(351)

SECTION 7. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR

NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF)

CONTENTS

Brief Summary and History

Basic Outline of Program

Purpose

Allowed Uses of Block Grants

Major Conditions Attached to TANF Grants

Benefits

Child Care

Interaction with Other Major Benefit Programs

Privatization/Charitable Choice

Enforcement of Penalties Against States

State TANF Programs

State Plan Requirements

Brief Summary of TANF State Programs

Funding of TANF

Basic Family Assistance Grants

State Spending Requirement (MOE)

Supplemental Grants to States with High Population

Growth and/or Low AFDC-Related Federal Spending

Per Poor Person

Welfare-to-Work Grants

Contingency Fund

Loan Fund

Bonus Funds

TANF for Indians

AFDC/TANF Data

Highlights

Caseloads

Benefits

Break-Even Levels

Uses of TANF Funds

Expenditures

Work Activities and Participation

Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families

Composition of Families, 1969–98

Marital Status of Parents

Race and Ethnicity of AFDC/TANF Adults

Educational Attainment of TANF Adults

Living Arrangements of TANF Children

Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Grant Program

Welfare Dynamics

Duration Findings

Exits and Returns to AFDC/TANF

Selected Provisions of State TANF Programs

352

Legislative History

References

BRIEF SUMMARY AND HISTORY

Enacted in August 1996 after 2 years of debate, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public Law

104–193) repealed the 61-year-old program of Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC; see Committee on Ways and Means,

1998, pp. 401–405) and created the Block Grant Program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in its place. The law

entitles States to fixed block grants ($16.5 billion annually) for 6

years to operate programs of their own design, but imposes time

limits on receiving welfare without working, lifetime benefit time

limits, and minimum work participation rates. Within limits, it allows States to reduce their own spending on behalf of needy children. The 1996 law also sharply expands funding for child care.

Frustration with the character, size, and cost of AFDC rolls contributed to the decision by Congress to ‘‘end welfare as we know

it’’ in 1996. Enrollment had soared to an all-time peak in 1994, covering 5 million families and more than one-eighth of U.S. children.

More than half of AFDC children were born outside marriage, and

three-fourths had an able-bodied parent who lived away from

home. Almost half of the families had received benefits for more

than 5 years, counting repeat spells. Benefit costs peaked in fiscal

year 1994 at $22.8 billion ($12.5 billion in Federal funds, $10.3 billion in State/local funds). Some policymakers urged that Congress

put a cap on AFDC funds to control costs. Some maintained that

offering permanent help for needy children in single-parent families had encouraged family breakup, enabled nonmarital births,

and fostered long-term dependency.

Repeated efforts by Congress dating back to the 1960s to reduce

welfare use and promote self-sufficiency generally had been discouraging. Reform measures had included ‘‘rehabilitative’’ services;

work requirements, work rewards; education and training; support

services including child care; child support enforcement; and provisions to establish paternity of nonmarital children. In 1988, Congress enacted the Family Support Act, which stressed the mutual

obligation of government and welfare recipient to promote selfsufficiency of AFDC families. In the early 1990s many States received permission, through waivers from one or more AFDC Federal rules to test their own reform ideas—special behavioral rules,

rewards, penalties, and welfare-to-work (WTW) strategies. By early

1995, many Governors pressed for a cash welfare block grant to

free them from AFDC rules. The concept of a fixed block grant that

States could use for temporary and work-conditioned programs of

their own design was included in reform bills passed by Congress

in 1995 and 1996; both were vetoed. But a third bill that included

changes discussed during the 2 years of debate was enacted by

Congress in July 1996 and was signed by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. By the time of TANF’s passage, AFDC enrollment

had decreased to 4.4 million families. The mandatory start date for

TANF was July 1, 1997, but most States made the transition from

AFDC earlier.

353

TANF combined into a single block grant peak-year Federal

funding levels for AFDC benefits and administration and two related programs—Emergency Assistance to Needy Families (EA) and

the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS).

TANF entitles each State to an annual family assistance grant

equal to the largest yearly amount paid by the Federal Government

to the State for AFDC benefits and administration, EA, and JOBS

during the fiscal year 1992–95 period. From their own funds,

States are required to spend on needy families at least 75 percent

of their ‘‘historic’’ level, defined as fiscal year 1994 spending on programs replaced by TANF, including AFDC-related child care. This

is known as the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) rule. (If a State fails

to achieve a required work participation rate, its MOE rises to 80

percent.)

The 1996 welfare law also provided supplemental grants for

some States with above-average population growth and belowaverage fiscal year 1994 Federal welfare spending per poor person,

bonus funds for reducing nonmarital birth rates while also reducing abortion rates, bonus funds for high performance, and a contingency fund for States with failing economies. In 1997, Congress

added to TANF a special WTW Program of matching formula

grants and some competitive grants, with funding for fiscal years

1998 and 1999 only.

The TANF law makes family assistance grants available to the

outlying areas of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, all of

which participated in AFDC. American Samoa was eligible for

AFDC but did not operate the program; it could participate in

TANF under special rules that provide a 75 percent Federal match.

It also permits Indian tribes, defined to include Alaska Native organizations, to conduct their own tribal family assistance programs. Indian tribes had been excluded from operating AFDC, although some tribes conducted their own JOBS Program.

Major differences between TANF and AFDC include:

—Entitlement.—TANF expressly denies entitlement to individuals. Under AFDC, States were required to aid all families eligible under State income standards.

—Funding.—TANF law preappropriates a fixed family assistance

grant for each State, plus some extra funds. To avoid fiscal

penalties, States may not reduce their own spending by more

than 20–25 percent (MOE rule). States must provide matching

funds for WTW grants. AFDC law provided unlimited matching funds for AFDC and EA, but put a ceiling on matching

funds for JOBS.

—Time limit for benefits.—TANF sets a 5-year limit on federally

funded aid, with a 20 percent hardship exemption. AFDC had

no time limit.

—Work trigger.—TANF requires work (defined by the State) after

a maximum of 2 years of benefits. AFDC had no work trigger.

—Work requirement.—TANF requires a specified and rising percentage of the total caseload to engage in work activities listed

in the law. The JOBS Program had participation requirements,

but participation did not require work and about half the caseload was exempted.

354

1 Authorized by Public Law 105–277, job access grants are matching grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations for transportation services, including reverse commuter

projects for welfare recipients and other low-income persons (U.S. General Accounting Office,

1999).

—Eligibility.—TANF allows States to decide what categories of

families to aid. AFDC prohibited aid for children in two-parent

families unless the second parent was incapacitated or unemployed.

—Treatment of earnings.—Under TANF, States decide whether

to disregard some earnings as a work incentive, and, if so, how

much. AFDC law set rules about treatment of earnings.

Two basic program features of AFDC were retained by TANF.

States decide how needy families must be to receive aid, and States

establish maximum benefit levels (Burke, 1999).

BASIC OUTLINE OF PROGRAM

PURPOSE

Section 401(a) of the Social Security Act says that the purpose

of TANF is to increase flexibility of States in operating a program

designed to:

1. Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be

cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;

2. End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits

by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;

3. Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies

and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and

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

ALLOWED USES OF BLOCK GRANTS

The law provides that States may use their family assistance

grant ‘‘in any manner reasonably calculated’’ to promote any of the

four goals above. Expenditures for the first two goals must be made

on behalf of needy families, but spending aimed at the latter two

goals—reduction of nonmarital pregnancies and promotion of twoparent families—may be made for nonneedy families.

States also may use TANF funds to continue other activities not

related to the four program objectives that they were authorized to

undertake in individual State plans under AFDC, EA, or JOBS.

They may make limited transfers of TANF funds (totaling 30 percent) to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)

and the Social Services Block Grant (title XX), with the title XX

transfer no greater than 10 percent (4.25 percent effective October

1, 2000). They may use TANF funds (within overall transfer limits)

as matching funds for job access grants.1 The law also explicitly

permits States to use TANF funds to fund individual development

accounts established by persons eligible for TANF assistance.

Clearly, TANF is a funding stream for a variety of allowed purposes, not just a program of cash welfare aid.

TANF funds may be carried over from fiscal year to fiscal year

without limit. However, carried over funds may be spent only for

355

‘‘assistance.’’ The law does not define assistance, but final regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) restrict it to benefits designed to meet a family’s ‘‘ongoing basic needs’’ (that is, for food, clothing, shelter, utilities,

household goods, personal care items, and general incidental expenses) plus supportive services such as transportation and child

care for families who are not employed. Funds used for nonassistance (including nonrecurrent, short-term benefits, work subsidies,

and supportive services to employed families) must be obligated by

the end of the fiscal year for which they are awarded, and expended by the end of the next year.

TANF funds cannot be used to: fund activities required under the

State plans of child support enforcement or foster care and adoption assistance; finance the construction or purchase of buildings;

finance a funding deficiency in another Federal program; provide

medical services other than prepregnancy family planning services;

or assist a family that includes a person who, as an adult or minor

household head, has received 60 months of assistance.

Administrative costs may not exceed 15 percent except in the

case of expenditures for information technology and computerization needed for tracking or monitoring.

MAJOR CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO TANF GRANTS

TANF sets some eligibility/ineligibility conditions; it imposes

work rules and sets a 5-year time limit for federally funded benefits; it requires States to spend certain sums of their own funds on

needy families—MOE rule; it allows waiver from its rules under restricted conditions; and it requires States to report certain expenditure data and some data on recipient families.

Eligibility/ineligibility

A State may give TANF assistance to a family only if it includes

a minor child or pregnant person. To be eligible, families must assign child/spousal support rights to the State. Ineligible are unwed

mothers under 18 and their children unless they live in an adultsupervised arrangement (for good cause the State may waive this

rule) and (if a high-school dropout) attend school once their youngest child is 12 weeks old. Ineligible for 5 years are noncitizens who

enter the United States after the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act’s August 22, 1996 enactment.

States that use their own funds to help legal immigrants and

minor parents not living in an adult-supervised setting may count

this spending toward their required MOE. Also ineligible are fugitive felons and violators of probation/parole and, unless the State

opts out by State law, persons convicted of a drug-related felony for

conduct occurring after the law’s 1996 enactment.

Work rules

TANF law sets work trigger time limits, requires States to

achieve minimum rates of work participation, requires States to penalize work infractions by recipients, and sets fiscal penalties for

States that fail to achieve participation rates. The Labor Department has ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act (which governs

356

hours and wages) applies to most ‘‘workfare’’ programs in which

TANF recipients participate in exchange for their benefit.

Work trigger rule (State definition of work).—In their TANF

plans, States must outline how they intend to require parents and

other caretaker relatives who receive TANF assistance to engage in

work, as defined by the State, after a maximum of 24 months of

benefits or earlier. More than half of the States have adopted the

Federal maximum of 24 months as their work trigger time limit.

More than a dozen say they require immediate work activity, such

as job search. In many States the TANF recipient who takes a paid

job remains eligible for a reduced TANF benefit until reaching the

State’s absolute benefit cutoff; this is especially likely if the work

is part time and the wage rate is relatively low.

TANF law also sets a 2-month community service trigger, with

tasks and required hours to be decided by States, for recipients not

engaged in or exempt from work, but allows States to opt out by

notification of the Governor to DHHS. Only four States (Michigan,

New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) use this 2-month

workfare trigger; the others have opted out. However, some other

States specify that after a longer period unemployed TANF recipients will receive aid only if they perform community service or

other work in exchange for their benefits. For instance, California

allows aid beyond 18 months for those not otherwise working only

if the county determines that a job is unavailable and the recipient

participates in community services. Delaware and Pennsylvania

have similar requirements.

Minimum work participation rates (Federal definition of work).—

States must achieve minimum rates of participation by adult recipients (or teen parent recipients) of TANF assistance in one or

more of 12 activities listed in the statute. The statutory rates,

which began in fiscal year 1997 at 25 percent for all families and

75 percent for two-parent families, rose by stages to 40 percent and

90 percent, respectively, in fiscal year 2000; the all-family rate is

to climb to a final peak of 50 percent in fiscal year 2002. However,

the law requires DHHS to reduce a State’s required participation

rates if average monthly caseloads are below those of fiscal year

1995. For each percentage point drop in the caseload not attributed

to State policy changes, the required work rate is lowered by 1 percentage point. The caseload dropped so sharply between fiscal year

1995 and fiscal year 1997 that all States exceeded their adjusted

all-family target rates, which in some cases plunged to zero. However, 15 jurisdictions failed the higher two-parent work rate, even

after adjustment (table 7–21). A State’s monthly participation rate,

expressed as a percentage, equals: (1) the number of families receiving ‘‘assistance’’ that include an adult or minor head of household who is engaged in creditable work for the month, divided by

(2) the number of all families receiving assistance that include an

adult or minor household head recipient (but excluding families

subject that month to a penalty for refusal to work, provided they

have not been penalized for more than 3 months in the preceding

12 months; and excluding families with children under 1, if the

State exempts them from work). The same method is used to calculate participation rates of two-parent families.

357

Creditable work activities.—The creditable work activities can be

grouped by priority. In the first priority group are nine activities:

(1) unsubsidized employment; (2) subsidized private employment;

(3) subsidized public sector employment; (4) work experience; (5)

on-the-job training; (6) job search and job readiness assistance (6

weeks maximum of job search, with 12 weeks allowed under certain unemployment conditions); (7) community service programs;

(8) vocational educational training (12 months maximum); and (9)

providing child care for a community service participant. In the

second priority group are three activities: (1) job skills training directly related to employment; (2) education directly related to employment (high school dropout only); and (3) satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in an equivalent course of study (high

school dropout only). Not more than 30 percent of families may be

credited with work activity by reason of vocational education training or, if teens without a high school diploma, by reason of secondary school attendance or education directly related to employment.

Required hours of work participation.—To be counted as a work

participant, a TANF recipient generally must be engaged in one of

the above creditable activities for at least 30 hours per week, on

average, in fiscal years 2000–2002 (fewer hours were required in

earlier years), and 20 of those hours must be in one of the nine

high-priority activities. The law provides two exceptions to this

rule: (1) if a TANF recipient is the only parent or caretaker relative

of a child under age 6, she need work only 20 weekly hours, all in

high-priority activities; and (2) if a TANF recipient is a single teen

household head or married teen without high school diploma, he

may receive work credit by maintaining satisfactory high school attendance, or, for an average of at least 20 hours weekly, by engaging in schooling directly related to work. Special rules apply to twoparent families. They must work at least 35 hours weekly, with at

least 30 hours in high-priority activities (the two parents may

share the work hours). If the family receives federally funded child

care and an adult in the family is not disabled or caring for a severely disabled child, the shared work requirement rises to 55

hours, of which 50 hours must be in first priority activities. If the

second parent in a two-parent family is disabled, the State must

treat it as a single-parent family.

Penalties to enforce work rules.—TANF law prescribes penalties

against States that fail participation rates, and it requires States

to penalize recipients for work refusal. If a State falls short of the

required participation rate for a fiscal year, its family assistance

grant for the next year is reduced by 5 percent (first failure). For

subsequent years of failure, annual penalties rise by 2 percentage

points (thus, 7 percent in second year, 9 percent in third, etc.) with

a maximum penalty of 21 percent in any one year. However, the

law says that grant reductions shall be based ‘‘on the degree of

noncompliance,’’ and the Secretary may reduce the penalty if noncompliance was due to a specified high rate of unemployment or to

‘‘extraordinary circumstances, such as a natural disaster or regional recession.’’ Before assessing a penalty, the Secretary must

notify the State of its violation and allow it to enter into a corrective compliance plan. DHHS has indicated that most States that

358

failed fiscal year 1997 or 1998 two-parent work participation rates

have filed corrective action plans.

If an adult recipient of assistance refuses to engage in work, the

law requires the State to reduce aid to the family ‘‘pro rata’’ (or

more, at State option) with respect to the period of work refusal,

or to discontinue aid, subject to good cause and other exceptions

that the State may establish. However, a State may not penalize

a single parent caring for a child under age 6 for refusal to work

if the parent cannot obtain needed child care for a reason listed in

the law. The law does not define ‘‘pro rata’’ reduction, and the regulations do not prescribe a method. States have adopted various penalties for failing to comply with work requirements: about one-third

end the family’s benefit for a first violation; most make a partial

benefit cut (removing the adult from the grant); penalties are increased in size or duration for repeat violations.

TANF law also explicitly permits a State to reduce a family’s

benefit, by an amount the State considers appropriate, if a family

member fails without good cause to comply with an individual responsibility plan that she has signed. Most State TANF plans include use of individual responsibility plans that establish an employment goal, set forth obligations of the recipient, and describe

services to be provided by the State.

Nondisplacement.—A TANF recipient may fill a vacant position,

but may not be assigned to a position from which a worker has

been laid off.

Lifetime federally funded benefit time limit

A State may not use any part of its family assistance grant to

provide assistance to a family that includes a person, who as an

adult (or minor household head) has already received 60 months of

assistance. However, States may exempt 20 percent of the caseload

from the Federal time limit for ‘‘hardship’’ reasons or because the

family includes a person who has been ‘‘battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.’’ If a State uses its own funds for families that have

reached the Federal time limit, it may count the expenditures toward its MOE requirement.

States may establish their own time limits (within 60 months)

for use of Federal funds and (without limit) for use of their own

funds. Almost half the States have adopted limits shorter than 60

months. Some permit extensions, some provide exemptions (months

that do not count toward the time limit), and some continue children’s benefits indefinitely (Falk, 1998).

Family violence waivers

The 1996 law allows States to certify in their TANF plans that

they have adopted standards to screen and identify TANF recipients with a history of domestic violence, refer them to services, and

waive program requirements (including time limits and work rules)

in some cases. DHHS regulations allow a State that has adopted

the family violence option to receive ‘‘reasonable cause’’ exceptions

to penalties for failing work and time limit rules if the State had

granted domestic violence waivers that meet certain standards.

359

2TANF law does not define ‘‘family.’’ Instructions to the TANF regulations say that for reporting purposes family means all persons who receive assistance as part of the family under the

State TANF Program or the separate State program plus (if not included in the foregoing recipient group) parent(s), caretaker relative(s) and minor siblings of any child recipient, and anyone

whose income or resources would be counted in determining the family’s eligibility for or amount

of aid.

Data reporting

Regulations covering data reporting rules of the 1996 law took effect October 1, 1999. Before then, an Emergency TANF Data Report was used. The 1996 law requires States to collect on a monthly basis, and report on a quarterly basis, certain case-by-case information about families 2 receiving assistance (defined by regulation

as benefits for ongoing basic needs plus support services for nonemployed families) under the State program funded by TANF. Reports must provide some data for each family, each family member,

and each adult. Required data include amount of assistance and

type, type of family, cash resources, child support received (family

data); race/ethnicity, educational status, citizenship status (for each

family member); and marital status, employment status and earnings, and disability status (for each adult). Under DHHS regulations, if a State wishes to receive a high-performance bonus or

qualify for a caseload reduction credit (to lower its required work

participation rate), it must also file a similar quarterly case-by-case

report on families receiving assistance under separate State programs (SSPs), financed with MOE funds. Disaggregated (case-bycase) data also must be reported about families no longer receiving

assistance. Reports about closed cases are to show data for the last

month of assistance; States are not expected to track ex-recipient

families for these reports.

Also required are quarterly reports providing aggregated numerical totals, which may be based on sampling about families applying

for, receiving, and no longer receiving assistance under the State

TANF Program. In addition, if the State wants to qualify for a

high-performance bonus or a caseload reduction credit, it must submit quarterly reports on the State MOE Program.

Other required reports from States include: an annual report on

State TANF and separate State MOE Programs; a quarterly report

on expenditures; and, for States competing for an annual high-performance bonus, a quarterly report on measures of job entry and

success in the work force.

BENEFITS

Most States have continued pre-TANF maximum benefit schedules, although some have reduced benefits for families expected to

work (tables 7–9 to 7–13). Some States have increased benefits, including California, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Idaho. Two have

adopted bonuses, Oregon for cooperation with its work program

and West Virginia for marriage. Wisconsin and Idaho have ceased

adjusting benefits for family size. Most States have increased asset

limits and work incentives (the portion of earnings disregarded in

calculating benefits).

Under TANF more than 20 States have adopted formal policies

to divert applicants from enrollment. These States pay welfare diversion or welfare avoidance grants to help families meet temVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.007 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
360

porary emergencies. The grants are generally lump-sum payments,

usually with a maximum equal to several months of TANF benefits.

CHILD CARE

Unlike AFDC, which required States to guarantee child care for

recipients who needed it to work or study, TANF has no child care

guarantees. However, the 1996 welfare law expanded the Child

Care and Development Block Grant to pay for care for low-income

families. Appropriated for this new block grant was $13.9 billion

over 6 years, more than $4 billion above spending levels estimated

by the Congressional Budget Office for the repealed AFDC-related

child care programs. The law required States to integrate these

mandatory funds with CCDBG discretionary funds and authorized

$1 billion annually for fiscal years 1996–2002 for discretionary

funding. DHHS has designated the combined mandatory/discretionary child care grants as the Child Care and Development Fund

(CCDF). For more information, see the chapter on child care (Section 9).

INTERACTION WITH OTHER MAJOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS

Medicaid

Although the 1996 law repealed AFDC, it preserved AFDC eligibility limits for Medicaid use. States must provide Medicaid coverage and benefits to children and family members who would have

been eligible for AFDC as it existed on July 16, 1996. States may

lower AFDC income and resource standards to those in effect on

May 1, 1988 (continuing a provision of old law) and may increase

them by the percentage rise since July 16, 1996 in the Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers; they also may adopt more

liberal methods of determining income and resources (for example,

more generous disregard of earnings). In general, if a State’s TANF

eligibility limits are the same as or more restrictive than those of

AFDC on July 16, 1996, all TANF children and adults must receive

Medicaid. Also, all children born since September 30, 1983 are eligible for Medicaid if their family income falls short of the Federal

poverty level. The law permits States to end Medicaid for adults

who refuse TANF work requirements, but requires continued Medicaid for their children. The law also requires 12 months of medical

assistance to children and adults who lose TANF eligibility because

of earnings that lift counted income above the July 16, 1996, AFDC

eligibility limit.

Despite these provisions, an Urban Institute study found that

from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1997, when the average monthly number of AFDC/TANF families declined by 19 percent, the

number of AFDC/TANF children and adults enrolled in Medicaid

fell by 20 and 24 percent, respectively (Ku, 1999). The study, which

defined Medicaid enrollment as the unduplicated number of persons signed up for Medicaid at any time in the fiscal year, showed

that the number of children enrolled in Medicaid dropped by 2.3

million over the 2 years (to 9 million). In the same period the average monthly number of children enrolled in AFDC/TANF fell by 2

million (to 7.3 million). On December 6, 1999, DHHS announced in

361

the Federal Register (p. 69202) that it proposed to add three new

nonwork measures (including Medicaid coverage) to factors used to

determine high-performance TANF bonus awards to States.

Food assistance

TANF recipients not living with others automatically are eligible

for food stamps; States can opt to operate a simplified Food Stamp

Program under which they may apply many of their TANF rules

to determination of food stamp benefits for TANF families, so long

as the program does not increase Federal costs. TANF recipients

disqualified for violating TANF rules may be disqualified also for

food stamps. If a TANF household’s cash benefits are reduced for

noncompliance with TANF rules, the State may also reduce its food

stamp allotment by 25 percent, and may not increase food stamp

benefits to offset the cash loss.

TANF children automatically are eligible for free school meals

and other child nutrition programs. Women, infants, and children

enrolled in TANF automatically are income-eligible for the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC). These provisions continue AFDC policy.

Food stamp coverage is the second nonwork high-performance

bonus measure proposed by DHHS. Effective in bonus year 2001,

DHHS plans to base awards, in part, on the increase in the percentage of low-income working families with children who receive

food stamps. An Urban Institute study reports that only 42 percent

of eligible former cash welfare families received food stamps in

1997; their participation rate was similar to the traditionally low

rate of working poor families (Zedlewski, 1999).

Earned income credit (EIC)

States have authority to decide whether to count EIC payments

received by TANF recipients as income (the 1996 welfare law is silent on this issue). However, Public Law 105–34 prohibits EIC payments for TANF recipients whose earnings are derived from work

experience or community service.

PRIVATIZATION/CHARITABLE CHOICE

The 1996 law authorizes States to administer and provide TANF

services (and those under Supplemental Security Income) through

contracts with charitable, religious, or private organizations, a provision which often is called ‘‘charitable choice.’’ It authorizes States

to pay recipients by means of certificates, vouchers, or other disbursement forms redeemable with these organizations. Any religious organization with a contract to provide welfare services must

retain independence from all units of government and may not discriminate against applicants on the basis of religion. Furthermore,

States must provide an alternative provider for a beneficiary who

objects to the religious character of the designated organization.

The charitable choice/privatization provision of the 1996 welfare

law also covers food stamps and Medicaid, but it has not been implemented because food stamp and Medicaid law effectively require

eligibility to be determined by a public official. For background and

discussion of selected legal issues raised by charitable choice, see

Ackerman (1999).

362

ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES AGAINST STATES

Penalties for any quarter cannot exceed 25 percent of the basic

grant; unrecovered penalties must be carried forward into subsequent years. Penalty amounts are withheld from Federal block

grant payments to the State; States must replace withheld Federal

funds with their own funds. Here is an overview of the major penalties specified in the 1996 law:

—Failure to maintain a certain level of historic State spending.

If a State fails to maintain State spending equal to at least 75

percent of spending in 1994, the Secretary must reduce the following year’s TANF grant by the shortfall in MOE spending.

In addition, if the State received WTW grant funds for the

year, the Secretary must reduce the following year’s TANF

grant by the amount of those WTW funds.

—Failure to timely repay a loan from the Federal loan fund. The

Secretary must reduce the TANF grant for the next quarter by

the outstanding loan amount, plus the interest owed.

—Failure to comply substantially with child support enforcement

requirements. The Secretary must reduce the TANF grant for

each quarter of noncompliance as follows: first finding of noncompliance, by 1–2 percent; second consecutive finding, 2–3

percent; and third and later findings, 5 percent.

—Failure to replace Federal penalty funds with State funds. The

Secretary may reduce the next year’s TANF grant by the sum

of 2 percent of the grant and the amount of State funds equal

to the earlier grant reduction.

—Failure to maintain 100 percent of historic State spending

under the State TANF Program during a year in which the

State received contingency funds. The Secretary must reduce

the next year’s TANF grant by the total amount of contingency

funds paid to the State.

In the case of some violations of TANF law, the Secretary may

allow States to enter into corrective compliance plans or may allow

a penalty exemption on grounds of reasonable cause for the violation. Here are the violations that permit corrective compliance or

exemption:

—Failure to comply with the 5-year TANF benefit limit (5 percent maximum);

—Failure to enforce penalties required by the child support agency against TANF recipients who fail to cooperate with the

Child Support Program (5 percent maximum);

—Failure to submit a required report (4 percent; rescinded if the

State submits the report before the end of the next fiscal quarter);

—Failure to participate in the income and eligibility verification

system (2 percent maximum);

—Use of TANF funds in violation of the law (reduction of the

next year’s TANF grant by the amount of funds wrongfully

used; if the violation is found to be intentional, an additional

5 percent);

—Misuse of competitive WTW grants (an amount equal to the

misused funds);

363

—Failure to maintain aid for a single parent who cannot obtain

care for a child under 6 (5 percent maximum);

—Failure to reduce TANF aid for recipients who refuse without

good cause to work (not less than 1 percent or more than 5 percent).

STATE TANF PROGRAMS

STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

To be eligible for a family assistance grant, States must submit

each 2 years a TANF plan that contains required elements. The

plan must outline how the State intends to: (1) conduct a program

that provides cash assistance to needy families and that provides

parents with work and support services; (2) require a parent or

caretaker recipients to engage in work, as defined by the State,

after a maximum of 24 months; (3) comply with the requirement

for participation in creditable work activities by certain percentages of adult recipients; (4) take steps to restrict the use and disclosure of information about TANF recipients; (5) establish goals

and take action to prevent and reduce the incidence of nonmarital

pregnancies; and (6) conduct a program providing education and

training on the problem of statutory rape. Also, the document must

indicate whether the State intends to treat families moving into

the State differently from State residents, whether it intends to

provide aid to noncitizens, and if so, provide an overview of the aid.

The plan must contain certain certifications, including that the

State will operate a Child Support Enforcement Program and a

Foster Care and Adoption Program, that it will provide equitable

access to TANF for Indians who are not eligible for aid under a

tribal plan, and that it has established and is enforcing standards

and procedures against program fraud and abuse. The plan may

certify that the State has established and is enforcing standards

and procedures to screen and identify recipients with a history of

domestic violence and will refer them to services and waive some

program requirements for them in certain cases.

The law does not require the State plan to provide eligibility

rules for aid, benefit levels paid, the content of work programs, or

numerous other details. However, regulations that took effect October 1, 1999 stipulate that in order for State expenditures to count

toward the MOE requirement, the families aided must be financially eligible according to the appropriate income and resource

(when applicable) standards established by the State and contained

in its TANF plan. The preamble to the regulations states that in

order for a plan to be deemed complete, it must contain the financial eligibility criteria for eligible families in the State’s TANF Program and all State or local MOE Programs and a brief description

of the corresponding benefit provided under the TANF Program

with MOE funds.

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–220) allows a State to submit a ‘‘unified’’ plan to the ‘‘appropriate Secretaries’’ covering one or more Workforce Investment Act activities

or vocational education activities plus one or more work activities

authorized under TANF, food stamps, or numerous other programs.

The Secretary with jurisdiction over a program is authorized to apVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.007 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
364

prove the portion of the State unified plan dealing with that program (applying its plan requirements). A State with an approved

unified plan cannot be required to submit a separate plan for the

covered activity.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF TANF STATE PROGRAMS

On the basis of State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) plans, State welfare laws, and data collected under interim

reporting rules, the range of State programs is shown to be broad.

As noted earlier, many of the States have adopted time limits

shorter than the Federal 60-month limit. In 1999, many State legislatures liberalized some TANF rules, allowing more TANF recipients to engage in postsecondary education, receive transportation

support, and so forth. Some States increased maximum benefit levels. These changes were facilitated by abundant TANF funds and

by the dramatic cut in caseload numbers, which has sharply reduced effective work participation rates required for all families.

Table 7–33 shows major provisions of TANF Programs, State by

State.

For other summaries of TANF State Programs, see the State Policy Document Project of the Center for Law and Social Policy and

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.spdg.org),

the TANF annual report (U.S. Department, 1999), and the National Governors’ Association (1999).

FUNDING OF TANF

BASIC FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS

TANF’s basic block grant is the State family assistance grant,

which entitles the 50 States and the District of Columbia to a total

of $16.5 billion annually through fiscal year 2002. The 1996 law

preappropriated these funds. Distribution of the funds among

States is based on record high Federal payments made in immediately preceding years for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), EA, and JOBS. The law entitles States to the largest

of required Federal payments to States for these three programs

for:

—Fiscal years 1992–94, annual average;

—Fiscal year 1994, plus 85 percent of the amount by which EA

payments for fiscal year 1995 exceeded those for fiscal year

1994 if the State amended its EA plan in fiscal year 1994; or

—Fiscal year 1995.

Table 7–1 (column 2) shows the basic annual family assistance

grant for the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico,

Guam, and the Virgin Islands also are eligible to operate TANF

and receive a family assistance grant, but they operate under special funding rules and are not shown in the table (Section 12).

American Samoa, which never implemented AFDC, although eligible, could receive TANF funds at the old AFDC matching rate of

75 percent under section 1108 of the Social Security Act. However,

as of early 2000, it had not taken this option.

TABLE 7–1.—FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS AND REQUIRED STATE SPENDING UNDER TANF

[In thousands of dollars]

State Family assist- ance grant 75 percent of historic State spending 1 80 percent of historic State spending 1

Maximum child care

spending that can be

‘‘double-counted’’ toward both the CCDF

and TANF MOE

Minimum spe

needy famil

cannot be 

counted for 

both CCDF a

Alabama ................................................................................... $93,315 $39,214 $41,828 $6,896 Alaska ....................................................................................... 63,609 48,942 52,205 3,545 Arizona ...................................................................................... 222,420 95,028 101,363 10,033 Arkansas ................................................................................... 56,733 20,839 22,228 1,887 California .................................................................................. 3,733,818 2,732,406 2,914,566 85,593 2,Colorado .................................................................................... 136,057 82,871 88,396 8,986 Connecticut ............................................................................... 266,788 183,421 195,649 18,738 Delaware ................................................................................... 32,291 21,771 23,222 5,179 District of Columbia ................................................................. 92,610 70,449 75,146 4,567 Florida ....................................................................................... 562,340 370,919 395,647 33,416 Georgia ..................................................................................... 330,742 173,369 184,926 22,183 Hawaii ....................................................................................... 98,905 72,981 77,847 4,972 Idaho ......................................................................................... 31,938 13,679 14,591 1,176 Illinois ....................................................................................... 585,057 429,021 457,622 56,874 Indiana ..................................................................................... 206,799 113,525 121,093 15,357 Iowa .......................................................................................... 131,525 61,963 66,094 5,079 Kansas ...................................................................................... 101,931 61,750 65,866 6,673 Kentucky ................................................................................... 181,288 67,418 71,913 7,275 Louisiana .................................................................................. 163,972 55,415 59,109 5,219 Maine ........................................................................................ 78,121 37,778 40,296 1,750 Maryland ................................................................................... 229,098 176,965 188,763 23,301 Massachusetts .......................................................................... 459,371 358,948 382,877 44,973 Michigan ................................................................................... 775,353 468,518 499,753 24,411 

TABLE 7–1.—FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS AND REQUIRED STATE SPENDING UNDER TANF—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State Family assist- ance grant 75 percent of historic State spending 1 80 percent of historic State spending 1

Maximum child care

spending that can be

‘‘double-counted’’ toward both the CCDF

and TANF MOE

Minimum spe

needy famil

cannot be 

counted for 

both CCDF a

Minnesota ................................................................................. 267,985 179,745 191,728 19,690 Mississippi ................................................................................ 86,768 21,724 23,173 1,715 Missouri .................................................................................... 217,052 120,121 128,129 16,549 Montana .................................................................................... 45,534 15,689 16,735 1,314 Nebraska ................................................................................... 58,029 28,971 30,903 6,499 Nevada ...................................................................................... 43,977 25,489 27,188 2,580 New Hampshire ........................................................................ 38,521 32,115 34,256 4,582 New Jersey ................................................................................ 404,035 303,956 324,219 26,374 New Mexico ............................................................................... 126,103 37,450 39,947 2,895 New York ................................................................................... 2,442,931 1,710,795 1,824,848 101,984 1,North Carolina .......................................................................... 302,240 154,176 164,454 37,927 North Dakota ............................................................................ 26,400 9,069 9,674 1,017 Ohio .......................................................................................... 727,968 390,551 416,588 45,404 Oklahoma .................................................................................. 148,014 61,250 65,334 10,630 Oregon ...................................................................................... 167,925 92,255 98,405 11,715 Pennsylvania ............................................................................. 719,499 407,126 434,267 46,629 Rhode Island ............................................................................ 95,022 60,367 64,392 5,321 South Carolina .......................................................................... 99,968 35,839 38,229 4,085 South Dakota ............................................................................ 21,894 8,774 9,359 803 Tennessee ................................................................................. 191,524 82,810 88,331 18,976 Texas ......................................................................................... 486,257 235,725 251,440 34,681 Utah .......................................................................................... 76,829 25,291 26,977 4,475 Vermont .................................................................................... 47,353 25,653 27,364 2,666 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 158,285 128,173 136,718 21,329 Washington ............................................................................... 404,332 272,061 290,198 38,708 West Virginia ............................................................................ 110,176 32,701 34,881 2,971 Wisconsin .................................................................................. 318,188 169,229 180,511 16,449 Wyoming ................................................................................... 21,781 10,665 11,376 1,554 

Total ................................................................................. 16,488,667 10,434,961 11,130,625 887,607 9,

1 Fiscal year 1994 spending on AFDC, EA, JOBS, and AFDC-related child care.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

368

STATE SPENDING REQUIREMENT (MOE)

To avoid a loss of TANF funds, States must maintain their own

spending on families with children who are needy under State financial standards. The specified level is 75 percent of expenditures

made from State funds in fiscal year 1994 for AFDC, EA, JOBS,

and AFDC-related child care (80 percent if a State fails to meet

work participation minimums). Table 7–1 (columns 3 and 4) shows

the 75 and 80 percent maintenance-of-effort (MOE) levels by State.

At the 75 percent level, required spending by States totals $10.4

billion; at the 80 percent level, $11.1 billion.

Countable toward the MOE requirement are expenditures on

cash assistance, child care, education specifically for TANF recipients and not the general population, administrative costs, and any

other spending on activities that further the goals of TANF. These

expenditures can be made under the State’s TANF Program or an

SSP not subject to TANF work and time limit rules. However, for

spending not authorized under a State’s pre-TANF Programs, a

new spending test applies; countable toward MOE are only expenditures above the fiscal year 1995 level. To count toward the TANF

MOE, the State expenditure cannot be made as a condition of receiving funds from any Federal program such as Medicaid. A special exception to this rule applies to child care expenditures. State

spending for child care is countable toward the TANF MOE so long

as the funds are not used as the State match for the CCDF. To be

eligible for CCDF matching funds, States must first meet an MOE

requirement for CCDF. Column 5 of table 7–1 shows that a maximum of $0.9 billion in State child care expenditures can be counted

toward the TANF MOE as well as the CCDF MOE. Column 6

shows that a minimum of $9.5 billion in State expenditures on

needy families (the difference between columns 3 and 5) cannot be

counted toward both the TANF MOE and the CCDF MOE. States

that maintain child care spending at the higher of their 1994 or

1995 spending on the replaced programs are entitled also to extra

funds at the Medicaid match rate.

SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS TO STATES WITH HIGH POPULATION

GROWTH AND/OR LOW AFDC-RELATED FEDERAL SPENDING PER

POOR PERSON

For fiscal years 1998–2001, the TANF law appropriated a total

of $800 million for supplemental grants to States with high population growth and/or low fiscal year 1994 Federal spending per poor

person on programs ended by TANF.

For fiscal year 1998, the supplemental grant has been computed

as 2.5 percent of the amount required to be paid to the State under

AFDC, Emergency Assistance to Needy Families (EA), JOBS, and

AFDC-related child care in fiscal year 1994. In subsequent years,

it is computed as the prior year’s supplemental grant plus 2.5 percent of the sum of fiscal year 1994 base expenditures and the prior

year’s supplemental grant.

Automatic qualification

The law qualifies certain States automatically for supplemental

funds for each year from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001 on the

369

3The projections for fiscal year 2001 assume that all States that qualified for an increase in

the supplemental grant from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000 will qualify for an increase in

the supplemental grant from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. This differs from the projections made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (see Information

Memorandum TANF–ACF–IM–99–4), which assumes that only the States that automatically

qualify for supplemental grants will receive an increase in fiscal year 2001.

basis of historical data. These are States that meet at least one of

two conditions: (1) fiscal year 1994 Federal expenditures per poor

State resident on AFDC, EA, JOBS, and AFDC-related child care

(poverty count based on the 1990 census) were below 35 percent of

the corresponding national spending per poor person; or (2) the

State’s population grew more than 10 percent from April 1, 1990

to July 1, 1994. DHHS has determined that 11 States automatically qualify for supplemental funds for each year: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, and Texas.

Annual qualification

Other States may qualify only by meeting each of two conditions:

(1) Federal welfare expenditures per poor State resident (poverty

count based on the 1990 census) in the current year on programs

ended by TANF are below fiscal year 1994 national average comparable expenditures per poor person; and (2) during the most recent year with available data, the State’s population grew at a rate

above the national average. Further, to qualify for supplemental

funds on these grounds, States must have met the qualification criteria in fiscal year 1998. DHHS has determined that six additional

States qualified on these grounds in fiscal year 1998: Florida, Georgia, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Tennessee. If a

State does not meet these annual criteria in fiscal years 1999–

2001, it will continue to receive its prior year supplemental grant,

but that grant will not increase. In fiscal years 2000 and 2001,

Montana and New Mexico do not qualify for an increase in supplemental funds because their 1997–98 population growth rate failed

to exceed the national population growth rate.

Table 7–2 shows annual supplemental grants for fiscal year 1998

and projections of supplemental grants for fiscal years through

2001.3 Under current projections, the $800 million appropriation

will be sufficient to pay each State’s full supplemental grant in fiscal year 2001. However, current law provides no supplemental

grant for fiscal year 2002, the last year for which basic TANF

Block Grants are funded. As the table shows, more than half of the

17 supplemental grantee States are in the South. Not qualifying

are the remaining 34 States. Further, the law makes the territories

ineligible.

WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTS

The basic TANF Block Grant earmarks no funds for any program

component. In response to a Presidential budget proposal, the 1997

Balanced Budget Act established welfare-to-work (WTW) grants

(Sec. 403(a)(5)) as a component of TANF (for details, see below).

370

TABLE 7–2.—ESTIMATED SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS TO STATES WITH HIGH POPULATION

GROWTH AND/OR RELATIVELY LOW FEDERAL AFDC AND RELATED PROGRAM EXPENDITURES PER POOR PERSON, FISCAL YEARS 1998–2001

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1998 1999 2000 2001

Alabama ............................................ $2,671 $5,410 $8,216 $11,093

Alaska ................................................ 1,659 3,359 5,102 6,888

Arizona ............................................... 5,762 11,667 17,720 23,925

Arkansas ............................................ 1,497 3,032 4,606 6,218

Colorado ............................................ 3,268 6,617 10,051 13,570

Florida ............................................... 14,547 29,457 44,740 60,406

Georgia .............................................. 8,978 18,181 27,614 37,283

Idaho ................................................. 842 1,706 2,591 3,498

Louisiana ........................................... 4,100 8,303 12,611 17,027

Mississippi ........................................ 2,176 4,406 6,692 9,036

Montana ............................................ 1,133 1,133 1,133 1,133

Nevada .............................................. 899 1,821 2,765 3,734

New Mexico ........................................ 3,236 6,553 6,553 6,553

North Carolina ................................... 8,696 17,609 26,745 36,110

Tennessee .......................................... 5,193 10,516 15,973 21,565

Texas ................................................. 12,693 25,703 39,039 52,708

Utah ................................................... 2,096 4,245 6,447 8,704

Total ......................................... 79,447 159,720 238,599 319,450

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services and the Census Bureau. For fiscal years 1999–2001, estimates assume

that States that qualified for annual increases in grants in fiscal year 2000 also qualify for an annual

increase in fiscal year 2001.

CONTINGENCY FUND

The contingency fund provides capped matching grants for States

that experience high and increasing unemployment rates or increased food stamp caseloads. A total of $1.960 billion is appropriated to the contingency fund for fiscal years 1997–2001; the

1996 welfare reform law actually provided $2 billion in contingency

funds, but the $2 billion was reduced by $40 million in Public Law

105–89. To qualify for contingency funds, a State must meet one

of two criteria of ‘‘need’’: (1) its seasonally adjusted unemployment

rate averaged over the most recent 3-month period must be at least

6.5 percent and at least 10 percent higher than the rate in the corresponding 3-month period in either of the previous 2 years; or (2)

its food stamp caseload over the most recent 3-month period must

be at least 10 percent higher than the adjusted food stamp caseload

was in the corresponding 3-month period in fiscal years 1994 or

1995. For this purpose, fiscal years 1994 and 1995 food stamp caseloads are adjusted by subtracting noncitizens that would have been

ineligible for benefits had the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act’s ban on food stamp eligibility for

noncitizens been in effect in those years.

To qualify for the contingency fund, a State must meet a special

high MOE requirement. The required State spending level is highVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.007 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
371

er (100 percent of fiscal year 1994 spending on AFDC, EA, and

JOBS) than for the regular TANF MOE, and the categories of

countable spending are more restrictive. For the contingency fund

MOE, State spending on SSPs are not countable; spending must be

on the TANF Program. Further, TANF expenditures on TANF

child care are excluded from contingency fund countable spending

(and from the historic spending level base). If a State fails to maintain 100 percent of historic State expenditures under its TANF

Program during a year in which it receives contingency funds,

DHHS must reduce the State’s family assistance grant for the next

year by the amount of contingency funds.

The maximum sum available to a State from the contingency

fund is 20 percent of its State family assistance grant, and in each

month that it qualifies, a State may receive up to one-twelfth of its

maximum contingency grant. The State’s full year entitlement is

calculated by: (1) multiplying its countable expenditures above the

100 percent MOE level by the Medicaid matching rate and then (2)

multiplying the result by the proportion of the year (for example,

one-twelfth for 1 month; one-half for 6 months) that the State met

the needy State criteria.

A State’s full year entitlement to contingency funds can be determined only after the close of the fiscal year. It is based on its

countable expenditures, including those financed from contingency

fund advance payments; the number of months it qualified; and its

matching rate during the fiscal year. If a State received more in

advances than its full year entitlement, it must remit overpayments to the Treasury. Remittance of overpayments must be made

within 1 year after the State has not met the needy State criteria

for 3 consecutive months. These remittances are also increased by

an adjustment. This adjustment reflects a provision of Public Law

105–89 (the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997) that reduced

the contingency fund appropriation by $40 million and correspondingly increased required remittances by a maximum $2 million in

fiscal year 1998, $9 million in fiscal year 1999, $16 million in fiscal

year 2000, and $13 million in fiscal year 2001. Under this provision, each State’s remittance is increased by the lesser of its percentage share of total contingency fund entitlements multiplied by

that year’s increase in the required remittance or its contingency

fund entitlement.

LOAN FUND

TANF also provides a $1.7 billion revolving loan fund. States

may receive loans of maturities of up to 3 years, which must be repaid with interest. The interest rate for the loans is the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the

Federal Government. A State is ineligible for a loan if it is subject

to a penalty for misspending TANF funds.

BONUS FUNDS

Nonmarital birth rate reduction

The 1996 welfare reform law appropriates $100 million annually

for 4 years, fiscal years 1999–2002, for bonuses to a maximum of

five States (or outlying areas) that make the largest percentage reVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.007 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
372

duction in the nonmarital birth rate while also reducing abortion

rates. Awards are based on the most recent 2-year data available

from the National Center for Health Statistics, compared with that

for the previous 2-year period. Initial awards were made in 1999

to five jurisdictions (Alabama, California, District of Columbia,

Massachusetts, and Michigan), each of which received $20 million

for achieving the largest percentage reductions in out-of-wedlock

birth rates between 1994–95 and 1996–97. For further information

about nonmarital birth rates and the illegitimacy bonus, see Appendix M.

High performance bonus

The 1996 law appropriated $1 billion for bonuses averaging $200

million for each of 5 years to ‘‘high performing’’ States. It defined

a high performing State as one whose TANF performance score for

the previous year at least equaled a threshold set for that year by

the DHHS Secretary. It stipulated that State performance was to

be measured by a formula to be developed by the Secretary in consultation with the National Governors’ Association and the American Public Welfare Association (since renamed the American Public Human Services Association). The law said the formula was to

measure success in achieving ‘‘the goals’’ of TANF. DHHS subsequently announced that the high-performance bonus formula for

performance years fiscal years 1998–99 would be based on State

rankings (absolute and relative) on two work-related measures:

rates of job entry and success in the work force (job retention and

earnings gain). In late December 1999, DHHS announced that 27

States had been selected to share the first high-performance bonus

of $200 million. At the time the Department said that beginning

in performance year fiscal year 2001, it planned to add three new

performance measures to the bonus formula: ‘‘family formation’’—

improvement in the percentage of children below 200 percent of

poverty living in married couple families, enrollment in Medicaid

or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and enrollment in food stamps.

Winners of the first high-performance bonus, shown in table 7–

3, ranked among the top 10 States in at least one of the four categories. Bonuses ranged from $0.5 million in South Dakota for improvement in job entry to $45.5 million in California for both absolute and relative success in the work force. The States that ranked

the highest in each category were Indiana (job placement), Minnesota (job retention and earnings), Washington (biggest improvement in job placement), and Florida (biggest improvement in job retention and earnings).

373

4 Before enactment of TANF, American Indians or Alaska Natives (Indians, Inuit [Eskimos]

or Aleuts) received AFDC on the same terms as other families in their State, with benefits and

income eligibility rules set by the State and costs paid by Federal and State funds.

TABLE 7–3.—HIGH-PERFORMANCE BONUS AWARDS, FISCAL YEAR 1999

[In thousands of dollars]

State Total bonus

1998 performance 1998 performance improvement

Job entry Work force

success 1 Job entry Work force

success 1

Arizona .............. $2,707.7 .................. $1,981.5 .................. $726.1

California .......... 45,454.2 .................. 33,264.4 .................. 12,189.8

Connecticut ....... 2,376.8 .................. 2,376.8 .................. ..................

Delaware ........... 1,614.5 $943.7 .................. $670.8 ..................

Florida ............... 6,845.7 .................. 5,009.9 .................. 1,835.9

Hawaii ............... 881.1 .................. 881.1 .................. ..................

Illinois ............... 21,571.9 19,661.9 .................. .................. 1,910.0

Indiana ............. 8,792.2 6,949.9 1,842.4 .................. ..................

Iowa .................. 1,171.8 .................. 1,171.8 .................. ..................

Louisiana .......... 3,770.2 .................. .................. 3,770.2 ..................

Massachusetts .. 10,562.2 .................. .................. 10,562.2 ..................

Michigan ........... 2,531.3 .................. .................. .................. 2,531.3

Minnesota ......... 9,424.1 .................. 2,387.5 6,161.7 874.9

Nevada .............. 2,198.8 1,285.2 .................. 913.6 ..................

New York ........... 7,975.4 .................. .................. .................. 7,975.4

North Dakota .... 887.2 887.2 .................. .................. ..................

Oklahoma .......... 3,403.2 .................. .................. 3,403.2 ..................

Pennsylvania ..... 24,180.1 24,180.1 .................. .................. ..................

Rhode Island .... 2,495.0 .................. .................. 2,184.8 310.2

South Carolina .. 1,217.0 .................. 890.6 .................. 326.4

South Dakota .... 503.4 .................. .................. 503.4 ..................

Tennessee ......... 6,436.5 6,436.5 .................. .................. ..................

Texas ................. 16,341.5 16,341.5 .................. .................. ..................

Utah .................. 2,582.0 2,582.0 .................. .................. ..................

Washington ....... 10,616.7 .................. .................. 9,296.7 1,320.0

West Virginia .... 2,533.3 .................. .................. 2,533.3 ..................

Wyoming ........... 926.1 732.0 194.1 .................. ..................

Total ......... 200,000.0 80,000.0 50,000.0 40,000.0 30,000.0

1 To determine success in the work force, measures of job retention and earnings gain were weighted,

combined, and then reranked.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TANF FOR INDIANS

The 1996 welfare law gave federally recognized Indian tribes (defined to include certain Alaska Native organizations) the option to

design and operate their own cash welfare programs for needy children 4 with funds subtracted from their State’s TANF Block Grant.

In mid-February 2000, 22 tribal TANF plans were in operation,

covering approximately 4,480 families in 12 States, and 22 plans

374

were pending that would cover 78 more tribes and villages and

raise the total number of families served by tribal plans to 17,800.

The 1996 welfare law also appropriated $7.6 million annually for

6 years, fiscal years 1997–2002, for work and training activities to

tribes in 24 States that operated the repealed JOBS Programs (the

replacement program is called Native Employment Works (NEW)),

authorized direct Federal funding to recognized Indian tribes for

operation of Child Support Enforcement Programs, and set aside a

share of child care funds for Indian tribes. Further, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (Public Law 105–33), which established a 2-year

program of WTW grants to serve TANF recipients with impediments to work, reserved $30 million of its formula grants for Indian programs.

Tribal TANF Programs have several distinctive features, including:

—Work participation rates and time limit rules are set by the

Secretary of DHHS with participation of the tribe. The 1996

law exempts from the 60-month TANF benefit time limit any

month of aid during which the recipient lived on a reservation

(or in an Alaska Native village) of at least 1,000 persons in

which at least 50 percent of adults were unemployed;

—Tribal plans are for 3 years (rather than 2, as for States), and

contain many fewer required elements than State plans;

—DHHS has ruled that State funds contributed to an approved

tribal plan may be counted toward the TANF MOE level;

—The law gives explicit permission for State TANF Programs to

use money from a new loan fund for aid to Indian families that

have moved out of the area served by a tribal plan; and

—Tribal TANF regulations, issued February 18, 2000, and effective June 17, 2000, permit 35 percent of a tribal grant to be

used for administrative costs in the first year, 30 percent in

the second year, and 25 percent thereafter. State TANF Programs, however, may spend no more than 15 percent of their

grants on administration (with the exception of computerization expenses for tracking and monitoring.)

Data compiled by the Division of Tribal Services show that only

four tribal plans adopted the statutory work participation rate of

35 percent for fiscal year 1999. The others set lower participation

rates, ranging from 15 to 30 percent. However, most tribal plans

adopted the TANF 60-month lifetime benefit limit (two set a limit

of 24 months within an 84-month period, and one, a limit of 24 consecutive months within 60 months). DHHS reports that in fiscal

year 1998, more than 4,000 adults in tribal programs entered employment; another 4,000 achieved other program goals, such as

earning a high school diploma or general education degree or completing a training program

A tribe’s TANF grant equals Federal payments made to the State

for fiscal year 1994 for AFDC, EA, and JOBS that are attributable

to Indians in its service area. A tribe’s grant is smaller than the

sum spent on AFDC Indian children in fiscal year 1994 because it

lacks the State matching share. Although the existence of a tribal

program within a State reduces the State’s potential TANF caseload, States are not required to help fund the tribal plan. However,

some nine States do so for at least some of the tribal plans within

375

their borders (Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming). South Dakota says it

provides transition funds and training.

In 1999, Congress amended the law to permit tribal TANF Programs, like State programs, to reserve TANF funds for assistance

(aid for basic ongoing needs) in any future year (Public Law 106–

169). Final regulations for tribal TANF Programs were issued February 18, 2000 (Federal Register, 2000).

AFDC/TANF DATA

HIGHLIGHTS

Since Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with

children to cash aid in August 1996, AFDC/TANF rolls have continued to shrink, and work by families still on the rolls has doubled.

To promote work, State TANF Programs employ tough work sanctions, generous work rewards, ‘‘work first’’ policies, and welfare

avoidance (diversion) payments. Data reported by States indicate

that higher average earnings for those remaining on the rolls apparently have more than offset a slight drop in average benefits

(chart 7–6), that the percentage of welfare children cared for by a

nonrecipient (child-only cases) has increased, but that otherwise

the composition of TANF families resembles that of AFDC families

(table 7–27), and that the share of welfare adults who are nonwhites apparently has increased (table 7–28). National data are not

available about families who have left TANF, but studies indicate

that in some States from 50 to 65 percent of persons who leave

TANF have jobs then or a short time later (compared with a general work exit rate of almost 50 percent before TANF), that the

jobs generally pay wages slightly above the minimum, and that

about one-fifth or more of ex-recipients return to the rolls within

several months. (See Appendix L for review of TANF research.)

CASELOADS

Historical national trends

As table 7–4 shows, enrollment in family welfare, which soared

to an all-time peak in fiscal year 1994, has fallen to the lowest

level since the early 1970s. Some of the decline in the reported

caseload since 1996 represents families who were moved into separate State programs (SSPs) not subject to TANF rules. The proportion of U.S. children enrolled in AFDC/TANF hovered between 11

and 12 percent throughout the 1970s and 1980s and then soared

above 14 percent in 1993–94. Since then the share has been cut in

half, to an estimated 6.9 percent in September 1999.

Chart 7–1 shows that the number of AFDC families began climbing in fiscal year 1990, reached a record peak in spring 1994 and

then plunged to 2.5 million in September 1999. More than onefourth of this decline occurred before passage of TANF. Food stamp

enrollment also dropped sharply, by more than 10 million persons,

from spring 1994 to October 1999.

376

TABLE 7–4.—HISTORICAL TRENDS IN AFDC/TANF ENROLLMENTS, FISCAL YEARS 1970–

99

Fiscal year

Average monthly number (in thousands) Total child

population

(under age

18) 1

Percent all

children on

Families Recipients Children AFDC/TANF

1970 ......... 1,909 7,415 5,494 69,759 7.9

1971 ......... 2,532 9,556 6,963 69,806 9.9

1972 ......... 2,918 10,632 7,698 69,417 11.1

1973 ......... 3,124 11,038 7,965 68,762 11.6

1974 ......... 3,170 10,845 7,824 67,984 11.5

1975 ......... 3,357 11,094 7,952 67,164 11.8

1976 ......... 3,575 11,386 8,054 66,250 12.2

1977 ......... 3,593 11,130 7,846 65,461 12.0

1978 ......... 3,539 10,672 7,492 64,773 11.6

1979 ......... 3,496 10,318 7,197 64,106 11.2

1980 ......... 3,642 10,597 7,320 63,754 11.5

1981 ......... 3,871 11,160 7,615 63,213 12.0

1982 ......... 3,569 10,431 6,975 62,813 11.1

1983 ......... 3,651 10,659 7,051 62,566 11.3

1984 ......... 3,725 10,866 7,153 62,482 11.4

1985 ......... 3,692 10,813 7,165 62,623 11.4

1986 ......... 3,748 10,997 7,300 62,865 11.6

1987 ......... 3,784 11,065 7,381 63,056 11.7

1988 ......... 3,748 10,920 7,325 63,246 11.6

1989 ......... 3,771 10,934 7,370 63,457 11.6

1990 ......... 3,974 11,460 7,755 63,942 12.1

1991 ......... 4,374 12,592 8,513 65,069 13.1

1992 ......... 4,768 13,625 9,226 66,075 14.0

1993 ......... 4,981 14,143 9,560 66,963 14.3

1994 ......... 5,046 14,226 9,611 67,804 14.2

1995 ......... 4,879 13,659 9,280 68,438 13.6

1996 ......... 4,552 12,644 8,671 69,023 12.6

1997 ......... 3,947 10,954 7,781 69,528 10.5

1998 ......... 3,179 8,770 6,330 70,229 8.9

1999 ......... 2,648 7,203 2 5,114 70,548 7.2

1 Census Bureau estimates of the resident child population (under age 18) as of July 1 each year.

Figures for 1998 and 1999 are ‘‘middle series’’ projections. 2 Rough estimate, based on ratio of children to total recipients in 1998.

Note.—Family, recipient, and child data, fiscal years 1970–96 are from DHHS AFDC baseline book

(table 2.1); and for 1997–98 are from DHHS Second Annual Report on indicators of welfare dependence.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Many factors have helped to shrink the caseload, including the

new ‘‘work first’’ culture, the improved economy, tougher work

sanctions, the existence of a lifetime limit for federally funded benefits, and widespread adoption of diversion practices. Under TANF,

not only are recipients departing from welfare at a faster rate, but

fewer persons are joining the rolls to replace them. An August 1999

report by the Council of Economic Advisors (pp. 2 and 4) estimates

that about one-third of the 1996–98 caseload drop was due to Federal and State welfare policy changes, from 8 to 10 percent to the

377

strong economy, 10 percent to the higher minimum wage, and from

1 to 5 percent to the lower real value of cash welfare benefits.

CHART 7–1. AFDC/TANF FAMILIES, 1982–99

Source: Chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services data.

State caseload trends

By fiscal year 1999, the national average Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC)/TANF monthly caseload had plunged

48 percent (almost 2.4 million families) below its all-time peak of

5 million families in fiscal year 1994. Table 7–5 shows that decreases occurred in all jurisdictions except Guam. Rates of decline

varied, changing the distribution of welfare families across States.

For example, the share of welfare families in California and New

York, the two largest AFDC/TANF States, rose from 27 percent in

fiscal year 1994 to 34.7 percent in fiscal year 1999. In addition, the

percentage of the caseload residing in inner cities has increased

(Allen & Kirby, 2000). As noted earlier, the fiscal year 1995 caseload has special significance; required work participation rates are

reduced for States whose caseload is below the 1995 base level. The

national caseload in fiscal year 1999 was down 45.7 percent from

1995; in 38 of the 54 TANF jurisdictions, the caseload reduction appeared large enough to reduce the required fiscal year 2000 overall

work rate from the statutory level of 40 percent to zero.

TABLE 7–5.—AFDC/TANF FAMILIES, MONTHLY AVERAGE BY FISCAL YEAR

[Families in thousands]

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent change: fisca

1999 from

1995 

Alabama ............................. 50.3 46.0 42.4 34.5 23.3 20.3 ¥56.0 

Alaska ................................. 12.8 12.4 12.3 12.0 10.2 8.5 ¥31.9 

Arizona ................................ 72.0 69.6 63.4 54.7 39.6 34.1 ¥51.0 

Arkansas ............................. 26.0 24.3 22.7 20.9 13.8 11.9 ¥50.9 

California ............................ 909.0 919.5 896.0 815.9 707.0 624.1 ¥32.1 

Colorado ............................. 41.6 38.6 35.4 29.9 21.2 14.3 ¥63.0 

Connecticut ........................ 59.2 61.0 58.1 55.8 48.1 33.9 ¥44.4 

Delaware ............................. 11.5 10.8 10.4 9.8 7.2 6.2 ¥42.1 

District of Columbia ........... 27.1 26.8 25.7 24.1 21.1 19.1 ¥28.8 

Florida ................................ 247.1 230.8 212.0 170.5 108.0 82.0 ¥64.5 

Georgia ............................... 141.5 139.1 130.4 105.9 75.0 62.2 ¥55.3 

Guam .................................. 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.5 20.7 Hawaii ................................ 20.4 21.7 22.0 21.3 16.8 16.0 ¥26.2 

Idaho .................................. 8.7 9.1 9.0 6.5 1.9 1.4 ¥84.8 

Illinois ................................. 240.3 236.2 224.1 198.9 169.7 122.8 ¥48.0 

Indiana ............................... 73.8 65.6 52.9 44.7 40.1 36.7 ¥44.0 

Iowa .................................... 39.6 36.5 32.8 28.8 25.2 22.0 ¥39.8 

Kansas ................................ 30.1 28.2 25.1 20.2 14.1 12.8 ¥54.5 

Kentucky ............................. 79.8 75.4 71.8 65.3 52.9 42.6 ¥43.4 

Louisiana ............................ 86.9 79.8 70.6 56.5 48.2 39.4 ¥50.7 

Maine .................................. 22.9 21.7 20.5 18.5 15.7 13.5 ¥37.9 

Maryland ............................. 80.1 80.4 74.1 59.2 47.4 34.7 ¥56.8 

Massachusetts ................... 111.8 100.9 88.4 78.0 66.5 54.5

¥46.0

Michigan ............................. 223.9 201.7 178.0 151.6 123.7 95.2

¥52.8

Minnesota ........................... 63.0 61.3 58.3 53.3 48.3 42.5

¥30.8

Mississippi ......................... 56.8 52.5 48.0 38.5 23.7 16.6

¥68.3

Missouri .............................. 92.1 89.3 82.7 71.8 60.0 50.9

¥43.0

Montana ............................. 11.9 11.5 10.8 8.9 6.4 4.8

¥58.0

Nebraska ............................ 15.9 14.8 14.2 13.9 13.0 11.3

¥23.5

Nevada ............................... 14.2 15.7 14.8 11.9 10.4 8.0

¥48.9

New Hampshire .................. 11.5 10.8 9.5 8.1 6.9 6.4

¥41.0

New Jersey .......................... 122.4 118.9 112.0 95.4 80.5 62.2

¥47.6

New Mexico ......................... 33.6 34.4 33.9 27.0 21.1 25.5

¥26.0

New York ............................ 455.0 456.9 431.7 384.4 336.9 294.4

¥35.6

North Carolina .................... 131.2 125.5 113.1 98.9 78.0 59.3

¥52.7

North Dakota ...................... 5.9 5.2 4.9 4.2 3.3 3.1

¥40.6

Ohio .................................... 250.2 228.2 206.7 191.4 151.5 113.8

¥50.1

Oklahoma ........................... 47.0 44.8 38.8 30.3 24.5 20.1

¥55.2

Oregon ................................ 42.1 39.3 33.4 24.1 18.2 16.9

¥57.0

Pennsylvania ...................... 210.2 204.8 190.3 163.6 127.7 105.7

¥48.4

Puerto Rico ......................... 58.8 54.8 50.9 47.7 41.9 36.2

¥34.0

Rhode Island ...................... 22.7 22.2 21.2 19.8 19.3 18.0

¥19.0

South Carolina ................... 51.9 49.0 45.8 34.2 25.3 18.4

¥62.5

South Dakota ...................... 6.9 6.3 6.0 5.1 3.8 3.2

¥48.7

Tennessee ........................... 110.8 104.0 99.1 70.4 57.4 57.6

¥44.6

Texas .................................. 283.7 273.0 255.0 209.0 145.3 114.1

¥58.2

Utah .................................... 17.8 16.6 14.8 12.2 10.7 9.8

¥41.1

Vermont .............................. 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.3 7.4 6.6

¥31.5

Virginia ............................... 74.8 72.1 64.9 53.9 43.3 37.0

¥48.7

Virgin Islands ..................... 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0

¥26.6

Washington ......................... 103.0 101.9 98.9 93.0 79.4 62.6

¥38.6

TABLE 7–5.—AFDC/TANF FAMILIES, MONTHLY AVERAGE BY FISCAL YEAR—Continued

[Families in thousands]

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent change: fisca

1999 from

1995 

West Virginia ...................... 40.7 38.4 36.6 33.6 19.7 11.4

¥70.2

Wisconsin ........................... 77.2 72.4 60.1 38.9 12.8 19.1

¥73.6

Wyoming ............................. 5.7 5.2 4.7 2.8 1.3 0.8

¥84.4

Total .......................... 5,046.3 4,879.0 4,551.7 3,941.8 3,178.7 2,648.1

¥45.7

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data reported by States to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

381

BENEFITS

Average benefits

In 20 of 52 jurisdictions with available data (California and Minnesota are missing), average monthly TANF benefits in 1998 rose

above 1997 levels, but elsewhere they continued the general downward trend from previous years. As table 7–6 shows, benefits fell

short of fiscal year 1994 levels except in Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the Virgin Islands. As noted

earlier, employment rates of AFDC/Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF) adults more than tripled from 1994 to

1998, and higher earnings resulted in some decline in average welfare payments paid.

TABLE 7–6.—AVERAGE MONTHLY BENEFIT FOR AFDC/TANF FAMILIES, FISCAL YEARS

1994–98

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Alabama ....................... $148.48 $146.13 $144.21 $142.10 $139.58

Alaska ........................... 805.26 822.90 769.01 NA 669.00

Arizona .......................... 299.27 299.57 291.11 290.03 278.76

Arkansas ....................... 177.71 177.65 169.70 170.92 166.68

California ...................... 551.72 558.16 538.51 526.25 NA

Colorado ........................ 315.20 313.97 302.36 304.10 300.48

Connecticut ................... 563.73 515.32 463.10 465.67 462.35

Delaware ....................... 297.41 296.00 304.35 280.74 270.52

District of Columbia ..... 393.86 392.48 384.00 350.80 345.68

Florida ........................... 254.20 255.50 250.42 229.89 228.45

Georgia ......................... 245.56 244.63 242.62 242.74 236.82

Guam ............................ 504.77 494.60 548.80 527.29 502.30

Hawaii ........................... 665.54 671.64 668.11 613.17 519.78

Idaho ............................. 282.16 269.75 265.88 287.74 256.78

Illinois ........................... 314.82 306.12 295.17 289.18 280.74

Indiana ......................... 257.29 255.46 244.52 233.00 229.34

Iowa .............................. 359.21 340.97 336.95 326.52 329.62

Kansas .......................... 345.68 335.91 319.59 311.40 296.90

Kentucky ....................... 207.58 202.97 222.90 223.19 219.64

Louisiana ...................... 163.28 159.62 153.10 157.20 159.13

Maine ............................ 418.28 403.84 393.79 390.97 367.95

Maryland ....................... 315.53 315.76 309.46 303.14 310.60

Massachusetts .............. 544.42 531.80 523.65 473.84 504.94

Michigan ....................... 429.23 415.58 405.87 396.30 357.37

Minnesota ..................... 477.69 479.75 470.28 477.85 NA

Mississippi .................... 119.72 123.00 116.95 117.51 101.15

Missouri ........................ 261.37 260.71 257.45 251.67 243.68

Montana ........................ 343.80 344.00 349.25 348.29 367.84

Nebraska ....................... 319.39 308.88 310.58 320.13 323.14

Nevada .......................... 283.83 284.82 279.38 274.23 288.09

New Hampshire ............ 467.30 467.82 466.26 459.14 417.12

New Jersey .................... 361.01 355.41 345.61 332.28 342.72

New Mexico ................... 325.21 343.13 352.13 342.24 382.99

New York ....................... 495.43 494.04 487.14 478.50 479.85

382

TABLE 7–6.—AVERAGE MONTHLY BENEFIT FOR AFDC/TANF FAMILIES, FISCAL YEARS

1994–98—Continued

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

North Carolina .............. 229.37 226.97 222.86 218.72 219.56

North Dakota ................ 355.43 352.73 353.23 355.62 338.29

Ohio .............................. 308.46 305.18 301.91 291.52 306.25

Oklahoma ...................... 292.14 279.85 258.36 252.62 217.22

Oregon .......................... 394.67 394.49 339.51 401.37 380.99

Pennsylvania ................. 379.69 379.48 373.71 372.95 364.83

Puerto Rico ................... 101.79 100.47 99.69 101.95 98.33

Rhode Island ................ 495.11 510.40 485.89 490.56 477.20

South Carolina .............. 175.31 180.34 176.45 162.21 157.60

South Dakota ................ 293.10 292.58 301.72 285.44 294.23

Tennessee ..................... 168.65 170.71 172.35 163.74 169.91

Texas ............................. 162.50 157.60 155.95 159.96 164.49

Utah .............................. 341.60 356.51 347.66 346.16 354.40

Vermont ........................ 525.63 502.31 450.18 442.75 460.60

Virginia ......................... 259.33 251.29 248.18 247.18 245.74

Virgin Islands ............... 264.51 268.23 256.91 285.65 334.15

Washington ................... 492.65 498.13 489.02 476.38 464.08

West Virginia ................ 236.44 230.16 228.13 225.33 239.80

Wisconsin ...................... 463.01 457.28 432.54 422.37 565.70

Wyoming ....................... 300.01 299.47 286.91 263.06 218.50

NA—Not available.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data reported by States to the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Maximum benefits

Table 7–7 presents maximum benefit levels (amounts paid to

those without income) for families of three. The last column shows

that between July 1994 and January 2000, the real value of maximum benefits decreased in most States. Most States did not change

maximum benefits (with the result that their inflation-adjusted

value fell by almost 11 percent). Sixteen States increased benefits,

but only seven jurisdictions raised benefits enough to more than

offset price inflation: Guam, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New

Mexico, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Table 7–8 shows maximum TANF benefits, by State, for a singleparent family from one to six persons, with no earned income, as

of January 1, 2000. Table 7–9 shows maximum combined TANF

and food stamp benefits, by State and family size, for single-parent

families who have no earnings. Table 7–10 shows AFDC/TANF

maximum benefits for three persons in nominal dollars over the

long term (1970–2000) for selected years: July 1970, July 1975,

July 1980, July 1985, January 1990, January 1995, January 2000,

with the last column showing the percent change in real dollars

from 1970 to 2000.

383

TABLE 7–7.—MAXIMUM COMBINED AFDC/TANF BENEFITS FOR A FAMILY OF THREE

(PARENT WITH TWO CHILDREN), JULY 1994–JANUARY 2000

State July

1994

July

1996

July

1998

January

2000

Percent

real

change

from July

1994–January 2000

Alabama ......................................... $164 $164 $164 $164 ¥10.7

Alaska ............................................. 923 923 923 923 ¥10.7

Arizona ............................................ 347 347 347 347 ¥10.7

Arkansas ......................................... 204 204 204 204 ¥10.7

California ........................................ 607 596 565 626 ¥7.9

Colorado .......................................... 356 356 356 357 ¥10.5

Connecticut ..................................... 680 636 636 636 ¥16.5

Delaware ......................................... 338 338 338 338 ¥10.7

District of Columbia ....................... 420 415 379 379 ¥19.5

Florida ............................................. 303 303 303 303 ¥10.7

Georgia ........................................... 280 280 280 280 ¥10.7

Guam .............................................. 330 673 673 673 82.0

Hawaii:

Work exempt .......................... 712 712 712 712 ¥10.7

Nonexempt ............................. 712 712 570 570 ¥28.5

Idaho ............................................... 317 317 276 293 ¥17.5

Illinois ............................................. 377 377 377 377 ¥10.7

Indiana ........................................... 288 288 288 288 ¥10.7

Iowa ................................................ 426 426 426 426 ¥10.7

Kansas ............................................ 429 429 429 429 ¥10.7

Kentucky ......................................... 228 262 262 262 2.6

Louisiana ........................................ 190 190 190 190 ¥10.7

Maine .............................................. 418 418 439 461 ¥1.6

Maryland ......................................... 373 373 388 417 ¥0.2

Massachusetts:

Work exempt .......................... 579 579 579 579 ¥10.7

Nonexempt ............................. 579 565 565 565 ¥12.9

Michigan:

Washtenaw County ................ 489 489 489 489 ¥10.7

Wayne County ........................ 459 459 459 459 ¥10.7

Minnesota ....................................... 532 532 532 532 ¥10.7

Mississippi ...................................... 120 120 120 170 26.5

Missouri .......................................... 292 292 292 292 ¥10.7

Montana .......................................... 416 438 461 469 0.6

Nebraska ......................................... 364 364 364 364 ¥10.7

Nevada ............................................ 348 348 348 348 ¥10.7

New Hampshire .............................. 550 550 550 575 ¥6.7

New Jersey ...................................... 424 424 424 424 ¥10.7

New Mexico ..................................... 381 389 489 439 2.8

New York:

New York City ........................ 577 577 577 577 ¥10.7

Suffolk County ....................... 703 703 703 703 ¥10.7

North Carolina ................................ 272 272 272 272 ¥10.7

North Dakota .................................. 431 431 440 457 ¥5.4

Ohio ................................................ 341 341 362 373 ¥2.4

384

TABLE 7–7.—MAXIMUM COMBINED AFDC/TANF BENEFITS FOR A FAMILY OF THREE

(PARENT WITH TWO CHILDREN), JULY 1994–JANUARY 2000—Continued

State July

1994

July

1996

July

1998

January

2000

Percent

real

change

from July

1994–January 2000

Oklahoma ........................................ 324 307 292 292 ¥19.6

Oregon ............................................ 460 460 460 460 ¥10.7

Pennsylvannia ................................. 421 421 421 421 ¥10.7

Puerto Rico ..................................... 180 180 180 180 ¥10.7

Rhode Island .................................. 554 554 554 554 ¥10.7

South Carolina ................................ 200 200 201 204 ¥9.1

South Dakota .................................. 430 430 430 430 ¥10.7

Tennessee ....................................... 185 185 185 185 ¥10.7

Texas ............................................... 188 188 188 201 ¥4.6

Utah ................................................ 414 416 451 451 ¥2.8

Vermont .......................................... 650 633 656 708 ¥2.8

Virgin Islands ................................. 240 240 240 240 ¥10.7

Virginia ........................................... 354 354 354 354 ¥10.7

Washington ..................................... 546 546 546 546 ¥10.7

West Virginia .................................. 253 253 253 328 15.7

Wisconsin:

Community service ................ 517 517 673 673 16.2

W2 transition ......................... 517 517 628 628 8.4

Wyoming ......................................... 360 360 340 340 ¥15.7

Median State ......................... 381 415 421 421 ¥10.5

Note.—The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers inflation adjustment factor for converting

July 1994 dollars to January 2000 dollars is 1.1203.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

385

TABLE 7–8.—MAXIMUM MONTHLY TANF BENEFIT FOR FAMILIES OF ONE TO SIX

PERSONS, JANUARY 1, 2000 1

State

Family size

1 2 23456

Alabama ....................................... $111 $137 $164 $194 $225 $252

Alaska .......................................... 514 821 923 1025 1127 1229

Arizona ......................................... 204 275 347 418 489 561

Arkansas ...................................... 81 162 204 247 286 331

California:

Region 1 ............................. 310 505 626 746 849 953

Region 2 ............................. 294 481 596 710 808 907

Colorado ....................................... 214 281 357 432 513 591

Connecticut .................................. 402 513 636 741 835 935

Delaware ...................................... 201 270 338 407 475 544

District of Columbia .................... 239 298 379 463 533 627

Florida .......................................... 180 241 303 364 426 487

Georgia ......................................... 155 235 280 330 378 410

Guam ........................................... 420 537 673 776 874 985

Hawaii:

Work exempt ....................... 418 565 712 859 1006 1153

Nonexempt .......................... 335 452 570 687 805 922

Idaho ............................................ 293 293 293 293 293 293

Illinois .......................................... 212 278 377 414 485 545

Indiana ......................................... 139 229 288 346 405 463

Iowa ............................................. 183 361 426 495 548 610

Kansas ......................................... 267 352 429 497 558 619

Kentucky ....................................... 186 225 262 328 383 432

Louisiana ..................................... 72 138 190 234 277 316

Maine ........................................... 219 345 461 581 698 815

Maryland ...................................... 185 328 417 503 583 641

Massachusetts:

Work exempt ....................... 392 486 579 668 760 854

Nonexempt .......................... 383 474 565 651 741 832

Michigan:

Washtenaw County ............. 305 401 489 593 689 822

Wayne County ..................... 276 371 459 563 659 792

Minnesota .................................... 250 437 532 621 697 773

Mississippi ................................... 110 146 170 194 218 242

Missouri ....................................... 136 234 292 342 388 431

Montana ....................................... 278 374 469 564 659 754

Nebraska ...................................... 222 293 364 435 506 577

Nevada ......................................... 229 289 348 407 466 525

New Hampshire ............................ 439 506 575 638 698 779

New Jersey ................................... 162 322 424 488 552 616

New Mexico .................................. 281 360 439 519 598 677

New York:

New York City ..................... 352 468 577 687 800 884

Suffolk County .................... 446 576 703 824 949 1038

North Carolina ............................. 181 236 272 297 324 349

North Dakota ................................ 271 363 457 549 642 735

Ohio .............................................. 223 305 373 461 539 600

Oklahoma ..................................... 180 225 292 361 422 483

386

TABLE 7–8.—MAXIMUM MONTHLY TANF BENEFIT FOR FAMILIES OF ONE TO SIX

PERSONS, JANUARY 1, 2000 1—Continued

State

Family size

1 2 23456

Oregon .......................................... 310 395 460 565 660 755

Pennsylvannia .............................. 215 330 421 514 607 687

Puerto Rico .................................. 132 156 180 204 228 252

Rhode Island ................................ 327 449 554 634 714 794

South Carolina ............................. 121 162 204 245 286 328

South Dakota ............................... 304 380 430 478 528 578

Tennessee .................................... 95 142 185 226 264 305

Texas ............................................ 84 174 201 241 268 308

Utah ............................................. 261 362 451 528 601 663

Vermont ........................................ 503 604 708 792 881 940

Virginia ........................................ 220 294 354 410 488 534

Virgin Islands .............................. 120 180 240 300 360 420

Washington .................................. 349 440 546 642 740 841

West Virginia ............................... 224 276 328 387 435 488

Wisconsin:

Community service ............. 0 673 673 673 673 673

W2 transition ...................... 0 628 628 628 628 628

Wyoming ....................................... 195 320 340 340 360 360

1 Calculations assume a single-parent family with no earned income and use normal rounding rules.

2 A family size of one represents a pregnant woman or a child-only case. Colorado and Texas have

separate payment schedules for the two groups; the table shows amounts for pregnant women. Maximum

child-only benefits are smaller; $117 in Colorado and $68 in Texas.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of a telephone survey of

States.

387

TABLE 7–9.—MAXIMUM COMBINED TANF AND FOOD STAMP 1 BENEFIT FOR FAMILIES OF

ONE TO SIX PERSONS, JANUARY 1, 2000 2

State

Family size

123456

Alabama ....................................... $238 $370 $490 $602 $703 $823

Alaska .......................................... 558 904 1,101 1,285 1,456 1,652

Arizona ......................................... 310 466 618 758 888 1,039

Arkansas ...................................... 208 387 518 639 746 878

California:

Region 1 ............................. 384 627 813 988 1,140 1,314

Region 2 ............................. 373 610 792 963 1,111 1,282

Colorado ....................................... 316 471 625 768 905 1,060

Connecticut .................................. 448 633 820 984 1,130 1,301

Delaware ...................................... 307 463 611 751 878 1,028

District of Columbia .................... 334 482 640 790 919 1,086

Florida .......................................... 293 442 587 721 844 988

Georgia ......................................... 275 438 571 697 810 934

Guam ........................................... 498 717 942 1,131 1,303 1,510

Hawaii:

Work exempt ....................... 531 800 1,061 1,305 1,533 1,794

Nonexempt .......................... 473 721 962 1,185 1,392 1,632

Idaho ............................................ 372 479 580 671 751 852

Illinois .......................................... 315 468 639 756 885 1,028

Indiana ......................................... 264 434 576 708 829 971

Iowa ............................................. 295 526 673 812 929 1,074

Kansas ......................................... 354 520 675 814 936 1,080

Kentucky ....................................... 297 431 558 695 814 949

Louisiana ..................................... 199 370 508 630 740 868

Maine ........................................... 320 515 697 872 1,034 1,217

Maryland ...................................... 296 503 667 818 954 1,095

Massachusetts:

Work exempt ....................... 441 614 780 933 1,078 1,245

Nonexempt .......................... 435 606 770 921 1,064 1,229

Michigan:

Washtenaw County ............. 380 554 717 881 1,028 1,222

Wayne County ..................... 360 533 696 860 1,007 1,201

Minnesota .................................... 358 629 789 934 1,061 1,207

Mississippi ................................... 237 376 494 602 698 816

Missouri ....................................... 262 438 579 705 817 948

Montana ....................................... 361 536 703 861 1,007 1,175

Nebraska ...................................... 322 479 630 770 900 1,051

Nevada ......................................... 327 476 618 751 872 1,014

New Hampshire ............................ 474 628 777 912 1,034 1,192

New Jersey ................................... 280 499 672 807 932 1,078

New Mexico .................................. 363 526 682 829 964 1,121

New York:

New York City ..................... 413 601 779 947 1,106 1,266

Suffolk County .................... 479 677 867 1,043 1,210 1,373

North Carolina ............................. 293 439 565 674 773 891

North Dakota ................................ 356 528 695 850 995 1,161

Ohio .............................................. 323 487 636 788 923 1,067

Oklahoma ..................................... 293 431 579 718 841 985

388

TABLE 7–9.—MAXIMUM COMBINED TANF AND FOOD STAMP 1 BENEFIT FOR FAMILIES OF

ONE TO SIX PERSONS, JANUARY 1, 2000 2—Continued

State

Family size

123456

Oregon .......................................... 384 550 697 861 1,008 1,175

Pennsylvania ................................ 317 505 669 826 971 1,128

Puerto Rico 3 ................................ 206 296 379 453 522 601

Rhode Island ................................ 396 588 763 910 1,046 1,203

South Carolina ............................. 248 387 518 637 746 876

South Dakota ............................... 380 540 676 800 915 1,051

Tennessee .................................... 222 373 504 624 731 860

Texas ............................................ 211 396 515 634 733 862

Utah ............................................. 349 527 690 835 966 1,111

Vermont ........................................ 519 697 870 1,020 1,162 1,305

Virginia ........................................ 321 480 623 753 887 1,021

Virgin Islands .............................. 308 511 703 878 1,038 1,230

Washington .................................. 411 582 757 915 1,064 1,235

West Virginia ............................... 324 467 604 737 850 988

Wisconsin:

Community service ............. (4) 745 846 937 1,017 1,118

W2 transition ...................... (4) 713 814 905 985 1,086

Wyoming ....................................... 303 498 613 704 798 899

1 Food stamp calculations assume that the family does not receive an excess shelter deduction. In very

low benefit States, combined benefits shown reflect the maximum food stamp allotment for the family

size, but in some States the excess shelter deduction would increase food stamps (by up to $83 monthly—more in Alaska and Hawaii). 2 Calculations assume a single-parent family with no earned income and use normal rounding rules.

3 Puerto Rico does not have a standard Food Stamp Program, but it operates a program of nutritional

cash assistance under a block grant. The table shows TANF benefits plus amounts from the Nutritional

Cash Assistance Program. 4Wisconsin has no one-person families in its regular W–2 (TANF) Program. Pregnant women without

children are ineligible and ‘‘child-only’’ recipients have been moved into special programs.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

Benefits for minimum wage workers

Table 7–11 shows annual earnings net of payroll taxes, plus

TANF, the earned income credit (EIC), and food stamps (January

2000 levels) for a minimum wage worker with two children who

works half time all year round. (This and subsequent tables should

not be taken to imply that all workers actually receive these benefits.)

Table 7–12 shows the same thing for a full-time, year-round minimum wage worker.

Table 7–10 shows maximum Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC)/TANF benefits for a three-person family by State

for selected years from July 1970 to January 2000. Over the three

decades, the real value of cash payments declined in all States. In

25 jurisdictions the decline was 50 percent or greater. However,

part of this loss was offset by the intervening development of the

Food Stamp Program, which in 1970 did not operate in more than

half the Nation and lacked standard rules. In many States maximum combined TANF food stamp benefits for three persons (table

389

7–9) now exceed the inflation-adjusted value of AFDC alone on

July 1970. The most dramatic impact of food stamps has occurred

in Mississippi and Puerto Rico, where combined benefits for a family of three with no earnings ($494 and $379, respectively), now are

double the real value of AFDC benefits back in July 1970 ($242

and $186).

TABLE 7–10.—AFDC/TANF MAXIMUM BENEFIT FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY BY STATE,

SELECTED YEARS 1970–2000

State

Year

July

1970 1

July

1975

July

1980

July

1985

January

1990 2

January

1995 2

January

2000 2

Percent

change

in real

value,

1970–

2000 3

Alabama ............... $65 $108 $118 $118 $118 $164 $164 ¥42

Alaska .................. 328 350 457 719 846 923 923 ¥35

Arizona ................. 138 163 202 233 293 347 347 ¥42

Arkansas .............. 89 125 161 192 204 204 204 ¥47

California ............. 186 293 473 587 694 607 4 626 ¥22

Colorado ............... 193 217 290 346 356 356 356 ¥57

Connecticut .......... 283 346 475 569 649 680 636 ¥48

Delaware .............. 160 221 266 287 333 338 338 ¥51

District of Columbia ................... 195 243 286 327 409 420 379 ¥55

Florida .................. 114 144 195 240 294 303 303 ¥39

Georgia ................. 107 123 164 223 273 280 280 ¥40

Guam .................... NA NA 261 265 330 330 673 NA

Hawaii .................. 226 428 468 468 602 712 5 712 ¥27

Idaho .................... 211 300 323 304 317 317 293 ¥68

Illinois .................. 232 261 288 341 367 377 377 ¥62

Indiana ................. 120 200 255 256 288 288 288 ¥45

Iowa ...................... 201 294 360 360 410 426 426 ¥51

Kansas ................. 222 321 345 391 409 429 429 ¥55

Kentucky ............... 147 185 188 197 228 228 262 ¥59

Louisiana .............. 88 128 152 190 190 190 190 ¥50

Maine ................... 135 176 280 370 453 418 461 ¥21

Maryland .............. 162 200 270 329 396 373 417 ¥40

Massachusetts ..... 268 259 379 432 539 579 5 579 ¥50

Michigan:

Washtenaw

County ..... NA NA NA 447 546 489 489 NA

Wayne County ............. 219 333 425 417 516 459 459 ¥52

Minnesota ............. 256 330 417 528 532 532 532 ¥52

Mississippi ........... 56 48 96 96 120 120 170 ¥30

Missouri ................ 104 120 248 274 289 292 292 ¥35

Montana ............... 202 201 259 354 359 416 469 ¥46

Nebraska .............. 171 210 310 350 364 364 364 ¥51

Nevada ................. 121 195 262 285 330 348 348 ¥34

New Hampshire .... 262 308 346 389 506 550 575 ¥49

New Jersey ............ 302 310 360 404 424 424 424 ¥68

390

TABLE 7–10.—AFDC/TANF MAXIMUM BENEFIT FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY BY STATE,

SELECTED YEARS 1970–2000—Continued

State

Year

July

1970 1

July

1975

July

1980

July

1985

January

1990 2

January

1995 2

January

2000 2

Percent

change

in real

value,

1970–

2000 3

New Mexico .......... 149 169 220 258 264 381 439 ¥32

New York:

New York

City ......... 279 332 394 474 577 577 577 ¥52

Suffolk

County ..... NA NA NA 579 703 703 703 NA

North Carolina ...... 145 183 192 246 272 272 272 ¥57

North Dakota ........ 213 283 334 371 386 431 457 ¥50

Ohio ...................... 161 204 263 290 334 341 373 ¥46

Oklahoma ............. 152 217 282 282 325 324 292 ¥56

Oregon .................. 184 337 282 386 432 460 460 ¥42

Pennsylvania ........ 265 296 332 364 421 421 421 ¥63

Puerto Rico ........... 43 43 44 90 90 180 180 ¥3

Rhode Island ........ 229 278 340 409 543 554 554 ¥44

South Carolina ..... 85 96 129 187 206 200 204 ¥45

South Dakota ....... 264 289 321 329 377 430 430 ¥62

Tennessee ............. 112 115 122 153 184 185 185 ¥62

Texas .................... 148 116 116 167 184 188 201 ¥69

Utah ..................... 175 252 360 376 387 426 451 ¥40

Vermont ................ 267 322 492 583 662 650 708 ¥39

Virgin Islands ....... NA 131 209 171 240 240 240 NA

Virginia ................. 225 268 310 354 354 354 354 ¥64

Washington .......... 258 315 458 476 501 546 546 ¥51

West Virginia ........ 114 206 206 249 249 253 328 ¥33

Wisconsin ............. 184 342 444 533 517 517 6 628 ¥21

Wyoming ............... 213 235 315 360 360 360 340 ¥63

Median

State 7 ..... 184 235 288 332 364 377 421 ¥47

1 Data on three-person families were not published or reported before 1975. Thus, the 1970 data were

derived by reducing the reported four-person maximum benefit amount by the proportional difference between three- and four-person AFDC maximum benefit as shown in the July 1975 reports of the (then) Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 2 Congressional Research Service survey data.

3 Real percentage change. The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers inflation adjustment factor used for converting July 1970 dollars to January 2000 dollars was 4.3256. 4 Benefits for region 1.

5 Benefits for persons exempt from work.

6 Benefits for persons in W–2 transitions (work preparation activities).

7 Among the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

NA—Not available.

Source: Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Congressional Research Service.

TABLE 7–11.—ANNUALIZED EARNINGS AND INCOME FROM SELECTED MAJOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO CHILDR

WORKING HALF TIME AT MINIMUM WAGE IN MONTH 13 OF EMPLOYMENT, JANUARY 1, 2000

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps Combined total

As a percent of 1999 poverty threshold

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps 

Alabama ........................................................ $4,946 $2,142 0 $3,216 $10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Alaska ........................................................... 5,426 2,350 $11,076 0 18,853 40.4 17.5 82.5 0.0 Arizona .......................................................... 4,946 2,142 1,171 2,856 11,115 36.8 16.0 8.7 21.3 Arkansas ....................................................... 4,946 2,142 1,224 4,020 12,333 36.8 16.0 9.1 29.9 California:

Region 1 .............................................. 5,523 2,392 5,872 1,296 15,083 41.1 17.8 43.7 9.7 Region 2 .............................................. 5,523 2,392 5,512 1,404 14,831 41.1 17.8 41.1 10.5 

Colorado 1 ...................................................... 4,946 2,142 658 3,012 10,758 36.8 16.0 4.9 22.4 

Connecticut ................................................... 5,907 2,558 7,632 2,208 18,305 44.0 19.1 56.9 16.4 Delaware ....................................................... 5,426 2,350 2,804 2,244 12,825 40.4 17.5 20.9 16.7 District of Columbia ..................................... 5,907 2,558 1,950 2,376 12,791 44.0 19.1 14.5 17.7 Florida ........................................................... 4,946 2,142 2,158 2,568 11,815 36.8 16.0 16.1 19.1 Georgia .......................................................... 4,946 2,142 812 2,964 10,865 36.8 16.0 6.0 22.1 Guam 2 .......................................................... 4,946 2,142 3,800 3,228 14,117 36.8 16.0 28.3 24.0 

Hawaii:

Work exempt ........................................ 5,042 2,184 7,284 3,252 17,763 37.6 16.3 54.3 24.2 Nonexempt ........................................... 5,042 2,184 5,580 3,768 16,575 37.6 16.3 41.6 28.1 

Idaho ............................................................. 4,946 2,142 1,370 2,796 11,255 36.8 16.0 10.2 20.8 Illinois ........................................................... 4,946 2,142 2,739 2,388 12,215 36.8 16.0 20.4 17.8 Indiana .......................................................... 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Iowa 1 ............................................................ 4,946 2,142 2,970 2,316 12,374 36.8 16.0 22.1 17.3 Kansas 1 ........................................................ 4,946 2,142 2,582 2,436 12,107 36.8 16.0 19.2 18.1 Kentucky ........................................................ 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 

TABLE 7–11.—ANNUALIZED EARNINGS AND INCOME FROM SELECTED MAJOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO CHILDR

WORKING HALF TIME AT MINIMUM WAGE IN MONTH 13 OF EMPLOYMENT, JANUARY 1, 2000—Continued

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps Combined total

As a percent of 1999 poverty threshold

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps 

Louisiana ...................................................... 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Maine ............................................................ 4,946 2,142 5,122 1,680 13,891 36.8 16.0 38.2 12.5 Maryland 1 ..................................................... 4,946 2,142 1,523 2,760 11,371 36.8 16.0 11.3 20.6 Massachusetts: 1

Work exempt ........................................ 5,763 2,496 1,788 2,460 12,507 42.9 18.6 13.3 18.3 Nonexempt ........................................... 5,763 2,496 1,620 2,508 12,387 42.9 18.6 12.1 18.7 

Michigan:

Washtenaw County .............................. 4,946 2,142 3,503 2,160 12,752 36.8 16.0 26.1 16.1 Wayne County ...................................... 4,946 2,142 3,143 2,268 12,500 36.8 16.0 23.4 16.9 

Minnesota 1 ................................................... 4,946 2,142 4,011 3,084 14,184 36.8 16.0 29.9 23.0 Mississippi .................................................... 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Missouri ........................................................ 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Montana ........................................................ 4,946 2,142 3,411 2,184 12,684 36.8 16.0 25.4 16.3 Nebraska ....................................................... 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Nevada .......................................................... 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 New Hampshire ............................................. 4,946 2,142 4,222 1,944 13,255 36.8 16.0 31.5 14.5 New Jersey .................................................... 4,946 2,142 2,410 2,484 11,983 36.8 16.0 18.0 18.5 New Mexico ................................................... 4,979 2,157 3,493 2,160 12,789 37.1 16.1 26.0 16.1 New York: 1

New York City ...................................... 4,946 2,142 4,615 1,824 13,528 36.8 16.0 34.4 13.6 Suffolk County ..................................... 4,946 2,142 6,127 1,368 14,584 36.8 16.0 45.6 10.2 

North Carolina .............................................. 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 North Dakota ................................................. 4,946 2,142 1,574 2,736 11,399 36.8 16.0 11.7 20.4 

Ohio ............................................................... 4,946 2,142 3,298 2,220 12,607 36.8 16.0 24.6 16.5 Oklahoma ...................................................... 4,946 2,142 1,546 2,748 11,383 36.8 16.0 11.5 20.5 Oregon 1 ........................................................ 6,243 2,704 2,140 2,232 13,319 46.5 20.1 15.9 16.6 Pennsylvania ................................................. 4,946 2,142 2,374 2,496 11,959 36.8 16.0 17.7 18.6 Rhode Island 1 .............................................. 5,426 2,350 4,730 1,668 14,175 40.4 17.5 35.2 12.4 

South Carolina .............................................. 4,946 2,142 979 2,916 10,984 36.8 16.0 7.3 21.7 South Dakota ................................................ 4,946 2,142 1,739 2,688 11,516 36.8 16.0 13.0 20.0 Tennessee ..................................................... 4,946 2,142 2,220 2,544 11,853 36.8 16.0 16.5 19.0 Texas ............................................................. 4,946 2,142 0 3,216 10,305 36.8 16.0 0.0 24.0 Utah .............................................................. 4,946 2,142 3,334 2,208 12,631 36.8 16.0 24.8 16.4 Vermont 1 ...................................................... 5,523 2,392 3,596 1,980 13,491 41.1 17.8 26.8 14.8 

Virginia ......................................................... 4,946 2,142 4,248 1,932 13,269 36.8 16.0 31.6 14.4 Virgin Islands 2 ............................................. 4,946 2,142 0 5,136 12,225 36.8 16.0 0.0 38.3 

Washington ................................................... 6,243 2,704 3,172 1,920 14,039 46.5 20.1 23.6 14.3 West Virginia ................................................ 4,946 2,142 1,794 2,676 11,558 36.8 16.0 13.4 19.9 Wisconsin: 1

Community service .............................. 4,946 2,142 2,760 2,388 12,237 36.8 16.0 20.6 17.8 W2 transition ....................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Wyoming ........................................................ 4,946 2,142 1,124 2,868 11,081 36.8 16.0 8.4 21.4 

1 These States have their own earned income credits (generally calculated as a percentage of the Federal EIC) but they are not shown in this table. 2 Guam and the Virgin Islands have territorial tax systems that mirror the Internal Revenue Code, including the earned income credit (EIC). However, revenues foregon

funds paid under their EICs affect their own territorial treasuries, not the U.S. Treasury.

NA—Not applicable. (Persons with jobs are not eligible for the Wisconsin program of transitional aid.)Note.—Puerto Rico is omitted from this table. It is not covered by the Federal income tax and has no EIC. A half-time minimum wage worker in Puerto Rico would 

gible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on State and Federal minimum wage laws, EIC law, food stamp law, and the CRS January 2000 

State TANF benefit levels and program rules.

TABLE 7–12.—EARNINGS AND INCOME FROM SELECTED MAJOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO CHILDREN WORKING FUL

AT MINIMUM WAGE, WORKING IN MONTH 13, ANNUALIZED, JANUARY 1, 2000

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps Combined total

As a percent of poverty threshold

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps 

Alabama ........................................................ $9,893 $3,888 0 $1,920 $15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Alaska ........................................................... 10,853 3,888 $7,440 0 22,181 80.9 29.0 55.4 0.0 Arizona .......................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Arkansas ....................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 California:

Region 1 .............................................. 11,045 3,888 2,882 756 18,571 82.3 29.0 21.5 5.6 Region 2 .............................................. 11,045 3,888 2,522 864 18,319 82.3 29.0 18.8 6.4 

Colorado 1 ...................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 

Connecticut ................................................... 11,813 3,867 7,632 2,208 25,520 88.0 28.8 56.9 16.4 Delaware ....................................................... 10,853 3,888 0 1,680 16,421 80.9 29.0 0.0 12.5 District of Columbia ..................................... 11,813 3,867 0 1,428 17,108 88.0 28.8 0.0 10.6 Florida ........................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Georgia .......................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Guam 2 .......................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 3,072 16,853 73.7 29.0 0.0 22.9 

Hawaii:

Work exempt ........................................ 10,085 3,888 4,489 2,784 21,246 75.1 29.0 33.4 20.7 Nonexempt ........................................... 10,085 3,888 2,785 3,300 20,058 75.1 29.0 20.7 24.6 

Idaho ............................................................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Illinois ........................................................... 9,893 3,888 953 1,644 16,378 73.7 29.0 7.1 12.2 Indiana .......................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Iowa 1 ............................................................ 9,893 3,888 827 1,680 16,288 73.7 29.0 6.2 12.5 Kansas 1 ........................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Kentucky ........................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 

Louisiana ...................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Maine ............................................................ 9,893 3,888 2,444 1,188 17,413 73.7 29.0 18.2 8.9 Maryland 1 ..................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Massachusetts: 1

Work exempt ........................................ 11,525 3,888 0 1,500 16,913 85.9 29.0 0.0 11.2 Nonexempt ........................................... 11,525 3,888 0 1,500 16,913 85.9 29.0 0.0 11.2 

Michigan:

Washtenaw County .............................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Wayne County ...................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 

Minnesota 1 ................................................... 9,893 3,888 691 3,084 17,555 73.7 29.0 5.1 23.8 Mississippi .................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Missouri ........................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Montana ........................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Nebraska ....................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Nevada .......................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 New Hampshire ............................................. 9,893 3,888 1,544 1,464 16,789 73.7 29.0 11.5 10.9 New Jersey .................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 New Mexico ................................................... 9,896 3,888 0 1,920 15,704 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 New York: 1

New York City ...................................... 9,893 3,888 1,723 1,404 16,907 73.7 29.0 12.8 10.5 Suffolk County ..................................... 9,893 3,888 3,235 960 17,975 73.7 29.0 24.1 7.2 

North Carolina .............................................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 North Dakota ................................................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Ohio ............................................................... 9,893 3,888 620 1,740 16,141 73.7 29.0 4.6 13.0 Oklahoma ...................................................... 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Oregon 1 ........................................................ 12,486 3,713 0 1,248 17,447 93.0 27.7 0.0 9.3 Pennsylvania ................................................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Rhode Island 1 .............................................. 10,853 3,888 1,792 1,140 17,673 80.9 29.0 13.4 8.5 

South Carolina .............................................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 South Dakota ................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Tennessee ..................................................... 9,893 3,888 676 1,728 16,185 73.7 29.0 5.0 12.9 Texas ............................................................. 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 

TABLE 7–12.—EARNINGS AND INCOME FROM SELECTED MAJOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO CHILDREN WORKING FUL

AT MINIMUM WAGE, WORKING IN MONTH 13, ANNUALIZED, JANUARY 1, 2000—Continued

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps Combined total

As a percent of poverty threshold

Net

earnings EIC TANF Food stamps 

Utah .............................................................. 9,893 3,888 656 1,728 16,165 73.7 29.0 4.9 12.9 Vermont 1 ...................................................... 11,045 3,888 0 1,632 16,565 82.3 29.0 0.0 12.2 Virginia ......................................................... 9,893 3,888 4,248 648 18,677 73.7 29.0 31.6 4.8 Virgin Islands 2 ............................................. 9,893 3,888 0 3,840 17,621 73.7 29.0 0.0 28.6 

Washington ................................................... 12,486 3,713 0 1,248 17,447 93.0 27.7 0.0 9.3 West Virginia ................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 Wisconsin: 1

Community service 3 ............................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 W2 transition ....................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Wyoming ........................................................ 9,893 3,888 0 1,920 15,701 73.7 29.0 0.0 14.3 

1 These States have their own earned income credits (generally calculated as a percentage of the Federal EIC) but they are not shown in this table. 2 Guam and the Virgin Islands have territorial tax systems that mirror the Internal Revenue Code, including the EIC. However, revenues foregone and refunds paid u

EICs affect their own territorial treasuries, not the U.S. Treasury. 3 This entry applies to a person who has moved from community service to a full-time unsubsidized job (and thus is no longer eligible for a community service payme

NA—Not applicable. (Persons with jobs are not eligible for the Wisconsin program of transitional aid.)Note.—Puerto Rico is omitted from this table. It is not covered by the Federal income tax and has no EIC. A full-time minimum wage worker in Puerto Rico would be 

for TANF.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on State and Federal minimum wage laws, EIC law, food stamp law, and the CRS January 2000 

State TANF benefit levels and program rules.

397

BREAK-EVEN LEVELS

The earnings levels at which Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) eligibility ends (TANF break-even points) depend

on a State’s payment standard, its treatment of earnings, and duration on a job. Table 7–13 presents break-even points for a family

of three for the first 13 months in a job. Two States ignore all earnings for a period of time (Alabama, for the first 4 months of employment and New Jersey for 1 month). Connecticut ignores all

earnings so long as they are below the Federal poverty level (and

the family has not reached the State’s 21-month benefit cutoff).

Some States retain old AFDC policy and count a higher proportion

of earnings against the benefit after 4 months on a job, and still

more after 1 year of work (Georgia is an example).

USES OF TANF FUNDS

Through fiscal year 1999, States spent $33.5 billion out of $46.8

billion in cumulative TANF awards for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and

1999 (table 7–14). They also transferred $6.4 billion to the Child

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

Grant, and obligated $4.7 billion. This left an unobligated balance

of $2.2 billion. Nationally, expenditures represented 72 percent of

total awards; transfers, 14 percent; unliquidated obligations (that

is, obligated balances), 10 percent, and unobligated balances, 5 percent. The pattern of fund use varied widely among States: 10

States spent less than 60 percent of their TANF funds (Colorado,

Florida, Idaho, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming); 3 States spent more than 90 percent (Delaware, Maine, and Nebraska); 4 States made no transfers

of TANF funds (Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Oregon); and 4 States transferred more than 20 percent of funds (Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wyoming).

EXPENDITURES

Trends

Total expenditures for TANF and predecessor programs peaked

at $30.1 billion in fiscal year 1995 and declined to $21.5 billion in

fiscal year 1998, then rose slightly (table 7–15). At the same time

the share of total expenditures paid with Federal funds has declined, from 54.3 percent in 1990 and 53.7 percent in the peak

spending year of 1995 to 52.1 percent in 1999. Through fiscal year

1996, data in the table represent Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families (EA),

and JOBS. Data for the transition year of fiscal year 1997 combine

expenditures for AFDC, EA, and JOBS with expenditures for

TANF. Fiscal year 1998 expenditures are for TANF. State TANF

expenditures represent spending counted toward the State maintenance of effort (MOE), including State spending on separate State

programs (SSPs), but exclude child care spending that can be double counted toward both the TANF MOE and the Child Care and

Development Block Grant (CCDBG) MOE.

TABLE 7–13.—TANF BREAK-EVEN POINTS—MONTHLY EARNINGS THAT END ELIGIBILITY, SINGLE-PARENT FAMILY WITH TWO CHILDREN, JANUA

2000

State

Month of employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Alabama .......................... (1) (1) (1) (1) $193 $193 $193 $193 $193 $193 $193 $193 

Alaska ............................... $1,998 $1,998 $1,998 $1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998 Arizona .............................. 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 Arkansas ........................... 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 California:

Region 1 .................. 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 Region 2 .................. 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 

Colorado ............................ 734 734 734 734 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 530 Connecticut ....................... 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 Delaware ........................... 1,391 1,391 1,391 1,391 968 968 968 968 968 968 968 968 District of Columbia ......... 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 839 Florida ............................... 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 Georgia .............................. 741 741 741 741 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 Guam ................................ 1,115 1,115 1,115 1,115 784 784 784 784 784 784 784 784 Hawaii:

Work exempt ............ 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 1,622 Nonexempt ............... 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 

Idaho ................................. 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 Illinois ............................... 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 Indiana .............................. 537 537 537 537 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 Iowa .................................. 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 Kansas .............................. 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 789 Kentucky ............................ 973 973 408 408 408 408 283 283 283 283 283 283 Louisiana .......................... 1,081 1,081 1,081 1,081 1,081 1,081 301 301 301 301 301 301 Maine ................................ 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 

Maryland ........................... 627 627 627 627 627 627 627 627 627 627 627 627 Massachusetts:

Work exempt ............ 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 Nonexempt ............... 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 

Michigan:

Washtenaw County .. 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 Wayne County .......... 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 

Minnesota 2 ....................... 986 986 986 986 986 986 986 986 986 986 986 986 Mississippi ........................ 680 680 680 680 680 680 442 442 442 442 442 442 Missouri ............................ 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 Montana ............................ 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 813 Nebraska ........................... 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 Nevada .............................. 1,532 1,532 1,532 677 677 677 677 677 677 677 677 677 New Hampshire ................. 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 1,131 New Jersey ........................ (1) 847 847 847 847 847 847 847 847 847 847 847 New Mexico 3 ..................... 928 928 928 928 928 928 928 928 928 928 928 928 New York:

New York City .......... 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 1,067 Suffolk County ......... 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 1,301 

North Carolina .................. 558 558 558 558 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 383 North Dakota ..................... 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 893 893 695 695 Ohio ................................... 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 Oklahoma .......................... 685 685 685 685 685 685 685 685 685 685 685 685 Oregon ............................... 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 Pennsylvania ..................... 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 823 Puerto Rico ....................... 360 360 360 360 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Rhode Island ..................... 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 1,259 South Carolina .................. 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 South Dakota .................... 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 Tennessee ......................... 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 Texas ................................. 407 407 407 407 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 Utah .................................. 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 983 

TABLE 7–13.—TANF BREAK-EVEN POINTS—MONTHLY EARNINGS THAT END ELIGIBILITY, SINGLE-PARENT FAMILY WITH TWO CHILDREN, JANUA

2000—Continued

State

Month of employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Vermont ............................. 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 819 819 819 819 819 819 819 819 Virginia ............................. 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 1,157 Virgin Islands ................... 465 465 465 465 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 Washington ....................... 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 West Virginia .................... 818 818 818 818 818 818 818 818 818 818 818 818 Wisconsin:

Community service .. 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 W2 transition ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Wyoming ............................ 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 

1 During these months all earnings are disregarded, and the State has no gross income limit.2 TANF break-even points in Minnesota share the earnings level at which the cash portion of the full standard is reduced to zero. The food stamp portion is not redu

full food stamp benefits are paid) until earnings have reduced the cash portion to zero. 3 A recipient in New Mexico could earn as much as $1,264 without losing benefits. This could occur because New Mexico’s excess hours disregard does not count inc

the hours in excess of 29 hours per week.

NA—Not applicable. (Persons with jobs are not eligible for the Wisconsin program of transitional assistance.)Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the CRS January 1, 2000 Survey of State TANF benefit levels and program rules.

TABLE 7–14.—STATE USE OF CUMULATIVE TANF GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1998, AND 1999

[In millions of dollars]

State Total grant awards Transfers Available for TANF TANF ex- penditures Unexpended balance Obligated Unobligated 

Alabama ............................................................................ $297.2 $82.5 $214.7 $178.6 $4.8 $31.3 Alaska ................................................................................ 148.8 40.8 108.0 101.0 0.0 7.0 Arizona ............................................................................... 679.4 107.5 571.9 480.6 91.3 0.0 Arkansas ............................................................................ 137.9 4.1 133.8 86.7 47.1 0.0 California ........................................................................... 10,683.3 590.3 10,093.0 8,472.4 1,620.6 0.0 Colorado ............................................................................. 323.3 59.8 263.5 186.4 77.1 0.0 Connecticut ........................................................................ 800.4 53.9 746.5 705.7 0.0 40.7 Delaware ............................................................................ 84.5 4.2 80.3 77.3 2.9 0.0 District of Columbia .......................................................... 250.2 38.8 211.4 161.3 32.8 17.3 Florida ................................................................................ 1,731.0 320.1 1,410.9 1,018.3 392.6 0.0 Georgia .............................................................................. 949.5 119.2 830.3 694.4 15.3 120.6 Hawaii ................................................................................ 225.7 22.3 203.4 198.0 1.4 4.0 Idaho .................................................................................. 78.0 13.2 64.8 31.7 16.9 16.2 Illinois ................................................................................ 1,358.9 234.0 1,124.9 1,144.0 0.0 0.0 Indiana .............................................................................. 620.4 186.1 434.3 259.8 174.5 0.0 Iowa ................................................................................... 365.0 40.0 325.0 298.3 5.7 21.0 Kansas ............................................................................... 305.8 43.6 262.2 262.2 0.0 0.0 Kentucky ............................................................................ 531.8 119.4 412.4 412.4 0.0 0.0 Louisiana ........................................................................... 473.4 102.1 371.3 259.0 0.0 112.2 Maine ................................................................................. 228.7 23.1 205.7 205.7 0.0 0.0 Maryland ............................................................................ 648.6 137.5 511.1 426.0 50.9 34.2 Massachusetts ................................................................... 1,398.1 415.4 982.7 913.6 0.0 69.1 Michigan ............................................................................ 2,346.1 501.3 1,844.7 1,698.6 0.0 146.1 Minnesota .......................................................................... 638.9 111.0 527.9 401.3 67.3 59.3 Mississippi ......................................................................... 266.9 50.0 216.9 123.2 20.5 73.2 

TABLE 7–14.—STATE USE OF CUMULATIVE TANF GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1998, AND 1999—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

State Total grant awards Transfers Available for TANF TANF ex- penditures Unexpended balance Obligated Unobligated 

Missouri ............................................................................. 621.9 86.8 535.1 508.3 15.3 11.4 Montana ............................................................................. 124.6 21.8 102.8 80.4 0.0 22.4 Nebraska ............................................................................ 165.4 0.0 165.4 156.2 0.0 9.2 Nevada ............................................................................... 126.3 0.4 125.9 108.4 17.5 0.0 New Hampshire ................................................................. 115.6 0.0 115.6 105.0 4.6 6.0 New Jersey ......................................................................... 1,110.3 333.1 777.2 524.1 253.1 0.0 New Mexico ........................................................................ 322.5 27.0 295.5 238.7 0.0 56.9 New York ............................................................................ 6,868.2 958.0 5,910.2 4,882.4 343.6 684.1 North Carolina ................................................................... 851.1 101.2 749.9 648.2 98.3 3.4 North Dakota ..................................................................... 63.9 0.0 63.9 53.3 3.1 7.5 Ohio ................................................................................... 2,183.9 218.4 1,965.5 1,231.6 583.9 150.0 Oklahoma ........................................................................... 443.5 133.0 310.4 249.0 0.0 61.4 Oregon ............................................................................... 501.4 0.0 501.4 477.6 23.8 0.0 Pennsylvania ...................................................................... 1,886.2 180.0 1,706.2 1,554.1 123.3 28.9 Rhode Island ..................................................................... 237.4 15.8 221.6 221.6 0.0 0.0 South Carolina ................................................................... 293.8 38.5 255.3 223.2 32.1 0.0 South Dakota ..................................................................... 60.7 7.7 53.0 39.0 2.2 11.9 Tennessee .......................................................................... 590.3 83.8 506.5 401.9 25.3 79.2 Texas .................................................................................. 1,464.2 253.2 1,211.1 1,035.5 175.6 0.0 Utah ................................................................................... 236.8 11.8 225.1 207.3 0.0 17.8 Vermont ............................................................................. 142.1 31.3 110.7 107.8 0.0 3.0 Virginia .............................................................................. 434.2 100.5 333.7 318.0 14.2 1.5 Washington ........................................................................ 1,096.9 150.0 947.0 748.6 68.1 130.2 West Virginia ..................................................................... 302.5 45.6 256.9 112.1 0.0 144.8 Wisconsin ........................................................................... 953.2 184.4 768.8 447.9 290.1 30.7 

Wyoming ............................................................................ 60.5 18.0 42.4 7.3 0.0 35.1 

Total .......................................................................... 46,829.3 6,420.6 40,408.7 33,484.2 4,695.9 2,247.7 Percent of total ........................................................ ................ 14 86 72 10 5 

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

404

TABLE 7–15.—TOTAL, FEDERAL, AND STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TANF AND

PREDECESSOR PROGRAMS (AFDC, EA, AND JOBS), FISCAL YEARS 1990–99

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year Total Federal State

Actual (current) dollars:

1990 .................................... $22,018 $11,953 $10,066

1991 .................................... 24,133 13,169 10,964

1992 .................................... 26,606 14,567 12,039

1993 .................................... 27,037 14,790 12,247

1994 .................................... 28,854 15,686 13,168

1995 .................................... 30,091 16,173 13,918

1996 .................................... 28,193 15,067 13,126

1997 .................................... 23,179 12,494 10,686

1998 .................................... 21,513 11,286 10,227

1999 .................................... 21,728 11,323 10,405

Percent change: 1995–99

(change from peak expenditures) ......................................... ¥27.8 ¥30.0 ¥25.2

Constant (1999) dollars:

1990 .................................... 26,773 14,534 12,239

1991 .................................... 28,244 15,412 12,832

1992 .................................... 30,341 16,612 13,729

1993 .................................... 30,116 16,474 13,642

1994 .................................... 31,459 17,102 14,357

1995 .................................... 32,111 17,259 14,852

1996 .................................... 29,497 15,764 13,733

1997 .................................... 23,792 12,824 10,968

1998 .................................... 21,784 11,429 10,356

1999 .................................... 21,728 11,323 10,405

Percent change: 1995–99

(change from peak expenditures) ......................................... ¥32.3 ¥34.4 ¥29.9

Note.—State TANF expenditures exclude child care expenditures that can be ‘‘double counted’’ toward

both the Child Care and Development Fund and TANF maintenance-of-effort requirement.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

Chart 7–2 shows the national trends in expenditures, from 1995

to 1999. Fiscal year 1995 and 1996 expenditures are Federal and

State expenditures made under AFDC, EA, and JOBS. Fiscal year

1997 are transition year expenditures, combining TANF and preTANF expenditures. State expenditures under TANF exclude child

care that could be credited toward the MOE requirements of both

TANF and the CCDF.

Expenditures by State

Table 7–16 shows TANF and comparable pre-TANF (AFDC, EA

and JOBS) expenditures, Federal and State, by State, for fiscal

years 1995 and 1999. The Federal share of expenditures, which

was a minimum of 50 percent under AFDC, has dropped

405

CHART 7–2. FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES FOR TANF AND PREDECESSOR

PROGRAMS, FISCAL YEARS 1990–99

Note.—State expenditures include those made under the State TANF Program and State SSP expenditures

but exclude State expenditures that can be double counted toward both the TANF and Child Care and Development Fund maintenance-of-effort requirements.

Source: Chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

below that level in a number of States, including New York. Nationally Federal expenditures in fiscal year 1999 declined by $4.9

billion (a 30 percent reduction) while State expenditures fell by

$3.5 billion (a 25 percent reduction) from their peak levels of fiscal

year 1995.

TANF law gives States unlimited time in which to spend funds

for assistance (benefits to meet a family’s ongoing basic needs, plus

supportive services for unemployed families), but requires that

funds used for nonassistance must be obligated by the end of the

fiscal year for which they are awarded and spent by the end of the

next year. As shown in table 7–17, $3.3 billion of total TANF expenditures made in fiscal year 1999 came from funds awarded for

fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The table also shows that 16.7 percent

of fiscal year 1999 TANF awards were transferred by States (6.2

percent to the Social Services Block Grant and 10.6 percent to the

CCDF). Twenty States transferred 20 percent or more of their 1999

TANF awards (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New

Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).

TABLE 7–16.—FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES IN AFDC/TANF AND RELATED PROGRAMS, BY STATE, 1 FISCAL YEARS 1995 AND 199

[In millions of dollars]

State

1995 1999 Change in expend

Federal State Federal share (percent) Federal State Federal share (percent) Federal 

Alabama ........................................................ $84.6 $46.1 64.7 $51.7 $32.3 61.5

¥$32.9

Alaska .......................................................... 60.7 60.0 50.3 38.2 47.2 44.7

¥22.6

Arizona ......................................................... 214.2 119.7 64.1 142.2 87.5 61.9

¥72.0

Arkansas ...................................................... 48.0 23.3 67.3 45.4 24.3 65.1

¥2.5 

California ..................................................... 3,708.2 3,701.1 50.0 3,345.5 2,821.0 54.3

¥362.7

Colorado ....................................................... 131.2 118.1 52.6 70.1 80.4 46.6

¥61.1

Connecticut .................................................. 277.2 273.8 50.3 202.0 164.7 55.1

¥75.3

Delaware ...................................................... 35.4 34.4 50.7 32.7 21.5 60.4

¥2.6

District of Columbia .................................... 83.9 81.6 50.7 51.2 72.5 41.4

¥32.7

Florida .......................................................... 549.0 446.6 55.1 112.9 337.6 25.1

¥436.1

Georgia ........................................................ 317.0 208.4 60.3 235.1 152.6 60.6

¥82.0

Hawaii .......................................................... 101.3 99.0 50.6 86.9 81.0 51.8

¥14.3

Idaho ............................................................ 33.0 19.1 63.3 12.2 13.3 48.0

¥20.7

Illinois .......................................................... 595.4 580.1 50.7 409.5 373.2 52.3

¥185.9

Indiana ........................................................ 168.6 113.0 59.9 66.7 105.7 38.7

¥101.9

Iowa ............................................................. 126.7 85.0 59.8 113.3 56.9 66.6

¥13.5

Kansas ......................................................... 91.8 68.9 57.1 107.5 61.7 63.5 15.7Kentucky ...................................................... 156.9 81.1 65.9 126.3 76.5 62.3

¥30.6

Louisiana ..................................................... 140.1 76.4 64.7 69.2 53.9 56.2

¥70.9

Maine ........................................................... 74.1 45.9 61.7 68.0 38.8 63.6

¥6.1

Maryland ...................................................... 235.4 230.4 50.5 151.3 153.7 49.6

¥84.0

Massachusetts ............................................. 411.2 401.8 50.6 270.5 316.1 46.1

¥140.8

Michigan ...................................................... 713.0 558.0 56.1 562.9 446.9 55.7

¥150.1

Minnesota .................................................... 253.6 217.3 53.8 177.0 180.6 49.5

¥76.6

Mississippi ................................................... 82.3 29.8 73.5 21.1 21.5 49.6

¥61.2

Missouri ....................................................... 210.4 151.6 58.1 188.4 111.6 62.8

¥22.0

Montana ....................................................... 45.5 22.5 66.9 24.9 14.4 63.3

¥20.7

Nebraska ...................................................... 59.3 46.6 56.0 85.6 24.0 78.1 26.3Nevada ......................................................... 44.7 40.0 52.8 37.5 25.0 60.1

¥7.2

New Hampshire ........................................... 38.0 37.7 50.2 27.9 27.5 50.4

¥10.0

New Jersey ................................................... 397.5 387.4 50.6 149.4 273.8 35.3

¥248.1

New Mexico .................................................. 130.4 53.5 70.9 89.8 37.1 70.8

¥40.6

New York ...................................................... 2,532.0 2,499.8 50.3 1,533.6 2,016.7 43.2

¥998.3

North Carolina ............................................. 320.3 213.9 60.0 222.8 133.4 62.6

¥97.5

North Dakota ............................................... 26.1 16.6 61.2 23.9 8.1 74.8

¥2.2

Ohio ............................................................. 629.8 434.8 59.2 242.4 368.4 39.7

¥387.4

Oklahoma ..................................................... 134.6 69.5 65.9 85.3 54.7 60.9

¥49.2

Oregon ......................................................... 164.1 113.6 59.1 194.7 79.9 70.9 30.6Pennsylvania ................................................ 798.9 702.5 53.2 603.7 387.6 60.9

¥195.2

Rhode Island ............................................... 92.9 76.6 54.8 94.9 64.1 59.7 2.0South Carolina ............................................. 97.1 48.8 66.5 70.9 31.8 69.0

¥26.2

South Dakota ............................................... 20.5 11.4 64.2 12.4 8.3 59.8

¥8.1

Tennessee .................................................... 183.6 112.7 62.0 120.5 88.3 57.7

¥63.2

Texas ............................................................ 474.4 318.6 59.8 339.2 216.8 61.0

¥135.3

Utah ............................................................. 71.5 35.5 66.8 54.6 20.8 72.4

¥16.8

Vermont ....................................................... 46.2 31.3 59.6 37.6 24.7 60.4

¥8.5

Virginia ........................................................ 143.8 140.9 50.5 129.9 106.8 54.9

¥13.9

Washington .................................................. 397.8 364.8 52.2 212.3 257.6 45.2

¥185.4

West Virginia ............................................... 96.6 38.0 71.8 14.6 40.6 26.4

¥82.0 

Wisconsin ..................................................... 306.0 217.8 58.4 153.4 152.4 50.2

¥152.7

Wyoming ...................................................... 18.1 12.7 58.9 3.4 9.3 26.9

¥14.7

Total .................................................... 16,173.2 13,917.9 53.7 11,323.2 10,405.2 52.1

¥4,850.0

¥

1 Excludes State TANF MOE child care expenditures that can also be counted toward the Child Care and Development Fund MOE.

Note.—Funds included in the columns for 1999 reflect actual State expenditures, not the annual amount of Federal TANF funding allocated for each State. Excludes S

maintenance-of-effort child care expenditures that can also be counted toward the Child Care and Development Fund maintenance-of-effort requirement.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 7–17.—TANF GRANTS, TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1999

[In millions of dollars]

State Fiscal year 1999 grant

Transfers Fiscal year 1999 expenditures

Transfer to

CCDF

Transfer to Social Services

Block Grant

Total transfers

Spending from

fiscal year

1999 funds

Spending from

fiscal year

1997 and 1998

funds

Total tures 

yea

Alabama .................................................... $118.7 $23.7 $11.9 $35.6 $47.0 $4.6 Alaska ........................................................ 64.5 13.8 5.6 19.4 38.2 0.0 Arizona ....................................................... 230.6 0.0 23.0 23.0 132.1 10.0 Arkansas .................................................... 59.8 0.0 4.1 4.1 16.1 29.3 California ................................................... 3,751.1 307.3 0.0 307.3 1,831.2 1,514.3 Colorado ..................................................... 142.7 0.0 20.3 20.3 45.3 24.9 Connecticut ................................................ 266.8 0.0 24.1 24.1 202.0 0.0 Delaware .................................................... 32.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 29.5 3.3 District of Columbia .................................. 92.6 18.5 9.3 27.8 32.1 19.2 Florida ........................................................ 591.8 117.6 59.2 176.8 22.4 90.5 Georgia ...................................................... 348.9 15.8 34.9 50.7 174.8 60.2 Hawaii ........................................................ 98.9 5.6 1.0 6.6 86.9 0.0 Idaho .......................................................... 33.1 6.6 3.3 9.9 0.0 12.2 Illinois ........................................................ 585.1 117.0 58.5 175.5 409.5 0.0 Indiana ...................................................... 206.8 56.0 6.0 62.0 16.7 50.1 Iowa ........................................................... 131.5 14.7 12.8 27.6 77.2 36.0 Kansas ....................................................... 101.9 6.1 10.2 16.3 85.6 21.9 Kentucky .................................................... 181.3 36.2 18.1 54.4 126.9 ¥0.6 Louisiana ................................................... 172.3 51.7 0.0 51.7 41.6 27.6 Maine ......................................................... 78.1 7.6 2.5 10.1 68.0 0.0 

Maryland .................................................... 229.1 0.0 22.9 22.9 126.7 24.6 Massachusetts ........................................... 479.4 91.9 47.9 139.8 270.5 0.0 Michigan .................................................... 795.4 96.1 79.5 175.6 473.6 89.3 Minnesota .................................................. 267.4 45.0 26.7 71.7 69.1 107.9 Mississippi ................................................. 91.2 8.7 8.7 17.4 20.3 0.8 Missouri ..................................................... 217.1 43.4 21.7 65.1 125.2 63.2 Montana ..................................................... 45.5 5.5 0.0 5.5 23.5 1.4 Nebraska .................................................... 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 36.7 Nevada ....................................................... 45.8 0.0 0.4 0.4 28.6 8.9 New Hampshire ......................................... 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 New Jersey ................................................. 404.0 80.8 40.4 121.2 78.5 70.9 New Mexico ................................................ 132.7 13.7 0.0 13.7 65.5 24.3 New York .................................................... 2,442.9 5.0 244.0 249.0 1,314.8 218.9 North Carolina ........................................... 319.8 80.3 7.7 88.0 130.2 92.6 North Dakota ............................................. 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 5.8 Ohio ........................................................... 728.0 0.0 72.8 72.8 206.0 36.4 Oklahoma ................................................... 147.6 29.5 14.8 44.3 42.0 43.4 Oregon ....................................................... 166.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 143.0 51.7 Pennsylvania .............................................. 719.5 127.0 0.0 127.0 460.8 142.9 Rhode Island ............................................. 95.0 13.6 2.2 15.8 79.2 15.7 South Carolina ........................................... 100.0 3.5 10.0 13.5 64.4 6.5 South Dakota ............................................. 21.3 0.0 2.1 2.1 12.4 0.0 Tennessee .................................................. 202.0 51.8 0.0 51.8 114.9 5.6 Texas .......................................................... 512.0 30.6 51.2 81.8 254.6 84.5 Utah ........................................................... 81.1 3.7 4.9 8.6 54.6 0.0 Vermont ..................................................... 47.4 7.7 4.7 12.4 31.9 5.7 Virginia ...................................................... 158.3 29.2 15.8 45.0 97.6 32.3 Washington ................................................ 403.3 121.0 0.0 121.0 84.0 128.3 West Virginia ............................................. 110.2 10.0 11.0 21.0 0.0 14.6 

TABLE 7–17.—TANF GRANTS, TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1999—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

State Fiscal year 1999 grant

Transfers Fiscal year 1999 expenditures

Transfer to

CCDF

Transfer to Social Services

Block Grant

Total transfers

Spending from

fiscal year

1999 funds

Spending from

fiscal year

1997 and 1998

funds

Total tures 

yea

Wisconsin ................................................... 317.5 63.5 31.8 95.3 50.2 103.1 Wyoming .................................................... 20.8 4.1 2.1 6.2 2.7 0.7 

Total .......................................... 16,712.6 1,764.0 1,028.2 2,792.2 8,002.9 3,320.4 1

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

411

Fiscal year 1999 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) expenditures, including State-funded MOE spending, totaled $22.6 billion (table 7–18). Because it includes all State-funded

MOE child care, this sum is higher than the $21.7 billion fiscal

year 1999 total shown in table 7–15. The difference represents

child care outlays that can be counted for both the TANF and

CCDF MOE. Of the $22.6 billion total, $13.5 billion (59.6 percent)

was used for cash and work-based assistance, $1.8 billion (7.8 percent) for work activities; $2.0 billion (8.8 percent) for child care;

$2.3 billion (10.1 percent) for administration and computerization

needed for tracking and monitoring, and $3.1 billion (13.7 percent)

for other purposes. The table shows sharp State variations. In 14

States (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana,

Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin) cash and work-based assistance

accounted for less than half of expenditures. At the other extreme,

three States (Hawaii, New Mexico, and Vermont) attributed more

than 80 percent of their spending to cash and work-based help. In

10 States child care accounted for 10 percent or more of TANF outlays (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,

North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin).

State maintenance-of-effort expenditures.—Table 7–19 shows total

fiscal year 1999 State TANF maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures broken down by three categories: expenditures under the regular TANF Program, State child care expenditures, and expenditures under separate State programs (SSPs). Inclusion of all MOE

child care expenditures ($1.4 billion) raises total State spending to

$11.3 billion (compared with $10.4 billion in table 7–16, which excludes $856 million in child care that could be double counted for

both the TANF and Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)

MOE. Nationally, expenditures under the regular TANF Program

accounted for 82.2 percent of State MOE spending, child care for

12.4 percent, and SSP programs for 5.4 percent. A total of 21

States reported MOE expenditures (other than child care) under

SSPs. Two States (Hawaii and Tennessee) reported using no MOE

funds for child care.

Expenditures per family.—Table 7–20 shows expenditures (excluding TANF MOE spending that also could be counted toward

the CCDF MOE) per family for each year from fiscal year 1995 to

fiscal year 1999. Expenditures per family did not change much between fiscal years 1995 and 1996, fell slightly in fiscal year 1997,

then rose. Over the 4-year period, per-family expenditures were up

$2,088, or 33.5 percent). However, caution should be used in interpreting these numbers. The counts of families reflect only those receiving TANF ‘‘assistance.’’ Some States have moved families that

were considered Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)

families into SSPs other than TANF. For example, some States aid

two-parent families and/or child-only cases in an SSP. Some forms

of aid might not be considered by a State to be TANF assistance,

and families receiving such aid might not be counted as a TANF

family. Both of these factors would reduce the reported number of

recipient families and thus inflate the calculated expenditure per

family.

412

TABLE 7–18.—TOTAL TANF AND TANF MOE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE AND MAJOR

CATEGORY, FISCAL YEAR 1999

[In millions of dollars]

State

Cash and

workbased

assistance

Work activitiesChild

care

Administration

and systems

Other Total expenditures

Alabama ..................... $35.3 $15.4 $14.4 $10.7 $15.1 $90.9

Alaska ......................... 64.0 10.3 5.1 8.5 0.5 88.4

Arizona ........................ 121.6 14.5 12.3 34.1 57.2 239.7

Arkansas ..................... 23.8 22.0 5.1 7.6 13.0 71.6

California .................... 4,289.9 311.7 411.6 425.3 813.5 6,252.1

Colorado ..................... 55.1 8.8 10.8 15.4 69.4 159.5

Connecticut ................ 199.3 15.6 103.8 36.5 30.2 385.4

Delaware ..................... 23.7 10.2 11.9 13.5 0.0 59.4

District of Columbia ... 80.1 17.5 16.0 12.7 2.0 128.3

Florida ........................ 306.4 104.9 34.4 30.9 7.4 483.9

Georgia ....................... 206.8 30.7 35.2 39.1 98.1 409.9

Hawaii ........................ 148.9 5.7 0.0 13.3 0.0 167.9

Idaho .......................... 4.2 1.8 1.2 3.1 16.3 26.7

Illinois ......................... 574.1 33.3 117.0 115.3 0.0 839.6

Indiana ....................... 85.3 13.1 15.4 44.3 29.8 187.8

Iowa ............................ 91.9 24.3 6.2 29.1 23.7 175.2

Kansas ........................ 45.7 7.5 6.7 9.4 106.5 175.8

Kentucky ..................... 120.1 20.7 15.9 22.5 29.1 208.4

Louisiana .................... 67.1 14.2 5.2 20.8 21.0 128.3

Maine .......................... 74.3 9.8 7.1 12.3 5.1 108.6

Maryland ..................... 189.2 49.5 26.1 58.0 5.5 328.3

Massachusetts ........... 331.1 35.4 86.9 86.9 91.2 631.5

Michigan ..................... 435.3 151.7 308.5 60.3 78.5 1,034.2

Minnesota ................... 233.8 45.0 50.4 47.8 0.3 377.3

Mississippi ................. 26.7 7.4 1.7 7.6 0.8 44.3

Missouri ...................... 165.5 40.8 43.1 20.6 46.6 316.5

Montana ..................... 25.5 5.3 1.3 6.1 2.3 40.6

Nebraska .................... 68.1 16.5 6.5 25.1 0.0 116.2

Nevada ....................... 27.6 1.5 2.2 13.4 20.0 64.7

New Hampshire .......... 36.3 3.5 4.6 9.6 6.0 60.1

New Jersey .................. 302.0 31.9 47.9 67.7 0.0 449.6

New Mexico ................. 108.4 0.0 2.9 8.0 10.4 129.8

New York .................... 2,347.2 179.9 182.0 442.6 500.6 3,652.3

North Carolina ............ 176.0 3.7 43.9 29.4 141.1 394.1

North Dakota .............. 22.0 1.6 1.0 5.7 2.6 33.0

Ohio ............................ 380.4 4.7 68.8 98.0 104.3 656.2

Oklahoma ................... 57.9 31.4 27.4 8.7 25.2 150.7

Oregon ........................ 177.0 54.2 19.9 34.6 0.6 286.3

Pennsylvania .............. 529.9 72.0 46.6 79.8 309.7 1,038.0

Rhode Island .............. 115.0 7.6 14.3 17.7 9.7 164.3

South Carolina ........... 38.6 22.9 4.1 19.7 21.6 106.9

South Dakota .............. 11.3 3.3 0.8 3.3 2.9 21.6

Tennessee ................... 110.0 34.4 4.7 19.6 40.1 208.8

Texas .......................... 233.4 47.5 34.7 62.3 212.7 590.6

Utah ............................ 40.6 25.5 4.5 9.3 0.1 79.9

413

TABLE 7–18.—TOTAL TANF AND TANF MOE EXPENDITURES, BY STATE AND MAJOR

CATEGORY, FISCAL YEAR 1999—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

State

Cash and

workbased

assistance

Work activitiesChild

care

Administration

and systems

Other Total expenditures

Vermont ...................... 52.3 0.3 4.4 8.0 0.0 65.0

Virginia ....................... 140.2 60.8 21.9 35.0 0.3 258.1

Washington ................. 316.9 39.2 34.1 58.5 55.4 504.0

West Virginia .............. 32.7 3.1 3.0 18.8 0.6 58.2

Wisconsin ................... 90.7 80.0 60.5 23.0 68.1 322.2

Wyoming ..................... 10.4 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.0 14.3

Total .................... 13,449.5 1,754.0 1,995.5 2,290.7 3,095.2 22,584.9

Percent of total ............ 59.6 7.8 8.8 10.1 13.7 100.0

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

414

TABLE 7–19.—STATE MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM

CATEGORY, FISCAL YEAR 1999

[In millions of dollars]

State

State expenditures

under

the TANF

Program

(excluding child

care)

Total

child

care

Child

care that

can be

double

counted

Separate

State

program

expenditures

(excluding child

care)

Total expenditures

Total expenditures

minus

child care

that can

be double

counted

Alabama ....................... $32.2 $6.9 $6.9 $0.1 $39.2 $32.3

Alaska ......................... 47.2 3.0 3.0 0.0 50.2 47.2

Arizona ........................ 87.5 10.0 10.0 0.0 97.6 87.5

Arkansas ..................... 21.1 5.1 1.9 0.0 26.2 24.3

California .................... 2,617.2 240.2 85.6 49.2 2,906.6 2,821.0

Colorado ..................... 78.6 10.8 9.0 0.0 89.4 80.4

Connecticut ................ 96.2 68.1 18.7 19.2 183.4 164.7

Delaware ..................... 14.1 11.9 5.2 0.6 26.7 21.5

District of Columbia ... 61.1 16.0 4.6 0.0 77.1 72.5

Florida ........................ 313.4 34.4 33.4 23.2 371.0 337.6

Georgia ....................... 79.0 35.2 22.2 60.5 174.8 152.6

Hawaii ........................ 32.3 0.0 0.0 48.6 81.0 81.0

Idaho .......................... 13.3 1.2 1.2 0.0 14.4 13.3

Illinois ......................... 308.1 81.8 56.9 40.2 430.1 373.2

Indiana ....................... 80.7 15.4 15.4 25.0 121.1 105.7

Iowa ............................ 55.7 6.2 5.1 0.1 62.0 56.9

Kansas ........................ 61.7 6.7 6.7 0.0 68.3 61.7

Kentucky ..................... 76.5 5.6 5.6 0.0 82.1 76.5

Louisiana .................... 53.9 5.2 5.2 0.0 59.1 53.9

Maine .......................... 16.2 7.1 1.7 17.3 40.6 38.8

Maryland ..................... 120.1 23.6 23.3 33.2 177.0 153.7

Massachusetts ........... 309.5 49.4 45.0 2.1 361.0 316.1

Michigan ..................... 362.7 97.3 24.4 11.3 471.3 446.9

Minnesota ................... 149.6 50.4 19.7 0.3 200.3 180.6

Mississippi ................. 21.5 1.7 1.7 0.0 23.2 21.5

Missouri ...................... 85.0 43.1 16.5 0.0 128.1 111.6

Montana ..................... 14.4 1.3 1.3 0.0 15.7 14.4

Nebraska .................... 24.0 6.5 6.5 0.0 30.5 24.0

Nevada ....................... 25.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 27.2 25.0

New Hampshire .......... 27.5 4.6 4.6 0.0 32.1 27.5

New Jersey .................. 273.1 26.4 26.4 0.6 300.2 273.8

New Mexico ................. 37.1 2.9 2.9 0.0 39.9 37.1

New York .................... 1,694.9 182.0 102.0 241.8 2,118.7 2,016.7

North Carolina ............ 128.5 42.8 37.9 0.0 171.3 133.4

North Dakota .............. 8.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 9.1 8.1

Ohio ............................ 364.4 49.4 45.4 0.0 413.8 368.4

Oklahoma ................... 48.4 16.9 10.6 0.0 65.3 54.7

Oregon ........................ 77.5 14.1 11.7 0.0 91.6 79.9

Pennsylvania .............. 387.6 46.6 46.6 0.0 434.3 387.6

Rhode Island .............. 45.8 14.3 5.3 9.4 69.4 64.1

South Carolina ........... 31.8 4.1 4.1 0.0 35.9 31.8

415

TABLE 7–19.—STATE MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM

CATEGORY, FISCAL YEAR 1999—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

State

State expenditures

under

the TANF

Program

(excluding child

care)

Total

child

care

Child

care that

can be

double

counted

Separate

State

program

expenditures

(excluding child

care)

Total expenditures

Total expenditures

minus

child care

that can

be double

counted

South Dakota .............. 8.3 0.8 0.8 0.0 9.1 8.3

Tennessee ................... 88.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.3 88.3

Texas .......................... 216.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 251.4 216.8

Utah ............................ 19.9 4.5 4.5 0.9 25.3 20.8

Vermont ...................... 24.0 3.4 2.7 0.0 27.4 24.7

Virginia ....................... 84.1 21.3 21.3 22.7 128.2 106.8

Washington ................. 257.6 34.1 34.1 0.0 291.7 257.6

West Virginia .............. 40.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 43.6 40.6

Wisconsin ................... 130.9 36.3 16.4 1.7 168.9 152.4

Wyoming ..................... 9.3 1.6 1.6 0.0 10.9 9.3

Total .................... 9,262.4 1,391.1 856.4 608.2 11,261.6 10,405.2

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 7–20.—TOTAL TANF/AFDC AND RELATED PROGRAM EXPENDITURES PER FAMILY (EXCLUDES TANF MOE EXPENDITURES THAT COULD AL

COUNTED TOWARD THE CCDF MOE), BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1995–99

State 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Change 1995– 99 Pe

chang

Alabama ...................................................... $2,840 $2,933 $2,988 $3,970 $4,144 $1,304 Alaska ........................................................ 9,716 9,843 10,139 9,619 10,092 376 Arizona ....................................................... 4,797 4,991 5,143 6,060 6,734 1,937 Arkansas .................................................... 2,932 3,585 3,652 4,159 5,841 2,909 California ................................................... 8,058 7,869 7,143 7,866 9,881 1,822 Colorado ..................................................... 6,465 7,547 7,079 8,234 10,553 4,088 Connecticut ................................................ 9,036 7,538 7,091 8,940 10,805 1,769 Delaware .................................................... 6,476 5,720 5,288 6,984 8,685 2,209 District of Columbia .................................. 6,177 5,922 5,378 6,820 6,493 315 Florida ........................................................ 4,313 4,368 4,327 6,167 5,494 1,180 Georgia ...................................................... 3,777 3,891 4,235 5,581 6,235 2,458 Hawaii ........................................................ 9,240 8,878 6,380 10,156 10,500 1,260 Idaho .......................................................... 5,738 5,589 2,377 10,441 18,461 12,724 Illinois ........................................................ 4,977 5,232 4,703 5,690 6,376 1,399 Indiana ...................................................... 4,292 3,834 3,962 4,418 4,698 406 Iowa ........................................................... 5,804 6,594 6,213 6,795 7,750 1,946 Kansas ....................................................... 5,694 6,109 8,390 8,600 13,170 7,476 Kentucky .................................................... 3,158 3,631 3,460 3,680 4,757 1,599 Louisiana ................................................... 2,713 2,564 2,747 3,457 3,127 414 Maine ......................................................... 5,534 5,918 6,270 6,989 7,929 2,395 Maryland .................................................... 5,794 5,562 5,127 6,136 8,777 2,983 Massachusetts ........................................... 8,061 8,317 8,512 9,375 10,769 2,708 Michigan .................................................... 6,302 5,854 7,057 8,118 10,607 4,305 Minnesota .................................................. 7,678 7,680 5,434 7,438 8,421 744 Mississippi ................................................. 2,134 1,980 2,296 3,969 2,558 425 

Missouri ..................................................... 4,055 4,355 4,311 4,942 5,892 1,837 Montana ..................................................... 5,917 5,483 5,899 6,715 8,138 2,221 Nebraska .................................................... 7,143 7,170 4,912 4,880 9,673 2,529 Nevada ....................................................... 5,393 5,530 5,759 7,668 7,781 2,388 New Hampshire ......................................... 7,006 7,591 7,924 9,036 8,712 1,705 New Jersey ................................................. 6,602 6,350 5,460 6,050 6,799 197 New Mexico ................................................ 5,340 5,457 5,950 5,212 4,975

¥365

New York .................................................... 11,012 10,754 9,845 9,505 12,058 1,046 North Carolina ........................................... 4,256 4,688 4,621 4,755 6,003 1,747 North Dakota ............................................. 8,182 8,230 8,824 10,278 10,313 2,131 Ohio ........................................................... 4,666 4,668 4,441 4,997 5,367 702 Oklahoma ................................................... 4,557 5,099 4,481 5,402 6,982 2,425 Oregon ....................................................... 7,072 7,613 9,579 11,202 16,277 9,205 Pennsylvania .............................................. 7,332 7,860 5,682 7,016 9,383 2,051 Rhode Island ............................................. 7,636 7,274 7,781 8,208 8,839 1,203 South Carolina ........................................... 2,979 3,396 3,582 4,099 5,597 2,617 South Dakota ............................................. 5,086 5,381 5,321 6,044 6,435 1,350 Tennessee .................................................. 2,849 2,951 3,289 3,620 3,623 774 Texas .......................................................... 2,905 2,906 2,960 3,808 4,872 1,967 Utah ........................................................... 6,423 6,994 6,943 8,027 7,698 1,274 Vermont ..................................................... 8,027 7,876 7,392 7,512 9,430 1,403 Virginia ...................................................... 3,947 4,017 4,122 5,036 6,396 2,449 Washington ................................................ 7,480 7,835 6,565 7,407 7,502 22 West Virginia ............................................. 3,504 3,744 3,336 3,998 4,825 1,321 Wisconsin ................................................... 7,238 6,977 8,704 22,378 15,975 8,737 Wyoming .................................................... 5,920 5,244 5,780 7,967 15,725 9,805 

Total .......................................... 6,242 6,269 5,958 6,865 8,330 2,088 

Note.—Excludes State TANF maintenance-of-effort child care expenditures that can also be counted toward the Child Care and Development Fund maintenance-of-effor

ment.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

418

Breakdown of expenditures.—As chart 7–3 shows, the bulk of fiscal year 1999 expenditures were made for cash assistance. Cash assistance accounted for spending of $13.4 billion, 60 percent of total

Federal and State MOE expenditures (down from $14.6 billion in

fiscal year 1998, 65 percent of total TANF spending). The second

largest category was ‘‘unclassified’’ expenditures; that is, expenditures that did not fit into any of the other categories (cash, work

program expenditures, child care, administration, and transitional

assistance). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) did not collect details on unclassified expenditures for fiscal year 1999, but this category could include payments for nonassistance such as transportation and work expenses. Unclassified

expenditures were 14 percent of all expenditures; administrative

costs accounted for 10 percent, child care for 9 percent, and work

program expenditures totaled 8 percent.

CHART 7–3. FISCAL YEAR 1999 FEDERAL AND STATE TANF AND RELATED PROGRAM

EXPENDITURES, BY CATEGORY. INCLUDES TANF CHILD CARE AND STATE CHILD CARE

EXPENDITURES.

[DOLLARS IN BILLIONS]

Note.—Details may not add to total because of rounding.

Source: Chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

419

5For a discussion of CCDF Programs, see Congressional Research Service (1998).

6 A corrective compliance plan must include an analysis of why the State failed the requirement and describe how, and by what time, it will discontinue the violation. A DHHS official

said that if penalized States moved two-parent families into separate State programs, they

would be required to achieve specified work rates for these families in accordance with a corrective compliance plan in order to have the penalty waived on grounds of corrective compliance.

Child care expenditures totaled $2.0 billion. Most of these ex- penditures ($1.4 billion) were State child care expenditures counted

toward the TANF MOE requirement. Only $0.6 billion was spent

directly on child care from Federal TANF grants. However, most

Federal funding for child care is provided through the CCDF (not

shown in this section).5

WORK ACTIVITIES AND PARTICIPATION

Participation rates, fiscal year 1998

All jurisdictions except Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands achieved the all-family work rate in fiscal year 1998, but 15

failed the higher two-parent family work rate (two States and two

territories reported having no two-parent families). The statutory

minimums for fiscal year 1998 were 30 percent for all families and

75 percent for two-parent families; but, as shown in table 7–21, actual State standards were adjusted downward to give credit for reductions in caseload from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1997 and,

in the case of Vermont, to reflect terms of pre-TANF waivers still

in effect. The six States that placed two-parent families in nonTANF Programs in fiscal year 1998 were Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey. Since then seven other

States have moved two-parent families into SSPs: California and

Connecticut, which met their fiscal year 1998 adjusted work targets of 33 percent and 67 percent, respectively, Delaware, Nebraska, Rhode island, and Virginia, which failed their adjusted targets, which averaged 52 percent, and South Dakota, which reported

no two-parent cases in fiscal year 1998. States that failed their

minimum work participation rates are subject to a penalty (for first

year’s failure, loss of 5 percent of the TANF Block Grant, for second year’s failure, 7 percent of the grant, with the penalty based

on ‘‘the degree of noncompliance’’), and under the law they must

spend from State funds an amount equal to their penalties; finally,

their required State MOE requirement is increased to 80 percent

of its historic level. Penalties for failure to meet fiscal year 1998

two-parent work rates are shown in table 7–22. The law permits

States that fail to achieve work rates to submit a corrective action

plan or appeal the penalty on grounds of reasonable cause. In addition to the four named above, the jurisdictions that failed their fiscal year 1998 two-parent family work requirement were Alaska,

Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Minnesota, New Mexico,

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. In final TANF regulations, DHHS said States that offered

TANF to noncustodial parents could choose whether to include

them in calculating work participation rates of two-parent families.

In fiscal year 1997, 16 States had failed the two-parent work requirements. Penalties were imposed on 2 States, and the other 14

States entered into ‘‘corrective compliance’’ plans.6 The National

Council of State Human Services Administrators on March 9, 1999,

TABLE 7–21.—TANF WORK PARTICIPATION RATES, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent]

State

Overall rate Two-person rate

Caseload reduction credit Adjusted target Participation rate achieved Met target Caseload re- duction credit Adjusted target Participation rate achieved Met target

Tw

c

ca

(p

Alabama ...................... 25.0 5.0 38.9 yes (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Alaska .......................... 3.2 26.8 42.5 yes 6.4 68.6 36.8 no Arizona ......................... 21.3 8.7 30.2 yes 21.3 53.7 76.6 yes Arkansas ...................... 13.4 16.6 19.4 yes 17.2 57.8 20.3 no California ..................... 12.3 17.7 36.6 yes 42.3 32.7 36.2 yes Colorado ....................... 22.5 7.5 28.7 yes 59.9 15.1 25.7 yes Connecticut .................. 8.5 21.5 41.4 yes 8.5 66.5 73.2 yes Delaware ...................... 20.6 9.4 26.2 yes 20.6 54.4 23.7 no District of Columbia .... 9.9 20.1 22.8 yes 44.9 30.1 22.5 no Florida .......................... 24.2 5.8 34.5 yes (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Georgia ........................ 23.9 6.1 29.3 yes (1) (1) (1) (1) Guam ........................... 0.0 30.0 12.4 no 0.0 75.0 13.8 no Hawaii .......................... 1.9 28.1 30.0 yes (1) (1) (1) (1) Idaho ............................ 25.8 4.2 28.6 yes 77.0 0.0 22.5 yes Illinois .......................... 16.4 13.6 37.7 yes 30.0 45.0 77.7 yes Indiana ........................ 31.9 0.0 29.9 yes 54.9 20.1 32.8 yes Iowa ............................. 20.9 9.1 56.9 yes 23.6 51.4 53.6 yes Kansas ......................... 28.1 1.9 41.3 yes 51.8 23.2 44.2 yes Kentucky ...................... 13.7 16.3 38.3 yes 37.5 37.5 51.6 yes Louisiana ..................... 28.0 2.0 29.2 yes 77.1 0.0 38.1 yes 

Maine ........................... 14.9 15.1 45.6 yes 39.7 35.3 49.9 yes Maryland ...................... 26.9 3.1 12.7 yes (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Massachusetts ............. 22.7 7.3 29.0 yes 30.4 44.6 73.3 yes Michigan ...................... 24.8 5.2 49.2 yes 36.6 38.4 63.9 yes Minnesota .................... 13.0 17.0 30.6 yes 32.5 42.5 30.8 no Mississippi ................... 26.3 3.7 25.2 yes 73.8 1.2 70.4 yes Missouri ....................... 19.6 10.4 24.1 yes 79.7 0.0 34.9 yes Montana ....................... 22.8 7.2 78.3 yes 22.8 52.2 86.4 yes Nebraska ...................... 9.4 20.6 36.2 yes 21.9 53.1 39.5 no Nevada ......................... 24.0 6.0 34.5 yes 43.3 31.7 58.7 yes New Hampshire ........... 24.5 5.5 37.3 yes 73.4 1.6 44.6 yes New Jersey ................... 15.3 14.7 26.5 yes (1) (1) (1) (1) 

New Mexico .................. 21.5 8.5 15.9 yes 39.4 35.6 16.8 no New York ...................... 15.0 15.0 37.5 yes 36.5 38.5 58.8 Yes North Carolina ............. 20.0 10.0 14.5 yes 20.0 55.0 30.9 no North Dakota ............... 19.3 10.7 31.5 yes (2) (2) (2) (2) Ohio ............................. 18.4 11.6 44.9 yes 25.8 49.2 51.5 yes Oklahoma ..................... 32.3 0.0 36.2 yes 70.8 4.2 31.4 yes Oregon ......................... 38.7 0.0 98.2 yes 65.2 9.8 95.2 yes Pennsylvania ................ 20.1 9.9 19.3 yes 48.7 26.3 21.8 no Puerto Rico .................. 12.9 17.1 6.8 no (2) (2) (2) (2) 

Rhode Island ............... 10.7 19.3 27.5 yes 23.9 51.1 32.4 no South Carolina ............. 11.0 19.0 42.7 yes 26.5 48.5 60.9 yes South Dakota ............... 18.8 11.2 39.2 yes (2) (2) (2) (2) 

Tennessee .................... 28.0 2.0 43.2 yes 70.4 4.6 39.1 yes Texas ............................ 24.8 5.2 25.2 yes 27.1 47.9 44.3 no Utah ............................. 27.5 2.5 39.8 yes 27.5 47.5 49.7 yes Vermont ....................... (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 

Virginia ........................ 23.2 6.8 27.5 yes 23.2 51.8 26.5 no 

TABLE 7–21.—TANF WORK PARTICIPATION RATES, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

[In percent]

State

Overall rate Two-person rate

Caseload reduction credit Adjusted target Participation rate achieved Met target Caseload re- duction credit Adjusted target Participation rate achieved Met target

Tw

c

ca

(p

Virgin Islands .............. 2.3 27.7 15.5 no (2) (2) (2) (2) 

Washington .................. 8.9 21.1 48.5 yes 22.8 52.2 45.5 no West Virginia ............... 10.8 19.2 33.4 yes 28.2 46.8 37.2 no Wisconsin ..................... 46.3 0.0 64.0 yes 76.7 0.0 39.2 yes Wyoming ...................... 32.2 0.0 55.3 yes 70.1 4.9 65.8 yes 

1 Two-parent cases funded through separate State program.2 No two-parent cases or program.3 Not subject to participation rates as State claims waiver inconsistencies exempt all cases from participation rates.

Note.—The work participation rate standard before the application of the caseload reduction credit was 30 percent for the overall rate and 75 percent for the two-pare

Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 7–22.—PENALTIES FOR FAILING FISCAL YEAR 1998 TANF WORK PARTICIPATION RATE FOR TWO-PARENT FAMILIES (PROPORTIONAL RED

BASED ON DEGREE OF FAILURE)

[Penalties in thousands of dollars]

State

Adjusted

standard (percent) Rate achieved (percent) Percent of ad- justed stand- ard achieved Base penalty Reduced for percent of year Proportionally reduced pen- alty Red

two-p

ce

Alaska ......................................................... 68.6 36.8 53.6 $2,893.1 $2,169.8 $1,005.8 Arkansas ..................................................... 57.8 20.3 35.1 2,836.6 2,127.5 1,380.3 Delaware ..................................................... 54.4 23.7 43.6 1,453.1 1,453.1 820.0 District of Columbia ................................... 30.1 21.9 72.8 1,853.1 1,853.1 504.8 Minnesota .................................................... 42.5 30.8 72.5 12,844.7 9,633.5 2,652.1 Nebraska ..................................................... 53.1 39.5 74.4 1,168.7 1,168.7 299.3 New Mexico ................................................. 35.6 16.8 47.2 5,639.9 4,229.9 2,233.8 North Carolina ............................................. 55.0 30.9 56.2 5,804.3 5,804.3 2,543.3 Pennsylvania ............................................... 26.3 21.8 82.9 33,324.8 33,324.8 5,702.0 Rhode Island ............................................... 51.1 32.4 63.4 4,751.1 4,355.2 1,593.8 Texas ........................................................... 47.9 44.3 92.5 9,146.8 9,146.8 687.4 Virginia ........................................................ 51.8 26.5 51.2 2,459.5 2,459.5 1,201.3 Washington ................................................. 52.2 45.5 87.2 7,740.8 7,740.8 993.6 West Virginia ............................................... 46.8 39.2 83.8 1,856.0 1,856.0 301.4 

Source: Office of Family Assistance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

424

adopted a resolution calling on the administration and Congress to

consider modifying the two-parent work rules. Effective in fiscal

year 1999, the statutory two-parent work participation rate rose to

90 percent.

DHHS reports that nationally, 35.4 percent of all Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) families and 42.3 percent of

two-parent TANF families were credited with work participation in

fiscal year 1998. (This means that they engaged in creditable activities for the required hours.) Participation rates show participants as a percentage of all families with an adult recipient (excluding those exempt from work because of having a child under

1 or because of a pre-TANF waiver, and those under work-refusal

sanction for less than 3 months). Rates achieved varied widely: for

the overall rate, from 12.7 percent in Maryland (and lower in Puerto Rico and Guam) to 98.2 percent in Oregon; for the two-parent

rate, from 16.8 percent in New Mexico (and 13 percent in Guam)

to 95.2 percent in Oregon.

Work activities

Participants in work activities recognized in TANF law.—As

noted earlier, TANF law lists 12 activities that are countable in determining whether a State has achieved the required work participation rate. Table 7–23 shows the number of persons (adults or

teen parents) in all TANF families who were credited with work

and their work activities in fiscal year 1998. Because some persons

participated in more than one activity, a percentage breakdown is

not possible by activity. However, unsubsidized employment was by

far the leading activity. Out of 699,573 families that met the overall work requirement, 490,837 persons had unsubsidized jobs. In

the all-family group, the next most popular work activities were job

search, with 87,371 participants, and work experience, with 83,376

persons. Three varieties of educational activities (vocational education, satisfactory school attendance, and education related to employment) accounted for 74,241 participants. Table 7–24 shows that

a total of 61,208 two-parent families met the work participation

standard in fiscal year 1998. Among them were 68,236 adult family

members who had unsubsidized jobs (in some families, both parents worked), 10,630 who performed job search, 8,057 who engaged

in work experience, and 4,823 who undertook educational activities.

In the JOBS Program for AFDC adults, education was the dominant work-related activity. In fiscal year 1995, 39.4 percent of

JOBS participants were engaged in educational activities (high

school, general education degree, remedial education, English as a

second language, or higher education). Another 7.8 percent were

engaged in vocational training (Committee, 1998, p. 482). In contrast, under TANF, only 10.6 percent of all adults, and 3.9 percent

of those in two-parent families, who were credited with work during fiscal year 1998 engaged in one of the three listed educational

activities (vocational education, satisfactory school attendance, and

education related to employment). A GAO official told a subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in

September, 1999, that under TANF ‘‘education and vocational

TABLE 7–23.—TANF WORK PARTICIPANTS 1 FOR ALL-FAMILY CATEGORY BY WORK ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State

Number of

participating families

Average monthly number of persons engaged in work by work activity

Unsubsidized

employment

Subsidized

employment

Work experience On-the- job training Job search Commu- nity service Voca- tional edu- cation Job skills training

Education

related

to employment

Satisfactory

school

attendance

Alabama ................................ 3,674 2,278 — 405 16 832 53 404 28 — 192 Alaska .................................... 3,465 2,471 8 90 14 585 273 589 — — 46 Arizona ................................... 7,278 6,662 3 742 6 748 88 528 54 21 104 Arkansas ................................ 1,384 453 26 125 94 433 22 250 — 9 39 California ............................... 179,953 156,384 2118 1,639 308 9,959 5,048 4,498 338 1,563 1,630 Colorado ................................ 3,608 1,894 165 402 11 255 197 1,135 11 — 44 Connecticut ........................... 15,439 13,633 — 462 11 1,594 — 645 — — 64 Delaware ................................ 924 882 — — — 108 1 4 — — — District of Columbia .............. 3,685 3,174 432 347 122 854 51 59 21 29 — Florida ................................... 19,854 14,990 136 438 — 1,174 1,251 1,287 55 50 2,421 Georgia .................................. 13,271 5,994 316 3,315 47 1,584 807 2,463 50 6 696 Guam ..................................... 160 30 — — — — 131 — — — — Hawaii ................................... 3,449 2,425 113 917 38 787 37 338 — 6 — Idaho ...................................... 284 135 6 18 1 115 4 91 — 1 2 Illinois .................................... 45,747 33,295 4 4,558 — 7,215 155 2,823 — — 849 Indiana .................................. 9,262 8,792 7 107 15 706 — 310 85 124 124 Iowa ....................................... 10,585 9,848 — 84 1 165 14 1,530 — — 168 Kansas ................................... 3,222 2,063 — 733 5 1,148 4 40 55 154 — Kentucky ................................ 12,931 7,090 — 3,227 54 265 267 2,650 1 — 243 Louisiana ............................... 8,754 5,305 51 2,244 17 305 — 1,855 — 23 23 Maine ..................................... 5,068 2,813 — 222 13 2,073 720 275 122 2 300 Maryland ................................ 3,947 1,834 98 643 15 1,348 — 202 — — 34 

TABLE 7–23.—TANF WORK PARTICIPANTS 1 FOR ALL-FAMILY CATEGORY BY WORK ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State

Number of

participating families

Average monthly number of persons engaged in work by work activity

Unsubsidized

employment

Subsidized

employment

Work experience On-the- job training Job search Commu- nity service Voca- tional edu- cation Job skills training

Education

related

to employment

Satisfactory

school

attendance

Massachusetts ...................... 12,479 7,773 405 125 — 621 1,420 639 720 218 992 Michigan ................................ 43,470 40,917 86 — 88 3,013 16 272 35 50 782 Minnesota .............................. 11,296 8,514 1 23 — 2,312 44 1,071 5 80 1,476 Mississippi ............................ 3,018 1,789 177 492 1 590 203 264 1 6 2 Missouri ................................. 6,521 3,195 218 1,329 28 1,189 — — 864 622 215 Montana ................................ 3,417 762 — 1,912 — 3,030 18 480 — — 42 Nebraska ............................... 3,218 2,052 — 14 20 1,481 27 109 83 — 204 Nevada .................................. 1,810 1,454 16 30 — 163 142 196 4 — 11 New Hampshire ..................... 1,188 858 — 57 3 166 — 123 64 — 123 New Jersey ............................. 14,276 5,570 — 7,172 40 2,060 7 1,948 58 436 192 New Mexico ............................ 2,801 2,503 28 187 — 14 79 43 13 — 13 New York ............................... 83,781 39,020 851 25,568 178 4,514 10,151 10,306 177 39 169 North Carolina ....................... 5,297 3,972 176 436 — 260 — 1,263 — — 106 North Dakota ......................... 550 281 — 175 1 43 33 78 4 15 1 Ohio ....................................... 42,023 24,211 278 13,667 9 6,434 — 5,356 — 10 1,677 Oklahoma .............................. 5,425 2,718 20 505 6 928 — 1,249 — — — Oregon ................................... 1,479 727 174 174 8 494 — — 57 62 133 Pennsylvania ......................... 17,735 13,937 — 110 10 3,518 — 1,160 — 16 52 Puerto Rico ............................ 75 30 — — — 45 — — — — — Rhode Island ......................... 3,996 2,682 101 141 3 392 — 1,011 — 26 13 South Carolina ...................... 5,067 4,249 14 198 26 909 12 140 82 12 47 South Dakota ......................... 890 246 — — 24 190 461 73 13 52 3 

Tennessee .............................. 11,698 6,629 — 222 2,012 2,382 — 1,635 — — 1,046 Texas ..................................... 7,484 3,289 27 1,033 53 3,320 1 333 — 691 465 Utah ....................................... 3,654 2,463 — — 3 1,606 — — 194 50 258 Vermont ................................. 1,702 1,224 47 89 10 433 — 253 16 — 80 Virginia Islands ..................... 146 16 1 39 19 62 5 28 9 26 22 Virginia .................................. 8,218 7,196 9 513 83 1,913 — 23 133 62 9 Washington ............................ 28,444 16,247 58 776 379 9,610 5,659 2,603 536 551 1,144 West Virginia ......................... 4,756 1,140 123 2,665 108 568 372 179 56 12 73 Wisconsin .............................. 7,473 2,649 25 4,915 4 2,760 703 7 1,226 — — Wyoming ................................ 242 79 5 91 1 98 2 65 2 — 5 

Total ............................. 699,573 490,837 6,323 83,376 3,905 87,371 28,478 52,883 5,172 5,024 16,334 

1 Excludes waiver operations.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999, table 3:5).

TABLE 7–24.—TANF WORK PARTICIPANTS 1 FOR TWO-PARENT FAMILY CATEGORY BY WORK ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEAR 1998

State

Number of

participating families

Average monthly number of persons engaged in work by work activity

Unsubsidized

employment

Subsidized

employment

Work experience On-the- job training Job search Commu- nity serv- ice Voca- tional edu- cation Job skills training

Education

related

to employment

Satisfactory

school

attendance

Alabama ................................ — — — — — — — ——— —Alaska .................................... 525 555 — 15 2 197 100 107 — — 5 Arizona ................................... 211 291 — 52 — 110 9 12 1 2 4 Arkansas ................................ 23 14 — 4 5 9 1 9 1— —California ............................... 29,597 38,452 706 244 109 1,495 47 445 36 906 141 Colorado ................................ 184 181 13 19 — 59 4 75 — — 6 Connecticut ........................... 1,603 1,835 — 332 — 438 — 260 — 10 28 Delaware ................................ 13 15 — — — 2 — — — — — District of Columbia .............. 38 51 12 1 1 7 — 1 1 — — Florida ................................... — — — — — — — ——— —Georgia .................................. — — — — — — — ——— —Guam ..................................... 18 12 — — — — 15 — — — — Hawaii ................................... — — — — — — — ——— —Idaho ...................................... 31 18 1 1 — 18 — 35 — — —Illinois .................................... 3,937 3,756 4 1,039 — 480 80 151 7 — 89 Indiana .................................. 280 372 — 4 1 25 — 3 4 5 5 Iowa ....................................... 932 1,445 — 14 — 38 4 147 — — 23 Kansas ................................... 218 215 — 73 — 178 — 4 5 18 — Kentucky ................................ 569 426 — 348 5 4 9 80 — — 4 Louisiana ............................... 117 132 — 34 — 6 — 19 — 1 — 

Maine ..................................... 317 236 — 10 1 268 118 14 10 — 24 Maryland ................................ — — — — — — — ——— —Massachusetts ...................... 397 441 13 — — 16 157 — — 14 16 Michigan ................................ 3,156 3,989 16 — 9 487 11 29 — 27 38 Minnesota .............................. 1,320 1,690 — 8 — 407 4 81 1 54 95 Mississippi ............................ 2 2 — 1 — — 1 1 — — — Missouri ................................. 52 44 3 16 — 48 — — 2 4 — Montana ................................ 685 223 — 1,059 — 1,152 2 55 — — 19 Nebraska ............................... 257 352 — 2 — 195 — 5 35 — 71 Nevada .................................. 134 169 1 4 — 36 20 11 2 — 2 New Hampshire ..................... 20 19 — 5 1 14 — — 5 — 5 New Jersey ............................. — — — — — — — ——— —New Mexico ............................ 399 486 — 39 — — — ——— —New York ............................... 5,576 4,196 — 1,735 — 297 1,199 171 — 50 — North Carolina ....................... 188 196 16 6 — 24 — 27 — — — North Dakota ......................... — — — — — — — ——— —Ohio ....................................... 3,324 2,732 41 1,784 — 875 — 335 — 29 115 Oklahoma .............................. 18 9 — 7 — 8 — 6 — — — Oregon ................................... 137 105 17 12 1 100 — — 9 30 11 Pennsylvania ......................... 315 421 — 5 1 86 — 15 — — 1 Puerto Rico ............................ — — — — — — — ——— —Rhode Island ......................... 369 358 8 11 1 118 — 20 — 5 2 South Carolina ...................... 147 155 — 2 — 32 — 1 2 — 1 South Dakota ......................... — — — — — — — ——— —Tennessee .............................. 72 46 — 5 13 27 — 15 — — 13 Texas ..................................... 764 431 1 218 3 617 — 24 — 1 14 Utah ....................................... 21 27 — — — 15 — — — — 2 Vermont ................................. 216 236 16 12 3 74 — 6 2 — 11 Virginia .................................. 213 255 — 21 2 105 — 1 3 7 — 

TABLE 7–24.—TANF WORK PARTICIPANTS 1 FOR TWO-PARENT FAMILY CATEGORY BY WORK ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State

Number of

participating families

Average monthly number of persons engaged in work by work activity

Unsubsidized

employment

Subsidized

employment

Work experience On-the- job training Job search Commu- nity serv- ice Voca- tional edu- cation Job skills training

Education

related

to employment

Satisfactory

school

attendance

Virgin Islands ........................ — — — — — — — ——— —Washington ............................ 3,693 3,183 — 236 — 2,350 1,628 359 — 274 71 West Virginia ......................... 1,032 397 38 625 13 163 90 14 — 4 28 Wisconsin .............................. 86 67 — 53 — 48 11 — 19 — — Wyoming ................................ 2 1 — 1 — 2 — — — — — 

Total ............................. 61,208 68,236 908 8,057 171 10,630 3,510 2,538 145 1,441 844 

1 Excludes waiver operations.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data in U.S. Department, 1999, table 3:6.

431

7The work incentive was a requirement that in computing recipients’ benefits, States dis- regard the first $30 earned monthly plus one-third of all remaining earnings, without time limit.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 limited the $30 and one-third work reward to

the first 4 months of a job, reduced the reward to $30 in months 8–12, and ended it thereafter.

Generally, after 4 months, a family’s AFDC benefit was reduced dollar-for-dollar for all ‘‘net’’

earnings (gross earnings minus a standard work expense allowance and actual child care costs

up to statutory maximums) above $30.

training are largely reserved for those who need it to get or keep

a job or to advance on a career ladder.’’ (Fagnoni, 1999).

Work or job preparation activities.—Tables 7–23 and 7–24 provide data on official work participation rates. They show the number of TANF adults who engaged in 1 of 12 work activities listed

in the law for the required hours and hence were counted in calculating the State’s work participation rate. A broader measure of

work and work-related activity is shown in the next two tables;

namely, the proportion of adults reported to be engaged in some

form of work or job preparation activity at least 1 hour weekly. As

table 7–25 shows, by this measure work activity has increased

under TANF from that reported under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The percent of AFDC/TANF adults who

were employed, engaged in subsidized work, engaged in job search,

or engaged in educational activities rose in each category from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1998. Especially sharp gains are

shown for rates of actual employment: the unsubsidized employment rate was up 175 percent from 1994 to 1998, and the subsidized employment rate was up 292 percent. Table 7–26 provides

this information by State for fiscal year 1998. The categories for reporting activities were different under AFDC than they are under

TANF; categories were collapsed to make them as comparable as

possible. However, some of the trends might be affected by changes

in the way work or job preparation activities were reported.

TABLE 7–25.—PERCENT OF AFDC/TANF ADULTS ENGAGED IN WORK OR JOB

PREPARATION ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEARS 1994–98

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Some activity .................................... 19.2 20.4 22.4 24.7 35.3

Unsubsidized employment ................ 8.3 9.3 11.3 13.3 22.8

Subsidized employment .................... 1.4 1.2 1.7 2.4 5.5

Job search ........................................ 4.0 4.1 4.7 5.3 5.1

Education .......................................... 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.0 5.0

Other 1 ............................................... 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.3 1.2

1 Includes activities that States conduct under pre-TANF waivers from AFDC/JOBS rules.

Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the fiscal year 1998 Emergency TANF Data Report sample and fiscal year 1994–97 AFDC–QC files.

Employment of adult recipients.—Under TANF, there has been a

sharp rise in the incidence of welfare and work. In fiscal year 1979,

before Congress sharply limited a financial work incentive,7 about

one in seven AFDC adults reported employment. Thereafter, as

shown by chart 7–4, employment rates sank. During the 1980s

through 1995, fewer than 1 in 10 AFDC adults worked. But in

1996, when several States began their own reforms under waivers

from AFDC rules, the proportion increased to 11.3 percent. And in

432

fiscal year 1998, the first full year of TANF, the share jumped

sharply. That year 22.8 percent of all TANF adults were reported

to be employed in unsubsidized jobs at least 1 hour weekly. In

some States it soared above one-third, or higher (see table 7–26).

The employment measures in chart 7–4 differ from official work

participation rates of TANF law. To be counted as a TANF work

participant in fiscal year 1998, a recipient in fiscal year 1998 had

to work an average of 20 hours weekly (more in a two-parent family). In fiscal year 1998, 23.8 percent of TANF adults with unsubsidized jobs averaged fewer than 20 hours weekly of work (7.6 percent, fewer than 10 hours).

TABLE 7–26.—PERCENT OF TANF ADULTS ENGAGED IN WORK OR JOB PREPARATION

ACTIVITY,1 FISCAL YEAR 1998

State In at least

one activity

Unsubsidized

employment

Subsidized

work

Job

search

Education Other

Alabama ....................... 32.8 20.2 3.6 6.5 6.2 0.0

Alaska .......................... 45.3 29.7 4.9 10.6 6.5 0.0

Arizona ......................... 43.7 38.5 4.2 4.5 4.1 0.0

Arkansas ...................... 34.2 8.4 5.0 10.3 10.0 2.1

California ..................... 36.0 28.0 1.6 2.6 3.5 0.7

Colorado ....................... 31.6 16.1 6.3 2.7 10.0 0.0

Connecticut .................. 54.5 48.9 1.5 4.2 2.7 0.2

Delaware ...................... 26.8 22.3 0.1 6.0 0.1 0.0

District of Columbia .... 18.8 16.2 3.1 3.0 0.6 0.1

Florida .......................... 40.6 28.5 4.9 2.8 7.3 0.0

Georgia ......................... 30.3 12.0 12.2 3.3 6.9 0.0

Hawaii .......................... 32.1 24.2 7.3 5.5 2.4 0.0

Idaho ............................ 62.7 17.5 5.2 24.3 18.0 14.7

Illinois .......................... 36.2 26.4 3.5 4.9 3.4 0.1

Indiana ......................... 36.9 33.4 0.8 3.4 2.7 0.0

Iowa ............................. 59.4 52.4 0.9 1.5 11.5 0.0

Kansas ......................... 46.4 25.2 10.0 17.3 5.0 0.0

Kentucky ....................... 32.9 16.2 9.8 0.4 6.5 1.6

Louisiana ..................... 32.3 17.7 8.9 1.7 8.0 0.0

Maine ........................... 47.4 25.5 8.9 16.0 8.4 0.0

Maryland ...................... 21.8 7.2 3.4 10.6 1.7 0.0

Massachusetts ............. 35.6 20.8 4.8 1.6 9.6 0.0

Michigan ...................... 49.4 44.4 0.2 5.6 1.2 0.0

Minnesota .................... 45.8 31.7 0.5 11.0 8.5 2.0

Mississippi ................... 34.3 18.8 9.7 6.5 4.1 0.8

Missouri ....................... 24.5 7.6 4.4 2.8 5.1 12.4

Montana ....................... 82.9 15.6 38.9 71.3 12.7 0.0

Nebraska ...................... 56.5 25.5 0.7 19.7 10.2 15.9

Nevada ......................... 36.5 22.3 3.5 6.6 5.5 3.4

New Hampshire ............ 45.3 23.2 1.4 7.9 9.6 14.8

New Jersey ................... 31.0 10.9 14.7 6.2 5.4 0.0

New Mexico .................. 16.9 14.7 1.7 0.1 0.7 0.1

New York ...................... 30.6 14.2 12.7 1.7 4.5 0.0

North Carolina ............. 18.5 10.6 2.0 1.1 6.9 0.0

North Dakota ................ 33.8 15.3 11.6 5.9 4.9 0.5

Ohio .............................. 49.1 26.0 14.0 7.2 8.1 6.7

433

TABLE 7–26.—PERCENT OF TANF ADULTS ENGAGED IN WORK OR JOB PREPARATION

ACTIVITY,1 FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

State In at least

one activity

Unsubsidized

employment

Subsidized

work

Job

search

Education Other

Oklahoma ..................... 41.9 19.1 3.9 9.5 9.3 0.0

Oregon .......................... 54.6 8.5 5.3 13.3 10.1 32.0

Pennsylvania ................ 29.5 22.2 0.1 5.5 2.9 0.3

Rhode Island ................ 34.6 23.5 1.5 2.6 9.6 0.0

South Carolina ............. 44.4 28.3 1.8 9.3 10.7 0.0

South Dakota ............... 48.2 11.6 21.5 8.9 8.7 6.3

Tennessee .................... 40.6 20.3 5.7 8.0 15.7 0.0

Texas ............................ 10.2 3.4 0.9 4.2 2.2 2.6

Utah ............................. 53.3 26.4 0.0 25.3 11.5 2.0

Vermont ........................ 43.5 26.8 2.4 10.9 11.5 0.0

Virginia ........................ 31.3 21.6 2.7 11.6 0.8 0.0

Washington .................. 55.9 27.8 14.9 18.7 8.6 1.0

West Virginia ............... 30.8 6.9 18.3 3.6 4.4 0.0

Wisconsin ..................... 75.9 23.1 56.1 25.0 14.1 0.0

Wyoming ....................... 46.6 13.8 14.9 21.2 10.6 3.7

Guam ........................... 5.0 2.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Puerto Rico .................. 2.7 1.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0

Virgin Islands .............. 42.9 0.0 12.9 15.7 22.1 2.3

Total .................... 35.8 22.8 5.7 5.1 5.0 1.2

1 Includes activities that States may conduct under pre-TANF waivers from AFDC/JOBS rules.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service tabulations of the fiscal year 1998

Emergency TANF Data Report sample.

Under TANF, both States and recipients have a greater incentive

to report work than they did under AFDC. Most States have increased the reward to recipients’ work. Because failure to achieve

work participation rates now carries the threat of fiscal penalties,

States also have a stronger incentive to report recipients’ work.

Thus, some of the increase in the reported employment rate may

be due to increased reporting.

Federal AFDC law stipulated what income had to be counted

when determining AFDC eligibility and benefits. For applicants

and recipients, the law from 1988 to 1996 set these rules: States

were required to deduct both the first $90 monthly of earnings as

a standard work expense allowance and actual child care expenses

up to statutory maximums of $200 per child under age 2 or $175

per older child. For recipients only, AFDC also had a time-limited

work reward, taken after the work expense deduction. The reward

was to disregard $30 of earnings plus one-third of remaining earnings for the first 4 months of work and $30 per month for months

5–12 on a job.

TANF has no Federal rules about treatment of earnings. More

than three-fourths of TANF jurisdictions have raised earnings disregards from those that existed under AFDC. The new disregards

permit recipients to keep more of their benefits as their earnings

increase. They also permit recipients to stay on TANF at higher

434

earnings levels than AFDC; that is, they raise the exit point from

welfare (and the entrance point, unless a State treats the earnings

of an applicant less generously than those of a recipient as many

do).

CHART 7–4. PERCENT OF AFDC/TANF ADULTS EMPLOYED, SELECTED YEARS 1979–98

Source: Chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, on the basis of data tabulations from

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services studies of characteristics of AFDC families (1979–88),

quality control data tapes (1994–97), and the fiscal year 1998 Emergency Temporary TANF Data Report.

On average, the fiscal year 1998 employment rate for TANF

adults in the 41 States with increased earnings disregards was

much higher than in States that retained AFDC earnings disregards. Chart 7–5 shows that in fiscal year 1998, 25.5 percent of

TANF adults in the States that raised their earnings disregards

were employed. In contrast, 10.8 percent of TANF adults in the 13

jurisdictions that retained AFDC earnings disregards that year

were employed.

Although average employment rates of TANF adults were higher

in the States that liberalized treatment of earnings than in those

that did not, there was considerable variation by State. Further,

the low group average for States that kept AFDC rules was strongly affected by the 3.9 percent rate in Texas, which has the Nation’s

fourth largest TANF caseload. Also, although Delaware and Colorado retained AFDC earnings disregards, they also continued to operate ‘‘fill-the-gap’’ kinds of programs, which provide another form

of work incentive. Under ‘‘fill-the-gap’’ programs, recipients are

able to use earnings and/or child support payments to fill all or

part of the income gap between the amount needed by the family,

according to State standards, and the benefit amount actually paid

by the State. Therefore, a dollar increase in earnings does not necessarily mean a dollar decrease in benefits in fill-the-gap States.

435

CHART 7–5. EMPLOYMENT RATES FOR TANF ADULTS IN STATES THAT RAISED EARNINGS

DISREGARDS AND THOSE THAT DID NOT, FISCAL YEAR 1998

Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the fiscal year 1998 Emergency TANF Data Report

sample and July 1998 CRS Survey of States regarding TANF financial eligibility and benefit rules.

Average AFDC/TANF benefits and earnings

From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997, as the employment rate increased, average earnings also increased slightly, as

shown in chart 7–6. However, declines in the average cash AFDC

benefit offset those earnings increases so that the total (cash benefit plus earnings) remained relatively flat over these years. In fiscal

year 1998, earnings jumped, as did the employment rate, and national average cash benefits also rose slightly, even though, as

table 7–6 showed, average benefits in most States declined. Over

the 4-year period, average benefits plus average earnings (including zero earnings for nonworkers) rose by 15 percent, from $354 to

$406.

The increase in earnings and benefits could be at least partially

explained by changes in State treatment of earnings. As noted before, under AFDC benefits generally were reduced one dollar for

each one dollar of extra earnings after a short period of work. By

contrast, under TANF most States permit recipients to keep more

of their benefits as earnings increase.

The TANF Data Report provides no information about an important source of potential income for parents who combine TANF

with earnings; namely, the earned income credit (EIC). In calendar

year 1998, a family with one child could earn an EIC of up to

$2,271; a family with two or more children could earn a credit of

up to $3,756. Further, according to the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services (DHHS), Medicaid and food stamps were received in fiscal year 1998 by 98.1 percent and 83.5 percent of TANF

families, respectively (U.S. Department, 1999, table 9:8, p. 85).

436

CHART 7–6. AVERAGE MONTHLY AFDC/TANF BENEFIT AND EARNINGS, FISCAL YEARS

1994–98

Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the fiscal year 1998 Emergency TANF Data Report

file and the fiscal year 1994–97 (first three quarters) AFDC–QC data file. Data are missing for California

and Minnesota.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC/TANF FAMILIES

COMPOSITION OF FAMILIES, 1969–98

Since 1969, the proportion of welfare families with no adult recipient (child-only families) has more than doubled to 24 percent,

and the average size of families has declined to 2.8 persons. Between 1969 and 1996, the latest year with available data, the proportion of AFDC/TANF families who live with nonrecipients increased from one-third to one-half (see table 7–27). The share of

AFDC/TANF recipients who are teenage parents dropped from 2.4

percent in 1994 to 1.6 percent in 1998.

The fiscal year 1998 column of the table shows circumstances in

the first full year of TANF; the fiscal year 1994 column shows circumstances when AFDC was at its historic peak. In this 4-year period, average family size did not change, the share of no-adult families rose sharply (while the share with single parents or two parents declined), and the share whose youngest child was 6 or older

increased. The increase from 1994 in the share of TANF families

that were child-only is not the result of an increase in the number

of child-only families. The number of child-only families increased

rapidly in the early 1990s (Blank, 1998), but the increase in the

number leveled off in the mid-1990s, and in fiscal year 1998 was

below the number of child-only families in fiscal year 1994. HowVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00436 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.007 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
437

TABLE 7–27.—COMPOSITION OF AFDC/TANF FAMILIES, SELECTED YEARS, 1969–98 1

May

1969

March

1979

Fiscal

year

1988

Fiscal

year

1994

Fiscal

year

1996

Fiscal

year

1998

Number of family members

Average number of

family members 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8

Number of adult recipients (percent of all

AFDC/TANF families) 1

One adult ................ 78.4 78.9 81.2 74.4 70.7 68.7

Two adults or more 11.9 6.2 9.2 8.3 7.7 7.3

No adults ................ 9.6 14.9 9.6 17.3 21.5 24.0

Number of child recipients (percent of all

AFDC/TANF families 2

One child ................ 26.7 42.5 43.2 44.8 45.9 44.0

Two children ........... 23.1 28.0 30.7 30.0 29.9 29.7

Three children ......... 17.6 15.5 16.1 15.6 15.0 15.7

Four children or

more ................... 32.6 13.9 10.7 9.6 9.2 10.6

Age of youngest child

(percent of all AFDC/

TANF families)

Less than 6 years

old ...................... NA 56.5 60.6 62.7 60.0 57.3

6 years old and

older ................... NA 43.5 39.4 37.3 39.0 42.7

Average age of adult recipients ........................ 3 33.1 3 28.7 3 27 30.8 31.1 31.3

Teen parents (percent of

all AFDC/TANF recipients) ............................ NA 2.2 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.6

Percent of AFDC/TANF

families in households

with nonrecipients ....... 33.1 40.2 36.8 4 46.4 4 50 NA

1 The 1984–88 tabulations exclude Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that 1998 data on no-adult families for these States were unreliable. 2 Rhode Island was excluded from 1994–98 tabulations of the percentage of families with a given

number of child recipients because 1998 data were found unreliable. 3Median age of mothers.

4 This item is from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services series of studies on characteristics of AFDC families (U.S. Department, 1970, 1982, undated).

NA—Not available.

Note.—Data for 1969 are for May; data for 1979 are for March; the other columns are average

monthly data for fiscal years.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services. For 1969, 1979, and 1988, data are from the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services Series of Studies, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Families.

Congressional Research Service tabulations of these data exclude ‘‘unknowns.’’ Unless otherwise indicated, for 1994, 1996, and 1998, data are from Congressional Research Service tabulations of the 1998

Emergency TANF Data Report sample and the AFDC–QC data file.

438

ever, as the caseload declined, the number of child-only families fell

at a lower rate than the number of families with an adult.

Table 7–27 shows that the share of AFDC/Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) families with two or more adults, 7.3

percent in fiscal year 1998, was below the 8.3 percent rate of fiscal

year 1994. Under AFDC, a two-parent family could be served only

if the second parent was disabled or was unemployed (defined as

working fewer than 100 hours monthly) and had a work history.

TANF ended those rules, and many States have used their new discretion to base two-parent eligibility on income, a change that increased potential caseloads. However, the reported trend in twoadult TANF families is affected by State decisions to place these

families in separate State programs (SSPs) rather than TANF. By

the start of fiscal year 2000, according to a DHHS official, the number of States that served two-parent families in SSPs had more

than doubled from 6 in fiscal year 1998 to 13. As noted earlier, several States were penalized in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 for failure

to meet work participation rates for two-parent families in the regular TANF Program.

MARITAL STATUS OF PARENTS

In fiscal year 1996, the last full year of AFDC, the marital status

of their parents was known for about 8.5 million recipient children

(data were missing or unclear for about 0.2 million other children).

In all, 5.1 million children, 60.4 percent of the children with parental marital data, were living with a single parent who had not married the second parent; 2.2 million (25.1 percent) were with a parent who was divorced or separated. Another 1.1 million (12.9 percent) were in two-parent families and presumed married; finally,

140,000 children (1.6 percent) were living with a widowed parent

(data from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Families, Fiscal

Year 1996).

The Emergency TANF Data Report for fiscal year 1998 covered

6 million TANF children. Congressional Research Service (CRS)

tabulations about the marital status of parents, however, exclude

0.6 million children from seven jurisdictions (Colorado, Georgia,

Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Texas). Moreover, for about 1 million children, data about the marital status of

parents were missing or unknown. Thus, relevant data were available for 4.4 million children. Tabulations show that the parents of

2.6 million children (57.6 percent of the children with available

data) were never married; 1.4 million (31.7 percent) married; 0.4

million (9.9 percent) divorced; and 0.04 million (0.8 percent) widowed.

RACE AND ETHNICITY OF AFDC/TANF ADULTS

The majority of TANF adults are nonwhite (table 7–28). In fiscal

year 1998, non-Hispanic whites accounted for slightly more than

one in three TANF adults (35.8 percent). Nonwhites accounted for

close to two-thirds of adults on TANF as follows: Non-Hispanic

blacks, 37.3 percent; Hispanics, 20.1 percent; Native American/

439

Alaska Natives, 1.6 percent; Asian/Oriental Pacific Islanders, 4.6

percent; and adults of other racial/ethnic groups, 0.6 percent.

Over the fiscal year 1994–98 period, nonwhites have increased as

a percent of all TANF adults. In fiscal year 1994, non-Hispanic

whites represented an estimated 40 percent of the AFDC caseload,

but only an estimated 36 percent of the fiscal year 1998 TANF

caseload. Non-Hispanic blacks grew as a share of the caseload

every year except 1996 and increased their share over the period

by 8 percent. Hispanics also grew as a share of the caseload until

fiscal year 1998. Table 7–28 shows the trend in the racial/ethnic

makeup of the national caseload from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year

1998. Table 7–29 presents State-by-State data on the percentage of

nonwhite AFDC/TANF adults over the same period.

TABLE 7–28.—RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF AFDC/TANF ADULTS, FISCAL YEARS

1994–98

[In percent]

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Non-Hispanic white .................................... 41.4 39.4 39.7 37.5 35.8

Non-Hispanic black .................................... 34.5 35.2 34.5 35.2 37.3

Hispanic ...................................................... 19.1 20.1 20.3 22.2 20.1

Asian/Oriental Pacific Islander .................. 3.8 4 4.1 4 4.6

Native American ......................................... 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.6

Other ........................................................... NR NR NR NR 0.6

NR—Data not reported.

Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the fiscal year 1998 Emergency TANF Data Report sample.

TABLE 7–29.—PERCENTAGE OF AFDC/TANF ADULTS WHO ARE NONWHITE,1 FISCAL

YEARS 1994–98

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Alabama ........................................... 74.5 74.7 70.8 70.7 75.1

Alaska ............................................... 50.8 52.0 52.1 0.0 55.5

Arizona .............................................. 55.9 59.8 58.4 63.5 64.4

Arkansas ........................................... 54.3 54.2 52.9 51.4 69.3

California .......................................... 68.8 68.9 62.1 69.3 67.7

Colorado ............................................ 55.5 54.7 55.9 65.9 56.1

Connecticut ....................................... 65.4 68.0 67.2 69.2 68.3

Delaware ........................................... 67.5 68.9 70.1 64.3 70.2

District of Columbia ......................... 98.9 98.8 99.2 99.5 99.6

Florida ............................................... 60.2 65.1 62.9 67.8 74.6

Georgia ............................................. 75.9 74.3 72.8 77.5 81.3

Guam ................................................ 96.2 96.9 97.9 98.8 97.3

Hawaii ............................................... 73.7 76.8 75.1 82.4 82.1

Idaho ................................................. 15.8 17.5 12.9 12.0 12.3

Illinois ............................................... 65.3 65.7 68.3 68.8 73.0

Indiana ............................................. 36.7 40.8 43.0 39.9 41.7

Iowa .................................................. 14.2 14.3 16.3 12.9 16.2

Kansas .............................................. 31.9 33.8 34.2 28.9 37.7

440

TABLE 7–29.—PERCENTAGE OF AFDC/TANF ADULTS WHO ARE NONWHITE,1 FISCAL

YEARS 1994–98—Continued

State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Kentucky ........................................... 19.1 16.8 19.4 21.2 20.9

Louisiana .......................................... 80.0 81.3 80.3 82.2 84.4

Maine ................................................ 4.2 2.7 2.2 2.8 4.5

Maryland ........................................... 73.6 71.4 76.1 78.6 80.4

Massachusetts .................................. 47.4 54.3 50.3 52.4 53.7

Michigan ........................................... 50.2 53.2 52.1 56.7 53.8

Minnesota ......................................... 36.3 40.5 42.3 44.4 48.1

Mississippi ........................................ 82.9 81.5 86.5 84.3 86.3

Missouri ............................................ 41.7 43.7 47.4 50.0 52.6

Montana ............................................ 29.1 31.3 37.4 39.3 48.9

Nebraska ........................................... 33.4 32.3 36.3 40.4 41.2

Nevada .............................................. 38.8 39.2 39.6 39.2 47.3

New Hampshire ................................ 1.4 3.5 3.3 3.7 6.2

New Jersey ........................................ 76.3 79.2 80.6 77.1 85.2

New Mexico ....................................... 75.3 78.2 73.6 74.5 75.6

New York ........................................... 71.8 73.4 76.3 72.7 77.5

North Carolina .................................. 60.7 65.2 65.9 68.0 69.8

North Dakota .................................... 40.7 39.9 43.3 52.5 57.7

Ohio .................................................. 38.3 42.6 43.5 40.7 49.6

Oklahoma .......................................... 43.4 40.8 42.7 46.3 49.7

Oregon .............................................. 17.0 16.3 16.6 21.4 18.7

Pennsylvania ..................................... 50.6 53.2 53.7 57.1 60.9

Puerto Rico ....................................... 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0

Rhode Island .................................... 39.1 39.2 42.9 50.5 45.0

South Carolina .................................. 72.7 73.2 71.3 76.3 74.6

South Dakota .................................... 55.1 56.5 54.4 63.7 74.6

Tennessee ......................................... 49.3 50.9 55.1 54.5 66.5

Texas ................................................. 76.0 77.8 78.7 78.5 80.6

Utah .................................................. 24.0 20.0 22.4 22.4 27.4

Vermont ............................................ 0.9 4.5 2.5 0.5 2.3

Virginia ............................................. 67.0 66.6 66.4 60.6 62.6

Virgin Islands ................................... 100.0 98.3 100.0 97.7 98.2

Washington ....................................... 26.3 27.5 27.0 26.5 32.6

West Virginia .................................... 6.2 6.8 8.3 4.9 6.7

Wisconsin .......................................... 52.4 53.6 58.4 67.6 83.0

Wyoming ........................................... 20.5 24.1 26.8 27.1 47.4

Total ......................................... 58.6 60.6 60.3 62.5 64.2

1 Defined in this table to include non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Oriental Pacific Islanders, and

Native Americans.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on fiscal year 1994–97 AFDC–QC

files and tabulations of the fiscal year 1998 Emergency TANF Data Report sample.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF TANF ADULTS

Tabulations of the March 1999 Current Population Survey show

that TANF adults tend to have below-average schooling. In fiscal

year 1998, 47 percent of TANF adults did not have at least 12

years of school or an educational credential. This compares with 15

441

percent of the total U.S. population aged 25–64 without a high

school degree in 1997.

It is not possible to compare the educational attainment of TANF

adults with those of AFDC adults because data are lacking. For fiscal years 1992–96, DHHS did not publish tables about adult years

of education because the information was unknown for a high percentage of cases (‘‘unknowns’’ accounted for 50 percent of the adults

in 1991, the last year with published data).

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF TANF CHILDREN

Tabulations of the AFDC Quality Control data file by CRS show

that in fiscal year 1994, about 1.5 million out of 9.8 million AFDC

children lived in families with no adult recipient (‘‘child-only’’ families). By law, their adult caretakers had to be relatives, but it is

not known whether they were parents, grandparents, aunts, or

other relatives. It is presumed that most were themselves ineligible

for AFDC because they were recipients of SSI, illegal aliens, or

nonneedy persons, for instance. However, some may have chosen

not to join welfare, even though eligible.

The proportion of welfare children living in families with no

adult recipient climbed from 15 percent in fiscal year 1994 to 20.8

percent in fiscal year 1998 (Emergency TANF data report sample

file), and the share of child-only AFDC/TANF families made a corresponding increase, from 17.3 percent in 1994 to 24 percent in

1998 (table 7–27). More than 7 out of 10 children (71.8 percent)

lived with a single parent in 1998, and fewer than one in 10 (7.4

percent) lived with two parents.

Analysis of the Emergency TANF Data Report sample file for fiscal year 1998 provides information about family relationships.

Table 7–30 shows that of children in families without an adult recipient 63 percent were in their parent’s household, 24.3 percent

were with a grandparent, 9.7 percent were in the household of another relative, and 3.1 percent were with a stepparent or an unrelated household head. Among all family types, 90.3 percent of

TABLE 7–30.—CHILD’S RELATIONSHIP TO HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD BY FAMILY TYPE,

FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent]

Child’s relationship to family

head

Family type

Single-parent Two-parent Child-only All families

Child .................................. 97.4 98.8 63.0 90.3

Grandchild ......................... 1.6 0.4 24.3 6.2

Other related ..................... 0.6 0.3 9.7 2.5

Stepchild or unrelated

child .............................. 0.5 0.6 3.1 1.0

Note.—Excludes data for Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, the Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and

Wisconsin.

Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the fiscal year 1998 Emergency TANF Data Report sample file.

442

8Defined as the number of persons in poverty in excess of 7.5 percent of the area’s total population.

TANF children lived with a parent, 6.2 percent with a grandparent,

2.5 percent with another relative, and 1.0 percent were with a stepparent or an unrelated household head.

WELFARE-TO-WORK (WTW) GRANT PROGRAM

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–33) created a

2-year $3 billion WTW Grant Program to serve hard-to-employ welfare recipients and noncustodial parents. After set-asides, 75 percent of WTW funds were designated for matching formula grants

and 25 percent for competitive grants. For fiscal years 1998 and

1999, available formula grants totaled $2.135 billion and competitive grants $712 million. States and localities have 3 years from

the award date in which to spend the funds. The original law set

aside $100 million for performance bonuses, $30 million for Indian

tribal grants, and $24 million for evaluations. Public Law 106–113

reduced the performance bonus amount to $50 million.

Although WTW is a component of TANF (Sec. 403(a)(5) of the Social Security Act), it is administered by the U.S. Department of

Labor (DOL) and not DHHS. Formula grants were allocated by

DOL to States on the basis of their shares of the national adult

TANF population and the poverty population. States are required

to distribute 85 percent of the formula grants to local work force

investment areas; at least half of the State’s substate allocation formula must be based on the ‘‘high poverty’’ population 8 of the work

force investment area and the rest on its population of long-term

welfare recipients and/or unemployed persons. Competitive grants

were awarded directly to local work force investment boards, other

local government entities, and private entities that applied in conjunction with one of the former.

WTW funds are focused on hard-to-employ TANF recipients. As

originally enacted, at least 70 percent of funds had to be used for

the benefit of TANF recipients (and noncustodial parents) with at

least two specified barriers to work who themselves (or whose

minor children) were long-term recipients (30 months of AFDC/

TANF benefits) or were within 12 months of reaching the 5-year

limit on federally funded TANF or a shorter State time limit. The

target groups had to have at least two of these three work impediments: (1) lack a high school diploma and have low skills in reading or mathematics; (2) require substance abuse treatment for employment; or (3) have a poor work history. Remaining funds (up to

30 percent) had to be used for persons having characteristics associated with long-term welfare use. WTW eligibility was liberalized

by Public Law 106–113. Effective July 1, 2000, States may use

WTW formula grant allotments and State matching funds on behalf of four new groups: (1) long-term TANF recipients without

specified work barriers; (2) former foster care youths 18–24 years

old; (3) TANF recipients who are determined by criteria of the local

work force investment board to have significant barriers to self-sufficiency; and (4) non-TANF custodial parents with income below

the poverty line. Not more than 30 percent of the funds may be

used for the three latter new groups. The revised law also changed

443

rules for noncustodial parents. Eligible under the new rules, provided they comply with an oral or written personal responsibility

contract, are noncustodial parents who are unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support if their minor

children are eligible for or receive TANF benefits (with priority for

those whose children are long-term recipients), received TANF during the preceding year, or are eligible for or receive certain other

income-tested benefits. The expanded eligibility rules took effect on

January 1, 2000, for competitive grants. Federal expenditures from

formula grants for the newly eligible groups may not be made until

October 1, 2000, even though obligations may be incurred for them

beginning July 1, 2000.

Activities that may receive WTW funds are the conduct and administration of community service or work experience programs;

job creation through wage subsidies; on-the-job training; contracts

with providers of readiness, placement, and postemployment services; job vouchers for placement, readiness, and postemployment

services; job retention or support services if these services are not

otherwise available; and, added by Public Law 106–113, up to 6

months of vocational education or job training (however, vocational

education or job training does not become an allowable formula

grant activity until July 1, 2000). As of September 30, 1999, $1.969 billion had been awarded to

States in WTW formula grants for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, but

States reported spending only $220 million of these funds (table 7–

31). The table shows that six States did not participate in either

year (Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)

and that another three States (Arizona, Delaware, and North Dakota) did not participate in fiscal year 1999. Any funds not awarded to States revert to the Federal Treasury (Public Law 105–277).

Over the 2 years, a cumulative total of 85,396 persons participated

in the formula grant program. Two States, Pennsylvania and Oregon, accounted for 19 percent of all WTW formula grant participants, although their TANF caseloads represented only 5 percent

of the national total.

By the end of fiscal year 1999, all available competitive grant

funds ($712 million) had been awarded to 189 entities. Competitive

grant expenditures to that date totaled $76.3 million and more

than 23,000 persons had been served. The two most popular work

activities planned by successful bidders for competitive grants were

skills training (including on-the-job training) and job placement; job

creation was least often mentioned. Child care, substance abuse

treatment, and transportation services were about equally popular

among supportive services (Devere, 2000).

TABLE 7–31.—WELFARE-TO-WORK EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Fiscal year

1998 grant allotments

Fiscal year

1999 grant allotments

Expenditures in fiscal year 1998 Expenditures in fiscal year 1999

Part

Federal expenditures State (match) expenditures Federal ex- penditures State (match) expenditures

Alabama ...................................................... $13,978 $13,017 0 $19 $153 $89 Alaska ......................................................... 2,927 2,709 0 0 1,120 862 Arizona 1 ...................................................... 9,000 NP 0 0 556 276 

Arkansas ..................................................... 8,490 7,932 $324 0 4,248 4,245 California 2 .................................................. 190,417 177,228 998 0 39,464 3,723 

Colorado ...................................................... 9,879 9,214 2 0 843 6,412 Connecticut 1 ............................................... 12,006 11,184 0 0 5,637 5,475 

Delaware ..................................................... 2,762 NP 0 0 31 0 District of Columbia ................................... 4,646 4,327 0 0 173 0 Florida ......................................................... 50,757 47,414 0 0 1,774 0 Georgia ........................................................ 28,409 26,489 827 0 10,413 0 Guam ........................................................... 585 546 0 0 122 0 Hawaii ......................................................... 5,086 4,719 44 1,702 1,511 1,056 Idaho ........................................................... NP NP0000

Illinois 2 ....................................................... 48,663 45,324 4,332 4,247 18,612 42,746 

Indiana ........................................................ 14,552 13,578 131 0 2,411 1,300 Iowa ............................................................. 8,332 7,779 103 87 3,352 1,110 Kansas ........................................................ 6,668 6,202 50 21 2,780 751 Kentucky ...................................................... 17,723 16,521 108 0 2,748 1,842 Louisiana ..................................................... 23,707 22,113 1,126 128 9,322 4,319 Maine .......................................................... 5,156 4,804 35 18 1,062 811 Maryland ..................................................... 14,941 13,915 1 19 1,178 681 

Massachusetts ............................................ 20,692 19,260 1,223 0 9,620 9,255 Michigan ..................................................... 42,226 39,3450000Minnesota 2 ................................................. 14,503 13,537 443 46 7,444 1,966 Mississippi .................................................. NP NP0000

Missouri 2 .................................................... 19,767 18,432 872 436 9,961 4,980 

Montana 2 .................................................... 3,194 2,975 255 129 2,697 1,706 

Nebraska 2 ................................................... 4,022 3,763 518 259 1,824 877 

Nevada ........................................................ 3,384 3,174 43 291 494 1,139 New Hampshire ........................................... 2,762 2,574 0 0 203 32 New Jersey 1 ................................................ 23,527 21,709 0 0 2,133 0 

New Mexico ................................................. 9,716 9,059 108 0 440 0 New York ..................................................... 96,886 90,324 0 0 4,522 1,208 North Carolina ............................................. 25,332 23,634 54 0 6,903 0 North Dakota ............................................... 2,762 NP 0 37 219 1,174 Ohio ............................................................. NP NP0000

Oklahoma .................................................... 11,742 10,920 119 0 3,647 211 Oregon ......................................................... 8,637 8,084 0 0 4,194 10,878 Pennsylvania ............................................... 44,296 41,358 0 462 6,965 14,877 Puerto Rico 1 ............................................... 34,566 32,219 0 0 7,398 1,583 

Rhode Island ............................................... 4,420 4,109 13 0 615 0 South Carolina 2 .......................................... 12,006 11,107 2,068 999 5,195 2,341 

South Dakota .............................................. NP NP0000Tennessee .................................................... 21,644 20,215 517 277 3,526 1,556 Texas ........................................................... 76,059 70,934 0 0 7,409 0 Utah ............................................................ NP NP0000Vermont ....................................................... 2,762 2,574 0 25 937 420 Virginia ........................................................ 16,549 15,404 5 0 2,599 103 Virgin Islands 1 ........................................... 554 515 0 0 121 33 Washington ................................................. 22,675 21,143 0 0 4,194 6,370 

TABLE 7–31.—WELFARE-TO-WORK EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Fiscal year

1998 grant allotments

Fiscal year

1999 grant allotments

Expenditures in fiscal year 1998 Expenditures in fiscal year 1999

Part

Federal expenditures State (match) expenditures Federal ex- penditures State (match) expenditures

West Virginia 1 ............................................ 9,805 9,143 0 0 4,108 2,640 

Wisconsin .................................................... 12,886 12,032 2 0 1,682 577 Wyoming ...................................................... NP NP0000

Total .......................................... 1,026,058 942,560 14,320 9,202 205,732 139,626 

1 State did not report any data for fiscal year 1998.2 These States are currently expending fiscal year 1998 and 1998 grant funds. Therefore, the expenditures for fiscal year 1999 reflect expenditures from fiscal year 

1999 grant funds.

NP—Not participating.Note.—Reflects data current as of January 27, 2000.Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor.

447

9 In fiscal year 1997 (AFDC/TANF transition year) the number of families continuously enrolled for at least 30 months declined to 957,731.

Data from DOL show that expenditures from formula grants for

the more disadvantaged group (long-term welfare recipients with at

least two of three specified work impediments) averaged $3,627 per

participant in the last quarter of fiscal year 1999, more than double

the average expenditures of $1,578 for other participants, those

with characteristics associated with long-term welfare enrollment.

In the case of competitive grants, however, there was only a small

difference in expenditures between the two groups ($3,191 compared with $2,806).

Public Law 106–113 repealed the original WTW reporting provisions, which required specified data about participating families,

and substituted a requirement that the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the DHHS Secretary and others, establish data collection and reporting rules.

WELFARE DYNAMICS

DURATION FINDINGS

Concern about long-term use of Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC) was one of the reasons that Congress ended the

program, named the replacement program Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF), and barred States from using TANF

grants to pay unending benefits to a family. Studies of families’ use

of AFDC (Ellwood & Bane, 1985; Pavetti, 1995) had shown:

—New enrollees could be expected to spend an average of 6

years, including repeat spells, on AFDC.

—For families on AFDC at any given time, the average expected

length of AFDC receipt, counting repeat spells, was 13 years.

—Almost half of recipients on the rolls at a given time had received benefits, counting repeat spells, for more than 5 years.

—Most episodes of AFDC enrollment were found to end within

12 months, but most families who exited AFDC came back

within 24 months.

—Durations on AFDC were above average for never-married parents, nonwhites, those with a child under 1, high school dropouts, and those without recent work experience.

Final data for AFDC show that the median number of months of

a family’s most recent spell on the program rose from 24 months

in fiscal year 1996 to 26 months in fiscal year 1997. Further, the

number of families continuously on the rolls for 60 months or more

climbed from 935,460 in fiscal year 1994 to 1,019,175 in fiscal year

1996.9 In the same period the overall caseload declined by 10 percent, in part because fewer new families joined the rolls. More specifically, the number of new AFDC/TANF families fell from 293,510

in fiscal year 1994 to 254,745 in fiscal year 1995, 240,731 in fiscal

year 1996, and 186,125 in fiscal year 1997.

Experience with TANF is too short, and data too limited, to tell

whether duration of welfare spells is changing. The available data

for fiscal year 1998 show a family’s total time on the TANF Program only since the program began in a State and not time previously spent on AFDC.

448

EXITS AND RETURNS TO AFDC/TANF

Movement on and off the AFDC rolls was frequent. Based on

monthly caseload data, work exits from AFDC generally accounted

for slightly less than half of all exits within a 5-year period, and

many who left returned to the rolls very quickly. Within 1 year of

their exit, 45 percent of ex-recipients returned to the program;

within 2 years, 58 percent; within 4 years, 69 percent. Those who

left AFDC because of employment remained off the program somewhat longer than those who left for other reasons (Committee,

1998, pp. 532–35). A study using 1979–93 data from the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth concluded that, after adjusting for

other attributes of the parent and family, the likelihood of leaving

AFDC for at least 2 years decreased with the length of time that

women received benefits (Sandefur, 1998).

Several recent State studies indicate that the percentage of returnees to welfare has dropped significantly under TANF (even before time limits would prevent their return). Table 7–32 shows the

share of leavers in a number of States who were back on the program 12 months after their exit. In some of the studies, the calculations cover all leavers, in others, only those who were off TANF

for at least 1 month or for at least 2 months (families sometimes

regarded as ‘‘churners’’). Counting all leavers, the share back on

TANF 1 year after exit ranged from 18 percent in Kansas to 24

percent in Maryland and Colorado. In studies that included only

families who were off TANF for at least 1 or 2 months, the return

rate at 1 year ranged from 6.5 percent (two-parent families in San

Mateo, California) and 13 percent (single-parent families in Georgia) to 21 percent (Massachusetts). Also, when 30-day ‘‘churners’’

were omitted from Maryland calculations, the TANF return rate at

1 year dropped from 24 percent to 18 percent. The Maryland study

concluded: ‘‘Given Federal time limits, preventing returns to welfare among those who have exited is of tremendous importance.’’

(University of Maryland, 1999).

The San Mateo, California, study cited in table 7–32 also examined circumstances of applicant families who were ‘‘informally diverted’’ from TANF between July 1997 and September 1998. It

found that 10.3 percent of one-parent families and 7.1 percent of

two-parent families received TANF 1 year after they were denied

aid. Larger proportions, 24.3 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively,

received TANF at some time during the year.

Meyer and Cancian (1996), in a study based on 14 years of data

from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, analyzed the poverty status of women in the 5 years after their first observed exit

from AFDC. They found that more than half (55 percent) of former

recipients were poor 1 year after first departing from AFDC; about

40 percent were poor after 5 years. More than one-fifth (22 percent)

were never poor in the first 5 years. The researchers said that in

each of the 5 years, about 60 percent of the women had earnings

and 40 percent had income from a spouse or partner. AFDC was

received by 30–40 percent of the women each year; child support

or alimony by 17–19 percent.

TABLE 7–32.—RETURNS TO TANF WITHIN 1 YEAR OF EXIT

State program Study Time of TANF exit Family categories in study Leavers included Percent back on 

year after e

California CALWORKS

(Mancuso & Moses,1999).

Examining circumstances of

leavers.

Fourth quarter of

1996.

All (one- and twoparent families

separately examined).

Includes only cases

off TANF for atleast 2 months.

14.1 percent (

parent casepercent (twent cases)

Colorado Works (London

& Valvano, 1999).

Postprogram employment and earnings

for Colorado Worksclosed cases.

July–Sept. 1997 ........ Adult cases ............... All included ............... 23.8 percent

Georgia TANF (Foster,

1999).

Amended quarterly

progress report.

1997 .......................... Single-adult cases .... Includes only cases

off TANF for atleast two straightmonths.

13.2 percent

Kansas Temporary Assistance to Families

(TAF) (Department ofSocial, 1999).

Statistical summary

of leaver survey.

Dec. 1997–Nov. 1998 All .............................. All .............................. 18 percent

Maryland TANF (School

of Social Work, 1999).

Life after welfare:

third interim report.

October 1996–March

1998.

All .............................. All 1 ............................ 24.2 percent

Massachusetts Transitional Aid to Families

with Dependent Children (TAFDC; Department of Transitional,1999).

How are they doing?

(Round four) Longitudinal study.

Dec.15, 1996–June

14, 1997.

All .............................. Includes only cases

off TANF for atleast 30 days.

20.9 percent

TABLE 7–32.—RETURNS TO TANF WITHIN 1 YEAR OF EXIT—Continued

State program Study Time of TANF exit Family categories in study Leavers included Percent back on 

year after e

New York Family Assistance (FA; Rockefeller

Institute, 1999).

A study of work and

benefit use aftercase closing.

January–March 1997 Excludes child-only

cases, adults without identifiable Social Security numbers and casesclosed when families moved out ofState.

Includes only cases

off TANF for atleast 2 months.

19 percent

Washington Work First

(Ahn & Fogarty,1999).

A study of Washington State TANF departures Cohort II. Fourth quarter 1997 All except child-only cases. Includes only cases off TANF for at least 2 months. 16 percent

1 The Maryland study also provided data on all closures except: (a) those due to sanctions and (b) cases that returned to TANF within 30 days. For the first group, th

return to TANF at 12 months was 23.7 percent; for the second group, 17.8 percent.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on evaluation studies listed in table.

451

10The law forbids use of Federal TANF funds for ‘‘assistance’’ to any family that includes a

member who as an adult has received 60 months of aid. TANF regulations define ‘‘assistance’’

narrowly, as payments directed at ongoing basic needs, plus supportive services for nonemployed

families. No time limit applies to ‘‘nonassistance,’’ other TANF-funded services and aid. 11For example, Illinois and Maryland use maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds to pay benefits

to persons whose State clock is stopped while they work.

SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE TANF PROGRAMS

Table 7–33 shows some major provisions of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Programs, State by State. The

table is based on TANF State plans for fiscal years 2000–2001, the

DHHS 1999 annual report, State laws, and CRS benefit surveys.

In 1999, many State legislatures liberalized some TANF rules (allowing more TANF recipients to engage in postsecondary education, providing transportation support, etc.). Some States increased maximum benefit levels. These changes were facilitated by

abundant TANF funds and by the dramatic cut in caseload numbers, which has sharply reduced effective work participation rates

required for all families.

State plans provide different levels of detail, have no standard

format, and sometimes describe similar programs in different ways.

Column 2 shows how long a recipient may receive basic assistance

without engaging in work as defined by the State (24 months is the

Federal outer limit). Column 3 shows the first activity required of

an applicant/recipient. Column 4 shows the State cutoff time limit

(60 months is the Federal outer limit).10 This does not mean that

all recipients will lose eligibility for ongoing cash assistance after

being on the rolls for the number of months in the column. States

have the power to stop their own benefit cutoff clocks by exemption

(not counting months of assistance during which persons have a

time-limit exemption). Some States exempt certain groups, such as

the aged, from the clock. Some stop their clocks during months in

which recipients work a minimum number of hours (examples include Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Rhode Island). States also

may extend federally funded assistance beyond their own cutoff

point if it is shorter than 60 months. The Federal clock is a different matter; States have no power to stop the Federal clock unless: (1) they use their own funds for benefits during months when

persons are exempted from the State clock;11 or (2) under terms of

a pre-TANF waiver to the State that included a State time clock,

the State makes exemptions to that time limit and uses Federal

funds to pay exempted persons. In the former case, months of

State-counted aid are not counted by the Federal clock; in the latter case, months not counted by the State clock even though federally funded, need not be counted by the Federal clock (15 States

appear to have this option).

TABLE 7–33.—SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE TANF PROGRAMS

State Work-trigger time limit (months) First activity required State-set benefit cutoff limit (in months)

When first

families

reach time

limit

Maximum benefits, family of

three 

07/96 01/00

Alabama 24 Immediate job search for employable applicants 60. Aid continues for cases where caretaker was not TANF re- cipient (child-only cases). Exemptions stop State clock. No

extensions specified

12/01 $164 $164 No

Alaska 24 Self-sufficiency planning 60. No exemptions and extensions specified 07/02 923 923 NoArizona 24 Assessment; work activity as

soon as possible

24 out of 60 for EMPOWER, 60 for Arizona Works pilot; 60-

month lifetime limit. Aid continues for children. Exemptionsstop State clock. Extensions to complete education/training(up to 8 months) and if unable to find work (up to 6months)

10/97 347 347 Ye

Arkansas Immediate Job search 24. Exemptions stop State clock. (includes any month when person is exempt from required work). Extensions for program

compliant persons if unable to find work, to complete education (6-month general limit), or to prevent child neglect

07/00 204 204 Ye

California 18 Job search 18 or (if working or in community service) up to 60. Exemptions

stop State clock. Aid continues for minors (counties decideform: cash or voucher). Extension of 18-month limit (up to 6months) if job imminent or no job available

06/99

(Stateworktriggerbenefitcutoff)

596 1 626

2 596

Ye

Colorado 24 Sign individual responsibility

plan: immediate work activitymay be required

60. No exemptions. Extensions for up to 20 percent of caseload

for ‘‘good cause.’’

07/02 356 356 No

Connecticut Immediate Job search/job readiness 21. Exemptions stop State clock. Up to 6-month unlimited extensions if program compliant and unable to find job, or

earnings below payment standard + $90. State-funded safetynet provides vouchers and third party payments for noncompliant families who reach time limit

10/97 636 636 Ye

Delaware One-parent: 24

Two-parent: immediate

One-parent: job searchTwo-parent: immediate workfare

(for at least one parent)

24 (or, if working or in community service) up to 48. Exemptions for months worked at least 20 hours weekly if countable income below need standard. Time limit lifted if State

unemployment rate exceeds 7.5 percent (or national average).Up to 12-month extension if State failed to provide services,no job available, or if caretaker received aid for 96 straightmonths (workfare required)

10/99 338 338 Ye

District of

Columbia

24 Immediate job search/job readiness for applicants assessed

able

60. Exemptions stop State clock. No extensions specified 03/02 415 379 No

Florida Immediate Assignment to work activity 24 out of 60 (36 out of 72 if have poor skills and little work

experience). 48 lifetime limit for both. Aid continues forcases where caretaker was not TANF recipient (child-onlycases). Exemptions stop State clock. Some hardship extensions and 1-month extensions (up to total of 12) for eachmonth spent in subsidized or unsubsidized work. Extensionfor child (via protective payment) otherwise at risk of out-ofhome placement

10/98 (earlier for

waivercases)

303 303 Ye

Georgia 24 Recipients expected to participate in full-time work activity whenever feasible 48. No exemptions. Hardship extensions (20 percent of caseload limit) 01/01 280 280 YeGuam 60 days (if not

work exempt)

Register at one-stop career center 60 7/02 673 673 Ye

Hawaii 24 Applicants not exempt from

work referred within 12months to further assessment/orientation and employment planning

60. Exemptions stop State clock. Aid to all work-exempt families, including those whose caretaker was not a TANF recipient, continues. 3-month renewable extensions for families in

which all adults are program compliant

12/01 712 3 712

4 570

No

Idaho Immediate Job search required for all adult

recipients

24. Exemptions stop State clock. Aid continues for families

where caretaker was not TANF recipient (child-only cases).Extensions for families with disabled child or adult if unableto obtain job with earnings equal to State maximum benefit

07/99 317 293 Ye

Illinois 24 Job search/work activity required at application No State limit if working required hours; 24 if not in work/ workfare and youngest child older than 12; 60 otherwise. Exemptions stop State clock. State funds exemptions for families working required hours (unlimited); single parent who is

full-time postsecondary student with satisfactory grade pointaverage (36 months); and for family headed by minor parent

07/99 377 377 Ye

TABLE 7–33.—SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE TANF PROGRAMS—Continued

State Work-trigger time limit (months) First activity required State-set benefit cutoff limit (in months)

When first

families

reach time

limit

Maximum benefits, family of

three 

07/96 01/00

Indiana 24 Sign personal responsibility

plan

24. Aid continues for children. Exemptions stop State clock. Up

to 24 extra months may be earned through full-time work (1-month extension for 6 months work)

05/97 288 288 Ye

Iowa Immediate Immediate work activity 60. Aid continues for child living with nonparent caretaker. Limited exemption stops State clock. No extensions specified 1/02 426 426 NoKansas 24 Immediate job search may be

required

60. Exemptions stop State clock. Aid continues for families

where caretaker was not TANF recipient (child-only cases).Extensions for up to 20 percent of caseload

10/01 429 429 No

Kentucky 24 Work registration a condition of

eligibility

60. Specified extensions (up to 20 percent of caseload) including program compliant adult without sufficient work and

grandparent of child at risk of foster care)

10/01 262 262 No

Louisiana 24 Work activity mandated for

most recipients

24 out of 60. Lifetime 60. Exemptions stop State clock, including months when earned income disregard applies (6-month

maximum). Up to 12-month extension to complete educationor training

01/99 190 190 No

Maine 24 Immediate job search for twoparent families whose principal earner is underemployed and for single parent with no child below age

5 who has skills needed forwork

60. Extensions for whole family if all members are program

compliant. Adults with 3 or more sanctions are ineligible fora specified time

11/01 418 461 No

Maryland Not specified. Localities design

own workplans

Sign responsibility contract 60. Exemptions stop State clock, including months when family

member has earnings. No extensions specified

1/02 373 417 Ye

Massachusetts 60 days (Single

parent withchild underschool age exempt.)

Community service (State waiver) required after 60 days 24 out of 60. Exemptions stop State clock. Unlimited 6-month extensions in certain cases, including if working full time but

making less money than would be eligible to receive as cashaid; recipient may be required to undergo vocational assessment and participate in subsidized work. State funds extension beyond 60-month Federal limit

12/98 565 3 579

4 565

Ye

Michigan 2 Immediate work placement or

job search for those assessed able. (Communityservice required if no jobafter 2 months.)

No State limit. Eligible families not self-sufficient after 60

months of federally funded TANF will receive State-fundedaid

No State

limit

5 4896 459

5 4896 459

No

Minnesota One-parent: 6

Two-parent: immediate

Job search for work ready—

postponed if participant proposes education program (upto 1 year) likely to lead toearnings above TANF incomelimits. Job readiness for nonwork ready

60. Limited exemptions stop State clock. No extensions specified 07/02 532 532 No

Mississippi 24 Assessment within 30 days and

work referral

60. No exemptions. Unspecified extensions (20 percent of caseload limit) 10/01 120 170 Ye

Missouri 24 Sign individual responsibility

plan; State may require workof some persons at any time

60. Exemptions stop State clock (including months recipient

was in wage supplementation program). No time limit forpermanently disabled individuals and those age 60 or older.Extensions for hardship and battered persons

12/01 292 292 No

Montana 24 Develop and sign family investment agreement, which may

require work before 24months

60. (24 maximum in Pathways Program, followed by 36 maximum in community services). Exemptions granted only while

in Pathways. Unspecified extensions (of 60-month limit) within 20 percent of caseload cap

7 2/01 438 469 No

Nebraska 24 from signing

of self-sufficiency contract

Assessment and development of

self-sufficiency contract

24 out of 48; 60 lifetime. Exemptions stop State clock. (Under

waiver, exempt months also do not count toward Federal 60-month time limit.) Extension if no job available, if agencyfailed to provide services in agreement, or if adult recipientno longer able to meet conditions of agreement

12/98 364 364 Ye

Nevada 24 Immediate job search 24, then ineligible for 12; 60 lifetime. No exemptions. Up to 6-

month extension if need more time to achieve self-sufficiency. Hardship extensions (24- or 60-month limit); only 20percent of caseload for 60-month limit

01/00 348 348 No

TABLE 7–33.—SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE TANF PROGRAMS—Continued

State Work-trigger time limit (months) First activity required State-set benefit cutoff limit (in months)

When first

families

reach time

limit

Maximum benefits, family of

three 

07/96 01/00

New Hampshire 26 weeks Immediate job search/job readiness activities for 26 weeks

maximum, then workfare foradditional 26 weeks maximum

60. Extensions allowed by reason of hardship or if family includes a battered person or one who has suffered extreme

cruelty. State plans to define other ‘‘hardship’’ criteria (apparently within 20 percent of caseload cap)

10/01 550 575 No

New Jersey 24 Register for WorkFirst; engage

in job search

60. Up to 12-month State-funded extension if in full-time work

but still eligible for benefits; if no job/work activity available;or if terminated from job through no fault of own. Specifiedextensions within 20 percent of caseload cap (for Federalfunding)

02/02 424 424 Ye

New Mexico 2 Assessment and completion of

individual responsibility plan.(By end of third month mustbe fully participating in workactivity.)

60. Extensions for persons at least age 60 and for disabled

persons or caretakers of a disabled family member

07/02 389 439 No

New York 24 Assessment No State limit. State-funded safety net continues basic aid for

whole family (but it is in noncash form unless the parent isexempt from work requirements) after Federal limit isreached

No State

limit

8 7039 577

8 7039 577

No

North Carolina 12 weeks Register with employment program (condition of eligibility) 24 then ineligible for 36; 60 lifetime. Exemptions stop State clock. County Board of Social Service may grant extension for

program compliant families at end of 24-month limit or during 36 months of ineligibility.

08/98 272 272 Ye

North Dakota 24 Required to engage in work activities once determined work

ready

60. Extensions (20 percent of caseload limit) allowed for persons physically or mentally unable to work; needed to care

for severely disabled child; aged caretaker relatives; and victims of domestic violence

07/02 431 457 Ye

Ohio 24 Immediate assignment to Federal or State work activity 36. (24 months after reaching time limit, family may receive an extra 24 months for good cause.) County may provide hardship extensions from State time limit for up to 20 percent of

average monthly caseload

10/00 341 373 No

Oklahoma 24 Job search. Development of employment plan and assignment to work or work activity

as soon as possible

60. No exemptions. No extensions specified 10/01 307 292 Ye

Oregon Not specified Assessment. Engage in required

activities

24 out of 84. Exemptions stop State clock. (Months in compliance with work program do not count and months when

earned income equals or exceed 173 percent of State minimum wage count only as 40 percent of a month.) Aid continues for cases where caretaker was not TANF recipient (childonly cases). Up to 1 percent of caseload (or 400 families, ifgreater) may receive extensions for good faith effort to findwork

07/98 460 460 No

Pennsylvania 24 Immediate job search 60. No exemptions. No categorical extensions (but State may

provide hardship extensions to 20 percent of caseload)

03/02 421 421 No

Puerto Rico 2 (if not work exempt) Develop individual responsibility plan. Perform community

service if no job after 2months

60. 07/02 180 180 No

Rhode Island 24 Develop employability plan 60. State-funded aid continues for children. Exemptions stop

State clock (includes stopping of State clock for any recipientworking 30 or more hours per week). No extensions specified

05/02 554 554 No

South Carolina 24 Applicants must document at

least 10 employer contactsduring application process(recommended 2 weeks). Iffail to do so without goodcause, application is denied

24 out of 120; 60 lifetime. Exemptions stop State clock. Up to

6-month extension for persons in approved training programs; up to 12-month extension if program compliant butno job. Thereafter, county director may grant month-to-monthextensions

10/98 200 204 Ye

South Dakota 2 Sign personal responsibility

plan. Perform communityservice if no job after 2months

60. Extension policy not specified 12/01 430 430 No

Tennessee Immediate Agree to personal responsibility

plan that requires immediatework preparation or work activities

18 at a time (then 3 months off); 60 lifetime. Exemptions stop

State clock. Parent/caretaker functioning below grade level 9not subject to Federal or State time limit (most must attendschool). Up to 6-month extensions if in high unemploymentarea. Extensions if working and family income is below payment standard plus $90

04/98 185 185 Ye

TABLE 7–33.—SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE TANF PROGRAMS—Continued

State Work-trigger time limit (months) First activity required State-set benefit cutoff limit (in months)

When first

families

reach time

limit

Maximum benefits, family of

three 

07/96 01/00

Texas Not specified Work force orientation (condition

of eligibility)

12 for some high school graduates; 24 for those with 3 years of

high school or specified recent work; 36 for those with lessthan high school diploma and with less than 6 months workexperience. Aid continues for children. Exemptions stop Stateclock. Extensions on case-by-case basis

05/97 188 201 No

Utah Immediate Complete individual employment

plan

36. Up to 24-month extension if employed 80 hours in 6 of 24

previous months. Extension if circumstances have preventedearnings sufficient to close the case

01/00 426 451 No

Vermont One-parent: 30

Two-parent: 15New resident: 5

Create family development plan

and participate in work readiness. (Community service required if no job after timesin left column.)

No State limit (Also, Vermont maintains that the 60-month limit

on use of Federal TANF funds is inconsistent with its waiverprogram.)

No State

limit

633 708 No

Virginia 90 days Referred to work program within

a month of case approval

24 out of 60; 60 lifetime. Exemptions stop State clock. Extensions (3–12 months) if program compliant but no job, in

continuing education and training directly related to employability, or living in area of State with unemployment above10 percent

07/97 354 354 Ye

Virgin Islands 24 Sign an individual responsibility

plan

60. Unspecified hardship extensions (up to 20 percent of caseload) 07/02 240 240 No

Washington Immediate Job search as part of employability assessment 60. Exemptions will not stop the State clock until family has re- ceived 52 months of aid. Extensions allowed (20 percent of

caseload limit) for hardship or victims of domestic violence.State plans to establish specific hardship criteria

01/02 546 546 No

West Virginia 24 Attend work program orientation; sign personal responsibility contract 60. Extensions on case-by-case basis 01/02 253 328 NoWisconsin Immediate Work or training activity immediate; community service required by employables if no

job after 2 months

60. Limited exemption (no job, high unemployment area) stops

State clock. Extensions on case-by-case basis

10/01 517 10 673

11 628

Ye

Wyoming Immediate Job search 60. If received AFDC for 36 or more months before 1/97, then

eligible for 24 months assistance after 1/31/97. Extensionsfor adult student within 1 year of degree or completing vocational training

01/02 (2/

99 forpreviousAFDCfamilies)

360 340 Ye

1 Region 1 of California.2 Region 2 of California.3Work exempt.4 Nonwork exempt.5Washtenaw County, Michigan.6Wayne County, Michigan.7Montana’s State time limit clock is different from its Federal one, which first families are to reach February 2002 (sooner for certain interstate migrants). 8 Suffolk County, New York.9 New York City.10 Community service jobs.11W–2 transitions (work preparation activities).

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of information in TANF State plans, State laws, and State regulations and the TANF 1999 ann

prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

460

12TANF regulations provide that if a State exceeds the 20 percent allowance for hardship or

domestic violence extensions, the State may be eligible for a ‘‘reasonable cause’’ exemption from

the penalty for violating the time limit.

When the Federal clock is reached, any State may extend federally funded aid to up to 20 percent of the caseload on grounds of

hardship or presence of a battered family member.12 For cases in

which the State has chosen 60 months as its own benefit cutoff

limit, the table shows the kinds of extensions that the State says

it will allow; i.e., the table lists the categories of persons who will

continue to be aided even if they require State funding because

they do not fit into the Federal 20 percent hardship/battered person allowance. Some States do not list any extensions, and some

States indicate that they plan to restrict any extensions to 20 percent of the caseload. Three States have no State benefit cutoff time

limit (Michigan, New York, and Vermont).

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

(For a more extensive legislative history of AFDC, see previous

editions of the Green Book.)

Public Law 104–193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act established the program of Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and appropriated funds for

annual block grants through fiscal year 2002. August 22, 1996.

Public Law 105–333, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, established the Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Grant Program and appropriated $3 billion for the 2-year period, fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

This act also made technical corrections to TANF. August 5, 1997.

Public Law 106–113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, broadened eligibility for WTW grants and added limited vocational educational or job training to allowable activities. November 29, 1999.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, D. (1999). Charitable choice: Background and selected

legal issues (RL30388). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Ahn, J. & Fogarty, D. (1999). A study of Washington State TANF

departures and welfare reform: Cohort II. Olympia, Washington: Department of Social and Health Services.

Allen, K. & Kirby, M. (2000, July). Unfinished business: Why cities

matter to welfare reform. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Blank, R. (1998). What causes public assistance caseloads to grow?

Poverty Research News, II(2), 6. Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research.

Burke, V. (1999). TANF block grant program: current provisions

compared with AFDC (96–720). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Committee on Ways and Means. (1998). Green Book. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Congressional Research Service. (1998). Child care: State programs

under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CRS Report 98–875). Washington, DC: Author.

461

Council of Economic Advisors. (1999, August 3). The effects of welfare policy and the economic expansion on welfare caseloads:

An update. Washington, DC: Author.

Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. (1999). Statistical summary of leaver survey. Topeka, Kansas: Author.

Department of Transitional Assistance. (1999). How are they doing?

A longitudinal study of households leaving welfare under Massachusetts Reform. Boston: Author.

Devere, C. (2000). Welfare reform: competitive grants in the welfareto-work grant program (RS20207). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Ellwood, D.T., & Bane, M.J. (1985). The impact of AFDC on family

structure and living arrangements. Research in Labor Economics, 7, 137–207.

Fagnoni, C. (1999). Welfare reform: States’ implementation and effects on the work force development system (Testimony). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.

Falk, G., & Schroeder, C. (1998). Welfare reform: Time limits under

TANF (98–932). Washington, DC: Congressional Research

Service.

Federal Register. (2000, February 18). TANF program regulations,

65(34), 8478–558.

Foster, E. (1999). Amended quarterly progress report: Outcomes for

single parent leavers by cohort quarter for January–March

1999. Atlanta: Georgia State University.

Ku, L., & Bruen, B. (1999). The continuing decline in Medicaid coverage (Series A, No. A–37). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

London, R., & Valvano, V. (1999). Evaluation of the Colorado Works

Program: First annual report. Oakland, California: Berkeley

Planning Associates.

Mancuso, D. & Moses, A. (1999). Examining circumstances of individuals and families who leave TANF: Assessing the validity of

administrative data (Interim Report). Belmont, California:

County of San Mateo, Human Services Agency.

Meyer, D., & Cancian, M. (1996). Life after welfare: The economic

well-being following an exit from AFDC (Discussion Paper No.

1101–96). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty.

National Governors’ Association. (1999, March). Summaries of selected elements of State plans for TANF. Washington, DC: Author.

Pavetti, L. (1995, September 11). Questions and answers on welfare

dynamics. Paper presented at a research meeting on welfare

dynamics, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

Pew Center on the States. (2000). Selected State welfare provisions.

Rockefeller Institute of Government. (1999). After welfare: A study

of work and benefit use after case closure. Albany, New York:

Author.

Sandefur, G., & Cook, S. (1998, December). Permanent exits from

public assistance: the impact of duration, family, and work. Social Forces, 77, 763–786.

School of Social Work, University of Maryland-Baltimore. (1999).

Life after welfare: Third interim report. Baltimore, Maryland:

Department of Human Resources.

462

University of Maryland. (1999). Life after welfare: third interim report (Prepared by welfare and child support research and

training group, School of Social Work). Baltimore: Author.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (1970). Preliminary report of findings—1969 AFDC study (NCSS Report

AFDC–1). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1982). Aid to

Families with Dependent Children: 1979 recipient characteristics study. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Undated). Characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC families, fiscal

year 1988. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Undated). Characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC families, fiscal

year 1994. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Undated). Characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC families, fiscal

year 1996. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). Aid to

Families with Dependent Children. The Baseline. Washington,

DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program (Second

annual report to Congress). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Indicators

of Welfare Dependence (Third annual report to Congress).

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Welfare reform: Implementing DOT’s access to JOBS Program in its first year (RCED–00–

14). Washington, DC: Author.

Zedlewski, S., & Brauner, S. (1999). Are the steep declines in food

stamp participation linked to falling welfare caseloads? (Series

B, No. B–3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.