RL 32760

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy May 28, 2013
Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32760
CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: FAQs
Summary
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). This report responds to some frequently asked questions about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk). TANF Funding. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk of which is provided in a $16.5 billion-per-year basic federal block grant. States are required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement. The basic block grant is not adjusted for inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload (see The Caseload, below). It has lost 30% of its value to inflation from FY1997 through FY2012. State Spending. Though TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for needy families with children, the block grant and MOE funds are used for a wide variety of benefits and activities. In FY2011, expenditures on basic assistance (cash welfare) totaled $9.6 billion28.8% of total federal TANF and MOE dollars. TANF also contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of being, abused and neglected. Cash Welfare Caseload. A total of 1.8 million families, composed of 4.2 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in December 2012. The bulk of the recipients were children3.2 million in that month. The cash welfare caseload is very heterogeneous. The type of family historically thought of as the typical cash welfare familyone with an unemployed adult recipientaccounted for less than half of all families on the rolls in FY2010. Additionally, 14% of cash welfare families had an employed adult, while almost half of all families had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles) caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and ineligible noncitizen parents. Cash Welfare Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 2011, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. Benefits in all states represent a fraction of poverty-level income. In the median jurisdiction (North Dakota), the maximum monthly benefit of $427 for a family of three represents 28% of povertylevel income. Cash Welfare Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and 90% of two-parent families in work activities. However, these standards are reduced by caseload reduction from FY2005. Further, states may get an extra credit against these standards by spending more than required under the TANF MOE. In FY2009, states achieved an all-family participation rate of 29.4% and a two-parent rate of 28.3%. That year, eight jurisdictions failed the all-family standard, and seven jurisdictions failed the two-parent standard. States that fail to meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant.
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Current Topics.................................................................................................................................. 1 What Is TANFs Current Funding Status? ................................................................................. 1 What Is TANFs Current Funding Level?.................................................................................. 1 Did the Cash Welfare Caseload Rise During the Recent Recession? ........................................ 2 What Is the Administrations Waiver Initiative? .................................................................... 2 May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients? ........................................................ 2 History ............................................................................................................................................. 3 When Was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Created? .................................................................................................................................. 3 Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law? ............................................................ 3 Funding and Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 4 How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation? .............................. 4 How Have States Used TANF Funds? ....................................................................................... 5 How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent? ................................................................. 6 The Caseload ................................................................................................................................... 6 How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services? ....................... 6 How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Cash Welfare?.................................................................................................................................. 6 How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare with Historical Levels? ................................................................................................................................... 7 What Are the Characteristics of Cash Welfare Families? .......................................................... 8 TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month? ................ 10 TANF Work Participation Standards ............................................................................................. 14 What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet? ....................................... 14 What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?......................................... 15
Figures
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2011, By Major Benefit and Service Category ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-December 2012 ................. 8 Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Assistance Caseload: FY2010.................................................. 9
Tables
Table 1. Federal TANF Funding: FY2006 through FY2013............................................................ 1 Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars .......................................................... 4 Table 3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Rolls, December 2012 ........................................ 7 Table 4. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Benefit for a Family of Three: July 2011..................... 10
Table 5. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Assistance Benefits By Family Size: July 2011 ........... 12 Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006 ..................................................... 16 Table A-2. Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2013 ..................................................... 17 Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2011 .................................. 17 Table A-4.Cash Assistance Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2010 ................ 18 Table B-1. Use of FY2011 TANF and MOE Funds by Category .................................................. 19 Table B-2. Use of FY2011 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding ..................................................................................... 22 Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2011 ............................................................... 25 Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Welfare, December 2012 ............................................................................................................ 26 Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, December 1994, 2007, 2011, and 2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Table B-6. Families Receiving Cash Assistance, By Number of Parents Receiving Assistance on Their Own Behalf: December 2012 ..................................................................... 30 Table B-7. TANF Work Participation Rates: FY2009 ................................................................... 32
Appendixes
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables .............................................................................................. 16 Appendix B. State Tables ............................................................................................................... 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34
Introduction
This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended to serve as a quick reference to provide easy access to information and data. This report does not provide information on TANF program rules. For such information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk. For a non-technical overview of TANF, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An Introduction, by Gene Falk.
Current Topics
What Is TANFs Current Funding Status?
TANF is currently funded through September 30, 2013. Its funding was included in P.L. 113-6, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.1
What Is TANFs Current Funding Level?

Table 1 shows TANF funding for FY2006 through FY2013. The bulk of TANF funding is in a basic block grant (the state family assistance grant), which provides annual funding totaling $16.5 billion for the 50 states and District of Columbia. This grant and amount was established in the 1996 welfare reform law and has not been changed since then.
Table 1. Federal TANF Funding: FY2006 through FY2013

(Dollars in millions)
2006 State family assistance grant Supplemental grants Healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grants Grants to the territories Grants for tribal work programs $16,489 319 150 2007 $16,489 319 150 2008 $16,489 319 150 2009 $16,489 319 150 2010 $16,489 319 150 2011 $16,489 211 150 2012 $16,489 0 150 2013 $16,489 0 150
78 8
78 8
78 8
78 8
78 8
78 8
78 8
78 8
The provision is in Division F, title IV, Section 1522 of P.L. 113-6.
2006 Regular contingency funds Emergency contingency funds Totals 17,137 93
2007 59
2008 428
2009 1,107 617
2010 212 4,383 21,639
2011 334
2012 612
2013 610a
17,103
17,472
18,768
17,270
17,337
17,335
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from HHS. a. P.L. 112-275 appropriated $612 million to the TANF contingency fund for FY2013 and reserved $2 million of these funds for a commission on child abuse and neglect fatalities. Thus, $610 million is available for FY2013 TANF contingency fund grants to states.
In addition to federal TANF funds, states are required in total to contribute, from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion per year for TANF-related activities for low-income families with children. This level of state funding, known as maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding, was also established in the 1996 welfare law and has not been changed since then.
Did the Cash Welfare Caseload Rise During the Recent Recession?
The TANF cash welfare caseload rose from August 2008 through December 2010, increasing 17% from 1,675,297 families in July 2008 to a peak of 1,952,451 families in December 2010. The caseload has declined since then, standing at 1,795,631 in December 2012.
What Is the Administrations Waiver Initiative?

On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would accept applications for waivers of the TANF work participation standards. In general, these are waivers of the way the performance of state welfare-to-work programs are assessed. (The requirements that apply to individuals are determined by the states, but the federal TANF work participation standards influenced the design of state programs and requirements.) For a discussion, see CRS Report R42627, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare Waivers, by Gene Falk.
May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients?

Yes. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for welfare recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104-193.) However, specific state policies regarding drug testing raise constitutional issues. See CRS Report R42326, Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits, by David H. Carpenter. The 1996 welfare reform law contained two other provisions related to drug abuse and TANF applicants or recipients. The law established a lifetime ban on eligibility for TANF and food stamps for those convicted of a drug-related felony. However, states may either opt out entirely or modify and limit this lifetime ban. (See Section 115 of P.L. 104-193.) Further, TANF allows states to establish Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs) for their TANF families. The IRP may require participation in a substance abuse treatment program. A family may be sanctioned for failure to comply with its IRP.
For a discussion of states that require drug testing in TANF and related programs, see CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by Maggie McCarty et al.
History
When Was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Created?
The TANF block grant was created by the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). PRWORA is also referred to in this report as the 1996 welfare reform law. TANF replaced the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which dated back to the Social Security Act of 1935, and several other related programs.
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) included provisions establishing welfare-towork grants for FY1998 and FY1999 and made several other policy and technical changes to TANF. No new welfare-to-work grants were made after FY1999. The original funding authority for TANF ended on September 30, 2002. Over the four-year period from 2002 through 2005, Congress considered, but did not pass, legislation to modify and reauthorize TANF (see CRS Report RL33418, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109th Congress: An Overview, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears). Over this four-year period, Congress passed 12 temporary extensions of TANF and related programs as stop-gap measures until it could reach agreement on a longer-term reauthorization. (See Appendix A, Table A-1 for a listing of the temporary extensions.) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) included a long-term extension of funding for TANF through FY2010. It also modified TANF work participation standards; established $100 million per year in TANF research and technical assistance funds for healthy marriage promotion initiatives; and provided $50 million per year for responsible fatherhood initiatives. (For a discussion of TANF provisions in the DRA, see CRS Report RS22369, TANF, Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.) The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-291) provided that healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives would be funded at $75 million each for FY2011. Temporary extension legislation continued these activities for FY2012 and FY2013 at $75 million for responsible fatherhood and $75 million for healthy marriage initiatives. P.L. 112-96 (the law that extended the payroll tax cut through 2012) provided TANF funding through the end of FY2012. It provided FY2012 funding for the basic TANF block grant, healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood competitive grants, and certain other funds at their FY2011 levels. It did not provide FY2012 funding for TANF supplemental grants.
In addition, P.L. 112-96 prevents electronic benefit transaction access to TANF cash at liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs; states would be required to prohibit access to TANF cash at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) at such establishments; and requires states to report TANF data in a manner that facilitates the exchange of that data with other programs data systems.
Legislation that extended TANF funding for FY2013 did not include policy changes.
Funding and Expenditures

How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation?
From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2012 (ended September 30, 2012), the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 30.1%. Table 2 shows the impact of inflation on the value of the TANF block grant for each year, FY1997 through FY2012. Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
Value of the Block Grant in Millions of FY1997 Dollars $16.5 16.2 15.9 15.4 14.9 14.7 14.4 14.1 13.6 13.1 12.8 12.3 12.3 12.1 11.8 11.5 -1.6% -3.5 -6.4 -9.4 -10.7 -12.7 -14.7 -17.4 -20.4 -22.2 -25.5 -25.3 -26.5 -28.4 -30.1 Percent Change from FY1997 Value
Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: Congressional Research Service. Constant dollars were computed using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
How Have States Used TANF Funds?

TANF is best known as a funding source of cash welfare benefits for needy families with children. However, states have considerable discretion in using TANF funds, and have used them for a wide range of benefits and services. Figure 1 shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2011. In FY2011, a total of $33.3 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either expended or transferred to other block grant programs. Basic assistance, the category that most closely reflects cash welfare represented 28.8% ($9.6 billion) of total FY2011 TANF and MOE dollars. TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2011, 16.6% of all TANF funds used were either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF). TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system, which provides foster care, adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either have experienced or are at risk of experiencing child abuse or neglect. However, TANFs accounting system does a poor job of capturing expenditures associated with spending on the child welfare system. Most TANF funding for these programs is subsumed in the catch-all other expenditure category. Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2011, By Major Benefit and Service Category
Other Expenditures 30.7%
Basic Assistance 28.8%
Other Work Supports 9.1%
Child Care 16.6%
Administration 6.9% Work 7.9%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
See Appendix A, Table A-3 for percentages of total federal TANF and state MOE funds associated with each of these categories. For state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Table B-1 and Table B-2.
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent?

TANF law permits states to reserve unused funds without time limit. This permits flexibility in timing of the use of TANF funds, including the ability to save funds for unexpected occurrences that might increase costs (such as recessions or natural disasters). At the end of FY2011 (the most recent data available), a total of $2.9 billion of federal TANF funding had neither been transferred nor spent. However, some of these unspent funds represent monies that states had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2011, states had made such commitments to spendthat is, had obligateda total of $1.1 billion. Generally, obligations are binding commitments to spend, and they come in the form of contracts and grants to provide benefits and services. However, the definition of obligation varies from program to program, and because TANF essentially consists of 54 different programs (one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the territories), what constitutes an obligation may vary. At the end of FY2011, states also had $1.9 billion of unobligated balances. These funds are available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 shows unspent TANF funds by state.
The Caseload
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services?
This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving only ongoing assistance (generally cash welfare), with no complete reporting on families receiving other TANF benefits and services. As discussed in a previous section of this report, TANF basic assistance accounts for about 28.8% of all TANF expenditures. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families receiving assistance are very likely to undercount the number of families receiving any TANF-funded benefit or service.
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOEFunded Cash Welfare?
Table 3 provides cash welfare caseload information. A total of 1.8 million families, composed of 4.2 million recipients, received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in December 2012. The bulk of the recipients were children3.2 million in that month. For state-by-state cash assistance caseloads, see Appendix B.
Table 3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Rolls, December 2012

Families Total Recipients Child Recipients Adult Recipients 1,795,631 4,208,806 3,169,762 1,039,044
Source: Congressional Research Service on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare with Historical Levels?
The number of families receiving cash welfare peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The cash welfare caseload fell rapidly in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before leveling off in 2001. In 2004, the caseload began another decline, albeit at a slower pace than in the late 1990s. Nationally, the caseload began to rise beginning in August 2008, peaking in December 2010 at close to 2.0 million families. Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving cash welfare, from July 1959 to December 2012.
Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-December 2012

Number of Families in Millions
March 1994: 5.1 million

5.0
4.0
3.0
December 2010: 1.95 million

2.0
July 2008: 1.7 million

1.0
December 2012 1.8 million
0.0
Jul-59
Jul-62
Jul-65
Jul-68
Jul-71
Jul-74
Jul-77
Jul-80
Jul-83
Jul-86
Jul-89
Jul-92
Jul-95
Jul-98
Jul-01
Jul-04
Jul-07
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Represents families receiving cash welfare from Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and TANF. For October 1999 through December 2012, includes families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.
Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash welfare families by state.
What Are the Characteristics of Cash Welfare Families?

Historically, the typical cash welfare family has been headed by a single parent (usually the mother) with one or two children. The single parent has also typically been unemployed. However, the cash welfare caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the composition of the rolls. Today, less than half of all cash welfare families are headed by an unemployed adult recipient. Almost half of all cash welfare families had no adult recipient at all, with the adults in the family ineligible for aid and the benefits paid only on behalf of the child (these are known as child-only families). This shift occurred because the caseload decline was concentrated among the families thought of as the typical cash welfare families, and welfare-towork efforts have been concentrated on this population. Figure 3 shows the composition of the cash welfare caseload in FY2010. Families with an unemployed adult recipient represent 41% of all cash welfare families. Families with an
Jul-10
employed (in a regular job) adult recipient, who receive cash welfare as an earnings supplement, comprise an additional 14% of the cash welfare rolls. Within the child-only portion of the caseload, families with a parent (usually a disabled parent) receiving SSI and the children receiving TANF as a supplement to that benefit represent 10% of the cash welfare caseload. Families that are made up of children living with a non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) represent 13% of the cash welfare caseload. Families with adults who were either sanctioned or time-limited off the rolls (and thus had their familys benefit reduced) represented about 5% of all cash assistance families. Families of child citizens living with ineligible parents who are noncitizens or who have not reported their citizenship status make up 11% of the total cash welfare caseload. The remainder of the cash welfare caseload represents child recipients for whom data on the adults they live with are not available. Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Assistance Caseload: FY2010
Child Only/Nonparent Relative 13% Child Only/Other 5%
Child Only/Other Ineligible Parent 1% Child Only/Noncitizen Parent 11%
With Adult Recipient/Not Employed 41%
Child Only/Parent Receives SSI 10% Child Only/Sanctioned Parent 2% Child Only/TimeLimited Parent 3%
With Adult Recipient/ Employed 14%
Source: Congressional Research Services (CRS) tabulations of the FY2010 TANF National Data Files. Notes: FY2010 families include those receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement.
As previously discussed, the composition of the caseload has changed considerably over time. Table A-4 shows the change in this categorization of families over time.
TANF Cash Benefits: How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month?
There are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a family. (There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash benefits, though all states do so.) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the states. Table 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state for a family of three in July 2011.2 The benefit amounts shown are those for a single-parent family with two children. Some states vary their benefit amounts for other family types such as two-parent families or childonly cases. States also vary their benefits by other factors such as housing costs and sub-state geography. Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying larger cash benefits to larger families on the presumption that they have greater financial needs. The maximum monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e.g., no earned or unearned income) and complies with program rules. Families with income other than TANF often are paid a reduced benefit. Moreover, some families are financially sanctioned for failure to meet a program requirement (e.g., a work requirement), and are also paid a lower benefit. The table also shows the benefit amounts relative to poverty-level income. TANF pays a family in cash only a fraction of poverty level income (as officially determined and published by the Department of Health and Human Services). For a family of three, the maximum TANF benefit paid in July 2011 varied from $170 per month in Mississippi (11.0% of poverty-level income) to $923 per month in Alaska (47.8% of poverty-level income).3 Table 4. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Benefit for a Family of Three: July 2011
Maximum Monthly Benefit as a Percent of the 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines. 13.9% 47.8 18.0 13.2 41.3 29.9
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado
Maximum Monthly Benefit for a Family of 3 $215 923 278 204 638 462
2 States are not required to report to the federal government their cash welfare benefit amounts in either the TANF state plan (under Section 402 of the Social Security Act) or in annual program reports (under Section 411 of the Social Security Act). The benefit amounts shown are from the Welfare Rules Database, maintained by the Urban Institute and funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 3 Different poverty thresholds, with greater dollar amounts, apply in Alaska than in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. New Yorks benefit of $753 per month represents 48.8% of the poverty guidelines that apply in the 48 contiguous states and District of Columbia.
10
State Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina
Maximum Monthly Benefit for a Family of 3 674 338 428 303 280 610 309 432 288 426 429 262 240 485 574 633 492 532 170 292 504 364 383 675 424 380 753 272 427 434 292 506 421 554 221
Maximum Monthly Benefit as a Percent of the 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines. 43.6 21.9 27.7 19.6 18.1 34.3 20.0 28.0 18.7 27.6 27.8 17.0 15.5 31.4 37.2 41.0 31.9 34.5 11.0 18.9 32.6 23.6 24.8 43.7 27.5 24.6 48.8 17.6 27.7 28.1 18.9 32.8 27.3 35.9 14.3
11
State South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Median State Maximum Minimum
Maximum Monthly Benefit for a Family of 3 555 185 260 498 665 389 478 340 628 577 427 923 170
Maximum Monthly Benefit as a Percent of the 2011 Federal Poverty Guidelines. 35.9 12.0 16.8 32.3 43.1 25.2 31.0 22.0 40.7 37.4 27.7 48.8 11.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the Urban Institutes Welfare Rules Database.
As discussed above, most states vary maximum benefits by family size, paying larger benefits for larger families. The exceptions are Idaho and Wisconsin, which pay a flat maximum benefit. Additionally, some states do not increase benefitsor provide a smaller than usual increase in benefitsfor a family already on the rolls when a new baby is born. This is known as the family cap policy, which 17 states had in July 2011.4 Table 5. Maximum Monthly TANF Cash Assistance Benefits By Family Size: July 2011
Benefits for a Single Parent and Children
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Two $190 821 220 162 516 364 544 Three $215 923 278 204 638 462 674 Four $245 1,025 334 247 762 561 786 Five $275 1,127 392 286 866 665 886 Six $305 1,229 449 331 972 767 992
4 States that had a family cap policy as of July 2011 are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
12
State Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee
Two 270 336 241 235 486 309 318 230 361 352 225 188 363 453 531 403 437 146 234 401 293 318 606 322 304 548 236 328 355 225 432 330 449 175 496 142
Three 338 428 303 280 610 309 432 288 426 429 262 240 485 574 633 492 532 170 292 504 364 383 675 424 380 753 272 427 434 292 506 421 554 221 555 185
Four 407 523 364 330 736 309 474 347 495 497 328 284 611 695 731 597 621 194 342 606 435 448 738 488 459 905 297 523 536 361 621 514 634 266 613 226
Five 475 602 426 378 861 309 555 405 548 558 383 327 733 805 832 694 697 218 388 709 506 513 798 552 536 1,063 324 620 627 422 721 607 714 311 671 264
Six 544 708 487 410 986 309 623 464 610 619 432 366 856 885 936 828 773 242 431 812 577 578 879 616 613 1,172 349 717 698 483 833 687 794 355 730 305
13
State Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Two 225 399 560 323 385 301 628 543
Three 260 498 665 389 478 340 628 577
Four 312 583 751 451 562 384 628 577
Five 347 663 842 537 648 420 628 611
Six 399 731 904 570 736 460 628 611
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the Urban Institutes Welfare Rules Database.
TANF Work Participation Standards

What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet?
The TANF statute requires states to have 50% of their caseload meet standards of participation in work or activitiesthat is, a family member must be in specified activities for a minimum number of hours.5 There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a states caseload, requiring 90% of the states two-parent caseload to meet participation standards. States that fail the TANF work participation standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant amounts. However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a caseload reduction credit. The caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard one percentage point for each percentage point decline in the caseload. Through FY2006, states were given credit for caseload declines that occurred since FY1995. Beginning in FY2007, states were only credited with caseload declines that have occurred since FY2005. The FY2007 effective (after-credit) standard is based on caseload declines from FY2005 to FY2006. However, under a regulatory provision, states may get extra credit for caseload reduction if they spend more than required under the TANF MOE. States can exclude those families funded by state funds in excess of required state spending. The ARRA temporarily modified the caseload reduction credit states receive toward their TANF work participation. The modification is effective for the FY2009 through FY2011 standards. The ARRA provided that a states credit would not be reduced for any caseload increases that occurred in FY2008 through FY2010. Beginning with FY2012, TANF caseload reduction credits reverted to their regular rules, with caseload reduction measured for the FY2012 work participation standards from FY2005 through FY2011.
Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.
14
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?

In FY2009, the national average work participation rate achieved by states for all families was 29.4%. The participation rate within TANF achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was 28.3%. These rates are well below the statutory target of 50% for all families and 90% for two-parent families. They are also well below the targets even when adjusting for actual caseload reduction between FY2005 and FY2008. However, only eight jurisdictions failed the allfamily standard, and seven jurisdictions failed the two-parent standard. This is because (1) many states obtained fairly large extra credits for spending above the required MOE level; (2) states were held harmless for any caseload increases between FY2007 and FY2008 (based on the temporary ARRA modification to the caseload reduction credit, noted above); and (3) many states eliminated two-parent families from their TANF and MOE caseloads. Presumably, many states aided two-parent families with their own funds. The jurisdictions that failed to meet the all-family standard were California, the District of Columbia, Guam, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. The jurisdictions that failed to meet the two-parent standard were Alaska, Guam, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Rhode Island. States that fail to meet work standards are at risk of being penalized by a reduction in their block grant. States can avoid the penalty by entering into a corrective compliance plan with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). They can also claim reasonable cause for failing to meet the penalty. Further, penalties are reduced based on the degree of noncompliance, and may be reduced by the Secretary of HHS for those states that were economically needy during FY2009. See Table B-7 for state-by-state FY2009 work participation rates.
15
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables

Table A-1.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2003-FY2006
Public Law P.L. 107-229 P.L. 107-294 P.L. 108-7 P.L. 108-40 P.L. 108-89 P.L. 108-210 P.L. 108-262 P.L. 108-308 P.L. 109-4 P.L. 109-19 P.L. 109-68 Time Period Oct. 1, 2002-Dec. 31, 2002 Jan. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2003 Apr. 1, 2003-June 30, 2003 July 1, 2003-Sept. 30, 2003 Oct. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2004 Apr. 1, 2004-June 30, 2004 July 1, 2004-Sept. 30, 2004 Oct. 1, 2004- Mar. 31, 2005 Apr. 1, 2005-June 30, 2005 July 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2005 Oct. 1, 2005-Dec. 31, 2005 Notes Extension as part of a continuing resolution. Extension as part of a continuing resolution. Extension as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Free-standing bill that amended the Social Security Act to extend TANF and related programs. Multipurpose bill that extended programs through the first half of FY2004. Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the program through June 30, 2004. Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the program through Sept. 30, 2004. Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through Mar. 31, 2005. Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through June 30, 2005. Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through Sept. 30, 2005. Bill to provide extra funding to help states provide benefits to families affected by Hurricane Katrina, suspend certain requirements in states affected by the hurricane, and extend the funding authority for the programs through December 31, 2005. Freestanding bill that extended funding authority for the programs through March 31, 2006. It reduced the bonus for reducing out-of-wedlock births for FY2006-FY2010 to offset the costs of the temporary extension.
P.L. 109-161
Jan. 1, 2006-Mar. 31, 2006
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
16
Table A-2.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2013

Public Law P.L. 111-242 P.L. 111-290 P.L. 111-291 Time Period Oct. 1, 2010-Dec. 3, 2010 Dec. 4, 2010-Dec. 7, 2010 Dec. 8, 2010-Sept. 30, 2011 (except supplemental grants, Dec. 8, 2010-June 30, 2011) Oct. 1, 2011-Dec. 31, 2011 Jan 1, 2012-February 21, 2012 Notes Extension as part of a continuing resolution. Extension as part of a continuing resolution. Extension as part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It funded supplemental grants only through the first three quarters of FY2011 and at a reduced rate. Free-standing bill to extend TANF for three months. No funding for TANF supplemental grants. Extension of TANF for two months, as part of a bill to provide a two-month extension for the 2011 payroll tax reduction, extended unemployment compensation, and other expiring provisions. Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2012 included as part of a bill to extend the 2011 payroll tax reduction, unemployment compensation, and other expiring provisions. Extension of TANF for the first six months of FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution. Extension of TANF for the remainder of FY2013 as part of a continuing resolution.
P.L. 112-35 P.L. 112-78
P.L. 112-96
February 22, 2012-Sept. 30, 2012
P.L. 112-175 P.L. 113-6
Oct. 1, 2011-March 27, 2013 March 28, 2013-Sept. 30, 2013
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Table A-3. Use of TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Funds: FY2011
Millions of Dollars Basic Assistance Administration Work Child Care Other Work Supports Other Expenditures Totals $9,604.2 2,304.1 2,648.3 5,522.6 3,027.7 10,217.5 33,324.4 Percent of Total Federal and MOE Funds 28.8% 6.9 7.9 16.6 9.1 30.7 100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
17
Table A-4.Cash Assistance Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2010
1988 With Adult Recipient/Not Employed With Adult Recipient/Employed Child Only/Time-Limited Parent Child Only/Sanctioned Parent Child Only/Parent Receives SSI Child Only/Noncitizen Parent Child Only/Other Ineligible Parent Child Only/Nonparent Relative Child Only/Other Total With Adult Recipient/Not Employed With Adult Recipient/Employed Child Only/Time-Limited Parent Child Only/Sanctioned Parent Child Only/Parent Receives SSI Child Only/Noncitizen Parent Child Only/Other Ineligible Parent Child Only/Nonparent Relative Child Only/Other Total 3,122,291 219,154 NA NA 47,233 164,077 54,406 60,896 13,492 3,681,549 As a Percent of All Families Receiving Assistance 84.8% 6.0 NA NA 1.3 4.5 1.5 1.7 0.4 100.0 75.3% 7.5 NA NA 3.4 6.5 3.7 2.9 0.8 100.0 41.2% 13.9 2.6 2.0 9.5 11.4 1.4 13.3 4.7 100.0 1994 3,798,997 378,620 NA NA 171,391 328,290 184,397 146,227 38,341 5,046,263 2010 786,452 265,299 49,384 37,739 182,220 217,487 27,390 254,264 89,604 1,909,841
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the 1988 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; the 1994 AFDC Quality Control Public Use Data File; and the 2010 TANF National Data File. Note: NA denotes not applicable. For FY2010, the cash welfare caseload includes those whose benefits were funded from TANF dollars as well as those whose benefits were funded with MOE dollars under SSPs. NA denotes not applicable.
18
Appendix B. State Tables

Table B-1. Use of FY2011 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
(Dollars in millions)
Basic Assistance $54.0 40.8 87.4 15.7 3,719.7 78.2 89.9 25.7 67.2 171.7 51.2 71.9 4.6 106.4 71.5 68.7 56.2 105.2 82.8 Other Work Supports $7.5 0.6 0.5 3.5 187.3 8.8 5.1 0.8 16.4 4.9 13.6 3.1 0.3 21.1 34.1 18.5 66.9 21.3 4.8 Other Expenditures $79.4 5.7 212.6 125.1 985.4 219.7 327.8 10.7 72.0 368.8 419.2 89.6 20.3 368.2 130.6 69.1 69.0 30.2 173.5
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana
Administration $23.0 6.3 45.5 13.6 574.9 21.9 32.6 6.7 7.8 33.7 32.0 12.5 -6.4 33.6 24.7 10.4 14.6 12.1 18.8
Work $24.1 12.5 7.7 28.1 627.0 5.7 17.0 1.3 22.9 73.7 23.3 133.0 9.1 180.2 16.0 18.7 1.5 30.7 7.9
Child Care $8.7 15.3 26.5 0.9 920.7 10.7 36.9 28.6 67.5 360.0 22.2 32.2 7.7 609.4 42.5 46.0 33.8 61.0 9.6
Totals $196.7 81.2 380.2 186.8 7,015.1 345.0 509.2 73.8 253.8 1,012.8 561.5 342.2 35.7 1,319.0 319.4 231.4 241.9 260.5 297.4
CRS-19
State Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota
Basic Assistance 80.7 88.5 337.1 185.5 94.9 19.9 91.3 16.7 28.5 45.4 36.5 234.8 80.9 1,443.6 58.4 6.8 440.1 21.7 162.6 188.7 35.7 37.4 15.0
Administration 3.8 72.5 35.4 123.6 45.2 5.4 13.4 7.2 5.3 9.4 11.6 76.2 10.3 333.6 43.5 4.2 154.4 22.6 24.2 80.4 13.7 14.5 2.8
Work 11.6 36.7 12.6 83.9 75.1 47.0 7.8 12.3 32.1 2.2 7.1 83.9 8.4 171.2 94.1 4.1 44.2 1.1 45.2 149.2 10.0 17.3 4.0
Child Care 12.6 34.2 313.6 32.4 78.7 20.3 78.2 10.8 23.5 0.0 6.4 121.7 30.9 568.0 203.3 1.0 395.0 78.2 22.9 469.3 24.7 15.3 0.8
Other Work Supports 18.6 130.0 102.2 219.3 133.5 24.1 0.0 0.0 34.5 2.8 1.6 248.4 49.8 1,376.5 56.6 1.8 10.4 26.2 8.0 23.8 13.6 1.9 0.1
Other Expenditures 2.2 125.9 358.9 809.3 55.7 21.0 177.3 8.1 4.8 59.9 17.9 508.7 36.5 1,720.1 268.9 17.0 186.7 66.6 79.8 221.1 61.6 151.0 10.4
Totals 129.6 487.8 1,159.9 1,454.2 483.1 137.7 368.0 55.2 128.6 119.6 81.1 1,273.7 216.8 5,613.0 724.8 34.9 1,230.7 216.2 342.6 1,132.4 159.2 237.5 33.2
CRS-20
State Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals
Basic Assistance 131.4 104.5 31.4 16.2 119.7 305.7 34.2 127.8 13.7 9,604.2
Administration 40.1 93.7 11.9 6.2 21.0 42.5 22.2 34.1 1.0 2,304.1
Work 93.1 85.9 30.9 0.2 52.5 115.2 5.9 63.1 0.3 2,648.3
Child Care 90.8 27.0 10.5 26.3 39.0 197.2 35.6 210.6 3.7 5,522.6
Other Work Supports 0.0 7.1 3.0 25.0 8.8 3.1 15.0 62.7 0.0 3,027.7
Other Expenditures 67.4 524.7 31.1 13.1 73.6 516.3 70.1 154.8 20.2 10,217.5
Totals 422.7 842.9 118.8 87.0 314.6 1,180.0 183.0 653.0 38.8 33,324.4
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-21
Table B-2. Use of FY2011 TANF and MOE Funds by Category as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Basic Assistance 27.4% 50.2 23.0 8.4 53.0 22.7 17.7 34.9 26.5 17.0 9.1 21.0 12.9 8.1 22.4 29.7 23.2 40.4 27.9 62.3 18.1 29.1 Administration 11.7% 7.7 12.0 7.3 8.2 6.3 6.4 9.1 3.1 3.3 5.7 3.6 -18.0 2.5 7.7 4.5 6.0 4.6 6.3 3.0 14.9 3.1 Work 12.3% 15.4 2.0 15.0 8.9 1.6 3.3 1.7 9.0 7.3 4.2 38.9 25.5 13.7 5.0 8.1 0.6 11.8 2.6 8.9 7.5 1.1 Child Care 4.4% 18.8 7.0 0.5 13.1 3.1 7.2 38.7 26.6 35.5 4.0 9.4 21.6 46.2 13.3 19.9 14.0 23.4 3.2 9.7 7.0 27.0 Other Work Supports 3.8% 0.8 0.1 1.9 2.7 2.5 1.0 1.1 6.5 0.5 2.4 0.9 0.9 1.6 10.7 8.0 27.6 8.2 1.6 14.4 26.6 8.8 Other Expenditures 40.4% 7.1 55.9 66.9 14.0 63.7 64.4 14.5 28.4 36.4 74.7 26.2 57.0 27.9 40.9 29.8 28.5 11.6 58.3 1.7 25.8 30.9 Totals 100.0% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
CRS-22
State Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont
Basic Assistance 12.8 19.6 14.4 24.8 30.3 22.2 37.9 45.1 18.4 37.3 25.7 8.1 19.6 35.8 10.0 47.5 16.7 22.4 15.7 45.3 31.1 12.4 26.4 18.6
Administration 8.5 9.4 3.9 3.7 13.1 4.1 7.8 14.2 6.0 4.7 5.9 6.0 11.9 12.5 10.4 7.1 7.1 8.6 6.1 8.5 9.5 11.1 10.0 7.1
Work 5.8 15.6 34.2 2.1 22.2 25.0 1.9 8.7 6.6 3.9 3.1 13.0 11.8 3.6 0.5 13.2 13.2 6.3 7.3 12.2 22.0 10.2 26.0 0.2
Child Care 2.2 16.3 14.7 21.2 19.6 18.3 0.0 7.9 9.6 14.2 10.1 28.0 2.9 32.1 36.2 6.7 41.4 15.5 6.4 2.4 21.5 3.2 8.8 30.3
Other Work Supports 15.1 27.6 17.5 0.0 0.0 26.8 2.3 2.0 19.5 23.0 24.5 7.8 5.2 0.8 12.1 2.3 2.1 8.5 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.8 2.6 28.7
Other Expenditures 55.7 11.5 15.2 48.2 14.7 3.7 50.1 22.1 39.9 16.8 30.6 37.1 48.5 15.2 30.8 23.3 19.5 38.7 63.6 31.2 15.9 62.3 26.2 15.1
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
CRS-23
State Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals
Basic Assistance 38.0 25.9 18.7 19.6 35.4 28.8
Administration 6.7 3.6 12.1 5.2 2.6 6.9
Work 16.7 9.8 3.2 9.7 0.7 7.9
Child Care 12.4 16.7 19.5 32.3 9.4 16.6
Other Work Supports 2.8 0.3 8.2 9.6 0.0 9.1
Other Expenditures 23.4 43.8 38.3 23.7 52.0 30.7
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CRS-24
Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2011

(September 30, 2011; dollars in millions)
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Obligated but not Expended $6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 25.0 69.3 11.1 30.8 0.0 108.8 3.4 0.0 35.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 7.4 4.8 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 60.1 13.5 186.5 214.4 Unobligated Funds $0.0 78.1 25.2 59.9 0.0 5.6 6.7 10.5 42.6 109.5 38.3 7.5 0.0 57.9 21.7 5.4 10.4 7.7 1.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 160.3 120.7 8.9 3.7 48.2 53.2 11.0 6.8 22.9 0.0 332.4 3.5 Total Unspent Funds $6.5 78.1 25.2 59.9 99.2 5.6 6.7 10.5 45.9 134.5 107.6 18.6 30.8 57.9 130.4 8.8 10.4 42.7 41.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 160.3 135.9 16.3 8.5 48.7 53.5 11.0 6.8 82.9 13.5 518.8 217.9
25
State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals
Obligated but not Expended 4.4 31.9 33.7 0.0 49.6 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1,074.6
Unobligated Funds 16.1 1.7 6.8 0.0 188.2 1.9 0.0 15.6 60.7 154.4 87.6 0.0 18.4 2.5 9.4 0.0 30.2 1,855.0
Total Unspent Funds 20.5 33.6 40.4 0.0 237.8 14.7 0.0 15.6 60.7 155.7 91.4 0.0 19.3 2.5 9.4 0.0 32.0 2,929.6
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Table B-4. Number of Families, Recipients, Children, and Adults Receiving TANF Cash Welfare, December 2012
Recipients State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Families 20,914 3,654 17,117 7,383 571,728 14,687 15,148 5,083 5,809 Total Recipients 50,757 9,872 39,347 16,908 1,374,429 38,277 30,048 14,383 15,769 Children 37,486 6,703 27,896 11,971 1,089,341 27,512 21,019 8,831 11,820 Adults 13,271 3,169 11,451 4,937 285,088 10,765 9,029 5,552 3,949
26
Recipients State Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Families 55,507 18,738 1,319 9,801 1,873 20,323 13,879 18,348 9,129 30,840 8,619 28,745 23,069 65,715 41,309 23,469 10,891 36,907 3,266 6,895 10,600 6,381 33,130 16,389 158,323 21,001 1,489 71,095 8,282 45,744 74,212 13,392 6,327 13,388 3,268 53,887 Total Recipients 99,825 37,318 3,218 28,783 2,939 44,385 29,016 47,009 22,336 62,497 19,735 60,838 56,088 146,923 96,860 52,355 23,290 89,033 8,061 16,597 27,193 15,659 80,522 40,798 401,234 40,905 3,776 144,691 18,633 108,722 182,834 35,707 15,212 30,766 6,725 131,798 Children 81,448 32,438 2,421 18,966 2,728 37,151 25,192 32,599 15,828 49,553 16,849 33,910 40,854 98,611 70,660 39,815 16,866 60,497 5,805 13,445 20,238 10,511 55,728 29,797 287,778 34,327 2,940 115,654 15,359 78,580 131,176 23,515 10,397 23,767 5,759 95,895 Adults 18,377 4,880 797 9,817 211 7,234 3,824 14,410 6,508 12,944 2,886 26,928 15,234 48,312 26,200 12,540 6,424 28,536 2,256 3,152 6,955 5,148 24,794 11,001 113,456 6,578 836 29,037 3,274 30,142 51,658 12,192 4,815 6,999 966 35,903
27
Recipients State Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals Families 43,306 4,532 3,674 425 32,681 49,541 9,144 24,920 335 1,795,631 Total Recipients 99,080 11,069 8,496 1,268 70,844 116,042 20,112 59,150 674 4,208,806 Children 85,571 8,093 5,867 904 50,950 78,848 14,815 44,532 546 3,169,762 Adults 13,509 2,976 2,629 364 19,894 37,194 5,297 14,618 128 1,039,044
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, December 1994, 2007, 2011, and 2012
Percent Change to Dec 2012 from Dec 1994 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana 47,903 12,370 72,158 25,047 923,358 40,244 60,965 11,227 27,420 238,564 141,154 2,088 21,489 8,953 241,091 69,933 2007 18,584 2,989 37,122 8,741 477,465 9,094 19,424 3,997 5,237 48,608 22,740 NR 6,621 1,527 20,562 31,103 2011 22,981 3,810 17,156 8,023 578,455 13,218 15,648 5,565 5,919 53,041 19,472 1,392 10,190 1,907 33,829 20,312 2012 20,914 3,654 17,117 7,383 571,728 14,687 15,148 5,083 5,809 55,507 18,738 1,319 9,801 1,873 20,323 13,879 1994 -56.3% -70.5 -76.3 -70.5 -38.1 -63.5 -75.2 -54.7 -78.8 -76.7 -86.7 -36.8 -54.4 -79.1 -91.6 -80.2 2007 12.5% 22.2 -53.9 -15.5 19.7 61.5 -22.0 27.2 10.9 14.2 -17.6 NA 48.0 22.7 -1.2 -55.4 2011 -9.0% -4.1 -0.2 -8.0 -1.2 11.1 -3.2 -8.7 -1.9 4.6 -3.8 -5.2 -3.8 -1.8 -39.9 -31.7
28
Percent Change to Dec 2012 from Dec 1994 Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia 38,022 28,838 76,824 82,792 22,025 80,890 105,769 209,695 61,343 53,221 91,802 11,660 15,427 15,559 11,078 113,293 34,854 463,692 128,848 5,309 236,298 45,893 39,967 208,949 56,132 22,599 50,251 6,521 105,616 281,011 17,240 9,707 1,264 74,203 102,603 39,546 2007 19,762 12,853 29,323 11,106 12,235 20,466 52,473 69,327 26,387 11,631 39,054 3,192 7,515 7,410 4,497 34,175 12,195 155,798 24,544 2,072 80,629 8,951 19,299 55,389 12,356 8,349 14,428 2,904 55,161 57,002 5,140 4,242 399 31,041 52,013 8,725 2011 19,330 12,864 30,876 10,287 15,129 25,505 63,691 48,631 24,565 12,240 38,585 3,450 7,467 10,905 7,806 35,211 19,561 158,982 22,597 1,727 88,513 8,957 35,109 79,900 15,830 6,668 16,323 3,334 60,204 48,994 5,716 3,414 438 35,038 54,090 9,833 2012 18,348 9,129 30,840 8,619 28,745 23,069 65,715 41,309 23,469 10,891 36,907 3,266 6,895 10,600 6,381 33,130 16,389 158,323 21,001 1,489 71,095 8,282 45,744 74,212 13,392 6,327 13,388 3,268 53,887 43,306 4,532 3,674 425 32,681 49,541 9,144 1994 -51.7 -68.3 -59.9 -89.6 30.5 -71.5 -37.9 -80.3 -61.7 -79.5 -59.8 -72.0 -55.3 -31.9 -42.4 -70.8 -53.0 -65.9 -83.7 -72.0 -69.9 -82.0 14.5 -64.5 -76.1 -72.0 -73.4 -49.9 -49.0 -84.6 -73.7 -62.2 -66.4 -56.0 -51.7 -76.9 2007 -7.2 -29.0 5.2 -22.4 134.9 12.7 25.2 -40.4 -11.1 -6.4 -5.5 2.3 -8.3 43.0 41.9 -3.1 34.4 1.6 -14.4 -28.1 -11.8 -7.5 137.0 34.0 8.4 -24.2 -7.2 12.5 -2.3 -24.0 -11.8 -13.4 6.5 5.3 -4.8 4.8 2011 -5.1 -29.0 -0.1 -16.2 90.0 -9.6 3.2 -15.1 -4.5 -11.0 -4.3 -5.3 -7.7 -2.8 -18.3 -5.9 -16.2 -0.4 -7.1 -13.8 -19.7 -7.5 30.3 -7.1 -15.4 -5.1 -18.0 -2.0 -10.5 -11.6 -20.7 7.6 -3.0 -6.7 -8.4 -7.0
29
Percent Change to Dec 2012 from Dec 1994 Wisconsin Wyoming Totals 73,714 5,400 4,971,819 2007 17,788 265 1,703,910 2011 26,737 299 1,879,724 2012 24,920 335 1,795,631 1994 -66.2 -93.8 -63.9 2007 40.1 26.4 5.3 2011 -6.8 12.0 -4.5
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Note: Caseload data include those aided under TANF and under separate state programs (SSPs) funded by TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) dollars.
Table B-6. Families Receiving Cash Assistance, By Number of Parents Receiving Assistance on Their Own Behalf: December 2012
As a Percent of Total Families State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Single Parent 12,804 2,254 10,054 4,588 253,046 8,973 8,949 1,915 4,262 14,644 4,846 608 5,655 208 6,269 4,822 11,849 5,055 11,451 2,836 25,054 Two Parent 219 420 628 193 53,871 1,056 0 25 0 809 0 229 2,464 0 0 213 1,058 633 699 0 963 No Parent 7,891 980 6,435 2,602 264,811 4,658 6,199 3,143 1,547 40,054 13,892 482 1,682 1,665 14,054 8,844 5,441 3,441 18,690 5,783 2,728 Total Families 20,914 3,654 17,117 7,383 571,728 14,687 15,148 5,083 5,809 55,507 18,738 1,319 9,801 1,873 20,323 13,879 18,348 9,129 30,840 8,619 28,745 Single Parent 61.2% 61.7 58.7 62.1 44.3 61.1 59.1 37.7 73.4 26.4 25.9 46.1 57.7 11.1 30.8 34.7 64.6 55.4 37.1 32.9 87.2 Two Parent 1.0% 11.5 3.7 2.6 9.4 7.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 17.4 25.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.8 6.9 2.3 0.0 3.4 No Parent 37.7% 26.8 37.6 35.2 46.3 31.7 40.9 61.8 26.6 72.2 74.1 36.5 17.2 88.9 69.2 63.7 29.7 37.7 60.6 67.1 9.5
30
As a Percent of Total Families State Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Single Parent 15,306 41,453 26,151 12,709 6,313 28,881 1,803 3,251 4,760 4,950 24,570 8,987 98,333 6,058 834 21,952 3,274 39,636 52,740 10,580 3,829 7,234 966 34,764 13,510 1,908 1,798 425 20,780 26,766 4,302 Two Parent 0 3,840 0 0 0 0 335 0 1,087 88 0 1,040 2,834 260 0 3,102 0 481 1,120 0 550 0 0 1,060 0 0 413 0 0 5,090 0 No Parent 7,763 20,422 15,158 10,760 4,578 8,026 1,128 3,644 4,753 1,343 8,560 6,362 57,156 14,683 655 46,041 5,008 5,627 20,352 2,812 1,948 6,154 2,302 18,063 29,796 2,624 1,463 0 11,901 17,685 4,842 Total Families 23,069 65,715 41,309 23,469 10,891 36,907 3,266 6,895 10,600 6,381 33,130 16,389 158,323 21,001 1,489 71,095 8,282 45,744 74,212 13,392 6,327 13,388 3,268 53,887 43,306 4,532 3,674 425 32,681 49,541 9,144 Single Parent 66.3 63.1 63.3 54.2 58.0 78.3 55.2 47.2 44.9 77.6 74.2 54.8 62.1 28.8 56.0 30.9 39.5 86.6 71.1 79.0 60.5 54.0 29.6 64.5 31.2 42.1 48.9 100.0 63.6 54.0 47.0 Two Parent 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 1.4 0.0 6.3 1.8 1.2 0.0 4.4 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 No Parent 33.7 31.1 36.7 45.8 42.0 21.7 34.5 52.8 44.8 21.0 25.8 38.8 36.1 69.9 44.0 64.8 60.5 12.3 27.4 21.0 30.8 46.0 70.4 33.5 68.8 57.9 39.8 0.0 36.4 35.7 53.0
31
As a Percent of Total Families State Wisconsin Wyoming Single Parent 12,542 108 Two Parent 691 10 No Parent 11,687 217 Total Families 24,920 335 Single Parent 50.3 32.2 Two Parent 2.8 3.0 No Parent 46.9 64.8
Totals
941,615
85,481
768,535
1,795,631
52.4
4.8
42.8
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Note: Caseload data include those aided under TANF and under separate state programs (SSPs) funded by TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) dollars.
Table B-7. TANF Work Participation Rates: FY2009

All Family Standard State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Col. Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Participation Rate 29.4 32.4 37.2 27.1 37.1 26.8 37.8 34.4 37.5 23.5 46.1 57.1 0.0 40.3 52.0 49.3 17.5 35.4 23.9 37.3 34.4 YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Met Standard? Two-Parent Standard Participation Rate 28.3 24.7 40.5 62.6 21.7 28.6 33.3 NA NA NA 54.4 NA 0.0 NA NA NA 17.8 27.0 25.6 35.1 NA YES NO YES YES YES YES NA NA NA YES NA NO NA NA NA YES YES YES NO NA Met Standard?
32
All Family Standard State Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Participation Rate 16.8 44.0 47.5 27.9 29.8 67.5 13.2 44.2 50.3 39.4 46.5 20.1 43.1 33.4 32.3 61.0 23.3 23.0 9.5 45.8 8.7 13.8 45.1 59.4 25.5 37.0 32.6 29.0 7.1 44.3 23.0 19.6 39.9 61.3 Met Standard? NO YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Two-Parent Standard Participation Rate 16.6 NA 92.8 NA NA NA NA 58.7 NA 46.8 NA NA 63.0 NA 46.6 NA 23.1 NA 5.9 84.2 NA 13.6 NA NA 0.0 NA NA 24.0 NA NA 18.6 NA 33.0 75.7 Met Standard? NO NA YES NA NA NA NA YES NA NO NA NA YES NA YES NA YES NA NO YES NA NO NA NA YES NA NA YES NA NA YES NA YES YES
33
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Note: NA denotes not applicable. State did not service two-parent families in its TANF or MOE-funded programs. NR denotes not reported.
Author Contact Information

Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344
34

RL 32760

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RL 32760

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy May 28, 2013

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32760

CRS Report for Congress

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

What Is TANFs Current Funding Level?

Table 1. Federal TANF Funding: FY2006 through FY2013

The provision is in Division F, title IV, Section 1522 of P.L. 113-6.

Congressional Research Service

2006 Regular contingency funds Emergency contingency funds Totals 17,137 93

2009 1,107 617

2010 212 4,383 21,639

What Is the Administrations Waiver Initiative?

May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients?

Congressional Research Service

Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?

Congressional Research Service

Funding and Expenditures

Congressional Research Service

How Have States Used TANF Funds?

Other Expenditures 30.7%

Basic Assistance 28.8%

Other Work Supports 9.1%

Child Care 16.6%

Administration 6.9% Work 7.9%

Congressional Research Service

How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent?

Congressional Research Service

Table 3. TANF and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Rolls, December 2012

Congressional Research Service

Figure 2. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance: July 1959-December 2012

March 1994: 5.1 million

December 2010: 1.95 million

July 2008: 1.7 million

December 2012 1.8 million

What Are the Characteristics of Cash Welfare Families?

Congressional Research Service

Child Only/Other Ineligible Parent 1% Child Only/Noncitizen Parent 11%

With Adult Recipient/Not Employed 41%

With Adult Recipient/ Employed 14%

Congressional Research Service

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Two 225 399 560 323 385 301 628 543

Three 260 498 665 389 478 340 628 577

Four 312 583 751 451 562 384 628 577

Five 347 663 842 537 648 420 628 611

Six 399 731 904 570 736 460 628 611

TANF Work Participation Standards

Some families are excluded from the participation rate calculation.

Congressional Research Service

What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?

Congressional Research Service

Appendix A. Supplementary Tables

Jan. 1, 2006-Mar. 31, 2006

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Congressional Research Service

Table A-2.Temporary Extensions of TANF, FY2011-FY2013