Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates
Published: 2010-05-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and made modifications expected to strengthen work requirements for families receiving cash assistance through state TANF programs. Both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and states were required to take steps to implement these changes. Work participation rates, or the proportion of families receiving TANF cash assistance that participated in work activities, are the key performance measure HHS uses to assess state TANF programs. In response to the economic recession that began in 2007, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), provided additional TANF funding to eligible states and made additional modifications to TANF. GAO examined (1) How did DRA affect state TANF programs, including work participation rates? (2) How has the recent economic recession affected state TANF programs? (3) How did the Recovery Act affect state TANF programs? To address these questions, GAO analyzed federal TANF data, as well as relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; interviewed HHS officials; surveyed all state TANF administrators; and conducted site visits to meet with state and local officials in Florida, Ohio, and Oregon. GAO is not making recommendations in this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Nationally, TANF work participation rates changed little after DRA was enacted, though states' rates reflect both recipients' work participation and states' policy choices. Although federal law generally requires that a minimum of 50 percent of families receiving TANF cash assistance in each state participate in work activities, both before and after DRA, about one-third of TANF families nationwide met their work requirements. However, after DRA, many states were able to meet federally required work participation rates because of additional factors. For example, 29 states funded cash assistance for certain families that may be less likely to meet the work requirements with state dollars unconnected to the TANF program, as this removed these families from the rate calculation. Further, DRA required other changes to state TANF programs, and states reported challenges with some of DRA's changes to the TANF work rules, such as verifying participants' actual work hours. From the beginning of the economic recession, in December 2007, to September 2009, the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance, particularly two-parent families, increased in the majority of states but went down in others. At the same time, many states have faced budget deficits and difficult decisions about the use of state resources for TANF programs. Thirty-one states reported that budget constraints led to changes in local TANF service delivery, such as reductions in available services and the number of staff. Forty-six states have applied for the Recovery Act's Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs since it was made available in 2009. More states reported using these funds to maintain their TANF programs rather than expand or create programs and services. Some states reported challenges accessing the funds. For example, some expressed frustration with the amount of time it has taken to receive guidance and responses to questions from HHS, particularly related to qualifying subsidized employment and short-term, nonrecurrent benefit expenditures. State officials also expressed concern about the September 30, 2010, expiration date for the Recovery Act TANF funds.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant  provided cash assistance to 1.8 million low-income families nationwide in  September 2009. About half of those families included an adult or teen  parent who was required to participate in work activities as a condition of  benefit receipt, with the remaining families—often those in which only the  children receive benefits—excluded from these requirements. TANF work  requirements have been in place since the Congress, through the Personal  Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, imposed  them and stated that one of the purposes of TANF was to end families’  dependence on government benefits by promoting job preparation and  work. Further, through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), which  reauthorized the TANF block grant, the Congress took steps that were  generally expected to strengthen these work requirements by adding  several provisions to improve the reliability of work participation data and  program integrity and by modifying the credit provided to states for  reducing the number of families receiving TANF. Both the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees TANF  at the federal level, and states administering TANF cash assistance  programs, were required to take steps to implement the DRA changes.
In 2007 and 2008, the U.S. economy experienced a severe recession and, as  a result, the Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which included provisions affecting TANF.  For example, the Recovery Act created the $5 billion Emergency  Contingency Fund for state TANF programs, which states qualify for based  on increases in specific types of TANF expenditures or the number of  families receiving TANF cash assistance.
As DRA and the Recovery Act both made changes to TANF rules in recent  years, little research has examined how states’ correspondingly modified  their TANF programs. In response to your request, we answered the  following questions: (1) How did DRA affect state TANF programs,  including work participation rates? (2) How has the recent economic  recession affected state TANF programs? (3) How did the Recovery Act  affect state TANF programs?
As criteria for program implementation, we reviewed relevant federal  laws, regulations, and agency guidance. To answer the questions, we  collected and analyzed information through several methods. At the  federal level, we interviewed HHS officials and reviewed the agency’s  TANF data, including the number of families receiving TANF cash  assistance, work participation rates, and federal and state expenditures, as  well as states’ applications for the Emergency Contingency Fund. We  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report. To gather information from states about changes to their TANF  programs after DRA was enacted, the economic recession began, and the  Recovery Act was enacted, we surveyed state TANF administrators from  the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and we conducted site visits in  3 states (Florida, Ohio, and Oregon). We administered our Web-based  survey between November 2009 and January 2010, and all state TANF  administrators responded. While we did not validate specific information  that administrators reported through our survey, we reviewed their  responses, and we conducted follow-up, as necessary, to determine that  their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. Our site visit states were selected because they  made varied modifications to their TANF programs after DRA and the  Recovery Act, and the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance  in these states had increased since the economic recession began. These  states were also selected because they varied in geographic location and  selected TANF program characteristics, including the maximum amount of  TANF cash assistance provided to each recipient family. Within each state,  we interviewed state TANF administrators, as well as TANF officials from  two to three local offices serving urban and rural areas. We cannot  generalize our findings from the site visits beyond the states and localities  we visited. To gather additional perspectives about changes to state TANF  programs, we also interviewed researchers knowledgeable about TANF  from a range of organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to May 2010, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for additional information  on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Enactment of the TANF block grant in 1996 significantly changed federal  welfare policy, as it both limited HHS’s authority to regulate welfare  programs and gave states more flexibility in designing and funding related  programs. The TANF block grant is a $16.5 billion per year fixed federal  funding stream to states, which is coupled with a maintenance-of-effort  (MOE) provision that requires states to maintain a significant portion of  their historic financial commitment to their welfare programs. TANF gave  states flexibility in setting various welfare program aspects, such as cash  assistance benefit levels and eligibility requirements, as well as in  spending TANF funds. For example, when the number of families  receiving cash assistance benefits declined after welfare reform, states  were able to use available funds to enhance spending for noncash  services, such as child care, work supports, and a range of other supports  for low-income families. Due to these flexibilities, TANF programs differ  substantially by state. Further, because of differences in state  administration of the program, some state TANF programs also differ by  local jurisdiction.
subsections: section_title: TANF Work Requirements Included in PRWORA
paragraphs: In creating the TANF block grant, the Personal Responsibility and Work  Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) set out to increase the  flexibility of states in operating a program designed for the following four  purposes:  1.  providing assistance so that children could be cared for in their own  homes or in the homes of relatives;   2.  ending families’ dependence on government benefits by promoting job  preparation, work, and marriage;   3.  preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies;  4.  encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
In line with the second purpose, PRWORA (1) established work  participation rates as a requirement for states, which HHS uses to measure  performance; (2) named 12 categories of work activities to be counted for  the purpose of the measure; and (3) defined the average number of  weekly hours that each family receiving TANF cash assistance must be  engaged in an activity to count as participating. If TANF recipients engage  in other activities provided or permitted under the state’s TANF program,  then those activities do not count toward meeting the federal work  participation requirements. In addition, TANF recipients who engage in  work activities for less than the minimum required number of hours each  week generally do not count as being engaged in work for purposes of the  requirements. PRWORA also excluded some families from these work  requirements, such as those in which children alone receive the cash  assistance benefits.
PRWORA established separate annual work participation rates for all  families and all two-parent families receiving TANF cash assistance in  each state. Although the required rates increased in the immediate years  following TANF implementation, when they reached their maximums, the  rates were set at 50 percent for all TANF families and 90 percent for two- parent TANF families. In short, these rate requirements mean that states  are held accountable for ensuring that generally at least 50 percent of all  families receiving TANF cash assistance participate in one or more of the  12 work activities for an average of 30 hours per week.
However, the act also allowed states to annually apply for a reduction to  the required work participation rates through the caseload reduction  credit. This credit was annually calculated by determining the change in  caseload—or, the average number of families receiving cash assistance— in the state between fiscal year 1995 and the fiscal year preceding the  current one. If a state’s caseload has decreased, the credit allows the state  to decrease its required work participation rate by the equivalent  percentage. For example, if a state’s caseload decreased by approximately  20 percent between fiscal year 1995 and the fiscal year preceding the  current one, the state would receive a caseload reduction credit equal to  20 percent, which would result in the state having an adjusted work  participation rate requirement of 30 percent for the current year. Because  TANF caseloads significantly declined following TANF implementation,  this credit enabled many states with fewer than 50 percent of their TANF  families sufficiently engaged in countable work activities to still meet the  federal work participation rates.  (See fig. 1.)
In addition, states could modify the calculation of their work participation  rates through funding decisions. Specifically, because PRWORA’s work  participation requirements only applied to families receiving cash  assistance funded with TANF block grant dollars, states could opt to use  their MOE dollars to fund cash assistance for families less likely to meet  their individual work participation requirements. By creating these MOE- funded separate state programs (SSP), states were able to remove selected  families from the work participation rate calculation.  (See fig. 2.)
PRWORA established penalties for states that did not meet their required  work participation rates and gave HHS the authority to make  determinations regarding these penalties. When a state does not meet its  required level of work participation, HHS will send the state a penalty  notice. The state can accept the penalty, which reduces its annual block  grant, or it can try to avoid the penalty. To do so, a state can opt to provide  reasonable cause as to why it did not meet the work participation rate or  submit a corrective compliance plan that will correct the violation and  demonstrate how the state will comply with work participation  requirements. In addition, if the state’s failure to meet the work  participation rate is due to circumstances that caused the state to become  a “needy state” or extraordinary circumstances such as a natural disaster,  HHS has the discretion to reduce a state’s penalty.
section_title: Modifications to TANF Work and Funding Requirements Included in DRA
paragraphs: In 2006, DRA reauthorized the TANF block grant through fiscal year 2010  and made several modifications that were generally expected to  strengthen TANF work requirements intended to help more families’ attain  self-sufficiency, and improve the reliability of work participation data and  program integrity. Specifically, DRA directed HHS to issue regulations by  June 30, 2006, defining the 12 work activities, methods for reporting and  verifying hours of work participation, and the circumstances under which  a parent who resides with a child receiving assistance should be included  in work participation rates. DRA also required (1) states to establish and  maintain procedures consistent with the new regulations and (2) HHS to  review these procedures to ensure they will provide an accurate measure  of work participation. Further, DRA mandated that families receiving cash  assistance through SSPs be included in the calculation of work  participation rates, and it changed the caseload reduction credit by moving  the base year for measuring caseload declines from 1995 to 2005.
In addition to the work requirement changes, DRA also added a provision  allowing states to count a broader range of their own expenditures toward  the TANF MOE requirement. Previously, states could claim as MOE their  expenditures related to the four purposes of TANF that provided benefits  or services only to financially needy families with children. However, DRA  expanded states’ ability to count as MOE other expenditures on TANF  purposes 3 and 4—the prevention and reduction of out-of-wedlock  pregnancies and the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.  Specifically, the act allowed states to count their total expenditures  toward these purposes, regardless of the composition and financial need  of the families benefiting from these expenditures.
HHS issued interim final regulations in response to DRA on June 29, 2006,  which were generally applicable beginning in fiscal year 2007. These  regulations addressed the changes related to work rules required by DRA,  such as issuing federal definitions of the 12 work activities, and also  required specific state actions. For example, in response to the DRA  requirement that states establish procedures for counting, verifying, and  reporting work participation, HHS required states to submit an interim  Work Verification Plan to the agency by September 30, 2006, and have a  final approved version in place by September 30, 2007. The interim  regulations also addressed the DRA change to MOE spending on pro- family activities by clarifying that states could claim as MOE all spending  reasonably calculated to address TANF purposes 3 and 4.
HHS issued the final DRA-related regulations on February 5, 2008, which  were effective beginning in fiscal year 2009.  Although the final regulations  made some modifications to the work rules included in the interim final  regulations, HHS officials reported that these modifications were generally  minor. For example, HHS clarified that some activities not directly  addressed in the interim final regulations fit within specific work activity  definitions. In contrast, the final regulations made a significant change to  the interim regulations related to allowable MOE expenditures on pro- family activities.  Specifically, under the final regulations, states can count  toward MOE their total spending on specific pro-family activities listed in  the healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood section of  DRA, rather than their total spending on all pro-family activities under  TANF purposes 3 and 4. For the specified activities alone, a state can  count all of its expenditures toward MOE regardless of the family  composition and financial need of the people benefiting from these  activities.
section_title: TANF Modifications in the Recovery Act
paragraphs: In response to the economic recession that began in 2007, the Recovery  Act made several additional changes to TANF, which generally did not  affect the federal work rule changes required by DRA. Specifically, the  Recovery Act created the $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund for state  TANF programs, which states can qualify for based on increases in the  number of families receiving cash assistance or in TANF and state MOE  expenditures for short-term, nonrecurrent benefits and subsidized  employment. States can apply for funds each quarter through the end of  fiscal year 2010, and they are eligible to have 80 percent of their  expenditure increases reimbursed from the fund. In total, each state is  eligible for a portion of the fund equal to up to half of its annual basic  TANF block grant, as long as dollars remain. Because these funds are  afforded the same flexibilities as the TANF block grant, Emergency  Contingency funds can be spent on any TANF-related purpose for TANF- eligible families. Before the creation of the Emergency Contingency Fund,  PRWORA had originally created a TANF Contingency Fund of up to $2  billion that states could access in times of economic distress. States have  to meet criteria to qualify for the TANF Contingency Fund that differ from  those for the Emergency Contingency Fund, and only a portion of the  TANF Contingency Fund had been drawn down by the states when the  recent economic recession began in 2007.
The Recovery Act also made two additional funding modifications to  TANF, as well as a temporary modification to the caseload reduction  credit. First, the Recovery Act extended TANF supplemental grants, which  amounted to $319 million, to qualified states through fiscal year 2010.  Beginning with PRWORA, annual supplemental grants had been awarded  to states that had historically low welfare spending per person and high  population growth, but these grants were due to expire at the end of fiscal  year 2009. In addition, the Recovery Act increased states’ flexibility by  permitting them to spend prior year TANF block grant funds on all TANF- allowable benefits and services. Prior to this modification, states had been  permitted to spend prior year TANF block grant funds only on  assistance—a category that includes cash benefits and supportive services  for families receiving these benefits. Finally, the Recovery Act also  modified the caseload reduction credit calculation for fiscal years 2009- 2011, by allowing states the option to use the lower total number of cash  assistance recipients in their state in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 as  the comparison caseload for calculating the credit. For example, if a state  had 20,000 families receiving TANF cash assistance in fiscal year 2007, and  21,000 such families in fiscal year 2009, it could opt to use 20,000 for the  purposes of calculating its fiscal year 2010 caseload reduction credit,  resulting in a greater credit and a lower required work participation rate.
section_title: After DRA, States Changed Their TANF Programs, in Part to Affect Work Participation Rates
paragraphs: Since DRA, national TANF work participation rates have changed little,  although the rates reflect both recipients’ work participation and state  policies that affected the work participation rate calculation. Specifically,  the factors that influenced the calculation of a state’s work participation  rate included  the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance who participated in  work activities,   changes in the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance,    state spending on TANF-related programs in excess of what is required,    state policies that keep working families in the rate calculation, and     state policies that keep nonworking families out of the rate calculation.
In addition, in order to comply with DRA, states made other changes to  their TANF programs, which may also have affected their work  participation rates.  Although HHS provided guidance to states after DRA,  states reported differing opinions about the usefulness of this assistance,  as well as continued challenges implementing certain aspects of DRA’s  changes to the TANF work requirements.
subsections: section_title: National Work Participation Rates Changed Little after DRA, and States’ Rates Reflected Both Recipients’ Work Participation and States’ Policy Choices
paragraphs: Nationally, the proportion of families receiving TANF cash assistance who  met their individual work requirements by participating in one of 12 work  activities for a minimum number of hours each week changed little after  DRA, as did the types of work activities in which they most frequently  participated. In fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008—the two years  following DRA for which national data are available—between 29 and 30  percent of families receiving TANF cash assistance met their work  requirements. Similarly, between 31 and 34 percent of families receiving  TANF cash assistance met their work requirements in each year from  fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2006. In other words, approximately 295,000  of the 875,000 families receiving TANF cash assistance who had work  requirements in fiscal year 2005 met those requirements, and 243,000 of  816,000 families met their work requirements in fiscal year 2008. The  small decrease in the proportion of families that met their requirements  after DRA may be related, in part, to the federal work activity definitions  and tightened work hour reporting and verification procedures states had  to comply with after the act, as well as states’ ability to make the required  changes. The types of work activities in which families receiving TANF  cash assistance most frequently participated were also similar before and  after DRA. For example, among families that met their work requirements,  the majority participated in unsubsidized employment in the years both  before and after DRA. In all of the years analyzed, the next most frequent  work activities were job search and job readiness assistance, vocational  educational training, and work experience.
While the national proportion of TANF families who were sufficiently  engaged in countable work activities did not significantly change after  DRA, fewer states met the required work participation rates for all TANF  families and for two-parent TANF families. This is in part because other  factors, including states’ policy and funding decisions, affected states’  ability to meet the required rates after DRA. Specifically, after DRA, in  fiscal years 2007 and 2008, 13 and 10 states, respectively, did not meet at  least one of the required rates, compared with a maximum of 4 states  that did not meet at least one of the rates in each year between fiscal ye ars  2001 and 2006, according to HHS data (see table 1). States that do not meet  the rates may receive a penalty reducing their annual block grants;  however, HHS has not yet finalized state penalties for the two years  following DRA.
Fewer states met the federally required work participation rates after DRA  in part because of a modification that DRA made to the caseload reduction  credit. Specifically, DRA changed the calculation of this credit, which  adjusts the required work participation rates, so it now compares the  change in the number of families receiving cash assistance in each state  between the fiscal year 2005 base year and the comparison year. Before  DRA, the credit’s base year was fiscal year 1995 and states had larger  caseload reduction credits because of the dramatic declines in the number  of families receiving cash assistance after TANF implementation. For  example, in fiscal year 2006, states’ caseload reductions ranged from 11 to  91 percent, and 18 states had reductions that were at least 50 percent,  which reduced their required work participation rates to 0. However, in  part because of the base year change, caseload reductions had less of an  effect on states’ ability to meet the required work participation rates after  DRA. Specifically, after DRA in fiscal year 2007, 3 states could not claim a  credit related to caseload reduction, and other states had much smaller  caseload reductions than they had before DRA. For example, 25 states had  caseload reductions ranging from 1 to 5 percent, and the remaining 23  states had caseload reductions from 6 to 26 percent. As a result, only 8  states met the all families work participation rate in fiscal year 2007 solely  because of their caseload reductions and the number of families who were  sufficiently engaged in countable work activities, although 9 additional  states met the rate solely because 50 percent or more of their families  were sufficiently engaged in countable work activities.
subsections: section_title: Role of Excess MOE Expenditures in Meeting Work Participation Rates
paragraphs: Although caseload reductions were significantly smaller after DRA, some  states increased their caseload reduction credits and their ability to meet  the federally required work participation rates by claiming excess MOE  expenditures. Specifically, states are required to spend a certain amount of  state MOE funds every year in order to receive their federal TANF block  grants. However, if states spend in excess of the required amount, they are  allowed to reduce the number of families included in the calculation of  their work participation rates through the caseload reduction credit  calculation (see fig. 3). HHS officials told us that, prior to DRA, Delaware  alone had claimed these expenditures toward its caseload reduction  credit. In contrast, in fiscal year 2007, 32 states claimed excess MOE  expenditures toward their caseload reduction credits. Further, of the 39  states that met the all-families work participation rate in fiscal year 2007,  28 claimed excess MOE expenditures toward their caseload reduction  credits, and 22 would not have met their rates without claiming these  expenditures (see fig. 4). Among the 22 states that needed to rely on  excess MOE expenditures to meet their work participation rates, most  relied on excess MOE expenditures to add between 1 and 20 percent to  their caseload reduction credits, but 4 states relied on excess MOE  expenditures to add between 25 and 35 percent to their credits. (See fig.  5.) In fiscal year 2008, 30 of the 44 states that met the all-families work  participation rate claimed excess MOE expenditures toward their caseload  reduction credits, and 14 would not have met their rates without claiming  these expenditures.
Although the majority of states reported excess MOE expenditures after  DRA, which helped some states to meet work participation rates, we did  not determine whether these increases reflect new state spending or  spending that had been occurring before DRA but was not reported as  MOE. Specifically, we did not examine the totality of state expenditures on  TANF-related programs and services in the years before and after DRA,  which would have provided this information. However, we did examine  states’ TANF and MOE expenditures reported to HHS before and after  DRA to further understand these increases. Total state MOE  expenditures increased by almost $2 billion between fiscal years 2006 and  2008, from $12.0 to 13.7 billion, respectively. In addition, this increase  appears to be related to state spending on programs and services referred  to as pro-family by DRA—the prevention and reduction of out-of-wedlock  pregnancies and the formation and maintenance of two-parent families  (see table 2). Although federal regulations have allowed states to count  spending on these types of programs and services as MOE since TANF was  implemented, interim DRA regulations allowed states to count additional  expenditures in this area as MOE for fiscal years 2007 and 2008, including  those that were not directed at low-income families with children. For  example, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, some  states counted a broad range of spending under these categories, including  afterschool and pre-kindergarten programs and juvenile justice services.  Although final DRA regulations modified states’ ability to report all of  these expenditures as MOE beginning in fiscal year 2009, state MOE  expenditures on pro-family activities did not significantly decrease in that  year.
Some states made other policy changes to their TANF programs after DRA  that may have affected their work participation rates. For example, many  states use several types of policies to ensure that families complying with  their individual work requirements are included in the calculation of the  state’s work participation rate, such as worker supplement and earned  income disregard policies. Because these families are meeting their TANF  work requirements, including them in the rate calculation can improve the  state’s rate. For instance, worker supplement programs are used by some  states to provide monthly cash assistance to low-income working families  who were previously on TANF or about to lose TANF eligibility because  their incomes were too high. When states fund these programs with TANF  or MOE dollars to help meet families’ ongoing basic needs, families  receiving these benefits are included in the calculation of the state’s work  participation rate. On our survey, 23 states reported that they provide  worker supplement cash assistance programs, and 18 of these states  implemented these programs since fiscal year 2006. In the majority of  states with these programs (15), the average cash assistance benefit  provided to each family in the worker supplement program is less than the  average TANF cash assistance benefit. Further, states with these programs  allow families to receive these benefits for a maximum of 1 to 60 months,  with a median of 7.5 months. Like worker supplement programs, earned  income disregards encourage families receiving TANF cash assistance to  work. However, instead of providing additional cash benefits to working  families, these policies disregard part of a family’s earned income when  the state determines the amount of monthly TANF cash assistance the  family receives. Forty-nine states reported on our survey that they have  earned income disregards, and 10 of these states have made changes to  these policies since fiscal year 2006. Specifically, 9 states increased the  amount of income disregarded, and 1 began indexing the amount  disregarded on an annual basis. No states reported that they had  decreased or eliminated their earned income disregards since fiscal year  2006.
section_title: Role of Policies on Nonworking Families in Meeting Work Participation Rates
paragraphs: In contrast, states also made policy changes to their TANF programs after  DRA that removed certain families from the calculation of states’ work  participation rates. Specifically, some states opted to fund cash assistance  for low-income families with state dollars not reported as MOE, known as  solely state funds (SSF). While DRA required that the calculation of a  state’s work participation rates include families receiving cash assistance  funded with MOE dollars—a group that had previously been excluded— states are able to still exclude certain families from their rate calculations  by using SSFs to serve them. (See fig. 6.)
According to several state TANF administrators who responded to our  survey and officials we interviewed during our Oregon site visit, families  for whom states use SSFs to provide cash assistance are those that  typically have the most difficulty meeting the TANF work requirements.
For instance, Oregon used SSFs to provide cash assistance to families  applying for TANF that included a parent with disabilities. Oregon  officials said that parents with disabilities are often unable to meet their  TANF work requirements, and, with this program, the state instead  provides case management and assistance with applying for Supplemental  Security Income. Similarly, one state TANF administrator responding to  our survey reported that they use SSFs to provide cash assistance to  several types of low-income families, which is necessary both for the state  to remain in compliance with TANF work participation rates and to  maintain or try new policies that might otherwise negatively impact the  state’s rates. Further, another state TANF administrator responding to our  survey reported that individual counties decide whether to use SSFs to  provide cash assistance to families receiving such assistance in that state,  and these staff take into account both families’ needs and their ability to  meet TANF work requirements when making that decision. In total, 29  states reported through our survey that they fund cash assistance for  certain low-income families with SSFs, and almost all of these states first  began using SSFs for this purpose after DRA. Almost all of those states  (28) use SSFs to provide cash assistance to low-income, two-parent  families, and almost half (14) use SSFs to provide cash assistance to low- income families with significant barriers to employment, such as families  with a disabled member or recent immigrants and refugees. Some states  also use SSFs to provide cash assistance to families enrolled in  postsecondary education and other types of families, such as those who  have received 60 months of TANF-funded cash assistance and those with  children under age 1 or 2. (See fig. 7.) Overall, states reported using SSFs  to serve a range of less than 1 percent to 50 percent of their total number  of families receiving cash assistance.
Because SSFs are not connected to the funds for states’ TANF programs,  states can develop their own work participation rules for families served  with SSFs. In addition, if families served through SSFs do not meet the  work requirements established by the state, they do not affect the state’s  TANF work participation rates. In all states that use SSFs to provide cash  assistance to two-parent families, and in the majority of states that use  SSFs to provide cash assistance to families enrolled in postsecondary  education, work participation rules for families served through SSFs are  generally the same as for families served through the state’s TANF  program. In contrast, in 9 of the 14 states that provide cash assistance with  SSFs to recipients with significant barriers to work, work participation  rules are generally not the same for these families as for families in the  state’s TANF program.
Through other policy choices, states can similarly exclude certain families  from their work participation rates. For example, some states have  diversion programs that can reduce the number of families included in the  calculation of their rates. Because diversion programs provide eligible  low-income families with short-term, nonrecurrent cash benefits and  support services in lieu of TANF cash assistance, families participating in  these programs are not included in states’ work participation rates. Thirty- one states reported through our survey that they have a statewide  diversion program, and 14 states had made at least one change to these  programs since fiscal year 2006. Of these 14 states, 11 made at least one  change that may have expanded the use of diversion in their states since  DRA, including implementing a program, significantly increasing the  number of families receiving support, increasing the types of support  provided through the program, or increasing the maximum amount of the  cash benefit.  Conversely, 6 made at least one change that may have  reduced the use of diversion in their states. These changes included  eliminating the program, significantly decreasing the number of families  receiving support, and decreasing the maximum amount of the cash  benefit.
Some states also made changes to their TANF sanction policies after DRA,  which, like diversion programs, may reduce the number of families  included in the calculation of states’ work participation rates. Such  policies reduce or remove a family’s TANF cash assistance benefits when  they are not complying with their individual work requirements. At the  time of our survey, 27 states reported that they remove a family’s entire  cash assistance benefit the first time that the family does not comply with  work requirements, and 4 of those states had changed to a full family  sanction policy from one that sanctioned fewer family members, since  fiscal year 2006. While a total of 13 states reported that they had made at  least one change to their sanction policies since fiscal year 2006, a similar  number of these states reported making changes toward a more strict  sanctioning policy as did toward a less strict sanctioning policy. It is likely  that many factors, including DRA and other state TANF program  characteristics, influenced state changes to these policies after DRA.
section_title: Overall Effect on States’ Work Participation Rates
paragraphs: As a result of the various factors that affect the calculation of states’ work  participation rates, the work participation rate does not allow for clear  comparisons of state TANF programs. In short, each state’s ability to meet  the required work participation rates reflects not only the number of its  TANF families sufficiently engaged in countable work activities but also  changes in the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance in the  state and the state’s policy choices that (1) lower their required work  participation rates, (2) keep working families in the calculation of their  rates, and (3) remove certain families from the calculation of these rates.  In addition, these factors make it difficult to evaluate individual states’  performance, or the influence of these individual factors, both before and  after DRA.
After caseload reduction credits (including adjustments related to excess  MOE expenditures) were subtracted from the federally required work  participation rate of 50 percent for all families receiving TANF cash  assistance, some states had to have a much greater proportion of families  sufficiently engaged in countable work activities in order to meet their  rates after DRA than before, while other states had the opposite outcome.  Specifically, when comparing fiscal years 2006 and 2008, 28 states had  higher adjusted work participation rate requirements after DRA than  before, 15 had lower requirements, and 8 had 0 percent adjusted  requirements in both years. For example, according to HHS data, Michigan  needed to have 0 percent of its families receiving TANF cash assistance  meeting their individual work requirements to meet its all-families work  participation rate in fiscal year 2006, and 50 percent of its families meeting  the work requirements to meet its rate in fiscal year 2008. This state was  directly affected by DRA’s change to the caseload reduction credit base  year, as it had over a 50 percent decline in its TANF caseload before DRA  but no decline since. In contrast, according to HHS data, Kansas needed to  have 39 percent of its families receiving TANF cash assistance meeting  their individual work requirements to meet its work participation rate in  fiscal year 2006, and 0 percent of its families meeting work requirements  to meet its rate in fiscal year 2008. While Kansas had a caseload reduction  of 11 percent before DRA, after DRA, the state’s caseload reduction credit  was based on a 16 percent reduction in its TANF caseload after fiscal year  2005 and a significant amount of excess MOE expenditures.
section_title: States Made Other Changes to Their TANF Programs to Comply with DRA but Reported Challenges with the Act’s Work Requirements
paragraphs: While some states were able to comply with DRA by making only minimal  changes to their TANF programs’ work policies and procedures, many had  to make more extensive changes. Several aspects of state TANF programs’  work-related policies and procedures were potentially affected by DRA  because it required states to take certain steps to improve the reliability of  work participation data and HHS to issue definitions of the 12 work  activities. The extent to which each state had to make changes to its TANF  program’s work rules and related procedures to comply with DRA was  therefore directly related to procedures the state had in place before DRA  was passed when all states had significant flexibility over their work  definitions, policies, and procedures. Through our site visits and survey,  many states reported making changes to their programs to comply with  DRA and consequent HHS regulations, and they identified several of the  changes as particularly challenging. Specifically, 41 states reported  through our survey that they made moderate, great, or very great changes  to their processes for reporting and verifying TANF families’ reported  hours of work participation to comply with DRA, and 40 reported that they  made such changes to their internal controls over work participation data.  (See fig. 8.) For example, officials in all three states we visited told us that,  to comply with DRA, they needed to develop new processes to track and  verify TANF families’ hours of work participation. In addition, through our  survey, one state reported that it created a monitoring process to track  both internal staff and contractor activities to ensure the state accurately  reported and verified work participation hours after DRA. Although still a  majority, fewer states reported making moderate, great, or very great  changes to their definitions of work activities after DRA. For example, two  of the states we visited changed their definitions of the job search and job  readiness work activity after DRA, as the definition in HHS regulations  now requires these activities to be supervised. In a local office within one  of these states, officials discussed how they no longer offer this activity to  TANF families because staff are unable to provide the required  supervision.
The extent to which states had to make changes to comply with DRA work  requirements may have affected whether some states met their work  participation rates in the years immediately following DRA. For example,  during our site visits, officials in Ohio and Oregon both discussed having  to make extensive changes to their work rules and procedures after DRA  to comply with the federal requirements, while Florida officials generally  reported having to make few policy changes to comply. In fiscal years 2007  and 2008, both Ohio and Oregon did not meet their work participation  rates for all families receiving TANF cash assistance, while Florida did  meet the rate.
As required by DRA, HHS issued regulations and guidance that defined  work activities and internal control requirements to standardize work  participation measurement, but states reported divergent opinions on the  extent to which they found HHS assistance useful in implementing the  DRA changes. For example, 15 states reported that such assistance was of  great or very great use, 20 states reported that it was of moderate use, and  13 states reported that it was of some or no use. Through both our survey  and site visits, state officials provided additional information on areas in  which guidance was helpful. For example, a few states noted that they  appreciated HHS’s assistance after DRA with clarifying procedures states  needed to have in place to comply. During our three site visits, the effect  of such assistance was evident, as state and local officials we met with all  had a clear understanding of the work-related policies and procedures  required by DRA. In contrast, other states expressed frustrations with  several aspects of HHS assistance since DRA, including the time frames  allowed for initially completing their Work Verification Plans, changes  the agency made between the interim and final regulations that affected  MOE expenditures and work participation reporting, and the timeliness of  HHS assistance when questions arose.
Although states and localities we visited seem to understand the work- related policies and procedures required since DRA, through our survey,  states reported continued challenges implementing these requirements.  (See fig. 9.) However, some of these continued challenges are not  surprising, as some states had significantly different work definitions,  policies, and procedures in place, and lacked internal controls over work  participation data, prior to DRA. For example, 38 states reported that  they continued to experience a moderate, great, or very great degree of  challenge implementing changes to computer systems or databases related  to DRA. Some states reported that they continue to lack data systems that  efficiently track and verify recipients’ work hours. In all of our site visits,  officials discussed related challenges. In Oregon, because the state needed  to make various changes to its TANF work activity definitions in order to  comply with the definitions in HHS regulations, these changes required  significant data system programming. After programming was complete,  officials reported that the state used considerable resources to train staff  to correctly code TANF families’ work participation, in order to ensure  accurate application of these changes. Similarly, in Florida, officials  reported that had to make significant changes to the work force data  system after DRA in order to capture additional information required by  the state’s Work Verification Plan approved by HHS. In Ohio, local staff  discussed how the state’s TANF data system is antiquated, slow, and  unable to provide useful case management information at the local level.  Further, the state is continually updating the system, but it often does not  have all of the functions needed for local officials to effectively document  information required by DRA within the system.
In addition, 36 states reported they continue to experience a moderate,  great, or very great degree of challenge verifying participant’s actual work  hours, and 32 states reported that they continue to experience the same  degrees of challenge implementing daily supervision of work activities.  For example, local officials in almost all of the offices we visited told us  that verification of TANF families’ work participation requires significant  time and collaboration between TANF staff and employers and other staff  at work activity sites. Because of this, some noted that they have had to  designate or hire specific staff to manage the tracking and verification of  families’ work participation, and yet these activities also remain a routine  part of all local TANF staff’s responsibilities. Further, some discussed how  verification of TANF families’ hours spent in certain work activities is  particularly difficult to obtain, such as community college classes for  which professors and instructors need to verify attendance and substance  abuse treatment for which multiple providers are frequently involved. In  addition, one local office discussed how verifying work hours for job  search is particularly difficult, such as confirming whether a recipient  interviewed for a job. Although the process of verifying work participation  was consistently noted as a challenge by those we visited, federal data  suggests that a significant group of families receiving TANF cash  assistance are not spending any time participating in work activities,  which limits the number of families for which staff are having to fulfill this  role. Concerning supervision, as previously mentioned, some local  officials we met with discussed how the requirement to supervise job  search activities is challenging because of the staff resources needed.
Over half of the states also reported that they continue to experience a  moderate, great, or very great degree of challenge with the classification of  core and noncore work activities. In short, federal law limits the weekly  hours that a TANF family can participate in 3 of the 12 work activities,  which are commonly referred to as noncore activities. In the states we  visited, local officials discussed how this distinction makes it more  challenging to prepare TANF families for employment and help move them  toward self-sufficiency. For example, a local official discussed how TANF  adult recipients who lack a high school diploma or certificate of general  equivalency face a significant barrier to work. However, the official noted  that addressing this barrier is difficult, given the limit on the weekly  amount of time they may spend in classes preparing them to obtain such a  certificate and count toward their work requirements.
Similar to limits on families’ participation in noncore activities, federal law  imposes time limits on families’ participation in two of the core work  activities—vocational educational training and job search and job  readiness assistance—which states report are a challenge. Specifically,  38 states reported that they experience a moderate, great, or very great  degree of challenge implementing the time limits placed on certain work  activities. Through our survey and site visits, officials reported that the 12- month lifetime limit on vocational educational training and the 6-week  general limit on job search and job readiness assistance (with no more  than 4 weeks consecutively) are challenging to implement. Although the  limits on the amount of time that a state can count these activities as work  participation for each family have been in federal law since TANF was  created, several state and local officials reported that the time limit on job  search and job readiness assistance is particularly challenging now.  Specifically, one local official we met with noted that TANF families who  have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time often need  more than 6 weeks of time in job search and job readiness assistance to   Further, another local official also noted  remove their barriers to work. that the 12-month lifetime limit on vocational educational training can be  problematic because any length of class taken during a month counts as a  full month against the TANF family’s eligibility for vocational educational  training. For example, according to the official, if a TANF recipient took a  1-day class and no other vocational educational training activities in that  month, the recipient would be counted as having 11-months of vocational  educational training left for work participation purposes. Officials in two  of the states we visited also discussed how, since DRA, local staff place  certain families with significant barriers to work in other types of work  activities that do not count toward the state’s work participation rate.  They indicated that participation in these activities is sometimes necessary  to ensure that families successfully overcome their barriers, in part  because of limits on related activities included in the federal work activity  definitions.
section_title: Since the Economic Recession, the Number of TANF Recipients Has Increased, and Many States Reported Changes to Service Delivery
paragraphs: Subsequent to DRA, the economy weakened in 2007 and 2008, which  affected the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance, as well as  many state budgets. Specifically, the number of families receiving TANF  cash assistance increased between December 2007 and September 2009,  particularly those with two parents. In addition, state and local officials  report that the economic recession has decreased TANF resources and  challenged TANF service delivery.
subsections: section_title: The Number of Families Receiving TANF, Particularly Those with Two Parents, Has Increased Since the Economic Recession Began in 2007
paragraphs: Since the beginning of the economic recession in December 2007, 37 states  had increases in the number of families receiving TANF- and MOE-funded  cash assistance benefits, and 13 states had decreases, as of September  2009. Nationwide, the total number of families receiving TANF cash  assistance increased by 6 percent between December 2007 and September  2009. (See fig. 10.) Among states with changes in the number of families  receiving TANF cash assistance, the degree of change varied, likely due to  differences in states’ TANF program characteristics, unemployment rates,  and fiscal conditions. For instance, while Kentucky reported a 1 percent  increase in families receiving TANF cash assistance between December  2007 and September 2009, Utah reported a 35 percent increase, and  Oregon reported a 48 percent increase in such families. In contrast, while  four states reported a 1 percent decrease in families receiving TANF cash  assistance during this time period, Texas reported a 16 percent decrease,  and Vermont reported a 28 percent decrease. As previously discussed, the  number of families receiving TANF cash assistance does not include all  families receiving welfare cash assistance in every state, as some states  provide such assistance through SSFs, and these families are not included  in the federal data. States reported through our survey that approximately  82,000 families received cash assistance through SSFs in September 2009  in addition to the 1.8 million families that received TANF cash assistance.  However, we did not collect data on changes in the numbers of families  receiving cash assistance funded by SSFs, so we do not know the extent to  which the total number of families receiving welfare cash assistance has  changed during the economic recession.
Although the total number of families receiving TANF cash assistance has  increased slightly during the current economic recession, the number of  two-parent families receiving these benefits has increased at a faster rate.  For example, the number of two-parent families receiving TANF cash  assistance nationwide increased by 57 percent between December 2007  and September 2009. In comparison, the number of one-parent and child- only families receiving TANF cash assistance nationwide increased by 8  percent and decreased by 1 percent, respectively, during the same time  period. (See fig. 11.) All three of our site visit states also experienced the  most significant increases in their number of two-parent families receiving  TANF cash assistance during the current economic recession. For  example, Oregon officials reported that the number of two-parent families  receiving TANF cash assistance had risen from 906 families in July 2007 to  2,703 families in September 2009, an increase of almost 200 percent.
Similarly, the number of two-parent families receiving TANF cash  assistance in Florida increased by approximately 200 percent between  December 2007 and December 2009. Local officials in Florida also noted  that they have seen an increase in two-parent families receiving TANF who  were previously composed of a stay-at-home mother and a working father  who had been laid off or lost his business during the current economic  recession.
Local officials in all three states we visited also reported an increase in the  number of TANF applicants who had never before applied for TANF cash  assistance—many of whom have higher educational attainment and more  job experience than families who applied before the current economic  recession. Some of these officials noted that applicants with higher  educational attainment and more job experience have been surprised to  learn about the extent of the TANF program’s work requirements. For  example, officials in one locality reported that because these new TANF  recipients are hoping to quickly find new employment, some have resisted  the idea of participating in certain available work activities when they did  not view those activities as a means to that end. This situation may occur  more frequently now, as states and localities cut programs and services,  including those related to the 12 work activities, in response to budget  constraints. Local officials in two of the three states we visited also  reported that some new TANF applicants were former small business  owners, who were applying for TANF cash assistance in part because they  did not qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Officials in two of the three  states we visited said that they expect to see an increase in applicants for  TANF cash assistance after the Unemployment Insurance extensions  end.
section_title: State and Local Off Reported That the Economic Recess Decreased TANF Resources and Challenge TANF Service Delivery
paragraphs: Due to the economic recession, many states have faced large budget  deficits in 2009 and 2010 that have required states to make difficult budget  decisions about the use of state resources for TANF programs. Accordin to the National Governor’s Association and the National Association of  State Budget Officers’ “Fiscal Survey of States,” state revenues decreased  in fiscal year 2009, with state revenue collections below expectations in 41 states in 2009, compared with 20 states in 2008. As a further indication of  declining state fiscal conditions, the “Fiscal Survey of States” reported th in fiscal year 2009, state general fund expenditures declined for the first  time since 1983. In our recent report, we found that when the number of  families receiving TANF cash assistance rose during the current econo recession, some states decreased TANF spending on family and work  supports, while others increased such spending. States that increased  this spending did so in part because they were able to draw from other  funding streams, but they expressed concern about their ability to  continue this as resources dwindle. This is consistent with our previous work, in which we found that when TANF spending for families receiving  cash assistance increased, there was an associated contraction in TA NF  spending for other forms of aid and services in the states we reviewed.  Through their comments in our national survey and during our site visits ,  state officials discussed how TANF programs and budgets are being  affected by state budget constraints related to the economic recession. instance, Oregon’s state budget constraints have decreased the amoun cash payments available to families participating in the state’s Post-TA welfare transition program. This program provides a small amount of  monthly cash payments, as well as access to TANF program resources, to  TANF clients whose earned income has recently made them ineligible forTANF cash assistance. While the program originally provided recipients  with $150 per month in 2007, the payment was decreased to $100 in Ju ly  2009 and will be reduced to $50 in October 2010. In Florida, the stat budget situation has reduced the TANF funds available to support  workforce development services for TANF recipients at the same time that such recipients have increased. In one locality that we visited, the budget  for these services was approximately $452 per TANF recipient per mont h  in 2007-2008, and it was expected to decrease to $157 per recipient per  month in 2010-2011, if recipient growth continues at the current rate.
Under federal law, states are permitted to retain unspent federal TANF  block grant funds for use in future years, giving states the flexibility to  draw upon these funds as needed. HHS data show that 33 states utilizedunspent funds, as well as their annual TANF block grant allocations, to  cover their TANF-related expenditures in fiscal year 2009. In contrast, 15 states increased their total amounts of unspent TANF funds in fiscal ye ar  2009. While, in every year, an average of 22 states utilize their unspent  TANF funds to cover current year expenditures, the number of stat utilizing these funds seems to increase during and after economic  recessions. For example, in each of the 3 years following the 2001  recession, 25 to 32 states used unspent TANF funds. Economic recessions  es  also seem to affect the national unspent TANF fund balance. For instanc between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, the national total of unspent TANF  funds decreased by 41 percent. Between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, the  national total of unspent TANF funds decreased by 16 percent, though the  total increased by 4 percent between fiscal years 2008 and 2009. A total of  $3.3 billion unspent TANF dollars remained at the end of fiscal year 200 9.  In addition, while some states have had significant reductions in their  unspent TANF funds during the current economic recession, others have  had significant increases. For example, while Ohio’s  unspent TANF funds  decreased by $541 million between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, New York’s  unspent funds increased by $395 million during the same time period.
Through our national survey, state officials expressed concern about  federal TANF resources, particularly the long-term viability of the TANF  Contingency Fund and the decreasing value of TANF block grant dollars Specifically, state officials indicated their concerns that the Contingency  Fund would be depleted before state economic situations improve, wh has since occurred. Although a total of 3 states accessed Contingency  Fund dollars between fiscal years 1998 and 2005, 19 states accessed these  dollars in one or more years between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. (See fig.  12.) By December 2009, the Contingency Fund was depleted withou additional appropriations having been made to the fund. While the  President has proposed additional money for the Contingency Fund in the  fiscal year 2011 budget, as of March 18, 2010, it is unknown if the Congress will approve the additional funds. States also expressed concern through  our national survey about the fixed amount of the TANF block grant. Th e  annual TANF block grant appropriation has remained constant since it  was created in 1996, which states report has been particularly challe in times of state budget deficits and increasing numbers of families  applying for and receiving TANF cash assistance. In Oregon, state o noted that it would require an additional estimated $100 million to  continue providing TANF services at current levels, assuming that the  .  fficials  number of families applying for TANF cash assistance in the state  continues to rise at the current rate.
In addition to its effects on state budgets and funds for TANF programs,  the economic recession has also caused changes to local TANF service  delivery in some states. A majority of state TANF officials nationwide, as  well as TANF officials from all eight localities we visited, reported that  they made changes in local offices’ TANF service delivery because of the  economic recession. Specifically, of the 31 states reporting such changes  through our survey, 22 had reduced the number of TANF staff, 11 had  reduced work hours at offices, and 7 had reduced the number of offices. In  contrast, 5 states reported that they had increased the number of TANF  staff, 4 had increased work hours at offices, and 1 had increased the  number of offices.  During our site visits, officials discussed how TANF  staff had been reduced through employee attrition without replacement  hires, or due to staff transfers from TANF to SNAP. For instance, in one  local office in an urban area, 40 staff vacancies remained unfilled, which,  combined with increased numbers of TANF applicants, meant that  applications took longer to process and were often delayed. In Oregon,  although both TANF and SNAP caseloads have increased during the  current economic recession, because SNAP increases have been greater,  some local TANF staff were temporarily moved to process SNAP  applications.
Officials in all three states we visited also reported that local TANF  caseworkers are now managing an increased number of TANF cash  assistance families per person. For instance, in one local office in Florida,  officials explained that they hoped to restructure their TANF service  delivery model soon, as the increasing number of TANF cash assistance  recipients has made their one-on-one caseworker to recipient model  difficult to sustain. Under this model, a TANF family is served by the same  caseworker for all TANF-related support service needs and self-sufficiency  planning. According to the local officials, the one-on-one model was  possible when the caseload averaged 58 recipients per caseworker, but it  was not designed for the current caseload average of 160 recipients per  caseworker. In addition, local officials in one Ohio county reported that  their caseworkers’ overall workload has increased because increases in  TANF and other public assistance applications have occurred at the same  time that staff have left and not been replaced. At present, the county is  serving 422 TANF families with a staff of 16 caseworkers. Ten of these  caseworkers determine eligibility for TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid, and the  remaining 6 are responsible for supporting TANF families’ efforts to meet  their work requirements and tracking families’ participation in work  activities.
In light of the increased ner of fmilie  receiving TANF casassnce, te budget  deficit, nd ff redction, peer  collabortion my help loclitie ddressrrent TANF chllenge. Locl offici in  two of the three te we viited cited their  prticiption in the HHS Rl Commnitie  nd Urban Prtnerhip Inititive as  exmple of effective peer collabortion.  Throgh thee inititive, the officirticipted in fcilitted collabortion nd  ide ring ssion, online nd in-peron,  mong TANF offici operting their  progr in imilr locreastionwide,  nd o received technicassnce from  HHS. Thee offici reported tht the  ssion were very usefl, nd one noted  thdditionssion wold e prticrly  usefl now to exchnge ideas nd trtegie  for delivering TANF ervice in the crrent  economic environment. For innce, one  locl officil irrently working with  new  FedEx nch in her ditrict to coordinte  subsidized employment poition for TANF  client, based on n ide glened from  nother Urban Prtnerhip prticipnt.
As a result, local officials in all three of the states we visited expressed  their concerns that, as state and local resources tighten and caseloads  continue to rise, staff are less able to provide services to meet TANF cash  assistance families’ needs and move them toward self-sufficiency.  According to local officials in Oregon, caseload increases and staff  reductions sometimes result in prioritization of TANF services. For  example, one district diverted caseworkers to process new applications,  leaving fewer staff available to work directly with TANF recipients. Before  the recession, all families receiving TANF cash assistance worked with a  caseworker to develop and implement a self-sufficiency plan. However,  due to budget constraints, the district prioritized the TANF families that  receive direct caseworker support, focusing on new TANF families,  families who are actively participating in the program, and families in  crisis situations. Local officials in all three states we visited also reported  that caseworkers’ abilities to provide families with the supports they need  to move toward self-sufficiency has been further challenged by reductions  to TANF support services, such as domestic violence programs and  transportation assistance. Officials noted that such cuts to services have  particularly challenged their abilities to serve clients with significant  barriers to work. While officials in one Oregon locality noted that they  have been able to maintain some of their support services through local  partnerships, officials from another locality in that state have had to  reduce mental health and substance abuse support services. These  officials noted that this was a difficult cut to make, as reductions in these  services can lead to challenging and potentially deadly outcomes in the  current economic environment, as unemployed families may be more  likely to leave mental health and substance abuse issues untreated.
Additionally, some TANF officials stated that certain characteristics of the  TANF work activity definitions and work participation verification  requirements limit their flexibility to help TANF recipients reach self- sufficiency in the current economy. During our three site visits, local  officials indicated that, in their experience, the current time limits on  vocational educational training and job search and job readiness  assistance are too short to prepare workers for new industries and  careers, which may be necessary in the current economy. With national  unemployment at 9.7 percent as of January 2010, officials commented  through our site visits and survey that TANF recipients are encountering  increased competition for all jobs, including low-wage, low-skill positions  previously held by some TANF recipients. This increased job competition  poses a particular challenge as states try to meet their work participation  rates in the current economy, as unsubsidized employment has  consistently been the most frequently reported work activity for TANF  recipients. In addition, state and local officials reported that the work  participation verification procedures required by DRA have been  particularly challenging recently, due to the increased workloads of TANF  staff.
section_title: Recovery Act TANF Funds Have Helped Many States Maintain Their Programs, Though Some Reported Challenges Accessing Funds
paragraphs: In response to the economic recession, the Recovery Act authorized  additional federal funding for state TANF programs, which most states had  applied for as of March 2010. States reported primarily using these funds  to cover increased cash assistance costs and to maintain their TANF  programs. However, states report some challenges applying for Recovery  Act TANF funds, as well as concern about their TANF programs after the  funds run out.
subsections: section_title: Most States Have Applied for Recovery Act TANF Funds, Which They Are Using Primarily to Maintain Their Programs
paragraphs: In response to the recent economic recession, the Recovery Act’s $5  billion Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs has  provided additional federal funding to qualifying state TANF programs that  have had increases in the number of families receiving cash assistance or  in two specific types of expenditures. As of March 12, 2010, 46 states,  including the District of Columbia, had applied for the Recovery Act’s  Emergency Contingency Fund since it was created in February 2009. In  addition, almost all states reported through our survey that they plan to  apply for the fund in the future. As of March 18, 2010, HHS had awarded  $1.8 billion of this fund to 42 of the states that applied, with almost half of  this amount awarded to 36 states because of increases in families  receiving cash assistance. States also have been applying for and receiving  funds related to the two types of expenditure increases that qualify for the  fund. Specifically, 40 percent of the total funds awarded to date were  provided to 21 states because of their increases in short-term,  nonrecurrent benefit expenditures, and 13 percent of all awarded funds  were provided to 27 states because of their increases in subsidized  employment expenditures. (See fig. 13.) Further, 11 states had received  Recovery Act TANF funds related to expenditure increases in all three  areas. Almost half of the Recovery Act TANF funds already awarded have  been expended by states.
States report that they have used Recovery Act TANF funds primarily to  maintain their programs and cover increased cash assistance recipients, in  part because many states’ budgets have been stretched during the recent  economic recession. For example, of the states that applied for these  funds, 24 reported through our survey that they are using the funds to  cover increased cash assistance costs, and 18 reported using them to fill  TANF budget gaps caused by the recent economic recession, such as those  for noncash services. Seventeen of these states reported using them for  both purposes. In addition, other states reported that they were  considering using the funds for these purposes at the time of our survey.  (See table 3.) During each of our three site visits, state officials discussed  how Recovery Act TANF funds were allowing them to pay for increased  cash assistance costs and maintain their TANF programs. For example, in  Florida, these funds allowed the state to avoid certain TANF program  budget cuts to services other than cash assistance that had been under  consideration before the Recovery Act was enacted. The state had been  considering such cuts because of the need to direct more of its TANF  funds to pay for the increasing number of families receiving cash  assistance benefits—a number that increased by 28 percent between  December 2007 and December 2009. Similarly, Oregon officials discussed  how these funds had allowed their state to avoid additional TANF program  cuts that had been under consideration. These proposed cuts were to  several supports aimed at helping TANF families move toward self- sufficiency, including a $10 million decrease in the state’s workforce  development services for TANF recipients and eliminating the state’s case  management program for TANF families at risk of entering the child  welfare system.
Some states have also used Recovery Act TANF funds to expand existing  or create new programs or services for low-income families, including  short-term, nonrecurrent benefits and subsidized employment positions.  Specifically, 10 states reported through our survey that they are using  these funds to expand existing programs, and 10 states also reported using  the funds to create new programs. Additional states reported that they  were considering using the funds for these purposes at the time of our  survey. (See table 3.) Two of the three states we visited were considering  expanding or creating new programs or services for low-income families  at the time of our visits. Although Recovery Act TANF funds can be used  for any TANF-eligible program or service, these two states were focusing  on one of the areas specifically targeted by Recovery Act TANF funds— subsidized employment. For example, Florida officials were in the process  of working with the state’s regional workforce boards to create new  subsidized employment opportunities for low-income families across the  state. We visited one such work site in Marion County, at which low- income parents were processing SNAP applications at a call center. This  center was established in direct response to the economic recession, both  in its location and its type of employment. Specifically, Marion County has  one of Florida’s highest unemployment rates, and the center was created  shortly after the closure of a mortgage-processing firm that employed call  agents in the area. Further, the center provided needed assistance with  processing new SNAP applications, a program that has seen a 183 percent  increase in the number of households receiving these benefits in Florida  during the recent economic recession.
In addition to Recovery Act TANF funds, local officials we met with during  our three site visits reported that Recovery Act funds directed to certain  other federal programs have also benefited families applying for and  receiving TANF cash assistance. Specifically, the Recovery Act allocated  almost $300 million to states to help cover administrative costs associated  with the increased numbers of SNAP applicants and recipients. In  localities where determination of a family’s eligibility for SNAP and TANF  are handled by the same case workers, as they are in Florida, these funds  have helped localities manage the increased numbers of applicants and  recipients for both programs through the employment of temporary staff,  overtime pay, and other staffing options. The Recovery Act also allocated  $1.2 billion for Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) youth activities,  including summer employment. These funds are directed toward providing  work experience opportunities to low-income youth age 24 and under, and  they can also be used by localities for activities such as tutoring and study  skills training, occupational skills training, and support services. In two of  the states we visited, local officials discussed how the Recovery Act WIA  funds used for summer employment had benefited some of their TANF  recipients by providing opportunities for these recipients to gain work  experience and fulfill their TANF work requirements.
In addition to creating the Emergency Contingency Fund, the Recovery  Act also extended TANF supplemental grants to states through fiscal year  2010 and increased states’ flexibility to spend prior year TANF block grant  funds. However, state officials we surveyed and interviewed did not  mention modifying their programs in response to these changes. Further,  although the Recovery Act also modified the caseload reduction credit  calculation for fiscal years 2009-2011, because those credits have yet to be  determined by HHS, the effect of that change is currently unknown.
section_title: States Reported Some Challenges Applying for Recovery Act TANF Funds and Concern about the Fund’s Expiration Date
paragraphs: Although HHS has provided ongoing guidance since April 2009 to help  states access and utilize Recovery Act TANF funds, some states reported  being challenged by a lack of guidance in certain areas. HHS issued initial  implementation guidance shortly following the creation of the Emergency  Contingency Fund and then continued to issue multiple program  instructions and other types of guidance, such as a new data collection  form, throughout 2009 and into 2010. Further, HHS officials provided  related technical assistance directly to states through conference  presentations, teleconferences, and one-on-one phone calls. While most  states reported that HHS assistance with applying for and utilizing  Recovery Act TANF funds had been useful, some expressed frustration  with the amount of time it had taken to receive guidance and responses to  questions. For example, throughout the beginning of 2009, HHS had  provided states with limited guidance on allowable short-term,  nonrecurrent benefit and subsidized employment expenditures. A senior  HHS official explained that the department had not anticipated the range  of questions states would have about qualifying subsidized employment  and short-term, nonrecurrent benefit expenditures, and therefore it took  several months to work with the department’s lawyers to ensure an  accurate and consistent response was provided to all states. When  completing our survey, two states mentioned that examples of allowable  expenditures would be helpful, and Florida officials we met with during  our site visit discussed how the lack of early guidance on subsidized  employment was a challenge. Specifically, Florida state officials  participated in HHS-initiated conference calls about subsidized  employment expenditures and submitted questions directly to HHS, but  the department took longer than anticipated to respond. As a result,  Florida moved forward with its Marion County subsidized employment  project in October, though the state was not assured that the project  qualified for Recovery Act TANF funds until December. However, in  November and December 2009, HHS issued examples of allowable short- term, nonrecurrent benefit expenditures and additional guidance on  allowable subsidized employment expenditures, and during our site visit,  Florida officials indicated that the new subsidized employment guidance  had been particularly helpful.
States have also been challenged by certain requirements related to  accessing the Emergency Contingency Fund. For example, a few states  reported through our survey that the requirements for qualifying for the  fund should be more flexible. For example, some states may be challenged  by the requirement that they can qualify for the fund only after increases in  the number of families receiving cash assistance or in expenditures on  short-term, nonrecurrent benefits or subsidized employment. While over  two-thirds of states have experienced increases in the numbers of families  receiving TANF cash assistance during the economic recession, due to  various factors, some of these increases have been relatively small, and  other states have experienced no increase. In addition, states had limited  experience with short-term, nonrecurrent benefits and subsidized  employment prior to 2009, which clarifies why they had questions for HHS  about allowable expenditures in these areas. Specifically, 1 to 2 percent of  all TANF expenditures were directed to short-term, nonrecurrent benefits,  and less than 1 percent to work subsidies, in the fiscal years we analyzed  between 2001 and 2008. Further, less than 1 percent of all work-eligible  TANF cash assistance recipients participated in subsidized employment in  fiscal years 2007 and 2008—the two most recent years for which data are  available.
Some states also report that the Emergency Contingency Fund’s  reimbursement level is a challenge in the current economic environment.  Specifically, states are reimbursed for 80 percent of allowable expenditure  increases from the fund. Two of the states we visited, and a few states  through our survey, reported that this reimbursement level is challenging  because of current state budget constraints caused by the economic  recession. For example, officials from two of the states we visited  reported that, while they would like to access the Recovery Act TANF  funds to provide subsidized employment opportunities and believe those  would benefit low-income families in their states, their current state  budgets are so tight that the funds for 20 percent of these expenditure  increases are unavailable. As previously discussed, while some states  continue to have unspent federal TANF funds that they could potentially  use to fund 20 percent of the expenditure increases in these areas, other  states have had significant decreases in their unspent fund balances. At the  time of our visits, officials in these two states were pursuing outside  funding sources, such as local governments and private entities, to help  fund subsidized employment positions. According to HHS officials, the  department has been working with states to improve their understanding  of the various potential sources of funding they can use to qualify for  Recovery Act TANF funds.
Finally, states also reported concerns about the expiration date for the  Emergency Contingency Fund, which is currently September 30, 2010. For  example, some officials expressed concerns about the start-up time  associated with creating new short-term, nonrecurrent benefit programs  and subsidized employment positions and questioned whether there would  be time left to draw down Recovery Act TANF funds for those supports  once they were created. In addition, states that have been relying on these  funds to maintain their TANF programs likely have concerns about the  effect on their TANF programs when the Recovery Act TANF funds are no  longer available. As previously noted, all three of the states we visited, as  well as many states nationwide, have used these funds to avoid cuts and  related policy changes to their programs. For example, according to state  officials, when the Oregon state legislature passed its current biennial  budget in the summer of 2009, it assumed that the state would be able to  access most of the Recovery Act TANF funds available to the state, to  avoid making further cuts to the state’s TANF program. Because these  funds are set to expire, however, they are a temporary solution, and states  will likely still face these budget deficits in future years. During our site  visits and through our survey, several TANF officials expressed their  hopes that the federal government will modify the expiration date for the  Emergency Contingency Fund and allow states to access any remaining  funds through fiscal year 2011. Related to this, the President’s fiscal year  2011 budget request recommends extending the fund’s expiration date to  September 30, 2011, and the House of Representatives approved a bill in  March 2010 that included this extension. The budget request also  addressed several other state concerns by proposing adding $2.5 billion to  the fund, counting new types of expenditure increases for which states  can qualify for the fund, and allowing states to be reimbursed for 100  percent of their subsidized employment expenditure increases.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: States have taken advantage of the various policy and funding options  available to adjust their TANF work participation rates since DRA. As a  result, while measuring work participation of TANF recipients is key to  understanding the success of state programs in meeting one of the federal  purposes of TANF, whether states met federal work participation rates  after DRA provides only a partial picture of state TANF programs’ effort  and success in engaging recipients in work activities. Although the DRA  changes to TANF work requirements were expected to strengthen the  work participation rate as a performance measure and move more families  toward self-sufficiency, states’ use of the modifications currently allowed  in federal law and regulations, as well as states’ policy choices, have  diminished the rate’s usefulness as the national performance measure for  TANF.
In addition, state and local officials have found the work participation rate  measure particularly challenging during the recent economic recession, as  opportunities for employment have become less available, and more  families seek assistance from TANF.  As many state and local officials face  resource constraints during the economic recession, some are making  choices to fund basic cash assistance instead of services that may help  address families’ movement toward work and long-term self-sufficiency.  Given the block grant structure of TANF, its design has not supported  significant program expansion during the recent recession; however,  Recovery Act TANF funds appear to be helping many states maintain their  programs and avoid further funding cuts. Nonetheless, the original TANF  Contingency Fund was recently depleted, and states will likely face even  more difficult decisions about the future of their TANF programs after the  Recovery Act TANF funds expire or run out. It remains to be seen what  decisions states will make and how those will affect their programs, as  well as how federally defined goals for TANF will be affected, if at all, by  the next reauthorization of the TANF block grant.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment, and a  copy of the agency’s written response is in appendix IV. In its comments,  HHS did not disagree with our findings and said that the department  appreciated our analysis of developments in state TANF programs  following DRA and the Recovery Act, as well as the economic context in  which states are now operating their TANF programs. However, HHS also  suggested that it is incomplete to say that states’ work participation rates  after DRA reflect both recipients’ work participation and states’ policy  choices, without acknowledging that federal law changed in a number of  ways after DRA. We agree, and we believe that the report appropriately  acknowledges the DRA changes to TANF, the extent to which states  reported having to make changes to their programs to comply with DRA,  and the extent to which states reported continuing to be challenged by the  DRA changes. Further, the report also directly acknowledges that the  extent to which states had to make changes to comply with DRA may have  affected whether some met their work participation rates in the years  immediately following DRA. HHS also indicated that more inquiry is  needed to discern whether states believe that the DRA requirements  enhanced their ability to run more effective programs. While we did not  directly ask states this question through our state survey, we agree that  this would be interesting to know. Finally, HHS also indicated that they  have undertaken a major technical assistance effort to help states  understand how to access and use the Recovery Act TANF funds. In our  interactions with the department during this study, we saw the extent of  those efforts, and we agree. As such, while the relevant section of our  report is focused more on state TANF programs’ responses to the  Recovery Act, it also acknowledges related HHS assistance to states and  notes that most states reported finding this assistance useful. However,  our findings in this section also address areas in which states continue to  be challenged in utilizing the Recovery Act TANF funds, which may help  HHS target its assistance efforts moving forward. HHS also provided  technical comments on the draft report, which we have incorporated as  appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional  committees and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The  report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To obtain information about changes to state Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families (TANF) programs after the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005  (DRA), economic recession, and the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), we  reviewed available TANF data from the U.S. Department of Health and  Human Services (HHS), including the number of families receiving TANF  cash assistance, work participation rates, federal and state expenditures,  and states’ applications for the Emergency Contingency Fund for state  TANF programs;    conducted a nationwide survey of state TANF administrators;    visited three states and selected localities within each state and  interviewed officials administering TANF; interviewed officials from HHS and reviewed pertinent federal laws,  regulations, and agency guidance; and interviewed researchers knowledgeable about TANF from a range of  organizations.
We conducted our work from August 2009 to May 2010, in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Review of TANF Data from HHS
paragraphs: Because HHS is responsible for collecting state TANF data and reporting  on state TANF programs nationally, we reviewed relevant TANF data  compiled by that agency. Specifically, we reviewed published data on (1)  the number and types of families receiving TANF cash assistance between  fiscal years 1997 and 2009, (2) work participation in fiscal years 2001 and  2005-2008, (3) states that did not meet the work participation rates  between fiscal years 2001 and 2008, (4) states’ TANF block grant and  maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures in fiscal years 2001 and 2005- 2009, and (5) states’ unspent TANF funds in fiscal years 1997-2009.  Because the scope of our work extended to the 50 states and Washington,  D.C., we excluded data for the U.S. territories from our analysis. The years  of work participation and expenditure data analyzed were selected for two  reasons. First, we chose to analyze work participation and expenditure  data from fiscal year 2001 because it is an approximate base year between  both initial TANF implementation and the enactment of DRA. In addition,  we chose to analyze the years immediately preceding and following DRA  implementation. In all cases, we analyzed the most recent data available,  including preliminary fiscal year 2009 expenditures data HHS provided to  us before its public release. While we interviewed HHS officials to gather  information on the processes they use to ensure the completeness and  accuracy of the TANF caseload, work participation, and expenditures  data, we did not independently verify these data with states. In addition,  although HHS does not perform on-site reviews of states’ TANF data,  auditors in each state periodically review state TANF programs, including  administrative data, to comply with the Single Audit Act of 1984. Because  of these reviews, as well as the steps taken by HHS officials to ensure the  completeness and accuracy of these data, we determined that they were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also reviewed selected documents submitted by states to HHS, which  the agency does not publish. These included states’ (1) caseload reduction  credit reports for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that had been approved by  HHS and (2) applications for the Emergency Contingency Fund for state  TANF programs through March 12, 2010. Specifically, we reviewed  caseload reduction credit reports to analyze state application of excess  MOE expenditures toward their credits after DRA.
section_title: Survey of States
paragraphs: To better understand recent changes in state TANF programs, we  conducted a Web-based survey of state TANF administrators in all 50  states and the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted between  November 2009 and January 2010 with administrators from every state and  the District of Columbia responding. The survey included questions about:  changes made to TANF programs and policies since DRA, challenges  related to complying with DRA, cash assistance programs funded with  solely state funds, use of the Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF  programs, changes to TANF service delivery related to the economic  recession, and HHS assistance to states after DRA and the Recovery Act.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.  However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret  questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took steps  to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments  and using a Web-based administration system. Specifically, during survey  development, we pretested draft instruments with TANF administrators  from four states (Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio) in October  2009. We selected the pretest states to provide variation in selected state  TANF program characteristics and geographic location. In the pretests, we  were generally interested in the clarity, precision, and objectivity of the  questions, as well as the flow and layout of the survey. For example, we  wanted to ensure definitions used in the surveys were clear and known to  the respondents, categories provided in closed-ended questions were  complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the  questions within each section was appropriate. We revised the final survey  based on pretest results. Another step we took to minimize nonsampling  errors was using a Web-based survey. Allowing respondents to enter their  responses directly into an electronic instrument created a record for each  respondent in a data file and eliminated the need for and the errors  associated with a manual data entry process. To further minimize errors,  programs used to analyze the survey data and make estimations were  independently verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
While we did not fully validate specific information that states reported  through our survey, we took several steps to ensure that the information  was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For example, we  reviewed the responses and identified those that required further  clarification and, subsequently, conducted follow-up interviews with those  respondents to ensure the information they provided was reasonable and  reliable. In our review of the data, we also identified and logically fixed  skip pattern errors for questions that respondents should have skipped but  did not. In addition, we compared our findings on recent policy changes  with information contained in the Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules  Database and found that our results were consistent. On the basis of  these checks, we believe our survey data are sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our work.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: To gather additional information about changes to state TANF programs  after DRA, the economic recession, and the Recovery Act, we conducted  site visits to Florida, Ohio, and Oregon, and selected localities in those  states, between September 2009 and December 2009. Specifically, we met  with state officials in each state and visited Hillsborough, Marion, and  Leon counties in Florida; Franklin and Pike counties in Ohio; and Districts  2, 3, and 4 in Oregon. These three Oregon districts are responsible for  TANF administration in the Portland metropolitan area, as well as Benton,  Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties. We selected these three  states because they made varied modifications to their TANF programs  after DRA and the Recovery Act, and the number of families receiving  TANF cash assistance in these states had increased since the economic  recession began. In addition, these states were selected because they  varied in geographic location and selected TANF program characteristics,  including the maximum amount of TANF cash assistance provided to each  recipient family. We worked with the states to select localities that were  located in both urban and rural areas to ensure that we captured any  related differences in TANF program implementation and work  participation.
During the site visits, we interviewed state and local administering agency  officials. Through these interviews, we collected information on changes  to TANF programs, policies, and procedures since DRA and the recession  in the economy, strategies employed to comply with DRA, use of funds  received from the Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs,  challenges related to implementing the TANF program since DRA, and  HHS assistance since DRA and the Recovery Act. We cannot generalize  our findings beyond the states and localities we visited.
section_title: Appendix II: Numbers of TANF Families Meeting Work Requirements in Recent Years
section_title: Appendix III: Factors Affecting States’ Ability to Meet Work Participation Rates
paragraphs: As discussed in this report, each state’s ability to meet the required work  participation rates reflects not only the number of its TANF families  sufficiently engaged in countable work activities, but also changes in the  number of families receiving TANF cash assistance in the state, and the  state’s policy choices that (1) lower their required work participation  rates, (2) keep working families in the calculation of their rates, and (3)  remove certain families from the calculation of these rates. See tables 4  and 5 for information on factors that may have affected each state’s ability  to meet the all-families work participation rate in fiscal year 2007.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Heather McCallum Hahn, Assistant Director, and Rachel Frisk, Analyst-in- Charge, managed this assignment and made significant contributions to all  aspects of this report. Karen Febey, Maria Gaona, Jean McSween, and  Betty Ward-Zukerman also made important contributions to this report.  Susan Aschoff, James Bennett, and Jessica Orr provided writing and  graphics assistance, and Alex Galuten provided legal assistance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Changes in  Participation Rates. GAO-10-495T. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have  Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact  on Caseloads Varies by State. GAO-10-164. Washington, D.C.: February 23,  2010.
Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families: A Review of Recent  GAO Work. GAO-10-342R. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2010.
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further  Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to  Help HHS Improve Program Oversight. GAO-08-1002. Washington, D.C.:  September 26, 2008.
Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in  States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant. GAO-06-414. Washington, D.C.:  March 3, 2006.
Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising  Strategies to Increase Parents’ Incomes. GAO-06-108. Washington, D.C.:  December 2, 2005.
Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF  Work Participation Is Measured Consistently across States. GAO-05-821.  Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2005.
TANF AND SSI: Opportunities Exist to Help People with Impairments  Become More Self-Sufficient. GAO-04-878. Washington, D.C.: September  15, 2004.
Welfare Reform: Information on TANF Balances. GAO-03-1094.  Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2003.
Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State  Fiscal Conditions. GAO-03-977. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003.
Welfare Reform: Outcomes for TANF Recipients with Impairments.  GAO-02-884. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2002.
Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They  Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits. GAO-02-770.  Washington, D.C.: July 5, 2002.