Welfare Reform: TANF Activities to Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy

Welfare Reform: TANF Activities to Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy

Order Code RL31219
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Reform: TANF Activities to
Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy
December 18, 2001
Britt Ehrhardt and Karen Spar
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Welfare Reform: TANF Activities to
Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy
Summary
The 1996 welfare reform law created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) to replace the previous cash assistance program of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF gives states fixed federal block grants through
FY2002, providing funds for a range of activities related to families with children.
The legislation specifically addresses nonmarital pregnancy, establishing the following
as an explicit TANF goal: “to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the
incidence of these pregnancies.”
The states may choose to use their block grant funds “in any manner reasonably
calculated” to promote the goals of TANF. However, there are some constraints on
the use of federal funds that are provided as cash assistance. For example, states may
not use federal TANF funds to provide cash assistance to unwed mothers under age
18 without a high school diploma (or equivalent) unless they attend school (or
equivalent educational or training program) once their youngest child is 12 weeks old.
In addition, states may not use federal TANF funds to assist unwed mothers under
age 18 (and their children) unless they live in the home of an adult relative or in
another adult-supervised arrangement. Although there is no explicit provision, TANF
also allows states to apply family caps, and to deny or reduce benefits for a new baby
in a family already receiving cash welfare.
In addition to providing cash welfare, states may use their TANF grants for other
services and activities that support the program’s overall goals. Given the flexibility
of the TANF block grant, state activities to reduce nonmarital pregnancy are notably
diverse. However, states spend relatively little of their TANF grants on these
activities or services. In FY2000, pregnancy prevention efforts made up 0.8% of
federal TANF spending and 0.4% of total spending (including expenditures made with
state funds).
TANF directs states to set numerical goals for reducing nonmarital pregnancy
in FY1996 through FY2005, which most states have done. However, because of the
various ways that states report these goals, and the different statistics used by the
states (e.g., some establish goals for reducing childbirth, others establish goals for
reducing pregnancy; some states express their goals in terms of incidence rates, while
others use percentage of total births, etc.), it is difficult to compare these numerical
goals across states.
The 1996 welfare reform law authorizes a performance bonus as an incentive for
states to decrease their “illegitimacy ratio,” defined in the law as the number of
children born out-of-wedlock divided by the total number of children born in that state
(over a given 2-year period). To qualify for a bonus payment, states also must have
abortion rates that are lower than their 1995 base-year levels. For each of FY1999-
FY2002, $100 million was appropriated for this bonus. HHS has awarded three
rounds of bonus payments, to five states in FY1999 and FY2000 ($20 million each)
and to three states in FY2001 ($25 million each).

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
State Activities to Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Pre-TANF Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Cash Assistance under TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
“Other” Activities under TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Numerical Goals for Reducing Nonmarital Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
“Illegitimacy Ratio” Reduction Bonus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
HHS Reporting on State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Data Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A: Nonmarital Birth Provisions in the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. State TANF Activities To Reduce the Incidence of
Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy (from TANF State Plans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Numerical Goals for Reducing Out-Of-Wedlock Pregnancies
from TANF State Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. Nonmarital Birth Ratios for States that Received TANF
“Illegitimacy” Bonus in FY1999, FY2000, and FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Welfare Reform: TANF Activities to
Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy
Introduction
The 1996 welfare reform law created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) to replace the previous cash assistance program of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC).1 TANF gives states fixed federal block grants through
FY2002, providing funding for a range of activities related to families with children,
including efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. The legislation specifically
addresses nonmarital pregnancy, establishing the following as an explicit TANF goal:
“to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish
annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these
pregnancies.”2
This report examines state activities under TANF in support of this goal. In
particular, it provides:
! a state-by-state breakdown of reported activities to reduce nonmarital
pregnancy under TANF;
! the numerical goals set by each state for the reduction of nonmarital pregnancy
(or in some cases, nonmarital childbearing); and
! information about the “illegitimacy bonus,” which is a performance bonus
under TANF for states that show reductions in nonmarital pregnancy; and a
brief discussion of issues raised by this bonus.
State Activities to Reduce Nonmarital Pregnancy
The states may choose to use their block grant funds “in any manner reasonably
calculated” to promote the goals of TANF. The TANF block grant is a funding
stream rather than a single program; combined with state and local and other federal
monies, it can be used to fund many types of programs addressing many different
problems.3 Given this flexibility, states have chosen to approach the issue of
nonmarital pregnancy in a variety of ways.
1For information and current developments in general, see the CRS welfare reform
electronic briefing book at: [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebwlf1.shtml].
2Section 401(a)(3) of P.L.104-193.
3For a discussion of how states have used their TANF funds, see CRS Report RL31087,
Welfare Reform: FY2000 TANF Spending and Recent Spending Trends, by Gene Falk.

CRS-2
Pre-TANF Activities. Under pre-1996 law, states were encouraged to apply
for waivers of certain federal AFDC provisions in order to operate demonstration
projects.4 States used these waivers to experiment with alternative programs.
Though the majority of waivers dealt with welfare-to-work initiatives, some did
address the issue of nonmarital pregnancy prevention. To receive a waiver, states
were required to run their demonstration programs as rigorous social experiments,
using control groups and reporting evaluation results to the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). After the 1996 reform of welfare, many states simply
continued policies begun under their waiver programs. Thus, many of the pre-1996
waiver programs that addressed nonmarital pregnancy remain intact under TANF.
The most prominent type of pregnancy-related policy established under AFDC
waivers was the “family cap.” Under AFDC, 19 states applied for, and received
waivers to allow family cap provisions.5 (As shown in Table 1, 23 states and
territories now have family cap-type provisions in their state TANF plans.) With a
family cap, additional benefits are denied, or existing benefits are reduced or
restricted, upon the birth of another child to a mother already on the welfare rolls.
Cash Assistance under TANF. Since enactment of TANF in 1996, the
programmatic and reporting requirements for cash assistance programs have changed.
States have flexibility to use their TANF grants for any purpose related to the
program’s explicit goals, with few federal constraints. Among these constraints,
however, states may not use federal TANF funds to provide cash assistance to unwed
mothers under age 18 without a high school diploma (or equivalent) unless they
attend school (or equivalent educational or training program) once their youngest
child is 12 weeks old. In addition, states may not use federal TANF funds to assist
unwed mothers under age 18 (and their children) unless they live in the home of an
adult relative or in another adult-supervised arrangement. Although there is no
explicit provision, TANF also allows states to apply family caps, and thereby to deny
or reduce benefits for a new baby in a family already receiving cash welfare.
(For a complete listing of all provisions in TANF related to nonmarital pregnancy
and childbirth, see Appendix A at the end of this report.)
“Other” Activities under TANF. As stated above, states may use TANF
funds for any purpose related to the program’s goals, which may include services and
activities in addition to cash assistance. Under TANF, states must file both a biennial
state plan and an annual report, both of which are to include an outline of the state’s
strategy for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies. However, the law does not specify
the exact level of description required, and state responses vary greatly in detail.
Separate information on state expenditures indicates that spending on initiatives to
prevent and reduce nonmarital pregnancy represents a small part of total TANF
expenditures. In FY2000, pregnancy prevention efforts made up 0.8% of federal
TANF spending and 0.4% of total spending (including expenditures made with state
funds).
4Waivers were allowed under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act.
5State Welfare Waivers: An Overview, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services:
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/waiver2/waivers.htm].

CRS-3
The most current information available on state TANF activities to reduce
nonmarital pregnancy is summarized in Table 1. This table identifies state activities
as reported to HHS in their state plans. Given the flexibility of the TANF block grant,
state programs to reduce nonmarital pregnancy are notably diverse. For ease of
analysis, state activities have been divided into the following categories:6
Changes to Sexual-Education Curricula. Undertaken at a statewide or local
level, this includes the introduction of or modifications to school sexual education
classes. States have chosen to add material concerning the risks of early sexual
involvement as well as develop age-appropriate lesson plans and course-work. This
category includes school-based efforts to reduce nonmarital teenage pregnancy.
Parenting Education. This includes efforts to teach parenting skills and reduce
the incidence of repeat pregnancies, which are often focused on teenage mothers or
mothers-to-be. Methods include classes on prenatal care, self-esteem counseling,
assignment of caseworkers, home visits, and so-called “second-chance homes,” which
are community-based adult-supervised group homes for pregnant teens or teenage
parents and their babies.
Male Intervention. Education initiatives to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancy
necessarily involve the at-risk woman. Some states also focus on that woman’s
partner. Generally centered around pregnancy prevention, this category includes
special instruction for men about consequences of nonmarital pregnancy, counseling
for men who have fathered one or more children out-of-wedlock, statutory rape
education for men, and male-targeted family planning services including publicly
funded vasectomies. It also includes parenting classes for both partners to prevent
subsequent nonmarital pregnancies.
Fatherhood Initiatives. Occurring post-conception, these programs focus
specifically on male responsibility. Working to establish paternity and enforce child-
support orders, these programs aim to give unwed mothers a higher level of income
and potentially allow them to leave welfare. These initiatives can involve both general
education about the problems surrounding fatherlessness and attempts to involve
fathers in their children’s lives.
Contraception. This includes birth-control education, contraception-focused
family planning services, and efforts to improve access to contraceptives, especially
among low-income individuals.
6The category “family planning” is not included in the table, though many state plans
mentioned it specifically. “Family planning” is a very general category, and encompasses a
wide variety of services and programs. Instead, these services are presented in the table based
on the populations they served (men, mothers, school age children, and others), the type of
service (contraception, abstinence), or way the service is provided (education, public
awareness). Similarly, “teenage pregnancy” is not included as a category, although almost
all reporting states mention teenage pregnancy prevention in their state TANF plan. The most
recent statistics available to CRS show that 47 states and territories (of the 54 with TANF
plans) report teen pregnancy prevention programs in their TANF state plans.

CRS-4
Abstinence. Every state except California accepts extra federal funding for
abstinence education.7 However, only about half the states mention these funds in
their state TANF plans. The programs detailed include campaigns to promote the
values of abstinence until marriage and both curricular and extra-curricular youth
abstinence-education.
Statutory Rape. This includes a tightening of statutory rape laws as well as
greater prosecution under existing laws. Education initiatives focusing on the nature
and problems of statutory rape also fall under this category.
Peer Education and Mentoring. These programs are usually broad in scope
and are not specifically focused on sexual activity. Rather, they often focus on poor
self-esteem, emotional instability, depression, disconnectedness, and other non-sexual
risk factors of nonmarital pregnancy. Through the establishment of bonds with peers
and/or adult mentors, these programs encourage leadership and self-empowerment.
A few school-based programs do include sexual education information, on the theory
that information received from a peer will have a greater impact than that received
from an administrator and that both students will benefit from the teaching interaction.
Media and Public Awareness Campaigns. Through news conferences,
billboards, free information packets, toll-free hotlines, television/radio advertising, and
print media, states encourage public awareness of issues surrounding nonmarital
pregnancy. Often involving community coalitions as well as government, these public
service announcements and campaigns frequently target teenagers. Some include
information about statutory rape laws to discourage teenage sexual activity.
Family Cap. As explained earlier, family caps are state policies that either deny
or reduce cash assistance benefits that would otherwise be payable on behalf of a child
born to a mother already receiving welfare.8
7Separate from TANF, the welfare reform law authorizes a $250 million, 5-year block grant
to states for Abstinence Education programs. See CRS Report RS20873, Reducing Teen
Pregnancy: Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Programs, by Carmen D.
Solomon-Fears.
8For more information about the implementation of family caps under TANF, see General
Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: More Research Needed on TANF Family Caps and
Other Policies for Reducing Out-of-Wedlock Births, GAO-01-924, September 2001.

CRS-5
Table 1. State TANF Activities To Reduce the Incidence of Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy (from TANF State Plans)
Changes
Peer
Media and
to sex
education
public
education
Parenting
Male
Fatherhood
Statutory
and
awareness
Family
State
curricula
education
intervention
initiatives
Contraception
Abstinence
rape
mentoring
campaigns
cap
Alabama
X
Alaska
X
X
X
Arizona
X
X
X
X
Arkansas
X
X
X
California
X
X
X
X
X
X
Colorado
Connecticut
X
X
X
X
Delaware
X
X
X
Dist. of Col.
X
X
X
Florida
X
X
X
X
Georgia
X
X
X
Hawaii
X
X
X
Idaho
X
X
Illinois
X
X
X
X
Indiana
X
X
Iowa
Kansas
X
X
X
X
X
Kentucky
X
X
X
X
X
X
Louisiana
X
X
X
Maine
X
X
X
Maryland
X
X
X
X
Massachusetts
X
X
X
Michigan
X
X
X
X
Minnesota
X
X
X
Mississippi
X
X
X
X
Missouri
X
X
Montana
X
Nebraska
X
X

CRS-6
Changes
Peer
Media and
to sex
education
public
education
Parenting
Male
Fatherhood
Statutory
and
awareness
Family
State
curricula
education
intervention
initiatives
Contraception
Abstinence
rape
mentoring
campaigns
cap
Nevada
X
X
New
X
X
X
X
Hampshire
New Jersey
X
New Mexico
X
New York
X
North
X
Carolina
North Dakota
X
X
X
Ohio
Oklahoma
X
X
Oregon
X
X
X
Pennsylvania
X
X
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
X
X
South
X
X
X
Carolina
South Dakota
X
X
Tennessee
X
Texas
X
Utah
X
Vermont
Virginia
X
X
X
Washington
X
X
X
West Virginia
X
Wisconsin
X
X
Wyoming
X
Guam
X
X
Virgin Islands
X
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information in TANF state plans.

CRS-7
Numerical Goals for Reducing Nonmarital Pregnancy
TANF directs states to set numerical goals for reducing nonmarital pregnancy
in FY1996 through FY2005. Most states have done so, but some report only the
methods or formulas used for computing numerical goals rather than the numbers
themselves. However, some states have failed to set any goal or establish any goal-
setting process. In part, this may result from the structure of the law, which directs
states to “establish” numerical goals without providing specific penalties for failure
to do so.9 State numerical goals for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, as reported
in state TANF plans, are summarized in Table 2.
Cross-state comparison of these goals remains difficult as a result of several
factors. First, the accuracy of statistical reporting at the state level varies. Further
impediments to comparison arise when some states set goals for the reduction of out-
of-wedlock childbirth rather than out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Though the purpose
statement of TANF specifies nonmarital pregnancy, childbirth statistics are more
current, reliable, and easily obtained. Thus, federal bonus funds (which are discussed
later in this report) are awarded on the basis of reductions in nonmarital childbearing,
not nonmarital pregnancy. (However, bonus funds are only awarded to states that
have also reduced abortion rates.) Whether because of the difficulty in obtaining
accurate pregnancy statistics or because of the TANF bonus funds, many states work
only with childbirth data. However, numerical goals for reducing pregnancies cannot
easily be compared with those for reducing childbirth.
Comparison is further complicated by the statistical methods with which some
states report their pregnancy or childbearing data. Nonmarital pregnancy data can be
reported as a rate, generally per 1,000 unmarried women of childbearing age. Or,
data can be reported as a percentage; that is, the percentage of all pregnancies that
occur out-of-wedlock. Finally, data can be summarized as a percentage decline in
either the nonmarital pregnancy rate or the nonmarital pregnancy percentage. All of
these measures, as well as others, are also used to report out-of-wedlock childbearing
data. The TANF law does not direct states to use a specific type of statistic, and
there is no consensus among states on which measure to use. The degree of success
of two or more states cannot accurately be compared when those states use
incongruent statistical measures to set goals and report results.
9The HHS Secretary can make a state ineligible for a given year’s federal block grant by
refusing to certify its state plan, if the state plan is determined to be incomplete. To date, no
state has been denied plan certification for failing to set numerical goals to reduce nonmarital
pregnancy.

CRS-8
Table 2. Numerical Goals for Reducing Out-Of-Wedlock Pregnancies from TANF State Plans
State
Numerical goal
Alabama
None specified as yet.
Alaska
The state reports that it will develop goals for reducing out-of-wedlock births based on
current data.
Arizona
The 1995 out-of-wedlock birth percentage was 38.2%. Arizona’s goals are to reduce out-
of-wedlock births as follows:
35% of total births in 1999-2000;
33% of total births in 2000-2001;
31% of total births in 2001-2002;
29% of total births in 2002-2003;
27% of total births in 2003-2004; and
25% of total births in 2004-2005.
Arkansas
The Arkansas Department of Health has established the following numerical goals:
–decrease percentage of unwed births from 33.4% in CY1996 to 33% in CY2000;
–decrease the teen (15-19) birth rate from 75.3 per 1000 in CY1996 to 70 per 1000 in
CY2000.
California
California has a stated goal for reducing the incidence of pregnancies among females aged
17 or younger. No numerical goals provided.
Colorado
Numerical goals for reduction of the out-of-wedlock birth rate are established in each
county’s plan.
Connecticut
Reduce the teen pregnancy rate of 23 births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 17 by the year
2000.
Delaware
No information. (The FY2000-FY2001 plan also makes no mention of numerical goals
that were established in its first TANF state plan, which were expected to run through
March 2000.)
District of Columbia
Reduce teen births and out-of-wedlock births by 1% each year.
Florida
The ratio of out-of-wedlock births to total births was 35.96% and 34.82% in 1996 and
1997 respectively. Florida established the following goals for calendar years 1998-2005:
1998 – 34.38%
1999 – 34.03%
2000 – 33.68%
2001 – 33.37%

CRS-9
State
Numerical goal
2002 – 33.07%
2003 – 32.73%
2004 – 32.44%
2005 – 32.13%
Georgia
The goal of Teen Plus is to reduce pregnancies among girls aged 15 through 19 years of
age by 5% each year, or by 15% by the year 2002.
Guam
Guam’s Abstinence Only Education FY2000 Strategy has set the following goals:
1) Reduce the rate of pregnancy among teenagers aged 15-17% by 5%.
2) Reduce the proportion of adolescents who have engaged in sexual intercourse by 5%.
3) Increase the proportion of teenagers 10-18 who have discussed human sexuality with
parents and/or parentally endorsed sources by 5%.
4) Reduce the rate of birth among female teenagers aged 15-17 by 5%.
5) Reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies in females aged 10-18 by 5%.
Hawaii
Between 2000 and 2010 (with 1995 as benchmark year): reduce the onset of early sexual
involvement/activity among adolescents by 10%; increase the use of contraception among
sexually active adolescents by 10%; reduce pregnancies among adolescent females by
12%. These goals were to be evaluated based on the 1999 findings. The evaluation
process was scheduled to begin in March 2000.
Idaho
Idaho has an objective that is the same as the Year 2000 National Objective for this issue:
Reduce to no more than 30% the proportion of all pregnancies that are unintended.
Illinois
No information.
Indiana
Specific goals for teen pregnancy and abstinence were established beginning with 1997,
using the actual performance for that year.
Performance objectives for the rate of births to female teenagers aged 15-17 are:
FY1997 - 32.1% (actual performance);
FY1998 - 33.2%; FY1999 - 32.6%; FY2000 - 32.1%; FY2001 - 31.6%; FY2002 -
31.3%.
Performance objectives for the rate of births to female teenagers aged 10-14 are:
FY1997 – .85%(actual performance);
Maintain same rate through FY 2002.
Performance objectives for the reduction of the proportion of adolescents who have
engaged in sexual intercourse (12th grade):
FY1997 – 67.9% (actual performance);
Reduce by one-tenth of 1% each year through 2002. (FY2002 goal - 67.4%)
Performance objectives for the reduction of the proportion of adolescents who have

CRS-10
State
Numerical goal
engaged in sexual intercourse (9th grade):
FY1997 – 36.1% (actual performance);
reduce by one-tenth of 1% each year through 2002. (FY2002 goal - 35.6%).
Iowa
Desired outcomes for reducing out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies and indicators of success
in meeting these outcomes have been established in consultation with the public and the
Iowa Legislature. Baseline data will be used to establish additional numerical goals.
Kansas
A 1997 task force report established goal of reducing out-of-wedlock births by 3% per
year, recognizing that progress should not be expected until 1999. The report further
established a goal for reducing the state’s teen pregnancy rate by 30 pregnancies per 1,000
in the 10-19 age group by the year 2000.
Kentucky
Goal established to reduce the out-of-wedlock birth ratio by 1% each year from 1999
through 2002.
Louisiana
No information in current state plan. (An amendment to the previous state plan reported
that Louisiana set a goal of reducing unwed teen pregnancy rate statewide by 1% in 1998
and by at least 2% in the area of a pilot project.)
Maine
By 2005, the state plans to reduce the pregnancy rate of 10-14 year olds to 0 per 1,000
females (from 0.7 per 1,000), the pregnancy rate of 15-17 year olds to 30 per 1,000
females (from 37.9 per 1,000), and the pregnancy rate of 18-19 year olds to 80 per 1,000
females (from 101.4 per 1,000). (Maine baseline data are for 1992).
Maryland
Goal is to lower the incidence of out-of-wedlock births by 1% by 2005 (overall base rate
is not specified). Plan is to primarily target the age bracket of 18 to 19 years.
Massachusetts
Numerical goals established are included in Attachment 2 (however, this attachment was
not included in the HHS file and was therefore unavailable during the preparation of this
CRS report).
Michigan
The state intends to reduce unintended pregnancies from 49% to 30% or less. The goal
for the pregnancy rate among adolescents age 15 through 19 is no more than 63 per 1,000
females. The 1996 rate was 77.2 per 1,000.
Minnesota
Minnesota’s 2005 goal is a 24% out-of-wedlock birth rate. The state’s 1997 state out-of-
wedlock birth rate was 25.1%
Mississippi
The state established numerical goals for reducing the illegitimacy ratio of the state (as
defined in TANF) for federal FY1997 through calendar year 2005. This information was
published in a document separate from the body of the state plan, and was therefore
unavailable during the preparation of this CRS report.
Missouri
No specific numbers given.
Montana
By the year 2005, reduce average 5-year pregnancy rate for 15-19 year old females to
57.7 per 1000.
Nebraska
State HHS, including the Reproductive Health program and TANF, are working together

CRS-11
State
Numerical goal
to establish numerical goals.
Nevada
The goal is to reduce the teen pregnancy rate among women ages 15 to 17 by one-third, to
no more than 35 per 1,000 by the year 2005.
New Hampshire
By 2005, reduce the non-marital teen birthrate to 21.0 per 1,000 (from a baseline of 22.3
per 1,000 in 1994).
By 2005, reduce the non-marital birth rate among women ages 20-24 to 33.0 per 1,000
(from a baseline rate of 35.1 per 1,000 in 1994).
New Jersey
No information.
New Mexico
No information.
New York
No numerical goals specified.
North Carolina
The state’s goal is to reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births by 4.0% for calendar
years 1999 and 2000, as anticipated in federal law.
North Dakota
In 1993, there were 2,257 out-of-wedlock births in North Dakota. There were 2,142 in
1998, a 5.4% reduction. The target is to continue this downward trend. (A 1998 state
plan update said the yearly reduction goal is 2%. The 2000-01 plan does not give a
precise percentage target.)
Ohio
Goals are set at county level.
Oklahoma
The Governor in his 1999 State of the State address established the goal of reducing out-
of-wedlock birth rate by one-third by 2010.
Oregon
Goals for the reduction of teen pregnancies: The target set during the 1995 Oregon
Legislative session is eight pregnancies for every 1,000 minor females by the year 2000, to
remain constant through 2010. In 1995, the pregnancy rate for minors (10-17 years old)
was 19.2 pregnancies per 1,000 minor females, resulting in 12.2 live births. The most
recent data available, from April 1997 through March 1998, shows that figure now stands
at 18 pregnancies per 1000 minor females in Oregon.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania proposes to reduce the proportion of out-of-wedlock births accounted for by
teenagers to 28.15% in 1998 (one percentage point less than the average for 1994-1995).
[Note: This language is included in FY2000-FY2001 plan.]
Puerto Rico
No numerical goals specified.
Rhode Island
Plan says HHS (and its partners) established numerical goals for reducing the illegitimacy
ratio while developing a teen program, but the plan does not state them.
South Carolina
The goal is to reduce the state’s illegitimacy rate by one-fourth of 1% in each of FY2000
and FY2001.
South Dakota
Plan says state will use TANF funds so that annual numerical goals are established to
reduce out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies, along with other purposes. However, goals
are not specified.

CRS-12
State
Numerical goal
Tennessee
State says the Department of Human Services, in conjunction with the Department of
Health and the Department of Education, developed a task force whose duties included
establishing goals to reduce the ratio for 1996 through 2005 (but goals are not listed).
Texas
No information.
Utah
Reduce the out-of-wedlock birth rate by 2% per year through 2002.
Vermont
No information.
Virgin Islands
A committee has been formed with the Departments of Education and Health and private
sector interests to establish numerical goals for reducing illegitimacy ratios.
Virginia
Virginia set goals for reducing the percent of non-marital births in 1996, but because non-
marital birth rates rose in 1999, the goals were adjusted. The target illegitimacy ratios
(out-of-wedlock births divided by the number of births): are as follows:
1996
28.9%
1997
28.6%
1998
28.4%
1999
29.3%
2000
28.8%
2001
28.4%
2002
28.0%
2003
27.6%
2004
27.1%
2005
26.7%
Washington
The Department of Social and Health Service/Medical Assistance Administration, the
Department of Health, and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction will
establish goals and continue to take action to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-
wedlock pregnancies, with special emphasis on teenage pregnancies. Numerical goals for
reducing the state’s illegitimacy birth ratio will be established.
West Virginia
Prevent subsequent teen pregnancies and/or illegitimate pregnancies by 2% of the total
births from 1996-2005 is the goal of the Right from the Start project.
Goal of family planning program is to increase the availability of contraceptive services
and pregnancy prevention education to adolescents by 5% from 1996 to 2005.
Wisconsin
By the year 2001, the goal is a 15% decline from the 1995 pregnancy rate for females age
19 and under.
Wyoming
Reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies by 1% each year.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from TANF state plans.

CRS-13
“Illegitimacy Ratio” Reduction Bonus
The 1996 welfare reform law authorizes a performance bonus as an incentive
for states to decrease their “illegitimacy ratio.” For each of FY1999-FY2002,
$100 million was appropriated for this bonus. As stated earlier, although TANF’s
explicit goal is to reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the award
of these bonus funds is determined by measuring out-of-wedlock births. The
bonus is divided equally between the five states with the greatest decline in their
“illegitimacy ratio,” defined in the law as the number of children born out-of-
wedlock divided by the total number of children born in that state (over a given 2-
year period).10 However, to qualify for a bonus payment, states also must have
abortion rates lower than their 1995 base-year levels. Awards are based on the
most recent 2-year data from the National Center for Health Statistics, compared
with that of the previous 2-year period. Special provisions come into effect if
fewer than five states qualify, or if Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa
qualifies.
HHS has awarded three rounds of bonus payments. In September 1999 and
September 2000, HHS awarded $20 million each to five jurisdictions. However, in
September 2001, only three states qualified for the bonus (the same three that
received payments the previous 2 years), and each received $25 million. Table 3
lists bonus-qualifying states for FY1999, FY2000, and FY2001, along with their
nonmarital birth ratios in the relevant years and the percentage decline from
previous ratios.
In FY2000 and FY2001, all states receiving these performance bonuses had
nonmarital birth ratios that exceeded the national average at the time. In FY1999,
three of the five states receiving the bonus had higher than average nonmarital
birth ratios. This means that more children were born out-of-wedlock
(proportionately) in states receiving bonuses than in the average state. This result
is possible because a state’s overall ranking in nonmarital birth ratio does not
determine qualification for the bonus award. Rather, the change in ratio
determines which states are rewarded and which are not. The bonus is given for a
percentage of a percentage. Specifically, funds are awarded on the basis of the
percent decline in the total percentage of children born out-of-wedlock.
This method increases the likelihood that bonus funds will go to states with
high nonmarital birth ratios, because such states are more likely to experience
significant declines than states with lower or average nonmarital birth ratios. This
effect is due to a statistical phenomenon called “regression to the mean.” Simply
put, regression to the mean implies that statistical change will tend toward the
average rather than away from the average. Thus, over time, states with high
nonmarital birth ratios are more likely than others to see those ratios fall, and
therefore, more likely to be rewarded.
10Section 403(a)(C)(i)(I)(aa) of P.L. 104-193.

CRS-14
Table 3. Nonmarital Birth Ratios for States that Received TANF
“Illegitimacy” Bonus in FY1999, FY2000, and FY2001
% of births to
% of births to
% change in
unmarried women unmarried women
nonmarital
Bonus recipients in FY1999
1994-1995
1996-1997
birth ratio
California
32.248
30.422
-5.665
District of Columbia
67.388
64.889
-3.708
Michigan
34.676
33.510
-3.361
Alabama
34.470
33.773
-2.022
Massachusetts
26.095
25.706
-1.493
U.S. Average
32.392
32.394
0.003
% of births to
% of births to
% change in
unmarried women unmarried women
nonmarital
Bonus recipients in FY2000
1995-1996
1997-1998
birth ratio
District of Columbia
65.973
63.249
-4.130
Arizona
38.537
38.005
-1.380
Michigan
34.050
33.595
-1.336
Alabama
34.071
33.972
-0.290
Illinois
33.760
33.753
-0.022
U.S. Average
32.271
32.611
1.054
% of births to
% of births to
% change in
unmarried women unmarried women
nonmarital
Bonus recipients in FY2001
1996-1997
1998-1999
birth ratio
District of Columbia
64.889
62.309
-3.976
Michigan
33.510
33.507
-0.009
Alabama
33.773
33.689
-0.249
U.S. Average
32.394
32.934
1.669
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on published data
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Percentage change may not
correspond exactly with percentages shown in table, due to rounding.
The “illegitimacy” bonus has raised some concern because it rewards states
for a statewide outcome – reduction in nonmarital birth ratios with no concurrent
increase in abortion – which may not necessarily reflect the impact of state policies
or programs that are targeted on specific populations within the state. On
September 21, Representative Wally Herger, Chairman of the House Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, introduced H.R. 2982, which would
suspend the award of this bonus for FY2002. The bonus, along with the rest of
the TANF block grant program, is scheduled to expire after FY2002 and will be
reevaluated in the context of the reauthorization debate.
HHS Reporting on State Activities
TANF law requires the Secretary of HHS to make annual reports to
Congress. In these reports, HHS is to rank states in order of success in reducing
out-of-wedlock pregnancies and also to review programs of the five most
successful and the five least successful states. The Secretary is to conduct cost
benefit analyses of state TANF programs, including nonmarital pregnancy

CRS-15
programs. Additionally, the 1996 law required HHS to establish and implement
(by January 1, 1997) nonmarital teen pregnancy prevention programs in at least
25% of U.S. communities.
In its annual report to Congress, HHS reports the number, rate and
percentage of births to unmarried women.11 HHS reports these data on a state-by-
state basis, as well as for the United States as a whole. The annual reports include
longitudinal data, tracking changes on the state level over time. As required by
TANF law, the report also ranks states by decline in the percent of children born
out-of-wedlock. The annual reports, however, do not include information on
nonmarital pregnancy.
In connection with the TANF mandate to assure that at least 25% of
American communities have teen pregnancy prevention programs, HHS
established the National Strategy to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. This Strategy is
based on five key principles. These are: 1) Parents and adult mentors must play
key roles in encouraging young adults to avoid pregnancy and stay in school; 2)
Abstinence and personal responsibility must be the primary messages of prevention
programs; 3) Young people must be given clear pathways to college or jobs that
give them reason to stay in school and avoid pregnancy; 4) Public and private
sector community partners must develop comprehensive strategies; 5) Real success
requires sustained commitment to the young person over time. In its last report on
the National Strategy, HHS reported a “conservative estimate” that at least 35% of
communities had teen pregnancy prevention programs in place in FY1999.12 Most
recently, an HHS official told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Human Resources that 47% of American communities had such programs in
2001.13
Data Issues
Pregnancy versus Childbirth. Though reduction of nonmarital
pregnancy is a stated goal of the law, in practice the TANF program relies heavily
on nonmarital childbirth data. For various purposes at both the state and federal
levels, birth data have been substituted for pregnancy data. As discussed earlier,
for example, many states set numerical goals to reduce out-of-wedlock childbirth
rather than pregnancy. Likewise, federal performance bonuses are awarded for
reductions in births, not pregnancies. Concern about the availability, accuracy, and
timeliness of pregnancy data largely contributes to the use of childbirth data
instead. Childbirth statistics are easier to obtain than pregnancy statistics. Further,
pregnancy rates are estimates, derived from formulas involving miscarriage and
induced abortion rates. Childbirth statistics are also more recent than pregnancy
statistics. The last year for which pregnancy data are available is 1997, while
preliminary childbirth data are available through 2000.
11See: [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/director.htm] for HHS annual reports on
TANF.
12HHS, A National Strategy to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Annual Report 1999-2000, available
at: [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/teenp/ann-rpt00/index.htm]
13Testimony of Bobby Jindal, Assistant HHS Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
November 15, 2001.

CRS-16
Despite these limitations of data, the welfare reform law explicitly targets
reduction of nonmarital pregnancy, rather than nonmarital childbearing. TANF
seeks to reduce both abortion and the total number of children born out-of-
wedlock. Mandating reductions in nonmarital pregnancy accommodates both
goals, while focusing solely on nonmarital childbearing could place upward
pressure on the abortion rate.14 Indeed, reductions in nonmarital childbearing
alone could reflect increased abortion. Because of this concern, bonus funds are
awarded only to states that have decreased abortion rates, as well as decreased
nonmarital birth ratios.
Incidence Rates versus Percentages. As discussed earlier, nonmarital
pregnancy or childbirth statistics can be reported as a rate, percentage, or
percentage decline, as well as other less common measures. Rates gauge absolute
change in the trend, and depend only on the behavior of unmarried women. In
contrast, percentages of out-of-wedlock pregnancy measure relative change in the
trend; they quantify how the behavior of unmarried women compares to the
behavior of married women. Thus, percentages, percentage declines, ratios, and
other types of comparative statistics all depend on the activities of both married
and unmarried women. Rates and percentages can provide very different pictures.
For example, the birth rate among unmarried women in 1990 was 43.8 per
1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44, which was almost identical to the rate in
1999 of 43.9 (although the rate had peaked in the interim years at 46.9 in 1994).
Meanwhile, the nonmarital pregnancy rate dropped, from 102.3 in 1990 to 92.8 in
1997, the most recent year for which data are available. At the same time,
however, nonmarital births as a percentage of all births increased, from 28% in
1990 to 33% in 1999. The difference may be explained by the behavior of married
women, whose birth rate dropped from 93.2 per 1,000 married women aged 15-44
in 1990, to 87.3 in 1999. Thus, any attempt to examine these relative trends –
especially on a long-term basis – must also consider trends in marriage, as well as
pregnancy and childbirth.15
The distinction between rate and percentage has implications for the award of
federal bonus funds, which are awarded on the basis of a ratio (a type of
percentage statistic). While these bonus funds depend on the activities of both
married and unmarried women, only unmarried women are the target population of
TANF policies to reduce pregnancy.16
14Klerman, Jacob A. Welfare Reform and Abortion. [In] Welfare, the Family, and
Reproductive Behavior: Research Perspectives. Moffitt, Robert A., ed., Washington, DC,
National Academy Press, 1998.
15For more information on nonmarital birth trends, see Nonmarital Births in the CRS
electronic briefing book on welfare reform, at:
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebwlf38.html]. For information specifically on teenage
birth and pregnancy trends, see CRS Report RS20301, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention:
Statistics and Programs, or Teenage Pregnancy Prevention in the electronic briefing book,
at: [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebwlf39.html], all by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
16Incidentally, however, the decision to marry is a concern of TANF policy, since the law also
is intended to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, and to reduce
public dependence of parents through job preparation, work and marriage.

CRS-17
Appendix A: Nonmarital Birth Provisions in the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Program17
Findings. The findings section of P.L. 104-193 notes the increase in out-of-
wedlock pregnancies and births during the 1976-1991 period, asserts that an
effective strategy to combat teenage pregnancy must address the issue of male
responsibility, and lists some of the negative consequences of out-of-wedlock
births on the mother, child, family, and society. This section of the law states that
it is the “Sense of the Congress” that prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and
reduction in out-of-wedlock birth are very important government interests and that
the policy contained in the TANF program is intended to address the problem.
Purpose. The purpose statement in the law with respect to the TANF
program stipulates that states should design their TANF program to prevent and
reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and that states should
establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of such
pregnancies.
State Plan. P.L. 104-193 requires that the TANF state plan include an
outline of how the state intends to establish goals and take action to prevent and
reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, with special emphasis on
teenage pregnancies. States should also establish numerical goals for reducing the
nonmarital birth ration of the state for calendar years 1996-2005. Finally, the state
is required to outline how it intends to conduct a program that provides education
and training on the problem of statutory rape so that teenage pregnancy prevention
programs may be expanded to include men.
Bonus for Decline in Out-of-Wedlock Births. For FY1999-FY2002,
TANF provides that bonus funds be awarded to five states that have lower out-of-
wedlock birth ratios and lower abortion rates than in FY1995. Under the law, the
five states with the greatest decline in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio (with abortion
rates lower than the 1995 level) are to receive a bonus of $20 million. If fewer
than five states qualify for this bonus, the bonus is to increase to $25 million. If
Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa qualify for these bonus funds, they
would be paid $1.172 million, $889,000, and $250,000, respectively. This would
not affect the number of other jurisdictions that could receive the bonus. The $20
million or $25 million paid to other qualifying states (including the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico) would be reduced pro-rata.
Bonus to Reward High Performance States. For FY1999-FY2002, a
bonus grant is provided to states that are successful in meeting the goals of the
TANF program. A total of $1 billion is appropriated for these bonuses, which are
to average $200 million annually. As mentioned earlier, one of the goals of the
TANF program is to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies. However, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
announced that the performance awards for FY1999 through FY2001 would be
17This appendix is excerpted from archived CRS Report RS20240, Welfare Reform:
Provisions Related to Nonmarital Births, by Carmen Solomon-Fears, June 21, 1999.

CRS-18
based only on measures related to promoting work. Beginning in FY2002, a new
measure will be added to the high performance bonus related to the percent of
married couple families with children in the state. Also beginning in FY2002,
some of the high performance bonus will be paid based on states' effort to support
the working poor, as measured by participation in food stamps and Medicaid/State
Childrens' Health Insurance programs (SCHIP), as well as certain features of state
child care programs.
Persons Ineligible for TANF Assistance. P.L. 104-193 specifies that a
state may not use any part of the federal TANF grant to provide assistance to
unwed mothers under age 18 without a high school diploma (or its equivalent)
unless they attend school (or other equivalent educational or training program)
once their youngest child is 12 weeks old.
The law also specifies that a state may not use any part of the federal TANF
grant to provide assistance to unwed mothers under age 18 (and their children)
unless they live in the home of an adult relative or in another adult-supervised
arrangement.
Family Planning. Although a state is prohibited from using any part of the
federal TANF grant to provide medical services, “prepregnancy” family planning is
specifically mentioned as an allowable expense under the TANF program.
Family Cap. Although there is no explicit provision, P.L. 104-193 allows
states to deny TANF benefits for a new baby in a family already receiving cash
welfare (TANF) rather than to provide the traditional incremental benefit increase
for a newborn.
Abstinence Education. P.L. 104-193 provides appropriations of $50
million for each of FY1998-FY2002 for grants to states for abstinence education
programs, with a focus on groups most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock.
Ranking and Review of States Regarding Out-of-Wedlock Births.
P.L. 104-193 directs the HHS Secretary to rank states in order of success in
reducing the proportion of out-of-wedlock births and review the programs of the
five states most recently ranking highest and the five state most recently ranked the
lowest.
Research on TANF Programs. P.L. 104-193 requires the HHS
Secretary to conduct research on the benefits, effects, and costs of operating state
TANF programs. The research is to include the effects and operation of various
programs on nonmarital births and teen pregnancy.
Census Bureau Report. The Census Bureau is directed to expand the
survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to obtain data with which to
evaluate TANF’s impact on a random sample of recipients. One of the areas the
Census Bureau is directed to focus on is out-of-wedlock births. The law
authorizes an appropriation of $10 million for each of FY1996-FY2002.
Report on Circumstances of Certain Individuals. P.L. 104-193
requires the HHS Secretary to report to four committees of Congress annually
beginning August 22, 1999, on specified matters about three groups: children

CRS-19
whose families lost TANF eligibility because of a time limit, children born after
enactment (i.e., August 22, 1996) to teen parents, and persons who became teen
parents after enactment. Among the specified matters is the rate at which the
members of each group are born, or have children, out-of-wedlock, and the
percentage of teens that are married.
National Goals to Prevent Teen Pregnancies. P.L. 104-193 requires
the HHS Secretary to establish and implement, no later than January 1, 1997, a
strategy for preventing out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies and assuring that at
least 25% of the Nation’s communities have teenage pregnancy prevention
programs. The Secretary is required to annually report to Congress with respect
to the progress that has been made in meeting the aforementioned strategies.