Welfare Reauthorization: A Side-By-Side Comparison of Current Law and Pending Welfare Reauthorization Proposals

Order Code RL33157

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Welfare Reauthorization:

A Side-By-Side Comparison of

Current Law and Pending Welfare

Reauthorization Proposals

Updated December 5, 2005

-name redacted-, -name redacted-, -name redacted-, -name redactedSpecialists in Social Legislation

Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Welfare Reauthorization:

A Side-By-Side Comparison of Current Law

and Pending Welfare Reauthorization Proposals

Summary

The 109th Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize and amend

programs that were created or revised in the 1996 welfare reform law. Early in 2005,

the Senate Committees on Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(HELP) reported their welfare reauthorization legislation (respectively, S. 667 and

S. 525). These bills have yet to see floor action and remain pending in the Senate.

The House passed welfare reauthorization as part of its spending budget

reconciliation bill (the House-passed version of S. 1932). The Senate-passed

spending reconciliation bill does not include welfare reauthorization provisions.

Both the Senate Finance Committee bill and the House reconciliation bill would

reauthorize through FY2010 and revise the block grant of Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF). They both revise TANF work participation standards

aimed to require more families on the welfare rolls to work or participate in job

preparation activities. The Senate committee bill would allow a broad range of

activities engaged in by recipients to count toward meeting these standards, while the

House bill would narrow the focus of activities to work or “workfare” outside of a

four-month period. Both the Senate committee and House reconciliation bills also

would establish $200 million per year in grants to promote “healthy” marriages.

Both the Senate committee and House reconciliation bills would extend and

increase funding for mandatory child care, though the size of the funding increase is

a major difference between the two proposals — $6 billion over five years in the

Senate committee bill and $0.5 billion over five years in the House bill. Both would

also reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), increasing

its authorization to $3.1 billion by FY2010, and would revise CCDBG rules,

including those related to making school-readiness a program goal and increasing the

percentage of funds to improve the quality of child care.

Both the Senate committee and House reconciliation bills would revise the

Child Support Enforcement program to provide financing options for states to pay

more collected child support to families on TANF or who have left the rolls.

(Generally, federal and state governments keep child support collected for TANF

families as reimbursement for their welfare costs.) The Senate committee bill would

provide partial federal funding for child support passed through to families — up to

$400 per month for one child and $600 per month for two or more children. The

House bill would provide partial federal funding to states that increase the amount

of passed-through child support. The House reconciliation bill also would reduce

federal funding to the states to operate their child support programs. Both Senate

committee and House bills would also establish “responsible fatherhood” programs

to fund activities to increase the participation of noncustodial parents in their

children’s lives. The Senate committee bill would provide $50 million per year in

mandatory funding (and authorize another $26 million per year); the House

reconciliation bill would authorize (but not provide funding) for up to $20 million

per year. This report will be updated as needed.

Contents

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

Summary of Similarities and Differences in the Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

TANF Funding Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Uses of Grants and Program Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Work Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Marriage Promotion Grants and Family Formation Issues . . . . . . . . . . 8

Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Discretionary Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Mandatory Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Authority to Transfer TANF Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Use of Funds for Direct Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Option to Use Excess Funds for Increasing Payment Rates . . . . . . . . 10

Quality Set-Aside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Definition of “Quality Activities” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Data Collection and Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Waivers in Response to Gulf Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Responsible Fatherhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Child Support Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Enforcement Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

S. 667 and House Budget Reconciliation Bill:

Major Provisions Related to Child Support Enforcement . . . . . . 15

Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Detailed Comparison of Senate Committee Bills

and the House Budget Reconciliation Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant . . . . . . . . 21

Findings and Goals and Purposes of TANF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

TANF Financing Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Work Participation Requirements and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Other Requirements with Respect to Families

Receiving Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Marriage Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

State Plans, Data Reporting, Research (Other than

Marriage Promotion) and Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Overview, Goals and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Application and plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Activities to improve the quality of child care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Report by the HHS Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Reports and audits from States to HHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Other Child Care Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Responsible Fatherhood Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Responsible Fatherhood Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Summary of the Responsible Fatherhood Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Prohibitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Assignment and Distribution of Child Support for

TANF and Former TANF Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Enforcement Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Financing Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Other Child Support Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Child welfare waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Other Child Welfare Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Extension of Program Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Revision of TMA rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Supplemental Security Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Review of Disability Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

SSI Eligibility for Asylees, Refugees, and

Certain Other Noncitizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Payment of Lump-Sum Benefit Installments under SSI . . . . . . . . . . 121

Abstinence Education State Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Extension of Program Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Social Services Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Program Integration Waivers (“Superwaiver”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Authority for Program Integration Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Covered Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

General Requirements that Cannot Be Waived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Program-Specific Requirements that Cannot Be Waived . . . . . . . . . 125

Application and Approval Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Cost Neutrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Evaluation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

List of Tables

Table 1. Welfare Reauthorization Provisions Included in

Senate Committee Bills and House Budget Reconciliation Bill . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 2. Comparison of Current Law with S. 667/525

and the House Budget Reconciliation Bill Welfare Provisions . . . . . . . . . . 21

Acknowledgments

This report benefitted from the contribution of Scott Szymendera of the

Domestic Social Policy Division.

Welfare Reauthorization: A Side-By-Side

Comparison of Current Law, and Pending

Welfare Reauthorization Proposals

Introduction

The 109th Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize and amend

programs that were created or revised in the 1996 welfare reform law.1 Early in the

109th Congress, the Senate Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Committees approved and reported their welfare reauthorization legislation

(respectively, S. 667 and S. 525). Neither bill has yet seen action in the full Senate.

In the House, a welfare reauthorization proposal (H.R. 240), introduced by the House

Republican Leadership, has also failed to reach the floor.

On November 18, 2005, the House passed its budget reconciliation bill (S.

1932), which includes welfare reauthorization legislation similar to that which passed

the House in 2002 and 2003. (The House-passed version of S. 1932 is H.R. 4241 as

amended and approved by the House.) Welfare reauthorization legislation was not

included in the Senate-passed reconciliation bill.

This report compares the welfare reauthorization policies proposed in the Senate

committee bills with those included in the House-passed budget reconciliation bill.

It is not a comparison of welfare provisions in the House and Senate reconciliation

bills. (Such a comparison, which displays House-passed welfare provisions with

corresponding “No Provision” entries for the Senate-passed version of reconciliation,

is available from the Congressional Research Service upon request.)

The original funding authority for the block grant of Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF), the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG),

abstinence education, and transitional medical assistance (TMA) under Medicaid

expired on September 30, 2002. Funding and program authority for TANF,

mandatory child care, abstinence education, and TMA have been continued by

special temporary extension legislation since then, with the latest extension set to

expire on December 31, 2005. CCDBG discretionary funding has been provided,

absent authorization, in annual appropriation bills. Also included in “welfare

reauthorization” legislation have been initiatives to create a responsible fatherhood

grant program, revise the Child Support Enforcement program, amend child welfare

1

For a discussion of issues in reauthorizing welfare programs, see CRS Issue Brief IB10140

Welfare Reauthorization, Overview of the Issues, by (name redacted), et al. Updated regularly.

CRS-2

programs, and make some changes to Supplemental Security Income, as well as

create new “superwaiver” authority.

Summary of Similarities and Differences in the Bills

Most of the welfare reauthorization provisions approved early in 2005 have

counterparts in the House budget reconciliation bill. There are notable exceptions.

S. 667 (the Finance Committee bill) would extend the abstinence education state

grant program and revise and extend TMA through FY2010, whereas the House

budget reconciliation bill includes none of those provisions. Further, the House

reconciliation bill, unlike the Senate committee bills or the earlier House Republican

Leadership welfare reauthorization bill (H.R. 240), includes some additional

provisions that would reduce spending, including proposals to reduce federal

matching funds for state Child Support Enforcement programs and to revise foster

care and adoption assistance eligibility rules to negate a court ruling that expanded

eligibility for these programs in certain states.

Table 1 summarizes what provisions are included in the Senate committee bills

and the House reconciliation bill. Note that when provisions are included in both,

they still may differ significantly in their details. These differences are the subject

of the remainder of this report.

Table 1. Welfare Reauthorization Provisions Included

in Senate Committee Bills and House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Provision

Senate-Committee

Approved Legislation

House Budget

Reconciliation Bill

Extend TANF funding

through FY2005

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

Revise TANF Work

Requirements

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

Establish “Marriage

Promotion Grants” within

TANF

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

Increase Mandatory Child

Care Funding

Yes — S. 667 increases

mandatory child care

funding by $6 billion over

five years.

Yes — $0.5 billion

increase over five years.

Reauthorize and amend

the Child Care and

Development Block Grant

Yes — S. 525.

Yes.

Establish “Responsible

Fatherhood” programs.

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

CRS-3

Provision

Senate-Committee

Approved Legislation

House Budget

Reconciliation Bill

Increase amount of child

support passed-through to

families receiving TANF.

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

Reduce the federal share

of funding for state child

support programs.

No.

Yes.

Extend and revise child

welfare demonstration

authority

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

Revise eligibility rules for

foster care and adoption

assistance.

No.

Yes.

Extend abstinence

education state grants

through FY2010.

Yes — S. 667.

No.

Extend transitional

medical assistance (TMA)

for families that leave

welfare for work.

Yes — S. 667.

No.

Program integration

waivers (“Superwaiver”)

Yes — S. 667.

Yes.

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant

The Senate-committee and House welfare reauthorization proposals have many

similarities, with both extending basic TANF funding at current levels through

FY2010 and incorporating President Bush’s proposal to provide categorical

“marriage promotion” grants.2 Both bills also raise TANF work participation

standards, though the two differ in terms of how much more work would be required

and what activities count toward the participation standards.

TANF Funding Provisions. Both the Senate-committee and House bills

have very similar funding provisions, although they do differ in some details. The

2

The House budget reconciliation bill is organized by Titles reflecting each House

committee’s legislative change. TANF changes are found both in Title II, from the

Education and Workforce Committee, and Title VIII of the bill, from the Ways and Means

Committee. The two committees share jurisdiction over the TANF work requirements. In

most respects, the committees reported identical legislative language amending TANF work

requirements. The difference in the two committee’s proposals — reflecting a new

requirement that parents visit schools in the Education and Workforce provisions — is noted

in Table 2.

CRS-4

major differences between the two proposals are in the contingency fund and

bonuses.

Basic Funding. The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) entitled states

to a basic TANF block grant equal to peak expenditures in the pre-1996 welfare

programs during the FY1992 to FY1995 period. It also established a maintenance

of effort (MOE) requirement that states continue to spend at least 75% (80% if a state

failed TANF work participation requirements) of what they spent in these programs

in FY1994. Cash welfare caseloads were at their peak in the mid-1990s; both the

basic TANF grant and the MOE are legislatively fixed: they did not change when

cash welfare caseloads declined in the mid- and late-1990s, nor did they increase

when caseloads in some states increased during the recent economic slump. Neither

the basic TANF block grant nor the MOE has been adjusted for inflation.

Both the Senate-committee and House proposals would continue both the basic

block grant and the MOE at their current funding levels (without inflation or caseload

adjustment) through FY2010.

Supplemental Grants. During the consideration of legislation that led to the

1996 welfare law, fixed funding based on historical expenditures was thought to

disadvantage two groups of states: (1) those that experience relatively high

population growth; and (2) those that had historically low grant levels relative to

poverty in the state. Therefore, additional funding in the form of supplemental grants

was provided to states that met criteria of high population growth and/or low historic

grants per poor person. Supplemental grants have been provided to 17 states:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and

Utah.

Currently, supplemental grants total $319 million per year. Both the Senate and

House proposals would continue supplemental grants for the same 17 states at the

current funding level through FY2009 (unlike other grants, which expire in

FY2010).

Contingency Funds. The fixed basic grant under TANF also led to concerns

of inadequate funding during economic downturns. TANF includes a contingency

fund, which is designed to provide extra matching grants to states that meet criteria

of economic need (based on unemployment rates and food stamp caseloads) and have

state expenditures in excess of their FY1994 level.

The two bills differ substantially in their proposed revisions to the TANF

contingency fund. The House budget reconciliation bill would continue the fund

under existing rules, with some relatively minor modifications: allowing some

additional state spending to count toward meeting the FY1994 funding level

threshold and modifications to increase grants for states that qualify for funds for

only part of the year.

The Senate Finance Committee proposal fully revamps the contingency fund.

It would eliminate the requirement that states increase expenditures from their own

funds above the regular TANF MOE level and would eliminate the matching

CRS-5

requirements. Instead, it requires that unspent TANF balances be below a certain

threshold to qualify for contingency funds. The Senate committee proposal would

base contingency grants on a portion of the estimated cost of increased cash

assistance caseloads. It also would revise the criteria of economic need for a state.

Bonus Funds. Current TANF law provides “bonus funds” to states that rank

high on a set of outcomes that seek to measure whether they are achieving the block

grant’s goals. It has a “High Performance Bonus” of $200 million per year for states

that rank high in achieving employment and certain other outcomes, as well as a

second $100 million per year bonus paid to the five states with the greatest reduction

in out-of-wedlock birth ratios that also have a decline in abortions.

The Senate Finance Committee bill scales back bonuses, by eliminating the

$100 million per year bonus for reductions in out-of-wedlock births, and reducing

and refocusing the “High Performance Bonus” on employment outcomes. Funding

reductions are used to “pay for” grants to promote healthy marriages and responsible

fatherhood initiatives (see a discussion of these initiatives, below). The House

budget reconciliation bill eliminates both TANF bonuses, in part to pay for grants to

promote healthy marriage and in part achieving budget reductions.

Uses of Grants and Program Requirements. Federal TANF grants and

MOE funds can be used for a wide range of benefits, services, and activities to assist

low-income families with children and to further TANF goals of reducing

out-of-wedlock births and promoting two-parent families. TANF grants can also be

transferred to other block grant programs: up to 30% of the grant can be transferred

to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and to the Social Services Block

Grant. The limit on transfers to SSBG alone is set at 4.25% (though annual

appropriations have restored the SSBG transfer limit to its original limit of 10% set

in the 1996 welfare law). Within the overall 30% limit, federal TANF funds may

also be used as the state match for federal reverse commuter grants if the program

benefits welfare families.

Both bills would set the SSBG transfer limit permanently at 10%. The House

budget reconciliation bill would raise the overall transfer limit to 50%; the Senate

Finance Committee proposal would retain the current 30% transfer limit.

Both bills include provisions to ease some rules regarding use of TANF funds.

Both House and Senate committee bills would:

!

Allow states to use carryover TANF funds for any TANF benefit and

service. Current law restricts the use of carryover funds for the

provision of “assistance.”

!

Narrow the definition of “assistance” to exclude all child care and

transportation aid. TANF funds spent on assistance trigger certain

program requirements, such as work requirements, time limits,

assignment of child support payments, and data reporting. Under

current regulations, child care and transportation aid for nonworking

families is counted as assistance and triggers these requirements.

The bills would eliminate such aid from the definition of

CRS-6

“assistance,” freeing from these requirements nonworking families

that receive only child care or transportation aid.

Work Requirements. Both the Senate Finance Committee bill and the House

budget reconciliation bill incorporate the Bush Administration’s “universal

engagement” proposal, which requires states to develop a self-sufficiency plan for all

TANF adult recipients to monitor progress toward that plan. The House budget

reconciliation bill also requires states to end benefits (“full family sanction”) for

families that fail to comply with work participation rules.

Both the Senate Finance Committee bill and House budget reconciliation bill

would substantially revise TANF work participation standards. Both bills would

raise work participation standards that states must meet from the current law’s

standard of 50% to 70%, raise the required hours of working to receive full credit and

provide partial credit for participating families that do not meet the full credit

standard, and revise the list of activities that recipients may participate in for states

to receive credit toward TANF standards. However, the bills differ in how they do

these three things.

Participation Standards. Current law requires states to have a specified

percentage of their families with an adult recipient (or minor head of household)

participating in creditable work activities. The current participation standard is 50%.

States are subject to an additional participation rate standard for two-parent families,

currently 90%. The participation rate standards may be reduced for caseload

reductions (not attributable to policy changes) that occurred since enactment of

welfare reform (FY1995). This “caseload reduction credit” has had a large effect on

participation standards, reducing the standard considerably from its statutory rate.

In FY2003, the standard was reduced to 0% for 20 states.

Both the Senate Finance Committee bill and the House budget reconciliation bill

would raise the work participation standard for all families to 70% by FY2010, and

eliminate the separate standard for two-parent families. Both bills would also change

the credits that reduce these standards from their statutory rate (i.e., reduce the 70%

standard to a lower rate), but they do so in different ways. The House bill would

retain, but revise, the current law caseload reduction credit so that caseload change

would be measured from a more recent year (rather than the pre-welfare reform

caseload level of 1995). Ultimately, caseload reduction would be measured based

on the most recent four years. The House bill also includes a provision to give an

additional credit to states that achieved a caseload reduction of 60% or more from

FY1995 to FY2001.

The Senate Finance Committee bill retains the current caseload reduction credit

for FY2006 and FY2007, but beginning in FY2008 would replace the caseload

reduction credit with a credit for employed welfare leavers. The bill would also cap

all credits against the participation standard, so that the minimum effective standard

would be 10% in FY2006, 20% in FY2007, 30% in FY2008, 40% in FY2009, and

50% in FY2010. There is no such minimum effective standard in the House bill.

Hours Standards. Current law requires that a family be considered

participating only if it participates for a minimum number of hours per week in a

CRS-7

month. Under current law, 20 hours are required for single parents with a pre-school

child (under the age of 6), and 30 hours are required for other families. Higher hours

are set for the purposes of the two-parent work participation rate.

Both the Senate Finance Committee bill and the House budget reconciliation bill

raise the hours standards. The House bill incorporates a 40-hour workweek standard

for full credit, but would also provide “partial” credit for families with at least 24

hours of participation. No special lower-hour standard would be provided for single

parents with preschoolers.

The Senate Finance Committee bill also raises the hours standard for full credit,

but to a lesser extent than proposed in the House bill. Single parents with a

pre-school child would be given full credit for participation at 24 hours per week, and

other single-parent families would be given full credit at 34 hours per week. Partial

credit for single parent families would be provided at 20 hours per week. Higher

hours requirements would apply to two-parent families.

Creditable Activities. Current law lists 12 activities that may be counted

toward TANF work participation standards. The bulk of countable participation is

in a subset of “core” activities focused on work, time-limited job search (countable

for six weeks in a fiscal year, 12 weeks if criteria of economic need are met),

time-limited vocational educational training (12 months in a lifetime), and

community service and work experience. In meeting the general 30-hour-per-week

standard, hours in educational activities are countable only for families who are also

participating in at least 20 hours per week of “core” activities. Post-secondary

education, other than that considered “vocational educational training,” does not

count toward current law federal TANF work participation standards.

The House budget reconciliation bill and the Senate Finance Committee bill

differ significantly on the types of activities that are countable as core activities

toward the participation standards. The House bill narrows the list of core activities

by eliminating job search and vocational education. Instead, the bill would give

states almost total discretion to define activities that would be countable for three

months in a 24-month period (four months to complete training), but once those

months are exhausted, the only activities that would count toward the “core” work

participation standards are work, on-the-job training, community service, or work

experience. Moreover, since job search and vocational education would be countable

as sole or primary activities only during the three (or four) months that the state

would have discretion, any weeks of participation in job search reduce the number

of weeks that vocational education counts toward the participation standards.

On the other hand, the Senate Finance Committee bill retains the current law list

of core activities. It too provides states additional discretion by permitting states to

count an expanded list of activities for three months in a 24-month period (longer for

rehabilitative activities). However, this additional discretion is provided in addition

to, rather than instead of, six weeks of job search and 12 months of vocational

educational training, which are retained as “core” activities.

Both the House budget reconciliation bill and the Senate Finance Committee bill

would give states additional discretion in defining activities countable once a family

CRS-8

has met the “core” work requirement (generally, 24 hours per week in core activities).

The House bill would allow states to define activities for families with at least 24

hours in core activities; the Senate Finance Committee bill would allow states to

count an expanded set of activities for single-parent families with at least 24 hours

per week in core activities.

The Senate Finance Committee proposal includes some additional options for

counting participation in activities toward TANF work standards. It would allow

states to have up to 10% of their caseload enrolled in a special program of two- or

four-year undergraduate education or vocational educational training. This program

is modeled after the “Parents as Scholars” program that has operated in Maine using

TANF MOE funds. It also allows for participation in rehabilitative activities for

disabled persons (including treatment of drug and alcohol abuse) if they combine

rehabilitation with at least 10 hours of “core” activities and if the state develops a

collaborative relationship between agencies and entities providing rehabilitative

services and the state TANF agency. Additionally, the Senate Finance Committee

bill allows caring for a disabled family member to count as a work activity under

certain circumstances.

Marriage Promotion Grants and Family Formation Issues. Current

law allows states to use TANF funds for any activity “reasonably calculated” to

achieve a TANF purpose. One of the statutory purposes of TANF is to end

dependency of needy parents on government benefits, and one of the stated means

to end such dependency is “marriage.” Another of the statutory purposes of TANF

is to promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. “Promoting

marriage” is a currently allowable use of TANF funds.

Both the Senate Finance Committee and House budget reconciliation bills

would carve out special “marriage promotion grants” from existing TANF funding.

Both bills include $100 million in competitively awarded matching funds for states,

territories, and tribes for marriage promotion activities. The bills would allow states

to use other federal TANF funds or state funds as the match for these new marriage

promotion grants.

Both bills also would provide an additional $100 million for research and

demonstrations. The House budget reconciliation bill would require that these funds

be used “primarily” for marriage promotion; the Senate Finance Committee bill

would require that 80% of these funds be used for marriage promotion.

Marriage promotion activities listed in both bills are: public advertising

campaigns on the value of marriage and skills needed to increase marital stability and

health; education in high schools on the value of marriage; marriage education and

marriage and relationship skills programs for nonmarried parents or expectant

parents; pre-marital education on marriage for engaged couples; marriage

enhancement and marriage skills training for married couples; divorce education

programs; and marriage mentoring programs. Programs to reduce the disincentives

to marriage in need-based programs could be funded from these grants only if offered

in conjunction with other marriage activities.

CRS-9

Both bills have requirements that grantees of marriage promotion grants

consider domestic violence issues and that participation in marriage promotion

activities be voluntary. The Senate committee bill also includes a prohibition (not

in the House bill) against states sanctioning families receiving TANF assistance for

not participating in marriage promotion activities.

Child Care

While the House budget reconciliation legislation consolidates a package of

provisions embodying “child care reauthorization” in a single bill3, at this point, on

the Senate side, reauthorization provisions remain divided between the two bills, S.

667 and S. 525 (The Caring for Children Act of 2005). The Finance Committeepassed bill (S. 667) contains the proposed mandatory funding appropriation for Child

Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) programs, while the HELP

Committee-passed bill (S. 525) includes proposed discretionary funding

authorization, and all provisions relating to the reauthorization of the CCDBG Act.

Therefore, in the child care section of Table 2, most provisions in the Senate column

are drawn from S. 525, with the notable exception of the mandatory (or

“entitlement”) funding provision, which falls under the Finance Committee’s

jurisdiction, and is therefore included in S. 667. A summary of provisions included

in both the House bill and Senate committee legislation follows, with more detail

found in Table 2.

Discretionary Authorization. The discretionary portion of child care

funding is authorized by the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (as

amended in 1996). Under current law, discretionary CCDBG funding is authorized

at $1 billion annually. However, actual appropriation levels, determined during the

annual appropriations process, have exceeded the authorized level (e.g., FY2005 =

$2.1 billion). Both the House budget reconciliation bill and S. 525 propose to

authorize discretionary funding at $2.3 billion in FY2006, rising by $200 million

each year, up to $3.1 billion in FY2010.

Mandatory Appropriation. Mandatory funding for the CCDBG was

preappropriated in Section 418 of the Social Security Act for FY1997-2002, as part

of the welfare law of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). A series of temporary extensions have

continued that funding at the FY2002 rate of $2.717 billion since the close of

FY2002. (The most recent extension runs through December 31, 2005.)

The House budget reconciliation bill proposes to increase mandatory child care

funding by $500 million over five years (FY2006- FY2010), appropriating $2.917

billion for FY2006, $2.767 billion for FY2007, $2.817 billion for FY2008, $2.867

billion for FY2009, and $2.917 billion for FY2010. (This reflects half of the $1

billion increase that had earlier been proposed in H.R. 240.) The Senate committee

bill, S. 667, proposes to increase mandatory funding by $6 billion over five years

3

Child care provisions submitted to the House Budget Committee by the Committee on

Ways and Means (i.e. the mandatory child care funding provisions) are found in title VIII

of the budget reconciliation bill whereas provisions recommended by the Committee on

Education and the Workforce (i.e. amendments to the CCDBG Act) are found in Title II.

CRS-10

(FY2006-FY2010), appropriating $3.617 billion for FY2006; $3.717 billion for

FY2007; $3.917 billion for FY2008; $4.017 billion for FY2009; and $4.317 billion

for FY2010. Puerto Rico would receive $75 million of the $6 billion, whereas under

current law (as well as the House bill), Puerto Rico receives no mandatory child care

funding.

Authority to Transfer TANF Funds. Under current law, states have the

authority to transfer up to 30% of their annual TANF block grant to the CCDBG

(only 20% if they choose to transfer 10% to the Social Services Block Grant). S. 667

would maintain current law, whereas the House bill would allow states to transfer up

to 50% of their annual TANF grants to the CCDBG.

Use of Funds for Direct Services. Current law includes no provision

requiring a given percentage of funds appropriated under the CCDBG Act to be spent

on direct services. S. 525 would require that after the reservation of set-asides, at

least 70% of the funds remaining be used to fund direct services (as defined by the

state). The House bill has no comparable provision.

Option to Use Excess Funds for Increasing Payment Rates. S. 525

would allow states that receive funding above their FY2005 levels to use a portion

of the excess to support payment rate increases for providers and to establish tiered

payment rates. On a related note, the bill (S. 525) would also add to the statute

stricter requirements to set payment rates in accordance with biennial market rate

surveys.

Quality Set-Aside. Current law requires that at least 4% of each state’s total

CCDBG expenditures (from all sources — e.g., mandatory, discretionary, matching

funds) be used for quality activities, described as providing comprehensive consumer

education to parents and the public, activities that increase parental choice, and

activities designed to improve the quality and availability of child care in the state.

Both the House budget reconciliation bill and the HELP Committee’s S. 525

would raise the percentage of CCDBG funds that must be spent for quality activities

to a minimum of 6%.

Definition of “Quality Activities”. Both bills provide greater detail than

current law in terms of defining what is classified as a “quality activity.” In each,

categories of activities are outlined to include school readiness activities (including

activities to enhance early literacy); training and professional development for staff;

and initiatives or programs to promote or increase retention of qualified staff. The

categories reflect a new emphasis on school readiness as a goal of the CCDBG. The

Senate committee bill (S. 525) also specifies that quality funds could be spent on

evaluating and assessing the quality of programs, and their effectiveness in improving

overall school preparedness. While S. 525 clearly states that quality funds must be

spent for any of the six listed purposes, the House bill provides three broad

categories, similar in topic to those in S. 525, with a fourth, more general category

of “other activities as approved by the state.”

Eligibility. Federal law currently requires that children eligible for services

under the CCDBG must have family income that does not exceed 85% of the state

CRS-11

median (for a family of that size). However, states have the discretion to adopt

income eligibility limits below this federal maximum. Both the House budget

reconciliation bill and S. 525 propose to eliminate the federal maximum of 85% of

state median income (SMI) from the CCDBG law, replacing it with a provision

allowing states to set income eligibility levels (with no federal ceiling), with priorities

based on need.

State Plan Requirements. Under current CCDBG law, states are required

to submit plans every two years, certifying that their CCDBG programs include

specified elements addressing areas such as parental choice, parental access,

consumer education, licensing, and health and safety requirements.

Both the House budget reconciliation bill and the HELP Committee’s S. 525

would amend current law to require that additional elements be certified in their state

plans. Areas that would be modified or added relate to providing consumer

education information; describing or demonstrating state coordination of child care

services with other early childhood education programs; certifying compliance with

the quality set-aside percentage requirement; and addressing special needs child care.

Unlike the House bill, S. 525 includes provisions requiring that in their state

plans, states demonstrate that the process for redetermining eligibility occur no more

frequently than every six months (with limited exceptions), and also that the state

plan describe any training requirements in effect for child care providers. The Senate

committee bill would also put into statute the requirement that the provider payment

rates, described in the state plan, be set in accordance with a statistically valid and

reliable biennial survey of market rates (without reducing the number of families

served). State plans would also be required to include the results of those surveys

and to contain a description of how the state will provide for timely payment to

providers. Results of the survey would also be required to be made available to the

public no later than 30 days after the survey’s completion.

Data Collection and Reporting Requirements. Current law specifies a

set of data reporting requirements for states to collect in the administration of their

CCDBG programs. States collect data on a monthly basis and submit to the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) disaggregated data on a quarterly

basis. An aggregate report is required to be submitted to HHS on an annual basis.

S. 525 would retain the quarterly reporting in current law, but would amend the

list of data elements that states would be required to collect on a monthly basis. (See

Table 2 for details.) It would also eliminate the separate annual report, instead

requiring that the fourth quarterly report include information on the annual number

and type of child care providers and the method of payment they receive. S. 667

would also extend CCDBG reporting to TANF-funded child care. The House bill

would retain current law, containing none of these provisions.

Waivers in Response to Gulf Hurricanes. The House budget

reconciliation bill would provide the Secretary of HHS with the authority to waive

or modify certain CCDBG provisions for states affected by Hurricanes Katrina and

Rita. Provisions that could be waived include those relating to the federal income

eligibility limits, the work requirements, states’ use of quality funds, and any

CRS-12

provision that prevents children designated as evacuees from receiving priority

services over any children not already receiving CCDBG services. No similar

provisions are included in S. 525.

Other Provisions. Titles II and III of S. 525 propose provisions that stand

apart from CCDBG law or Section 418 of the Social Security Act. Title II of the bill

contains provisions to enhance security at child care centers in federal facilities, and

Title III would establish a small business child care grant program, through which

competitive grants would be awarded to states for establishment and operation of

employer-operated child care programs. The House budget reconciliation bill

includes no similar provisions.

Responsible Fatherhood

To improve the long-term outlook for children in single-parent families, federal,

state, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, are

supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal

responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and increase the participation

of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs have come to be known as

“responsible fatherhood” programs. Most fatherhood programs include media

campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and

financial connections of fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs also

include parenting education; responsible decision-making; mediation services for

both parents; providing an understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution,

coping with stress, and problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training

opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills,

job-advancement skills, etc.).

Sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include TANF block grant

funds, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds,

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX)

funds. Even so, the federal government does not currently earmark a specific amount

of funding exclusively for responsible fatherhood programs.

Beginning with the 106th Congress, both the House and Senate have introduced

a number of bills that contain responsible fatherhood provisions, but so far none of

the bills have been passed by both Houses of Congress. In the 109th Congress, both

S. 667 and the House budget reconciliation bill would include funding for

responsible fatherhood grant programs.

S. 667 as approved by the Senate Finance Committee would establish five

components for the responsible fatherhood program for FY2006 through FY2010.

It would (1) appropriate $20 million for a grant program for up to 10 programs; (2)

appropriate $30 million for grants for eligible entities (local government, local public

agency, community-based or nonprofit organization, or private entity, including any

charitable or faith-based organizations, or Indian tribe or tribal organization) to

conduct demonstration programs; (3) authorize $5 million for a nationally recognized

nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and promote a responsible

fatherhood media campaign and establish a national clearinghouse to help states and

communities in their efforts to promote both marriage and responsible fatherhood;

CRS-13

(4) authorize a $20 million block grant for states to conduct responsible fatherhood

media campaigns (authorize $1 million of the $20 million for an evaluation); and (5)

authorize $1 million for a nationally recognized nonprofit research and education

fatherhood organization to establish a national resource center for responsible

fatherhood.

The House Budget Reconciliation proposal as approved by the Committee on

Ways and Means would establish four components for the responsible fatherhood

program for FY2006 through FY2010. It would (1) authorize competitive grants for

responsible fatherhood projects to public and nonprofit community entities, including

religious organizations, and to Indian tribes and tribal organizations, for

demonstration service projects and activities designed to test the effectiveness of

various approaches to accomplish the four specified responsible fatherhood program

objectives — eligible entities would be allowed to apply for either full service grants

or limited purpose grants of $25,000 or less per fiscal year; (2) authorize funding for

two multicity, multistate fatherhood demonstration projects to be developed and

conducted by a national nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization; (3) authorize

funding for an evaluation of the competitive grant projects and the multicity,

multistate demonstration projects; and (4) authorize the Secretary of HHS by grant,

contract, or cooperative agreement to carry out projects and activities of national

significance relating to fatherhood promotion — such projects or activities could

include collection and dissemination of information, media campaigns, technical

assistance to public and private entities, and research. The bill would authorize $20

million for each of the years FY2006 through FY2010, and stipulates that no more

15% of the annual appropriations can be used for the multicity, multistate

demonstrations, the evaluations, and the projects of national significance.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce shared jurisdiction with the

Committee on Ways and Means with respect to fatherhood programs. The

Committee on Education and the Workforce’s fatherhood program is identical to that

of the Committee on Ways and Means except that it would include five components

rather than four and stipulate that no more than 35% of the $20 million annual

authorization could be used for the multicity, multistate demonstrations, the

economic incentives demonstrations, the evaluations, and the projections of national

significance. In addition to the four components in the Ways and Means Committee

proposal, the Committee on Education and the Workforce’s proposal would authorize

the HHS Secretary to make grants available for FY2006 through FY2010 for two to

five demonstration projects that test the use of economic incentives combined with

a comprehensive approach to addressing employment barriers to encourage

noncustodial parents to enter the workforce and to contribute financially and

emotionally to their children. The fatherhood demonstration projects would be

developed and conducted by a national nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization

that meets the qualifications specified in the bill. The bill would stipulate that out

of the set-aside monies, at least $5 million is to be allocated for the economic

incentive demonstration project. (Note: All of the responsible fatherhood provisions

in both House Committee bills are included in the House-passed budget

reconciliation bill.)

CRS-14

Child Support Enforcement

The CSE program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, was enacted in

January 1975 (P.L. 93-647). The CSE program is administered by the Office of

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of HHS, and funded by

general revenues. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and

the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds.

The following families automatically qualify for CSE services (free of charge):

families receiving TANF benefits (Title IV-A), foster care payments (Title IV-E), or

Medicaid coverage (Title XIX). Collections on behalf of families receiving TANF

benefits are used to reimburse state and federal governments for TANF payments

made to the family. Other families must apply for CSE services, and states must

charge an application fee that cannot exceed $25. Child support collected on behalf

of nonwelfare families goes to the family (usually through the state disbursement

unit).

Services. The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of

children: (1) parent location, (2) paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child

support orders, (4) review and modification of support orders, (5) collection of

support payments, (6) distribution of support payments, and (7) establishment and

enforcement of medical support.

Enforcement Techniques. Collection methods used by CSE agencies

include income withholding, intercept of federal and state income tax refunds,

intercept of unemployment compensation, liens against property, security bonds, and

reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus. All jurisdictions also have civil

or criminal contempt-of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. Building

on legislation (P.L. 102-521) enacted in 1992, P.L. 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents

Punishment Act of 1998, established two new federal criminal offenses (subject to

a two-year maximum prison term) with respect to noncustodial parents who

repeatedly fail to financially support children who reside with custodial parents in

another state or who flee across state lines to avoid supporting them.

P.L. 104-193 required states to implement expedited procedures that allow

them to secure assets to satisfy an arrearage by intercepting or seizing periodic or

lump sum payments (such as unemployment and workers’ compensation), lottery

winnings, awards, judgements, or settlements, and assets of the debtor parent held by

public or private retirement funds, and financial institutions. It required states to

implement procedures under which the state would have authority to withhold,

suspend, or restrict use of driver’s licenses, professional and occupational licenses,

and recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe past-due support or who

fail to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support

proceedings. It also required states to conduct quarterly data matches with financial

institutions in the state in order to identify and seize the financial resources of debtor

noncustodial parents. P.L. 104-193 authorized the Secretary of State to deny, revoke,

or restrict passports of debtor parents. P.L. 104-193 also required states to enact and

implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and expand full faith

and credit procedures. P.L. 104-193 also clarified which court has jurisdiction in

cases involving multiple child support orders.

CRS-15

Financing. The federal government currently reimburses each state 66% of

the cost of administering its CSE program. It also refunds states 90% of the

laboratory costs of establishing paternity. In addition, the federal government pays

states an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective programs. P.L.

104-193 required the HHS Secretary in consultation with the state CSE directors to

develop a new cost-neutral system of incentive payments to states. P.L. 105-200, the

Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a new cost-neutral

incentive payment system. The statutory limit of CSE incentive payments for

FY2005 is $446 million.

S. 667 and House Budget Reconciliation Bill: Major Provisions

Related to Child Support Enforcement. Over the years, the CSE program has

evolved into a multifaceted program. While cost-recovery still remains an important

function of the program, other aspects of the program include service delivery and

promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility.

The CSE program has helped strengthen families by securing financial support

for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and

by helping some families to remain self-sufficient and off public assistance by

providing the requisite CSE services. Child support payments now are generally

recognized as a very important income source for single-parent families. On average

child support constitutes 17% of family income for households that receive it (2001

data). Among poor families who receive it, child support constitutes about 30% of

family income (2001 data).

Both S. 667 and the House budget reconciliation bill would seek to improve the

CSE program and raise collections so as to increase the economic independence of

former welfare families and provide a stable source of income for all single-parent

families with a noncustodial parent. Although both bills share identical objectives

with respect to simplifying CSE assignment and distribution rules and strengthening

the “family-first” policies started in the1996 welfare reform law, the approaches used

differ. Both bills would revise some CSE enforcement tools and add others. This

section of the report does not discuss all of the CSE provisions included in S. 667

and the House bill. For a description of all of the CSE provisions in S. 667 as

reported by the Senate Finance Committee and the House budget reconciliation bill,

see Table 2 in the last section of this report.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Senate Finance

Committee-reported bill would increase federal outlays in the CSE program by $628

million over the period FY2006-FY2010, whereas the House budget reconciliation

bill would reduce federal outlays in the CSE program by $4.899 billion over the

period FY2006-FY2010. The following two CSE provisions in the House bill

comprise most of the budget reductions (i.e., savings): a phased-in reduction of the

matching rate for administrative expenses from 66% to 50%, which saves $3.8

billion over the five-year period; and an elimination of the federal match when states

spend CSE incentive payments (i.e., reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the

program), saving $1.6 billion over the five-year period.

Assignment of Child Support Rights. As a condition of receiving TANF

benefits, a family must assign their child support rights to the state. Assignment rules

CRS-16

determine who has legal claim on the child support payments owed by the

noncustodial parent. The child support assignment covers any child support that

accrues while the family receives TANF benefits as well as any child support that

accrued before the family started receiving TANF benefits. Assigned child support

collections are not paid to families, but rather this revenue is kept by states and the

federal government as partial reimbursement for welfare benefits. Nonwelfare

families who apply for CSE services do not assign their child support rights to the

state and thereby receive all of the child support collected on their behalf.

An extremely important feature of the assignment process is the date on which

an assignment was entered. If the assignment was entered on or before September

30, 1997, then pre-assistance and during-assistance arrearages are “permanently

assigned” to the state. If the assignment was entered on or after October 1, 1997,

then only the arrearages which accumulate while the family receives assistance are

“permanently assigned.” The family’s pre-assistance arrearages are “temporarily

assigned” and the right to those arrearages goes back to the family when it leaves

TANF (unless the arrearages are collected through the federal income tax refund

offset program).

Under S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the child support

assignment would only cover any child support that accrues while the family receives

TANF benefits. This would mean that any child support arrearages that accrued

before the family started receiving TANF benefits would not have to be assigned to

the state (even temporarily) and thereby any child support collected on behalf of the

former-TANF family for pre-assistance arrearages would go to the family. The

House bill includes a similar provision.

Distribution of Child Support. Distribution rules determine the order in

which child support collections are paid in accordance with the assignment rules. In

other words, the distribution rules determine which claim is paid first when a child

support collection occurs. The order of payment of the child support collection is of

tremendous importance because in many cases past-due child support (i.e.,

arrearages) are never fully paid.

TANF Families. While the family receives TANF benefits, the state is

permitted to retain any current support and any assigned arrearages it collects up to

the cumulative amount of TANF benefits which has been paid to the family. The

1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) repealed the $50 required pass through and gave

states the choice to decide how much, if any, of the state share (some, all, none) of

child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send the family.

States also decide whether to treat child support payments as income to the family.

While states have discretion over their share of child support collections, P.L.

104-193 required states to pay the federal government the federal government’s share

of child support collections collected on behalf of TANF families. This means that

the state, and not the federal government, bears the entire cost of any child support

passed through to (and disregarded by) families. As of August 2004, 18 states were

continuing the $50 (or higher in one state) pass-through and disregard policy that had

been in effect pre-1996.

CRS-17

Both bills would provide incentives (in the form of federal cost sharing) to states

to direct more of the child support collected on behalf of TANF families to the

families themselves (often referred to as a “family-first” policy), as opposed to using

such collections to reimburse state and federal coffers for welfare benefits paid to the

families. However, the approaches of the bills differ with respect to the amount of

federal cost-sharing provided and whether to help states pay for the current cost of

their CSE pass-through and disregard policies or to encourage states to establish such

policies or increase the pass-through and disregard already in place.

Under S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the federal

government would share in the costs of the entire amount of pass-through and

disregard policies used by states. S. 667 would allow states to pay up to $400 per

month in child support collected on behalf of a TANF (or foster care) family ($600

per month to a family with two or more children) to the family and would not require

the state to pay the federal government the federal share of those payments. In order

for the federal government to share in the cost of the child support pass-through, the

state would be required to disregard (i.e., not count) the child support collection paid

to the family in determining the family’s TANF benefit.

Unlike S. 667, the House bill is intended to provide states with an incentive to

increase their pass-through and disregard policies. The House budget reconciliation

bill would allow states to increase the amount of collected child support they pay to

families receiving TANF benefits and would not require the state to pay the federal

government the federal share of the increased payments. The subsidized child

support pass-through payments would be the amount above any payments the state

was making on December 31, 2001. The House bill would limit the federal

government’s cost-sharing of the new pass-through payments to the greater of $100

per month or $50 per month more than the state previously was sharing with the

family. In order for the federal government to share in the cost of an increase in the

child support pass-through, the state would be required to disregard (i.e., not count)

the child support collection paid to the family in determining the family’s TANF

benefit.

Former TANF Families. Pursuant to the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L.

104-193), beginning on October 1, 2000, states must distribute to former TANF

families the following child support collections first before the state and the federal

government are reimbursed (the “family-first” policy): (1) all current child support,

(2) any child support arrearages that accrue after the family leaves TANF (these

arrearages are called never-assigned arrearages), plus (3) any arrearages that accrued

before the family began receiving TANF benefits. (Any child support arrearages that

accrue during the time the family is on TANF belong to the state and federal

government.)

One of the goals of the 1996 welfare reform law with regard to CSE distribution

provisions was to create a distribution priority that favored families once they leave

the TANF rolls. Thus, generally speaking, under current law, child support that

accrues before and after a family receives TANF goes to the family, whereas child

support that accrues while the family is receiving TANF goes to the state. This

additional family income is expected to reduce dependence on public assistance by

both promoting exit from TANF and preventing entry and re-entry to TANF.

CRS-18

S. 667 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee would give states the

option of distributing to former TANF families the full amount of child support

collected on their behalf (i.e., both current support and all child support arrearages

— including arrearages collected through the federal income tax refund offset

program). S. 667 would simplify the CSE distribution process and eliminate the

special treatment of child support arrearages collected through the federal income tax

refund offset program. Under S. 667 the federal government would share with the

states the costs of paying child support arrearages to the family first.

Similarly, the House bill would give states the option of distributing to former

TANF families the full amount of child support collected on their behalf. Under the

House bill, the federal government would share with the states the costs of paying

child support arrearages accrued while the family received TANF as well as costs

associated with passing through to the family child support collected through the

federal income tax refund offset program, if the state chose the “family-first” option.

Expansion of Collection/Enforcement Tools. Both bills would include

identical or similar provisions with respect to (1) lowering the threshold amount for

denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent who owes past-due child support; (2)

easing the collection of child support from veterans’ benefits; (3) allowing states to

use the federal income tax refund offset program to collect past-due child support for

persons not on TANF who are no longer minors; (4) authorizing the HHS Secretary

to compare information of noncustodial parents who owe past-due child support with

information maintained by insurers concerning insurance payments and to furnish

any information resulting from a match to CSE agencies so they can pursue child

support arrearages; and (5) allowing an assisting state to establish a child support

interstate case based on another state’s request for assistance (thereby enabling an

assisting state to use the CSE statewide automated data processing and information

retrieval system for interstate cases).

Additional provisions that would expand and/or enhance the ability of states to

collect child support payments are contained in S. 667 as reported by the Senate

Finance Committee. They include (1) authorizing the HHS Secretary to act on behalf

of states to seize financial assets (held by a multi-state financial institution) of

noncustodial parents who owe child support; (2) facilitating the collection of child

support from Social Security benefits; (3) requiring that medical support for a child

be provided by either or both parents; and (4) requiring the CSE agency to notify

health care plan administrators under certain circumstances when a child loses health

care coverage.

Other Provisions. Both bills include provisions that would (1) require states

to review and if appropriate adjust child support orders of TANF families every three

years; (2) require the HHS Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the procedures

states use to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but

not yet distributed; (3) establish a minimum funding level for technical assistance;

(4) establish a minimum funding level for the Federal Parent Locator Service; and (5)

designate Indian tribes and tribal organizations as persons authorized to have access

to information in the Federal Parent Locator Service.

CRS-19

S. 667 includes provisions that would (1) increase funding for the CSE access

and visitation program; (2) require states to adopt a later version of the Uniform

Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) so as to facilitate the collection of child

support payments in interstate cases; and (3) allow the state of Texas to continue to

operate its CSE program for automatic monitoring and enforcement of court orders

on behalf of nonwelfare families without applying for a federal waiver.

The House budget reconciliation bill includes provision that would (1) establish

a $25 annual fee for individuals who have never been on TANF but receive CSE

services and who received at least $500 in any given year; (2) gradually reduce the

general CSE federal rate of 66% to 50% (over the period FY2007-FY2010); and (3)

eliminate the federal match on CSE incentive payments that states, in compliance

with federal law, reinvest back into the CSE program.

Other Programs

In addition to reauthorizing and modifying the programs discussed above, the

Senate welfare reauthorization bill (S. 667) and the House budget reconciliation bill

would modify some other programs:

4

!

Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA), which is a program that

extends at least six and up to 12 additional months of Medicaid

coverage for families leaving welfare for work. Authority for the

TMA program is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005 at

which time, absent congressional action, four months of Medicaid

coverage to such families would be provided. S. 667 would extend

12-month TMA through the end of FY2010 and provide state

options to reduce required beneficiary reporting of income to

continue to receive TMA after six months and allow for up to 24

months of TMA. The House reconciliation bill would not extend

TMA beyond December 31, 2005.4

!

State abstinence education grants. The program providing grants

to states for abstinence-only education is scheduled to expire on

December 31, 2005. S. 667 would extend this program through

FY2010. The House budget reconciliation bill would not include an

extension of this program.

!

Child welfare programs. Both S. 667 and the House budget

reconciliation bills would extend the authority for states to operate

child welfare “waiver” programs through FY2010. The House bill

would add additional instructions to HHS regarding waiver approval

policies and availability of waiver reports. The Senate committee bill

would allow Indian tribes to receive direct federal funding to operate

foster care and adoption assistance programs and would also permit

Puerto Rico to receive limited additional federal foster care funds.

For a discussion of the TMA program and issues, see CRS Report RL31698, Transitional

Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by (name redacted).

CRS-20

!

The House budget reconciliation bill includes two provisions

intended to reduce federal outlays for foster care and adoption

assistance: 1) it seeks to nullify a court rule (known as the Rosales

case) that expands eligibility for foster care in certain states; and 2)

it limits the period of time partial federal reimbursement of foster

care costs can be provided for children who are placed with relatives

who are not licensed to provide foster care, and it requires states

seeking this partial federal matching on behalf of children who are

at “imminent risk” of removal from their homes to redetermine the

status of these children as “candidates” for foster care every six

months.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Both S. 667 and the House

budget reconciliation bill would require that a certain percentage of

disability determinations by state disability agencies be reviewed by

the federal government. S. 667 would also extend the period of SSI

eligibility for refugees and asylees from seven to nine years. The

House bill attempts to achieve budget reductions by requiring that

certain back payments be paid in installments over time, rather than

in one lump sum.

Detailed Comparison of Senate Committee Bills

and the House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Table 2 provides a detailed comparison of welfare and related provisions in the

two Senate committee bills (S. 667 and S. 525) and the House budget reconciliation

bill. For the Senate proposals, the table notes both the bill and section numbers.

The House budget reconciliation bill is organized by Titles reflecting each House

committee’s legislative changes. The welfare and related proposals are found both

in Title II, from the Education and Workforce Committee, and Title VIII of the bill,

from the Ways and Means Committee. In most respects, the committees reported

identical legislative language. In those cases, Table 2 provides both section

references for identical provisions. In cases where the two committees reported

different provisions, the table separately indicates the Education and the Workforce

and Ways and Means provisions.

The House budget reconciliation bill is an omnibus bill that includes many

provisions unrelated to welfare reform programs. Those provisions are not discussed

in this report and not shown on the table. Further, S. 667 makes a number of changes

to the earned income and child tax credits. The tax provisions of S. 667 are also not

addressed in this report or shown on the table.

CRS-21

Table 2. Comparison of Current Law with S. 667/525 and the House Budget Reconciliation Bill Welfare Provisions

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

Findings and Goals and Purposes of TANF

Findings

P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and No provision.

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(PRWORA), made a series of findings related

to marriage, responsible parenthood, trends in

welfare receipt and the relationship between

welfare receipt and nonmarital parenthood, and

trends in and negative consequences of

nonmarital and teen births. [Section 101 of

PRWORA]

TANF Goals and

Purposes

The purpose of TANF is to increase state

flexibility in operating a program designed to:

(1) assist needy families so that children may

live in their homes or those of relatives; (2) end

dependence of needy parents on government

benefits; (3) reduce out-of-wedlock

pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation

Revises goal no. 4 to “encourage the

formation and maintenance of healthy twoparent married families, and encourage

responsible fatherhood.” [New language in

italics] [Section 103(d) of S. 667]

Makes a series of findings related to: (1) the

success of the 1996 law in moving families

from welfare to work and reducing child

poverty; (2) progress made by the nation in

reducing teen pregnancy and births, slowing

increases in nonmarital births, and improving

child support collections and paternity

establishment; (3) the flexibility provided by

the 1996 law for states to develop innovative

programs; (4) further progress to be made in

promoting work, strengthening families, and

enhancing state flexibility to build on the

success of welfare reform; and (5) establishing

the sense of Congress that increasing success

in moving families from welfare to work and

promoting healthy marriage and other means

of improving child well-being are important

government interests and the policies in

federal TANF law (as amended by this bill)

are intended to serve those ends. [Section

8204]

The overall purpose of TANF is to improve

child well-being by increasing state flexibility

in operating a program designed to: (1)

provide assistance and services to needy

families so that children may live in their

homes or those of relatives, (2) end

dependence of needy families on government

CRS-22

Current law

and maintenance of two-parent families.

[Section 401 of the Social Security Act (SSA)]

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

benefits and reduce poverty; (3) reduce outof-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) encourage

the formation and maintenance of healthy,

two-parent married families, and encourage

responsible fatherhood. [New language in

italics] [Section 8101]

TANF Financing Provisions

State Family

Assistance

Grants

Provides capped grants (entitlements to states

and territories). Nationally, annual family

assistance grants total $16.567 billion for the

states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and the

territories. Each jurisdiction’s annual grant

equals the same share of the national total as in

FY2002. [(Section 403(a)(1) of the SSA]

Retains basic block grants, and extends them Same as S. 667. [Section 8102(b)]

through FY2010 at current funding levels.

Appropriates $16.567 billion annually for

family assistance grants to the states, D.C.,

and the territories. Provides that the annual

grant of each jurisdiction shall equal its

FY2002 proportion of the national grant

total. [Section 102(a) of S. 667]

Also provides matching grants for the territories Extends funding for matching grants to the Same as S. 667. [Section 8102(c)]

[Section 1108(b) of the SSA].

territories through FY2010. [Section 102(b)

of S. 667]

Supplemental

Grant for

Population

Increases in

Certain States

Supplemental grants for (17) states with low Extends supplemental grants for FY2006 Same as S. 667. [Section 8104]

historic federal grants per poor person and/or through FY2009, at current funding levels

high population growth. Grants grew each ($319 million). [Section 104 of S. 667]

year, from $79 million in FY1998 to $319

million in FY2001. Grants frozen at $319

million since FY2001. [Section 403(a)(3) of

SSA]

Bonus to Reward

Employment

Achievement

High-performance bonus of $200 million per Replaces the high-performance bonus with Eliminates the high-performance bonus.

year on average. [Section 403(a)(4) of the a bonus to reward employment achievement. [Section 8105]

SSA]

Employment achievement bonuses would

total $50 million for each of FY2006

through FY2008, and $100 for each of

FY2009 through FY2011. [Section 105 of

S. 667]

CRS-23

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

Maximum bonus for a state equals 5% of its Maximum bonus for a state equals 5% of its

family assistance grant.

family assistance grant. [Section 105 of S.

667]

Bonus based on achievement of TANF goals,

with formula developed by the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) in

consultation with the National Governors

Association and the American Public Human

Services Association. For FY1999-FY2001

performance, formula consisted of three workrelated measures (job entry, job retention, and

earnings gain). For FY2002 and later years,

formula adds family formation outcomes, child

care affordability, and coverage by food stamps

and Medicaid/SCHIP. [Section 403(a)(4) of the

SSA]

Bonus to be based on absolute and relative

progress toward the goal of workforce

attachment and advancement. [Section 105

of S. 667]f

Makes tribes eligible for the bonus, setting

aside 2% of total employment achievement

bonus dollars for them, and directs the

Secretary to consult with them regarding

criteria for their awards. [Section 105 of S.

667]

Reduces FY2005 high-performance bonus

amount to $0. [Section 702 of S. 667]

For FY2006 and FY2007, employment

achievement bonus may be based on three

components of the repealed highperformance bonus — job entry rate, job

retention rate, and earnings gain rate.

[Section 105 of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-24

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Bonus to Reward

Reductions in

Out-of-wedlock

Births

Appropriated $100 million yearly for bonuses

to the five states with the largest percentage

decline (over recent two years) in the out-ofwedlock birth ratio. To qualify, states had to

reduce their abortion rate to below that of

FY1995. [Section 403(a)(2) of the SSA]

Repeals the bonus and uses the $100 million

per year to fund grants for marriage

promotion activities (see Matching Grants

for Marriage Promotion, below). [Section

103(b) of S. 667]

Repeals the bonus beginning in FY2006, and

uses the $100 million per year to fund grants

for marriage promotion activities. [Section

8103(b)]

Contingency

Fund

Capped matching grants (maximum $2 billion)

provided in case of recession. To qualify for

contingency dollars, states must be “needy” and

must spend under the TANF program a sum of

their own dollars equal to their pre-TANF

spending. [Section 403(b) of the SSA]

Appropriates such sums as are needed for

contingency fund grants, up to $2 billion

over five years, FY2006-FY2010. To

qualify for contingency grants, a state must

be “needy,” have sufficiently low TANF

balances, and have an increase in its

assistance caseload of over 5%.

Appropriates such sums as needed for

contingency fund grants, up to $2 billion over

five years, FY2006-FY2010. To qualify for

contingency grants, states must be “needy”

and must spend under the TANF program a

sum of their own dollars equal to their preTANF spending.

Needy State

Eligibility

Criteria

The law provides two needy state triggers: ( 1)

an unemployment rate for a three-month period

that is at least 6.5% and is 10% or more above

the rate for the corresponding period in either of

the two preceding calendar years; or (2) a food

stamp caseload increase of 10% over the

FY1994-FY1995 level (adjusted for the impact

of immigrant and food stamp constraints in the

1996 welfare law). [Section 403(b)(5) of the

SSA]

To trigger on as needy, a state must (1) have

an increase (due in large measure to

economic conditions) of 5% in the monthly

average unduplicated number of families

receiving assistance under its TANF

program in the most recently concluded

three-month period with data, compared

with the corresponding period in either of

the two most recent preceding fiscal years,

and (2) meet one of three other conditions.

They are: (a) for the most recent threemonth period with data, the average rate of

seasonally adjusted total unemployment

must be at least 1.5 percentage points or

50% higher than in the corresponding period

in either of the two most recent preceding

fiscal years; (b) for the most recent 13 weeks

with data, the average rate of insured

unemployment must be at least one

Retains current law needy state triggers, but

revises the food stamp trigger, requiring that

the FY1994-FY1995 caseload base be

readjusted for policy changes made after

passage of 1996 welfare law. [Section

8106(c)]

CRS-25

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

percentage point higher than in the

corresponding period in either of the two

most recent fiscal years; or, (c) for the most

recently concluded three-months with

national data, the monthly average number

of food stamp recipient households, as of the

last day of each month, must exceed by at

least 15% the corresponding caseload

number in the comparable period in either of

the two most recent preceding fiscal years,

provided the HHS Secretary and the

Secretary of Agriculture agree that the

increased caseload was due, in large

measure, to economic conditions rather than

to policy change. A state that initially

qualifies as needy because of its TANF

caseload plus its food stamp caseload would

continue to be considered needy as long as

the state met the original qualifying

conditions. A state that initially qualified as

needy because of its TANF caseload plus its

total or insured unemployment rate would

not trigger off until its unemployment rate

fell below the original qualifying level

(disregarding seasonal variations in the case

of the insured unemployment rate). [Section

106(b) of S. 667]

Financial

Eligibility

Requirements

Before drawing contingency grants, a state must

expend within the TANF program 100% of

what it spent on TANF predecessor programs in

FY1994. Both TANF spending and FY1994

base spending exclude child care expenditures.

States then must provide matching funds to

Eliminates the requirements that a state

spend 100% of what it spent in FY1994 and

provide matching funds. Instead, requires

that unspent balances be 30% or less of

cumulative TANF grants to be eligible for

contingency funds. [Section 106(b) of S.

Retains current law requirements that states

expend 100% of what they spent on TANF

predecessor programs in FY1994 and provide

matching funds. Allows states to count

spending in separate state maintenance of

effort programs toward these spending

CRS-26

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

draw down contingency grants (see 667]

Contingency Grant Amounts, below). [Section

403(b)(5) and Section 409(a)(10) of the SSA]

Contingency

Fund Grant

Amounts

Payments are capped at 20% of a state’s basic

TANF grant. A maximum advance grant of

one-twelfth of its total maximum grant is

allowed in a given month. [Section 403(b)(3)]

A state’s annual contingency fund grant amount

is the Medicaid matching rate times

expenditures it made in excess of 100% of

FY1994 expenditures. This annual amount is

prorated for the number of months the state is

eligible for continency grants. If a state

received advance grants that are greater than the

annual amount for which it is entitled, the state

must remit any excess back to the federal

Treasury. [Section 403(b)(6)]

Tribal Eligibility

for Contingency

Funds

A state’s total contingency grant could not

exceed 10% of its family assistance grant.

The contingency fund grant equals the

state’s federal Medicaid matching rate times

the benefit cost of an increase in the TANF

family caseload above 5% in the most

recently concluded three-month period with

data, compared with the corresponding

period in either of the two most recent

preceding fiscal years. (The remaining cost

of the increased caseload would have to be

paid with state funds or other federal TANF

funds.) [Section 106(a) of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

requirements. State child care spending also

would count toward this requirement, but

would also be added to base FY1994

spending. [Section 8106(d) and 8106(e)]

Retains current law’s 20% maximum grant,

advance grant, and annual grant based on the

Medicaid matching rate times expenditures

made in excess of 100% of the FY1994 level.

Eliminates the proration of the annual grant

for part-year eligibility for contingency funds.

[Section 8106(d)]

No provision. Tribes are not eligible for Sets aside $25 million of the contingency No provision (retains current law).

contingency fund.

fund appropriation for grants to Indian tribes

with approved tribal TANF plans. The

Secretary of HHS, in consultation with

tribes, shall determine the criteria for access

to the fund. [Section 106(a) of S. 667]

Additional Grants

Social Service

Capitalization

No provision.

Authorizes appropriation of $40 million for No provision.

each of FY2006-FY2010 for grants to

entities for the purpose of capitalizing and

developing the role of sustainable social

services needed for success in moving

TANF recipients to work.

Requires

CRS-27

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

applicants to describe their strategy for

developing a program that generates its own

source of on-going revenue while assisting

TANF recipients. Administrative costs

could not exceed 15% (except for

computerization and information technology

needed for tracking or monitoring required

by TANF), but none of the other statutory

rules regarding use of TANF funds would

apply. Requires evaluation and report to

Congress. [Section 119(a) of S. 667]

Car Ownership

Grants

No provision.

Authorizes appropriation of $25 million for No provision.

each of FY2006-FY2010 for grants for lowincome car ownership. Purposes: to

improve employment opportunities of lowincome families and provide incentives to

states, Indian tribes, localities, and nonprofit

groups to develop and administer programs

that promote car ownership by low-income

families. No more than 5% of the funds

could be used for administrative costs of the

Secretary in carrying out this program.

Requires evaluation. [Section 119(b) of S.

667]

Transitional

Jobs/business

Links Grants

No provision.

Authorizes appropriations of $200 million No provision.

for each of FY2006-FY2010 for business

links and transitional jobs programs. Grants

are to be awarded jointly by the Secretaries

of HHS and Labor to fund programs to

promote “business linkages” and the

“transitional jobs.” Business linkages are

programs designed to improve the wages of

CRS-28

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

eligible individuals by improving jobs skills

in partnership with employers and providing

supports and services at or near the worksite.

Eligible grantees are private organizations,

local workforce investment boards, states,

localities, Indian tribes, and employers.

Individuals eligible to be served by these

programs are TANF recipients, former

recipients, individuals with a disability, or

noncustodial parents having difficulty in

paying child support obligations who also

have limited proficiency in the English

language or other barriers to employment.

“Transitional jobs” programs combine

subsidized, time-limited, wage-paying

supported work in the public or nonprofit

sectors with skill development and activities

to remove barriers to employment. Eligible

grantees are private organizations, local

workforce investment boards, states,

localities, and Indian tribes. Individuals

eligible to be served by these programs are

TANF recipients, former recipients,

individuals with a disability, or noncustodial

parents having difficulty in paying child

support obligations who also have limited

proficiency in the English language or other

barriers to employment.

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-29

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Requires a minimum of 40% of funds

appropriated to be used for business linkages

and also a minimum of 40% to be used for

transitional jobs. Benefits and services

provided under these programs are not

considered assistance. The bill also requires

an evaluation, and sets aside $3 million for

the Secretaries to produce assessments of

these programs. [Section 119(c) of S. 667]

Authorizes $20 million per year for FY2006 No provision.

through FY2010 for competitive matching

grants (at a 75% federal matching rate) to

states, Indian tribes, and tribal organizations

for the development and dissemination of

best practices for addressing domestic

violence; implementing voluntary skills

programs, including caseworker training,

technical assistance, and voluntary services

for victims of domestic violence; programs

of relationship and financial management

skills; and broad-based income support as a

means to reduce domestic violence.

Grantees must consult with organizations

with demonstrated expertise in providing aid

to victims of domestic violence. Requires

the Secretary of HHS to evaluate activities

under this grant. [Section 114(e) of S. 667]

Domestic

Violence

Prevention

Grants

No provision.

Repeal of

Federal Loan

Fund

Provides a $1.7 billion revolving and interest- Repeals the loan fund. [Section 108]

bearing federal loan fund for state welfare

programs. [Section 406 of the SSA]

Maintenance of

Effort

Establishes a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) Continues MOE requirement through Same as S. 667. [Section 8111]

requirement that states spend at least 75% of FY2010, but raises the MOE percentage to

Repeals the loan fund effective October 1,

2006. [Section 8108]

CRS-30

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

what was spent from state funding in FY1994 80% if the state failed TANF work

on programs replaced by TANF. Nationally, participation standards of the preceding

this sum is $10.4 billion. (MOE rises to 80% if fiscal year. [Section 111(a) of S. 667]

state fails a work participation standard; see

above.) [Section 409(a)(7) of the SSA]

Defines state expenditures to reduce out-ofwedlock births and promote marriage and

responsible fatherhood (including spending

on behalf of non-needy families) as

countable toward required MOE state

spending. Subjects this spending to two

requirements applicable to MOE funds: (1)

for activities not a part of the pre-1996

welfare program, expenditures must be

above FY1995 levels to be countable toward

the MOE; and (2) expenditures used to

compensate for federal penalties are not

countable toward the MOE. [Section 103(d)

of S. 667]

Defines all state expenditures to reduce outof-wedlock births and promote marriage and

responsible fatherhood (including spending on

behalf of non-needy families) as countable

toward required MOE state spending.

[Section 8103(c)]

TANF funds used as the state match for

marriage promotion grants shall not be

considered state spending countable toward

the MOE requirement. [Section 103(b) of S.

667].

Provides that spending (as the state match)

from federal marriage promotion grants shall

not be treated as state spending toward MOE

requirements. [Section 8111(b)]

Use of Funds

General Rules

States may use funds in any manner reasonably No provision (maintains current law).

calculated to accomplish the TANF purpose.

[Section 404 of the SSA]

Same as S. 667. (No provision, retains current

law.)

States may use funds in any manner that they No provision (maintains current law).

were authorized to use pre-TANF funds.

[Section 404 of the SSA]

States may use funds for any purposes or

activities for which (rather than any manner

that) they were authorized to use pre-TANF

CRS-31

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

funds. [Section 8107(a)]

A state may treat a family that has resided in Strikes provision permitting different Same as S. 667. [Section 8107(b)]

the state for fewer than 12 months under the treatment of families migrating into the state

welfare rules of the state where they formerly — found unconstitutional. [Section 107(a)

lived. [Section 404 of the SSA]

of S. 667]

Increases the overall ceiling on transfers to

50%. [Section 107(c)] Sets limit on SSBG

transfers at 10% for FY2006 and each year

thereafter. [Section 8107(d)]

Transfer of

Funds

States may transfer up to 30% of TANF funds

to the Child Care and Development Block

Grant (CCDBG) and the Title XX Social

Services Block Grant (SSBG). Specifies that a

maximum of 4.25% of total transfers may go to

SSBG, effective in FY2001 (but year-by-year

Congress has restored the original 10% limit).

Also allows states to use TANF funds, within

the overall 30% transfer limit, as matching

funds for the job access transportation program

for TANF recipients, ex-recipients, and persons

at risk of becoming income-eligible for TANF.

[Section 404 of the SSA]

Retains overall transfer limit at 30%. Sets

limit on SSBG transfers at 10% (original

limit in 1996 law). [Section 107(b) of S.

667]

Carryover of

Funds

Amounts may be spent without fiscal year limit

for “assistance” (chiefly ongoing cash aid). For

other benefits and services (“nonassistance”)

amounts must be obligated in the year of award

and spent in the following year. [Section 404

of the SSA]

Allows use of carryover funds from TANF Same as S. 667. [Section 8107(e)]

grants for any benefit or service without

fiscal year limitation. Permits a state or

tribe to designate some TANF funds as a

contingency reserve. [Section 107(c) of S.

667]

Use of Funds for

Education

States may use funds for educational activities

(to promote a TANF goal or because these

activities were allowed under pre-1996 law).

However, only three educational activities may

be counted toward state work participation

rates: high school attendance, education

directly related to work (both for high school

dropouts only) and vocational educational

Allows states to use TANF funds to No provision.

establish an undergraduate two- or four-year

postsecondary degree program sometimes

known as Parents as Scholars (PAS) or a

vocational educational program. Following

services could be provided in these

undergraduate programs: child care,

transportation, payment for books and

CRS-32

Current law

training. Unless it is defined by the state as

vocational educational training, postsecondary

education is not a countable work activity.

[Section 407(d) of the SSA]

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

supplies, other services provided under

policies determined by the state to ensure

coordination and lack of duplication.

Participants who are also TANF cash

assistance recipients in these educational

programs could be counted toward state

work participation standards. See Countable

Activities. [Section 107(d) of S. 667]

Direct Funding

and

Administration

by Indian Tribes

Allows Indian tribes to administer their own Continues the authority for tribes to operate Same as S. 667. [Section 8114(a)]

family assistance (TANF) programs. Earmarks TANF programs through FY2010. [Section

some TANF funds — amount equal to federal 113(a) of S. 667]

pre-TANF payments received by state

attributable to Indians — for administration by

tribes at their option. Sums used for tribal

family assistance programs are deducted from

state TANF grants. [Section 412(a) of the SSA]

Tribal Work

Programs

Appropriates $7.6 million annually for work Provides $12.6 million annually for NEW Extends the authority and funding for NEW

and training activities (now known as Native programs through FY2010. [Section 113(a) programs at current levels ($7.6 million

annually) through FY2010. [Section 8114(b)]

Employment Works (NEW)) to tribes that of S. 667]

operated a pre-TANF work and training

program. [Section 412(b) of the SSA]

Tribes operating NEW programs may

incorporate these services into a plan under

the Indian Employment, Training and

Related Services Demonstration Act of

1992. This permits the tribe to use a single

plan, budget, and reporting format for

services incorporated into the plan. [Section

113(c) of S. 667]

CRS-33

Current law

Tribal Capacity

Grants

No provision.

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Appropriates $80 million for the period No provision.

FY2006-FY2010 for a tribal TANF

improvement fund. The fund could be used

to provide technical assistance to tribes,

award competitive grants to tribes, and

conduct research to improve knowledge

about tribal family assistance plans.

[Section 113(b) of S. 667]

Work Participation Requirements and Standards

Universal

Engagement and

Family Selfsufficiency Plan

Requirements

State plan must require that a parent or

caretaker engage in work (as defined by the

state) after, at most, 24 months of assistance.

[Section 402(a)(1)(ii) of the SSA]. Note: This

requirement is not enforced by a specific

penalty. (States may, but need not, establish an

individual responsibility plan for each family in

consultation with the recipient.) [Section

408(b)(2) of the SSA]

Repeals the 24-month work trigger. Same as S. 667.

Requires state plans to outline how they 8109(a)]

intend to require parents and caretakers to

engage in work or alternative sufficiency

activities, as defined by the state — while

observing the ban on penalizing work refusal

by a single parent of a preschool child who

is unable to obtain needed child care for

specified reasons — and to require families

to engage in activities in accordance with

family self-sufficiency plans. [Section

110(a) of S. 667]

States must make an initial assessment of the

skills, prior work experience, and employability

of each recipient 18 or older or those who have

not completed high school within 30 days.

[Section 408(b)(1) of the SSA]

Requires states to make an initial screening

and assessment, in a manner they deem

appropriate, of the skills, work experience,

education, work readiness, work barriers and

employability of each adult or minor child

head of household recipient who has attained

age 18 or who has not completed high

school and to assess, in a manner they deem

appropriate, the work support and other

assistance and family support services for

which families are eligible and the well-

[Section 2011; Section

Requires states, in a manner they deem

appropriate, to assess the skills, work

experience, and employability of each workeligible person (see definition below) and

requires states to develop a family selfsufficiency plan for each family with such a

person. Plans must be established within 60

days of opening a case (within 12 months for

families enrolled on October 1, 2005).

[Sections 2011(b) and 8109(b)]

CRS-34

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

being of the family’s children and, where

appropriate, activities or resources to

improve their well-being. Requires states, in

a manner they deem appropriate, to establish

a self-sufficiency plan for each family.

Required plan contents: activities

designed to assist the family to achieve their

maximum degree of self-sufficiency;

requirement that the recipient participate in

activities in accordance with the plan;

supportive services that the state intends to

provide; steps to promote child well-being

and, when appropriate, adolescent wellbeing; information about work support

assistance for which the family may be

eligible (such as food stamps, medicaid,

SCHIP, federal or state funded child care —

including that provided under the Child Care

and Development Block Grant and the

Social Services Block Grant, EITC, lowincome home energy assistance, WIC, WIA

program, and housing assistance). The state

must monitor the participation of adults and

minor child household heads in the selfsufficiency plans and regularly review the

family’s progress, using methods it deems

appropriate, and revise the plan when

appropriate. Before imposing a sanction

against a recipient for failure to comply with

a TANF rule or a requirement of the selfsufficiency plan, the state must, to the extent

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-35

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

that it deems appropriate, review the plan

and make a good-faith effort (defined by the

state) to consult with the family. States

must comply with self-sufficiency plan

requirements within one year after

enactment (for families then receiving

TANF). For families not enrolled on the

date of enactment, the deadline for selfsufficiency plans is the later of 60 days after

the family first receives assistance on the

basis of its most recent application, or one

year after enactment. Provides that nothing

in the self-sufficiency plan provisions shall

be construed to establish a private right or

cause of action against a state for failure to

comply with the provisions or to limit

claims that might be available under other

federal or state laws.

Requires the

Government Accountability Office to submit

a report to the Ways and Means and Finance

Committees evaluating the implementation

of the universal engagement provisions of

the bill. [Section 110(a) of S. 667]

Imposes a penalty on states for failure to

establish self-sufficiency plans by revising

the penalty provision for failure to meet

TANF work participation standards.

Provides failure to comply with selfsufficiency requirements and/or achieve

work participation standards would result in

a penalty of up to a 5% reduction in the

TANF grant for the first violation (more for

subsequent violations), based on the degree

Imposes a penalty on state for failure to

establish self-sufficiency plan by revising the

penalty provision for failure to achieve work

participation standard. Provides failure to

comply with self-sufficiency requirements

and/or achieve work participation standards

would result in a penalty of up to a 5%

reduction in the TANF grant for the first

violation (more for subsequent violations).

(The bill does not contain the “substantial

CRS-36

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

of substantial noncompliance.

The noncompliance” language of S. 667.)

Secretary is directed to take various factors [Sections 2011(b) 8109(b)] See Penalty for

into account in setting the penalty. These Failing Participation Rate, below.

factors include the number or percentage of

families for whom a self-sufficiency plan is

not established in a timely fashion, duration

of delays, whether the failures are isolated

and nonrecurring, and the existence of

systems to ensure establishment and

monitoring of plans. Penalty may be

reduced if the failure is due to circumstances

that caused the state to meet the criteria for

contingency funds or is due to extraordinary

circumstances such as a natural disaster or

regional recession. Requires Secretary, in a

written report to Congress, to justify any

waiver or penalty reduction due to

extraordinary circumstances.

[Section

110(a) of S. 667]

Sanctions

Against

Individuals for

Work Refusal

If person in a family receiving TANF assistance No provision (maintains current law).

refuses to engage in required work, the state

shall reduce aid to the family pro rata (or more,

at state option) with respect to the period of

work refusal, or shall discontinue aid, subject to

good cause and other exceptions that the state

may establish. [Section 407(e) of the SSA]

If a person in a family receiving TANF

assistance fails to engage in required activities

and the family does not otherwise engage in

activities in accordance with its selfsufficiency plan, the state must impose a

penalty as follows: (a) If the failure is partial

or does not last longer than one month, the

state must reduce assistance to the family pro

rata (or more, at state option) with respect to

any period of failure during the month, or

shall end all assistance to the family, subject

to good cause exceptions that the state may

establish; (b) If the failure is total and persists

for at least two consecutive months, the state

CRS-37

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

must end all cash payments to the family,

including state-funded MOE payments, for at

least one month and thereafter until the person

participates, subject to good cause exceptions

that the state may establish. Exception: If a

state constitution or a state statute enacted

before 1966 obligated local government to

provide assistance to needy parents and

children, the state has one year to comply with

this requirement. [Sections 2012(f) and

8110(e)]

Exception: a state may not penalize a single No provision (retains current law).

parent caring for a child under age 6 for refusal

to work if the parent has a demonstrated

inability to obtain needed child care that is

appropriate, suitable, and affordable. [Section

407(e) of the SSA]

Work

Participation

Standards

A state must engage a specified percentage of

families containing adult or teen parent

recipients in creditable work activities. Since

FY2002, the participation standard has been

50% for all families (and since FY1999 it has

been 90% for the two-parent component of the

caseload). [Section 407(a) of the SSA]

A state must engage a specified percentage

of families containing adult or minor heads

of households in the assistance unit in

creditable activities. Participation standards

are

50% in FY2006

55% in FY2007

60% in FY2008

65% in FY2009

70% in FY2010.

[Section 109(b) of S. 667]

Same as S. 667.

A state must engage a specified percentage of

families with a work-eligible person in direct

work or alternative self-sufficiency activities

chosen by the state. Participation standards

are same as S. 667. A work-eligible person is

defined as a household head who is in the

assistance unit, or would be in the unit if not

sanctioned. [Sections 2012(b) and 8110(a)]

CRS-38

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Required participation rates may be reduced by Required participation rates may be reduced Required participation rates may be reduced

a caseload reduction credit (see below).

by caseload reduction or employment by caseload reduction and “superachiever”

credits, but a cap is placed on these credits. credits (see below).

Employment credits (or caseload reduction

credits or a combination of the two) may not

reduce participation standards below:

10% in FY2006

20% in FY2007

30% in FY2008

40% in FY2009

50% in FY2010.

[Section 109(c) of S. 667]

Effective October 1, 2002, eliminates the Effective October 1, 2005, eliminates the

separate standard for two-parent families. separate standard for two-parent families.

Also forgives states penalized for failing the [Sections 2012(a) and 8110(a)]

two-parent standard in FY2002-FY2004.

[Section 109(a) of S. 667]

Caseload

Reduction Credit

Work participation standards are reduced by a

caseload reduction credit: for each percent

decline in the caseload from the FY1995 level

(not attributable to policy changes), the work

participation standard is reduced by one

percentage point. [Section 407(3) of the SSA]

Retains current law caseload reduction credit

for FY2006 and FY2007 (subject to the

limits shown above). Effective October 1,

2007, replaces the caseload reduction credit

with an employment credit (subject to limits

shown above). [Section 109(d) of S. 667]

Measures caseload reduction from a moving

base year (rather than from FY1995) and

shortens the measuring interval. Also changes

the eligibility criteria base year from FY1995

to the new moving base. For FY2006, the

credit is based on the percent decline in the

caseload from FY1996 (not due to changes in

eligibility criteria from FY1996); for FY2007,

the base year is FY1998; for FY2008,

FY2001. For FY2009 and every year

thereafter, the measuring interval is three

years. [Sections 2012(c) and 8110(b)]

No provision.

Establishes a “superachiever” caseload

reduction credit for a state with a reduction in

CRS-39

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

FY2001 of at least 60% (for any reason) from

FY1995 level. Places a cap on this credit (20

percentage points for FY2008, lesser amounts

for earlier years). [Sections 2012(d) and

8110(c)]

Employment

Credit

No provision.

E s t a b l i s h e s a p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t No provision.

“employment” credit against the work

participation standard (subject to limits

described above). Essentially, the credit

equals a multiple of the percentage of TANF

families in a month who leave ongoing cash

assistance with a job. It is calculated by

dividing (a) twice the quarterly average

unduplicated number of families with an

adult or minor head of household recipient

who leaves welfare and was employed in the

following quarter; by (b) the average

monthly number of families with an adult or

minor head of household recipient who

received assistance during a recent fourquarter period. At state option, calculations

could include in the numerator: (1) twice

the quarterly average number of families

that received non-recurring short-term

benefits rather than ongoing cash and who

earned at least $1,000 in the quarter after

receiving the benefit, and (2) twice the

quarterly average number of families that

included an adult who received substantial

child care or transportation assistance and

earned at least $1,000 in the quarter. If both

these options were taken, the denominator

would be increased by twice the number of

CRS-40

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

families that received non-recurring shortterm benefits during the year and by twice

the quarterly average number of families

with an adult who received substantial child

care or transportation assistance.

In

consultation with directors of state TANF

programs, the Secretary is to define

substantial child care or transportation

assistance, specifying a threshold for each

type of aid — a dollar value or a time

duration. The definition must take account

of large one-time transition payments.

[Section 109(d) of S. 667]

Gives extra credit — as 1.5 families — to a

family whose earnings during the preceding

fiscal year equaled at least 33% of the state’s

average wage. [Section 109(d) of S. 667]

Authorizes and requires the HHS Secretary

to use information in the National Directory

of New Hires to calculate state employment

credits. If the TANF leaver’s employer is

not required to report new hires, the

Secretary must use quarterly wage

information submitted by the state. To

calculate employment credits for families

who received non-recurring short term

benefits and for those who received

substantial child care and transportation

assistance, the Secretary is to use other

required data. By August 31 of each year,

the HHS Secretary must notify each state of

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-41

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

the amount of the employment credit that

will be used in calculating participation rates

for the immediately succeeding fiscal year.

[Section 109(d) of S. 667]

Sets October 1, 2007 as the effective date for

replacement of the caseload reduction credit

by the employment credit, but permits states

to have a one-year delay. If a state makes

this choice, its adjusted work participation

standard for FY2008 shall be determined by

using both the caseload reduction credit and

the employment credit (one-half credit for

each). [Section 109(d) of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-42

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Study of the

Employment

Credit

No provision.

Requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct a No provision.

study of the design of the employment credit

and report to the Senate Finance Committee

and House Ways and Means Committee by

September 30, 2009. [Section 109(d)]

Calculation of

Participation

Rates

The monthly participation rate, expressed as a

percentage, equals (a) the number of all

recipient families in which an individual is

engaged in work activities for the month,

divided by (b) the number of recipient families

with an adult recipient or minor head of

household. The annual participation rate,

which is compared against the participation

standard, is the average of the monthly

participation rates. [SSA, Section 407(b)(1)]

Similar to current law, except that states are

given partial, full, or extra credit for families

depending on the average number of hours

per week in which they engage in activities.

(See Hours, below).

Infant Exemption

from the Work

Participation

Rate

States may exempt the parent of a child under

age 1 from work and exclude them from the

calculation of work participation rates.

Exclusion is limited to 12 months in a lifetime.

[SSA, Section 407(b)(5)]

Permits states to exclude all families with Similar to S. 667, but does not include the 12infants (not just single parent families) from month in a lifetime limit on this exclusion.

work participation calculations on a case-by- [Sections 2012(b) and 8110(a)]

case basis. Limits this exclusion to 12

months in a lifetime. [Section 109(e) of S.

667]

Excluding

Families in Their

First Month of

Assistance from

the Work

Participation

Rate

No provision.

Permits states to exclude a new group from Similar to S. 667, but does not specify that the

work participation calculations — families exclusion is to be made on a case-by-case

in first month of assistance. Determination basis. [Sections 2012(b) and 8110(a)]

is made on a case-by-case basis. [Section

109(e) of S. 667]

Participation rates equal the share of hours

spent in creditable activities out of a potential

total of 160 hours monthly per counted family.

Monthly participation rate, expressed as a

percentage, is (a) the total number of

countable hours, divided by (b) 160 times the

number of counted families for the month.

[Sections 2012(b) and 8110(a)]

CRS-43

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

Treatment of

Sanctioned

Families in the

Work

Participation

Rate

States may exclude from the work participation No provision, retains current law.

rate calculation families subject to sanctions for

refusal to comply with work requirements.

Exclusion is limited to three months in a 12month period. [Section 407(b)(1) of the SSA]

Penalty for

Failing

Participation

Rate

Participation rates are enforced by a penalty on

states: loss of 5% of the state’s basic grant for

first year of violation (higher penalty for repeat

violations). Penalty must be based on the

degree of noncompliance and may be reduced

if the noncompliance is due to circumstances

that made the state needy under the contingency

fund definition or due to extraordinary

circumstances such as a natural disaster or

regional recession. State must replace the

amount of federal penalty funds with its own

funds. [Section 409(a)(3) of SSA] In addition,

the state’s MOE spending requirement rises

from 75% to 80% of its historic level.

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Same as S. 667. [Sections 2012(b) and

8110(a)]

Provides that penalty (beginning for No provision, retains current law.

FY2007) must be based on the degree of

substantial noncompliance. Directs the

Secretary to take into account factors such as

the degree to which the state missed the

participation rate, the change in the number

of persons engaged in work since the prior

year, and the number of consecutive years in

which the state failed to achieve the work

rate. Penalty may be reduced if the failure is

due to circumstances that caused the state to

meet the criteria for contingency funds or is

due to extraordinary circumstances such as

a natural disaster or regional recession.

Requires Secretary, in a written report to

Congress, to justify any waiver or penalty

r e d u c tion due to ex t r a o r d i n a r y

circumstances. [Section 110(a) of S. 667]

CRS-44

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

States that fail to meet work participation

standards may file a corrective compliance plan

with the Secretary of HHS. The corrective

compliance plan outlines what the states will do

to correct or discontinue its failure to meet the

standards. The Secretary may not impose the

penalty if the state corrects the violation of the

work standards. [Section 409(c) of the SSA]

If the Secretary accepts a state’s corrective No provision.

compliance plan for failure to meet work

participation standards and the state has at

least a 5 percentage point improvement in its

work participation rate over the previous

year, the Secretary shall not impose a

financial penalty on the state. [Section

111(b) of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Countable Activities

“Core” Activities.

Activities

Countable as Sole

or Primary Work

Activities of

Recipients.

Federal law lists nine priority activities that Retains current law list of nine priority Lists six “direct” work activities:

activities as “direct work” activities.

— unsubsidized jobs;

must account for most weekly hours:

— subsidized private jobs;

— unsubsidized jobs;

— subsidized public jobs;

— subsidized private jobs;

— on-the-job training;

— subsidized public jobs;

— supervised work experience, and

— work experience

— supervised community service.

— on-the-job training;

— job search (usual limit, six weeks per fiscal

[Sections 2012(e) and 8110(d)]

year)

— community service;

— vocational educational training (limited to

12 months in a lifetime);

— providing child care for participants in

community service programs. [Section 407(d)

of the SSA]

CRS-45

Current law

Qualified

Activities.

Activities that

May Substitute

for, or be in

Conjunction with,

Core Activities

for a Limited

Period of Time.

No provision.

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

For three months in a 24-month period,

seven additional activities may substitute

for, or be in conjunction with, direct work

activities:

— postsecondary education;

— adult literacy programs or activities;

— substance abuse counseling or treatment

(including drug or alcohol abuse counseling

or treatment);

— programs or activities designed to

remove work barriers, as defined by the

state;

— work activities authorized under any

waiver for any state that was continued

under Section 415 before the date of

enactment of this bill;

— money management classes; and

— parenting skills classes.

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

For three months within a 24-month period,

persons participating in short-term “qualified”

activities chosen by the state to promote selfsufficiency may substitute for or be in

conjunction with direct work activities

(examples listed in the bill are substance

abuse counseling or treatment; rehabilitation

treatment and services; work-related education

or training directly enabling the family

member for work; and job search or job

readiness assistance). A fourth month in the

24-month period is allowed if needed to

complete an education or training program.

[Sections 2012(e) and 8110(d)]

[Section 109(c) of S. 667]

Supplemental

Activities.

Activities

Countable

Generally Only in

Conjunction with

“Core” or

“Qualified”

Activities.

Retains current law list of three

supplemental activities, and adds: marriage

education, marriage skills training, conflict

resolution, and programs to promote

marriage. [Section 109(g)] Also permits

states to count all “qualified activities” (see

above), as well as job search and vocational

— job skills training directly related to educational training (beyond the usual time

limits) as supplemental activities once a

employment;

— education directly related to employment; family has the minimum number of hours of

“direct work” participation.

and

— progress toward completion of secondary [Section 109(g) of S. 667]

school.

For most recipients, hours of participation in

these activities are countable only in

conjunction with participation in priority

activities (and with a minimum number of

hours in priority activities). Federal law lists

three such activities:

House Ways and Means Committee Provision:

States may define any other activity as

countable (generally for non-core hours) so

long as it leads to self-sufficiency and is

consistent with the purposes of TANF. States

may only count up to 16 hours per week of

these activities toward a family’s total hours.

[Section 8110(d)]

House Education and Workforce Provision:

Same as above (Ways and Means provision),

except it also requires work-eligible persons

CRS-46

Current law

[Section 407(d) of the SSA] See Required

Hours of Work, below.

Postsecondary

Education

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

with minor children in school to make at least

two verified visits to the school per school

year, and have those hours counted as part of

the 16 hours per week allowed for

supplemental activities. [Section 2012(e)]

However, postsecondary

No provision. Postsecondary education not Three months of postsecondary education is No provision.

classified as “vocational educational training” countable as a “qualified activity” (see education may be a state-defined “qualified”

or “supplemental” activity.

is not countable toward TANF work above).

participation standards.

Allows states to establish a program (under

S e c t i o n 1 0 7 ) o f u n der gr a d u a t e

postsecondary education (parents as

scholars) or vocational educational training

for TANF recipients, former recipients, and

other low income parents. For TANF

recipients, hours of participation in the

program would be countable toward meeting

state work requirements. Students could

also receive credit for hours spent in one of

the nine “direct” work activities of current

law or in work study, practicums,

internships, clinical placements, laboratory

or field work, or other activities that would

enhance their employability, as determined

by the state, or in study time (at the rate of

not less than one hour for every hour of class

time and not more than two hours for every

hour of class time). Students’ total time in

education, core work, work study, laboratory

or field work, study time, etc., would be

countable against hours requirements. Also,

students could be credited as one working

family if, in addition to complying with the

CRS-47

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

full-time educational participation

requirements of their educational program,

they engaged in one of the countable work

activities above for at least the following

number of hours: six hours weekly in the

first year, eight hours in the second year, 10

hours in the third year, and 12 hours in the

fourth and any later year. For good cause,

states could modify these hour requirements.

To be eligible for these programs, recipients

would be required to maintain satisfactory

academic progress (as defined by the

institution operating the program). With

good cause exceptions, participants would

be required to complete requirements of a

degree or vocational educational training

program within the normal time frame for

full-time students. [Section 107(d) of S.

667]

Special Rules for

Rehabilitative

Activities

No provision.

Recipients engaged in qualified activities No provision.

considered rehabilitative (adult basic

education, or substance abuse treatment) for

three months, may have an additional three

months (known as the 3+3 program) of

participation in those activities counted if

combined with direct work activities.

[Section 109(f) of S. 667]

CRS-48

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

Additionally, if a recipient has treatment of

disabilities or substance abuse in her family

self-sufficiency plan and the state has

developed collaborative relationships with

rehabilitation agencies, the recipient may

continue to have participation in such

activities countable without time limit if

combined with a minimum of 10 hours of

participation in a direct work activity.

[Section 110(b) of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-49

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Caring for a

Disabled Family

Member

No provision.

Permits a state to deem a single parent No provision.

caring for a dependent with a physical or

mental impairment to be meeting all or part

of the family’s work requirement. [Section

109(f) of S. 667]

Work Activities in

Indian Areas of

High Joblessness

No provisions.

Permits a state to define countable work No provision.

activities for persons complying with a

family self sufficiency plan and living in

areas of Indian country or an Alaskan native

village with high “joblessness.” To qualify

for this option, the state must include in its

TANF plan a description of its policies for

these areas. Also, as noted above, allows

states to define work-barrier removal

activities and to adopt activities authorized

under any waiver for any state that was

continuing before the date of enactment.

[Section 109(f) of S. 667]

Numerical Limits

on Vocational

Education and

Teen Parents

No more than 30% of persons credited with

work may consist of persons participating in

vocational educational training or may be teen

parents who are deemed to be working because

of satisfactory attendance at secondary school

or because of spending 20 hours weekly in

education directly related to employment.

[Section 407(c)(2)(D) of SSA]

Continues the 30% cap, but provides that it No numerical cap on educational activities.

does not apply to persons in a 3+3 program

receiving qualified rehabilitative services or

to persons engaging in vocational

educational training as a supplementary

activity after meeting the 24-hour “direct

work” requirement. [Section 109(f) of S.

667]

Required Hours

of Work Activity

Generally, to count toward the all-family rate,

average weekly participation of 30 hours (20

hours in priority work activities) is required.

However, in the case of single parents with a

preschool age child (who constitute half of all

Establishes standard TANF work weeks as

follows: 24 hours for a single parent with a

child under age 6; 34 hours for a single

parent with a child over 6 (with 24 hours in

a priority activity) 39 hours for a two-parent

Establishes a 160-hour-per-month work

standard. [Sections 2012(b) and 8110(a)]

Generally, states must engage all families with

a “work- eligible” member in a direct work

CRS-50

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

TANF cases), the hours requirement is 20 per

week. For two-parent families the standard is

35 hours (30 in priority work activity), but

increases to 55 hours (50 in priority activities)

if the family receives federally-subsidized child

care. [Section 407(c)(1) of the SSA] For a

single parent caring for a child under age 6, 20

hours of participation satisfies the standard.

[Section 407(c)(2)(B) of the SSA]

family (but 55 hours if that family receives

federally funded child care) — with most

hours in a priority activity. Families

meeting the standard are counted as one

family in calculating the state’s work

participation rate. Those exceeding the

standard receive extra credit, and some who

fall short of the standard receive partial

credit (see below). Average weekly hours

are computed by dividing monthly hours of

participation by 4. [Section 109(f) of S.

667]

activity or alternative self-sufficiency activity

for an average of 40 hours weekly (the actual

standard is 160 hours per month, equal to a

weekly average of 37 hours) — of which 24

hours must be in one of the direct work

activities listed in the law and up to 16 hours

may be in a TANF-purposeful activity chosen

by the state.

Special Rule for

Teen Parents

Teen parents are deemed to meet the weekly

hour participation standard by maintaining

satisfactory attendance in secondary school (or

the equivalent in the month) or by participating

in education directly related to employment for

an average of 20 hours weekly. [Section

407(c)(2)(C) of the SSA]

Essentially the same as current law.

Families with a teen parent who maintains

satisfactory school attendance or participates

in education directly related to employment

for an average of 20 hours weekly are

counted as one working family toward the

participation standards. [Section 109(f) of S.

667]

Essentially the same as current law. Teen

parents are deemed to satisfy the (40-hour

weekly) work rule by virtue of satisfactory

school attendance (or the equivalent in the

month) or by participating in education

directly related to employment for an average

of 20 hours weekly [Sections 2012(e) and

8110(d)].

Partial Work

Credit

None.

Families who meet core work requirements

but fail the full standard receive partial

credit as follows: Credited as .675 of a

family are single parent families (with or

without a child under six) who have 20-23

hours of work and two-parent families with

26-29 hours of work (40-44 hours if they

receive federally subsidized child care).

Counted as .75 of a family are single parent

families without a preschool child who work

24-29 hours and two-parent families with

Families who meet the 24-hour weekly direct

work requirement but fail the 40-hour

standard, receive pro-rata credit for all hours

worked (but zero credit unless they meet the

24-hour direct work rule). [Sections 2012(b)

and 8110(a)]

CRS-51

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

30-34 hours (45-50 if they receive child

care). Counted as .875 of a family are single

parent families without a preschool child

who work 30-33 hours and two-parent

families who work 35-38 hours (51-54 hours

if they receive child care). [Section 109(f)

of S. 667]

Extra Work

Credit

None.

Families that exceed the standard hourly

work requirement receive extra credit, as

follows. Credited as 1.05 of a family are

single-parent families who work 35-37 hours

and two-parent families who work 40-42

hours (56-58 hours if they receive child

care). Credited as 1.08 of a family are

single-parent families who work 38 or more

hours and two-parent families who work 43

or more hours (59 or more hours if they

receive child care). [Section 109(f) of S.

667]

Counts all hours worked above the 40-hour

full weekly standard, provided 24 hours are

spent in direct work (or, for a limited time, in

certain other qualified activities) and no more

than 16 hours are in non-priority activities.

[Sections 2012(e) and 8110(d)]

Other Requirements with Respect to Families Receiving Assistance

Drug Testing

States are given the authority to test welfare No provision (retains current law).

recipients for use of controlled substances and

sanction recipients who test positive for

controlled substances. [Section 902 of the

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act.]

States are required to test applicants and

recipients of TANF for use of drugs if the

state has a reason to believe he or she has

recently used a controlled substance. If the

applicant or recipient tests positive for drug

use, or if the state otherwise determines that

he or she has recently used drugs, the state

must ensure that the family self-sufficiency

plan addresses the use of the substance;

suspend cash assistance to the family until a

subsequent test shows no drug use; and

CRS-52

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

require the applicant or recipient to undergo

periodic drug tests (every 30 or 60 days) as a

condition of receiving cash assistance.

Requires states to terminate participation in

the program of a family for three years if a

recipient member fails the drug test at least

three consecutive times (states may set a laxer

requirement, allowing failure of the drug test

for up to six consecutive times).

The Secretary of HHS is required to penalize

a state that does not comply with this

requirement. The penalty is a minimum of

5% of the state’s block grant, and a maximum

of 10% of the state’s block grant, with the

Secretary determining the exact penalty

amount. [Section 8122]

Eligibility for

Teen Parents

Federal TANF funds cannot be used to assist an

unmarried teen parent (under the age of 18)

who does not reside in the home of her parents

or in another adult supervised setting. The state

must assist such a teen parent in locating a

second chance home, maternity home, or other

appropriate adult-supervised supportive living

arrangement unless the state determines that the

individual’s living arrangement is appropriate.

Permits states to use federal TANF funds to No provision (retains current law).

assist an unmarried teen parent for up to 60

days. Adds transitional living youth projects

to the accepted living situations for a teen

parent receiving TANF assistance. [Section

110(b) of S. 667]

Displacement of

Regular

Workers

A recipient may fill a vacant employment

position. However, no adult in a work activity

that is funded in whole or in part by federal

funds may be employed or assigned when

Provides that an adult recipient cannot No provision (retains current law).

displace any employee or position (including

partial displacement), fill any unfilled

vacancy, or perform work when any

CRS-53

Current law

another person is on layoff from the same or

any substantially equivalent job, or if the

employer has ended the employment of any

regular employee or otherwise caused an

involuntary reduction in its workforce in order

to fill a vacancy with a TANF recipient. These

provisions do not preempt any provision of

state or local law that provides greater

protection against displacement. States are

required to have a grievance procedure to

resolve complaints of displacement of

permanent employees.

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

individual is on layoff from the same job or

substantially equivalent job. TANF work

activities cannot impair existing contracts or

services; be inconsistent with any law,

regulation, collective bargaining agreement;

or infringe on the recall rights or

promotional opportunities of any worker.

TANF work activities must be in addition to

any activity that would otherwise be

available and not supplant the hiring of a

non-TANF worker.

Requires states to have a grievance

procedure for resolving complaints,

including the opportunity for a hearing, and

sets time standards for the process. It

provides remedies for a violation of the nondisplacement provisions, including

termination and suspension of payments,

prohibition on placement of the participant,

reinstatement of the employee, or other

relief to make the aggrieved employee

whole. These provisions do not preempt or

supersede any state or local law that

provides greater protection. [Section 119(c)

of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-54

Current law

Disregard of

Months Toward

the TANF Time

Limit for Months

Living in Indian

Country Areas

with Joblessness

Federal TANF grants may not be used to aid a

family with an adult who has received 60

months of assistance. Months in which an adult

lives in Indian Country with a jobless rate of

50% or more are not counted toward the 60

month time limit.

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Modifies this exclusion, providing that No provision (retains current law).

months in which an adult lives in Indian

Country with a jobless rate among adult

recipients of 40% or more are not countable

toward the time limit. The 40% threshold is

dropped down to 35% if the state meets any

of the needy state criteria under the

contingency fund or if the tribe meets

c r i t e r i a f or contingency funds.

Modifications do not apply to Alaska.

[Section 110(c) of S. 667]

Marriage Promotion

TANF Goals and

Purposes

Two purposes relate to marriage. One goal is to

end dependency of needy parents on

government benefits, with one of the stated

means of accomplishing the goal specified as

marriage. A second purpose is to encourage the

formation and maintenance of two-parent

families.

The stated purpose of promoting the

formation and maintenance of two-parent

families is modified to read: encourage the

formation and maintenance of healthy twoparent married families, and encourage

responsible fatherhood. [New language in

italics] [Section 103(e) of S. 667]

The stated purpose of promoting the formation

and maintenance of two-parent families is

modified to read: encourage the formation

and maintenance of healthy, two-parent

married families, and encourage responsible

fatherhood. [Section 8101]

Funding for

Marriage

Promotion

Matching Grants

No provision for special grants. States may use

TANF block grants to promote formation and

maintenance of two-parent families (program

goal no. 4) and to promote marriage as a means

of ending dependence on government benefits

(goal no. 2).

Appropriates $100 million annually for

FY2005 through FY2010 for 50%

competitive matching grants to states, Indian

tribes, and tribal organizations for programs

to promote and support healthy married twoparent families. [Section 103(b) of S. 667]

Appropriates $100 million annually for

FY2006 through FY2010 for 50% competitive

matching grants to states, territories, and tribal

organizations for programs to promote and

support healthy, married two-parent families.

Similar to S. 667, but does not include “Indian

tribes” as a potential grant recipient. [Section

8103(b)]

CRS-55

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Makes funds appropriated for each of

FY2006 through FY2010 available to the

Secretary until expended. Also, permits

grantees to use funds without fiscal year

deadline. [Section 103(b) of S. 667]

Provides that federal TANF funds used for

marriage promotion may be treated as state

matching funds for marriage promotion

grants [Section 103(b) of S. 667]

Provides that federal TANF funds used for

marriage promotion must be treated as state

matching funds for marriage promotion

grants. [(Section 8111(b)(1)]

Provides that general rules governing uses of No provision.

TANF block grant funds (other than

administrative limit) shall not apply to

marriage promotion grants. [Section 103(b)

of S. 667]

Allowable

Activities for

Marriage

Promotion

Grants

No provision. (TANF and MOE funds may be Grants may be used for: advertising

used for marriage promotion activities.)

campaigns; education in high schools;

voluntary marriage education, marriage

skills and relationship skills programs that

may include parenting skills, financial

management, conflict resolution, and job

and career advancement for non-married

pregnant women and expectant fathers;

voluntary pre-marital education and

marriage skills training for engaged couples

and individuals and couples interested in

marriage; voluntary marriage enhancement

and marriage skills training programs for

married couples; voluntary divorce

reduction programs; voluntary marriage

mentoring programs; programs to reduce

marriage disincentives in means-tested

Grants may be used for:

advertising

campaigns; education in high schools;

marriage education, marriage skills and

relationship skills programs that may include

parenting skills, financial management,

conflict resolution, and job and career

advancement for non-married pregnant

women and expectant fathers; pre-marital

education and marriage skills training for

engaged couples and individuals and couples

interested in marriage; marriage enhancement

and marriage skills training programs for

married couples; divorce reduction programs;

marriage mentoring programs; programs to

reduce marriage disincentives in means-tested

programs, if offered in conjunction with any

other listed activity. [Section 8103(b)]

CRS-56

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

programs, if offered in conjunction with any

other listed activity. [Section 103(b) of S.

667]

Forbids the award of a healthy marriage

promotion grant unless the applicant agrees to

consult with experts in domestic violence or

relevant community domestic violence

coalitions and the application describes how

the program/activities will deal with issues of

domestic violence. [Section 8103(b)]

Domestic

Violence

Provisions

No provision.

Forbids award of a healthy marriage

promotion grant unless the applicant

consults with organizations that have

demonstrated expertise in working with

survivors of domestic violence; the

application describes how the

program/activities will deal with issues of

domestic violence; establishes written

protocols that provide for the identification

of instances and risks of domestic violence;

specifies procedures for making service

referrals and providing protections. [Section

103(b) of S. 667]

Requirements for

Voluntary

Participation

No provision.

Requires that participation in marriage Same as S. 667. [Section 8103(b)]

promotion activities (other than media

campaigns and high school education) is

voluntary. Requires that the application for

the grant describe what the grantee will do

to ensure that participation in programs and

activities is voluntary.

Applications for healthy marriage promotion Same as S. 667. [Section 8103(b)]

grants must state what will be done to ensure

that potential participants are informed that

participation is voluntary.

CRS-57

Current law

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Grantees must provide assurances that, with No provision.

respect to recipients of TANF assistance,

they are informed that participation is

voluntary, that they may choose to disenroll

from the program at any time, and they may

be reassigned to other activities.

Recipients of cash assistance may not be

sanctioned for withdrawing from, or failing

to participate in marriage promotion

activities. [Section 103(b) of S. 667]

Voluntary

Participation and

Recipients of

TANF Assistance

Performance

Goals/reporting

Requirements

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

No provision.

Requires grantees to establish performance No provision.

goals that clarify the primary objective of

funded programs is to increase the incidence

and quality of healthy marriages and not

solely to expand the number or percentage

of married couples.

Requires grantees to submit annual reports

to the Secretary of HHS that describe the

written protocols established to identify

domestic violence, identify who was

consulted in the development of the

protocols, describe who provided training

for grantees on domestic violence, and

describe implementation issues with respect

to domestic violence.

CRS-58

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

The Secretary of HHS is required to submit

a report to Congress every six months

providing: the name of each program or

activity funded with marriage promotion

grants; description of types of services

offered under the program; criteria for the

selection of programs or activities funded

with the grant; total number of individuals

served by the programs; total number of

individuals who completed the program; and

total number of individuals who did not

complete the program; and summaries of

written domestic violence protocols, who the

grantees consulted with regard to domestic

violence, and training provided to grantees

on domestic violence. [Section 103(b) of S.

667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

CRS-59

Current law

Research and

Demonstrations

on Marriage

Promotion

No special provision to fund research or

demonstrations. However, available TANF

research funds (see Research and

Demonstrations, below) and other research

funds provided to the Department of Health and

Human Services may be used to evaluate

marriage promotion initiatives.

Provisions to

Address Domestic

Violence and

Voluntary

Participation

Issues for

Research Funds

No provision.

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

Appropriates $100 million each for FY2005

through FY2010 for research and

demonstration projects and for technical

assistance to states, tribal organizations, and

other entities chosen by the Secretary.

Specifies that 80% of these funds must be

spent

on research and demonstration

projects, or for providing technical

assistance, in connection with activities

allowed under marriage promotion grants

(see above). Provides that all appropriated

funds shall remain available until expended.

[Section 114(a) of S. 667]

Forbids Secretary to pay these research

funds to an entity that has not consulted with

organizations that have demonstrated

expertise in working with survivors of

domestic violence; describe in the

application for a grant how the programs or

activities will appropriately address

domestic violence; establish written

protocols to help identify instances or risks

of domestic violence; specify procedures for

making service referrals; establish

performance goals for the program; and

submit reports annually to the Secretary of

HHS (see marriage promotion grants,

above).

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Appropriates $102 million each for FY2006

through FY2010 for research and

demonstration projects and for technical

assistance to states, tribal organizations, and

other entities chosen by the Secretary.

Specifies that these funds must be spent

primarily on activities allowed under marriage

promotion grants (see above). (Sets aside $2

million yearly for demonstration projects for

coordination of child welfare and TANF

services to tribal families at risk of child abuse

or neglect.) [Section 8115(a)]

Requires that participation in marriage

promotion activities is voluntary and that

grantees consult with experts in domestic

violence issues.

CRS-60

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

Requires applications for the grant to

describe what the grantee will do to assure

that participation in marriage promotion

activities is voluntary, and inform potential

recipients that their participation is

voluntary. [Section 114(a) of S. 667]

State Plans, Data Reporting, Research (Other than Marriage Promotion) and Other Provisions

State Plan

Each state must outline (generally in a plan No provision (though additional state plan

Requirements

effective for three fiscal years), how it intends provisions are described below).

to:

conduct a program providing cash

assistance to needy families with children and

providing parents with work and support

services; take steps deemed necessary by the

state to restrict use and disclosure of

information about recipients; and conduct a

program providing education and training on

the problem of statutory rape. In addition, the

plan must indicate whether the state intends to

aid noncitizens; set forth objective criteria for

benefit delivery and for fair and equitable

treatment. In the plan the state must certify that

it will operate a child support enforcement

program and a foster care and adoption

assistance program and provide equitable

access to Indians ineligible for aid under a tribal

plan. It must certify that it has established

standards against program fraud and abuse. It

must specify which state agency or agencies

will administer and supervise TANF. In

addition, the state may opt to certify that it has

established and is enforcing procedures to

screen and identify recipients with a history of

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Adds requirement that each state must

describe what it will do to end dependence of

needy families on government benefits and

reduce poverty by promoting job preparation

and work and; encourage formation and

maintenance of healthy, two-parent married

families, encourage responsible fatherhood,

and prevent and reduce the incidence of outof-wedlock pregnancies. [Sections 2013 and

8112].

CRS-61

Current law

Participation of

Faith-based

Organizations in

Provision of

Services

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

domestic violence, to refer them to services,

and to waive program rules for some of them.

[Section 402(a) of the SSA]

No state plan provision.

If the state is undertaking strategies or

pr ogr ams to engage faith-bas ed

organizations in the delivery of TANF

services, or that otherwise relate to the

charitable choice provisions of P.L. 104-193,

the state plan must describe such strategies

and programs. [Section 101(a) of S. 667]

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

The state plan must describe strategies or

programs to engage faith-based organizations

in the delivery of TANF services, or that

otherwise relate to the charitable choice

provisions of P.L. 104-193. [Section 8112(a)]

State Plan

Requirement for

Community

Service after Two

Months

Unless the governor opts out by notice to HHS, Eliminates this requirement. [Section 101(a) Same as S. 667. [Sections 2013 and 8112(a)]

the state will require a parent who has received of S. 667]

TANF for two months and is not work-exempt

to participate in community service

employment.

Measurable

Performance

Goals

State plans must establish goals and take action States must establish measurable

to prevent/reduce the incidence of out-of- performance objectives for pursuing all

wedlock pregnancies.

TANF purposes (current law only specifies

establishment of goals for reducing out-ofwedlock pregnancies). These goals are to

give consideration to those developed by the

Secretary of HHS in establishing

performance targets for the employment

bonus (see above) and additional criteria

related to other TANF purposes developed

by the Secretary (in consultation with state

groups).

State plans must include measurable

performance objectives for accomplishing

ending dependence of needy families on

government benefits and reducing poverty and

for encouraging the formation and

maintenance of two-parent married families,

encouraging responsible fatherhood, and

reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock

pregnancies. [Sections 2013 and 8112(a)]

CRS-62

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

State plan is to describe strategies and Same as S. 667. [Sections 2013 and 8112(a)]

programs the state is using or plans to use to

address employment retention and

advancement for recipient of assistance;

efforts to reduce teen pregnancy; services

for struggling and noncompliant families;

and program integration, including the

extent to which employment and training

services are provided through One-Stop

Career Centers created under the Workforce

Investment Act. State plan is to describe

strategies to improve program management

and performance. [Section 101(a) of S. 667]

Program

Strategies

Description of

State Assistance

Programs

No provision.

Requires the state plan to include, to the No provision.

extent applicable, for each program that

provides assistance information on its:

financial and nonfinancial eligibility rules;

amount of assistance; and applicable time

limits and time limit rules. [Section 101(a)

of S. 667]

Indian and Tribal

Issues

States must certify that they will provide

equitable access to TANF to Indians who are

ineligible for tribal family assistance programs.

[Section 402(a) of the SSA]

Requires that the state plan include a

description of how the state will ensure

equitable access to TANF to Indians who are

ineligible for tribal family assistance

programs. States must certify that they will

consult with each Indian tribe regarding the

state plan to ensure equitable access, and

provide each member of an Indian tribe in

the state who is ineligible for aid from a

tribal family assistance program with

equitable access to TANF. [Section 113(d)

Requires tribal family assistance plans to

provide assurance that the state in which the

tribe is located has been consulted regarding

the plan and its design. [Section 8112(b)]

CRS-63

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

of S. 667] Requires that the certifications

include that tribal governments have been

consulted in the development of the state

plan. [Section 101(a) of S. 667]

Two-parent

Families

No provision.

Requires plan to describe how the state Same as S. 667. [Section 8101(c)]

intends to encourage equitable treatment of

healthy, married two-parent families under

TANF. [Section 101(c) of S. 667]

Description of

Additional State

Options for the

Work

Requirements

No provision.

I f s t a t e p r o v i d e s T A N F - f u n d e d No provision.

transportation aid, requires certification by

the governor that state and local

transportation officials and planning bodies

have been consulted in development of the

plan. [Section 101(a) of S. 667]

If a state counts caring for a disabled family

member as a work activity, the state must

describe how it will do so.

States opting to fund a post-secondary

education program (Parents as Scholars) are

required to file an addendum to the state

plan describing the program’s eligibility

criteria.

States opting to provide continuing

rehabilitative activities are required to file an

addendum to the state plan describing the

process for developing collaborative

relationships between governmental and

private entities and an assurance of regular

contact between the provider and the state.

CRS-64

Current law

Standard Form

No provision.

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Requires the HHS Secretary to develop a No provision.

proposed Standard State Plan Form for use

by states not later than nine months after

date of enactment of the bill. Requires states

to use the standard state plan form

beginning in FY2007. Allows states to

delay submission of state plans until

FY2007.

Requires states to make drafts of proposed

plans (and plan amendments) available to

the public through a state-maintained

Internet website and through other means

found appropriate by the state. States also

must make TANF state plans in effect for

any fiscal year available to the public, by the

above means. [Section 101(b) of S. 667].

Performance

Measures

No provision. (However for the purpose of

awarding performance bonuses, the Secretary is

to develop a formula in consultation with the

National Governors Association and the

American Public Welfare Association.)

Requires the Secretary, in consultation with Same as S. 667. [Sections 2013 and 8112(c)]

the states, to develop uniform performance

measures to judge the effectiveness and

improvement of state programs in

accomplishing TANF purposes. [Section

101(d) of S. 667]

Rankings of

States

Directs HHS Secretary to rank states in order of

success in moving recipients into long-term

private jobs and reducing the proportion of outof-wedlock births and in both cases to review

programs of the three states with highest and

lowest ratings. [Section 413(d) and(e) of the

SSA]

Revises the employment measure to be

“unsubsidized employment.”

Adds

employment retention and ability to increase

wages to factors used for rankings. Also,

adds three new ranking factors: the degree

to which recipients have workplace

attachment and advancement, reducing the

overall welfare caseload, and, when a

method of calculation becomes practicable,

Deletes “long-term” qualifier from private job

measure. Adds employment retention and

ability to increase wages to factors used for

rankings. Also, adds three new ranking

factors: the degree to which recipients have

workplace attachment and advancement,

reducing the overall welfare caseload, and,

when a method of calculation becomes

practicable, diverting persons from making

CRS-65

Current law

Senate Committee Bills (S. 667 or S. 525

as reported from committee)

House Budget Reconciliation Bill

diverting persons from making formal formal applications to TANF.

applications to TANF. [Section 101(e) of S. 2013(c) and 8112(d)]

667]

In ranking states, Secretary must take into No provision.

account the average number of minor

children living at home in families with

income below the poverty line, the child

poverty rate, a

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.