TEMPORARY 

ASSISTANCE FOR 

NEEDY FAMILIES

Potential Options to 

Improve Performance 

and Oversight

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Finance, U.S. Senate

May 2013

GAO-13-431

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-431, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. 

Senate

May 2013

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 

FAMILIES

Potential Options to Improve Performance and 

Oversight 

Why GAO Did This Study

In 1996, Congress made sweeping 

changes to federal welfare policy by 

replacing the previous cash assistance 

program with the TANF block grant. 

Since then through fiscal year 2011, 

the federal government and states 

have spent a total of nearly $434 billion 

for TANF. The block grant was 

reauthorized under the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005, and is currently 

authorized through September 30, 

2013. To inform a potential 

reauthorization of TANF, GAO was 

asked to discuss its key findings on 

TANF performance and oversight from 

its previous work and identify potential 

options that would address these 

findings. This report discusses issues 

and options in three selected areas: (1) 

TANF’s role in providing cash 

assistance to low-income families, (2) 

measurement of TANF work 

participation, and (3) information on 

states’ use of TANF funds. In addition 

to summarizing its previous work on 

these issues, GAO reviewed relevant 

federal laws, regulations, and agency 

documents as well as transcripts from 

relevant congressional hearings from 

2009 through 2012 to identify potential 

options. GAO also spoke with HHS 

officials and selected three TANF 

experts with a range of views to share 

their perspectives on these issues. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations, 

but rather identifying some potential 

options that might improve TANF 

performance, depending on Congress’ 

goals for the program. These options 

are not intended to be exhaustive, and 

there may be a number of other 

options that warrant further analysis.

HHS provided technical comments on 

a draft of this report. 

What GAO Found

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ (TANF) role in providing cash 

assistance has evolved; fewer eligible families receive cash assistance and the 

composition of the caseload has changed. GAO noted in 2010 that 87 percent of 

the dramatic decline from 1995 through 2005 in the number of families receiving 

cash assistance was due a decline in eligible families participating in TANF, 

rather than increased incomes. Changes to state TANF programs, such as 

mandatory work requirements and lower benefits, account in part for this decline. 

Relatively modest caseload increases in recent years nationwide, as well as 

decreases in some states, have raised questions about TANF’s responsiveness 

to changing economic conditions. GAO also reported in 2011 that the 

composition of the TANF caseload has changed, with about 40 percent of cases 

now comprised of children only, with the adult not receiving benefits, and little 

known nationwide about state policies for aiding these children. Potential options 

to better understand TANF’s role as a cash assistance program may include: 

improving information on the extent to which states provide cash assistance to 

eligible low-income families, and requiring states to include more information—for 

example in TANF state plans submitted to the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS)—on features such as benefit amounts and services provided. 

The current approach used to measure the extent to which states engage TANF 

recipients in work activities as defined by federal law has limitations. GAO 

reported in 2010 and 2011 that most states relied on several factors allowed in 

law, including credits for caseload reductions, to reduce the percentage of 

families they needed to engage in work to meet their work participation rate 

requirements. GAO also reported that current policies may be discouraging 

states from serving some families who are not “work-ready” through TANF, such 

as those with significant barriers to employment or complex needs. Potential 

options to address these issues may include: eliminating, limiting, or modifying 

some of the credits states may use to reduce their work participation rate 

requirements; adjusting requirements to better ensure states engage those not 

work-ready; and developing an additional or alternate set of measures that focus 

on employment outcomes. However, more information may be needed to assess 

the potential impacts of any changes to work participation requirements. 

Limitations exist in the information available to assess states’ use of federal 

TANF funds and state expenditures related to minimum state spending 

requirements under TANF, known as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements.

GAO reported in 2012 that the TANF block grant has evolved into a flexible 

funding stream that states use to support a broad range of non-cash services, 

but information requirements for assessing TANF performance have not kept 

pace with this evolution. For example, there are no reporting requirements 

mandating performance information specifically on families receiving non-cash 

services or their outcomes. GAO also reported in 2012 that states have reported 

increased levels of MOE spending for a variety of reasons, including helping 

them reduce their work participation rate requirements as allowed by law. 

Potential options to better understand federal and state TANF spending may 

include: improving reporting and performance information to encompass the full 

breadth of states’ use of TANF funds, and requiring a review of MOE

expenditures used to meet TANF requirements. 

View GAO-13-431. For more information, 

contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or 

brownke@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Letter 1 

Background 3

TANF’s Role in Providing Cash Assistance to Needy Families Has 

Evolved 7

Approach to Measuring Work Participation Has Limitations 15

Information Available to Assess Recent Trends in TANF Spending 

is Limited 25

Concluding Observations 30

Agency Comments 31

Appendix I GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 32

Related GAO Products 33

Tables

Table 1: Selected Potential Options Related to TANF’s 

Performance as a Cash Assistance Programa 14

Table 2: Selected Potential Options Related to TANF Work 

Measures a 22

Table 3: Selected Potential Options to Better Understand Recent 

Trends in TANF Spendinga 30

Figures

Figure 1: Families Estimated as Eligible for and Participating in 

AFDC/TANF, Monthly Average, by Calendar Year, 1995 

through 2005 (in millions) 8

Figure 2: Factors That Helped States That Met Their Required 

Work Participation Rates in Fiscal Years 2007 through 

2009 18

Figure 3: State MOE Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2011 28

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Abbreviations

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

CRS Congressional Research Service

DRA Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MOE maintenance of effort

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TRIM3 Transfer Income Model, version 3

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 15, 2013

The Honorable Max Baucus

Chairman

Committee on Finance

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In 1996, the federal government made sweeping changes to federal 

welfare policy by replacing the previous cash assistance program with the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to states. 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

1996 (PRWORA),1 which created TANF, ended the Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC) program that had entitled eligible low-income 

families to monthly cash assistance. Instead, Congress has provided 

$16.5 billion per year in fixed federal TANF funding to states to operate 

their own welfare programs within federal guidelines. This can help cover 

the costs of cash benefits, administrative expenses, and services 

primarily targeted to needy families; the amount does not vary according 

to the number of cash assistance recipients, referred to as the TANF 

caseload. States are also required to maintain a specified level of their 

own past welfare spending to receive all of their TANF funds. At the 

federal level, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

is responsible for overseeing TANF programs. From fiscal years 1997 to 

2011, the most recent year with data available, the federal government 

and states have spent nearly $434 billion for TANF, about 60 percent of 

which were federal funds. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA)2

This federal-state partnership has undergone multiple changes, including 

a dramatic drop in the number of families receiving monthly cash 

assistance benefits, legislative actions that were generally expected to 

strengthen TANF work requirements, and new trends in states’ TANF 

spending. In recent years, several GAO reports and testimonies have 

reauthorized TANF, and the block grant is currently authorized through 

September 30, 2013.

 

1 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.

2 Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 7101, 120 Stat. 4, 135.
Page 2 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

presented findings on TANF performance and oversight in these areas 

(see Related Products appendix). To inform deliberations on a potential 

extension or reauthorization of TANF, you asked us to discuss key 

findings related to TANF performance and oversight from our previous 

work and identify potential options that would address these findings. This 

report discusses issues and potential options in our selected areas: (1) 

TANF’s role in providing cash assistance to low-income families, (2) 

measuring TANF work participation, and (3) information on states’ use of 

TANF funds. 

To conduct our work, we reviewed GAO reports published since TANF 

became effective in 1997 and summarized findings related to TANF cash 

assistance, work participation requirements, and TANF spending trends. 

These reports generally reflected a variety of methodologies, including 

national surveys of state TANF administrators, analyses of state data and 

national statistical surveys, and interviews and visits to selected state and 

local TANF program staff. These reports are cited throughout this report. 

In addition, we reviewed recommendations we had made previously that 

have not been implemented, but have continued relevance to current 

circumstances. We also reviewed transcripts from relevant congressional 

hearings from 2009 through 2012, which provided information on issues 

and options identified by members of Congress and other witnesses in 

addition to GAO.3 This information helped us identify potential options in 

these areas that would address findings in our previous reports and would 

not require changes to TANF purposes or the current financing structure 

established by law. In our discussion of potential options, we included 

considerations, such as advantages and disadvantages of 

implementation and possible unintended consequences, as appropriate. 

We used GAO guidance on performance measurement, GAO’s 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,

4

 

3 This review included eight hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, House 

Committee on Ways and Means (Subcommittees on Human Resources and Income 

Security and Family Support), House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

(Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training), and House Committee on 

the Budget. Our review generally included opening statements by Members, oral and 

written statements of witnesses, and the transcripts of the question and answer period. 

Witnesses included representatives of state TANF agencies, the National Association of 

State TANF Administrators, and a range of advocacy and research organizations. 

the 

4 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
Page 3 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),5 and the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 20106 as criteria to help identify potential 

options and considerations for implementation. In addition, we selected 

three individuals with TANF expertise, including researchers and 

representatives from advocacy organizations, that represent a range of 

viewpoints to provide their perspectives on our work.7

We conducted our work from January 2013 to May 2013 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

We also consulted 

with cognizant GAO staff, reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and 

agency documents, and spoke with HHS officials. The listed options are 

not intended to be exhaustive. In this report, we are not recommending or 

endorsing the adoption of any particular policy option or package of 

options. Rather, we identify them as potential options for Congress to 

consider, along with other relevant proposals, as it prepares to extend or 

reauthorize the TANF program.

TANF, created as part of the 1996 welfare reforms, gives states the 

authority to make key decisions about how to allocate federal and state 

funds to assist low-income families. States generally determine cash 

assistance benefit levels and eligibility requirements for low-income 

families seeking support under state welfare programs.8

 

5 Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285. 

When states set 

their TANF cash assistance benefit levels, the amount a family receives 

depends, in part, on who is in the assistance unit. An assistance unit is a 

6 Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). 

7 The following individuals provided technical comments on a draft version of this report, 

which we incorporated as appropriate and when consistent with our scope and 

methodology: Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy, Congressional Research Service 

(CRS); Dr. Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies and Co-Director of the Center 

on Children and Families, Brookings Institution; and Dr. LaDonna Pavetti, Vice President 

for Family Income Support Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

8 According to CRS, states generally made such determinations under AFDC also. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

group of people living together, often related by blood or some other legal 

relationship. States can exclude adults from the assistance unit but still 

allow the children to receive some assistance. In these child-only cases, 

the adults in the family are excluded from the assistance unit and are 

generally not considered when calculating the benefit amount. States are 

also generally allowed to spend TANF funds on other services as long as 

these services support TANF purposes,9

Federal law sets other conditions for states receiving federal funds for 

TANF. For example, in order to receive all of their TANF funds, states

must maintain a specified level of their own past spending on certain 

welfare programs, a requirement referred to as state maintenance of 

effort (MOE). In addition, states must ensure that a minimum percentage 

of families with an individual considered work-eligible that are receiving 

cash assistance meet work participation requirements set in law, referred 

to as the work participation rate.

which are: (1) to provide 

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

own homes or homes of relatives; (2) to end dependence of needy 

parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and 

marriage; (3) to prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) 

to encourage two-parent families.

10

 

9 42 U.S.C. § 604(a).

Activities creditable towards meeting 

work participation rates are defined in federal law and are generally 

10 Federal law governing TANF generally refers to the term “assistance” and does not 

make distinctions between different forms of aid funded by TANF. However, HHS draws 

distinctions between “assistance” and “nonassistance.” HHS regulations define assistance 

to include cash, payments, vouchers, or other forms of benefits designed to meet families’ 

ongoing, basic needs. 45 C.F.R. § 260.31. HHS also generally includes in assistance 

services, such as child care and transportation assistance for parents who are 

unemployed. HHS uses the term nonassistance to refer to TANF expenditures that fulfill 

one of the four TANF purposes, but do not meet this regulatory definition. In our report, we 

refer to HHS’s definition of assistance as “cash assistance” and its reference to 

nonassistance as “non-cash services.”
Page 5 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

focused on participants gaining employment and work-related skills.11

States that do not meet minimum work participation rates may be 

penalized by a reduction in their block grant. Several factors may help

states meet their work participation rates, such as reductions in their cash 

assistance caseloads and spending state funds for TANF purposes above 

the required MOE amount. In addition, states are limited in the amount of 

time they can provide federal cash assistance to families. In general, 

states may not use federal TANF funds to provide cash assistance to a 

family that includes an adult who has received cash assistance for 5 

years or more.12

Federal law sets forth the basic TANF reporting requirements for states. 

For example, states are required to provide information and report to HHS 

on their use of TANF funds in TANF state plans outlining how each state 

intends to run its TANF program (generally filed every 2 years), quarterly 

reports on demographic and economic circumstances and work activities 

of families receiving cash assistance, quarterly financial reports providing 

data on federal TANF and state MOE expenditures, and annual reports 

on state programs funded with MOE funds, among other things. HHS 

reviews state information and reports to ensure that states meet the 

Such time limits do not apply to child-only cases or to 

other TANF-funded services.

 

11 To be counted as engaging in work activities for a month, many families receiving TANF 

cash assistance are required to participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours 

per week in that month. However, federal law sets different weekly work hour 

requirements for teen parents attending school, single parents of children under age 6, 

and two-parent families. There are 12 work activities that may count toward meeting the 

specified work participation rate: unsubsidized employment, subsidized private sector 

employment, subsidized public sector employment, work experience (if sufficient private 

sector employment is not available), on-the-job training, job search and job readiness 

assistance, community service programs, vocational educational training, job skills training 

directly related to employment, education directly related to employment (if the recipient 

has not received a high school diploma or certificate of high school equivalence), 

satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate 

of general equivalence, and providing child care services to others in community service. 

TANF recipients may engage in activities provided or permitted under the state’s TANF 

program beyond those activities that count toward meeting the federal work participation 

requirements. In addition, TANF recipients may engage in work activities for less than the 

minimum required number of hours each week although they do not count as being 

engaged in work for purposes of the federal requirements.

12 States may extend federal cash assistance benefits beyond 5 years for up to 20 percent 

of their caseloads for families experiencing “hardship,” which is defined by the states. 

States may also use their own state MOE funds to provide cash benefits to families 

beyond 5 years.
Page 6 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

conditions outlined in federal law. For example, HHS uses the reported 

information to determine whether states are meeting work participation 

rates. 

In creating the TANF block grant, Congress emphasized the importance 

of state flexibility, and restricted HHS's regulatory authority over the states 

except to the extent expressly provided in the law. For example, HHS 

generally has limited authority to impose new TANF reporting 

requirements on states unless directed by Congress, so many changes to 

the types of information that states are required to report would require 

congressional action. 

As a fixed federal funding stream, the federal TANF block grant amount 

does not automatically adjust as caseloads or needs change, and the 

level of the federal grant has not been adjusted for inflation since the 

program’s creation in 1996. States may reserve federal TANF funds 

under a “rainy day fund” for use in future years, providing states additional 

flexibility in their budget decisions. In fact, we reported in 2010 that many 

states had some TANF reserves that they drew down to meet increasing 

needs in the recent economic downturn.13 The federal law that 

established TANF also created a TANF Contingency Fund that states 

could access in times of economic distress.14 Similarly, during the recent 

economic recession, the federal government created a $5 billion 

Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, available in fiscal 

years 2009 and 2010.15 In addition, TANF supplemental funds had been 

awarded to 17 states with historically low welfare spending per person 

and high population growth each year, although these grants expired in 

June 2011. 

 

13 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and 

Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates, GAO-10-525

(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010).

14 Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(a)(1), 110 Stat. 2105, 2122. For example, collectively, 

states in economic distress can access up to $612 million in the TANF Contingency Fund 

in each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, but they must spend more than a specified amount 

of state funds to do so. 

15 Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 2101(a)(1), 123 Stat. 115, 446.
Page 7 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

A key TANF purpose stated in law is to provide assistance to needy 

families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or homes of 

relatives. With the TANF block grant in effect replacing AFDC—a key 

federal cash welfare program for needy families—in fiscal year 1997, 

much attention has focused since then on the decline in the number of 

families receiving TANF cash assistance and the implications for poor 

children and families. The law does not explicitly state that poverty 

reduction is a TANF purpose, and there are generally no federal 

requirements or benchmarks as to eligibility criteria or benefit amounts, or 

on the percentage of low-income families who are to be covered by a 

state’s TANF program.

When states implemented TANF during fiscal year 1997, a monthly 

average of 3.9 million families were receiving cash assistance. This 

number declined by over half within the first 5 years of TANF. Since that 

time, the average number of families receiving cash assistance each 

month has remained well below the initial number of 3.9 million families, 

and averaged about 1.9 million families in 2011. Our previous work shows 

that although TANF caseloads have declined, many families with incomes 

still low enough to receive aid did not do so for a variety of reasons. In a 

2010 report, we assessed changes in the number of families eligible for 

and receiving cash assistance under AFDC and TANF from 1995 to 2005, 

the most recent data available at that time.16

 

16 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have 

Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact on Caseloads 

Varies by State, 

The strong economy of the 

1990s, TANF's focus on work, and other factors such as additional 

funding for child care and expansions in the Earned Income Tax Credit 

contributed to increases in the share of single mothers working and fewer 

families receiving TANF cash assistance. 

GAO-10-164 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2010). This work was based on 

the Urban Institute’s Transfer Income Model, version 3, known as TRIM3; we have not 

updated this analysis.

TANF’s Role in 

Providing Cash 

Assistance to Needy 

Families Has Evolved

Fewer Eligible Families 

Receive Cash Assistance 
Page 8 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

While some families worked more, had higher incomes, and were not 

eligible for cash assistance, others had income that left them still eligible; 

however, many of these eligible families were not participating in the 

program. According to our estimates, the majority—87 percent—of that 

caseload decline can be explained by the decline in eligible families 

participating in the program, in part because of changes to state welfare 

programs. These changes include mandatory work requirements;

changes to application procedures; lower benefits; policies such as 

lifetime limits on assistance; diversion strategies such as providing onetime, non-recurring benefits instead of monthly cash assistance to 

families facing temporary hardships; and sanctions for non-compliance, 

according to a review of the research. Among eligible families who did not 

receive cash assistance, 11 percent did not work, did not receive meanstested disability benefits, and had very low incomes (see fig. 1). We have 

not updated this analysis; however, some recent research shows that this 

potentially vulnerable group may be growing.17

Figure 1: Families Estimated as Eligible for and Participating in AFDC/TANF, 

Monthly Average, by Calendar Year, 1995 through 2005 (in millions)

 

17 Pamela Loprest and Austin Nichols, The Dynamics of Disconnection for Low-Income 

Mothers, Focus, Vol. 28, No. 2, (Fall/Winter 2011-2012).
Page 9 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

We have also reported in 2012 that during and after the recent significant 

recession, caseloads increased in most states, and the overall national 

increase totaled about 15 percent from fiscal years 2008 to 2011.18 This 

has been the first test of TANF—with its capped block grant structure—

during severe economic times. We noted that almost 40 percent of 

households with children and income below 200 percent of the federal 

poverty threshold that had exhausted Unemployment Insurance benefits 

received aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP)(formerly known as food stamps); however, less than 10 percent 

received TANF cash assistance in 2009.19 The relatively modest increase 

in TANF caseloads—and decreases in some states—has raised 

questions about the responsiveness of TANF to changing economic 

conditions.20

 

18 It is also important to note that states used TANF to provide other assistance to families 

who are not reflected in caseload data. In our 2012 report, we noted that interviews with 

TANF officials in 16 states suggest they provided a wide range of services throughout the 

recession, in part funded through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

funds. Many of these states reported providing families with some of the following: onetime emergency benefits for housing, winter heat assistance, child care, food (such as 

through food banks, vouchers, or meal programs), transportation, education, and clothing 

allowances. GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Economic Circumstances of Individuals Who 

Exhausted Benefits, 

After initial declines in the poverty rate among children—

from 21 percent in 1995 (prior to TANF’s implementation) to 16 percent in 

2000—the rate had risen to 22 percent in 2011, according to the Bureau 

of the Census.

GAO-12-408 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 17, 2012).

19 This analysis was meant to illustrate receipt of TANF and other government benefits 

among relatively low-income families of Unemployment Insurance exhaustees with minor 

children. We used the 200 percent poverty level for the purposes of our analysis only. 

States generally determine cash assistance benefit levels and eligibility requirements for 

TANF. We noted in our report that not all families with children and incomes below 200 

percent of the federal poverty threshold are eligible for TANF benefits. While families 

generally must have income below the federal poverty threshold to be initially eligible for 

ongoing TANF cash assistance, in many states, once a family has been receiving TANF 

benefits, income earned from employment may be disregarded for some time to 

compensate for work-related expenses or to serve as an incentive to work. This means 

that a family with income greater than the level for initial eligibility may continue to receive 

TANF. See Urban Institute, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2009 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2010).

20 GAO-12-408. We reported that during the fiscal year 2008 to 2011 time period, most 

states (39) experienced increases in their TANF cash assistance caseloads and 12 

experienced declines, according to HHS data. The District of Columbia was included in 

our discussion of states. 
Page 10 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

In our recent work, we identified several actions that states have taken to 

address increased needs while also experiencing budgetary distress.21

These include drawing down TANF reserves and accessing TANF 

Contingency Funds.22 In addition, nearly all states received a combined 

total of $4.3 billion of the $5 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund, 

created by Congress under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, in fiscal years 2009 through 2011.23 States used these funds 

in part to create or expand subsidized employment programs.24

Setting eligibility criteria and benefit levels are ways that states may 

manage the costs of their TANF cash assistance programs, directly 

affecting the number of families served and the amount of assistance they 

receive.

 

25 For example, 3 of the 10 states we selected for study in our 

2012 report cited tension between the need to provide cash assistance 

and the need to provide other state services during the recent economic 

downturn.26

 

21

Officials in one state said that the state enacted more 

GAO-12-408 and GAO-10-525. 

22 For example, 18 states spent $1.1 billion in TANF Contingency funds—which are 

provided to states when certain triggers indicate increased need—in fiscal year 2009.

23These funds were provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to states with increased 

caseloads, or with increased expenditures on non-recurrent short-term benefits or 

subsidized employment. $4.3 billion is the amount states qualified to receive; there is no 

time limit on the actual expenditure of those funds. 

24 We have not reviewed states’ use of these funds. However, according to a 2011 study 

prepared under contract with HHS, more than a quarter of a million individuals were 

placed in programs supported by these funds, with summer youth participants 

representing more than half of this total. However, the report noted that after this funding 

ended, many of the programs also ended, and others sharply reduced the number of 

people served. See MDRC, Subsidizing Employment Opportunities for Low-Income 

Families: A Review of State Employment Programs Created Through the TANF 

Emergency Fund, OPRE Report 2011-38 (New York, NY: Dec. 2011). Information for the 

study was based on telephone interviews with TANF administrators, site visits to 

subsidized employment programs, and reports that states provided to the research team.

25 Eligibility criteria and benefit amounts for cash assistance can vary greatly by state. For 

example, in Arkansas, as of July 2011, for a family of three, earnings had to be equal to or 

below $279 per month in order to be eligible for cash assistance, and their maximum 

benefit amount was $204. In contrast, in California, as of July 2011, a family of three’s 

income had to be equal to or below $1,224 per month to be eligible for cash assistance, 

and their maximum benefit amount was $714. See Urban Institute, Welfare Rules 

Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2011 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2012). 

26 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: More Accountability Needed to 

Reflect Breadth of Block Grant Services, GAO-13-33 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2012).
Page 11 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

stringent eligibility criteria and reduced benefit amounts for cash 

assistance to help manage costs. We estimated in a 2010 report that had 

certain 2005 TANF eligibility-related rules been in place in 1995, 1.6 

percent fewer families overall would have been eligible for cash 

assistance in 1995.27,28 We also noted in that report that the value of 

TANF cash benefits had fallen over time; average cash benefits under 

2005 TANF rules were 17 percent lower than they were under 1995 

AFDC rules.29,30

States are required to report on some features of their cash assistance 

programs, but there is no requirement for them to report on eligibility 

criteria, benefit amounts, or coverage rates. In 2012, HHS officials noted 

that they do not have the authority to require states to provide basic

information about the cash assistance programs, including state TANF 

eligibility criteria, benefits levels, and other program features.31

 

27

HHS 

provides support to the Urban Institute to create and maintain the Welfare 

Rules Database on characteristics of state TANF programs, including 

features such as eligibility criteria and benefit levels. Regarding 

information on TANF coverage of low-income families, in our 2005 report 

on several means-tested programs including TANF, we noted that having 

participation or coverage rate information is an important tool for program 

managers and policymakers, even among programs that were not 

intended to serve everyone eligible for program benefits. However, HHS 

GAO-10-164. We noted in our report that these estimates are based on analyses 

conducted for our study by the Urban Institute using TRIM3 data. 

28 In some states, families with children must have income below the federal poverty level 

to be initially eligible for ongoing TANF cash assistance, and in other states, their income 

must be well below the federal poverty level, according to Urban Institute, Welfare Rules 

Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2009 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2010).

29 GAO-10-164. This reduction occurred because cash benefit levels in many states have 

not been updated or kept pace with inflation—24 states had maximum cash benefits set at 

the same levels in 2006 as in 1996, and 6 states had maximum cash benefit levels that 

were lower than in 1996.

30 According to CRS, cash benefit amounts represent a fraction of the federal povertylevel income. TANF cash recipients typically also receive benefits from other programs, 

including SNAP and Medicaid. See CRS, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

Block Grant: An Introduction, R40946 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2013). 

31 GAO-13-33. 
Page 12 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

generally does not include these rates in TANF annual performance plans 

or the agency’s TANF Annual Report to Congress.32

Much of the federal welfare policy discussion has focused on how to help 

low-income parents caring for their children become employed and less 

dependent on government assistance. Yet in 2010, over 40 percent of 

families receiving TANF cash assistance were “child-only,” meaning the 

adults in the household were not included in the benefit calculation, and 

aid was provided only for the children. There are four main categories of 

child-only cases in which the caregiver (a parent or non-parent) does not 

receive TANF benefits: (1) the parent is receiving Supplemental Security 

Income;

 

33 (2) the parent is a noncitizen or a recent legal immigrant;34 (3) 

the child is living with a non-parent caregiver, often a relative; and (4) the 

parent has been sanctioned and removed from the assistance unit for 

failing to comply with program requirements, and the family's benefit has 

been correspondingly reduced. Families receiving child-only assistance 

are generally not subject to federal work requirements and time limits.35

HHS collects descriptive information from states on the number and 

selected characteristics of child-only cases; however, information on state 

 

 

32 See GAO, Means-Tested Programs: Information on Program Access Can Be an 

Important Management Tool, GAO-05-221 (Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2005). In that 

report, we noted that HHS does include coverage rate information for TANF and other 

programs in reports submitted to Congress that are required under the Welfare Indicators 

Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-432). However, we noted that HHS had not included this 

information in the agency’s TANF Annual Report to Congress. We had recommended that 

HHS include TANF coverage rate information in key TANF reports. In its response to our 

recommendation, HHS raised the concern that increasing coverage rates may conflict with 

other TANF program goals and that coverage rates are not an appropriate performance 

measure for the TANF program. We maintained that making such information more readily 

and regularly available as a part of TANF reporting can help inform policymakers on the 

reach of the program, even when no specific standards or goals for coverage are part of 

the program. For this report, HHS officials noted that starting with the TANF 9th Report to 

Congress, published in 2012, HHS included TANF coverage rates from 1992 to 2005 and 

that they expected to do so in the future. These data are at the national level and do not 

include state-level coverage rate information. 

33 Supplemental Security Income is federally administered by the Social Security 

Administration and provides cash assistance to low-income aged, blind, and disabled 

individuals. 

34 Under PRWORA, legal immigrants who entered the country after August 1996 must be 

in the United States for 5 years to be eligible for TANF. 8 U.S.C. § 1612(b). 

35See 45 C.F.R. § 261.2(n). 

Composition of the Cash 

Assistance Caseload Has 

Changed
Page 13 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

policies and plans for specifically assisting these families is not required 

and not available at the national level. As the number of TANF cases with 

an adult in the assistance unit has declined significantly, child-only cases 

have become more prominent. We reported in 2012 that the percentage 

of child-only cases increased from about 23 percent from July through 

September 1997 to over 40 percent in fiscal year 2010.36

Our work and other research have pointed out the need for more attention 

to child-only cases. Our 2011 report focused on non-parent caregivers in 

TANF child-only cases, often relatives, who have stepped in to help raise 

children for a variety of reasons, in some cases due to child abuse or

neglect by a parent.37 We noted that the level of benefits and services 

available to children living with non-parents depends on the extent to 

which a child welfare agency becomes involved in the family’s situation, 

among other things. However, we reported that information sharing 

between TANF and child welfare services to better serve children living 

with relative caregivers was a challenge. Another study, prepared under a 

grant from HHS and issued in December 2012, noted that child-only 

cases have not been a focus of TANF policies, yet the program can serve 

as an important source of support for vulnerable children in these 

situations, although this support is not uniform among the states.38 It also 

noted the significant differences among the various types of child-only 

cases, concluding that future attention needs to take into account the 

varying policy contexts—child welfare, disability, and immigration 

policies—involved. 

The size and composition of the TANF cash assistance caseload has 

changed significantly over time, and potential options are available to 

provide additional information that could be useful in decision-making for 

 

36 GAO-13-33. 

37 GAO, TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data Sharing Could Improve 

Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2011).

38 Jane Mauldon, Richard Speiglman, Christina Sogar and Matt Stagner, TANF Child-Only 

Cases: Who Are They? What Policies Affect Them? What is Being Done? (Chicago, IL: 

Dec. 11, 2012). Information for the study was based on analyses of state information, 

HHS data on TANF caseloads, data from population-based surveys, and interviews with 

state agency staff, policymakers and advocates.

Some Potential Options
Page 14 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Congress and program managers.39 Such information may also help 

clarify states’ TANF policies for providing income support for low-income 

families and children (see table 1).40 

Table 1: Selected Potential Options Related to TANF’s Performance as a Cash Assistance Program

If the objective is to:

a

Potential options Some considerations

Better understand 

TANF’s role in 

providing cash 

assistance in general

Require states to provide 

more information, for example 

in their TANF state plans, on 

eligibility criteria and benefit 

amounts for their cash 

assistance programs. 

Even though generally no federal requirements or benchmarks exist as to 

eligibility criteria or benefit amounts, having such information available can 

provide a better understanding of TANF’s reach and level of support as a 

cash assistance program in each state, and provide policymakers with better 

information on changes over time. 

Any efforts to require more information or make changes to existing reporting 

must also consider the potential reporting burden for states.

Require the inclusion of 

information on the extent to 

which eligible families are 

receiving TANF cash 

assistance, or coverage rates, 

in key TANF reports already 

required by law.

This kind of information could provide a basic understanding of the extent to 

which needy populations are being served by states through TANF and help 

policymakers in setting priorities and targeting scarce resources. Data on 

TANF caseloads, poverty levels, and participation in cash assistance 

programs are available to HHS and can serve as one indicator of changes 

over time and among states. 

This may place greater emphasis on the extent to which states provide cash 

assistance than originally envisioned under TANF, which did not include any 

measures of state performance in this area. 

 

39 In the hearing documents we reviewed, other options beyond our scope were noted, 

including, for example, adjusting the TANF block grant for inflation and redesigning the 

TANF contingency fund for use during times of high unemployment and increased levels 

of poverty.

40 We reported that such information must meet diverse users’ needs for completeness, 

accuracy, validity, timeliness, and ease of use, and that the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 puts into place several requirements that could also address these needs. GAO, 

Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides Important 

Opportunities to Address Government Challenges, GAO-11-617T (Washington, D.C.: May 

10, 2011).
Page 15 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

If the objective is to: Potential options Some considerations

Better understand 

TANF’s role in helping 

families receiving 

child-only assistance

Require states to include 

additional information, for 

example in their TANF state 

plans, about the status and 

needs of child-only families as 

well as plans for coordinating 

with child welfare agencies 

and other agencies and 

programs as appropriate.

Although this information is not currently required under the law, it may be 

useful now, given the increasing prominence of child-only cases. 

b

As noted above, any efforts to require more information or make changes to 

existing reporting must also consider the potential reporting burden for states.

Source: GAO analysis of relevant prior GAO reports and transcripts from congressional hearings related to TANF convened from 2009 

through 2012. 

a

In this report, GAO is not recommending or endorsing the adoption of any particular policy option or 

package of options. Rather, we identify them as potential options for Congress to consider, along with 

other relevant proposals, as it prepares to extend or reauthorize the TANF program.

b

This is related to our 2011 report, where we recommended that HHS do more to encourage 

information sharing between TANF agencies and child welfare agencies in the states. HHS agreed 

with our recommendation and indicated it will provide additional guidance to states and tribes 

concerning the ability to share information between TANF and child welfare agencies, although this 

recommendation has yet to be addressed. GAO-12-2. 

One of the four TANF purposes is to end dependence of needy parents 

on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and 

marriage; TANF's work participation rate requirement is in keeping with 

the purpose of helping parents prepare for and find jobs. PRWORA 

established higher work participation rate requirements and eliminated 

many exemptions from these requirements for recipients compared to 

what was in place prior to TANF.41

 

41 See 64 Fed. Reg. 17,720, 17,722 (April 12, 1999).

This reflected research that found that 

mandatory work requirements could reduce welfare receipt and increase 

Approach to 

Measuring Work 

Participation Has 

Limitations 

States Have Generally Met 

Work Participation Rates 

by Using Credits Allowed 

by Law
Page 16 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

employment among single mothers and help address concerns about 

long-term welfare receipt.42

Our work has shown that over the years, states have engaged about one 

third of families receiving TANF cash assistance in federally-defined work 

activities nationwide, both before and after the Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005 (DRA)

 

43 that reauthorized TANF and included provisions generally 

expected to strengthen the work requirements.44 States are generally held 

accountable for ensuring that at least 50 percent of all families receiving 

TANF cash assistance and considered work-eligible include an individual 

who participates in one or more of the federally-defined activities for the 

required number of hours each week. Federal law also provides that 

states may apply for a caseload reduction credit to reduce the required 

rate they must meet to avoid risk of financial penalties. In its final rule, 

HHS stated that the caseload reduction credit was created to ensure that 

states get credit for families that become self-sufficient and exit the 

welfare rolls.45

In our 2010 review of state participation rates post-DRA and our 2011 

update, we noted that most states have relied on a combination of 

factors, including caseload reduction credits and excess MOE, to meet 

their work participation rate requirements.

These requirements generally constitute minimum 

standards, and states are free to increase the requirements if they 

choose. For example, states may design their programs to have a more 

restrictive set of allowable activities or require more hours of participation 

than the federal standard. 

46

 

42 For a summary of this research, see CRS, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF): Welfare-to-Work Revisited, R42768 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2, 2012). 

The factor that states have

commonly relied on to help them meet their required work participation 

rates is the caseload reduction credit. Specifically, decreases in the 

43 Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006). 

44 GAO-10-525. 

45 64 Fed. Reg. 17,720, 17,783 (April 12, 1999). The caseload reduction credit is provided 

to states based on overall caseload declines and does not take into account the 

employment or income status of families exiting the program. A caseload decline may also 

be due to fewer families entering the program. In order for a state to get the credit, the 

caseload decline must not be due to policy changes. 

46 GAO-10-525 and GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families 

Served and Work Participation, GAO-11-880T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2011).
Page 17 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

numbers of families receiving TANF cash assistance over a specified time 

period are accounted for in each state’s caseload reduction credit, which 

essentially then lowers the states’ required work participation rate from 50 

percent.47 For example, if a state’s caseload decreases by 20 percent 

during the relevant time period, the state receives a caseload reduction 

credit equal to 20 percentage points, which results in the state work 

participation rate requirement being adjusted from 50 to 30 percent. 

Because of the dramatic declines in the number of families receiving cash 

assistance after TANF implementation, caseload reduction credits 

effectively eliminated work participation rate requirements in some states. 

For example, we reported that in fiscal year 2006, 18 states had caseload 

reductions that were at least 50 percent, which reduced their required 

work participation rates to 0. We noted that state caseload declines have 

generally been smaller after DRA changed the base year for measuring 

caseload reductions from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 2005, among 

other things.48 However, many states are still able to use caseload 

declines to help them lower their required work participation rates. For 

example, for the most recent data available in fiscal year 2009, 38 of the 

45 states that met their required work participation rates for all TANF 

families did so in part because of their caseload declines (see fig. 2).49

 

47 42 U.S.C. § 607(b)(3). 

48 For example, in fiscal year 2006 before the DRA changes were implemented, states’ 

caseload declines ranged from 11 to 91 percent, and 18 states had declines that were at 

least 50 percent, which reduced their required work participation rates to 0. However, in 

fiscal year 2007, following the implementation of the DRA changes, 3 states did not have 

caseload declines, and the declines in the remaining states ranged from 1 to 26 percent. 

49 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 modified the caseload reduction 

credit calculation for fiscal years 2009-2011, by allowing states the option to use the lower 

total number of cash assistance recipients in their state in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 

2008 as the comparison caseload for calculating the credit. For example, if a state had 

20,000 families receiving TANF cash assistance in fiscal year 2007, and 21,000 such 

families in fiscal year 2009, it could opt to use 20,000 for the purposes of calculating its 

fiscal year 2010 caseload reduction credit, resulting in a greater credit and a lower 

required work participation rate.
Page 18 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Figure 2: Factors That Helped States That Met Their Required Work Participation 

Rates in Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009

Additionally, we reported that while states’ caseload reduction credits 

before DRA were based primarily on their caseload declines, after DRA, 

states’ spending of their own funds on TANF-related services also 

became a factor in some states’ credits. Specifically, states are required 

to spend a certain amount of funds every year—their MOE funds—in 

order to receive all of their federal TANF block grant.50 However, if states 

spend in excess of the required amount (“excess MOE”), they are allowed 

to functionally increase their caseload reduction credits.51We reported 

that, in fiscal year 2009, 32 of the 45 states that met their required work 

participation rates for all families receiving cash assistance claimed 

excess MOE toward their caseload reduction credits. In addition, 17 

states would not have met their rates without claiming these expenditures 

(see fig. 2).

 

50 42 U.S.C. § 609(a)(7). To receive all of its annual federal TANF block grant, each state 

is generally required to spend 75 or 80 percent of what it was spending in fiscal year 1994 

on certain welfare-related programs, including AFDC, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills 

Training, Emergency Assistance, and welfare-related child care programs. 

51 45 C.F.R. § 261.43. When calculating the caseload reduction credit, federal regulations 

allow a state that spent in excess of its required amount in the year preceding the current 

one to include only the pro rata share of the total number of families receiving statefunded cash assistance required to meet the state’s basic requirement. 
Page 19 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

In 2010, we concluded that because of the various factors that affect the 

calculation of states’ work participation rates, the rate’s usefulness as a 

national performance measure for TANF is limited, and changes intended 

to improve data quality may be creating new challenges for states.52 In 

addition to the caseload reduction credits and excess MOE discussed 

above, we reported that some states have made changes to their TANF

programs that may affect which families are counted in their work 

participation rates, such as providing some families assistance in nonTANF programs, discussed in the next section. Given these various 

factors, we have noted that the work participation rate does not allow for 

clear comparisons across state TANF programs or comparisons of 

individual state programs over time. This is the same conclusion we 

reached in our 2005 report that recommended changes to improve this 

measure of states’ performance.53 In that report, we found differences 

across states that contributed to an inconsistent measurement of work 

participation. For example, we found that some states reported the hours 

recipients were scheduled to work, rather than those actually worked, as 

work participation. DRA contained changes generally expected to 

increase internal controls and improve data quality, however it also 

created new challenges for states. In our 2010 review of work 

participation rates, many states cited challenges in meeting work

performance standards under DRA, such as new requirements to verify 

participants’ actual activity hours and certain limitations on the types and 

timing of activities that count toward meeting the requirements.54

 

52

Local 

TANF officials noted that verification of TANF families’ work participation 

requires significant time and collaboration between TANF staff and 

employers and other staff at work activity sites. Because of this, some 

noted that they have had to designate or hire specific staff to manage the 

tracking and verification of families’ work participation, and yet these 

activities also remain a routine part of all local TANF staff’s 

responsibilities. We concluded at the time that the TANF work 

participation rate requirements may not yet have achieved the appropriate 

balance between flexibility for states and accountability for federal TANF 

goals.

GAO-10-525. 

53 GAO, Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF Work 

Participation Is Measured Consistently across States, GAO-05-821 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 19, 2005). 

54 GAO-10-525. 

Measure Has Limitations 

as a National Performance 

Measure for TANF
Page 20 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Work participation rate requirements can play an important role in 

encouraging states to move TANF recipients into work; however, our 

work indicates some ways that current policies may be discouraging 

states from engaging some TANF recipients with complex needs and 

from providing an appropriate mix of activities.55 According to the 

preamble to a TANF final rule from 1999, several provisions of the law, 

including time limits, higher participation rate requirements, and fewer 

individual exemptions from participation requirements, taken together, 

signal that states must broaden participation beyond the "job ready."56

However, some state TANF officials we interviewed for a 2012 report said 

the pressure to meet TANF work participation rate requirements causes 

them to focus on the “ready to work” cash assistance population, which 

can leave the “harder-to-serve” population without services.57 States may 

generally only count a family’s participation in job readiness assistance, 

which can include mental health and substance abuse treatment, towards 

the work participation rate for six weeks in a year.58 A 2012 MDRC study 

conducted for HHS suggested that combining work-focused strategies 

with treatment or services may be more promising than using either 

strategy alone, especially for people with disabilities and behavioral 

health problems.59

 

55 See 

Additionally, we have reported that some states find 

the restrictions on the amount of time they are allowed to count vocational 

educational training towards the work participation rate to be a challenge. 

State TANF administrators have expressed concerns that the 12-month 

lifetime limit on vocational educational training may be insufficient for 

TANF participants to progress to higher-wage employment that will 

prevent them from needing assistance in the future. Officials we 

interviewed more recently also noted that the restrictions may not match 

GAO-10-525 for information on states’ perspectives on a range of issues related to 

meeting work participation rates after the DRA changes. 

56 64 Fed. Reg. 17,720, 17,722 (April 12, 1999).

57 GAO-13-33. 

58 While the time limit on job search and job readiness assistance is generally 6 weeks, 

states can extend this limit to 12 weeks under certain circumstances. Specifically, 

individuals qualify for the extended limit if the state meets specific criteria related to 

increases in unemployment or participation in SNAP. 42 U.S.C. § 607(c)(2)(A)(i). 

59 MDRC, What Strategies Work for the Hard-to-Employ? Final Results of the Hard-toEmploy Demonstration and Evaluation Project and Selected Sites from the Employment 

Retention and Advancement Project, OPRE Report 2012-08 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 

2012).

States May Not Serve 

Some Families that are Not 

Work-Ready
Page 21 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

the needs of workers who lost jobs during the recession, who may require 

more education or retraining to find a new job.60 Finally, we have reported 

that many states choose to provide cash assistance to two-parent families 

outside of TANF. State officials have told us that two-parent families often 

have as many or more challenges as single parents, and states’ work 

participation rate requirement for two-parent families is 90 percent minus 

any caseload reduction credit the state receives. In 2010, we reported 

that 28 states provide cash assistance to two-parent families through 

separate programs funded solely with state dollars, and that families for 

whom states use these programs to provide cash assistance are those 

that typically have the most difficulty meeting the TANF work 

requirements. 

In view of our prior work that has identified limitations in the work 

participation rate’s usefulness, potential options are available that may 

motivate states to engage more families in work activities and provide a 

more accurate picture of state performance (see table 2).

61

 

60 GAO-12-408. 

61 Our previous work has highlighted the importance of measuring performance to allow 

organizations to track the progress they are making toward their goals and provide crucial 

information for decision-making. We also noted that performance measures can create 

powerful incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior. Monitoring such 

information would allow for assessments of the quality of performance over time and 

ensure that any issues warranting attention are promptly resolved. GAO, Executive Guide: 

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GGD-96-118 

(Washington, D.C.: June 1996) and GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Some Potential Options
Page 22 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Table 2: Selected Potential Options Related to TANF Work Measures

If the objective is to:

 a

Potential options Some considerations 

Better ensure that states 

engage a specified 

percentage of TANF 

recipients in work or workrelated activities 

Eliminate or limit the caseload 

reduction credit.

Eliminating credits could focus states on achieving work goals directly, 

since these credits effectively lower the work participation standard 

states currently face. 

Without the credit, states may have difficulty achieving their required 

work participation rates and would likely need to shift TANF funds 

currently spent in other areas to increase spending on work-related 

activities for the cash assistance population.b 

Eliminate or limit the use of 

excess MOE to increase states' 

caseload reduction credits.

States may also find ways 

to meet the rates without increasing the number of recipients engaged in 

activities, such as by serving more families outside of TANF with state 

funds not counted toward their maintenance of effort requirement. 

In addition to focusing states on achieving work goals directly, this would 

also address some concerns about MOE discussed in the next section.

Limiting use of excess MOE would no longer provide, in effect, “extra 

credit” for states that spend more than required to provide assistance to 

needy families.

Reduce the reporting 

burden on state program 

staff while maintaining 

sufficient internal controls 

Reconsider the specific 

procedures currently required to 

verify TANF recipients’ actual 

activity hours. 

Adjustments could allow caseworkers to spend less time documenting 

individual activity hours and devote more time to helping families move 

to work and self-sufficiency. This may be particularly beneficial given 

recent state budget constraints which have resulted in more TANF 

cases per worker in some areas.

Any adjustments to current verification procedures would need to 

consider the circumstances that led to the increased requirements under 

DRA, including lack of adequate internal controls in some states. For 

example, we mentioned above that some states counted participants' 

scheduled hours, regardless of their actual level of attendance.

Better ensure that states 

engage TANF recipients 

that are not work-ready 

c 

Allow some activities to count 

towards the work participation 

rate with fewer restrictions, if 

monitored.

Reducing restrictions on states’ ability to count certain activities toward 

the work participation rate, such as substance abuse and mental health 

treatment, and adjusting the number of activity hours required may 

provide states more flexibility to serve families with complex needs. 

Additionally, easing time limits for activities such as vocational 

educational training may more accurately reflect the efforts of states that 

currently provide these activities even when they are not counted toward 

the work participation rate requirement and possibly encourage states to 

provide more intensive training when needed that may result in 

improved employment outcomes.

Increasing the range of activities and amount of time some activities 

may count toward a state's work participation rate could change TANF's 

current emphasis on engaging recipients in work or work-related 

activities while they are receiving cash assistance.

d In addition, reducing 

restrictions could possibly result in some of the shortcomings identified 

in its predecessor program, such as education and training placements 

that did not lead to work.e This would increase the importance of 

ensuring that participants are making satisfactory progress in these 

activities. In addition, if states provide more education and training 

activities to cash assistance recipients, this may increase the 

attractiveness of TANF and increase cash assistance receipt, as some 

individuals seek the education, training, and support services offered.
Page 23 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

If the objective is to: Potential options Some considerations 

Eliminate the 90 percent 

participation rate requirement for 

two-parent families.

As states have sometimes served these families outside of their TANF 

programs and may not have involved them in job preparation or 

employment services, this change may better ensure that states help the 

adults in these families prepare for and find employment.

Two-parent families are included in the 50 percent work participation 

rate that applies to all families. The higher two-parent work participation 

rate reflects an expectation that families with two work-eligible adults 

should contribute a greater work effort than families with one; eliminating 

the two-parent rate would reduce this expectation.

Replace the caseload reduction 

credit with an employment 

credit. 

Pressure to meet work participation rates may discourage states from 

serving those with barriers to employment, and eliminating the caseload 

reduction credit could exacerbate this further. If Congress wants to 

retain a credit to provide states more flexibility in meeting the rate, other 

options may be available. For example, one substitute may be an 

employment credit that rewards states based on the extent to which 

families leaving welfare include an employed adult. 

However, the implications of an employment credit have not been fully 

explored and could have unintended consequences, such as 

discouraging states from serving participants that are hard to employ. 

Supplement or replace 

the work participation rate 

to increase focus on 

employment outcomes 

Develop an additional or 

alternative set of performance 

measures such as job 

placement, job retention, and 

earnings increases.

States could be given more flexibility on allowable activities, but be held 

accountable for longer-term outcomes. This option could also reduce 

administrative burden on states by de-emphasizing verification of 

participants’ actual activity hours. Additionally, employment-based 

outcome measures could align TANF’s measures more closely with 

those of workforce programs, which could help ease coordination with 

workforce agencies.

Any employment outcome measures would need to be carefully 

developed. Prior to DRA, HHS awarded states performance bonuses 

based in part on employment outcomes. These bonuses were 

discontinued by DRA in part because these broad outcome measures 

could not be tied to what states were doing in their TANF programs.

f

g

Employment outcomes can be affected by many factors outside of the 

control of TANF programs, including the state of the economy. 

Additionally, research on performance measures has noted that 

outcome measures can be particularly susceptible to manipulation of 

who is counted in the measure. As a result, extra efforts would be 

needed to ensure that states met the needs of participants with 

significant barriers to employment. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant prior GAO reports and transcripts from congressional hearings related to TANF convened from 2009 

through 2012. 

a

In this report, GAO is not recommending or endorsing the adoption of any particular policy option or 

package of options. Rather, we identify them as potential options for Congress to consider, along with 

other relevant proposals, as it prepares to extend or reauthorize the TANF program.

b

Research on welfare-to-work programs indicates that states may not be able to achieve a 50 percent 

monthly participation rate without credits, so phasing out credits may also require re-examination of 

the target participation rate. According to an MDRC report, even in well-run programs a substantial 

number of recipients will be unable to participate in work activities at any given time, so in order to 

engage 50 percent or more of the caseload for the required hours, programs must involve nearly 

everyone on the caseload. MDRC, What Works in Welfare Reform: Evidence and Lessons to Guide 

TANF Reauthorization (New York, NY: June 2002).

c

GAO-05-821. 
Page 24 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

d

According to CRS, TANF work rules emphasize that adult recipients should be directly engaged in 

work or activities that emphasize quick attachment to the labor force while also allowing states to get 

credit for recipients who combine work with education. CRS, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF): Welfare-to-Work Revisited, R42768 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2, 2012).

e

See GAO, Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing Job Placement, GAOHEHS-95-113 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1995). 

f

Prior GAO work has cited differing performance measures as a barrier to increased coordination 

between agencies that administer TANF and Workforce Investment Act programs. See GAO, 

Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers is 

Increasing, but Challenges Remain, GAO-02-500T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2002) and Multiple 

Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating 

Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2011).

g

CRS, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112th Congress 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 2011). 

Additional information may be needed before adopting any of these 

potential options. The work participation rate is complex and has affected 

significant state policy decisions. Any adjustment to or replacement of the 

measure would likely have a profound impact on state TANF programs. 

For example, introducing an employment credit would constitute a 

significant change in the way states may meet work participation 

requirements, but the effects this approach would have on participation 

rates and state TANF programs are unknown. Additionally, it is difficult to 

anticipate ways that the potential options may interact with one another. 

We have reported that allowing states to test approaches can foster 

innovation and help identify possible unintended consequences.62

Members of Congress have raised concerns about a 2012 announcement 

by HHS that the agency would use waiver authority to allow states to test 

various strategies, policies, and procedures designed to improve 

employment outcomes for needy families.63

 

62 GAO, Human Services Programs: Opportunities to Reduce Inefficiencies, 

The potential for waivers 

remains controversial and the House of Representatives passed a bill in 

GAO-11-531T (Washington, D.C., Apr. 5, 2011). 

63 HHS made this announcement in a July 2012 Information Memorandum, Transmittal 

No. TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03. On September 4, 2012, we held that this Information 

Memorandum constitutes a rule and is subject to the Congressional Review Act’s 

requirement that it be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before taking 

effect. See B-323772, Sept. 4, 2012. Questions have been raised about the extent of 

HHS’s authority to take this action; however, neither this report nor our recently issued 

products, B-323772, Sept. 4, 2012 or GAO-12-1028R, Sept. 19, 2012, address whether 

the Information Memorandum is a valid interpretation of statutes or regulations. Some 

members of Congress, including Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin 

Hatch and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, have expressed 

concerns that these waivers would weaken TANF work requirements, and the House of 

Representatives passed a resolution of disapproval in 2012 related to the rule. 
Page 25 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

2013 aimed at preventing HHS from implementing them.64 According to 

HHS, as of February 25, 2013, no state had formally submitted a request 

for a waiver related to TANF work requirements. Still, state experience 

with many of the potential options outlined above could provide valuable 

information to policymakers about the effects of changes if they choose to 

alter the work participation rate as it is currently implemented.65 If 

Congress wanted to make changes, it could set parameters for testing 

some approaches through pilots in selected states, for example, to gather 

additional information for considering changes to TANF that would 

maintain or improve its focus on work and self-sufficiency.66

We reported in 2012 that the TANF block grant has evolved into a flexible 

funding stream that states use to support a broad range of allowable 

services, but the accountability framework currently in place in federal law 

and regulations has not kept pace with this evolution.67

 

64 Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013, H.R. 890, 

113th Cong. (2013). 

 Declining cash 

assistance caseloads freed up federal TANF and state MOE funds for 

states, and over time, states shifted spending to other forms of aid, which 

we refer to as non-cash services. Non-cash services can include any 

65 For example, in 2011, Congress renewed HHS’ authority to issue waivers to allow 

states more flexibility in their use of federal foster care funds, and we noted that the 

waivers may provide useful information about the effects of state policy choices on 

program outcomes and costs. See GAO, Child Welfare: States Use Flexible Federal 

Funds, But Struggle to Meet Service Needs, GAO-13-170 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 

2013). 

66 We have previously reported on the importance of engaging Congress in identifying 

management and performance issues to address. We noted that, in order for performance 

improvement initiatives to be useful to Congress for its decision making, it is critical to 

garner congressional buy-in on what to measure and how to present this information. 

GAO-11-617T. 

67 GAO-13-33.

Information Available 

to Assess Recent 

Trends in TANF 

Spending is Limited 

Performance Information 

for Non-Cash Services is 

Incomplete 
Page 26 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

other services meeting TANF purposes, such as job preparation activities, 

child care and transportation assistance for parents who are employed, 

out-of-wedlock pregnancy prevention activities, and child welfare 

services, as well as some cash benefits such as non-recurring short-term 

benefits and refundable tax credits to low-income working families.68 In 

fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent about 23 percent of federal 

TANF and state MOE funds on non-cash services. In contrast, states 

spent almost 64 percent of federal TANF and state MOE funds for these 

purposes in fiscal year 2011. However, there are no reporting 

requirements mandating performance information specifically on families 

receiving non-cash services or their outcomes. There is also little 

information related to TANF’s role in filling needs in other areas like child 

welfare, even though this has become a more prominent spending area 

for TANF funds in many states. We reported that while states prepare 

state plans and expenditure reports that individually provide some 

information on non-cash services, even when considered together, these 

do not provide a complete picture on state goals and strategies for uses 

of TANF funds. For instance, we noted that state plans currently provide 

limited descriptions of a state’s goals and strategies for its TANF block 

grant, including how non-cash services fit into these goals and strategies, 

and the amount of information in each plan can vary by state. We 

reported that HHS is taking some steps to improve expenditure reports 

from states.69 Still, we concluded that without more information that 

encompasses the full breadth of states’ uses of TANF funds, Congress 

will not be able to fully assess how funds are being used, including who is 

receiving services or what is being achieved. We included a Matter for 

Congressional Consideration regarding ways to improve reporting and 

performance information, though Congress has not yet enacted such 

legislative changes.70

 

68 While we refer to nonassistance as “non-cash services,” some portion of spending in 

this category includes some cash benefits, such as those mentioned above as well as 

costs that may not be considered services, such as administration and systems costs.

 

69 GAO-13-33. We recommended that as HHS takes steps to revise expenditure reporting 

for TANF to better understand how states use TANF funds, it should develop a detailed 

plan with specific timelines to assist in monitoring its progress for revising its financial 

reporting categories for expenditures of federal TANF and state MOE funds. 

70 We noted that generally HHS has limited authority to impose new TANF reporting 

requirements on states unless directed by Congress, so many changes to the types of 

performance information that states are required to report would require congressional 

action. 
Page 27 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Increases in the expenditures states have claimed as MOE, including 

expenditures by third parties, may warrant additional attention. We 

reported in 2012 that MOE is now playing an expanded role in TANF 

programs.71 As shown in figure 3, according to HHS data, until fiscal year 

2006, MOE levels remained relatively stable, hovering around the 80 

percent required minimum or the reduced rate of 75 percent for states 

that met their work participation rate requirements.72

• Many states claimed additional MOE to help them meet the work 

participation rate requirements, as discussed above. 

From fiscal years 

2006 through 2009, they increased each year. We reported that several 

reasons account for the increase during this period:

• During the recession states accessed TANF Contingency Funds, 

which required them to meet a higher MOE level, and Emergency 

Contingency Funds, which required them to have had increases in 

certain expenditures or in the number of families receiving cash 

assistance. 

• An interim rule temporarily broadened the types of activities on which 

states could spend state funds and be countable for MOE purposes.73

We noted that this greater emphasis on the use of MOE increases the 

importance of understanding whether effective accountability measures 

are in place to ensure MOE funds are in keeping with requirements. 

 

 

71 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort 

Requirements and Trends, GAO-12-713T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2012). 

72 To receive all of its federal TANF funds, a state must generally spend state funds in an 

amount equal to at least 80 percent (75 percent if it meets work participation 

requirements) of the amount it spent on certain welfare and related programs in fiscal year 

1994. 42 U.S.C. § 609(a)(7).

73 Between the interim rule issued in 2006 and the final rule issued in 2008, HHS allowed 

states to claim total expenditures related to TANF purposes three and four—the 

prevention and reduction of out-of wedlock pregnancies and the formation and 

maintenance of two-parent families. These expenditures did not need to be directed solely 

at “eligible families,” and states had significant flexibility to determine allowable 

expenditures in those areas. The final rule issued in 2008 limited the types of expenditures 

that states may count in these areas for individuals that do not meet the “eligible families” 

definition to those “healthy marriage” and “responsible fatherhood” activities specified in 

federal law. 

Questions Exist on 

Whether Increases in State 

MOE Reflect New 

Spending on Low-Income 

Families
Page 28 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Figure 3: State MOE Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2011

Note: State MOE requirements are generally 80 percent (75 percent if the state meets its work 

participation rate) of the amount they spent on certain welfare and related programs in fiscal year 

1994, before TANF was created. Not all states had implemented TANF for the full fiscal year in 1997. 

These recent increases in state MOE have raised questions about how to 

ensure that state expenditures represent a sustained commitment to 

spending in line with TANF purposes. We noted in 2012 that if MOE 

claims do not actually reflect maintaining or increasing service levels, lowincome families and children may not be getting the assistance they need 

and federal funds may not be used in the most efficient manner.74

However, the recent increases in state MOE spending which states have 

used to access contingency funds and meet work participation rate 

requirements may not represent new state spending. For example, 

officials in one state told us in 2012 that they began claiming MOE 

expenditures for an existing state early-childhood education program for 

needy families in fiscal year 2008.75

 

74

Officials in two other states said they 

hired consultants during the economic downturn to identify opportunities 

to claim MOE expenditures from existing state programs that were not 

GAO-12-713T. 

75 GAO-13-33. 
Page 29 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

originally used for TANF purposes. For example, one state found that 

many of its programs could be counted under TANF as “prevention of outof-wedlock pregnancies” so it claimed funds spent on these programs as 

MOE. 

Additionally, we reported in 2012 that many states have recently begun to 

count third party nongovernmental expenditures to help meet TANF MOE 

spending requirements.76 In addition to its own spending, a state may 

count toward its MOE certain in-kind or cash expenditures by third 

parties—such as nongovernmental organizations—as long as the 

expenditures meet other MOE requirements, including those related to 

eligible families and allowable activities.77 We reported that between fiscal 

years 2007 and 2011, about half of all states reported counting third party 

nongovernmental expenditures toward MOE in at least one year, and 17 

states reported that they intend to count these expenditures in the future. 

Potential options are available to provide additional information on noncash services and state MOE expenditures that may be useful for making 

decisions regarding the TANF block grant and better ensure 

accountability for TANF funds (see table 3).78

 

76 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: More States Counting Third Party 

Maintenance of Effort Spending, 

In particular, requiring 

additional information on non-cash services would be consistent with our 

2012 Matter for Congressional Consideration on improving performance 

and reporting information. 

GAO-12-929R (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2012).

77 45 C.F.R. § 263.2(e). 

78 We previously reported on the trade-offs and challenges associated with performance 

accountability in federal grants, particularly the delicate balance between performance 

accountability and state and local grantee flexibility as well as a possible lack of 

consensus on goals and performance measures. However, we noted that because 

credible performance information and performance measures form the basis for wellfunctioning accountability provisions, it remains critical for Congress and the executive 

branch to continue to encourage the development and use of such measures. We 

discussed a number of opportunities for Congress and the executive branch to improve 

the design and implementation of performance accountability mechanisms in our report. 

GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could Lead 

to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2006). 

Some Potential Options
Page 30 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Table 3: Selected Potential Options to Better Understand Recent Trends in TANF Spending

If the objective is to:

a

Potential options Some considerations

Better understand how 

TANF funds are used to 

provide non-cash services

Require states to provide 

additional information on 

non-cash services in the 

TANF state plans they 

provide to HHS. 

Additional information could include a description of the services provided, 

the amount of money spent on those services, and the numbers of families 

served beyond the adult cash assistance population. This might be 

particularly appropriate when significant proportions of TANF funds are used 

in discrete areas, such as child welfare. 

However, we have also recognized that the need for additional performance 

information must be balanced with other considerations. Our previous work 

has noted that successful performance information systems take into 

account stakeholder concerns and real world considerations, such as the 

cost and effort involved in gathering and analyzing data, while striving to 

collect sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent data to be useful for 

decision makers.

Better understand 

expenditures states claim 

as MOE 

b

Request a review of state 

MOE expenditures.

Recent increases in state MOE spending raise questions about whether 

current MOE rules, guidance, and oversight are sufficient, and whether all 

claimed spending is allowable. We have not reviewed existing efforts to 

monitor MOE and cannot comment on their effectiveness. Given the 

increasing role of MOE, such a review may be warranted.

However, some questions surrounding the current use of MOE may be 

beyond the scope of any such study. These include issues that are more 

appropriate for congressional review, including: whether there is a need for 

further definition of what non-cash MOE expenditures constitute spending 

on needy families; and the appropriate role of third party nongovernmental 

expenditures, including whether there should be defined allowable activities 

or limits on the portion of MOE spending that may be comprised of these 

expenditures.

Source: GAO analysis of relevant prior GAO reports and transcripts from congressional hearings related to TANF convened from 2009 

through 2012. 

c

a

In this report, GAO is not recommending or endorsing the adoption of any particular policy option or 

package of options. Rather, we identify them as potential options for Congress to consider, along with 

other relevant proposals, as it prepares to extend or reauthorize the TANF program.

b

GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June, 1996).

c

Some concerns about whether states’ use of MOE is in keeping with expectations could also apply to 

states’ use of federal TANF funds. For more information on the purpose of state MOE and federal 

nonsupplant requirements generally, see GAO, Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a FederalState Fiscal Partnership, GAO-01-828 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 10, 2001). Nonsupplant requirements 

are generally aimed at helping to limit states’ abilities to use federal funds to replace rather than 

supplement their own spending. TANF includes a state MOE requirement but does not include a 

nonsupplant requirement; that is, it does not include a requirement that federal TANF funds not be 

used to replace state spending.

We have identified a number of potential options that could improve 

TANF performance and oversight as the program is currently designed, 

based on our prior work. These options are not intended to be exhaustive, 

and it is not the purpose of this report to recommend or endorse any 

particular policy option. In addition, there may be a number of other 

options that would warrant further analysis. However, it is clear that TANF 

has evolved beyond a traditional cash assistance program and now also 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 31 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

serves as a source of funding for a broad range of services states provide 

to eligible families. The past 16 years has shown many changes in how

states use TANF funds and the populations they serve. Any extension or 

reauthorization of TANF presents an opportunity to re-examine how it 

provides assistance to needy families and whether TANF, as currently 

structured, continues to address Congress’ vision for the program. 

We provided a draft of our report to HHS for review and comment. HHS 

provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix I. 

Sincerely, 

Kay E. Brown 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 32 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Gale Harris (Assistant Director), 

Nhi Nguyen, and Michael Pahr made significant contributions to all 

aspects of this report. Also contributing to this report were James 

Bennett, Caitlin Croake, Alexander Galuten, Almeta Spencer, and Walter 

Vance.

Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements 
Related GAO Products

Page 33 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: More Accountability Needed 

to Reflect Breadth of Block Grant Services. GAO-13-33. Washington, 

D.C.: December 6, 2012.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: More States Counting Third 

Party Maintenance of Effort Spending. GAO-12-929R. Washington, D.C.: 

July 23, 2012. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Program 

Performance. GAO-12-812T. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2012.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort 

Requirements and Trends. GAO-12-713T. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 

2012.

Unemployment Insurance: Economic Circumstances of Individuals Who 

Exhausted Benefits. GAO-12-408. Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2012.

TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data Sharing Could 

Improve Access to Benefits and Services. GAO-12-2. Washington, D.C.: 

October 7, 2011.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Served 

and Work Participation. GAO-11-880T. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 

2011.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Caseload and 

Program Changes for Families and Program Monitoring. GAO-10-815T. 

Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2010.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent 

Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work 

Participation Rates. GAO-10-525. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have 

Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact 

on Caseloads Varies by State. GAO-10-164. Washington, D.C.: February 

23, 2010.

Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in 

States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant. GAO-06-414. Washington, D.C.: 

March 3, 2006.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 34 GAO-13-431 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF 

Work Participation Is Measured Consistently across States. GAO-05-821. 

Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2005.

Means-Tested Programs: Information on Program Access Can Be an 

Important Management Tool. GAO-05-221. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 

2005.

Welfare Reform: Federal Oversight of State and Local Contracting Can 

Be Strengthened. GAO-02-661. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 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: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal 

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

(131227)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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 GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.