Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort Requirements and Trends
Released: 2012-05-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The TANF block grant was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and was designed to give states the flexibility to provide both traditional welfare cash assistance benefits as well as a variety of other benefits and services to meet the needs of low-income families and children. TANF has four broad goals: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or homes of relatives; (2) end dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce out-of- wedlock pregnancies; and (4) encourage two-parent families. Within these goals, states have responsibility for designing, implementing, and administering their welfare programs to comply with federal guidelines, as defined by federal law and HHS.

In creating TANF, the federal government significantly changed its role in financing welfare programs in states. PRWORA ended low-income families’ entitlement to cash assistance by replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program— for which the federal grant amount was based on the amount of state spending—with the TANF block grant, a $16.5 billion per year fixed federal funding stream to states. PRWORA coupled the block grant with an MOE provision, which requires states to maintain a significant portion of their own historic financial commitment to their welfare programs as a condition of receiving their full federal TANF allotments. Importantly, with the fixed federal funding stream, states assume greater fiscal risks in the event of a recession or increased program costs. However, in acknowledgment of these risks, PRWORA also created a TANF Contingency Fund that states could access in times of economic distress. Similarly, during the recent economic recession, the federal government created a $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, available in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

The most recent data available, for fiscal year 2010, show that the federal government and states spent almost $36 billion on benefits and services meeting one or more of the TANF goals. In that year, states provided, on average, about 1.9 million families per month with ongoing cash assistance, including about 800,000 families in which the children alone received benefits. This represents a significant drop from the more than 3 million families receiving cash assistance when states implemented TANF in fiscal year 1997. In addition, states provide a broad range of services to other families in need not included in the welfare caseload data. The total number of families assisted is not known, as we have noted in our previous work. These allowable services under TANF can generally include any spending reasonably deemed to meet one or more of the four broad goals of TANF, and can include one-time cash payments, work and training activities, work supports such as child care and transportation, efforts to promote two-parent families or marriage, and child welfare services, among others. When TANF began, cash assistance represented the largest spending category (73 percent in fiscal year 1997). In contrast, cash assistance spending in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 30 percent of total TANF spending.

Reducing dependence on government benefits through job preparation and employment is a key goal of TANF, and PRWORA identified the work participation rate as one of the federal measures of state TANF programs’ performance. This rate is generally calculated as the proportion of work- eligible TANF cash assistance recipients engaged in allowable work activities. for ensuring that generally at least 50 percent of all families receiving TANF cash assistance benefits participate in one or more of the allowable work activities for a specified number of hours each week. TANF provisions include other features to help emphasize the importance of work and the temporary nature of assistance, such as 60-month time limits on the receipt of aid for many families.

42 U.S.C. § 607. The 12 work activities are: unsubsidized employment, subsidized private sector employment, subsidized public sector employment, work experience (if sufficient private sector employment is not available), on-the-job training, job search and job readiness assistance, community service programs, vocational educational training, job skills training directly related to employment, education directly related to employment (for recipients who have not received a high school diploma or certificate of high school equivalency), satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence (for recipients who have not completed secondary school or received such a certificate), and the provision of child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program. 42 U.S.C. § 607(d).

MOE Provisions Include Specified State Spending Levels with Some Flexibility

The preamble to the final rule issued by HHS in 1999 noted that the MOE cost-sharing arrangement reflected Congress’ recognition that state financial participation is essential for the success of welfare reform. The preamble to this final rule also noted that Congress wanted states to be active partners in the welfare reform process. These requirements are an important element of TANF—if a state fails to meet its MOE requirement for any fiscal year, HHS is required by law to reduce dollar- for-dollar the amount of a state’s basic TANF grant for the following fiscal year.

Maintenance of effort requirements are sometimes found in federal grant programs to prevent states from substituting federal for state dollars. Such provisions can help ensure that federal block grant dollars are used for the broad program area intended by the Congress, in this case the four broad TANF purposes. Without such provisions, federal funds ostensibly provided for these broad areas could, in effect, be transformed into general fiscal relief for the states, as states could use some or all of their federal block grants to replace their own money invested in the program area. To the extent that this occurs, the ultimate impact of these federal dollars would be to increase state spending in other programs, reduce taxes, or some combination of both. A maintenance of effort requirement brings its own challenges—it can be complex to monitor and may lock states into meeting minimum spending levels that may no longer be warranted given changing conditions.

Under TANF, while states have significant flexibility in how to spend their own money, several requirements guide the use of these state funds, including how much, for whom, and for what.

How Much?

Each state’s amount of MOE is generally based on fiscal year 1994 state spending for a specific set of programs. The 1996 welfare reform law consolidated and replaced programs under which the amount of federal spending was often based on state spending levels, and considerable state dollars contributed to these pre-TANF programs. Figure 1 shows the federal programs with related state spending that were included in establishing the fixed annual amount of the TANF block grant and state maintenance-of-effort level for each state.

The required percentages of these previous state spending levels vary under different conditions:

80 percent—To receive its federal TANF funds, a state must generally spend state funds in an amount equal to at least 80 percent of the amount it spent on welfare and related programs in fiscal year 1994.

75 percent—If a state meets its minimum work participation rate requirements, then it generally need expend only 75 percent of the amount it spent in fiscal year 1994.

100 percent—To receive contingency funds, a state must expend 100 percent of that fiscal year 1994 amount.

In addition to its own spending, a state may count toward its MOE certain in-kind or cash expenditures by third parties, such as nonprofit organizations, as long as the expenditures meet other MOE requirements, including those related to eligible families and allowable activities, discussed below. In addition, an agreement must exist between the state and the third party allowing the state to count the expenditures toward its MOE.

For Whom?

Generally, to count toward a state’s MOE, expenditures must be for “eligible families,” that is, families who: include a child living with his or her custodial parent or other adult caretaker relative (or a pregnant woman); and meet the financial criteria, such as income and resources limits, established by a state for the particular service or assistance as described in its TANF plan. Each state is required to prepare and provide a biennial TANF plan describing its programs to HHS.

For What?

Generally, expenditures for eligible families in these areas may count toward MOE: educational activities to increase self-sufficiency, job training and work (except for activities or services that a state makes generally available to its residents without cost and without regard to their income); cash assistance; child care assistance; other activities considered in keeping with a TANF purpose. certain administrative costs; and These expenditures may be made on behalf of families in a state’s cash welfare program or for other eligible families through other state programs or initiatives. However, state-funded benefits, services, and activities that were not a part of the pre-reform programs generally may count as MOE only to the extent that they exceed the fiscal year 1995 level of expenditures in the programs. This is referred to as the “new spending” test. For example, if a state has currently spent its own funds on eligible families on an allowable activity, such as a refundable earned income tax credit, it may count toward its MOE only the current amount that exceeds that program’s expenditures in fiscal year 1995.

MOE Spending Has Increased Significantly, But the Extent to Which It Represents Increased Service Levels Is Unclear

MOE Levels Have Increased in Recent Years

State MOE levels remained stable for many years and then increased more recently for several reasons. As shown in figure 2, until fiscal year 2006, MOE levels remained relatively stable, hovering around the 80 percent required minimum or the reduced rate of 75 percent for states that met their work participation rates. From fiscal years 2006 through 2009, they increased each year.

In a 2001 report, we examined issues related to the new federal-state fiscal partnership under TANF, noting several issues related to TANF and MOE spending rules. We found at that time that the MOE requirement, in many cases, limited the extent to which states used their federal funds to replace state funds—an intended role for MOE.situation in which many state officials said they were spending more than It also led to a might be expected in the face of the large caseload drop in the earliest years of TANF.

However, states have additional flexibility in making spending decisions. While states must meet MOE requirements, federal TANF funds may be “saved for a rainy day,” providing states additional flexibility in their budget decisions. they drew down to meet increasing needs in the recent economic downturn. Moreover, states have flexibility to provide a wide variety of services—as long as they are in keeping with the four broad purposes of TANF—to those on the cash welfare rolls and to other eligible families.

42 U.S.C. § 604(e). Each year, a state may in effect reserve some of its federal TANF funds to help it meet increased needs and costs in later years. A state’s unspent funds can “accumulate” as a type of “rainy day fund” for its future use. Since TANF was created in 1996, states have been permitted to spend prior year TANF block grant funds on assistance—a category that includes cash benefits and supportive services for families receiving these benefits. However, the Recovery Act increased states’ flexibility to spend prior year TANF block grant funds on all TANF-allowable benefits and services. by almost $2 billion, and much of the increase in expenditures was in areas that had temporarily been broadened.

Many states claimed additional MOE to help them meet the work participation rates, as discussed in the next section.

MOE Spending Helped Some States Meet Work Rates

In recent years, some states have used their MOE spending to help them meet TANF work participation rates. Generally, states are held accountable for ensuring that at least 50 percent of all families receiving TANF cash assistance and considered work-eligible participate in one or more of the federally defined work activities for a specified number of hours each week. However, most states have not engaged that many recipients in work activities on an annual basis. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, less than 50 percent of TANF cash assistance families participated in work activities for the specified number of hours each week in 44 states, according to HHS. However, various policy and funding options in federal law and regulations allowed most of these states to meet their work participation rates. Factors that influenced states’ abilities to meet the work participation rates included not only the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance who participated in work activities, but also decreases in the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance, and state MOE spending beyond what is required, for example.

Since TANF was created, the factor that states have commonly relied on to help them meet their required work participation rates is the caseload reduction credit. Specifically, decreases in the numbers of families receiving TANF cash assistance over a specified period are accounted for in each state’s caseload reduction credit, which essentially lowers the states’ required work participation rate from 50 percent. For example, if a state’s caseload decreases by 20 percent during the relevant time period, the state receives a caseload reduction credit equal to 20 percentage points, which results in the state work participation rate requirement being adjusted from 50 to 30 percent. In each year since TANF was created, many states have used caseload declines to help them lower the required work participation rates. For example, in fiscal year 2009, 38 of the 45 states that met their required work participation rates for all TANF families did so in part because of their caseload decreases (see fig. 3).

However, in recent years, the Congress updated the base year for assessing the caseload reduction credit, and as a result, some states also began to rely on state MOE expenditures to increase their caseload reduction credit, which lowers their required work participation rates. Under federal regulations, if states spend in excess of their required MOE amount, they are allowed to correspondingly increase their caseload reduction credits. By doing so, a state reduces its required work participation rate. In fiscal year 2009, 32 of the 45 states that met their required work participation rates for all TANF families claimed excess state MOE spending toward their caseload reduction credits. Sixteen of these states would not have met their rates without claiming these expenditures (see fig. 3). Among the states that needed to rely on excess state MOE spending to meet their work participation rates, most relied on these expenditures to add between 1 and 20 percentage points to their caseload reduction credits (see fig. 4).

MOE is now playing an expanded role in TANF programs, as many states’ excess MOE spending has helped them meet work participation rates. While one state had used MOE expenditures toward its caseload reduction credit before fiscal year 2007, over half of the states (27) relied on these expenditures to increase their credits and help them meet their required work participation rates in one or more years between fiscal years 2007 and 2009.

States may be making programmatic and budgetary decisions to use excess MOE to help them avoid penalties for failure to meet participation rates and possibly losing funds. In our previous work, states have cited concerns about difficulties in engaging a sufficient number of cash recipients in required activities for the required number of hours for several reasons, including limits on the types of activities that count, limited resources for developing and providing appropriate work activities, a lack of jobs particularly during tough economic times, and the characteristics of some cash assistance recipients that make it difficult for them to engage in countable work activities.

However, this greater emphasis on the use of MOE increases the importance of understanding whether effective accountability measures are in place to ensure MOE funds are in keeping with requirements. In our 2001 report, some states expressed concerns that this MOE provision could become difficult to enforce. In doing that work, we spoke to many auditors who were in the midst of developing audit plans to address compliance with the new spending test. Several told us that developing these plans was relatively straightforward: the auditor should simply be able to establish a baseline for all the MOE expenditures the state was using and then trace those programs back to 1995 and certify that spending used for MOE was indeed new spending. However, we also noted that these plans could become more complex if states frequently changed the expenditures they were counting from one year to the next (i.e., changed the programs for which they needed baselines). In one state at that time, we were told that all expenditure data were archived after 5 years, and that auditing the annual certification would be especially difficult and time consuming if the state changes the programs it uses to meet its MOE requirement from year to year. We expect that several factors, such as changes in what MOE expenditures states may count, growth in some particular spending areas, as well as the growth in MOE spending overall may have greatly increased the complexities involved in tracking MOE.

HHS provided information related to In its final rule published in 1999,its plans for monitoring state MOE and noted that states recognize that they are ultimately accountable for their expenditure claims. HHS stated that states are audited annually or biennially and compliance with the basic MOE provisions is part of the audit. HHS added that it would use the results of the audits, together with its own analysis of state-provided data—required state quarterly expenditure reports and annual descriptive reports on MOE activities—to assess states’ compliance. It also said it might undertake additional state reviews based on complaints that arise or requests from the Congress.

We have not reviewed existing efforts to monitor MOE and cannot comment on their effectiveness. However, the extent to which states have relied on these expenditures to help them meet work participation rates as well as meeting MOE generally highlights the importance of having reasonable assurances that current oversight is working. If MOE claims do not actually reflect maintaining or increasing service levels, low- income families and children may not be getting the assistance they need in the current environment and federal funds may not be used in the most efficient manner.

Observations

MOE provisions are important but not without implementation and oversight challenges. Based on our previous work on federal grant design as well as more recent work on some MOE provisions under the Recovery Act, it is clear that such provisions are important mechanisms for helping ensure that federal spending achieves its intended effect. With TANF, what is at stake are billions of federal and state dollars that together represent a federal-state partnership to help needy families provide for their children and take steps toward economic independence. The work also points to administrative, fiscal, and accountability challenges in implementing MOE provisions, both from federal and state perspectives. While MOE provisions may be imperfect tools, with appropriate attention to design, implementation, and monitoring issues, such provisions are one way to help strike a balance between the potentially conflicting objectives of increasing state and local flexibility while attaining certain national objectives, including efficient use of federal resources in today’s fiscal environment.

We provided drafts of the reports we drew on for this testimony to HHS for its review, and copies of the agency’s written responses can be found in the appendixes of the relevant reports. We also provided HHS a draft of this testimony, and officials provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For questions about this statement, please contact Kay E. Brown 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 statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this statement include James Bennett, Robert Campbell, Rachel Frisk, Alex Galuten, Gale Harris, Tom James, Jean McSween, Ronni Schwartz, and Michelle Loutoo Wilson.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.