The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress

Congressional research reportMar 1, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) Block Grant: Issues for the

112th Congress

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

March 1, 2012

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41781

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Summary

P.L. 112-96 funds TANF through the end of FY2012. It generally provides FY2012 TANF

funding at FY2011 levels, but does not fund TANF “supplemental grants.” In addition, P.L. 11296 prevents electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at certain establishments, and also

revises TANF reporting standards to facilitate data exchanges with other programs.

The short-term extension of TANF defers major budget and policy decisions related to the block

grant. Most federal TANF policy focuses on historical concerns related to cash assistance for

needy families with children, which led to the 1996 welfare law. However, TANF has evolved

into a funding stream that funds a wide range of economic aid and human services that address

economic and social disadvantage for families with children. In FY2010, only 30% of all federal

TANF and associated state dollars were used for basic monthly cash assistance.

The recent recession was the first long and deep one since the enactment of the 1996 welfare law.

TANF’s contingency fund, established in 1996 to provide extra grants during recessions, was

exhausted in early FY2010. Congress created a $5 billion temporary Emergency Contingency

Fund (ECF) for FY2009 and FY2010 that provided extra funding to help pay for increased cash

assistance caseloads, short-term aid, and subsidized employment. The ECF expired on September

30, 2010. Congress might consider policy alternatives to provide states with extra funding during

the next economic downturn.

A TANF-funded activity that was substantially expanded during the recent economic downturn

was subsidized employment. The ECF provided $1.3 billion for subsidized employment for an

estimated 262,500 slots during the lifetime of the fund. TANF-funded subsidized employment can

be for those on the assistance rolls as well as other low-income parents, caretakers, or youth.

Congress might consider ways to encourage states to continue subsidized employment activities,

including providing dedicated funding for this activity and/or considering participation in

subsidized employment for individuals not receiving ongoing assistance when assessing state

TANF performance.

Additionally, most traditional welfare reform issues have focused on families headed by a single

mother. Current law provides TANF grants to community-based organizations for initiatives to

promote both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. However, poor noncustodial fathers,

like their poor single mother counterparts, tend to have low levels of educational attainment,

weak attachment to work, and health barriers to employment. They might also have a criminal

record. Congress might examine ways to expand TANF-funded work and employment services

for disadvantaged noncustodial fathers.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background...................................................................................................................................... 1

TANF: The Basics............................................................................................................................ 4

Financing ................................................................................................................................... 4

State Cash Assistance Benefits .................................................................................................. 5

Requirements for Families Receiving Cash Assistance............................................................. 5

Issues in Extending or Reauthorizing TANF ................................................................................... 6

TANF and the Federal Budget................................................................................................... 7

Supplemental Grants ................................................................................................................. 7

Assessing the Performance of TANF-Funded Activities........................................................... 8

Challenges in Assessing TANF Beyond Cash Assistance ................................................... 9

Assessing Welfare-to-Work Activities............................................................................... 10

Assessing How TANF Serves the Needs of the “Child-Only” Caseload .......................... 13

TANF’s Responsiveness To a Recession ................................................................................. 14

Subsidized Employment .......................................................................................................... 16

Fathers ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Recent Chronology ........................................................................................................................ 18

Legislation in the 112th Congress................................................................................................... 18

Additional Reading........................................................................................................................ 20

Figures

Figure 1. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds: FY2010............................................................. 5

Figure 2. National Average TANF Work Participation Rates

Under Federal Rules: FY2000-FY2009...................................................................................... 11

Tables

Table 1. Selected Economic and Social Indicators for Families with Children, Selected

Years from 1995 to 2010 .............................................................................................................. 3

Table 2. Funding for Major TANF Grants: FY2011-FY2017.......................................................... 7

Table A-1. TANF Grants Per Poor Child: Basic Block Grant Only (State Family

Assistance Grant) and Basic Block Grants with TANF Supplemental Grants ........................... 21

Table A-2. Number of Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Family Type: 2007 and

2009 ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Table A-3. Employment-Population Ratios by Family Type 2007 and 2009 ................................ 24

Table A-4. Impact of Unemployment Compensation on Child Poverty Rates, Selected

Years Associated with Recessions .............................................................................................. 24

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Appendixes

Appendix. Additional Tables ......................................................................................................... 21

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 25

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 25

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Introduction

The 112th Congress will decide whether, and on what terms, to extend the Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and related programs. TANF was created in the 1996

welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), and is best known for helping states pay for their cash

assistance programs for very low-income families with children. However, TANF also helps

states finance a wide range of benefits and services that seek to either ameliorate the effects of or

address the root causes of economic disadvantage among families with children. TANF is

currently funded through the end of FY2012 (September 30, 2012).

This report provides an overview of potential issues that might arise during a discussion of

extending TANF funding or a long-term reauthorization. It does not go into detail on TANF

program rules or necessarily provide the most up-to-date data on TANF. For a non-technical

overview, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant:

An Introduction. For a report that details TANF program rules, see CRS Report RL32748, The

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing

and Federal Requirements. For current data on TANF, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions.

Background

TANF is a product of the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, which ended four decades of

legislative efforts to either substantially revamp or replace the system of providing cash

assistance to needy families with children. Cash assistance programs specifically for needy

families with children date back to the state- and locally funded “mothers’ pension” programs of

the early 1900s; the federal government first funded these programs under the Social Security Act

of 1935.

The visibility of cash assistance programs increased in the 1960s, when caseload increases raised

concerns about their cost and effects. The welfare reform debates from the late 1960s to the mid1990s focused on issues related to families headed by a single mother (which comprised most of

the families on the assistance rolls during that period), and, specifically, concerns that welfare

itself helped contribute to economic disadvantage of families with children. Social science

research showed that cash assistance provided to non-working families was a disincentive for the

single mother to go to work.1 Additionally, there was much discussion that a system of cash

welfare targeted toward single parent families contributed to the rise in single, female-headed

families. The research evidence on the effects of cash assistance on family structure is less

conclusive than it is on the effects of cash assistance on work.2

Robert Moffitt, “Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review,” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 30,

no. 1 (March 1992), pp. 1-61.

In his review of the effects of the U.S. welfare system, published in 1992 and cited above, Moffitt concluded that the

welfare system affected family structure “weakly.” The studies he reviewed were econometric analyses that used

variation in welfare benefits to seek to explain the family status of mothers. The experimental evidence about this effect

is much more ambiguous. Further, in the post-welfare period, particularly in the 2000-2008 period, the time series

relationship between single-parent families and welfare receipt changed. Cash welfare receipt declined, while the

percentage of babies born out-of-wedlock and the percent of children in single-parent families increased.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

There were other policy concerns about the adequacy of cash assistance benefits. Cash assistance

programs were run at the state and local level, with large variations in eligibility criteria and

benefit amounts. The cash assistance programs also provided limited aid to the working poor.

Research conducted in the 1980s and the early 1990s indicated that while many families received

cash assistance for short periods of time, some families experienced long-term welfare

dependency. Further, other research showed that mandatory welfare-to-work programs could be

effective in moving families from the assistance rolls into employment. Thus, a policy requiring

participation in activities that could lead to employment addressed the concern that receipt of cash

assistance discouraged work.

TANF was created in the 1996 welfare law. The basic rules of TANF are discussed below.

However, TANF was only a part of a series of policy changes that addressed the many policy

concerns raised by cash assistance programs. The changes in low-income assistance policies of

the mid-1990s were the culmination of a shift in emphasis away from providing a safety net for

families without earnings to supporting the “working poor,” particularly through expansions of

the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).3

Table 1 shows the cash assistance caseload in the context of related economic and social

indicators for families with children for 1995 through 2010. The table shows that some of the

circumstances of 2010 were very different from those of 1995. The cash assistance rolls are

significantly diminished and reach a far smaller share of poor children than in 1995. The rate at

which single mothers work is even higher in 2010 than in 1995 (despite the lingering effects of

the 2007-2009 recession), and the poverty rate for children living in families headed by mothers

is lower in 2010 than in 1995.

However, some of the indicators of social and economic disadvantage commonly associated with

welfare issues have changed little or have even worsened in an era of lower cash assistance

caseloads. The poverty rate for all children declined in the late 1990s—but this improvement was

ephemeral, as the child poverty rate increased in the 2000s even before the onset of the recession

that began in December 2007. The rate at which children are born to unmarried mothers climbed

in the 2000s, reaching a historical high. The continued high rates of child poverty and children

being born into and living in single-mother families raise policy issues. Research has linked both

being raised in a poor family and being raised in a single-parent family to lower chances of

success later in life. That is, while many poor children and many children raised by a single

parent do well, these factors increase the likelihood that a child will fail in school or suffer other

negative outcomes.

For a discussion, see CRS Report R41823, Low-Income Assistance Programs: Trends in Federal Spending, by (name

redacted).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Table 1. Selected Economic and Social Indicators for Families with Children,

Selected Years from 1995 to 2010

Indicator

1995

2000

2007

2010

Number of families

receiving cash

assistance (monthly

average) in millions

4.8

2.3

1.7

1.9

Number of children

receiving cash

assistance (monthly

average) in millions

9.1

4.5

3.1

3.4

Federal and state

expenditures on cash

assistance (in billions

of constant 2009

dollars, Fiscal Year)

$31.1

$14.0

$9.5

$10.7

Child poverty rate

20.8%

16.2%

18.0%

22.0%

Number of poor

children (in millions)

14.7

11.6

13.3

16.4

Employment rate for

single mothers

64.0%

75.5%

72.8%

67.0%

Poverty rate for

children living in

single-parent families

50.3%

40.1%

43.0%

46.9%

Percent of births

out-of-wedlock

32.2%

33.2%

39.7%

40.8%

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of Labor (DoL), and U.S. Census Bureau.

It should be noted that the diminishment of state-based cash assistance does not mean that overall

spending for the poor or poor families with children has also declined. On the contrary,

expansions of the EITC and a new refundable portion of the child tax credit, along with increases

in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps), and Supplemental

Security Income (SSI) have resulted in higher levels of outlays for total need-tested aid to lowincome families, including low-income families with children.4

H.R. 1135, the Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (Representative Jordan) would cap overall spending for need-tested

programs as a whole (as defined in the bill) at their FY2007 level plus inflation. If enacted, this could affect TANF

funding. Under the bill, projected spending on need-tested benefits in excess of the cap would trigger a process for the

congressional budget process to enforce the cap.

For an overview of spending trends for low-income assistance programs, see CRS Report R41823, Low-Income

Assistance Programs: Trends in Federal Spending, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

TANF: The Basics

Financing

The bulk of federal TANF funding is in a basic block grant to states that totals $16.5 billion per

year. States are also required to expend a certain amount of their own funds on TANF-related

programs, under what is called a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement, equal to a total

minimum of $10.4 billion per year. The basic block grant and MOE amounts, both nationally and

for each state, were set back in the original 1996 welfare law based on what states were spending

in pre-1996 programs, and they have not been changed since. They are not adjusted for inflation

or any other changes in national or state conditions (cash assistance caseloads, population, child

poverty, etc.). In addition to the basic block grant, there have been federal supplemental grants

and contingency funds for states that are discussed later in this report. TANF also includes

competitive grants for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives.

The statutory purpose of TANF is to increase the flexibility of states to achieve four goals:

1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their

own homes or in the homes of relatives;

2. end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job

preparation, work, and marriage;

3. prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish

annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these

pregnancies; and

4. encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

This statutory purpose is more than a symbolic statement of policy. States may use their TANF

funds (and to a certain extent MOE funds) in any manner they “reasonably calculate” could

further this purpose and achieve these goals. Figure 1 shows nationally how federal TANF and

state MOE funds were used in FY2010. Basic assistance, the category of expenditure most

commonly associated with TANF, represents only 30% of all TANF and MOE funds used in

FY2010. TANF also provides substantial support to state child care subsidy programs; additional

work supports such as the refundable portion of state tax credits (state versions of the EITC); and

a wide range of spending in the “other” category, on activities such as providing services to

families with children at-risk of being placed in foster care, early childhood education programs

(e.g., pre-K programs), programs for youths, and responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage

programs.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Figure 1. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds: FY2010

(dollars in billions)

Other

Expenditures,

$10.6

Other Work

Supports, $3.3

Child Care, $5.4

Basic Assistance,

$10.7

Admistrative

Expenditures,

$2.5

Work Program

Expenditures,

$3.3

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

Services (HHS).

State Cash Assistance Benefits

Federal law gives states complete latitude in determining the rules of their cash assistance

programs. States set rules for determining how low a family’s income must be to qualify for

assistance as well as the amount paid. In July 2010, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of

three ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. The wide variation in benefit amounts is

not a result of the 1996 welfare reform law; under pre-1996 policies, states also set benefit levels

that varied greatly among the states.

Requirements for Families Receiving Cash Assistance

The most well-known features of both TANF and the 1996 welfare reform law are the

requirements that apply to families receiving cash assistance that include an adult recipient: work

requirements and time limits. The main TANF work requirement is actually a performance

measure that applies to states rather than individual recipients. TANF time limits prohibit states

from aiding a family with an adult for more than 60 months (five years). However, states have

considerable flexibility in implementing time limits.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Issues in Extending or Reauthorizing TANF

P.L. 112-96 (the law that extended the payroll tax cut through 2012) provided TANF funding

through the end of FY2012. It provides FY2012 funding for the basic TANF block grant, healthy

marriage and responsible fatherhood competitive grants, and certain other funds at their FY2011

levels. It does not provide FY2012 funding for TANF supplemental grants (discussed in detail

below).

In addition, P.L. 112-96

•

prevents electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at liquor stores,

casinos, and strip clubs; states would be required to prohibit access to TANF cash

at Automated Teller Machines (ATMS) at such establishments; and

•

requires states to report TANF data in a manner that facilitates the exchange of

that data with other programs’ data systems.

Under the short-term extension of TANF, the 112th Congress would have to act again to continue

the program beyond September 30, 2012 (the end of FY2012). President Obama’s FY2013

budget did not propose a comprehensive reauthorization of TANF. It did propose to revive TANF

supplemental grants and make them permanent. It also proposed to “restructure” the TANF

contingency fund, which provides additional grants to help states deal with increased costs

associated with a recession.

The proposed extension of TANF and the lack of an Administration proposal for a longer-term

reauthorization defers the major budget and policy decisions related to the block grant. Most

federal TANF policy focuses on historical concerns related to cash assistance for needy families

with children, which led to the 1996 welfare law more than 15 years ago. In terms of the larger

policy issues associated with TANF, the Administration did discuss some general principals it

would like to see addressed. The Department of Health and Human Services FY2013 Budget in

Brief says:

When Congress takes up reauthorization, we want to work with lawmakers to strengthen the

program’s effectiveness in accomplishing its goals. This should include using performance

indicators to drive program improvement and ensuring that states have the flexibility to

engage recipients in the most effective activities to promote success in the workforce –

including families with serious barriers to employment. We also want to work with Congress

to revise the Contingency Fund to make it more effective during economic downturns.

The remainder of this report will use the Administration’s budget request and general principles

as a framework for discussing TANF issues before the 112th Congress. It will first discuss general

budget issues and supplemental grants that are the main focus of the President’s FY2013 budget

request. A discussion of TANF performance measurement, its response to recessions, and

subsidized employment follow. In addition, the report will briefly address a related issue of

responsible fatherhood initiatives, as the Administration put forward a responsible fatherhood

agenda in its FY2013 budget. For each issue, it provides a listing of policy options that generally

have been drawn from proposals made in the past. Also, see “Additional Reading,” below, for

documents from organizations that provide policy options that might be addressed in TANF

reauthorization.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

TANF and the Federal Budget

TANF is a mandatory spending program, as its grants are entitlements to the states. TANF

funding is provided in authorizing legislation rather than annual appropriation bills. As a

mandatory spending program, it is subject to both the pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring tax or

spending offsets to any increases in spending, and the “cut-as-you-go” rules in the House,

requiring spending offsets for any increases in TANF spending.

Cuts or spending increases are measured relative to the “baseline.” In general, the baseline is the

level of funding necessary to continue current policies. Table 2 shows actual TANF grants for

FY2011 and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) January 2012 baseline for TANF for

FY2012 through FY2017. In general, the TANF baseline for future years is the same as it is for

the last year for which funding is provided under current law (in this case, FY2012). Because

TANF grants are set in statute, there is no adjustment for inflation or other conditions (cash

assistance caseload, population growth) in constructing the baseline.

Supplemental grants (discussed in further detail below) are not continued in the baseline. This is

because a provision in TANF law says the baseline should assume no further supplemental grants

beyond its last funding authorization (through June 30, 2011). Thus, under congressional budget

rules, the cost of extending supplemental grants would have to be offset.

Table 2. Funding for Major TANF Grants: FY2011-FY2017

(Grant awards for FY2011 through FY2017; dollars in millions)

Congressional Budget Office January 2012 Baseline

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

$16.489

$16,489

Supplemental

grants

211

Marriage and

fatherhood

grants

150

Contingency

Funds

334

612

State family

assistance

grant

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Supplemental Grants

The President’s FY2013 budget proposal would reinstate and make permanent TANF

supplemental grants. Under the proposal, TANF supplemental grants would be funded at their

FY2001 through FY2010 levels, $319 million per year. It would be paid for through a

corresponding reduction in current law funding for the TANF contingency fund (discussed later in

this report).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

As discussed above, the TANF basic block grant and MOE were set back in the 1996 welfare

reform law. Each state’s block grant funding level is based on federal grants to states in the pre1996 welfare programs; the MOE is based on state spending in the pre-1996 programs. The basic

block grant and MOE are frozen, not adjusted for changes in a state’s economic or demographic

circumstances. During debates on the legislation that became the 1996 welfare law, it was thought

that this “freeze” would particularly disadvantage two sets of states: (1) those that have high rates

of population growth and that would experience steeper declines than other states in their percapita grants; and (2) those that paid relatively low benefit amounts under pre-1996 welfare

programs and thus would have low federal grants compared to poverty in the state.

To address this issue, Congress provided TANF supplemental grants to certain qualifying states

based on historical population growth and historical grants per poor person. In total, 17 states

qualified for supplemental grants: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,

Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.

Supplemental grants reduced the disparities in TANF funding among the states in terms of grants

per poor child. However, this reduction was small. (See Table A-1 for supplemental grants per

poor child by state.) Supplemental grants themselves had been frozen since FY2001, and even at

their full funding level some states with high population growth and increases in child poverty

(e.g., Texas and Nevada) saw continuing declines in their grants per poor child. However, further

addressing the issue of disparities in grants per poor child would require either additional funding

or a redistribution of existing funds from states with relatively high grants per poor child to states

with lower grants per poor child.

From FY2001 through FY2010, supplemental grants totaled $319 million per year.5 In order to

keep the legislation that extended TANF through FY2011 cost neutral, FY2011 supplemental

grants were funded only through June 30, 2011, and at a reduced rate.6 Supplemental grants have

not been funded in FY2012. No FY2012 funding has been provided for supplemental grants.

Assessing the Performance of TANF-Funded Activities

All of the current TANF performance measures focus on the cash assistance caseload. In the past,

TANF attempted to assess a broad range of outcomes through measures used to award two

bonuses: the High Performance Bonus and the bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

The High Performance Bonus awarded grants based on state rankings of nationally based

welfare-to-work measures (job entry, job retention, wage gains), receipt in the state of work

supports7, and the percent of children in a state living in two-parent families. The bonus for

The original 1996 welfare law funded supplemental grants through FY2001. These grants lapsed for a period, from

October 1, 2001 (the beginning of FY2002) through the enactment of P.L. 107-147 on March 9, 2002, which provided

the full $319 million in supplemental grants for FY2002.

The Claims Resolution Act constrained supplemental grant funding by providing that the sum of the cost of extending

supplemental grants and contingency funds could not exceed a certain amount. Ultimately, FY2011 funding for

supplemental grants amounted to 66% of the full $319 million states historically received. HHS provided the 17

qualifying states with their full supplemental grants in the first and second quarter of FY2011, and a reduced grant in

the third quarter of FY2011.

The measures relating to support of work were: (1) the food stamp (now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program) participation rate among low-income families with a worker; (2) enrollment in Medicaid or the State

Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) of former cash assistance recipient families; and (3) the percentage of

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

reduction in out-of-wedlock pregnancies was awarded based on state rankings of out-of-wedlock

birth ratios, with a proviso that such reductions could not stem from increases in abortions. These

two bonuses were repealed in 2006. A key issue was that these broad outcome measures could not

be tied to what states were doing in their TANF programs.

The repeal of the TANF bonuses means that the main performance measure currently used to

assess state programs is the TANF work participation standard that applies to families receiving

cash assistance. This measurement reflects the major welfare reform policy concerns that led to

the 1996 welfare law, but it is out of step with the way states currently use TANF funds.

Challenges in Assessing TANF Beyond Cash Assistance

Should Congress wish to measure and assess TANF beyond its cash assistance programs, a

number of challenges would have to be addressed. Relative to the information that states are

currently required to provide the federal government, measuring and assessing the broader range

of TANF activities would require: (1) more detailed descriptions of the programs and activities

that states are conducting in order to know what policies are actually being assessed; (2) more

detailed data on how much money is spent for these programs and activities in order to know how

much effort a state is making in a particular policy area; and (3) measuring program outcomes

and impacts to permit assessments of whether programs are effective.

The Claims Resolution Act, which extended TANF through FY2011, included a requirement that

states submit supplemental expenditure reports in 2011 detailing program expenditures on

activities such as child welfare payments, child welfare services, emergency aid, domestic

violence services, mental health and addiction services, education and youth programs, early

childhood development programs, and TANF-funded expenditures on juvenile justice. These are

not categories in the existing TANF expenditure report. HHS reports from the Claims Resolution

Act data confirmed that much of “other” spending is for activities for families with children who

have been subject to, or are at risk of, abuse and neglect, and potentially subject to removal from

the home to foster care.8

The additional reporting required for 2011 in the Claims Resolution Act indicates that Congress

recognized that a part of the TANF story is not being told. Obtaining more detailed information

imposes additional reporting burdens on the states. However, for the long term, Congress could

modify TANF’s existing requirements to obtain such information rather than require additional

reports. Existing reports include TANF plans, which are prospective documents that states must

submit before receiving their block grants, quarterly reports on expenditures and caseloads, and a

retrospective annual report. Options for modifying these reports include

•

changing the requirements for state plans to (1) describe all TANF-funded

programs and activities; (2) submit information in a standardized form, for better

comparisons across states; (3) relate each program or activity to a TANF goal; (4)

(...continued)

eligible children who receive child care subsidies in a state and the co-payments families receiving subsidies must pay

relative to income.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Engagement in Additional Work Activities and Expenditures for

Other Benefits and Services, April-June 2011: A TANF Report to Congress, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

establish goals and outcome measures for the program or activity; and (5)

provide a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the activity;

•

requiring additional detail in quarterly expenditure reports, such as the additional

information required for the supplemental reports under the Claims Resolution

Act; and

•

expanding quarterly caseload reporting to include additional, selected TANFfunded benefits and services (e.g., require reporting on participants in subsidized

jobs); Congress potentially also could expand relevant reporting systems in

certain related programs (e.g., child care reporting system) to include TANFfunded services.

In terms of requiring an assessment of TANF-funded activities, Congress could ask the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to re-establish some national measures and

assess programs in that manner. However, because each state may use TANF’s flexibility

differently, another option would be to have each state set its own goals and provide an annual

assessment for how these goals are being met in retrospective annual reports.

Assessing Welfare-to-Work Activities

As discussed above, the TANF work participation standard is the main performance measure used

to assess the block grant. It relates to only one facet of what states do with TANF. It also affects a

relatively small population (particularly when compared with the historical welfare caseload).

However, the work participation standard reflects the welfare-to-work philosophy that helped to

create TANF. Additionally, it reflects efforts to help a very disadvantaged population (those who

have come on the cash assistance rolls) reintegrate into the workforce.

TANF’s work participation standards are numerical performance measures that set target rates of

participation in work and self-sufficiency activities for a state’s cash assistance caseload as a

whole. They do not apply directly to recipients, though they may help shape the types of

requirements states place on individuals. The TANF statute sets a target that 50% of all families

with an adult recipient should be engaged in specified work or self-sufficiency activities for at

least a certain number of hours per week each month. It also sets a separate two-parent work

participation standard, with a target of 90% for these families.

Figure 2 shows that the national average work participation rate for all families has been fairly

stable over the period from FY2000 to FY2009 at a level well below 50%. The rate has hovered

around 30% for the entire period.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Figure 2. National Average TANF Work Participation Rates

Under Federal Rules: FY2000-FY2009

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

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

Services (HHS).

Notes: Official rate under federal rules means the work participation rate for all families excluding activities and

exemptions under grandfathered “waivers” of pre-1996 rules. Under the 1996 law, a state that obtained such

waiver was permitted to continue operating until its expiration. The last waiver expired in 2007.

Most states have met their individual state standards because the actual, effective standard they

face is lower than 50% because of credits. A state receives credit toward meeting its participation

standard through caseload reductions and also for spending in excess of what is counted toward

the MOE.

The calculation of the work participation rate is fairly complex. Almost all activities that one

would typically think of as helping a recipient achieve self-sufficiency count in some manner

toward the TANF work standard—including educational and rehabilitative activities. However,

the law places limits on counting pre-employment activities. The combination of job search and

job readiness activities, which includes rehabilitative activities, is only countable for up to 12

weeks in a fiscal year. Vocational educational training, which includes post-secondary education,

is only countable for one year in a recipient’s lifetime. Completing secondary school or obtaining

a General Educational Development (GED) credential for those age 20 or older are countable

only in conjunction with activities more closely associated with work. Teen parents engaged in

education may be considered as engaged in activities countable toward the standard. However,

the combination of teen parents engaged in education and those engaged by virtue of vocational

educational training cannot count for more than 30% of all families engaged in work or activities

countable toward the standards.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

The only activities that count without limit are unsubsidized employment, subsidized

employment, on-the-job training, and working off a cash assistance benefit through work

experience or community service. The limits on counting pre-employment activities of job search,

rehabilitation, and education raise both measurement and policy issues. In terms of measurement,

they raise questions about whether the work participation rate adequately measures state effort in

moving families from welfare-to-work. An alternative, broader measure that reports the percent of

adult recipients engaged in any activity for any number of hours shows somewhat higher rates of

engagement, but little change in the trend (fluctuating between 42% and 45% for FY2000 through

FY2008). This broader measure might also understate total engagement if states fail to report

participation that does not count toward the official standard.

The Claims Resolution Act included a provision to require states to make a supplemental report

on engagement, focusing on activities that do not count toward the official standard. HHS reports

from the Claims Resolution Act reporting showed that states did fail to report some work activity,

but that this failure to report some participation does not substantially alter the picture in terms of

the percent of the caseload engaged in any activity. However, the Claims Resolution Act data did

provide new information on the circumstantiates of those with zero hours of participation –

including the share of the caseload exempt because of illness or disability (6% of all those

considered work-eligible) and the share in the process of being sanctioned (10% of all those

considered work-eligible).

Additionally, the work participation rate only captures activities for those on the rolls. States may,

and have, used TANF funds for employment and education activities for low-income parents who

are not on the cash assistance rolls. A major recent example, discussed below, is subsidized

employment.

To address the measurement issues, Congress might seek to

•

require states to report activities even if they don’t count toward the TANF work

participation standard;

•

require the calculation of a second, broader measure of participation in selfsufficiency activities that could be developed to complement the existing, current

participation standard; this could include employment and training activities for

those not on the assistance rolls, such as subsidized employment and

participation of low-income parents in TANF-funded community college

programs.

The policy question is whether the work participation standard achieves the goal of engaging a

sufficient number of recipients in activities that could lead to employment. The credits against the

participation standard have diluted its effect. If Congress would seek to raise the rate at which

recipients engage in activities, the major issue would be determining what rate is achievable and

under what circumstances. Welfare-to-work programs evaluated before the 1996 law, even the

successful ones, failed to achieve a 50% monthly participation rate.9 The natural dynamics of the

cash assistance caseload—new recipients coming on to the rolls and awaiting assignments, and

others leaving—can depress monthly participation rates. A 90% participation rate for two-parent

See Gayle Hamilton, The JOBS Evaluation: Monthly Participation Rates and Factors Affecting Participation Levels

in Welfare-to-Work Programs, MDRC, July 1995, http://www.mdrc.org/publications/217/execsum.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

families has generally been considered difficult to achieve, and many states have withdrawn their

two-parent families from TANF to avoid the necessity of achieving that standard.10

Most of the past proposals for changing the participation standard focused on expanding either

education or rehabilitative activities (e.g., vocational rehabilitation for physical disabilities;

mental health or substance abuse treatment, etc.). The evaluation literature of the 1980s and early

1990s found that education-focused programs, while effective in moving families from welfareto-work, were not more effective than “work-first” programs even over a relatively long (fiveyear) time period. However, since that research was completed, a new generation of programs has

emerged in the education arena that shows promise in addressing the factors that might have

limited the effectiveness of past education-focused programs (for example, progressing in an

educational program).11 Little definitive research has been done on the effectiveness of

rehabilitative activities on cash assistance recipients. Moreover, it should be noted that the “workfirst” approach evaluated in welfare-to-work studies emphasized job search—itself only

countable for up to 12 weeks in the fiscal year under the current work participation rules.

Policy options to address the policies of work participation among cash assistance families

include

•

strengthening the participation standard by eliminating credits against them, so

that only participation in activities helps states achieve the work participation

rate;

•

expanding the exemptions from families being considered in the participation

rate calculation, such as allowing an optional exemption for the first month on

the rolls to allow states time to engage a recipient in activities;

•

eliminating the 90% participation standard for two-parent families; and

•

allowing broader measures of participation—that count more or even all preemployment activities—to be used against the standard rather than the current

work participation rate; the broader measure could also count selected activities

of those not receiving ongoing cash assistance, such as subsidized employment.

Assessing How TANF Serves the Needs of the “Child-Only” Caseload

Welfare-to-work and the work participation standard reflect policies that apply to families with an

adult recipient. However, a large share of the TANF assistance caseload does not have an adult

recipient. In June 2011, 41% of all TANF assistance families had no adult receiving benefits on

their own behalf—all benefits were paid on behalf of the children in the families. This portion of

the caseload, known as the “child-only” caseload, reflects families in a range of circumstances.

This includes families where (1) the parents receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), usually

on the basis of disability; (2) the children are living with non-parent caretakers, such as

grandparents; and (3) citizen children are living with TANF-ineligible noncitizens. There is little

federal policy that affects this portion of the cash assistance caseload. Moreover, there is little in

the way of performance measurement for these families. The Government Accountability Office

In FY2009, 27 jurisdictions did not have any two-parent families in TANF or MOE-funded assistance programs.

For example, see Susan Scrivener and Erin Coghlan, Opening Doors to Student Success: A Synthesis of Findings

from an Evaluation at Six Community Colleges, MDRC, Policy Brief, March 2011, http://www.mdrc.org/publications/

585/policybrief.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

(GAO) recently examined the “child welfare caseload” and, focusing on those child-only cases in

the care of non-relative parents, recommended that HHS clarifying its guidance and provide

technical assistance to the states to facilitate greater data sharing between TANF and the agencies

that deal with issues related to child abuse and neglect.12

TANF’s Responsiveness To a Recession

The recession of 2007-2009 represents the first deep and long economic slump since the

enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law. During the recession and its aftermath, the cash

assistance caseload increased nationally and in most states. Though the cash assistance caseload

fell during the first months of the recession, the caseload increased beginning in August of 2008.

From July 2008 to June 2011, the cash assistance caseload increased by 15%, adding about

250,000 families to the monthly benefit rolls. Under TANF, the cash assistance rolls continued to

be much diminished from their pre-1996 welfare reform levels. The number of families receiving

benefits in June 2011—1.9 million—is well below the number receiving benefits—5.1 million—

at the peak of the cash assistance caseload in March 1994, well after the end of the 1990-1991

recession.

Whether the 15% rise in the TANF cash assistance caseload was an adequate response to the

recession is difficult to answer. Not all demographic groups were hit equally hard by the

recession. The unemployment rate for men was well above that for women, though young women

and young single mothers, who represent most TANF cash adult recipients, had higher rates of

unemployment than older, married women (see Table A-2 and Table A-3 for changes in

unemployment and employment by family type). Additionally, TANF’s response is best viewed in

the context of the response of all assistance programs. The front-line program of income support

during a recession is Unemployment Insurance (UI). During the 2007-2009 recession and

thereafter, the share of the unemployed receiving UI was higher than during any recession since

the 1970s.13 Moreover, UI receipt had a greater effect on reducing poverty in the most recent

recession—including poverty among children living with single mothers—than it did during

either the 1990-1991 or the 2001 recessions. Much of the impact of UI on incomes and poverty is

owed to the legislated, ad-hoc extensions of benefits (beyond the 26 weeks of regular UI benefits

usually available). Taken together, all transfer programs had a substantial impact in mitigating the

income loss during the 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath.14

Further, TANF responded to the recession in ways other than through increases in the cash

assistance caseload. As discussed below, TANF also funded subsidized jobs in response to the

recession and provided emergency, short-term aid to families. Participants in subsidized

employment and receiving short-term aid are not counted in the TANF assistance caseload

figures.

However, the experience of the 2007-2009 recession raises a number of policy concerns. First,

some of the policies outside of TANF to aid families during the recession—particularly the

U.S. Government Accountability Office, TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data Sharing Could

Improve Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2, October 2011.

See CRS Report R41777, Antipoverty Effects of Unemployment Insurance, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

For the impact of unemployment insurance on child poverty rates, see Table A-4.

See CRS Report R41917, Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2010,

by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

extensions of UI benefits—are not part of permanent policy, but rather were temporary measures

enacted to respond to the recession. There is no assurance that Congress will be able or willing to

respond to future recessions in the same manner.

Second, the 1996 welfare law included a $2 billion contingency fund, most of which was still

available at the beginning of FY2008. However, the fund was exhausted in early FY2010 based

on grants made to relatively few states (18 states and the District of Columbia). Many states

failed to qualify for regular contingency funds because of its requirement that states expend more

than 100% of what they spent in FY1994 to receive matching grants.

Congress augmented the regular contingency fund by creating a temporary, Emergency

Contingency Fund (ECF), funded at $5 billion for two years, FY2009 and FY2010. The ECF only

financed expenditures for basic assistance, short-term non-recurrent aid, and subsidized jobs.

However, it allowed states to access these funds based on increased expenditures in these

categories from the recent pre-recession years rather than increases from pre-welfare reform

levels. The ECF rules expanded access to extra funding and 52 of the 54 jurisdictions operating

TANF drew ECF grants. However, the ECF also is not part of permanent law, and it expired on

September 30, 2010.

Finally, the story of how TANF responds to the recession is ongoing, given the persistent high

rate of unemployment.

The most likely options for Congress to address TANF’s ability to respond to a future recession

are through changes to the contingency fund. Congress might consider adding new funding to the

contingency fund or establishing policies that would structure aid (though, given budget

constraints, not necessarily automatically provide funding) that would be available in future

recessions. Congress might consider the following:

•

Revising the requirement that states spend more than 100% of what they spent in

FY1994. Like the ECF, proposals approved by the Senate Finance Committee

(but not acted on by the full Senate) during the 2002-2005 period would have

allowed access to contingency funds on the basis of increased expenditures from

recent, pre-recession years, rather than linking it to increased spending from

FY1994 levels.

•

Narrowing the types of expenditures reimbursed to target economic aid to

families, such as basic assistance, short-term emergency aid, and subsidized

employment. This would help ration extra funding, which otherwise might be

diverted into fiscal relief that could be simply re-financing existing state

spending on human services.

•

Revising the economic criteria for allowing access to the contingency fund. This

might help target aid to periods when a state experiences its next economic

slump. The current economically needy criteria for states—particularly the

criterion that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP ) caseloads be

at least 10% above pre-welfare reform levels—are likely to be met by many

states long after the recent recession has ended.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Subsidized Employment

Despite the focus on work during the 1996 welfare reform debate, subsidized employment has

been a relatively small part of TANF throughout most of its history. However, the ECF (discussed

above) provided grants of $1.3 billion to help finance subsidized employment during FY2009 and

FY2010. The ECF was estimated to have funded 262,500 job slots during its lifetime.15 TANFfunded subsidized employment programs can be for those who are on the cash assistance rolls, or

for those who are not receiving cash assistance but qualify for TANF: needy custodial parents,

noncustodial parents, nonparent caretaker relatives (grandparents, aunts, and uncles) or youth.

That is, a subsidized job can be provided in lieu of cash assistance or to certain persons (e.g.,

noncustodial parents) who are unlikely to receive TANF cash assistance.

Subsidized employment programs can benefit individual participants by providing job experience

for those with limited work histories, filling gaps in employment histories for those who are

unemployed for long periods of time, and keeping an individual attached to the labor force.

Subsidized employment programs can also provide more income for families than TANF cash

assistance benefits provide. Subsidized employment programs can also benefit communities by

producing goods or services that are of value to the community.

However, a more difficult question to answer is whether subsidized employment programs

actually create jobs. While programs must comply with non-displacement requirements (cannot

use a subsidized job to fill a position where someone is on layoff), this does not mean that all

subsidized employment positions reflect jobs that otherwise would not exist. Research on public

sector, public service jobs in the 1970s found that state and local governments did to some degree

substitute subsidized jobs for regular public sector jobs. The applicable research is more limited

on whether subsidized private sector jobs can substitute for regular jobs. One of the Obama

Administration’s “general principles” for reauthorization of TANF is to build on recent

experience with TANF subsidized employment. Congress could consider

•

establishing a dedicated funding stream for subsidized employment; and/or

•

creating non-financial inducements for states to expand their subsidized

employment programs, such as counting participation in subsidized employment

for those not on the ongoing cash assistance rolls toward a state’s work

participation standard.

Fathers

The current cash assistance programs date their lineage to “mothers’ pension” programs, and most

of the policy concerns in past welfare reform debates have focused on families headed by a single

mother. The circumstances of the fathers of children living with single mothers—today, more

likely to be alive but absent from the household rather than deceased—have received far less

policy attention until recently.

LaDonna Pavetti, Liz Schott, and Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Creating Subsidized Employment Opportunities for LowIncome Parents: The Legacy of the TANF Emergency Fund, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for

Law and Social Policy, February 16, 2011.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Noncustodial fathers are expected to help support their children through the payment of child

support. Child support collections through the Federal-State Child Support Enforcement (CSE)

program increased dramatically in the post-welfare reform period, rising 73% in inflationadjusted terms between FY1995 and FY2009. Total CSE collections stood at $26.4 billion in the

recession year FY2009. Despite the successes of the CSE program in increasing collections, the

CSE program collected only 64% of the total amount of current support that was due and an even

smaller proportion (7%) of past-due support.

One common characterization of noncustodial fathers who fail to pay their child support is that of

a “dead-beat” dad. However, research has shown that some of these fathers are themselves poor.

These fathers—like their single mother counterparts—tend to have lower levels of educational

attainment and face above-average rates of health barriers to employment. Long-term economic

and social trends reflect some of the challenges to policies that would further involve men in the

lives of their children. Wages of men in general have been stagnant—the inflation-adjusted

median annual earnings of a man working full-time all year peaked in 1973—and for men with

lower levels of educational attainment, wages have fallen. Fathers face an additional barrier to

supporting their children—high rates of incarceration. In 2009, 949 per 100,000 males were

incarcerated versus 67 per 100,000 females. For African-American males, the incarceration rate

was 3,119 per 100,000. While fathers who are in prison have obvious constraints on their ability

to support their children, the stigma of having a criminal record is an employment barrier faced

by ex-offenders.16

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) established within the TANF program two

categorical, competitive grant programs to fund healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood

initiatives. For FY2006 through FY2010, the grants were funded at about $100 million per year

for healthy marriage activities and $50 million per year for responsible fatherhood activities.

These programs fund grants to community-based organizations, to operate initiatives that focus

on providing training in “soft-skills” (e.g., social skills, conflict resolution) to help either couples

or noncustodial fathers. TANF’s one year extension in the Claims Resolution Act provided equal

funding at $75 million each for these two sets of activities, though the Administration solicited

grantees who would take a more comprehensive approach to fatherhood issues, integrating

employment services with soft-skills training.

Congress has a number of options should it wish to expand programs focused on fathers. It could

create a new funding stream within the CSE program for this purpose. Or Congress might

consider ways states could make more extensive use of existing TANF funds to serve

disadvantaged noncustodial parents by, for example,

•

continuing DRA-established programs, possibly emphasizing activities such as

employment services in addition to training in social skills;

•

providing states with the incentive to expand subsidized jobs programs for

noncustodial parents; an example of such an incentive is allowing states to count

participants in subsidized employment who are not recipients of ongoing cash

assistance toward the TANF work participation standard;

For a discussion of policies affecting noncustodial parents, usually fathers, see CRS Report R41431, Child WellBeing and Noncustodial Fathers, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

•

establishing a TANF state plan requirement that requires states to discuss and set

goals for noncustodial parents; this could be paired with requiring states to assess

their efforts at aiding noncustodial parents.

Recent Chronology

February 8, 2006

Enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which provided

TANF funding through September 30, 2010.

September 30, 2010

Enactment of the First Continuing Appropriation for FY2011 (P.L. 111-242),

providing funding for TANF through December 3, 2010. It also appropriates to the

TANF contingency fund $506 million for FY2011 and $612 million for FY2012.

December 4, 2010

Enactment of the Second Continuing Appropriation for FY2011 (P.L. 111-290),

providing funding for TANF through December 18, 2010.

December 8, 2010

Enactment of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) that provides

funding for TANF through September 30, 2011. However, TANF supplemental

grants are funded only through June 30, 2011. Provides that no further contingency

funds may be obligated for FY2011.

February 14, 2011

President Obama submits his FY2012 budget proposal. Provides “general principles”

to consider when Congress considers reauthorizing TANF.

September 30, 2011

Enactment of the Short-Term TANF Extension Act (P.L. 112-35) that provides a

three-month extension of TANF funding through December 31, 2011.

December 13, 2011

House passes H.R. 3630, an omnibus bill that would extend the 2011 payroll tax

reduction and unemployment benefits together with extending TANF through the

end of FY2012.

December 15, 2011

House passes H.R. 3659, a stand-alone TANF bill that includes the TANF provisions

of H.R. 3630.

December 17, 2011

Senate passes an amended version of H.R. 3630, which would provide a two-month

extension of TANF funding.

December 20, 2011

House requests a conference to reconcile differing versions of H.R. 3630.

December 23, 2011

Enactment of P.L. 112-78 providing a two-month extension of TANF funds through

February 29, 2012.

February 13, 2012

President Obama submits his FY2013 budget, proposing to revive and make

permanent TANF supplemental grants beginning in FY2013.

February 16, 2012

Conference agreement on H.R. 3630 reached; passed the House and Senate the

following day.

February 22, 2012

H.R. 3630 signed into P.L. 112-96.

Legislation in the 112th Congress

P.L. 112-35 (H.R. 2943, Geoff Davis). Extended TANF basic, healthy marriage and responsible

fatherhood, and mandatory child care grants (and certain other TANF funds) through December

31, 2011. Passed the House, September 21, 2011; passed the Senate, September 23, 2011; signed

by the President, September 30, 2011.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

P.L. 112-78 (H.R. 3765, Camp). Includes a two-month extension of TANF funding through

February 29, 2012. Passed by both the House and Senate by unanimous consent, and signed by

the President, on December 23, 2011.

P.L. 112-96 (H.R. 3630, Camp). Includes provisions to extend TANF basic, contingency fund,

responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage grants, and mandatory child care funds through the

end of FY2012. Also provides that TANF cash assistance cannot be accessed in strip clubs, liquor

stores, or casinos. Requires that TANF data reported by states be in a standardized format. Passed

the House December 13, 2011. Amended to provide a two-month extension of TANF funding

without policy changes and passed by the Senate December 17, 2011. Conference agreement,

including an extension of TANF through the end of FY2012, filed on February 16, 2012, and

passed both the House and Senate February 17, 2012. Signed by the President on February 22,

2012.

S. 943 (Hatch) and H.R. 3567 (Boustany). Would require states to establish policies that prevent

the use of TANF cash assistance in any transaction that occurs in a liquor store, a casino, or a strip

club. States that fail to implement a policy could be penalized with a funding reduction of up to

5% of the state family assistance grant. Amended version passed the House February 2, 2012.

H.R. 628 (Cleaver). Establishes a $20 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund for FY2011

through FY2018. It provides funding for increases in cash assistance, non-recurrent short-term

benefits, and subsidized employment.

H.R. 1135 (Jordan) and H.R. 1167 (Jordan). Similar bills; both would reduce the TANF basic

block grant to $15.5 billion. Also, both would set an overall cap on spending for need-tested

benefits, enforced through the congressional budget process.

H.R. 2277 (Doggett). Would extend TANF supplemental grants through the end of FY2011

(September 30, 2011).

H.R. 3193 (Fincher). Would require state TANF programs to operate random drug testing

programs for TANF applicants and recipients and would require state TANF programs to deny

assistance to individuals who test positive for illegal drugs or are convicted of drug-related

crimes. The state family assistance grant would be reduced by 10% if a state does not implement

a drug testing program.

H.R. 3226 (Lee). Would reestablish the Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs

to provide funding related to increased caseload, increased expenditures for non-recurrent shortterm benefits, and increased expenditures for subsidized employment.

H.R. 3573 (Moore). Would permanently reauthorize TANF, increase the basic block grant for

both inflation and child population growth since 1996, prospectively increase the block grant for

inflation and child population growth, establish open-ended matching grants for subsidized

employment, revise the TANF contingency fund, and provide open-ended matching grants for

child care. It would establish reducing child poverty as the first goal of the block grant. The bill

would also prohibit states from ending benefits entirely (full family sanctions) for failure to meet

program requirements, require states to engage in a sanction review process with a family before

imposing a sanction, and prohibit states from imposing a time limit on receipt of assistance of less

than 60 months. It would also require states to determine a family budget necessary to meet basic

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

needs, as well as penalize states that fail to provide a benefit commensurate with such a

family benefit.

H.R. 3638 (Grijalva). Includes a provision to establish a $5 billion contingency fund for FY2012

and FY2013.

H.R. 3659 (Paulsen). Includes provisions to extend TANF basic, contingency fund, responsible

fatherhood and healthy marriage grants, and mandatory child care funds through the end of

FY2012. Also provides that TANF cash assistance cannot be accessed in strip clubs, liquor stores,

or casinos. Requires that TANF data reported by states be in a standardized format. Passed the

House December 15, 2011.

H.R. 3722 (Pearce). Would require states to operate drug testing programs for all applicants of

assistance and require sanctions for those that fail the test. Also requires applicants to pay the

costs of the drug test up-front. Such costs would be reimbursed to the applicant once he or she

passes the drug test and begins to receive assistance.

S. 83 (Vitter) and H.R. 1769 (Boustany). Would require states to operate drug testing programs

for recipients of TANF assistance, and would require states to sanction individuals who fail

drug tests.

Additional Reading

The American Public Human Services Association and the National Association of State TANF

Administrators, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Recommendations for

Reauthorization, December 2010, http://www.aphsa.org/Home/Doc/APHSANASTATANFRecommendations.pdf.

Katherine Bradley and Robert Rector, Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare

Entitlements: Principles of Reform and Next Steps, Heritage Foundation, June 24, 2010,

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2427.pdf.

Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Goals for TANF Reauthorization, Center for Law and Social Policy

January 24, 2011, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/TANF-ReauthorizationGoals.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Appendix. Additional Tables

Table A-1. TANF Grants Per Poor Child: Basic Block Grant Only (State Family

Assistance Grant) and Basic Block Grants with TANF Supplemental Grants

(Number of poor children are as measured in the 2009 American Community Survey; states ranked based

on their State Family Assistance Grant per poor child)

State Family

Assistance Grant

(SFAG)

SFAG Plus Supplemental

Grants Funded at $319

Million Per Year

(historical level of

supplemental grants)

SFAG Plus Supplemental

Grants Funded at $211

Million Per Year (current

law FY2011 level of

supplemental grants)

Texas

$293

$324

$314

Arkansas

300

333

322

Alabama

339

380

366

Mississippi

373

412

399

Nevada

373

405

394

South Carolina

385

Idaho

426

472

457

Tennessee

547

609

588

Arizona

559

619

598

Georgia

582

648

625

North Carolina

599

670

646

Louisiana

612

675

654

South Dakota

617

Virginia

625

Colorado

646

711

689

Florida

660

731

707

Indiana

665

Kentucky

710

Utah

732

815

786

Oklahoma

738

Missouri

746

Kansas

840

Nebraska

875

Delaware

964

Montana

981

1,006

998

New Mexico

984

1,035

1,018

Illinois

989

Oregon

1,022

Iowa

1,202

State

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

State Family

Assistance Grant

(SFAG)

SFAG Plus Supplemental

Grants Funded at $319

Million Per Year

(historical level of

supplemental grants)

SFAG Plus Supplemental

Grants Funded at $211

Million Per Year (current

law FY2011 level of

supplemental grants)

West Virginia

1,243

Ohio

1,246

New Hampshire

1,259

Wyoming

1,364

North Dakota

1,455

New Jersey

1,482

Wisconsin

1,484

Maryland

1,487

Michigan

1,492

Minnesota

1,540

Pennsylvania

1,542

Washington

1,612

Maine

1,729

California

2,022

Massachusetts

2,475

Rhode Island

2,518

Hawaii

2,520

Alaska

2,751

3,049

2,948

Connecticut

2,753

District of Columbia

2,795

New York

2,813

Vermont

2,871

National Average

1,125

1,147

1,139

293

324

314

State

Minimum

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Note: Child poverty is measured as the number of persons under age 18 living in families below the poverty

level as measured in the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Table A-2. Number of Unemployed and Unemployment Rate

by Family Type: 2007 and 2009

Number of Unemployed

(in thousands)

2007

2009

Unemployment Rate

Difference

2007

2009

Difference

Family heads and spouses with own children

Married mothers

549

1,027

478

3.1

5.8

2.8

Married fathers

615

1,559

944

2.5

6.6

4.1

Single mothers

654

1,094

439

8.0

13.6

5.7

Single fathers

136

331

195

6.2

15.0

8.9

1,954

4,010

2,056

3.7

7.8

4.1

Married wives

500

1,031

530

2.6

5.2

2.7

Married husbands

547

1,422

875

4.9

6.5

1.6

Other women

1,520

2,712

1,191

5.0

8.5

3.5

Other men

2,562

5,081

2,520

7.8

15.2

7.4

Subtotal

5,129

10,246

5,116

5.0

9.6

4.6

Total

7,083

14,256

7,173

4.5

9.0

4.5

Subtotal

Others

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population

Surveys, 2007 and 2009.

Note: This table was prepared by (name redacted) of the Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research

Service (CRS).

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Table A-3. Employment-Population Ratios by Family Type 2007 and 2009

2007

2009

Difference

Married wives

66.7

65.5

-1.2

Married husbands

90.8

86.5

-4.3

Single women

70.4

65.5

-4.9

Single Men

84.0

74.7

-9.3

Subtotal

77.6

74.2

-3.4

Married wives

53.6

52.6

-0.9

Married husbands

60.6

58.2

-2.4

Other women

58.1

56.5

-1.5

Other men

62.5

56.0

-6.5

Subtotal

58.9

55.9

-3.0

Total

64.2

60.8

-3.4

Family heads and spouses with own children

Others

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population

Surveys, 2007 and 2009.

Note: This table was prepared by (name redacted) of the Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research

Service (CRS).

Table A-4. Impact of Unemployment Compensation on Child Poverty Rates,

Selected Years Associated with Recessions

1993

2002

2009

Pre-UC poor

23.3

17.3

22.0

Officially poor

22.7

16.7

20.7

Difference

-0.6

-1.3

Pre-UC poor

54.9

40.9

46.6

Officially poor

54.3

39.8

45.1

Difference

-0.6

-1.1

-1.6

All Children

Children living in single female-headed families

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population

Surveys, selected years.

Congressional Research Service

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Acknowledgments

Meredith Peterson prepared the summary of TANF legislation introduced in the 112th Congress.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.