The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds a wide range of benefits
and services for low-income families with children. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare
reform law (P.L. 104-193). Its funding was recently extended through FY2010 by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). This report responds to some frequently asked questions
about TANF; it does not describe TANF rules (see, instead, CRS Report RL32748, The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing
and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk). It will be updated.
Funding and Expenditures. TANF provides fixed funding to states, the bulk of which is
provided in a $16.5 billion-per-year basic block grant. States are required in total to contribute,
from their own funds, at least $10.4 billion under a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement.
The basic block grant is not adjusted for inflation or changes in the cash welfare caseload (see
“Caseload,” below). It has lost 25% of its value (purchasing power) to inflation from FY1997
through FY2008. Though TANF is best known for funding cash welfare payments for needy
families with children, the block grant and associated state MOE funds are used for a wide variety
of benefits and activities. In FY2006, expenditures on activities associated with a “traditional”
cash welfare program—cash benefits, administrative costs, and spending on work activities—
totaled only $15 billion, a little more than half of total TANF and MOE funds. TANF also
contributes funds for child care and services for children who have been, or are at risk of, abuse
and neglect.
Cash Welfare Caseload. In June 2008, 1.7 million families, consisting of 3.9 million recipients,
received TANF- or MOE-funded cash welfare. The cash welfare caseload is very heterogenous.
The type of family historically thought of as the “typical” cash welfare family—one with an
unemployed, adult recipient—accounted for less than half (45%) of all cash welfare families in
FY2006. Another 13% of cash welfare families had an employed adult, while 42% of all families
had no adult recipient. Child-only families include those with disabled adults receiving
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), adults who are nonparents (e.g. grandparents, aunts uncles)
caring for children, and families consisting of citizen children and noncitizen parents.
Cash Welfare Benefits. TANF cash benefits are set by states. In July 2006, the maximum
monthly benefit for a family of 3 ranged from $923 in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi. Benefits in
all states represent a fraction of poverty-level income. In the median state (Illinois), the maximum
monthly benefit for a family of three of $396 represents 29% of poverty-level income.
Cash Welfare Work Requirements. TANF requires states to engage 50% of all families and
90% of two-parent families in work activities. Through FY2006, these participation standards
were reduced for caseload reduction from FY1995. In FY2006, states achieved average work
participation rates of 32.5% for all families and 45.9% for two-parent families. Beginning in
FY2007, the 50% and 90% standards will be reduced for caseload reduction from FY2005 (rather
than FY1995), requiring many states to raise participation to meet these standards.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Topics.................................................................................................................................1
Is the Cash Welfare Caseload Rising Because of the Current Recession?..........................1
How Can States Pay for Any Caseload Increases Caused by the Recession?.....................1
Will the TANF Contingency Fund Run Out of Money?.....................................................2
What is the “Excess MOE” Regulation Proposal?..............................................................2
May States Require Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients?..................................................3
Histor y ............................................................................................................................................. 3
When was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant
Created? ........................................................................................................................... 3
Has Legislation Modified TANF Since the 1996 Law?......................................................3
Funding and Expenditures...............................................................................................................4
What is TANF’s Current Funding Level?...........................................................................4
How Much Has the TANF Grant Declined in Value Because of Inflation?........................5
How Have States Used TANF Funds?................................................................................5
How Much of the TANF Grant Has Gone Unspent?..........................................................7
The Caseload...................................................................................................................................7
How Many Families Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Benefits and Services?.................7
How Many Families and People Currently Receive TANF- or MOE-Funded Cash
Welfar e? ........................................................................................................................... 7
How Does the Current Cash Welfare Caseload Level Compare With Historical
Leve ls? ............................................................................................................................. 8
What Are the Characteristics of Cash Welfare Families?...................................................8
TANF Cash Benefits......................................................................................................................10
How Much Does a Family Receive in TANF Cash Per Month?......................................10
How Have Cash Benefits Changed Over Time?...............................................................14
TANF Work Participation Standards.............................................................................................16
What Is the TANF Work Participation Standard States Must Meet?................................16
What Actual Work Participation Rates Have the States Achieved?..................................16
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2006, by Major Benefit or
Service Category..........................................................................................................................6
Figure 2. Families Receiving Cash Welfare: July 1959-June 2008.................................................8
Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Welfare Caseload: FY2006......................................................9
Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, FY2006-
FY2010.........................................................................................................................................4

Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars..........................................................5
Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008..........................................7
Table 4. Maximum TANF Cash Welfare Benefits by Family Size, July 2006...............................11
Table 5. Maximum Benefits for a Family of Three by State: In July of Selected Years and
as a Percent of the Poverty Guidelines.......................................................................................14
Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs, FY2003-FY2006....................17
Table A-2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2006.....................................................17
Table A-3. Cash Welfare Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2006...................18
Table A-4. Selected Characteristics of Families Receiving AFDC or TANF/MOE Cash
Welfare, Selected Years 1988-2006............................................................................................19
Table B-1. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category..................................................20
Table B-2. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category, as a Percent of Total
Federal TANF and State MOE Funding.....................................................................................22
Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2006...............................................................25
Table B-4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008..................................................26
Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance, 1994, 2001, 2007, and 2008.........28
Table B-6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2006, by State................................................30
Appendix A. Supplementary Tables..............................................................................................17
Appendix B. State Tables..............................................................................................................20
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................31

This report provides responses to frequently asked questions about the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant. It is intended to serve as a quick reference to provide easy
access to information and data. This report does not provide information on TANF program rules.
For such information, see CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.

Nationally, the available data do not show an increase in the cash welfare caseload as yet. The
latest “official” data on the cash welfare caseload from the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), show that from June 2007 to June 2008, the cash welfare caseload had declined
nationally 2.5%.
However, more recent data suggests that the cash welfare caseload is rising in at least some states.
In Florida, the cash welfare caseload in December 2008 was 10% above the June 2008 level, with
much of the increase occurring during the three months October to December. On a year-to-year
basis, the cash welfare caseload in California increased 5.9% from September 2007 to September
2008. On the other hand, more recent data from New York (the state with the second largest cash
welfare caseload) show no increase through September 2008.
The current level and historical trends in the cash welfare caseload is discussed later in this
report.
TANF has provided states with fixed funding since FY1997. The sharp decline in the cash
welfare caseload (see the discussion below) meant that money was “freed-up” from lower cash
welfare costs that were allocated to other benefits and services that could be paid for with TANF
funds. These include a wide range of benefits and services for disadvantaged families, including
financial aid for child care; refundable tax credits for the working poor; transportation aid; pre-
Kindergarten programs; after-school programs; activities to help families who experienced, or
were at-risk of, child abuse and neglect; pregnancy prevention programs; responsible fatherhood
programs; and programs to promote healthy marriages.
The fixed nature of TANF funding imposes some financial risk on states. Generally, states bear
the risk of increased costs from a cash welfare caseload rise. However, TANF provides states with
two sources of extra funding in the case of such as cash welfare caseload increase. First, states
were given the ability to build up “reserve” funds with unused TANF grants that could be saved
without fiscal year limit. The latest data on these funds are fairly old (September 30, 2007), with
unspent and uncommitted state balances totaling $1.9 billion. They also provide only a small
cushion, given the size of TANF federal spending and state maintenance of effort (MOE)
spending (about $25 billion per year).

Second, TANF includes a “contingency fund” that provides extra matching grants for states that
meet criteria of economic need—either high and rising unemployment or increased food stamp
(renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) caseloads. This permits the federal
government to share in the risks of a caseload rise stemming from economic circumstances. The
maximum contingency fund grant for a fiscal year is 20% of the state’s basic block grant.
However, the contingency fund was not used during the last recession (2001). Currently 43 states
meet the economic need criteria for eligibility for contingency funds. As of mid-December 2008,

11 states have either received or indicated that they would apply for funds.

States that do not draw upon these extra sources of funds can also finance an increase in cash
welfare costs by reducing TANF spending on some of the other activities listed above.
At the beginning of the current fiscal year (FY2009), the contingency fund had $1.3 billion. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the fund will remain solvent through the end
of FY2009, but run out of money sometime in FY2010. However, these estimates are subject to a
lot of uncertainty. Whether the fund will be exhausted depends on whether a few large states,
such as California and New York, currently not drawing contingency funds, begin to do so.
(California is currently economically eligible, New York is not.)
For example, if only the 11 states that are currently either drawing funds or have applied for funds
receive them for the remainder of the fiscal year, the fund will be able to pay them their full grant
all year. Under this scenario, a balance of more than $700 million will remain at the end of this
fiscal year. However, if California is added to the current 11 states drawing funds and they receive
their maximum contingency fund grant—California can draw up to $747 million in a year—the
fund would be exhausted before the end of FY2009. There are other scenarios, such as New York
becoming eligible and some other large states also drawing funds, in which the fund would be
exhausted before the end of FY2009 as well.
On August 8, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed to eliminate
what is known as the “excess MOE credit” toward the TANF work participation standards.
TANF sets numerical work participation standards for its welfare caseload: 50% for all families
(90% for its two-parent families). For each state, this standard is reduced one percentage point for
each percent decline in its welfare caseload since FY2005. The “excess MOE credit” is basically
an add-on to the “caseload reduction credit,” allowing states to claim credit for cash welfare cases
funded by state funds in excess of what they are required to spend under TANF maintenance of
effort (MOE) rules. It reduces TANF work participation standards beyond the reduction allowed
under the basic caseload reduction credit. The excess MOE credit is not a part of TANF law; it
was created by regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
in 1999.
A Hypothetical Example. This example shows how the caseload reduction credit and the “excess
MOE credit” could affect the FY2007 participation standards (on the basis of a caseload
reduction between FY2005 and FY2006). For simplicity, assume a caseload in FY2005 of 100

families and a caseload in FY2006 of 90 families. However, of the 90 families in FY2006, 10
were funded by “excess MOE.” The caseload reduction credit would be based on 100 families in
FY2005 and 80 families in FY2006, yielding a credit of 10 percentage points for normal caseload
reduction and 10 percentage points for the 10 families funded by “excess MOE.” That is, the state
would receive a 20 percentage point credit, reducing their effective (after credit) participation
standard to 30%.
Yes. The 1996 welfare reform law gave states the option of requiring drug tests for welfare
recipients and penalizing those who fail such tests. (See Section 902 of P.L. 104-193.)
In addition to this option, the 1996 welfare reform law contained two other provisions related to
drug abuse and TANF applicants or recipients. The law established a lifetime ban on eligibility
for TANF and food stamps for those convicted of a drug-related felony. However, states may
either opt out entirely or modify and limit this lifetime ban. (See Section 115 of P.L. 104-193.)
Further, TANF allows states to establish Individual Responsibility Plans (IRPs) for their TANF
families. The IRP may require participation in a substance abuse treatment program. A family
may be sanctioned for failure to comply with its IRP.

The TANF block grant was created by the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). TANF replaced the program of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which dated back to the Social Security Act of

1935, and several other related programs.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-35) included provisions establishing “welfare-to-
work” grants for FY1998 and FY1999 and made several other policy and technical changes to
TANF. No new welfare-to-work grants were made after FY1999.
The original funding authority for TANF ended on September 30, 2002. Over the four-year period
of 2002-2005, Congress considered, but did not pass, legislation to modify and reauthorize TANF ^th
(see CRS Report RL33418, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109 Congress: An Overview, by ^th
Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears, Welfare Reauthorization in the 109
Congress: An Overview, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and Carmen Solomon-Fears). Over this
four-year period, Congress passed 12 “temporary extensions” of TANF and related programs as
stop-gap measures until it could reach agreement on a longer-term reauthorization. (See
Appendix A, Table A-1 for a listing of the temporary extensions.)

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) includes a long-term extension of
funding for TANF through FY2010. It also requires most states to either raise participation in
work activities among families receiving cash welfare from TANF, or further reduce the cash
assistance rolls; it establishes $100 million per year in TANF research and technical assistance
funds for “healthy marriage promotion” initiatives; and it provides $50 million per year for
“responsible fatherhood initiatives.” (For a discussion of TANF provisions in the DRA, see CRS
Report RS22369, TANF, Child Care, Marriage Promotion, and Responsible Fatherhood
Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), by Gene Falk.)

The DRA provides funding for TANF through FY2010. The basic block grant is funded at $16.5
billion per year (for the 50 states and the District of Columbia) through FY2010. This was its
original level, as established in the 1996 welfare reform law. The DRA also funds several grants
and research in addition to the basic block grant, as shown on Table 1. Though the DRA extended
most TANF funding through FY2010, it extended supplemental grants only through FY2008. P.L.

110-275 extended supplemental grants through FY2009.

Note that the DRA provides the funding authority (an appropriation, not just authorization) in
advance through FY2010. TANF funding is not provided in annual appropriations.
Table 1. TANF Federal Funding Provided in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
FY2006-FY2010
^{(in millions of $)}
²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰^{7 200}^{8 200}⁹²⁰¹⁰
^{Basic block grant}^16,4⁷⁸^16,4⁷⁸^16,4⁷⁸^16,4⁷⁸^16,4⁷⁸
^Suppleme^ntal^grants³¹⁹^{319 319 319}⁰
^{Funding for t}^{he ter}^ritories⁷⁷⁷⁸⁷⁸⁷⁸⁷⁸
^{Marriage Promotion/healthy fat}^h^erhood¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰
^TANF^researc^h¹⁵^{15 15 15}¹⁵
^{Census B}^urea^{u resea}^{rch on}^welfa^{re reform}¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰
^{Total federal funds (without cont}^{ingency f}^unds)^17,0⁴⁹^17,0⁵⁰^17,0⁵⁰^17,0⁵⁰^16,7³¹
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS),}^{on the basis of da}^{ta in a U.S. Congressional Budget}^Office
^{(CBO) Cost Estimate, S. 1932, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2}⁰⁰⁵^,^January²^{7, 20}^{06, modified to account for P.L.}
^110-²⁷^{5, which e}^xte^{nded sup}^ple^{mental grants}^throug^{h FY2}⁰⁰^9.
In addition to federal TANF funds, states are required in total to contribute, from their own funds,
at least $10.4 billion per year for TANF-related activities for low-income families with children.
This level of state funding, known as maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding, was also established
in the 1996 welfare law, and has not since been changed.

From FY1997 (the first full year of TANF funding) through FY2008 (ended September 30, 2008),
the real value of the TANF block grant declined by 25%. On the basis of the September 2008
inflation projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the block grant will decline in
value by 30% from FY1997 through FY2010.
Table 2. Basic TANF Block Grant in Constant 1997 Dollars
^{Fiscal Year}^{Value of the Block Grant}^{Cumulative Loss of}
^{(in Billions of}^Value
^FY19^{97 Dollars)}^{(in percent)}
¹⁹⁹^{7 16.5}⁰
¹⁹⁹^{8 16.2}^-2
¹⁹⁹^{9 15.9}^-3
²⁰⁰^{0 15.4}^-6
²⁰⁰^{1 14.9}^-9
²⁰⁰^{2 14.7}^-11
²⁰⁰^{3 14.4}^-13
²⁰⁰^{4 14.1}^-15
²⁰⁰^{5 13.6}^-17
²⁰⁰^{6 13.1}^-20
²⁰⁰^{7 12.8}^-22
²⁰⁰^{8 12.3}^-25
²⁰⁰^{9 11.8}^-28
²⁰¹^{0 11.6}^-30
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS). C}^{onstant dollars were computed}^using
^{the Consu}^{mer Price I}^ndex^{for all Urban Cons}^ume^{rs (CPI-U). Actual inflation was used to compute}^constant
^dol^{lars for FY199}^7-FY20⁰⁸^using^{data from the U.S. Bureau of}^Lab^{or Statistics. Constant dol}^{lars for FY200}⁹
^through^FY20^{10 a}^{re based on}^the^{inflation assumptions of t}^{he U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO),}
^{published in Se}^ptemb^{er 2}⁰⁰^8.
TANF is best known as a funding source of cash welfare benefits for needy families with
children. However, states have considerable discretion in using TANF funds, and have used them
for a wide range of benefits and services.
Figure 1. shows the uses of federal TANF grants to states and state MOE funds in FY2006. In
FY2006, a total of $28.4 billion of both federal TANF and state MOE expenditures were either
expended or transferred to other block grant programs. The three expenditure categories
commonly associated with “welfare” for needy families with children—cash benefits,
administrative costs, and work activities—accounted for $14.7 billion, or a little more than half
(52%) of all funds.

TANF is a major contributor of child care funding. In FY2006, 19% of all TANF funds used were
either expended on child care or transferred to the child care block grant (the Child Care and
Development Fund, or CCDF). FY2006 TANF and MOE expenditures on child care totaled $3.5
billion and transfers to CCDF totaled $1.9 billion, adding up to a $5.4 billion contribution to child
care funding from TANF.
TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system, which provides foster care,
adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either have experienced or are at
risk of child abuse or neglect. However, TANF’s accounting system poorly captures expenditures ¹
associated with spending on the child welfare system.
Figure 1. Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Used in FY2006,
by Major Benefit or Service Category
Other Transfers to
expenditures, SSBG, 3%

17%

Basic (cash)
assistance, 35%
Family formation
expenditures, 3%
Other work
supports, 6%
Administrative Transfers to CCDF, 7%
expenditures, 8%
Work program Child care expenditures,
expenditures, 8%12%
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Departme}^{nt of H}^{ealth and}
^Human^{Services (HHS).}
See Appendix A, Table A-2, for dollar amounts associated with each of these categories. For
state-specific information on the use of TANF funds, see Appendix B, Table B-1 and Table B-2.

¹^{For a}^dis^c^us^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^the^s^hort-c^o^mⁱ^ng^s^of^TA^N^F^fⁱ^na^nc^ia^{l da}^ta^re^por^ting^,^s^e^e^the^U^.^S^.^G^o^v^e^rn^m^e^{nt A}^c^c^ounta^b^ility
^Offⁱ^c^e^,^Be^tte^r^Iⁿ^for^m^at^io^{n N}^e^e^d^e^d^to^U^nde^r^s^t^aⁿ^d^Tr^eⁿ^dsⁱⁿ^St^ate^s^’^U^s^e^s^{of the}^T^A^N^F^Bl^oc^k^G^r^ant^,^GAO-0⁶^-⁴¹⁴^,
^Ma^r^c^{h 20}⁰⁶^{. F}^o^r^aⁿ^e^s^tim^a^t^e^of^TA^N^F^’^s^c^ontrⁱ^buti^oⁿ^to^c^h^il^{d w}^e^lf^ar^e^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^’^f^unding^{, s}^e^e^Sc^a^r^c^e^lla^e^t^a^l^,^The^C^o^s^t^o^f
^Prote^c^ting^Vulⁿ^e^r^ab^le^Chil^dreⁿ^V^{, U}^r^ba^{n I}ⁿ^s^tit^ute^,^Ma^y²⁰⁰^6.

At the end of FY2006 (September 30, 2006), a total of $4.0 billion of federal TANF funding had
been neither transferred nor spent. However, some of that $4 billion represented funds that states
had already committed to spend later. At the end of FY2006, states had made such commitments
to spend—that is, obligations—totaling $1.9 billion. Generally, obligations are binding
commitments to spend, and they come in the form of contracts and grants to provide benefits and
services. However, the definition of “obligation” varies from program to program, and because
TANF essentially consists of 54 different programs (one for each state, the District of Columbia,
and the territories), what constitutes an obligation may vary.
The remaining $2.2 billion in unspent funds is called the “unobligated balance.” These funds are
available to states to make new spending commitments. Table B-3 in Appendix B shows unspent
TANF funds by state.

This number is not known. Federal TANF reporting requirements focus on families receiving
only ongoing assistance (generally cash welfare), with no complete reporting on families
receiving other TANF benefits and services. As discussed in the previous section of this report, a
little less than half of all TANF funds are used on activities not considered part of a traditional
“welfare” program. Therefore, the federal reporting requirements that pertain to families
receiving “assistance” are very likely to undercount the number of families receiving any TANF-
funded benefit or service.
Table 3 provides cash welfare caseload information for June 2008. A total of 1.7 million families
composed of 3.9 million recipients received TANF- or MOE-funded cash in June 2008. The bulk
of the “recipients” were children—3 million children in that month. For state-by-state cash
assistance caseloads, see Table B-4 in Appendix B.
Table 3. TANF- and MOE-Funded Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008
^{Category Number}
^{Families 1,67}^7,80⁸
^{Recipients 3,93}^7,08⁶
^{Children 3,00}^8,82²
^{Adult Recipients}⁹¹⁷⁴⁸¹
^Source:^{Congressional}^Researc^h^{Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Departme}^{nt of H}^{ealth and}
^Human^{Services (HHS).}
^Note:^{The numbe}^{r of total recip}^{ients is greater t}^{han t}^{he s}^{um of t}^{otal children and total adults bec}^{ause H}^HS
^{reported total recipient data b}^ut^{not total children or total adult d}^{ata for Gua}^m.

The number of families receiving cash welfare peaked in March 1994 at 5.1 million families. The
cash welfare caseload fell rapidly in the late 1990s (after the 1996 welfare reform law) before
leveling off in 2001. Beginning again in 2004 the caseload began another decline, albeit at a
slower pace than observed in the late 1990s.
Figure 2 provides a long-term historical perspective on the number of families receiving cash
welfare, from July 1959 to the present. The 1.7 million families currently on the cash assistance
rolls represent their lowest level since 1969. Table B-5 shows recent trends in the number of cash
welfare families by state.
Figure 2. Families Receiving Cash Welfare: July 1959-June 2008

6sMarch 1994:

n5.1 million
io
5ill
M
4

3June 2008:

1.7 million
2
1
0
-59 ul -62 ul -6 5 u l-68 u l-71 ul -7 4 -7 7 u l-80 ul -8 3 ul -8 6 ul -89 -9 2 u l-95 u l-98 ul -0 1 ul -04 u l-07
Jul J J J J J Jul J J J J Jul J J J J J
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Departme}^{nt of H}^{ealth and}
^Human^{Services (HHS).}
Historically, the “typical” cash welfare family has been headed by a single parent (usually the
mother) with one or two children. The single parent has also typically been unemployed.
However, the cash welfare caseload decline has occurred together with a major shift in the
composition of the rolls. Today, less than half of all cash welfare families are headed by an
unemployed, adult recipient. A little more than four out of 10 cash welfare families had no adult
recipient at all, with the adults in the family ineligible for aid and the benefits paid only on behalf
of the child (these are known as “child-only” families). This shift occurred because the caseload

decline was concentrated among the families thought of as the “typical” cash welfare family, and
welfare-to-work efforts have been concentrated on this population.
Figure 3. shows the composition of the cash welfare caseload in FY2006. Families with an adult,
unemployed recipient represent 45% of all cash welfare families. Families with an employed (in a
regular job) adult recipient, who receive cash welfare as an earnings supplement, comprise an
additional 13% of the cash welfare rolls. Within the “child-only” portion of the caseload, families
with a parent (usually a disabled parent) receiving SSI and the children receiving TANF as a
supplement to that benefit represent 9% of the cash welfare caseload. Families that are made up
of children living with a non-parent relative (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) represent 13% of
the cash welfare caseload. Families of child citizens living with ineligible parents who are
noncitizens or who have not reported their citizenship status make up 8% of the total cash welfare
caseload. The remainder of the cash welfare caseload represents child recipients for whom data
on the adults with whom they live is not available.
Figure 3. Composition of the Cash Welfare Caseload: FY2006
"Child-Only" Families
^T^o^t^a^{l c}^h^ild^-^oⁿ^l^y^f^a^m^ili^e^s^:
^Ot^h^e^r⁴²^%^o^f^th^e^to^ta^l
¹²^%^N^oⁿ^c^it^iz^eⁿ^o^r
^u^nkno^wⁿ
^cⁱ^tⁱ^z^e^ns^hi^p^o^f^p^a^r^e^nt
^8%
^F^a^m^ily^wⁱ^t^h
^a^d^ul^t^/^no^t^e^m^p^l^o^y^e^d
^Noⁿ^p^a^r^eⁿ^t⁴⁵^%
^Ca^r^e^t^a^k^e^r
¹³^%
^SSI^P^a^r^eⁿ^t
^9%
^F^a^m^ily^wⁱ^t^h
^ad^u^l^t^/^e^m^p^l^oy^e^d
¹³^%
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) analysis of the FY200}^{6 TANF}^{National Data Files.}^{Note: Family}
^{with an adult/u}^{nemployed include}^{s families reported as “child-only” but sa}^nctioned.
As previously discussed, the composition of the caseload has changed considerably over time.
Table A-3 shows the change in this categorization of families over time. Table A-4 provides
some additional information on the composition of the caseload.

There are no federal rules that help determine the amount of TANF cash benefits paid to a family.
(There are also no federal rules that require states to use TANF to pay cash benefits, though all
states do so.) Benefit amounts are determined solely by the states.
Table 4 shows the maximum monthly TANF cash benefit by state and family size as of July ²
2006. The benefit amounts shown are those for a single parent family with children. Some states
vary their benefit amounts for other family types such as two-parent families or “child-only”
cases. States also vary their benefits by other factors such as housing costs and sub-state
geography. In general, the table shows the highest benefit amounts paid in the state, though the ³
Michigan amount is for Wayne County (Detroit) and the New York benefit is for New York City.
Most states base TANF cash benefit amounts on family size, paying bigger families larger cash
benefits on the presumption that larger families have greater financial needs. The maximum
monthly cash benefit is usually paid to a family that receives no other income (e.g., no earned or
unearned income) and complies with program rules. Families with income other than TANF often
are paid a reduced benefit. Moreover, some families are financially sanctioned for failure to meet
a program requirement (e.g., a work requirement), and are also paid a lower benefit.
The table also shows the benefit amounts relative to poverty-level income. TANF pays a family in
cash only a fraction of poverty level income (as officially determined and published by the
Department of Health and Human Services). For a family of three, in the “median state” (Illinois, ^th
ranked 26 among the 50 states and District of Columbia), a July 2006 monthly payment of $396
equalled 28.6% of poverty-level income. At the extreme, Alaska’s benefit equalled the highest
percentage of poverty-level income (53.4% of Alaska’s poverty guideline, which is higher than
that for the lower 48 states), whereas Mississippi paid the lowest percentage, 12.3%, for a family
of three.

²^Sta^t^e^s^a^r^e^{not r}^e^quir^e^{d to}^r^e^por^{t t}^o^the^f^e^de^r^a^{l g}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt the}ⁱ^r^c^a^s^{h w}^e^l^f^a^r^e^be^ne^f^{it am}^ounts^{in e}ⁱ^t^h^e^r^the^T^A^N^F^s^t^a^t^e
^plaⁿ⁽^uⁿ^d^e^r^s^e^c^tion⁴⁰²^of^the^So^cⁱ^a^l^Se^c^u^r^ity^A^c^t)^or^{in a}ⁿ^nua^l^pr^og^r^a^m^r^e^por^ts⁽^u^nde^r^s^e^c^tio^{n 4}⁰⁷^of^the^Socⁱ^a^l
^Se^c^u^r^ity^A^c^t)^{. T}^h^e^be^ne^f^{it am}^ounts^{in t}^h^is^r^e^p^o^r^t^a^r^e^f^r^om^the^U^r^ba^{n I}ⁿ^s^tⁱ^t^ute^’^s^w^e^lf^a^r^e^r^u^le^s^da^ta^ba^s^e^.
³^Iⁿ^Mic^h^ig^aⁿ^,^hig^h^e^r^m^a^xⁱ^m^u^m^b^e^ne^f^its^w^e^r^e^pa^{id in W}^a^s^h^te^na^w^C^oun^ty⁽^$489^pe^r^m^onth^f^o^r^a^f^a^mⁱ^l^y^o^f^thr^e^e⁾^thaⁿ
^{in W}^a^yⁿ^e^C^ounty^.^Iⁿ^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{, hig}^h^e^r^m^a^xⁱ^m^u^m^be^ne^f^its^w^e^r^e^pa^{id in}^Suf^f^o^lk^C^ounty⁽^$⁷⁸³^pe^r^m^{onth f}^o^r^a^f^a^mⁱ^l^y
^of^thre^e⁾^thaⁿⁱⁿ^Ne^w^York^City^.

Table 4. Maximum TANF Cash Welfare Benefits by Family Size, July 2006
^{Maximum Benefits}^{By Famil}^{y Size ($)}^{Maximum Benefits as a Percent of the}
²⁰⁰^{6 HH}^{S Poverty Guilde}^lin^{es (%)}
^State^One^Two^Three^Four^Five^Six^One^Two^Three^Four^Five^Six
^{Alabama 165}¹⁹⁰²¹⁵²⁴⁵²⁷⁵³⁰⁵^20.2^17.3^15.5^14.7^14.1^13.7
^Alaska⁵¹⁴⁸²¹⁹²³^1,02^{5 1,12}^{7 1,22}⁹^50.4^59.7^53.4^49.2^46.2^44.0
^{Arizona 204}²⁷⁵³⁴⁷⁴¹⁸⁴⁹⁰⁵⁶¹^25.0^25.0^25.1^25.1^25.1^25.1
^Arkansas^{81 162}²⁰⁴²⁴⁷^{286 331}^9.9^14.7^14.7^14.8^14.7^14.8
^California^{359 584}⁷²³⁸⁶²^{980 110}¹^44.0^53.1^52.3^51.7^50.3^49.3
^Colorad^o^{99 280}³⁵⁶⁴³²^{512 590}^12.1^25.5^25.7^25.9^26.3^26.4
^{Connecticut 402}⁵¹³⁶³⁶⁷⁴¹⁸³⁵⁹³⁵^49.2^46.6^46.0^44.5^42.8^41.9
^{Delaware 201}²⁷⁰³³⁸⁴⁰⁷⁴⁷⁵⁵⁴⁴^24.6^24.5^24.4^24.4^24.4^24.4
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32760}^{District of Columbia}²⁵⁷³²⁰⁴⁰⁷⁴⁹⁸⁵⁷³⁶⁷⁴^31.5^29.1^29.4^29.9^29.4^30.2
^g/w^{Florida 180}²⁴¹³⁰³³⁶⁴⁴²⁶⁴⁸⁷^22.0^21.9^21.9^21.8^21.8^21.8
^s^.or
^le^ak^{Georgia 155}²³⁵²⁸⁰³³⁰³⁷⁸⁴¹⁰^19.0^21.4^20.2^19.8^19.4^18.4
^://wiki^{Hawaii 335}⁴⁵²⁵⁷⁰⁶⁸⁷⁸⁰⁵⁹²²^35.7^35.7^35.8^35.8^35.9^35.9
^h^ttp^{Idaho 309}³⁰⁹³⁰⁹³⁰⁹³⁰⁹³⁰⁹^37.8^28.1^22.3^18.5^15.8^13.8
^{Illinois 223}²⁹²³⁹⁶⁴³⁵⁵⁰⁹⁵⁷²^27.3^26.5^28.6^26.1^26.1^25.6
^{Indiana 139}²²⁹²⁸⁸³⁴⁶⁴⁰⁵⁴⁶³^17.0^20.8^20.8^20.8^20.8^20.7
^{Iowa 183}³⁶¹⁴²⁶⁴⁹⁵⁵⁴⁸⁶¹⁰^22.4^32.8^30.8^29.7^28.1^27.3
^{Kansas 267}³⁵²⁴²⁹⁴⁹⁷⁵⁵⁸⁶¹⁹^32.7^32.0^31.0^29.8^28.6^27.7
^{Kentucky 186}²²⁵²⁶²³²⁸³⁸³⁴³²^22.8^20.5^18.9^19.7^19.6^19.3
^{Louisiana 122}¹⁸⁸²⁴⁰²⁸⁴³²⁷³⁶⁶^14.9^17.1^17.3^17.0^16.8^16.4
^{Maine 230}³⁶³⁴⁸⁵⁶¹¹⁷³³⁸⁵⁶^28.2^33.0^35.1^36.7^37.6^38.3
^{Maryland 220}³⁸⁶⁴⁹⁰⁵⁹²⁶⁸⁶⁷⁵⁵^26.9^35.1^35.4^35.5^35.2^33.8
^Massach^{usetts 418}⁵¹⁸⁶¹⁸⁷¹³⁸¹²⁹¹²^51.2^47.1^44.7^42.8^41.6^40.8
^{Michigan 276}³⁷¹⁴⁵⁹⁵⁶³⁶⁵⁹⁷⁹²^33.8^33.7^33.2^33.8^33.8^35.5

^{Maximum Benefits}^{By Famil}^{y Size ($)}^{Maximum Benefits as a Percent of the}
²⁰⁰^{6 HH}^{S Poverty Guilde}^lin^{es (%)}
^{Minnesota 250}⁴³⁷⁵³²⁶²¹⁶⁹⁷⁷⁷³^30.6^39.7^38.5^37.3^35.7^34.6
^{Mississippi 110}¹⁴⁶¹⁷⁰¹⁹⁴²¹⁸²⁴²^13.5^13.3^12.3^11.6^11.2^10.8
^{Missouri 136}²³⁴²⁹²³⁴²³⁸⁸⁴³¹^16.7^21.3^21.1^20.5^19.9^19.3
^{Montana 221}²⁹⁸³⁷⁵⁴⁵²⁵³⁰⁶⁰⁷^27.1^27.1^27.1^27.1^27.2^27.2
^Nebras^{ka 222}²⁹³³⁶⁴⁴³⁵⁵⁰⁶⁵⁷⁷^27.2^26.6^26.3^26.1^25.9^25.8
^{Nevada 230}²⁸⁹³⁴⁸⁴⁰⁷⁴⁶⁷⁵²⁶^28.2^26.3^25.2^24.4^23.9^23.6
^{New Ham}^pshire⁴⁸⁹⁵⁵⁶⁶²⁵⁶⁸⁸⁷⁴⁸⁸²⁹^59.9^50.5^45.2^41.3^38.4^37.1
^{New Jers}^ey¹⁶²³²²⁴²⁴⁴⁸⁸⁵⁵²⁶¹⁶^19.8^29.3^30.7^29.3^28.3^27.6
^{New Me}^xico²³¹³¹⁰³⁸⁹⁴⁶⁹⁵⁴⁸⁶²⁷^28.3^28.2^28.1^28.1^28.1^28.1
^New^York^{414 501}⁶⁹¹⁸²⁵^{964 105}⁹^50.7^45.5^50.0^49.5^49.4^47.4
^{North Carolina}¹⁸¹²³⁶²⁷²²⁹⁷³²⁴³⁴⁹^22.2^21.5^19.7^17.8^16.6^15.6
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32760}^{North Dakota}²⁸²³⁷⁸⁴⁷⁷⁵⁷³⁶⁷⁰⁷⁶⁷^34.5^34.4^34.5^34.4^34.4^34.3
^g/w
^s^.or^{Ohio 245}³³⁶⁴¹⁰⁵⁰⁷⁵⁹³⁶⁶⁰^30.0^30.5^29.6^30.4^30.4^29.6
^le^ak^{Oklahoma 180}²²⁵²⁹²³⁶¹⁴²²⁴⁸³^22.0^20.5^21.1^21.7^21.6^21.6
^://wiki^{Oregon 317}⁴⁰⁴⁴⁷¹⁵⁷⁸⁶⁷⁵⁷⁷³^38.8^36.7^34.0^34.7^34.6^34.6
^h^ttp^{Pennsylvania 215}³³⁰⁴²¹⁵¹⁴⁶⁰⁷⁶⁸⁷^26.3^30.0^30.4^30.8^31.1^30.8
^{Rhode Island}³²⁷⁴⁴⁹⁵⁵⁴⁶³⁴⁷¹⁴⁷⁹⁴^40.0^40.8^40.0^38.0^36.6^35.6
^{South Carolina}¹⁴³¹⁹²²⁴⁰²⁸⁹³³⁸³⁸⁷^17.5^17.5^17.3^17.3^17.3^17.3
^{South Dakota}³⁷¹⁴⁵⁴⁵⁰⁸⁵⁶¹⁶¹⁴⁶⁶⁸^45.4^41.3^36.7^33.7^31.5^29.9
^Tennessee^{95 142}¹⁸⁵²²⁶^{264 305}^11.6^12.9^13.4^13.6^13.5^13.7
^Texas^{93 193}²²³²⁶⁸^{298 342}^11.4^17.5^16.1^16.1^15.3^15.3
^{Utah 274}³⁸⁰⁴⁷⁴⁵⁵⁵⁶³²⁶⁹⁶^33.6^34.5^34.3^33.3^32.4^31.2
^{Vermont 459}⁵⁶⁰⁶⁶⁵⁷⁵¹⁸⁴²⁹⁰⁴^56.2^50.9^48.1^45.1^43.2^40.5
^{Virginia 242}³²³³⁸⁹⁴⁵¹⁵³⁷⁵⁸⁷^29.6^29.4^28.1^27.1^27.5^26.3
^{Washington 349}⁴⁴⁰⁵⁴⁶⁶⁴²⁷⁴⁰⁸⁴¹^42.7^40.0^39.5^38.5^37.9^37.7
^{West Virginia}²⁶²³⁰¹³⁴⁰³⁸⁴⁴²⁰⁴⁶⁰^32.1^27.4^24.6^23.0^21.5^20.6

^{Maximum Benefits}^{By Famil}^{y Size ($)}^{Maximum Benefits as a Percent of the}
²⁰⁰^{6 HH}^{S Poverty Guilde}^lin^{es (%)}
^Wisconsin⁰⁶⁷³⁶⁷³⁶⁷³⁶⁷³^{673 0.0}^61.2^48.7^40.4^34.5^30.1
^{Wyoming 195}³²⁰³⁴⁰³⁴⁰³⁶⁰³⁶⁰^23.9^29.1^24.6^20.4^18.5^16.1
^Median²²³³²⁰³⁹⁶^{469 548 610}^{27.3 29.1}^28.6^28.1^28.1^27.3
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^CRS).^{TANF cash welfare}^bene^{fits are from t}^{he Ur}^ban^{Institute’s}^{Welfare R}^{ules Database. For stat}^{es that}
^{have varied be}^nefits^{by geograp}^{hic area, the}^bene^{fits shown on}^the^{table rep}^resent^the^maximum^pa^{id in the state ex}^cept^{for in}^New^{York (New York City is shown)}^and
^{Michigan (Wayne Cou}^{nty, which}^{includes Detroit is shown). Poverty guidelines are from t}^{he U.S. Departme}^{nt of Health a}^{nd H}^uman^S^ervices.

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32760}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

The large variation in TANF cash welfare benefits is not new. Even before the 1996 welfare reform law,
states determined benefit amounts.
Most states do not regularly adjust benefits for the effects of inflation. Some states have not changed their
benefit levels in many years. Table 5 compares the July 2005 benefit for a family of three (single-parent
family) with the benefits paid in July of 1981, 1988, and 1996. It also shows the maximum benefits as a
percent of poverty-level income. The poverty guidelines are adjusted each year for inflation. The table
shows a decline in the value of cash welfare over time. In 1981, the maximum benefit for a family of
three in the median state represented about half of poverty-level income. In 2006, the maximum benefit in
the median state of $396 represented 29% of poverty-level income.
Table 5. Maximum Benefits for a Family of Three by State:
In July of Selected Years and as a Percent of the Poverty Guidelines
^{Maximum Benefits for a}^{Maximum Benefits as a % of}
^{Family of Three ($)}^{the Poverty Guidel}^{ines for a}^{Family of Three (%)}
^State¹⁹⁸¹¹⁹⁸⁸¹⁹⁹⁶²⁰⁰⁶¹⁹⁸¹¹⁹⁸⁸¹⁹⁹⁶²⁰⁰⁶
^{Alabama 118}¹¹⁸¹⁶⁴²¹⁵^20.0^14.6^15.2^15.5
^{Alaska 571}⁷⁷⁹⁹²³⁹²³^77.4^77.2^68.3^53.4
^{Arizona 202}²⁹³³⁴⁷³⁴⁷^34.3^36.3^32.1^25.1
^{Arkansas 161}²⁰⁴²⁰⁴²⁰⁴^27.3^25.3^18.9^14.7
^{California 506}⁶⁶³⁵⁹⁶⁷²³^85.9^82.1^55.1^52.3
^Colorad^{o 379}³⁵⁶³⁵⁶³⁵⁶^64.3^44.1^32.9^25.7
^{Connecticut 498}⁶²³⁶³⁶⁶³⁶^84.5^77.2^58.8^46.0
^{Delaware 266}³¹⁹³³⁸³³⁸^45.1^39.5^31.2^24.4
^{District of}^{286 379}⁴¹⁵⁴⁰⁷^48.5^46.9^38.4^29.4
^Columbia
^{Florida 195}²⁷⁵³⁰³³⁰³^33.1^34.1^28.0^21.9
^{Georgia 183}²⁷⁰²⁸⁰²⁸⁰^31.1^33.4^25.9^20.2
^{Hawaii 468}⁵¹⁵⁷¹²⁵⁷⁰^69.0^55.4^57.2^35.8
^{Idaho 305}³⁰⁴³¹⁷³⁰⁹^51.8^37.6^29.3^22.3
^{Illinois 302}³⁴²³⁷⁷³⁹⁶^51.3^42.4^34.9^28.6
^{Indiana 255}²⁸⁸²⁸⁸²⁸⁸^43.3^35.7^26.6^20.8
^{Iowa 360}³⁹⁴⁴²⁶⁴²⁶^61.1^48.8^39.4^30.8
^{Kansas 353}⁴²⁷⁴²⁹⁴²⁹^59.9^52.9^39.7^31.0
^{Kentucky 188}²¹⁸²⁶²²⁶²^31.9^27.0^24.2^18.9
^{Louisiana 173}¹⁹⁰¹⁹⁰²⁴⁰^29.4^23.5^17.6^17.3
^{Maine 301}⁴¹⁶⁴¹⁸⁴⁸⁵^51.1^51.5^38.6^35.1
^{Maryland 270}³⁷⁷³⁷³⁴⁹⁰^45.8^46.7^34.5^35.4
^Massach^{usetts 379}⁵³⁹⁵⁶⁵⁶¹⁸^64.3^66.7^52.2^44.7

^{Maximum Benefits for a}^{Maximum Benefits as a % of}
^{Family of Three ($)}^{the Poverty Guidel}^{ines for a}^{Family of Three (%)}
^{Michigan 397}⁴³⁶⁴⁵⁹⁴⁵⁹^67.4^54.0^42.4^33.2
^{Minnesota 446}⁵³²⁵³²⁵³²^75.7^65.9^49.2^38.5
^{Mississippi 96}¹²⁰¹²⁰¹⁷⁰^16.3^14.9^11.1^12.3
^{Missouri 248}²⁸²²⁹²²⁹²^42.1^34.9^27.0^21.1
^{Montana 259}³⁵⁹⁴³⁸³⁷⁵^44.0^44.5^40.5^27.1
^Nebras^{ka 350}³⁶⁴³⁶⁴³⁶⁴^59.4^45.1^33.7^26.3
^{Nevada 241}³³⁰³⁴⁸³⁴⁸^40.9^40.9^32.2^25.2
^New^{326 496}⁵⁵⁰⁶²⁵^55.3^61.4^50.8^45.2
^Hamps^hire
^{New Jers}^ey³⁶⁰⁴²⁴⁴²⁴⁴²⁴^61.1^52.5^39.2^30.7
^{New Me}^xico²²⁰²⁶⁴³⁸⁹³⁸⁹^37.3^32.7^36.0^28.1
^{New York}⁴²⁹⁵³⁹⁵⁷⁷⁶⁹¹^72.8^66.7^53.3^50.0
^North^{192 266}²⁷²²⁷²^32.6^32.9^25.1^19.7
^Carolina
^{North Dakota}³³⁴³⁷¹⁴³¹⁴⁷⁷^56.7^45.9^39.8^34.5
^{Ohio 263}³⁰⁹³⁴¹⁴¹⁰^44.6^38.3^31.5^29.6
^{Oklahoma 282}³¹⁰³⁰⁷²⁹²^47.9^38.4^28.4^21.1
^{Oregon 321}⁴¹²⁴⁶⁰⁴⁷¹^54.5^51.0^42.5^34.0
^{Pennsylvania 332}⁴⁰²⁴²¹⁴²¹^56.4^49.8^38.9^30.4
^{Rhode Island}³⁶⁷⁵¹⁷⁵⁵⁴⁵⁵⁴^62.3^64.0^51.2^40.0
^{South Carolina}¹²⁹²⁰¹²⁰⁰²⁴⁰^21.9^24.9^18.5^17.3
^South^{Dakota 321}³⁶⁶⁴³⁰⁵⁰⁸^54.5^45.3^39.8^36.7
^{Tennessee 122}¹⁷³¹⁸⁵¹⁸⁵^20.7^21.4^17.1^13.4
^{Texas 118}¹⁸⁴¹⁸⁸²²³^20.0^22.8^17.4^16.1
^{Utah 348}³⁷⁶⁴²⁶⁴⁷⁴^59.1^46.6^39.4^34.3
^{Vermont 518}⁶²⁹⁶³⁶⁶⁶⁵^87.9^77.9^58.8^48.1
^{Virginia 310}³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁸⁹^52.6^43.8^32.7^28.1
^{Washington 415}⁴⁹²⁵⁴⁶⁵⁴⁶^70.4^60.9^50.5^39.5
^{West Virginia}²⁰⁶²⁴⁹²⁵³³⁴⁰^35.0^30.8^23.4^24.6
^{Wisconsin 444}⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁶⁷³^75.4^64.0^47.8^48.7
^{Wyoming 315}³⁶⁰³⁶⁰³⁴⁰^53.5^44.6^33.3^24.6
^{Median 305}³⁶⁰³⁷⁷³⁹⁶^{51.8 44.6}^34.9^28.6
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service.}^{July 2}⁰⁰⁶^be^{nefit data are}^from
^{the Urba}^{n I}^{nstitute’s Welfare Rul}^{es Database. July}¹⁹^{81, 1}⁹⁸^{8, and}¹⁹^{96 data a}^{re from CRS}
^surveys^{of the}^{states. Poverty-level income is on the ba}^{sis of the H}^{HS poverty t}^hres^{holds for each}
^year.

The TANF statute requires states to have 50% of their caseload meet standards of participation in work or ⁴
activities—that is, a family member must be in specified activities for a minimum number of hours.
There is a separate participation standard that applies to the two-parent portion of a state’s caseload,
requiring 90% of the state’s two-parent caseload to meet participation standards. States that fail the TANF
work participation standards are penalized by a reduction in their block grant amounts.
However, the statutory work participation standards are reduced by a “caseload reduction credit.” The
caseload reduction credit reduces the participation standard one percentage point for each percent decline
in the caseload. Through FY2006, states were given credit for caseload declines that occurred since
FY1995.
Beginning in FY2007, states will be credited only with caseload declines that have occurred since
FY2005. The FY2007 effective (after-credit) standard will be based on caseload declines from FY2005 to
FY2006. The FY2008 effective standard will be based on caseload declines from FY2005 to FY2007.
States are not given credit for caseload declines that result from new restrictions on eligibility enacted by
states since FY2005.
The currently available caseload data do not tell what the effective (after-credit) participation standards
will be for FY2007. However, cash welfare caseloads have declined over the past year. From FY2005 to
FY2006, the national average decline in the overall cash welfare caseload was about 6% If the average
state is given a caseload reduction credit equal to this decline, the average state will see its effective
participation standards reduced by six percentage points—from 50% to 44%.
In FY2006, the national average work participation rate for all families achieved by states was 32.5%.
The participation rate within TANF achieved nationwide for the two-parent portion of the caseload was
45.9%. This implies that many states would have to raise their participation rates from historical levels to
comply with the FY2007 TANF work participation standards.
In FY2006, most states were in compliance with TANF work participation standards, but Indiana and
Guam failed to meet the standard for all families and Arkansas, the District of Columbia and Guam failed
to meet the standards for two-parent families. See Table B-6 in Appendix B for FY2006 participation
rates for all states. FY2006 was the last fiscal year before the new work participation standard rules
placed into law by the DRA became effective (see above).

⁴^Som^e^fa^m^ilie^{s a}^r^e^e^x^c^l^ude^{d f}^r^om^the^pa^rticⁱ^p^a^tio^{n ra}^te^c^a^l^c^u^la^tio^n.

Table A-1. Temporary Extensions of Welfare Reform Programs,
FY2003-FY2006
^{Public Law}^{Time Period}^Notes
^{P.L. 107-2}²⁹ ^{Oct. 1, 20}^{02-Dec. 3}^{1, 20}⁰²^Exte^{nsion as pa}^{rt of a contin}^uing^resolution.
^{P.L. 107-2}⁹⁴ ^{Jan. 1, 2}⁰⁰^{3-Mar. 3}^{1, 2}⁰⁰³^Exte^{nsion as pa}^{rt of a contin}^uing^resolution.
^{P.L. 108-7} ^{Apr. 1, 2}⁰⁰^3-Ju^{ne 3}^{0, 2}⁰⁰³^Exte^{nsion as pa}^{rt of the}^Consolid^{ated Approp}^{riations Act.}
^{P.L. 108-4}⁰ ^{July 1, 2}⁰⁰^{3-Sept. 3}^{0, 20}⁰³^{Free-standing bill that amended t}^{he Social Security Act to extend}^TANF
^{and related programs.}
^{P.L. 108-8}⁹ ^{Oct. 1, 20}^03-^{Mar. 3}^{1, 20}⁰⁴^Multipur^{pose bill that ext}^{ended p}^{rograms thro}^{ugh t}^{he first}^{half of}^FY2004.
^{P.L. 108-2}¹⁰ ^{Apr. 1, 2}⁰⁰^4-Ju^{ne 3}^{0, 2}⁰⁰⁴^{Free-standing bill that exte}^{nded f}^{unding aut}^{hority for t}^{he p}^rogram^throug^h
^{June 30, 20}^04.
^{P.L. 108-2}⁶² ^{July 1, 2}⁰⁰^{4-Sept. 3}^{0, 20}⁰⁴^{Free-standing bill that exte}^{nded f}^{unding aut}^{hority for t}^{he p}^rogram^throug^h
^{Sept. 30, 2}⁰⁰^4.
^{P.L. 108-3}⁰⁸ ^{Oct. 1, 20}^04-^{Mar. 3}^{1, 20}⁰⁵^{Free-standing bill that exte}^{nded f}^{unding aut}^{hority for t}^{he p}^rogram^s
^through^Mar.^{31, 2}⁰⁰^5.
^{P.L. 109-4} ^{Apr. 1, 2}⁰⁰^5-Ju^{ne 3}^{0, 2}⁰⁰⁵^{Free-standing bill that exte}^{nded f}^{unding aut}^{hority for t}^{he p}^rogram^s
^through^Ju^ne^{30, 2}⁰⁰^5.
^{P.L. 109-1}⁹ ^{July 1, 2}⁰⁰^{5-Sept. 3}^{0, 20}⁰⁵^{Free-standing bill that exte}^{nded f}^{unding aut}^{hority for t}^{he p}^rogram^s
^through^{Sept. 3}^{0, 20}^05.
^{P.L. 109-6}⁸ ^{Oct. 1, 20}^{05-Dec. 3}^{1, 20}⁰⁵^Bil^{l to provide extra fu}^{nding to h}^{elp states p}^{rovide benefits to fam}^ilies
^{affected by}^Hu^{rricane Katri}^{na, su}^{spend ce}^{rtain re}^quireme^{nts in}^sta^tes
^{affected by}^the^hu^{rricane, and e}^x^t^{end the f}^{unding a}^uthority^{for the}
^{programs t}^hroug^{h Dec. 31,}²⁰^05.
^{P.L. 109-1}⁶¹ ^{Jan. 1, 2}⁰⁰^{6-Mar. 3}^{1, 2}⁰⁰⁶^{Free-standing bill that exte}^{nded f}^{unding aut}^{hority for t}^{he p}^rogram^s
^through^Marc^h^{31, 2}⁰⁰^{6. Reduce}^{d the bon}^{us for}^{reducing o}^{ut-of-wedlock}
^{births for FY2}⁰⁰^6-FY20^{10 to offs}^{et the costs of t}^{he tem}^{porary e}^x^t^ension.
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS).}
Table A-2. Use of Federal TANF and MOE Funds in FY2006
^Dollars^{% of T}^{otal Expenditures}
^{Benefit or Service Category}^{(in billions)}^{and Tr}^ansfers
^{Basic (cash) assistance}^9.9^34.8
^{Administrative expe}^nditures^2.4^8.5
^{Work program e}^xpe^nditures^2.4^8.3
^{Child care expe}^nditures^3.5^12.5
^Transfers^{to CCDF}^1.9^6.6
^{Other work}^su^pports^1.7^6.0
^{Family formation expenditure}^s^0.9^3.3
^{Other e}^xpe^nditures^4.7^16.6
^Transfers^{to SSBG}^1.0^3.4

^Dollars^{% of T}^{otal Expenditures}
^{Benefit or Service Category}^{(in billions)}^{and Tr}^ansfers
^{Total expenditures}^25.6^90.0
^{Total transfers}^2.9^10.0
^{Total 28.4}^100.⁰
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS) on the basis of data}
^{from the U.S. Department}^{of He}^{alth and Hu}^{man Services}^(HHS).
Table A-3. Cash Welfare Families by Family Type: FY1988, FY1994, and FY2006
¹⁹⁸⁸¹⁹⁹⁴²⁰⁰⁶
^Total^{number of families}^($)^3,74^7,⁹⁵⁰^5,04^6,²⁶³^1,95^7,⁴⁰²
^{Family with an adult/all adult reci}^{pients u}^nem^ployed^3,13^6,56⁶^3,79^8,99⁷^825,⁴⁹⁰
^{Family with an adult/an adult reci}^{pient em}^ployed^243,⁵⁷³^378,⁶²¹^313,⁴⁵⁷
^{Child-only case/SSI Parent}^59,9⁸⁸^171,³⁹¹^178,⁰⁹⁴
^{Child-only case/caretaker relative}^188,⁵⁹⁸^328,²⁹⁰^260,²³³
^{Child-only case/qualified noncitiz}^{en pa}^rent^47,5^{65 184,}³⁹⁷^147,⁴⁹⁹
^{or parent}^{of u}^nknown^alienage
^{Child-only case/other ineligible parent}^51,7⁶³^146,²²⁶^112,⁹²⁷
^{Child-only case/unknown}^19,8⁹⁷^38,3⁴¹^119,⁷⁰²
^Total^{number of families}^(%)^100.⁰^100.⁰^100.⁰
^{Family with an adult/all adult reci}^{pients u}^nem^ployed^83.7^75.3^42.2
^{Family with an adult/an adult reci}^{pient em}^ployed^6.5^7.5^16.0
^{Child-only case/SSI Parent}^1.6^3.4^9.1
^{Child-only case/caretaker relative}^5.0^6.5^13.3
^{Child-only case/qualified noncitiz}^{en pa}^rent^{1.3 3.7}^7.5
^{or parent}^{of u}^nknown^alienage
^{Child-only case/other ineligible parent}^1.4^2.9^5.8
^{Child-only case/unknown}^0.5^0.8^6.1
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) tabulations of the 198}^{8 AFDC Quality Control Pub}^{lic Use Data File}^{; the}
¹⁹⁹^{4 AFDC Quality Control Pub}^{lic Use Data File}^{; and the 2}⁰⁰⁶^T^{ANF National Data File.}
^Note:^{For F}^Y2001^{and FY2}⁰⁰^{6, the cas}^{h welfare caseload includes}^{those whose}^bene^{fits were f}^und^{ed from TANF dollars}
^{as well as those whose}^benefits^{were fu}^{nded with M}^{OE dollars u}^{nder SSPs. Family with an adult, unemployed includes}
^{families reported as “child-only” who are u}^{nder a sa}^nction.

Table A-4. Selected Characteristics of Families Receiving AFDC
or TANF/MOE Cash Welfare, Selected Years 1988-2006
¹⁹⁸⁸¹⁹⁹⁴²⁰⁰⁶
^{Average mont}^{hly nu}^mber^{of families}^3,74⁸^5,04⁶^1,95⁷
^{Average n}^umbe^{r of family mem}^b^ers^2.8^2.8^2.9
^{Median nu}^mbe^{r of family memb}^e^rs³³³
^Num^{ber of Adult Recipients}^(thousands)
^One^Adults^3,03⁹^3,75⁷⁹⁷⁵
^{Two or More Adults}³⁴⁰⁴²⁰¹⁰⁹
^No^Adults³⁶⁸⁸⁶⁹⁸⁷³
^Num^{ber of Adult Recipients}^{(% of total families)}
^One^Adults^81.1^74.5^49.8
^{Two or More Adults}^9.1^8.3^5.6
^No^Adults^9.8^17.2^44.6
^Num^{ber of C}^{hild Recipients (% of total families)}
^One^42.5^42.6^49.0
^Two^30.2^30.0^27.4
^Three^15.8^15.6^13.4
^{Four or more}^9.9^9.6^8.0
^{Age of Youngest Child (% of total families)}
^Infan^{t and Age}¹^24.6^22.3^27.4
^Infan^t^NA^11.2^13.7
^Age¹^NA^16.9^12.0
^{Age 2 to Age 5}^33.5^34.6^28.6
^{Age 6 to Age 1}²^28.0^26.3^28.6
^{Age 13 a}^{nd older}^11.5^10.9^17.1
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) tabulations of the 198}^{8 AFDC Quality Control}
^{Public Use Data File; the 19}^{94 AF}^{DC Quality Control Public Use Data File; the 200}^{1 TANF}
^{National Data File; and the 200}⁶^{TANF National Data File}^.
^Note:^{For F}^Y2001^{and FY2}⁰⁰^{6, the cas}^{h welfare caseload includes}^{those whose}^bene^{fits were}
^{funded f}^{rom TANF dollars as well as those whose}^{benefits we}^{re f}^u^{nded with MO}^{E dollars under}
^SSPs

Table B-1. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category
^{($ in mill}^ions)
^Child
^Basic^Care^Other
^(Cash)^Admini-^Work^Expen-^Transfers^Work^Family^Transfers
^State^Assistance^strative^Progr^am^ditures^{to CCDF}^Supports^{Formation Other}^{to SSBG}^Total
^{Alabama 34.6}^14.2^15.6^6.2^8.6^3.7^2.4^30.6^10.4^126.⁴
^{Alaska 36.4}^6.7^10.4^12.9^12.4^0.9^0.6^1.9^4.1^86.3
^{Arizona 137.}¹^34.3^14.7^33.2^0.0^7.3^0.0^82.7^22.6^331.⁹
^{Arkansas 15.3}^10.6^14.7^20.5^7.5^4.6^2.8^6.0^-1.7^80.2
^{California 3,47}^9.7^608.⁸^515.⁷^882.¹^89.8^156.⁷^14.5^622.⁸^181.⁴^6,55^1.6
^Colorad^{o 63.0}^18.5^0.9^0.9^12.1^8.8^0.1^117.³^14.6^236.²
^{Connecticut 124.}¹^35.2^34.9^23.0^0.0^5.1^79.1^167.⁸^26.4^495.⁶
^{Delaware 18.3}^6.1^1.3^34.6^0.0^12.9^0.6^2.7^2.8^79.4
^{District of}^{62.1 18.1}^20.7^62.7^18.5^0.0^13.7^16.1^4.0^215.⁹
^Columbia
^{Florida 169.}⁵^69.4^83.6^251.⁴^122.⁵^7.6^6.9^220.¹^62.3^993.²
^{Georgia 95.7}^22.3^75.6^22.2^-29.7^14.1^35.9^315.⁸^20.1^572.¹
^{Hawaii 84.7}^17.7^37.9^14.7^5.0^1.4^0.0^0.0^9.8^171.²
^{Idaho 7.2}^2.4^7.7^1.2^8.7^0.3^2.4^17.6^1.4^49.1
^{Illinois 123.}⁵^25.1^71.4^406.¹^0.0^19.9^1.2^334.⁵^33.4^1,01^5.1
^{Indiana 108.}⁷^34.6^8.6^15.2^11.0^41.9^1.6^105.⁴^2.0^329.⁰
^{Iowa 73.9}^12.3^17.9^5.7^21.8^5.7^15.3^34.8^13.0^200.⁵
^{Kansas 62.8}^8.7^3.4^16.3^21.7^36.7^0.0^24.1^7.2^180.⁹
^{Kentucky 100.}⁶^17.2^23.9^21.0^54.4^7.3^0.0^20.0^0.0^244.⁴
^{Louisiana 44.8}^24.5^9.7^0.0^37.9^4.0^57.8^42.6^16.4^237.⁷
^{Maine 65.2}^7.2^2.2^13.9^15.1^15.9^0.0^3.7^3.3^126.⁵
^{Maryland 106.}³^39.4^28.8^31.7^10.3^109.⁴^33.0^8.4^22.8^390.¹
^Massach^usetts^320.⁴^35.1^22.0^193.⁹^91.9^77.9^29.8^115.²^45.9^932.⁰
^{Michigan 422.}³^109.⁵^98.2^181.⁹^134.³^0.7^105.³^268.⁷^68.0^1,38^8.9
^{Minnesota 129.}¹^46.0^69.5^33.8^74.3^77.7^0.0^46.7^4.8^481.⁸
^{Mississippi 22.3}^4.6^18.8^-1.4^19.2^14.7^5.7^9.3^9.0^102.²
^{Missouri 122.}²^14.3^28.0^59.5^23.0^0.0^11.6^87.9^21.7^368.²
^{Montana 16.5}^5.5^11.4^1.6^5.1^0.0^0.4^7.4^2.0^49.8
^Nebras^{ka 63.3}^6.6^15.9^6.5^9.0^0.0^0.1^0.0^0.0^101.⁴
^{Nevada 33.0}^13.9^0.9^2.8^0.0^6.6^0.0^9.7^0.8^67.8
^New^{34.9 8.5}^7.8^4.6^4.2^0.9^1.3^12.2^1.1^75.7

^Hamps^hire

^Child
^Basic^Care^Other
^(Cash)^Admini-^Work^Expen-^Transfers^Work^Family^Transfers
^State^Assistance^strative^Progr^am^ditures^{to CCDF}^Supports^{Formation Other}^{to SSBG}^Total
^{New Jers}^ey^77.7^93.0^147.³^15.3^54.9^31.8^208.⁴^12.0^15.6^656.¹
^{New Me}^xico^73.6^4.2^10.6^2.9^33.8^1.1^0.0^16.3^0.0^142.⁴
^{New York}^1,62^3.8^451.⁵^209.⁴^102.⁰^548.⁶^828.³^177.⁹^848.¹^123.⁵^4,91^3.0
^North^{94.4 12.0}^46.8^105.¹^72.2^4.4^-0.2^-12.2^4.5^327.⁰
^Carolina
^North^{10.5 3.7}^2.4^0.7^0.0^1.6^2.3^10.6^0.0^31.7
^Dakota
^{Ohio 330.}⁶^106.⁴^60.3^301.⁷^0.0^21.6^67.5^232.⁰^72.8^1,19^2.9
^{Oklahoma 27.7}^22.7^0.0^42.8^29.5^20.5^5.3^32.1^14.8^195.³
^{Oregon 88.6}^34.1^21.3^11.5^0.0^9.2^0.0^86.6^0.0^251.⁴
^{Pennsylvania 392.}⁹^91.9^162.⁰^169.³^92.7^37.8^37.1^102.⁸^15.1^1,10^1.6
^{Rhode Island}^65.0^14.1^6.0^31.5^20.0^0.3^0.0^27.2^4.3^168.³
^South^{38.5 8.1}^8.1^4.1^0.0^1.9^2.7^81.9^10.0^155.³
^Carolina
^{South Dakota}^12.2^2.4^4.1^0.8^0.0^0.1^0.0^9.4^2.1^31.0
^{Tennessee 103.}⁷^32.9^36.8^38.1^53.6^9.3^0.0^45.6^10.3^330.³
^{Texas 138.}⁹^94.3^73.0^26.8^0.0^1.0^3.8^393.²^31.2^762.³
^{Utah 36.9}^14.2^35.0^7.0^0.0^1.3^0.5^0.8^5.3^101.¹
^{Vermont 34.6}^6.3^0.7^6.4^9.2^15.3^0.0^0.8^4.7^78.0
^{Virginia 135.}⁷^42.1^40.8^39.0^3.0^6.4^1.0^26.0^14.6^308.⁵
^{Washington 284.}^{4 46.0}^186.⁷^74.0^105.¹^3.3^0.0^38.8^9.7^748.²
^{West Virginia}^37.3^24.9^1.4^20.9^0.0^16.7^-0.1^14.0^10.9^126.⁰
^{Wisconsin 110.}⁹^27.8^38.8^180.³^62.9^58.6^12.1^11.8^14.7^517.⁹
^{Wyoming 10.5}^0.9^0.5^3.3^3.7^1.8^0.0^6.1^0.0^26.7
^Totals^9,90^6.⁰^2,41^0.⁸^2,36^4.³^3,54^2.⁰^1,87^7.⁹^1,71^4.⁷^940.^{1 4,71}^5.⁸^974.^{0 28,4}⁴⁵^.7
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS) on the basis of data from t}^h^e^{U.S. Department of}
^{Health and H}^uma^{n Services (HH}^S).

Table B-2. Use of FY2006 TANF and MOE Funds by Category,
as a Percent of Total Federal TANF and State MOE Funding
^{Basic (Cash)}^Adminis-^Work^{Child Care}^Transfers^{Other Wo}^rk^Family^Transfers
^State^Assistance^trative^Progr^am^Expenditures^{to CCDF}^Supports^Formation^Other^{to SSBG}^Total
^Alabama^27.4^11.3^12.3^4.9^6.8^{2.9 1.9}^{24.2 8.3}^100.⁰
^Alaska^42.2^7.8^12.1^14.9^14.3^{1.1 0.7}^{2.2 4.8}^100.⁰
^Arizona^41.3^10.3^4.4^10.0^0.0^{2.2 0.0}^{24.9 6.8}^100.⁰
^{Arkansas 19.1}^13.3^18.3^25.5^9.4^5.7^3.5^7.4^-2.1^100.⁰
^California^53.1^9.3^7.9^13.5^1.4^{2.4 0.2}^{9.5 2.8}^100.⁰
^Colorad^o^26.7^7.8^0.4^0.4^5.1^{3.7 0.0}^{49.7 6.2}^100.⁰
^{Connecticut 25.1}^7.1^7.0^4.6^0.0^1.0^16.0^33.9^5.3^100.⁰
^Delaware^23.1^7.7^1.7^43.6^0.0^{16.3 0.8}^{3.4 3.5}^100.⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32760}^{District of}^28.8^8.4^9.6^29.0^8.6^{0.0 6.3}^{7.4 1.9}^100.⁰
^g/w^Columbia
^s^.or^Florida^17.1^7.0^8.4^25.3^12.3^{0.8 0.7}^{22.2 6.3}^100.⁰
^le^ak^Georgia^16.7^3.9^13.2^3.9^-5.2^{2.5 6.3}^{55.2 3.5}^100.⁰
^://wiki^Hawaii^49.4^10.3^22.2^8.6^2.9^{0.8 0.0}^{0.0 5.7}^100.⁰
^h^ttp^Idaho^14.7^5.0^15.8^2.4^17.8^{0.6 4.8}^{35.9 2.9}^100.⁰
^Illinois^12.2^2.5^7.0^40.0^0.0^{2.0 0.1}^{32.9 3.3}^100.⁰
^Indiana^33.0^10.5^2.6^4.6^3.3^{12.7 0.5}^{32.0 0.6}^100.⁰
^Iowa^36.9^6.1^8.9^2.9^10.9^{2.9 7.6}^{17.4 6.5}^100.⁰
^Kansas^34.7^4.8^1.9^9.0^12.0^{20.3 0.0}^{13.3 4.0}^100.⁰
^Kentucky^41.1^7.1^9.8^8.6^22.3^{3.0 0.0}^{8.2 0.0}^100.⁰
^{Louisiana 18.8}^10.3^4.1^0.0^15.9^1.7^24.3^17.9^6.9^100.⁰
^Maine^51.6^5.7^1.8^11.0^11.9^{12.6 0.0}^{2.9 2.6}^100.⁰
^Maryland^27.3^10.1^7.4^8.1^2.6^{28.1 8.5}^{2.2 5.8}^100.⁰
^Massach^usetts^34.4^3.8^2.4^20.8^9.9^{8.4 3.2}^{12.4 4.9}^100.⁰
^Michigan^30.4^7.9^7.1^13.1^9.7^{0.0 7.6}^{19.3 4.9}^100.⁰

^{Basic (Cash)}^Adminis-^Work^{Child Care}^Transfers^{Other Wo}^rk^Family^Transfers
^State^Assistance^trative^Progr^am^Expenditures^{to CCDF}^Supports^{Formation Other}^{to SSBG}^Total
^Minnesota^26.8^9.5^14.4^7.0^15.4^{16.1 0.0}^{9.7 1.0}^100.⁰
^Mississippi^21.9^4.5^{18.4 -1.4}^{18.8 14.4}^5.6^9.1^8.8^100.⁰
^Missouri^33.2^3.9^7.6^16.1^6.2^{0.0 3.1}^{23.9 5.9}^100.⁰
^Montana^33.1^10.9^23.0^3.1^10.2^{0.0 0.7}^{14.9 4.0}^100.⁰
^Nebras^ka^62.4^6.5^15.7^6.4^8.9^{0.0 0.1}^{0.0 0.0}^100.⁰
^Nevada^48.7^20.6^1.4^4.2^0.0^{9.7 0.0}^{14.3 1.2}^100.⁰
^New^Ham^pshire^46.2^11.3^10.4^6.1^5.5^{1.2 1.7}^{16.1 1.5}^100.⁰
^{New Jers}^ey^11.8^14.2^22.4^2.3^8.4^4.8^31.8^1.8^2.4^100.⁰
^New^Me^xico^51.7^2.9^7.5^2.0^23.7^{0.8 0.0}^{11.4 0.0}^100.⁰
^New^York^33.0^9.2^4.3^2.1^11.2^{16.9 3.6}^{17.3 2.5}^100.⁰
^{North Carolina}^28.9^3.7^14.3^32.1^22.1^1.3^-0.1^-3.7^1.4^100.⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32760}^North^Dakota^33.1^11.7^7.6^2.2^0.0^{5.0 7.2}^{33.3 0.0}^100.⁰
^g/w
^s^.or^Ohio^27.7^8.9^5.1^25.3^0.0^{1.8 5.7}^{19.5 6.1}^100.⁰
^le^ak^Oklahoma^14.2^11.6^0.0^21.9^15.1^{10.5 2.7}^{16.4 7.6}^100.⁰
^://wiki^Oregon^35.3^13.6^8.5^4.6^0.0^{3.7 0.0}^{34.5 0.0}^100.⁰
^h^ttp^Pennsylvania^35.7^8.3^14.7^15.4^8.4^{3.4 3.4}^{9.3 1.4}^100.⁰
^Rhode^Island^38.6^8.4^3.5^18.7^11.9^{0.2 0.0}^{16.1 2.6}^100.⁰
^South^Carolina^24.8^5.2^5.2^2.6^0.0^{1.2 1.8}^{52.7 6.4}^100.⁰
^South^Dakota^39.2^7.7^13.1^2.6^0.0^{0.4 0.0}^{30.2 6.9}^100.⁰
^Tennessee^31.4^10.0^11.1^11.5^16.2^{2.8 0.0}^{13.8 3.1}^100.⁰
^Texas^18.2^12.4^9.6^3.5^0.0^{0.1 0.5}^{51.6 4.1}^100.⁰
^Utah^36.5^14.1^34.6^6.9^0.0^{1.3 0.5}^{0.8 5.2}^100.⁰
^Vermont^44.3^8.1^0.9^8.2^11.8^{19.6 0.0}^{1.0 6.1}^100.⁰
^Virginia^44.0^13.6^13.2^12.6^1.0^{2.1 0.3}^{8.4 4.7}^100.⁰
^Washington^38.0^6.2^25.0^9.9^14.0^{0.4 0.0}^{5.2 1.3}^100.⁰
^{West Virginia}^29.6^19.8^1.1^16.6^0.0^13.2^-0.1^11.1^8.7^100.⁰

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL32760}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Table B-3. Unspent TANF Funds at the End of FY2006
^{(September 30, 2}^{006, $ in mill}^ions)
^{Obligated by}^{Unobligated and}^Total
^State^{Unexpended Funds}^{Unspent Funds}^{Unspent Funds}
^{Alabama $3.5}^$52.4^$56.0
^{Alaska 37.3}^1.0^38.4
^{Arizona 16.3}^0.0^16.3
^{Arkansas 4.0}^99.9^104.⁰
^{California 408.}⁹^0.0^408.⁹
^Colorad^{o 0.0}^85.1^85.1
^{Connecticut 0.0}^0.0^0.0
^{Delaware 1.0}^2.1^3.2
^{District of Columbia}^11.0^35.4^46.4
^{Florida 35.6}^0.0^35.6
^{Georgia 39.3}^124.⁰^163.³
^{Hawaii 37.4}^108.⁵^145.⁹
^{Idaho 6.5}^0.0^6.5
^{Illinois 0.0}^0.0^0.0
^{Indiana 64.7}^0.0^64.7
^{Iowa 5.2}^19.2^24.4
^{Kansas 0.0}^1.3^1.3
^{Kentucky 0.0}^57.5^57.5
^{Louisiana 34.1}^0.0^34.1
^{Maine 0.0}^5.5^5.5
^{Maryland 13.5}^110.²^123.⁸
^Massach^{usetts 7.1}^0.0^7.1
^{Michigan 0.0}^0.0^0.0
^{Minnesota 69.6}^0.0^69.6
^{Mississippi 5.0}^30.4^35.4
^{Missouri 15.7}^0.0^15.7
^{Montana 0.6}^35.7^36.3
^Nebras^{ka 0.8}^5.2^5.9
^{Nevada 0.0}^25.6^25.6
^{New Ham}^pshire^0.0^43.4^43.4
^{New Jers}^ey^9.6^136.⁸^146.⁴
^{New Me}^xico^0.0^29.2^29.2
^{New York}^200.⁶^157.⁴^358.⁰
^{North Carolina}^239.⁰^3.5^242.⁵

^{Obligated by}^{Unobligated and}^Total
^State^{Unexpended Funds}^{Unspent Funds}^{Unspent Funds}
^{North Dakota}^0.0^19.3^19.3
^{Ohio 403.}⁰^431.¹^834.²
^{Oklahoma 0.0}^100.³^100.³
^{Oregon 0.0}^43.8^43.8
^{Pennsylvania 23.6}^2.4^26.0
^{Rhode Island}^0.0^5.5^5.5
^{South Carolina}^0.0^49.2^49.2
^{South Dakota}^0.0^19.4^19.4
^{Tennessee 0.0}^160.²^160.²
^{Texas 197.}⁵^0.0^197.⁵
^{Utah 0.0}^52.7^52.7
^{Vermont 0.0}^0.0^0.0
^{Virginia 2.9}^1.9^4.8
^{Washington 0.0}^18.5^18.5
^{West Virginia}^0.0^31.2^31.2
^{Wisconsin 0.0}^0.0^0.0
^{Wyoming 2.5}^45.9^48.5
^{Totals 1,89}^6.¹^2,15^0.⁸^4,04^6.⁹
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS) on the basis of data from t}^h^e^U.S.
^Department^{of Health a}^{nd Hu}^ma^{n Services (HHS).}
Table B-4. TANF and MOE Cash Welfare Caseload, June 2008
^{State Families}^Recipients^Children^Adult^Recipients
^{Alabama 17,1}²¹^39,4⁰⁴^30,6⁷⁸^8,72⁶
^Alaska^3,07³^8,09^{1 5,59}^{7 2,49}⁴
^Arizona^34,9¹⁰^74,3^{56 56,5}^{39 17,8}¹⁷
^{Arkansas 8,21}⁷^18,6⁰⁰^13,8¹⁹^4,78¹
^California^491,⁵⁶²^1,20^8,86^{8 961,}³⁷^{7 247,}⁴⁹¹
^Colorad^{o 8,48}⁴^20,5⁸⁴^16,1⁶⁵^4,41⁹
^Connecticut^18,7⁵⁹^38,6^{57 27,0}^{73 11,5}⁸⁴
^Delaware^4,09⁶^8,49^{2 6,84}^{9 1,64}³
^{District of Columbia}^5,29³^11,5⁸²^9,51⁵^2,06⁷
^Florida^49,1¹²^80,1^{04 67,7}^{58 12,3}⁴⁶
^{Georgia 21,3}⁴⁵^37,4⁶¹^35,2⁴¹^2,22⁰
^Guam^3,07²^10,7^{83 NR NR}
^Hawaii^5,21²^12,5^{70 9,39}^{1 3,17}⁹

^{State Families}^Recipients^Children^Adult^Recipients
^{Idaho 1,47}⁹^2,17³^2,06⁰¹¹³
^{Illinois 24,2}⁷⁶^55,8³⁷^47,4³⁶^8,40¹
^Indiana^39,7⁷⁹^113,⁶²^{7 86,2}^{27 27,4}⁰⁰
^Iowa^18,2⁸⁹^45,7^{10 31,6}^{60 14,0}⁵⁰
^{Kansas 11,9}⁴⁶^30,0⁰⁴^20,8⁰⁰^9,20⁴
^Kentucky^28,5⁹⁷^57,3^{70 45,4}^{57 11,9}¹³
^{Louisiana 9,96}⁹^21,5⁶⁰^19,1⁰⁵^2,45⁵
^Maine^11,5⁰³^33,3^{53 22,0}^{00 11,3}⁵³
^Maryland^19,6⁷²^45,3^{77 34,0}^{52 11,3}²⁵
^Massach^usetts^45,3¹⁷^90,0^{43 61,6}^{47 28,3}⁹⁶
^{Michigan 64,1}²³^166,¹⁷⁹^122,⁷⁰⁶^43,4⁷³
^Minnesota^21,5¹⁰^47,4^{11 36,4}^{41 10,9}⁷⁰
^{Mississippi 11,1}³⁰^22,7⁶⁸^17,5²⁵^5,24³
^Missouri^36,1³⁷^86,8^{97 60,2}^{44 26,6}⁵³
^Montana^2,96¹^7,35^{7 5,35}^{2 2,00}⁵
^Nebras^{ka 6,66}⁵^15,8⁷⁹^12,5²⁸^3,35¹
^{Nevada 7,17}¹^18,1⁹⁰^13,7⁵¹^4,43⁹
^New^Ham^pshire^4,28⁰^8,56^{0 6,43}^{4 2,12}⁶
^New^Jers^ey^33,2⁵⁸^79,0^{47 55,9}^{75 23,0}⁷²
^{New Me}^xico^13,4²⁵^34,7⁹⁰^26,7⁶¹^8,02⁹
^New^York^152,⁵⁸⁷^377,⁰⁵^{9 274,}³⁰^{4 102,}⁷⁵⁵
^{North Carolina}^23,7²²^44,4¹⁴^37,2³⁴^7,18⁰
^North^Dakota^1,99²^4,93^{9 3,61}^{0 1,32}⁹
^{Ohio 80,4}¹¹^173,²⁵⁷^131,⁸³⁸^41,4¹⁹
^{Oklahoma 7,79}⁰^16,4⁴⁸^13,9²⁹^2,51⁹
^Oregon^20,1⁴⁴^46,8^{98 34,4}^{23 12,4}⁷⁵
^Pennsylvania^48,4³⁷^116,⁵⁶^{7 88,0}^{00 28,5}⁶⁷
^Puerto^Rico^11,7⁹⁷^31,6^{78 21,6}^{29 10,0}⁴⁹
^{Rhode Island}^8,01²^18,7⁵⁸^13,2⁹⁹^5,45⁹
^{South Carolina}^14,9⁸²^33,7³⁵^26,3⁷⁹^7,35⁶
^{South Dakota}^2,79⁹^5,68²^4,86⁶⁸¹⁶
^Tennessee^52,4⁹²^133,²⁹^{1 97,7}^{35 35,5}⁵⁶
^Texas^51,2¹¹^112,⁷³^{8 97,5}^{08 15,2}³⁰
^Utah^4,92⁶^12,1^{39 8,76}^{4 3,37}⁵
^Vermont^3,76¹^8,80^{3 5,99}^{5 2,80}⁸
^Virgin^Islands⁴⁰⁹^1,17^{9 851 328}

^{State Families}^Recipients^Children^Adult^Recipients
^Virginia^30,8⁹⁵^68,4^{53 49,3}^{61 19,0}⁹²
^Washington^53,1⁷³^121,⁷⁷^{1 84,7}^{53 37,0}¹⁸
^{West Virginia}^8,69⁴^19,3⁵⁹^14,0⁰⁹^5,35⁰
^{Wisconsin 17,5}⁸⁶^37,7⁸⁷^31,7⁹⁰^5,99⁷
^{Wyoming 245}⁴⁴⁷³⁸²⁶⁵
^{Totals 1,67}^7,⁸⁰⁸^3,93^7,⁰⁸⁶^3,00^8,⁸²²^917,⁴⁸¹
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS) on the basis of data from t}^h^e^U.S.
^Department^{of Health a}^{nd Hu}^ma^{n Services (HHS).}
^Note:^{“NR” denotes not report}^ed.
Table B-5. Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance,
1994, 2001, 2007, and 2008
^Percentage^Change
^June^June^June^June^{June 1994-}^{June 2007-}
^State¹⁹⁹⁴²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸^{June 2008}^{June 2008}
^Alabama^49,4^{82 18,2}^{14 17,5}⁵⁴^17,1²¹^-65.4^-2.5
^Alaska^12,9^{77 5,99}^{6 3,28}⁴^3,07³^-76.3^-6.4
^Arizona^71,5^{30 33,4}^{46 35,2}³²^34,9¹⁰^-51.^-0.9
^{Arkansas 25,8}⁹²^12,0⁹³^8,44⁷^8,21⁷^-68.3^-2.7
^California^919,⁵³^{5 516,}⁴⁷^{8 470,}⁰⁹⁹^491,⁵⁶²^-46.5^4.6
^Colorad^o^41,3^{78 10,6}^{53 10,2}³⁰^8,48⁴^-79.5^-17.1
^Connecticut^59,7^{01 27,4}^{95 20,6}³²^18,7⁵⁹^-68.6^-9.1
^Delaware^11,2^{39 5,34}^{2 3,91}⁶^4,09⁶^-63.6^4.6
^{District of Columbia}^27,4⁴³^16,1⁴⁴^5,97⁵^5,29³^-80.7^-11.4
^Florida^239,²³^{2 57,7}^{33 46,7}¹⁰^49,1¹²^-79.5^5.1
^Georgia^139,⁵⁶^{6 49,3}^{39 24,0}⁰⁵^21,3⁴⁵^-84.7^-11.1
^Guam^1,97^{3 2,63}^{9 3,07}²^3,07²^55.7^0.0
^{Hawaii 20,8}⁴⁴^18,2⁰⁹^6,39⁸^5,21²^-75.0^-18.5
^Idaho^8,73^{9 1,29}^{7 1,56}⁰^1,47⁹^-83.1^-5.2
^Illinois^242,⁷⁴^{0 59,7}^{23 28,5}⁹⁹^24,2⁷⁶^-90.0^-15.1
^Indiana^72,8^{81 44,2}^{07 40,4}⁰³^39,7⁷⁹^-45.4^-1.5
^Iowa^39,8^{13 21,5}^{37 19,7}⁵²^18,2⁸⁹^-54.1^-7.4
^Kansas^30,0^{20 13,1}^{05 14,0}⁹⁶^11,9⁴⁶^-60.2^-15.3
^Kentucky^79,2^{25 35,3}^{98 29,1}⁷³^28,5⁹⁷^-63.9^-2.0
^Louisiana^85,7^{41 24,1}^{04 10,7}⁸⁷^9,96⁹^-88.4^-7.6
^Maine^22,6^{41 11,2}^{38 11,0}⁷³^11,5⁰³^-49.2^3.9
^Maryland^79,7^{06 29,1}^{26 19,3}⁴¹^19,6⁷²^-75.3^1.7

^Percentage^Change
^June^June^June^June^{June 1994-}^{June 2007-}
^State¹⁹⁹⁴²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸^{June 2008}^{June 2008}
^Massach^usetts^110,¹⁰^{8 41,6}^{10 44,6}¹⁹^45,3¹⁷^-58.8^1.6
^Michigan^222,⁴⁷^{2 71,4}^{15 73,2}⁸³^64,1²³^-71.2^-12.5
^Minnesota^63,0^{43 39,2}^{36 26,6}⁴⁶^21,5¹⁰^-65.9^-19.3
^Mississippi^55,1^{83 15,9}^{03 11,3}⁶⁶^11,1³⁰^-79.8^-2.1
^Missouri^92,2^{65 49,1}^{63 38,7}⁶⁴^36,1³⁷^-60.8^-6.8
^Montana^12,0^{04 5,09}^{4 3,23}⁰^2,96¹^-75.3^-8.3
^Nebras^{ka 15,6}⁴⁹^10,3⁴³^6,81⁹^6,66⁵^-57.4^-2.3
^Nevada^14,2^{07 7,69}^{2 7,04}³^7,17¹^-49.5^1.8
^New^Ham^pshire^11,5^{91 5,71}^{6 4,99}⁴^4,28⁰^-63.1^-14.3
^New^Jers^ey^122,⁵³^{6 46,0}^{57 34,1}⁷⁷^33,2⁵⁸^-72.9^-2.7
^New^Me^xico^33,7^{32 18,2}^{33 13,7}¹⁶^13,4²⁵^-60.2^-2.1
^New^York^460,⁵⁹^{0 221,}⁷⁵^{7 155,}⁴⁹⁵^152,⁵⁸⁷^-66.9^-1.9
^North^Carolina^131,⁰⁶^{5 41,7}^{19 24,8}⁵⁷^23,7²²^-81.9^-4.6
^North^Dakota^5,72^{5 3,03}^{1 2,06}⁸^1,99²^-65.2^-3.7
^Ohio^247,⁸⁸^{6 82,1}^{95 77,0}⁰⁵^80,4¹¹^-67.6^4.4
^{Oklahoma 46,8}⁶⁴^13,8⁸¹^8,92¹^7,79⁰^-83.4^-12.7
^Oregon^41,9^{82 16,4}^{38 18,7}⁴¹^20,1⁴⁴^-52.0^7.5
^Pennsylvania^211,⁴³^{1 81,5}^{43 61,9}⁴⁸^48,4³⁷^-77.1^-21.8
^Puerto^Rico^58,4^{84 25,5}^{82 13,1}²²^11,7⁹⁷^-79.8^-10.1
^{Rhode Island}^22,7³⁷^16,0⁷⁰^8,50¹^8,01²^-64.8^-5.8
^South^Carolina^51,5^{90 18,8}^{07 14,4}⁷⁹^14,9⁸²^-71.0^3.5
^South^Dakota^6,86^{8 2,67}^{0 2,87}¹^2,79⁹^-59.2^-2.5
^Tennessee^109,³³^{9 60,6}^{00 60,7}⁷⁷^52,4⁹²^-52.0^-13.6
^{Texas 282,}⁹⁰²^127,⁵³⁹^59,7⁹⁴^51,2¹¹^-81.9^-14.4
^Utah^17,5^{36 7,38}^{7 5,12}³^4,92⁶^-71.9^-3.8
^Vermont^10,0^{06 5,50}^{0 4,50}⁰^3,76¹^-62.4^-16.4
^Virgin^Islands^1,10^{6 679 418}^{409 -63.0}^-2.2
^Virginia^75,0^{20 29,5}^{47 31,5}⁷⁸^30,8⁹⁵^-58.8^-2.2
^Washington^104,²⁴^{3 57,6}^{18 49,5}¹⁹^53,1⁷³^-49.0^7.4
^{West Virginia}^40,3⁷⁹^14,9⁵³^9,33⁵^8,69⁴^-78.5^-6.9
^Wisconsin^76,4^{58 18,5}^{98 17,2}⁶⁶^17,5⁸⁶^-77.0^1.9
^Wyoming^5,75^{1 493 252}^{245 -95.7}^-2.8
^Totals^5,04^3,05⁰^2,17^0,58^{5 1,72}^1,56⁵^1,67^7,80⁸^-66.7^-2.5
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS) on the basis of data from t}^h^e^U.S.
^Department^{of Health a}^{nd Hu}^ma^{n Services (HHS).}

Table B-6. TANF Work Participation Rates for FY2006, by State
^All^Two-Parent
^State^{Families (%)}^{Families (%)}
^{United States}^32.5^45.9
^{Alabama 41.6}^a
^{Alaska 45.6}^54.2
^{Arizona 29.6}^67.5
^{Arkansas 27.9}^22.3
^{California 22.2}^a
^Colorad^{o 30.0}^35.2
^{Connecticut 30.8}^a
^{Delaware 25.3}^a
^{Dist. Of Columbia}^17.1^13.1
^{Florida 41.0}^a
^{Georgia 64.9}^a
^{Guam 0.0}^0.0
^{Hawaii 37.3}^a
^{Idaho 44.2}^39.2
^{Illinois 53.0}^a
^{Indiana 26.7}^a
^{Iowa 39.0}^a
^{Kansas 77.2}^82.3
^{Kentucky 44.6}^51.3
^{Louisiana 38.4}^42.5
^{Maine 26.6}^a
^{Maryland 44.5}^a
^Massach^{usetts 13.6}^a
^{Michigan 21.6}^26.2
^{Minnesota 30.3}^a
^{Mississippi 35.5}^a
^{Missouri 18.7}^a
^{Montana 79.2}^83.3
^Nebras^{ka 32.0}^a
^{Nevada 47.8}^a
^{New Ham}^pshire^24.1^a
^{New Jers}^ey^29.2^a
^{New Me}^xico^42.3^54.5
^{New York}^37.8^48.9

^All^Two-Parent
^State^{Families (%)}^{Families (%)}
^{North Carolina}^32.4^54.0
^{North Dakota}^51.9^a
^{Ohio 54.9}^55.5
^{Oklahoma 32.9}^a
^{Oregon 15.2}^22.6
^{Pennsylvania 26.1}^32.5
^{Puerto Rico}^13.1^a
^{Rhode Island}^24.9^94.3
^{South Carolina}^49.5^64.7
^{South Dakota}^57.9^a
^{Tennessee 57.2}^a
^{Texas 42.0}^a
^{Utah 42.5}^a
^{Vermont 22.2}^33.9
^{Virgin Islands}^14.5^a
^{Virginia 53.9}^a
^{Washington 36.1}^43.1
^{West Virginia}^26.2^a
^{Wisconsin 36.2}^17.1
^{Wyoming 77.2}^75.9
^Source:^{Table pr}^epared^{by t}^he^{Congressional Research Service (}^{CRS) on the basis of}
^{data from the U.S. Department}^{of Health a}^{nd Huma}^{n Services (H}^HS).
^a.^{State did not serve two-parent}^fa^{milies within its TANF program in FY20}^04.
^Gen^e^Fal^k
^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^{Social P}^o^lic^y
^g^f^a^l^k@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷³⁴⁴