least a year (rather
than shorter periods used in leaver studies) to be considered as having left welfare. Later
studies based on monthly data also found more exits from welfare for work, rather than
changes in family structure.
12See: Mason, Mary Ann, and David W. Simon. The Ambiguous Stepparent: Federal
Legislation in Search of a Model. Family Law Quarterly, v. 29, no. 3, fall 1995. p. 447.

CRS-18
Differences in Cash Benefits for Two-Parent Versus
Single-Parent Families
Most state TANF cash welfare programs still (as under AFDC) pay benefits
based on family size. The larger the family, the greater will be its maximum benefit.
Therefore, a two-parent family with two children will be a family of four, and
generally will receive a greater benefit than a single-parent family with two children
(a family of three).
According to TANF state plans and a Congressional Research Service (CRS)
telephone survey of state TANF eligibility and benefit rules, five states distinguish
between two-parent and single-parent families in their rules for determining financial
eligibility and benefit amounts. Four of the five states are more generous for two-
parent families. Among these states, only Alaska, which reduces cash payments for
two-parent families during July-September, provides lower benefits for two-parent
families than single parent families. Of the four remaining states, only West Virginia
conditions its higher benefits on the two parents’ being married. It provides a $100
“marriage bonus.” Table 5 shows the five states with special rules for two-parent
or married couple families.
Table 5. Special Benefit Rules for Two-Parent or
Married Couple Families (January 2001)
Special benefit rule
State
for whom?
Special benefit rule
Alaska
Two-parent families.
During the months of July,
August, and September, the
maximum benefit to two-parent
families (both parents able to
work) is reduced by 50%.
Colorado
Two-parent families.
Maximum benefit for a two-
parent family greater than for a
single-parent family of the
same size. For a family of
three, the maximum for a two-
parent family is $372 versus
$356 for a single-parent family.
Texas
Two-parent families.
Maximum benefit for a two-
parent family greater than for a
single-parent family of the
same size. For a family of
three, the maximum for a two-
parent family is $220,
compared with $201 for a
single-parent family.

CRS-19
Special benefit rule
State
for whom?
Special benefit rule
Virginia
Two-parent families
Maximum combined earnings
with an employed
plus benefits greater for a two-
member.
parent than a single-parent
family of the same size. For a
family of three, maximum
earnings plus benefits for a
two-parent family is $1,769
versus $1,179 for a single-
parent family.
West Virginia
Families created by
A $100 per month “marriage
marriage while on
incentive” is provided to
welfare.
families if there is a legal
marriage and both individuals
live in the same household.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a CRS survey of the
states and TANF state plans.
TANF Services to Promote Two-Parent Families
As discussed above, states reported that in FY2000 they spent $112.8 million
on services to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families in
TANF or associated state programs. This was about one-half of 1% of total TANF
and state expenditures that year.
Activities to promote two-parent families, other than changes in cash welfare
rules, are a small part of the overall TANF program. States have indicated in their
state plans or annual program reports a number of services that they provide to
promote either marriage or the formation and maintenance of two-parent families:
! Providing services through “Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives”;
! Providing employment services to noncustodial parents; and
! Providing social services such as counseling and mediation to help families
deal with crisis.
Some of the activities reported by the states as aimed at promoting the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families do not address the question of
marriage. For example, many responsible fatherhood initiatives and employment
service programs for noncustodial parents serve parents regardless of their marital
status and do not seek to promote marriage by themselves.
“Fatherhood Initiatives”. Several states have implemented these programs,
which are aimed at providing fathers with assistance that enables them to assume a
greater, more responsible role in their children’s lives. Features of these programs
in many states include, but are not limited to, parenting training, job preparation,
child development education, anger management, and case management. States that
have, or report that they plan to have, “fatherhood initiatives” to help address the

CRS-20
TANF goal of the promotion of the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families are: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
Employment Services for Noncustodial Parents. Many states provide
these services, which are aimed at improving the employability of noncustodial
parents so that they are able to increase their income and contribute to the financial
support of their children. Service features include job skills training, case
management, and job search. States that report the provision of such services in their
annual reports are: Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Colorado reported that it is
considering legislation that would allow TANF funds to be used locally for non-
custodial parent services. In other documents (e.g., state plans), the following states
have also indicated that they provide noncustodial parents with employment services:
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
Social Services. Additional programs specified by the states as addressing
the TANF goal to promote two-parent families include parent education programs,
family counseling, case management, family support systems, job training, and
mediation.
Table 6 shows what states have reported as their activities to promote the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Federal law does not require
state plans to address activities toward this TANF goal. However, HHS regulations
require that state annual program reports do address state activities to promote the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. The entries on the table, below,
are those reported by the state either (voluntarily) in their state plan or in their annual
program reports. Some of these activities may be funded in whole or part through
programs other than the TANF grant.

CRS-21
Table 6. TANF Activities to Promote the Formation and Maintenance of
Two-Parent Families: FY2000
State
Activity
Alabama
Fatherhood Initiative Program: Selects local projects for funding to prevent unwed fatherhood and
encourage the fathers’ participation in their children’s lives.
Alaska
None mentioned.
Arizona
Arizona has several programs and services that encourage the maintenance and formation of two-parent
families. These include supportive services such as Life Skills Training, Wheels to Work,
Transportation Services, Post Employment Program, Young Fathers Program, Character Education
Training, Parenting Skills Classes, Employment Transition Program, and child care services.
Arkansas
The Transitional Employment Assistance (TEA) Case Manager works with both adults addressing the
needs of the family in order to move them into gainful employment and keep the family together. This
starts at the assessment and is a part of the ongoing case management. In addition, TANF funds are
available locally through TEA Coalitions to fund fatherhood and parenting programs.
California
None mentioned.
Colorado
The Colorado statute does not currently authorize the use of TANF funds for programs focused on
services to non-custodial parents. However, the State Department of Human Services will be proposing
legislation next session that would allow Colorado Works funds to be used locally for non-custodial
parent services. Several local programs in the state, which are funded by various sources other than
TANF, are centered on supporting responsible fatherhood by providing services to non-custodial
parents.
Connecticut
Family Resource Centers: Operates through the State Department of Education to promote
comprehensive, integrative, community-based systems of family support and child development.
Services include adult education, childcare, families-in-training, etc. and are restricted to families with
gross incomes of less than 75% of the State Median Income (SMI).
Priority School Districts, Extended Hours, Transitional School Districts: Funds provided by the State
Department of Education. Targets poor school districts and the neediest families. TANF funding for
these programs is used to pay for services provided to children whose family’s gross income is at or
below 75% of the SMI.
Child Welfare Prevention and Intervention Services: Includes substance abuse counseling and
screening of a non-medical nature, 24-hour family preservation counseling services to families in their
homes, and community-based prevention and treatment of child abuse. These services are provided
when intervention by the Department of Children and Families is required. Services that are funded by
the Children’s Trust Fund, such as parenting programs for first-time parents, Parents Anonymous
groups, and other developmental and support services, are also included in the prevention and
intervention services. TANF funds are only used to cover services for children under age 19 and those
with incomes at or below 75% of the state’s median income.

CRS-22
State
Activity
Delaware
Substance abuse, counseling, and treatment as well as contracted services, including job readiness, job
placement, and job retention, are available for two-parent families.
Employment Connection (Workfare) Program: Provides job development, job readiness, and job
placement services for work experience and unsubsidized work positions for two-parent families.
There is also subsidized child care, child care disregard, and supportive services for work-related
expenses, such as transportation, for two-parent families.
District of Columbia
None mentioned.
Florida
Noncustodial Parents: Provisions exist for noncustodial parents to participate in job training programs
in order to improve their employability and income potential. TANF-funded operators and Welfare-to-
Work funded program operators are working to train many more noncustodial parents for employment.
Responsible Fatherhood: A commission set up to focus on fatherhood issues and make
recommendations for initiatives to improve their participation.
Georgia
Broadened definition of deprivation to allow more two-parent families with marginal resources to
access the benefits and support services of the TANF program, which include the enhancement of job
skills, parenting skills, and general life skills, leading to self-sufficiency.
Fatherhood Initiative: Provides non-custodial parents with job skills so that they are able to find
employment and contribute to the support of their children. Also provides parenting skills training and
encourages non-custodial parents to spend time with their children.
Hawaii
The Pursuit of New Opportunities (PONO) waiver encourages and supports the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families. Compliance with the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA)
is a condition of eligibility. The state is also participating with CSEA and Welfare to Work (WTW)
regarding WTW eligibility for absent parents and financial incentives to encourage participation.
Idaho
Mediation services will be provided to needy families, under 200% of the poverty guideline, involved
in custody and other disputes in order to reconcile differences in an effort to promote goals of family
unification and/or emotional and financial support for children.
Illinois
Healthy Families: Programs consist of intensive home visits to families at risk of child abuse or
neglect, targeting new mothers and fathers in developing strong parent-child relationships, and reducing
stress.
Indiana
Fatherhood Initiative: TANF funds are used to support community- based efforts which promote and
restore responsible fatherhood. Effective fatherhood strategies, which are broad based and serve to
promote fathers’ emotional and financial involvement in their children’s lives, are established and
expanded. Services include child development and responsible parenting classes, supervised visitation,
employment placement, and pregnancy prevention services.

CRS-23
State
Activity
Iowa
Parental Responsibility Pilot Program and Other Innovative Strategies: This TANF-funded program
is intended to help parents develop and maintain relationships with their children and meet their
parental responsibilities, not limited to financial support. The program is expected to use collaborations
consisting of existing community resources to provide an array of services, such as family counseling,
legal services, mediation, job training, substance abuse treatment, health maintenance, and personal
mentoring. Benefits will not include direct cash assistance to either parent. This program remains in
the developmental stage and will initially be available in Polk County, the largest metro county in the
state.
Kansas
None mentioned.
Kentucky
Family Services include advocacy, communication and negotiation skills, crisis intervention, home
maintenance skills, job readiness training, family counseling, individual counseling, and marriage
counseling, etc. Income limits for these services are less than or equal to 200% of the federal poverty
scale, adjusted annually. Services are provided without regard to length of need. Family services are
funded with 100% TANF federal funds.
Louisiana
None mentioned.
Maine
None mentioned.
Maryland
Family Support Center (FSC) Network: Developed to establish preventative support for families during
the early formative years and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Community-based programs that provide services to aid mothers and/or fathers with children age birth
through 3, especially those in high-risk communities, raise healthy children and build productive
futures. Services include outreach, parenting skills, peer support and recreational activities, infant and
child stimulation, employability and literacy opportunities, health education and referral for services.
Comprehensive services are provided either on-site or through referral, coordinating existing programs
to benefit parents and their children, and developing new resources to satisfy unmet needs. No income
criteria, although many participants receive Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA). The aim is to provide
a cadre of services appropriate for each family. There are 27 FSCs in the network located in 19
counties across the state, with six FSCs located in Baltimore City.
Young Fathers Responsible Fathers Program (YFRF): Provides services to custodial and non-custodial
fathers, such as parenting education, family planning, GED instruction, job training, employment-
search assistance and self-esteem building. Seven sites in six counties and Baltimore City serve young
fathers, ages 16+, who have one or more children. It seeks to increase child-parent interaction,
emotional support, financial responsibility, and the development of two-parent families. YFRF
programs also encourage co-parenting for non-custodial fathers. Voluntary, but participants must
comply with Child Support Enforcement. Serves low-income, initially unemployed fathers.
Maryland After School Opportunity Fund Program: The program is funded by the Governor and is
statewide for school age children. The program aims to have a positive measurable impact on one or
more of the conditions of well-being for Maryland children.

CRS-24
State
Activity
Massachusetts
Parents Fair Share. A pilot program in western Massachusetts that provides job search services and
case management to non-custodial parents of cash welfare recipients. It seeks to encourage non-
custodial parents to form closer bonds with their children and support them financially.
Michigan
Child Support Participation: This program encourages cooperation in collection of child support by
giving an additional incentive payment to the parent for up to the first $50 of current monthly child
support collected on behalf of recipients of the Family Independence Program.
Zero to Three: This TANF program provides contracted services for birth screenings, home visits,
parent education/mentoring, respite, child care, and other support services.
Families First: Offers families intensive, short-term crisis intervention and family education services
in their own home for four to six weeks. Case workers use family assessments to assist families by
teaching, modeling, and reinforcing parenting.
Minnesota
The Parent’s Fair Share program, which is a part of the state TANF plan, encourages the involvement
of non-custodial parents in the lives of their children.
Hennepin County is beginning a pilot project funded by the Department of Labor’s Welfare-to-Work
program and the Ford Foundation, which offers services to non-custodial parents that are geared
towards promoting financial and emotional responsibility of the non-custodial parents so that they can
become involved in the lives of their children. It focuses on early intervention with low income young
fathers to support them in efforts toward self-sufficiency. Efforts include working towards advancing
in employment and increasing wages.
Male Responsibility grants: State-funded grants are issued to nine local entities for the purposes of
providing information to young fathers to encourage their involvement with their children and their
responsibility to provide economic and other support to their children. Dads Make a Difference and the
Minnesota Extension Service are both grantees under this initiative. Grantees must aid in increasing
the establishment of paternity and child support orders.
Mississippi
Family First Resource Centers: The expansion of this initiative is administered by the Division of
Family and Children’s Services. Its purpose is to advance the development, expansion, and
enhancement of a statewide network of community-based, prevention focused, parent resource centers
that offer assistance to families. These centers provide early comprehensive support for parents,
promote the development of parenting skills, increase family stability, improve family access to
resources and opportunities for help, etc.
Fatherhood Initiative: The Responsible Fatherhood Initiative Program is administered by the Division
of Community Services. It aims to train, educate, encourage, and assist fathers in becoming
knowledgeable of, and assuming responsibility for, the nurturing, growth, and developmental needs
of their children.

CRS-25
State
Activity
Post-Employment Assistance Program: This program, which is administered by the Division of
Economic Assistance, is designed to provide pre- and post-employment services to current and former
TANF and low-income working families (income at or below the 200% federal poverty level). The
program will focus on providing services that promote unsubsidized long-term employment. It will
also provide job development, job club/job search, job placement and job retention activities, a
curriculum for basic and enhanced job readiness/life skills training and work experience placements,
i.e., Alternative Work Experience Program (AWEP) and Community Services, to assist participants
in obtaining and retaining employment and encourage the formation of two-parent families.
Missouri
TANF expenditures are primarily focused on three separate groups. The first group is young males
who are already parents and are at risk of becoming dependent on public assistance. They are offered
services, such as mentoring and job preparation, in order for them to provide for themselves and to
encourage family stability. The second group consists of families who have been recipients and are
currently coming off public aid. Programs are developed as supports to the families. Counseling and
mentoring assist the family in maintaining strength and provide support for them to continue without
welfare aid. The third group is families in which the parents have joint custody of the children.
Services include mentoring, supervised visitation opportunities, and workshops. The intent of the
services is to encourage positive reinforcement to the children.
Montana
None mentioned.
Nebraska
None mentioned.
Nevada
None mentioned.
New Hampshire
Programs include contracts with UNH Cooperative Extension, for the LEAP (Lifeskills for
Employment, Achievement, and Purpose) program, under which parenting skills training is part of the
curriculum. Discussions with the Welfare-to-Work program are underway in order to create a means
by which non-custodial parents may access counseling, parent skills training, employment training, and
job readiness resources.
New Jersey
None mentioned.
New Mexico
Graduation Reality and Dual Roles Skills (GRADS) Program: Funded by the State Department of
Education and the Human Services Department. Program provides training in parenting skills, healthy
relationships, child development, job skills, and economic independence for pregnant and parenting
teens within the public school system. Participants must stay in school as their primary work
requirement to meet TANF guidelines.
New York
None mentioned.
North Carolina
Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Funds provided by TANF to develop and/or support responsible
parenting programs. The programs are targeted at young-adult males and counties with the highest
needs as determined by the North Carolina Division of Public Health.
North Dakota
None mentioned.

CRS-26
State
Activity
Ohio
Prevention, Retention, and Contingency (PRC) Program: Each County Department of Job and Family
Services must establish a PRC program. Benefits and activities provided include parenting skills
training, marriage counseling, and certain services to non-custodial parents.
Oklahoma
State programs and activities include additional months of cash assistance as an adjustment period for
TANF recipients who marry, the funding of a planning document to develop a marriage initiative, and
implementing a scholar-in-residence program at a state university to promote marriage by raising
awareness of issues related to marriage.
Oregon
Intensive case management and employment barrier removal for parents.
Pennsylvania
Fatherhood Initiative: Assist non-custodial parents of minor children to return to or remain in school,
obtain their high school diploma or GED, develop responsible parenting skills, become positive role
models for their children, and become productive members of their communities. Services include
intensive case management, parenting and child development education, decision making, self-
discipline, anger management, problem-solving skills, assistance in paternity establishment, year-round
programming, GED, high school, and skills training. Must have a gross annual earned income that
does not exceed 235% of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines (FPIGs) and be a non-custodial parent
of a minor child to be eligible.
The Elect Initiative: Assists parents or non-custodial parents of minor children to return or remain in
school, obtain their high school diploma or GEDs, develop responsible parenting skills, become
positive role models for their children, and become productive members of their communities. Services
include intensive case management, parenting and child development education, decision making, year-
round programming, high school, and GED. Participants must have a gross annual earned income that
does not exceed 235% of the FPIGs and be a parent or a non-custodial parent of a minor child.
Puerto Rico
None mentioned.
Rhode Island
Many programs and services have been developed, working with the state’s Department of Labor and
Training, to help parents in two-parent families get and keep jobs.
South Carolina
Educational initiatives and marriage friendly agency policies. Specifics not mentioned.
South Dakota
Several program activities. Program continues to allow supportive services (both financial and non-
financial) to families who leave TANF due to employment and reunite with their spouse or parent of
child(ren). Family/marriage counseling services, which are not permitted/covered by Medicaid, are
allowed under TANF to help families resolve marriage/family issues. TANF families are encouraged
and financially assisted in attending parenting class, which enables parents to better deal with overall
family situations and problems.
Tennessee
Institute for Responsible Fatherhood Pilot Program, Davidson County: Counseling, employment, and
case management to encourage and aid fathers’ participation in their children’s lives through emotional
and financial support.
Parent’s Fair Share, Shelby County: Provides job skills training programs to non-custodial parents to
help them support their children.

CRS-27
State
Activity
Child Support Pass-Through: Families that get cash assistance can receive child support simultaneously
with their cash aid up to their unmet need. The unmet need is calculated by determining the difference
between the standard of need and the family’s cash assistance plus income. Child support pass-
throughs are disregarded in determining eligibility and cash grant payment amounts.
Texas
None mentioned.
Utah
None mentioned.
Vermont
None mentioned.
Virgin Islands
Encourage two-parent families through counseling and public service announcements (PSAs). The
territory also does so through its inter-agency relationship with the Virgin Islands Department of
Justice, Division of Paternity and Child Support. All TANF recipients are required to establish
paternity and take legal action to collect child support from the non-custodial parent as part of the child
care eligibility protocol.
Virginia
Virginia Fatherhood Campaign: This program was established to address the many negative health
and developmental outcomes of a father’s absence from the family. It offers a program for fathers who
live apart from their children and who need to increase their capacity to provide emotional and financial
support for their children. The program and funding activities are devoted to involving fathers in
supporting their children, keeping fathers involved with their children and families, and improving the
quality of parenting in order to strengthen families in Virginia and reduce family economic dependence
on government. Activities are offered through community workshops, and technical assistance for
public and private non-profit family service providers.
Washington
Family planning education is built into the Work First Program, which has the goal of 100% referral
of all adults.
West Virginia
None mentioned.
Wisconsin
Fatherhood initiative. TANF provides grants for community organizations such as schools, churches,
police departments, and family resource centers to develop local fatherhood programs for families up
to 200% of the federal poverty line, and the printing and distribution of educational materials related
to parenting by fathers.
Wyoming
A “Public Health Nurse Home Visitation Services program,” was to become effective October 1, 2000
and will be reported on in the next annual report.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from FY2000 TANF annual reports submitted by the states
to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and TANF state plans.

CRS-28
Potential Issues
Nationally, the cash welfare caseload has fallen by more than half, from its
historical peak under AFDC at 5.1 million families in March 1994, to 2.1 million
TANF families in March 2001. The decline in caseloads was accompanied by an
increase in work among single mothers with children, with the share of single
mothers in the general population working at any time during the year jumping from
about 70% in the mid 1990s to 82% in 1999.13 Though factors other than policy
changes contributed to the decline in the welfare rolls, evaluations of welfare-to-
work programs indicate that policy changes can affect employment and welfare
receipt of those who go on welfare.14
To date, most of the emphasis of welfare reform programs has been to move
recipients from the rolls into the workforce or prepare recipients for work. Just like
welfare, successful welfare-to-work efforts can, at least in theory, lead to fewer
marriages. Work, like welfare, provides women with economic resources.
However, available data and research suggest that there are limits to policy
successes that can be achieved by welfare-to-work programs. On average, mothers
who leave welfare have been found to command wages that, by themselves, leave
them poor.15 Evaluations of welfare-to-work programs find that those subject to
welfare-to-work rules, while likely to work more than those not required to work,
often do not receive an increase in income.16 Female family heads and their children
remain far more likely to be poor than married mothers and their children.
The bulk of TANF funding expires at the end of FY2002, which might prompt
a more comprehensive review of the program. Since many who leave welfare
remain poor, there has been discussion that this “reauthorization” of TANF should
consider expanding benefits and services considered as work supports for working
poor families with children. Many states have used TANF funds freed up by the
decline in the cash welfare rolls to expand work supports, such as child care.
However, some have called for a new focus and emphasis on the family formation
goals of TANF–including promoting two-parent families and marriage.
This section examines selected policy ideas regarding two-parent families and
marriage that have been discussed in the context of the TANF program. They are:
! Eliminating a potential disincentive for states to serve two-parent families by
eliminating the special TANF work participation requirement for them;
13See CRS Report RL30797, Trends in Welfare, Work, and the Economic Well-Being of
Female-Headed Families with Children, by Thomas Gabe.
14See: CRS Report RL30724, Welfare Reform Research: What Have We Learned since the
Family Support Act of 1988?, by Christine Devere, Gene Falk, and Vee Burke.
15See CRS Report RL30882, Welfare Reform Research: What Do We Know about Those
Who Leave Welfare?, by Christine Devere.
16See CRS Report RL30724, Welfare Reform Research: What Have We Learned since the
Family Support Act of 1988?, by Christine Devere, Gene Falk, and Vee Burke.

CRS-29
! Modifying the TANF statutory goal to state that it is to promote the formation
and maintenance of married two-parent families;
! Requiring states to spend a specified percentage of their TANF block grant
on activities to promote marriage; and
! Changing criteria for awarding the family formation part of the TANF High
Performance Bonus.
The Two-Parent Family Work Requirement
The American Public Human Services Associations (APHSA), an organization
representing states, has suggested that Congress eliminate the separate two-parent
work participation standard in TANF.17 TANF’s requirement that 90% of two-parent
families be engaged in work has been viewed as unrealistic. As discussed, some
states have failed this requirement and are subject to penalties. Other states have
moved their two-parent families into separate state programs, free of TANF rules,
to avoid risk of failing the two-parent participation requirement.
From the perspective of promoting the formation and maintenance of two-
parent families, the higher two-parent participation requirement could be seen as a
disincentive for states to provide access to their cash welfare programs for two-
parent families. This has generally not been the case, as most states have broadened
rather than restricted eligibility for two-parent families since welfare reform.
However, a growing number of states have done so in separate state programs:
programs with expenditures countable toward the TANF MOE, but not subject to
TANF rules. There is no evidence that states have changed eligibility and benefit
rules, or even work requirements for individuals, when they began aiding two-parent
families under separate state programs rather than TANF.
However, aiding a category of families under separate state programs, rather
than TANF, might raise concerns. For example, there are no work participation
standards applicable to two-parent families in separate state programs. Potentially,
these families could be given lower priority in state welfare-to-work programs, since
there are no federal sanctions on states for failing to serve them while there would
be penalties for states failing to meet work participation requirements for single-
parent families in their TANF programs. However, no information is available on
participation in welfare-to-work activities for adults in two-parent families aided in
separate state programs. Therefore, it is not possible to assess whether two-parent
families are being served to a lesser extent than single parent families in state TANF
work programs.
Modify the TANF Goals To Promote the Formation
and Maintenance of Married Two-Parent Families
The word “marriage” appears in only one of the four statutory goals of TANF:
to “end dependence of needy parents on government benefits through promoting job
preparation, work, and marriage.” In that goal of TANF, “marriage” is not the goal
itself, but rather a means of achieving the goal of ending welfare dependency. The
17American Public Human Services Association. Crossroads: New Directions in Social
Policy. 2001.

CRS-30
other statutory goal commonly associated with promoting marriage actually does not
mention marriage at all: “promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent
families.” As this goal currently stands, the two parents of such families need not
be married. Some have called on Congress to amend that goal of TANF to add
“married” as a restrictive modifier to two-parent families.
As discussed, the listing of TANF goals has implications for the use of federal
block grant and state MOE funds. That activities can be funded to promote two-
parent families—married or not—provides states with flexibility with respect to their
use of TANF funds. As interpreted by some states, both parents need not even reside
in the same household as the child. That is, some states serve noncustodial parents
and report that the activity is intended to achieve that TANF goal. Qualifying the
goal to require that an activity promote “married two-parent families” would mean
that services to noncustodial parents could not be justified as being based on the goal
of promoting two-parent families. Some services to cohabiting parents, if they were
not determined to be working toward marriage, might also not be justifiable under
an amended TANF goal, if it were restricted to promoting married two-parent
families. (Of course, many services for needy noncustodial or cohabiting parents
might be justified under another TANF goal—ending dependence through promoting
work and job preparation.)
An “Earmark” for Marriage Activities?
Some have been disappointed by the relatively low spending priority that states
have placed on TANF’s family formation goals, particularly the promotion of
marriage. TANF spending on services to promote the formation and maintenance
of two-parent families totaled only one-half of 1% of FY2000 TANF and state
expenditures. This has led some to advocate that states be required to expend a
specific percentage of their TANF funds on marriage-related activities. That is, a
portion of the TANF block grant would be “earmarked” for activities to promote
marriage.
A “marriage earmark” for TANF has been opposed on the grounds that it
reduces state flexibility in meeting the stated federal goals. There are currently no
earmarks in TANF (administrative expenses are limited to 15% of TANF grants).
Additionally, there are questions about what types of activities would count toward
meeting the requirement that a certain percentage of TANF funds be used to promote
marriage. Would states that expanded eligibility for two-parent families in their cash
welfare program–removing a potential disincentive for marriage – be given credit for
the additional expenditures that policy changes caused, and how would that be
measured? Or would changes in the cash welfare program be ignored, and only
expenditures on services to promote marriage count toward meeting the minimum
spending requirement on promoting marriage?
The TANF High Performance Bonus
Beginning in FY2002 (FY2001 program year), a portion of the TANF high
performance bonus will be based on state rankings of increases in the percentage of
children in married couple families. The new measure responds to concerns that the
high performance bonus should reflect all the goals of TANF, including those related
to two-parent families and marriage. This portion of the bonus is being awarded on

CRS-31
the basis of a statewide indicator covering all families in a state. This is similar to
the separate bonus to reward states that achieve the greatest reduction in out-of-
wedlock birth ratios while reducing abortion rates (below those of FY1995). That
bonus considers information on all births and abortions in a state. It is important to
note that while two of TANF’s goals relate to “needy” (i.e., “low income”) families,
the two family formation goals–reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the
promotion of the formation and maintenance of two-parent families—are not
restricted to needy families.
Still there is concern that states’ bonus payments will not relate to efforts in
state programs to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
A large number of factors might affect the share of children in two-parent families.
Some have expressed dissatisfaction with paying a bonus without regard to state
program activity in promoting marriage. Moreover (as discussed below), there is
little research to indicate what types of programs might be “successful” in promoting
two-parent families and what types of measures of state effort could be used to assess
such a program.
Information and Research
As evidenced by the information in this report, state descriptions of how they
intend to achieve the goal of promoting the formation and maintenance of two parent
families vary greatly. Some states provide information about their rules for two-
parent families in the cash welfare program and the services they intend to provide
to promote two-parent families and marriage. Others do not, or only address either
features of their cash welfare program or services they provide to further TANF’s
goal of promoting two-parent families. Information on the potentially important
treatment of step-parents in cash welfare programs is sketchy at best, both with
respect to current and historical practice. Though states are required to report to
HHS activities to address TANF’s family formation goals in their annual program
reports, this is an open ended question that permits states to greatly vary the detail
they provide about their programs. Requiring states to note on their state plans how
they intend to achieve the goal of promoting two-parent families and marriage has
been suggested. As already noted, however, state plan entries themselves tend to
provide varied level of detail.
There is a large volume of research on welfare-to-work programs and their
impacts. There is no similar body of evidence to guide states toward creating
“successful” programs in promoting the likelihood that children live in married
couple families. The lack of research in this area also means information is
unavailable about potential negative, unintended consequences of programs to
promote marriage. HHS has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research (MPR)
to begin the development of program models and evaluations for programs that
would promote marriage