Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Human Resources, Committee on

Ways and Means, House of

Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

July 2002 WELFARE REFORM

With TANF Flexibility,

States Vary in How

They Implement Work

Requirements and

Time Limits

GAO-02-770
Page i GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Of 2.1 Million Families Receiving Federal or State MOE-Funded

Cash Assistance, One Third Are Child-Only Cases 8

With PRWORA Flexibility, the Percentage of Welfare Recipients

Participating in Work Activities Varied Greatly among States 10

States Excluded 11 Percent of Adult Families from Federal and

State Time Limits 16

Concluding Observations 21

Agency Comments 22

Appendix I State Funding Choices 23

Appendix II States’ Separate State Program Caseloads and

Characteristics 25

Appendix III States’ Child-Only Caseloads and Reasons for

Child-Only Cases 27

Appendix IV State-Defined Work Rate for Fall 2001, by State 29

Appendix V State Percentages of TANF or MOE-Funded Families

with Adult Recipients Not Subject to Federal

or State Time Limits 31

Appendix VI State-by-State Information on State Funding,

Application of Time Limits, and Use of 20 Percent

Extension 32

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Appendix VII Maximum Percent of Adults Who Can Receive

Time-Limit Extension 34

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Health and

Human Services 37

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42

GAO Contacts 42

Staff Acknowledgments 42

Related GAO Products 43

Tables

Table 1: Application of Key TANF Restrictions and Requirements

on State MOE Funds under the Three Funding Options 7

Table 2: Federal Participation Rate Requirement for All Families

Adjusted for Caseload Reduction Credit and Actual

Participation Rate by State for Fiscal Year 2000 (Stated

Rate Was 40 percent) 11

Table 3: Funding Streams in All States and the District of Columbia 24

Table 4: Total Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance and

Number Receiving Cash Assistance through a Separate

State Program 25

Table 5: Number of States with Separate State Programs that

Target Legal Immigrants and Two-Parent Families 26

Table 6: Actual Maximum Percentage of TANF Families With

Adults Who May Receive Time-Limit Extensions, After

Adjusting for Child-Only Cases (fall 2001) 35

Figures

Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases 10

Figure 2: Range of Federal Work Participation Rates for All

Families in Fiscal Year 2000, as Reported by HHSa 13

Figure 3: Range of State-Defined Work Rates, Fall 2001 15
Page iii GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Figure 4: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State

Time Limits by Recipient Characteristic 17

Figure 5: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time

Limits and Method of Exclusion 19

Figure 6: Number of States That Use Different Funding

Mechanisms to Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance 23

Abbreviations

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

MOE maintenance-of-effort

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

SSI Supplemental Security Income
Page 1 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

July 5, 2002

The Honorable Wally Herger

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA) significantly changed federal welfare policy for lowincome families with children, building upon and expanding state-level

reforms. As part of PRWORA the Congress created the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to replace the previous

welfare program and help welfare recipients transition into employment.

To this end, states are required to enforce work requirements, and states

face financial penalties if a minimum percentage of adults receiving cash

assistance do not participate in work or work activities each year. This

federal participation rate requirement increased each year, reaching

50 percent for all families in fiscal year 2002. When PRWORA established

these federally required participation rates, it also allowed them to be

adjusted downward, through a “caseload reduction credit,” if a state’s

caseload declined. This provision reduces the participation requirement

for those states where the welfare caseload declines. In addition to work

requirements, TANF places a 60 month lifetime limit on the amount of

time families with adults can receive cash assistance. To receive its TANF

block grant, each state must also spend at least a specified amount of its

own funds, referred to as state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds.

The law allows states considerable flexibility to exclude families from

work requirements and time limits. Work requirements and time limits

apply only to families with an adult receiving aid, not to cases where only

children receive cash assistance (child-only cases). In addition, states may

provide cash assistance to families and exempt them from work

requirements and time limits by using state MOE in specified ways, such

as through a state program other than their TANF program, referred to as

separate state programs. In addition, states can extend federal time limits

for up to 20 percent of their families receiving assistance.

As the Congress considers reauthorization of TANF, you asked us to

determine and assess the states’ implementation of these work

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

requirements and time limits. More specifically, you asked us to determine

(1) the number of families, including child-only cases, receiving cash

assistance funded by federal TANF and state MOE; (2) how states made

use of work requirement flexibility; and (3) the number of families states

have excluded from time limits. The information we gathered came from

site visits in 4 states, telephone interviews with TANF officials in 8 other

states, and a survey administered to TANF officials in all 50 states and the

District of Columbia.1

 We conducted our work from August 2001 through

June 2002, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

States provided cash assistance funded by federal TANF or state MOE

dollars to 2.1 million families in the fall of 2001.2

 For over 736,000 of these

families, or one-third of the cash assistance caseload, only the children in

the family received assistance. When only children receive benefits, it is

typically because they are being cared for by someone who is not their

parent (e.g., grandparents or other relatives) or their parents are

noncitizens ineligible for cash assistance. Because no adult in these cases

receives TANF or MOE, work requirements and time limits do not apply.

With the flexibility allowed states, the percentage of adults in work or

work-related activities varied greatly among the states. Because of the

dramatic declines in welfare caseloads that have occurred since 1996,

states have generally faced greatly reduced participation rate requirements

for their TANF programs. For example, in fiscal year 2000, caseload

reduction credits reduced required rates from 40 percent (the required

rate) to 0 in 31 states. As a result, states have increased flexibility to

determine the numbers of adults required to be involved in work or work

activities. Almost all states met or exceeded their adjusted required rate in

fiscal year 2000. However, the fiscal year 2000 federal participation rates

varied tremendously among the states, ranging from about 6 percent to

more than 70 percent.

 1

We visited California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York and conducted telephone

interviews with Colorado, Hawaii, Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas,

and Wisconsin. The states were selected to represent a range of factors, including variation

in caseload size and in TANF program funding choices. The survey had a 100 percent

response rate, although each state did not respond to all questions.

2

This represents the number of families receiving cash assistance during 1 month between

October and December of 2001.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States excluded about 154,000 families from federal or state time limits.

This number represents 11 percent of the 1.4 million families with an adult

receiving cash assistance. By using the 20 percent time limit extension or

their MOE funds, states generally targeted time limit exclusions to families

they considered hard to employ, families who were working but not

earning enough to move off of TANF, and families that were cooperating

with program requirements but had not yet found employment. The

number of families excluded from time limits may increase in the future

because most families have not yet reached their federal or state-imposed

cash assistance time limit. Only about one-third of the states have begun

using the federal 20 percent time limit extension for families who reached

the 60 month federal time limit. In addition to the 20 percent extension,

state officials we spoke with said that they will rely more heavily on state

MOE to extend families’ time on assistance in the future.

PRWORA made sweeping changes to national welfare policy, creating

TANF and ending the federal entitlement to assistance for eligible needy

families with children under Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

administers the TANF block grant program, which provides states with up

to $16.5 billion each year through fiscal year 2002. TANF was designed to

help needy families reduce their dependence on welfare and move toward

economic independence. The law also greatly increased the discretion

states have in the design and operation of their welfare programs, allowing

states to determine forms of aid and the categories of families eligible for

aid. TANF establishes time limits and work requirements for adults

receiving aid and requires states to sustain 75 to 80 percent of their

historic level of welfare spending through a MOE requirement. In addition,

TANF gives states funding flexibility, which allows states to exclude some

families from federal time limits and work requirements.

TANF establishes a 60 month time limit for families receiving aid. States

have the option of establishing shorter time limits for families in their

state. A state that does not comply with the TANF time limit can be

penalized by a 5 percent reduction in its block grant. While the intent of

TANF is to provide temporary, time-limited aid, federal time limits do not

apply to all forms of aid or to all families receiving aid. First, states are

only to count toward the 60 month time limit any month in which an

individual receives a service or benefit considered “assistance,” which is

defined in the TANF regulations as cash or other forms of benefits

Background

TANF Establishes Time

Limits and Work

Requirements for Adults

Receiving Aid
Page 4 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

designed to meet a family’s ongoing basic needs.3 Second, time limits do

not apply to the following types of cases:

1. Child-only cases in which the adult in the household does not receive

cash assistance.4

2. Families who received assistance while living in Indian country or an

Native Alaskan village where 50 percent of the adults are not

employed.

Third, all states have the option to use federal funds to extend assistance

beyond the federal 60 month limit for reasons of hardship, as defined by

the state. States can extend assistance for up to 20 percent of the average

monthly number of families receiving assistance (“20 percent extension”).5

Finally, assistance that is provided solely through state MOE is not subject

to the federal time limit.

TANF also establishes work requirements for adults receiving aid. After 2

years of assistance, or sooner if the state determines the recipient is ready,

TANF adults are generally required to be engaged in work as defined by

the state.6

 In addition, TANF establishes required work participation

rates—a steadily rising specified minimum percentage of adult recipients

 3

“Assistance” does not include things like nonrecurrent, short-term benefits, such as rent

deposits or appliance repairs; work subsidies; work supports such as child care or

transportation subsidies for working families; or any other services such as counseling,

case management, and peer support that do not provide basic income support.

4

HHS has indicated that it would be inconsistent with statutory intent for states to simply

remove adults from assistance units once they reach their 60-month time limit and then

continue to use federal dollars to pay benefits to the children as a child-only unit. States

may choose to use their MOE funds to do this.

5

States can elect the Family Violence Option allowing states to waive any TANF

requirement, under certain conditions, for victims of domestic violence. If a state elects the

Family Violence Option and waives the time limits for such recipients and later faces a

penalty for extensions that exceed the 20 percent cap, the state may qualify for a

reasonable cause penalty exception.

6

States may not penalize parents with children under age 6 for not working if child care is

not available. States have the flexibility to exclude other categories of recipients from work

requirements, although they cannot remove these individuals from the work participation

calculation.
Page 5 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

who must participate in federally specified work or work-related activities7

each year for at least a minimum number of hours.8

States were required in federal fiscal year 2002 to meet a work

participation rate of 50 percent for all TANF families with adult

members—referred to as the rate for all families. States were also required

to meet a much higher rate—90 percent—for two-parent families.9

 States

must meet these work participation rates to avoid financial penalties.

While states have generally met the work participation rate for all families,

many states have faced financial penalties due to failure to meet the twoparent required rate in recent years. HHS issued penalty notices to 19

states in fiscal year 1997, 14 in fiscal year 1998, 9 in fiscal year 1999, and 7

states in fiscal year 2000.

In addition to establishing federal participation rate requirements,

PRWORA specified that the required rates are to be reduced if a state’s

TANF caseload declines. States are allowed caseload reduction credits,

which reduce each state’s work participation requirement by 1 percentage

point for each percentage point by which its average monthly caseload

falls short of its fiscal year 1995 level (for reasons other than eligibility

changes).

While states are to meet federal participation requirements, they also have

the flexibility to encourage and require TANF recipients to participate in

any activity a state chooses or at any level of activity, although that activity

 7

States may choose to exempt parents with children under age 1 from calculation in the

work participation rate. Work activities that count for federal participation rate purposes

include employment, work experience programs, on-the-job training, community service,

providing child care for other TANF recipients, job search, and (under certain

circumstances) education and training.

8

An individual counts as engaged in work each month if he or she participates in work

activities during the month for an average of at least 30 hours per week. A parent with a

child under age 6 will count as engaged in work if he or she participates for at least an

average of 20 hours per week.

9

The two-parent work participation rate of 90 percent means that each two-parent family

must participate in a federally defined work activity for an average of at least 35 hours per

week and that a specified number of hours be attributable to specific work activities. A

state may have one parent participate for all 35 hours, or both parents may share in the

work activities. HHS issued penalties for not meeting the two-parent work participation

rate in fiscal year 2000 to Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North

Carolina, and Wisconsin.
Page 6 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

or the hours of activity may not count toward the federal participation

rates.

In addition, federal time limits and work requirements may not apply in

some states that were granted federal waivers to AFDC program rules in

order to conduct demonstration programs to test state reforms.

The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002

passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 4737) on May 16, 2002,

reauthorizes the TANF block grant keeping in place key elements of

TANF, such as time limits and work requirements. It also changes some

aspects of TANF, including the participation rate requirements. It

increases the federally mandated rate by 5 percent a year to 70 percent by

2007, revises the number of hours of participation and types of activities

required, and made some alterations to the caseload reduction credit,

among other changes. In addition, the act specifies that two-parent

families would no longer be subject to a separate and higher work

participation rate. The Senate is in the process of reauthorizing TANF as of

June 2002.

Previously, under AFDC, state funds accounted for 46 percent of total

federal and state expenditures. Under PRWORA, the law requires states to

sustain 75 to 80 percent of their historic level of spending on welfare

through a MOE requirement to receive their federal TANF block grant. The

federal TANF funds and state MOE funds can be considered more like

funding streams than a single program and states may use their MOE to

assist needy families in state programs other than their TANF programs. In

fact, states have flexibility to expend their MOE funds for cash assistance

in up to three different ways, some of which allow states to exclude some

families from time limits and work requirements.

A state may use its state MOE funds in three different ways to provide

cash assistance for needy families.

• Commingling: A state can provide TANF cash assistance by commingling

its state MOE with federal funds within its TANF program.

• Segregating: A state can provide some TANF cash assistance with state

MOE accounted for separately from its federal funds within its TANF

program.

• Separating: A state can use its state MOE to provide cash assistance to

needy families in any one or more non-TANF state programs, referred to

as “separate state programs.”

States May Choose Various

State Funding Options for

Providing Cash Assistance
Page 7 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Each state may choose one or more of these options to provide cash

assistance. In some cases, in this report, we refer to the second and third

options as using “state-only” funds when the distinction between

segregating and separating funds is not necessary. In addition, we focus

only on cash assistance and not on other forms of aid or services,

including, for example, child care and transportation, for which time limits

and work requirements generally do not apply. (For more information on

state funding choices, see app. I.)

How a state structures its funds determines which TANF rules apply to the

needy families being served. (See table 1.) When a state commingles funds,

it must meet all TANF requirements. For example, states that commingle

all their state MOE with federal funds are only able to exclude families

from time limits through the 20 percent extension, cannot exclude families

from counting toward the federal work participation rate, and cannot

provide assistance to certain groups of legal immigrants.

Table 1: Application of Key TANF Restrictions and Requirements on State MOE Funds under the Three Funding Options

Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option

Key program requirements and

restrictions for cash assistance

State TANF

program with

federal or

commingled funds

State TANF program with

state MOE accounted for

separately from federal funds

(referred to as segregated)

State MOE for needy families

in any non-TANF state

program (referred to as

separate state program)

Does 60-month time limit apply? Yes, except for up

to 20 percent of the

cash assistance

caseload

No No

Do work-activities count toward the federal

work participation rate?

Yes YesaNo

Do restrictions on assistance to immigrants

apply?b

Yes No No

a

With this option, states have the flexibility to serve families they might not otherwise be able to serve

in TANF, such as certain legal immigrants, but at the same time count their work activities toward

meeting the federal participation target rate.

b

Immigrants arriving in the United States after August 22, 1996, are barred from the receipt of federal

TANF assistance for a 5-year period.

In addition, while not required by federal law, states may choose to apply

work requirements or time limits on their state-funded assistance.10

 10Nineteen states have chosen a time limit shorter than 60 months as allowed by PRWORA,

with the most common limit being 24 months.
Page 8 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States reported that in the fall of 2001, 2.1 million families received cash

assistance funded with federal TANF or state MOE dollars. This includes

about 110,000 families, or 5 percent, who were provided cash assistance

through separate state programs funded by state MOE dollars. These

families are not counted in the TANF caseload data reported by HHS.

Twenty-six states used separate state programs to provide cash assistance,

typically to legal immigrants and two-parent families. In most of these

states, the separate state program caseload represented 5 percent or less

of the total caseload. However, in four of these states, families served

through separate state programs represented from 10 to 30 percent of the

total cash assistance caseload. (For more information on the separate

state program caseload by state and the populations served in the states’

programs, see app. II.)

It is noteworthy that the separate state program caseload represents a

more significant share in two of the nation’s most populous states—

California and New York. More specifically, the number of families

receiving cash assistance through separate state programs in California

alone—nearly 50,000—is greater than the total cash assistance caseload in

most states. HHS began requiring states in fiscal year 2000 to provide

information on families provided assistance through separate state

programs and reported on the separate state program caseload in their

recently issued Fourth Annual Report to Congress.11 However, this

caseload is not included in the TANF caseload data.

Child-only cases, while not generally in separate state programs, account

for an even more significant proportion of the cash assistance caseload.

Of the 2.1 million families receiving aid, 736,045, or one-third, were

composed of children only. Generally, child-only cases are not subject to

work requirements or time limits.12 The percentage of child-only cash

assistance cases varied greatly among the states, ranging from 13 percent

 11HHS required state information on separate state programs if a state wanted to qualify for

the caseload reduction credit or the high performance bonus. PRWORA included a high

performance bonus provision to reward states that are the most successful in achieving the

goals and purposes of the TANF program. A total of $1 billion is available in fiscal years

1999 through 2003. For more information on what states reported to HHS on separate state

programs, see HHS’s 2001 Fourth Annual Report to Congress (Washington D.C.: April

2002).

12Connecticut has a small number of state-funded child-only cases that are subject to a

state-imposed time limit on state-funded assistance. The time limit exclusion rules in

Connecticut’s separate state program are the same for both recipient and non-recipient

parents.

Of 2.1 Million

Families Receiving

Federal or State MOEFunded Cash

Assistance, One Third

Are Child-Only Cases
Page 9 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

in Hawaii to 73 percent in Wyoming. In addition, as shown in figure 1, the

types of child-only cases vary and can include families in which the

• caregiver is a nonparent, such as grandparent or other relative;

• parent is receiving Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

and not eligible for TANF;

• parent is a noncitizen ineligible for federally funded TANF;13 and

• parent has not complied with TANF program requirements and so has

been denied benefits, called a sanction.14

(For more information on each state’s total cash assistance and child-only

caseloads, see app. III.)

 13Some households may include parents who are illegal immigrants or legal immigrants

ineligible for cash assistance in addition to children who are citizens and eligible for cash

assistance.

14States can sanction individuals not complying with TANF program requirements by taking

away part or all their TANF cash benefits and possibly other public benefits as well.
Page 10 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases

Note: We included state-funded child only cases in Florida and Illinois because they do not have

federally funded child-only cases. We did not include the small numbers of state-funded child-only

cases in several other states, as it does not significantly change these results.

Source: GAO survey.

Reduced federal participation rate requirements and states’ use of their

MOE funds give states considerable flexibility in implementing work

requirements. Almost all the states had more adults participating in work

and work-related activities than they were required to, but the percentage

of adults participating varied greatly among the states. Almost all of the

families who received cash assistance through separate state programs

were subject to state work requirements, even though federal work

requirements did not apply.

With PRWORA

Flexibility, the

Percentage of Welfare

Recipients

Participating in Work

Activities Varied

Greatly among States

14% • Parent is receiving SSI

14% • Parent is an ineligible noncitizen

4%

Parent is sanctioned

• 23% • Nonparental caregivers

3%

Other

•43%

Unknown/state could not report data

•
Page 11 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States faced greatly reduced federal participation rate requirements for

fiscal year 2000, as caseload reduction credits were triggered by recent

caseload declines. Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically, from

4.4 million in August 1996 to 2.1 million as of September 2001, marking a

52 percent decline in the number of families receiving cash welfare. As a

result, the fiscal year 2000 participation rate requirement was adjusted

downward from 40 percent to 0 in 31 states. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Federal Participation Rate Requirement for All Families Adjusted for

Caseload Reduction Credit and Actual Participation Rate by State for Fiscal Year

2000 (stated rate was 40 percent)

State

Adjusted

required

rate

Actual federal

participation rates for

all families (without

waiver)a

Actual federal

participation rate for all

families (with waiver)a

Alabama 0 37.7 -

Alaska 11 42.1 -

Arizona 0 39.7 -

Arkansas 6 20.8 -

California 8 27.5 -

Colorado 0 36.6 -

Connecticut 28 33.2 43.0

Delaware 0 16.8 27.6

District of

Columbia 11 24.4 -

Florida 0 33.0 -

Georgia 0 12.2 -

Hawaii 25 24.5 29.7

Idaho 0 47.7 -

Illinois 0 59.2 -

Indiana 0 40.8 72.3

Iowa 1 41.8 -

Kansas 17 49.0 77.4

Kentucky 0 25.6 -

Louisiana 0 33.5 -

Maine 9 40.0 -

Maryland 1 6.3 -

Massachusetts 0 7.1 69.2

Michigan 0 36.4 -

Minnesota 9 29.3 34.7

Mississippi 0 17.8 -

Missouri 0 30.4 34.0

Montana 0 36.2 68.2

Nebraska 14 15.8 22.6

Nevada 0 37.4 -

Federal Work Participation

Rates in Fiscal Year 2000

Varied Greatly among

States
Page 12 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

State

Adjusted

required

rate

Actual federal

participation rates for

all families (without

waiver)a

Actual federal

participation rate for all

families (with waiver)a

New Hampshire 0 30.0 53.1

New Jersey 1 37.8 -

New Mexico 17 36.9 -

New York 5 33.2 -

North Carolina 0 19.2 -

North Dakota 0 35.7 -

Ohio 0 52.8 52.9

Oklahoma 0 33.9 -

Oregon 0 10.6 64.0

Pennsylvania 0 11.2 -

Rhode Island 24 25.0 -

South Carolina 0 25.0 54.0

South Dakota 3 46.5 -

Tennessee 0 24.9 35.4

Texas 0 7.8 25.6

Utah 6 27.9 31.1

Vermontb40 11.6 -

Virginia 0 24.6 44.9

Washington 2 52.8 -

West Virginia 0 17.1 -

Wisconsin 0 73.4 -

Wyoming 0 59.0 -

U.S. averagec 29.7 34.0

a

For 18 states, HHS has reported participation rates with and without taking into account a state’s

waiver that allowed for different rules with regard to work requirements.

b

Vermont claims that its waivers eliminate any participation rate requirements while the waivers are in

effect. It did not apply for a caseload reduction credit for fiscal year 2000.

c

U.S. average includes the U.S. territories.

Source: The Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

Even though most states faced relatively low or no participation rate

requirements, about 30 percent of TANF adults were counted as meeting

federal participation requirements nationwide. However, the federal

participation rates varied greatly among the states, as shown in figure 2.

Officials in one state told us that because the participation rate

requirements are so low, states have more flexibility in choosing whether

to enroll TANF recipients in work or in other types of activities or

services, such as substance abuse treatment or mental health services,

which do not count for purposes of the federal participation rate. State

officials believe they can make such choices without fear of not meeting

their federal work participation rates. In other cases, the lower
Page 13 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

participation rates give states more flexibility in exempting TANF

recipients considered hard to employ from meeting work requirements.15

Figure 2: Range of Federal Work Participation Rates for All Families in Fiscal Year

2000, as Reported by HHSa

a

Based on participation rates calculated without taking into account waivers.

Note: Data for fiscal year 2000 are the most recent available.

Source: HHS.

Data also showed that participation rates varied greatly among states

when using an expanded measure of work participation defined by the

state. This measure included each state’s own definition of what qualified

as involvement in an activity; this includes federally approved activities

and levels of participation in addition to other types of activities and levels

 15For more information on TANF and persons with disabilities, see our report entitled: U.S.

General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help

States and Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments toward Employment,

GAO-02-37 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2002).

State-Defined Work Rates

Also Varied Greatly among

States

Number of states

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0-9 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Percent of families participating in work activities that count toward the federal work participation rate

3

9

13

15

6

4

0

1

0 0
Page 14 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

of participation if allowed by a state.16 For example, in some states, this

measure would include participation in mental health treatment activities.

In addition, in one state we talked with, an adult working only 1 hour a

week would be considered as participating in state-defined activities. In

contrast, a minimum of 30 hours of work would generally be required to

count as meeting the federal participation requirement.

Using this state-defined rate, nationwide, about 56 percent of TANF adults

were involved in work or work-related activities, based on the 47 states

that provided data for fall 2001.17 The percentage of the adult caseload

involved in work or work-related activities (as defined by the state) ranged

from 6 percent to 93 percent. As shown in figure 3, the percentage of

adults participating was 30 percent or less in 8 states, 31-50 percent in 20

states, and more than 50 percent in 19 states, according to state survey

responses. (See app. IV for more specific data by state.)

 16Our survey asked, “What percentage of your (adult) TANF caseload was involved in work

or work-related activities (as defined by your state)?”

17If data for the federal participation rate and the state-defined rate were available for

similar time periods, comparisons could be made to determine the extent to which each

state included in the state-defined rate TANF recipients who were not included in the

federal participation rate. However, the data available are for different time periods. In

addition, while federal law determines who is to be counted in the numerator and the

denominator when calculating the federal participation rates, states may have used

different definitions of “TANF caseload” when responding to our question.
Page 15 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Figure 3: Range of State-Defined Work Rates, Fall 2001

Source: GAO survey.

Providing cash assistance through separate state programs has offered

states additional flexibility, as federal work requirements do not apply to

families served through these programs. the 26 states with separate state

programs, 16 states used these programs to provide cash assistance to

two-parent families. Several state officials told us they provide aid in this

way to avoid the risk of financial penalties for failing to meet the federal

two-parent participation rate requirement. State officials told us that twoparent families often have as many or more challenges as single parents,

making the higher participation rate for two-parent families difficult to

meet.18 However, states that provided cash assistance through separate

state programs typically imposed their own work requirements on families

receiving aid. We found that approximately nine-tenths of the families

receiving cash assistance in separate state programs are still subject to a

state work requirement. While states generally imposed work

 18The caseload reduction credit would also decrease the 90 percent work participation

requirement for two-parent families; however, some states told us that they still moved

two-parent families into separate state programs because they did not want to rely on

caseload reductions to avoid a financial penalty.

While Federal Work

Requirements Do Not

Apply in Separate State

Programs, States Typically

Impose Their Own

Requirements
Page 16 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

requirements, about half of them also have policies in place to exclude

families facing significant barriers to work from work requirements. For

example, 13 states exclude families with an adult who is disabled and 13

states exclude families who care for someone with a disability.

It is possible that states may rely more on separate state programs in the

future to provide cash assistance free from federal work requirements as

they take steps to meet state and local goals. H.R. 4737—the

reauthorization bill passed by the House—eliminates the higher federal

participation requirement for two-parent families that was often cited by

states as a reason for using separate state programs. However, it also

includes higher overall federal participation requirements for all families.

States would still have the option to serve other families who they deem

may have difficulty meeting higher federal requirements through separate

state programs. With higher participation requirements for all families, the

number of families that states may consider unable to meet higher federal

work requirements could increase.

Through the 20 percent federal extension and the use of state funds, states

generally excluded the following types of families from federal and state

time limits: families they considered “hard to employ,” families that were

working but not earning enough to move off TANF, and families that were

cooperating with program requirements but had not yet found

employment. During fall 2001,19 states excluded from federal or state time

limits 11 percent of the 1.4 million cash assistance families with adults.

The number of families excluded from time limits may increase in the

future because most families have not yet reached their federal or stateimposed cash assistance time limit.

 19In our survey, we asked states to provide us with information for the most recent month

for which they had complete data. Most states reported numbers from a month in the first

quarter of federal fiscal year 2002.

States Excluded 11

Percent of Adult

Families from Federal

and State Time Limits
Page 17 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States targeted time limit exclusions to families they considered hard to

employ, families who were working but not earning enough to move off

TANF, and families who were cooperating with program requirements.

The majority of states excluded hard-to-employ families in which the

parent had a disability or was caring for a child with a disability, families

dealing with domestic violence, and families with a head of household of

advanced age. (See fig. 4.) Some of these exclusions are granted on a

temporary basis (such as for disabled recipients pending transfer to the

Supplemental Security Income program), while others are granted for

longer periods of time (such as for family heads of advanced age).

Figure 4: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State Time Limits by

Recipient Characteristic

Source: GAO survey.

Twenty-two states exclude working families or families participating in a

work activity from time limits, either through the federal 20 percent

extension or by using state-only funds. Maryland and Illinois, for example,

“stop the clock” for families who are working or participating in a work

activity by funding them with state-only dollars. Officials from both states

told us that their states adopted this policy to reward working families for

complying with program requirements.

Federal 20 Percent

Extension and StateFunded Time Limit

Exclusion Policies

Generally Target Working

or Hard-to-Employ

Families

0 10 20 30 40 50

Family living in high

unemployment area

Parent completing

education or training

Working or in

work activity

Caring for young child

Making good faith

effort to find job

Family head is of

advanced age

Domestic violence/

extreme cruelty

Caring for disabled

family member

Parent or caretaker

with a disability

Number of states

Reason for exclusion

46

46

42

26

23

22

22

21

19
Page 18 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States that exclude families by using state-only funds use criteria similar to

those used by states that rely solely on the federal 20 percent hardship

extension. Using the 20 percent extension, states are able to extend time

limits for a broad range of families, such as families cooperating with

program requirements or making a “good faith effort” to find employment.

For example, officials from Michigan, a state that commingles all of its

state funds with federal funds, told us that they will use the 20 percent

extension for all recipients following the rules of the program; if the

number of families to whom they want to provide an extension begins to

exceed 20 percent, they plan to continue providing assistance through

state funds. Almost half of the states exclude families making a good faith

effort to find employment.

States have excluded from time limits 11 percent (about 154,000) of the

approximately 1.4 million families with adults receiving federal- or statefunded cash assistance.20 (See app. V for the percent of exclusions by

state.) As shown in figure 5, 45 percent of these families—mostly in

Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York—were excluded through states use

of state-only funds. An additional 43 percent of the families were excluded

from time limits under federal waivers granted to states before welfare

reform to conduct demonstration programs. Many of these waivers remain

in effect.21

 20If the 736,045 child-only cases, which are not subject to time limits, are included in the

caseload, the overall percentage of TANF families that is excluded from a time limit is

42 percent.

21Eight states exclude federally funded families from time limits because of pre-existing

waivers to their welfare programs that allow them to exempt federally funded families from

the federal time limit. These states are Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South

Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In addition, Connecticut was operating under a waiver

through September 2001. As a result, the federal clock did not start on federally funded

families who were exempt from Connecticut’s state time limit until October 2001.

Therefore, Connecticut can extend cash assistance to some of its federally funded families

well beyond 60 months without using the federal 20 percent extension.

While States Had Excluded

11 Percent of Families

with Adults from Time

Limits as of Fall 2001, This

Percentage May Increase

as More Families Reach

Their Time Limits
Page 19 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Figure 5: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits and Method of Exclusion

Note: Exclusions do not total 100 percent due to incomplete data from states. Delaware was unable

to provide us with caseload data and is not included in this figure.

Source: GAO survey.

While states sometimes use state funds to exclude families from federal

time limits, states are still applying a state time limit to a significant

portion of state-funded families. Overall, 64 percent of families who

receive cash assistance through separate state programs or segregated

state funds are still subject to a state time limit. Twenty-six of the 33 states

with state-funded families apply a state time limit to some or all of their

state-funded families. (See app. VI for additional information on state

choices regarding funding and time limits.)

The percentage of the caseload that is excluded from time limits may

increase because most families have not reached their time limit. In 22

states TANF had not been in effect long enough for families to reach either

the federal or the state time limit by the time we conducted our survey.22

Even in those states where it was possible to have received 60 months of

cash assistance, many families had not reached their time limit because

they have cycled on and off welfare, slowing their accrual of time on

 22States responded to our survey using their most recent month of data available—

generally a month in the first quarter of fiscal year 2002 (October through December of

2001).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Waivers

Federal 20% hardship 

extension

Exclusions using 

state-only funds

43.4%

11.2%

45.2%

Time-limited

89%

Not 

time-limited

11%

Method of 

exclusion
Page 20 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

assistance. State officials generally thought the 20 percent federal timelimit extension was adequate now, but were less sure about the future,

given that many families have not yet reached the 60 month time limit.

State officials we spoke with told us that they planned to rely more heavily

on state MOE funds to continue assistance to significant numbers of

families reaching the 60 month time limit. For example, California told us

it estimated that over 100,000 families with adults would reach the federal

time limit in the next year. California plans to use state-only funds to

continue aid beyond 60 months to children by removing the adult from the

case. California also plans to continue aid to families who are making a

good faith effort to find employment and to families who are hard to

employ because the adult is aged, disabled, caring for a disabled family

member, or experiencing domestic violence. In addition, New York plans

to continue assistance to families who reach the 60 month time limit

through its separate state program. In December 2001, New York State

had 44,027 families reach the 60 month federal time limit. Of these

families, 28,781(65 percent) were transitioned to the state’s separate state

program funded with state MOE, 9,873 (22 percent) received the

20 percent extension, and the remaining 5,393 (12 percent) were

transitioned off assistance. These families were among the first to reach

time limits with more families to follow.

At the time of our survey, we found that only 15 states had begun to use

the federal 20 percent hardship extension; overall, these states were

applying it to less than 1 percent of their adult caseload. While it is difficult

to estimate the extent to which states may use the 20 percent extension as

more families reach the 60 month time limit, it is important to note that

states’ child-only caseloads can result in significantly more than 20 percent

of the adult TANF caseload receiving the extension.23 As discussed earlier,

TANF allows each state to extend the 60 month time limit for up to 20

percent of the average monthly number of families receiving TANF

assistance funded in whole or part with federal TANF funds. In each state,

the maximum number of families who may receive extensions is equal to

 23The maximum time-limit extension can also be affected by how states choose to structure

their funding and by their recent experience with caseload decline. First, families funded

with segregated state funds are taken into account when determining the maximum

number of families who may receive extensions but are not themselves in need of an

extension because they are not subject to federal time limits. Second, states may choose to

use the prior year’s caseload numbers to calculate their 20 percent extension rather than

the current year.
Page 21 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

20 percent of the total number of TANF families, including child-only

cases. This results in a higher number of adults who can receive the

extension than if the calculation were based on 20 percent of TANF

families with adults. We estimated that the maximum percentage of adults

who may receive the federal extension ranges from 77 percent in Wyoming

to 24 percent in Vermont and New Mexico, based on our analysis of survey

data for fall 2001. (For more on this analysis, see app. VII).

Although states have had TANF programs in place for 5 years now, their

experiences with key elements of TANF are still evolving. The dramatic

caseload decline that greatly reduced the federally required participation

rates gave states great flexibility in implementing work requirements. With

this flexibility, the extent of involvement of TANF adults in federally or

state-required activities varied greatly among the states. On the one hand,

this means states have adapted their programs to meet state and local

goals and needs. On the other hand, it means states with relatively low

participation rates have more limited experience than other states in

involving welfare recipients in work activities. This may affect their ability

to meet federal participation rate requirements in the future. In addition,

many states have used the flexibility allowed them in using state MOE to

exclude families from or to extend federal time limits. In this way, states

could ensure a safety net for families that state TANF program officials

had determined needed more time to become self-sufficient or were

unable to support themselves. Because so many families have not yet

reached their time limits, much remains unknown about choices states

will make in enforcing time limits and whether an appropriate balance will

be struck between ensuring a safety net for families in need and creating a

transitional aid system that promotes work and personal responsibility.

Two issues that warrant attention in the future include wider

implementation of the 20 percent federal time limit extension and states’

use of separate state programs to provide cash assistance. First, as we

reported, the 20 percent time limit extension, when applied to adults,

represents a larger and varying share of adults among the states than when

applied to all families, including child-only cases. As this extension policy

is more widely used in the years ahead, it will be important to understand

whether the 20 percent extension as currently calculated affords all states

the access needed to support families experiencing hardship as well as

supporting the federal goal of reducing welfare dependence. Second, with

the use of state MOE through separate state programs, a not insignificant

number of families—and potentially more in the years to come—receive

cash assistance although they are not counted in welfare caseload data

Concluding

Observations
Page 22 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

routinely reported by HHS. With continuing attention focused on the

number of families receiving cash assistance and whether PRWORA has

successfully reduced dependence on welfare, it is important that program

administrators and policymakers have information on the size of the

separate state program caseload. These data should be more regularly

available to consider along with TANF caseload data as HHS has recently

begun to collect and report information on states’ separate state programs.

In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS said that it agreed with the

findings. HHS’ s written comments are included in appendix VIII.

We are sending copies of this report to the secretary of Health and Human

Services and other interested parties. We will also make copies available

to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at

(202) 512-7215 or Gale Harris at (202) 512-7235. Other contacts and

acknowledgments are listed in appendix IX.

Sincerely yours,

Cynthia M. Fagnoni

Managing Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security

Agency Comments
Appendix I: State Funding Choices

Page 23 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Most states use some form of state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding

to provide cash assistance to families. Eighteen states relied solely on

federal or commingled federal and state funds in their Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs to provide cash

assistance, as shown in figure 6. The other 33 states used at least one of

the state MOE funding options in addition to commingled funds: 7 had

segregated state funds; 17 had separate state programs; and 9 had both

segregated funds and separate state programs.

Figure 6: Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.

States across the nation have opted to use state MOE funds to provide

cash assistance. (See table 3.) States with larger caseloads are more likely

to use segregated funds or separate state programs than smaller states;

similarly, states with the smallest caseloads are more likely to commingle

all of their state and federal funds.

Appendix I: State Funding Choices

0

33

Segregated funding

Segregated funding 

and separate state 

programs

Separate 

state program

7

9

17

18 states 

that ONLY 

commingle 

state MOE 

funds

33 states 

with 

state MOE and 

commingled 

funds

Total of 16 

states with 

segregated 

funds

Total of 26 

states with 

separated 

state programs
Appendix I: State Funding Choices

Page 24 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Table 3: Funding Streams in All States and the District of Columbia

Commingled funds

Commingled +

segregated

state funds

Commingled +

separate state

programs

Commingled +

segregated +

separate state programs

Alaska Arizona Alabama California

Arkansas Massachusetts Georgia Connecticut

Colorado Minnesota Hawaii District of Columbia

Idaho Nebraska Indiana Delaware

Iowa Oregon Maine Floridab

Kansas Pennsylvania Missouri Illinois

Kentucky Washington Montana Maryland

Louisiana Nevada Rhode Island

Michigan New Jersey Vermont

Mississippi New Mexico

North CarolinaaNew York

North Dakota Tennessee 

New Hampshire Texas 

Ohio Utah 

Oklahoma Virginia 

South Carolina Wisconsin

South Dakota Wyoming

West Virginia

Total 18 7 17 9

a

North Carolina uses only federal funds to provide cash assistance.

b

Florida has segregated and separate state programs but no federal/commingled programs.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.

Even though two-thirds of the states have opted to use segregated funds,

separate state programs, or both to provide cash assistance, only

11 percent of the total number of families receiving cash assistance is

funded with these funds.
Appendix II: States’ Separate State Program

Caseloads and Characteristics

Page 25 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Table 4: Total Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Number

Receiving Cash Assistance through a Separate State Program

States with

separate state

programs

Total

number of

families

receiving

cash

assistancea

Number of families

receiving cash

assistance in a

separate state

program

Families receiving cash

assistance through a

separate state program as a

percent of all families

Hawaii 17,717 5,316 30.0

Maine 10,525 1,563 14.9

New York 199,481 28,781 14.4

California 497,818 49,929 10.0

Rhode Island 16,943 1,210 7.1

Missouri 46,486 2,837 6.1

Connecticut 24,276 1,375 5.7

Vermont 5,475 310 5.7

Nevada 10,386 573 5.5

Maryland 29,537 1,608 5.4

Texas 132,788 6,351 4.8

Indiana 47,073 1,935 4.1

New Jersey 40,908 1,454 3.6

Florida 62,877 2,175 3.5

Virginia 29,846 792 2.7

Wisconsin 19,160 486 2.5

New Mexico 19,745 445 2.3

District of

Columbia 16,747 251 1.5

Wyoming 465 7 1.5

Illinois 54,723 767 1.4

Tennessee 63,427 911 1.4

Alabama 19,281 206 1.1

Georgia 54,168 490 0.9

Utah 8,245 73 0.9

Montana 5,263 38 0.7

Delaware NA NA NA

United Statesb2,132,284 109,883 5.2

a

Includes families receiving cash assistance funded with federal TANF or state MOE.

b

U.S. total also includes families receiving cash assistance in states without separate state programs.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.

States most often used separate state programs to serve two populations—

legal aliens and two-parent families—and applied their own state work

requirements on these two populations. (See table 4.) Other examples of

populations served by some states in their separate state programs include

Appendix II: States’ Separate State Program

Caseloads and Characteristics
Appendix II: States’ Separate State Program

Caseloads and Characteristics

Page 26 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

parents completing education or training (four states), parents or

caretakers with a physical impairment (four states), families caring for a

young child (three states).

Table 5: Number of States with Separate State Programs that Target Legal

Immigrants and Two-Parent Families

Number of states with

separate state programs

Target legal immigrants

for separate state

programs

Target two-parent

families for separate state

programs

Alabama X

California X

Connecticut X

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida X

Georgia X X

Hawaii X X

Illinois Xa X

Indiana X

Maine X

Maryland X X

Missouri X

Montana

Nevada X

New Jersey X X

New Mexico

New York X

Rhode Island X X

Tennessee X X

Texas X

Utah X X

Vermont X

Virginia X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming

Total 26 13b16

a

Illinois provides cash assistance to refugees under separate state programs.

b

Six additional states do provide cash assistance to legal immigrant families ineligible for federal

TANF using segregated state TANF funds: California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Oregon, and Washington. Georgia provides cash assistance to legal immigrants through their

segregated funds and their separate state program.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
Appendix III: States’ Child-Only Caseloads

and Reasons for Child-Only Cases

Page 27 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason

State

Total cash

assistance

caseload

Federally

funded

child-only

cash

assistance

caseloada

Percent of

total

caseload

that is childonly

Parent

receiving

SSI

Parent is

ineligible

noncitizen

Parent

received

sanction

Nonparental

caregivers

Other

reasons

Unknown

/states

could not

report

data

Alabama 19,281 8,636 45 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Alaska 5,709 1,080 19 39 6 0 55 0 0

Arizona 37,408 16,133 43 0 32 0 61 4 3

Arkansas 12,163 5,163 42 -- -- -- -- -- 100

California 497,818 169,756 34 14 39 16 23 8 0

Colorado 12,711 4,785 38 25 0 0 51 16 7

Connecticut 24,276 8,128 33 40 5 1 54 0 0

Delaware bb b -- -- -- -- -- 100

District of

Columbia

16,747 3,216 19 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Florida 62,877 35,950 57 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Georgia 54,168 24,717 46 0 0 0 100 0 0

Hawaii 17,717 2,285 13 -- -- 0 -- -- 100

Idaho 2,257 945 42 0 0 0 100 0 0

Illinois 54,723 21,977 40 57 10 0 27 4 2

Indiana 47,073 9,342 20 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Iowa 20,328 4,986 25 -- 0 0 -- -- 100

Kansas 13,534 4,454 33 35 4 5 56 0 0

Kentucky 35,703 15,716 44 0 15 85

Louisiana 25,878 11,560 45 45 0 0 55 0 0

Maine 10,525 2,504 24 -- -- -- 0 -- 100

Maryland 29,537 9,525 32 18 1 1 76 5 0

Massachusetts 45,347 16,648 37 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Michigan 72,905 23,204 32 54 3 3 40 0 0

Minnesota 39,893 8,321 21 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Mississippi 17,251 7,730 45 -- 0 0 -- -- 100

Missouri 46,486 11,584 25 50 1 0 49 0 0

Montana 5,263 1,135 22 37 7 0 56 0 0

Nebraska 10,887 3,325 31 64 0 0 36 0 0

Nevada 10,386 3,236 31 9 12 0 76 3 0

New

Hampshire

5,794 1,685 29 30 0 0 51 19 0

New Jersey 40,908 13,895 34 -- -- 0 -- -- 100

New Mexico 19,745 2,961 15 -- -- -- -- -- 100

New York 199,481 63,143 32 -- -- -- -- -- 100

North Carolina 44,997 22,586 50 -- -- -- -- -- 100

North Dakota 3,036 744 25 18 0 32 50 0 0

Ohio 84,104 37,877 45 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Appendix III: States’ Child-Only Caseloads

and Reasons for Child-Only Cases
Appendix III: States’ Child-Only Caseloads

and Reasons for Child-Only Cases

Page 28 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason

State

Total cash

assistance

caseload

Federally

funded

child-only

cash

assistance

caseloada

Percent of

total

caseload

that is childonly

Parent

receiving

SSI

Parent is

ineligible

noncitizen

Parent

received

sanction

Nonparental

caregivers

Other

reasons

Unknown

/states

could not

report

data

Oklahoma 14,501 6,452 44 34 6 0 60 0 0

Oregon 17,099 6,041 35 28 25 3 37 7 0

Pennsylvania 88,090 24,386 28 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Rhode Island 16,943 3,022 18 52 32 0 16 0 0

South Carolina 18,384 8,224 45 41 1 0 58 0 0

South Dakota 2,715 1,556 57 22 0 0 78 0 0

Tennessee 63,427 17,506 28 41 0 0 58 0 0

Texas 132,788 45,210 34 -- 38 0 -- 11 51

Utah 8,245 2,403 29 30 0 0 70 0 0

Vermont 5,475 897 16 56 0 0 44 0 0

Virginia 29,846 7,930 27 -- -- 0 -- -- 100

Washington 53,705 17,099 32 28 21 0 48 3 0

West Virginia 14,525 4,440 31 -- -- -- -- -- 100

Wisconsin 19,160 11,608 61 51 0 0 49 0 0

Wyoming 465 339 73 -- -- -- -- -- 100

US. total/

average 2,132,284 736,045 35 14 14 4 23 3 43

a

Florida and Illinois do not have federally funded child-only cases. Therefore, calculations for these

states are based on state-funded child-only cases. Six other states have small numbers of statefunded child-only cases such that the percentage of the cash assistance caseload that is child-only

would only increase by less than 1 percentage point if the state-funded child-only cases were

included.

b

Not available.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for

Fall 2001, by State

Page 29 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

State

Percentage of TANF adults involved in

work (as defined by state)

Alabama 44

Alaska 45

Arizona 38

Arkansas 32

California 81

Colorado 47

Connecticut 23

Delaware a

District of Columbia 38

Florida 31

Georgia 6

Hawaii 57

Idaho 44

Illinois 60

Indiana 65

Iowa a

Kansas 73

Kentucky 86

Louisiana 48

Maine a

Maryland 66

Massachusetts 75

Michigan 32

Minnesota 57

Mississippi 18

Missouri 36

Montana 89

Nebraska 74

Nevada 69

New Hampshire 25

New Jersey 44

New Mexico 36

New York 34

North Carolina 51

North Dakota 30

Ohio 78

Oklahoma 31

Oregon 50

Pennsylvania 32

Rhode Island 46

South Carolina 49

South Dakota 42

Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for

Fall 2001, by State
Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for

Fall 2001, by State

Page 30 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

State

Percentage of TANF adults involved in

work (as defined by state)

Tennessee 52

Texas 62

Utah 26

Vermont 22

Virginia 30

Washington 93

West Virginia a

Wisconsin 91

Wyoming 76

U.S. average 56

a

Not available. Four states were unable to provide us with information on the percent of adults

participating in a state-defined work-activity.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
Appendix V: State Percentages of TANF or

MOE-Funded Families with Adult Recipients

Not Subject to Federal or State Time Limits

Page 31 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

State Percentage State Percentage

Alabama 1 Montana 0

Alaska 0 Nebraska 26

Arizona 76 Nevada 0

Arkansas 0 New Hampshire 3

California 0 New Jersey 0

Colorado 0 New Mexico 0

Connecticut 27 New York 28

Delaware a North Carolina 0

District of

Columbia 2 North Dakota 0

Florida 2 Ohio 4

Georgia 0 Oklahoma 1

Hawaii 27 Oregon 97

Idaho 0 Pennsylvania 2

Illinois 34 Rhode Island 6

Indiana 7 South Carolina 26

Iowa 0 South Dakota 0

Kansas 1 Tennessee 29

Kentucky 0 Texas 0

Louisiana 0 Utah 4

Maine 25 Vermont 7

Maryland 9 Virginia 54

Massachusetts 53 Washington 0

Michigan 8 West Virginia 0

Minnesota 10 Wisconsin 0

Mississippi 0 Wyoming 6

Missouri 6

Note: States with higher percentages may be due to existing state waivers that allow more flexibility

with federal time limits.

a

Delaware was not able to provide us with data on families excluded from time limits.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.

Appendix V: State Percentages of TANF or

MOE-Funded Families with Adult Recipients

Not Subject to Federal or State Time Limits
Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on

State Funding, Application of Time Limits,

and Use of 20 Percent Extension

Page 32 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States

Have state MOE

funds in

segregated and

separate state

programs

Apply state time

limit to some/all

families served

through state MOE

funds

Exclude from time

limits families who

are working or

participating in

work activity

Have not reached

federal and/or

state time limit at

time of survey

Were using 20

percent extension

at time of survey

Alabama X X X

Alaska X

Arizona X

Arkansas

California X X X

Colorado X

Connecticut X X X

Delaware X X X d

District of Columbia X X

Florida X X X

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X X X

Idaho

Illinois X X X X

Indiana X X X

Iowa X

Kansas X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X

Maine X X

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan XaX

Minnesota X X X X

Mississippi X X

Missouri X X X

Montana X X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X X X X

New Mexico X X X

New York X X X

North Carolina X

North Dakota X

Ohio X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X X Xb

Pennsylvania X X X

Rhode Island X X X X

Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on

State Funding, Application of Time Limits,

and Use of 20 Percent Extension
Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on

State Funding, Application of Time Limits,

and Use of 20 Percent Extension

Page 33 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

States

Have state MOE

funds in

segregated and

separate state

programs

Apply state time

limit to some/all

families served

through state MOE

funds

Exclude from time

limits families who

are working or

participating in

work activity

Have not reached

federal and/or

state time limit at

time of survey

Were using 20

percent extension

at time of survey

South Carolina X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X X

Texas X X X

Utah X X X X

Vermont X Xc X

Virginia X X X

Washington X X X X

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin X X

Wyoming X

Total 33 26 22 22 15

a

Michigan uses the 20 percent hardship extension to all families that reach a time limit and are

cooperating with program requirements.

b

Oregon currently operates under a waiver and exempts from time limits all families that are

participating in self-sufficiency activities.

c

Vermont will extend assistance to all families that reach the 60 month time limit.

d

Delaware was not able to provide data on their use of the federal 20 percent extension.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults

Who Can Receive Time-Limit Extension

Page 34 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

(PRWORA) specifies that up to 20 percent of families receiving TANF

assistance in each state can receive an extension to the 60 month federal

time limit. Based on our analysis of survey data, we estimated that the

maximum percentage of adults who could receive extensions ranged from

24 to 77 percent among the states, depending on the size of each state’s

child-only caseload. For example, Wyoming may extend time limits for up

to 92 families, which represents 20 percent of the 458 TANF families in

Wyoming. However, because almost three-fourths of its TANF families are

child-only, only 119 families with adults would have time limits in place.

This means that the state could provide extensions to 92 of the 119 TANF

families with adults; this represents 77 percent rather than 20 percent of

TANF families with adults. In contrast, in New Mexico, with its much

smaller percentage of child-only families (15 percent), the maximum

percentage of time-limit extensions that may be provided to families with

adults is 24 percent rather than 20 percent.

Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults

Who Can Receive Time-Limit Extension
Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults

Who Can Receive Time-Limit Extension

Page 35 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Table 6: Actual Maximum Percentage of TANF Families with Adults Who May Receive Time-Limit Extensions, After Adjusting

for Child-Only Cases (fall 2001)

State

Total number

of TANF

familiesa

Maximum

number of

families who

may receive

time limit

extension (20%

of TANF

families)

Number of

TANF families

who are childonly

Percent of

child-only

cases among

TANF families

TANF families

with an adult

Maximum

percent of

families with

adult who may

receive timelimit extension

Wyoming 458 92 339 74 119 77

Wisconsin 18,674 3,735 11,608 62 7,066 53

Florida 60,702 12,140 35,950 59 24,752 49

South Dakota 2,715 543 1,556 57 1,159 47

North Carolina 44,997 8,999 22,586 50 22,411 40

Georgia 53,678 10,736 24,717 46 28,961 37

Alabama 19,075 3,815 8,636 45 10,439 37

Ohio 84,104 16,821 37,877 45 46,227 36

Mississippi 17,251 3,450 7,730 45 9,521 36

South Carolina 18,384 3,677 8,224 45 10,160 36

Louisiana 25,878 5,176 11,560 45 14,318 36

Oklahoma 14,501 2,900 6,452 44 8,049 36

Arizona 37,408 7,482 16,479 44 20,929 36

Kentucky 35,703 7,141 15,716 44 19,987 36

Arkansas 12,163 2,433 5,163 42 7,000 35

Idaho 2,257 451 945 42 1,312 34

Illinois 53,956 10,791 21,977 41 31,979 34

California 447,889 89,578 169,756 38 278,133 32

Colorado 12,711 2,542 4,785 38 7,926 32

New York 170,700 34,140 63,143 37 107,557 32

Massachusetts 45,347 9,069 16,648 37 28,699 32

Connecticut 22,901 4,580 8,272 36 14,629 31

Texas 126,437 25,287 45,210 36 81,227 31

Oregon 17,099 3,420 6,041 35 11,058 31

New Jersey 39,454 7,891 13,895 35 25,559 31

Maryland 27,929 5,586 9,611 34 18,318 30

Nevada 9,813 1,963 3,236 33 6,577 30

Kansas 13,534 2,707 4,454 33 9,080 30

Washington 53,705 10,741 17,136 32 36,569 29

Michigan 72,905 14,581 23,204 32 49,701 29

West Virginia 14,525 2,905 4,440 31 10,085 29

Nebraska 10,887 2,177 3,325 31 7,562 29

Utah 8,172 1,634 2,403 29 5,769 28

New Hampshire 5,794 1,159 1,685 29 4,109 28

Tennessee 62,516 12,503 17,506 28 45,010 28

Maine 8,962 1,792 2,509 28 6,453 28
Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults

Who Can Receive Time-Limit Extension

Page 36 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

State

Total number

of TANF

familiesa

Maximum

number of

families who

may receive

time limit

extension (20%

of TANF

families)

Number of

TANF families

who are childonly

Percent of

child-only

cases among

TANF families

TANF families

with an adult

Maximum

percent of

families with

adult who may

receive timelimit extension

Pennsylvania 88,090 17,618 24,386 28 63,704 28

Virginia 29,054 5,811 7,930 27 21,124 28

Missouri 43,649 8,730 11,584 27 32,065 27

Iowa 20,328 4,066 4,986 25 15,342 26

North Dakota 3,036 607 744 25 2,292 26

Montana 5,225 1,045 1,135 22 4,090 26

Minnesota 39,893 7,979 8,366 21 31,527 25

Indiana 45,138 9,028 9,342 21 35,796 25

District of Columbia 16,496 3,299 3,216 19 13,280 25

Rhode Island 15,733 3,147 3,022 19 12,711 25

Alaska 5,709 1,142 1,080 19 4,629 25

Hawaii 12,401 2,480 2,285 18 10,116 25

Vermont 5,165 1,033 897 17 4,268 24

New Mexico 19,300 3,860 2,961 15 16,339 24

Delaware b

Weighted average 31

a

Includes child-only cases and excludes families provided assistance through separate state

programs.

b

Data not available.

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 37 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Appendix VIII: Comments from the

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 38 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 39 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 40 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 41 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Sigurd Nilsen (202) 512-7003

Gale Harris (202) 512-7235

Katrina Ryan (202) 512-3214

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Elisabeth Anderson, Kara Kramer,

and Kim Reniero. Patrick DiBattista and Beverly Ross also provided key

technical assistance.

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 43 GAO-02-770 TANF Time Limits and Work Requirements

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to

Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance.

GAO-02-615T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2002.

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Services to Many LowIncome Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-564.

Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.

Welfare Reform: States Are Using TANF Flexibility to Adapt Work

Requirements and Time Limits to Meet State and Local Needs.

GAO-02-501T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2002.

Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Efforts Could Help States and

Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments Toward

Employment. GAO-02-37. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001.

Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal

Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001.

Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce.

GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.

Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important Role

in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000.

Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires

Coordinated Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27,

2000.

Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families

Affected. GAO/HEHS-00-44. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2000.

Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare-to-Work

Approaches. GAO/HEHS-99-179. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999.

Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients’ Status. GAO/HEHS99-48. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 1999.

Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment

Assistance to TANF Clients. GAO/HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.:

February 26, 1999.

Related GAO Products

(130138)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs