Welfare Reform
With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits Gao ID: GAO-02-770 July 5, 2002Congress created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to replace the previous welfare program and help welfare recipients transition into employment. To this end, states are required to enforce work requirements, and face financial penalties if a minimum percentage of adults receiving cash assistance do not participate in work or work-related activities each year. This federal participation rate requirement has increased each year, reaching 50 percent for all families in fiscal year 2002, but it can be adjusted if caseload declines. In addition to work requirements, TANF places a 60 month lifetime limit on the amount of time families with adults can receive cash assistance. To receive TANF block grants, each state must also spend a specified amount of its own funds, referred to as state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds. The law allows states considerable flexibility to exclude families from work requirements and time limits. In addition, states may provide cash assistance to families and exempt them from work requirements and time limits by using state MOE in specified ways. States provided cash assistance funded by federal TANF or state MOE dollars to 2.1 million families in 2001. For 736,000 of these families, only the children in the family received assistance. When only children receive the benefits, it is typically because they are cared for by someone who is not their parent or because their parents are noncitizens. The percentage of adults in work or work-related activities varied greatly among the states because of the flexibility allowed. Most states met or exceeded their adjusted required rate in fiscal year 2000. However, the fiscal year 2000 federal participation rates varied, ranging from 6 percent to more than 70 percent. States excluded 154,000 families from federal or state time limits, or 11 percent of the 1.4 million families with an adult receiving cash assistance.
GAO-02-770, Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-770
entitled 'Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How
They Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits' which was released on
July 5, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
July 2002:
Welfare Reform:
With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work
Requirements and Time Limits:
GAO-02-770:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Of 2.1 Million Families Receiving Federal or State MOE-Funded Cash
Assistance, One Third Are Child-Only Cases:
With PRWORA Flexibility, the Percentage of Welfare Recipients
Participating in Work Activities Varied Greatly among States:
States Excluded 11 Percent of Adult Families from Federal and State
Time Limits:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: State Funding Choices:
Appendix II: States‘ Separate State Program Caseloads and
Characteristics:
Appendix III: States‘ Child-Only Caseloads and Reasons for Child-Only
Cases:
Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for Fall 2001, by State:
Appendix V: State Percentages of TANF or MOE-Funded Families with Adult
Recipients Not Subject to Federal or State Time Limits:
Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on State Funding, Application
of Time Limits, and Use of 20 Percent Extension:
Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults Who Can Receive Time-Limit
Extension:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Application of Key TANF Restrictions and Requirements on State
MOE Funds under the Three Funding Options:
Table 2: Federal Participation Rate Requirement for All Families
Adjusted for Caseload Reduction Credit and Actual Participation Rate by
State for Fiscal Year 2000 (Stated Rate Was 40 percent):
Table 3: Funding Streams in All States and the District of Columbia:
Table 4: Total Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Number
Receiving Cash Assistance through a Separate State Program:
Table 5: Number of States with Separate State Programs that Target
Legal Immigrants and Two-Parent Families:
Table 6: Actual Maximum Percentage of TANF Families With Adults Who May
Receive Time-Limit Extensions, After Adjusting for Child-Only Cases
(fall 2001):
Figures:
Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases:
Figure 2: Range of Federal Work Participation Rates for All Families in
Fiscal Year 2000, as Reported by HHS[A]:
Figure 3: Range of State-Defined Work Rates, Fall 2001:
Figure 4: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State Time
Limits by Recipient Characteristic:
Figure 5: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits
and Method of Exclusion:
Figure 6: Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to
Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance:
Abbreviations:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
MOE: maintenance-of-effort:
AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 5, 2002:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) significantly changed federal welfare policy for low-income
families with children, building upon and expanding state-level
reforms. As part of PRWORA the Congress created the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to replace the previous
welfare program and help welfare recipients transition into employment.
To this end, states are required to enforce work requirements, and
states face financial penalties if a minimum percentage of adults
receiving cash assistance do not participate in work or work activities
each year. This federal participation rate requirement increased each
year, reaching 50 percent for all families in fiscal year 2002. When
PRWORA established these federally required participation rates, it
also allowed them to be adjusted downward, through a ’caseload
reduction credit,“ if a state‘s caseload declined. This provision
reduces the participation requirement for those states where the
welfare caseload declines. In addition to work requirements, TANF
places a 60 month lifetime limit on the amount of time families with
adults can receive cash assistance. To receive its TANF block grant,
each state must also spend at least a specified amount of its own
funds, referred to as state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds.
The law allows states considerable flexibility to exclude families from
work requirements and time limits. Work requirements and time limits
apply only to families with an adult receiving aid, not to cases where
only children receive cash assistance (child-only cases). In addition,
states may provide cash assistance to families and exempt them from work
requirements and time limits by using state MOE in specified ways, such
as through a state program other than their TANF program, referred to as
separate state programs. In addition, states can extend federal time
limits for up to 20 percent of their families receiving assistance. As
the Congress considers reauthorization of TANF, you asked us to
determine and assess the states‘ implementation of these work
requirements and time limits. More specifically, you asked us to
determine (1) the number of families, including child-only cases,
receiving cash assistance funded by federal TANF and state MOE; (2) how
states made use of work requirement flexibility; and (3) the number of
families states have excluded from time limits. The information we
gathered came from site visits in 4 states, telephone interviews with
TANF officials in 8 other states, and a survey administered to TANF
officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [Footnote 1]
We conducted our work from August 2001 through June 2002, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
States provided cash assistance funded by federal TANF or state MOE
dollars to 2.1 million families in the fall of 2001. [Footnote 2] For
over 736,000 of these families, or one-third of the cash assistance
caseload, only the children in the family received assistance. When
only children receive benefits, it is typically because they are being
cared for by someone who is not their parent (e.g., grandparents or
other relatives) or their parents are noncitizens ineligible for cash
assistance. Because no adult in these cases receives TANF or MOE, work
requirements and time limits do not apply.
With the flexibility allowed states, the percentage of adults in work or
work-related activities varied greatly among the states. Because of the
dramatic declines in welfare caseloads that have occurred since 1996,
states have generally faced greatly reduced participation rate
requirements for their TANF programs. For example, in fiscal year 2000,
caseload reduction credits reduced required rates from 40 percent (the
required rate) to 0 in 31 states. As a result, states have increased
flexibility to determine the numbers of adults required to be involved
in work or work activities. Almost all states met or exceeded their
adjusted required rate in fiscal year 2000. However, the fiscal year
2000 federal participation rates varied tremendously among the states,
ranging from about 6 percent to more than 70 percent.
States excluded about 154,000 families from federal or state time
limits. This number represents 11 percent of the 1.4 million families
with an adult receiving cash assistance. By using the 20 percent time
limit extension or their MOE funds, states generally targeted time
limit exclusions to families they considered hard to employ, families
who were working but not earning enough to move off of TANF, and
families that were cooperating with program requirements but had not
yet found employment. The number of families excluded from time limits
may increase in the future because most families have not yet reached
their federal or state-imposed cash assistance time limit. Only about
one-third of the states have begun using the federal 20 percent time
limit extension for families who reached the 60 month federal time
limit. In addition to the 20 percent extension, state officials we
spoke with said that they will rely more heavily on state MOE to extend
families‘ time on assistance in the future.
Background:
PRWORA made sweeping changes to national welfare policy, creating TANF
and ending the federal entitlement to assistance for eligible needy
families with children under Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers
the TANF block grant program, which provides states with up to $16.5
billion each year through fiscal year 2002. TANF was designed to help
needy families reduce their dependence on welfare and move toward
economic independence. The law also greatly increased the discretion
states have in the design and operation of their welfare programs,
allowing states to determine forms of aid and the categories of
families eligible for aid. TANF establishes time limits and work
requirements for adults receiving aid and requires states to sustain 75
to 80 percent of their historic level of welfare spending through a MOE
requirement. In addition, TANF gives states funding flexibility, which
allows states to exclude some families from federal time limits and
work requirements.
TANF Establishes Time Limits and Work Requirements for Adults Receiving
Aid:
TANF establishes a 60 month time limit for families receiving aid.
States have the option of establishing shorter time limits for families
in their state. A state that does not comply with the TANF time limit
can be penalized by a 5 percent reduction in its block grant. While the
intent of TANF is to provide temporary, time-limited aid, federal time
limits do not apply to all forms of aid or to all families receiving
aid. First, states are only to count toward the 60 month time limit any
month in which an individual receives a service or benefit considered
’assistance,“ which is defined in the TANF regulations as cash or other
forms of benefits designed to meet a family‘s ongoing basic needs.
[Footnote 3] Second, time limits do not apply to the following types of
cases:
1. Child-only cases in which the adult in the household does not receive
cash assistance. [Footnote 4]
2. Families who received assistance while living in Indian country or an
Native Alaskan village where 50 percent of the adults are not employed.
Third, all states have the option to use federal funds to extend
assistance beyond the federal 60 month limit for reasons of hardship,
as defined by the state. States can extend assistance for up to 20
percent of the average monthly number of families receiving assistance
(’20 percent extension“). [Footnote 5] Finally, assistance that is
provided solely through state MOE is not subject to the federal time
limit.
TANF also establishes work requirements for adults receiving aid. After
2 years of assistance, or sooner if the state determines the recipient
is ready, TANF adults are generally required to be engaged in work as
defined by the state. [Footnote 6] In addition, TANF establishes
required work participation rates”a steadily rising specified minimum
percentage of adult recipients who must participate in federally
specified work or work-related activities [Footnote 7] each year for at
least a minimum number of hours. [Footnote 8]
States were required in federal fiscal year 2002 to meet a work
participation rate of 50 percent for all TANF families with adult
members”referred to as the rate for all families. States were also
required to meet a much higher rate”90 percent”for two-parent families.
[Footnote 9] States must meet these work participation rates to avoid
financial penalties. While states have generally met the work
participation rate for all families, many states have faced financial
penalties due to failure to meet the two-parent required rate in recent
years. HHS issued penalty notices to 19 states in fiscal year 1997, 14
in fiscal year 1998, 9 in fiscal year 1999, and 7 states in fiscal year
2000.
In addition to establishing federal participation rate requirements,
PRWORA specified that the required rates are to be reduced if a state‘s
TANF caseload declines. States are allowed caseload reduction credits,
which reduce each state‘s work participation requirement by 1 percentage
point for each percentage point by which its average monthly caseload
falls short of its fiscal year 1995 level (for reasons other than
eligibility changes).
While states are to meet federal participation requirements, they also
have the flexibility to encourage and require TANF recipients to
participate in any activity a state chooses or at any level of
activity, although that activity or the hours of activity may not count
toward the federal participation rates.
In addition, federal time limits and work requirements may not apply in
some states that were granted federal waivers to AFDC program rules in
order to conduct demonstration programs to test state reforms.
The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002
passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 4737) on May 16, 2002,
reauthorizes the TANF block grant keeping in place key elements of
TANF, such as time limits and work requirements. It also changes some
aspects of TANF, including the participation rate requirements. It
increases the federally mandated rate by 5 percent a year to 70 percent
by 2007, revises the number of hours of participation and types of
activities required, and made some alterations to the caseload
reduction credit, among other changes. In addition, the act specifies
that two-parent families would no longer be subject to a separate and
higher work participation rate. The Senate is in the process of
reauthorizing TANF as of June 2002.
States May Choose Various State Funding Options for Providing Cash
Assistance:
Previously, under AFDC, state funds accounted for 46 percent of total
federal and state expenditures. Under PRWORA, the law requires states to
sustain 75 to 80 percent of their historic level of spending on welfare
through a MOE requirement to receive their federal TANF block grant. The
federal TANF funds and state MOE funds can be considered more like
funding streams than a single program and states may use their MOE to
assist needy families in state programs other than their TANF programs.
In fact, states have flexibility to expend their MOE funds for cash
assistance in up to three different ways, some of which allow states to
exclude some families from time limits and work requirements.
A state may use its state MOE funds in three different ways to provide
cash assistance for needy families.
* Commingling: A state can provide TANF cash assistance by commingling
its state MOE with federal funds within its TANF program.
* Segregating: A state can provide some TANF cash assistance with state
MOE accounted for separately from its federal funds within its TANF
program.
* Separating: A state can use its state MOE to provide cash assistance
to needy families in any one or more non-TANF state programs, referred
to as ’separate state programs.“
Each state may choose one or more of these options to provide cash
assistance. In some cases, in this report, we refer to the second and
third options as using ’state-only“ funds when the distinction between
segregating and separating funds is not necessary. In addition, we focus
only on cash assistance and not on other forms of aid or services,
including, for example, child care and transportation, for which time
limits and work requirements generally do not apply. (For more
information on state funding choices, see app. I.)
How a state structures its funds determines which TANF rules apply to
the needy families being served. (See table 1.) When a state commingles
funds, it must meet all TANF requirements. For example, states that
commingle all their state MOE with federal funds are only able to
exclude families from time limits through the 20 percent extension,
cannot exclude families from counting toward the federal work
participation rate, and cannot provide assistance to certain groups of
legal immigrants.
Table 1: Application of Key TANF Restrictions and Requirements on State
MOE Funds under the Three Funding Options:
Key program requirements and restrictions for cash assistance: Does 60-
month time limit apply?
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program
with federal or commingled funds: Yes, except for up to 20 percent of
the cash assistance caseload;
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program
with state MOE accounted for separately from federal funds (referred to
as segregated): No;
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State MOE for
needy families in any non-TANF state program (referred to as separate
state program): No.
Key program requirements and restrictions for cash assistance: Do work-
activities count toward the federal work participation rate?
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program
with federal or commingled funds: Yes;
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program
with state MOE accounted for separately from federal funds (referred to
as segregated): Yes[A];
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State MOE for
needy families in any non-TANF state program (referred to as separate
state program): No.
Key program requirements and restrictions for cash assistance: Do
restrictions on assistance to immigrants apply?[B]
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program
with federal or commingled funds: Yes;
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program
with state MOE accounted for separately from federal funds (referred to
as segregated): No;
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State MOE for
needy families in any non-TANF state program (referred to as separate
state program): No.
[A] With this option, states have the flexibility to serve families
they might not otherwise be able to serve in TANF, such as certain
legal immigrants, but at the same time count their work activities
toward meeting the federal participation target rate.
[B] Immigrants arriving in the United States after August 22, 1996, are
barred from the receipt of federal TANF assistance for a 5-year period.
[End of table]
In addition, while not required by federal law, states may choose to
apply work requirements or time limits on their state-funded
assistance. [Footnote 10]
Of 2.1 Million Families Receiving Federal or State MOE-Funded Cash
Assistance, One Third Are Child-Only Cases:
States reported that in the fall of 2001, 2.1 million families received
cash assistance funded with federal TANF or state MOE dollars. This
includes about 110,000 families, or 5 percent, who were provided cash
assistance through separate state programs funded by state MOE dollars.
These families are not counted in the TANF caseload data reported by
HHS. Twenty-six states used separate state programs to provide cash
assistance, typically to legal immigrants and two-parent families. In
most of these states, the separate state program caseload represented 5
percent or less of the total caseload. However, in four of these
states, families served through separate state programs represented
from 10 to 30 percent of the total cash assistance caseload. (For more
information on the separate state program caseload by state and the
populations served in the states‘ programs, see app. II.)
It is noteworthy that the separate state program caseload represents a
more significant share in two of the nation‘s most populous states”
California and New York. More specifically, the number of families
receiving cash assistance through separate state programs in California
alone”nearly 50,000”is greater than the total cash assistance caseload
in most states. HHS began requiring states in fiscal year 2000 to
provide information on families provided assistance through separate
state programs and reported on the separate state program caseload in
their recently issued Fourth Annual Report to Congress. [Footnote 11]
However, this caseload is not included in the TANF caseload data.
Child-only cases, while not generally in separate state programs,
account for an even more significant proportion of the cash assistance
caseload. Of the 2.1 million families receiving aid, 736,045, or one-
third, were composed of children only. Generally, child-only cases are
not subject to work requirements or time limits. [Footnote 12] The
percentage of child-only cash assistance cases varied greatly among the
states, ranging from 13 percent in Hawaii to 73 percent in Wyoming. In
addition, as shown in figure 1, the types of child-only cases vary and
can include families in which the:
* caregiver is a nonparent, such as grandparent or other relative;
* parent is receiving Social Security or Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) and not eligible for TANF;
* parent is a noncitizen ineligible for federally funded TANF;
[Footnote 13] and;
* parent has not complied with TANF program requirements and so has
been denied benefits, called a sanction. [Footnote 14]
(For more information on each state‘s total cash assistance and child-
only caseloads, see app. III.)
Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Reasons for Child-Only Cases:
Nonparent caregivers: 23%;
Parent is receiving SSI: 14%;
Parent is an ineligible noncitizen: 14%;
Parent is sanctioned: 4%;
Unknown/state could not report data: 43%;
Other: 3%.
Note: We included state-funded child only cases in Florida and Illinois
because they do not have federally funded child-only cases. We did not
include the small numbers of state-funded child-only cases in several
other states, as it does not significantly change these results.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
With PRWORA Flexibility, the Percentage of Welfare Recipients
Participating in Work Activities Varied Greatly among States:
Reduced federal participation rate requirements and states‘ use of their
MOE funds give states considerable flexibility in implementing work
requirements. Almost all the states had more adults participating in
work and work-related activities than they were required to, but the
percentage of adults participating varied greatly among the states.
Almost all of the families who received cash assistance through
separate state programs were subject to state work requirements, even
though federal work requirements did not apply.
Federal Work Participation Rates in Fiscal Year 2000 Varied Greatly
among States:
States faced greatly reduced federal participation rate requirements for
fiscal year 2000, as caseload reduction credits were triggered by recent
caseload declines. Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically, from
4.4 million in August 1996 to 2.1 million as of September 2001, marking
a 52 percent decline in the number of families receiving cash welfare.
As a result, the fiscal year 2000 participation rate requirement was
adjusted downward from 40 percent to 0 in 31 states. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Federal Participation Rate Requirement for All Families
Adjusted for Caseload Reduction Credit and Actual Participation Rate by
State for Fiscal Year 2000 (stated rate was 40 percent):
State: Alabama;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 37.7;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Alaska;
Adjusted required rate: 11;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 42.1;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Arizona;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 39.7;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Arkansas;
Adjusted required rate: 6;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 20.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: California;
Adjusted required rate: 8;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 27.5;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Colorado;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 36.6;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Connecticut;
Adjusted required rate: 28;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 33.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
43.0.
State: Delaware;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 16.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
27.6.
State: District of Columbia;
Adjusted required rate: 11;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 24.4;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Florida;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 33.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Georgia;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 12.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Hawaii;
Adjusted required rate: 25;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 24.5;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
29.7.
State: Idaho;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 47.7;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Illinois;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 59.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Indiana;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 40.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
72.3.
State: Iowa;
Adjusted required rate: 1;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 41.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Kansas;
Adjusted required rate: 17;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 49.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
77.4.
State: Kentucky;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 25.6;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Louisiana;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 33.5;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Maine;
Adjusted required rate: 9;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 40.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Maryland;
Adjusted required rate: 1;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 6.3;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 7.1;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
69.2.
State: Michigan;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 36.4;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Minnesota;
Adjusted required rate: 9;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 29.3;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
34.7.
State: Mississippi;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 17.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Missouri;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 30.4;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
34.0.
State: Montana;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 36.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
68.2.
State: Nebraska;
Adjusted required rate: 14;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 15.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
22.6.
State: Nevada;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 37.4;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: New Hampshire;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 30.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
53.1.
State: New Jersey;
Adjusted required rate: 1;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 37.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: New Mexico;
Adjusted required rate: 17;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 36.9;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: New York;
Adjusted required rate: 5;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 33.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: North Carolina;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 19.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: North Dakota;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 35.7;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Ohio;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 52.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
52.9.
State: Oklahoma;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 33.9;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Oregon;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 10.6;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
64.0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 11.2;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Rhode Island;
Adjusted required rate: 24;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 25.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: South Carolina;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 25.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
54.0.
State: South Dakota;
Adjusted required rate: 3;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 46.5;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Tennessee;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 24.9;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
35.4.
State: Texas;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 7.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
25.6.
State: Utah;
Adjusted required rate: 6;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 27.9;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
31.1.
State: Vermont[B];
Adjusted required rate: 40;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 11.6;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Virginia;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 24.6;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
44.9.
State: Washington;
Adjusted required rate: 2;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 52.8;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: West Virginia;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 17.1;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 73.4;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: Wyoming;
Adjusted required rate: 0;
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 59.0;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
[Empty].
State: U.S. average[C];
Adjusted required rate: [Empty];
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without
waiver)[A]: 29.7;
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]:
34.0.
[A] For 18 states, HHS has reported participation rates with and
without taking into account a state‘s waiver that allowed for different
rules with regard to work requirements.
[B] Vermont claims that its waivers eliminate any participation rate
requirements while the waivers are in effect. It did not apply for a
caseload reduction credit for fiscal year 2000.
[C] U.S. average includes the U.S. territories.
Source: The Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
[End of table]
Even though most states faced relatively low or no participation rate
requirements, about 30 percent of TANF adults were counted as meeting
federal participation requirements nationwide. However, the federal
participation rates varied greatly among the states, as shown in figure
2. Officials in one state told us that because the participation rate
requirements are so low, states have more flexibility in choosing
whether to enroll TANF recipients in work or in other types of
activities or services, such as substance abuse treatment or mental
health services, which do not count for purposes of the federal
participation rate. State officials believe they can make such choices
without fear of not meeting their federal work participation rates. In
other cases, the lower participation rates give states more flexibility
in exempting TANF recipients considered hard to employ from meeting
work requirements. [Footnote 15]
Figure 2: Range of Federal Work Participation Rates for All Families in
Fiscal Year 2000, as Reported by HHS[A]:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percent of families participating in work activities that count toward
the federal work participation rate:
Percent: 0-9;
Number of states: 3.
Percent: 10-20;
Number of states: 9.
Percent: 21-30;
Number of states: 13.
Percent: 31-40;
Number of states: 15.
Percent: 41-50;
Number of states: 6.
Percent: 51-60;
Number of states: 4.
Percent: 61-70;
Number of states: 0.
Percent: 71-80;
Number of states: 1.
Percent: 81-90;
Number of states: 0.
Percent: 91-100;
Number of states: 0.
[A] Based on participation rates calculated without taking into account
waivers.
Note: Data for fiscal year 2000 are the most recent available.
Source: HHS.
[End of figure]
State-Defined Work Rates Also Varied Greatly among States:
Data also showed that participation rates varied greatly among states
when using an expanded measure of work participation defined by the
state. This measure included each state‘s own definition of what
qualified as involvement in an activity; this includes federally
approved activities and levels of participation in addition to other
types of activities and levels of participation if allowed by a state.
[Footnote 16] For example, in some states, this measure would include
participation in mental health treatment activities. In addition, in
one state we talked with, an adult working only 1 hour a week would be
considered as participating in state-defined activities. In contrast, a
minimum of 30 hours of work would generally be required to count as
meeting the federal participation requirement.
Using this state-defined rate, nationwide, about 56 percent of TANF
adults were involved in work or work-related activities, based on the
47 states that provided data for fall 2001. [Footnote 17] The
percentage of the adult caseload involved in work or work-related
activities (as defined by the state) ranged from 6 percent to 93
percent. As shown in figure 3, the percentage of adults participating
was 30 percent or less in 8 states, 31-50 percent in 20 states, and
more than 50 percent in 19 states, according to state survey responses.
(See app. IV for more specific data by state.)
Figure 3: Range of State-Defined Work Rates, Fall 2001:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percent of families participating in state-defined work activities:
Percent: 0-9;
Number of states: 1.
Percent: 10-20;
Number of states: 1.
Percent: 21-30;
Number of states: 6.
Percent: 31-40;
Number of states: 10.
Percent: 41-50;
Number of states: 10.
Percent: 51-60;
Number of states: 5.
Percent: 61-70;
Number of states: 4.
Percent: 71-80;
Number of states: 5.
Percent: 81-90;
Number of states: 3.
Percent: 91-100;
Number of states: 2.
Source: GAO Survey.
[End of figure]
While Federal Work Requirements Do Not Apply in Separate State
Programs, States Typically Impose Their Own Requirements:
Providing cash assistance through separate state programs has offered
states additional flexibility, as federal work requirements do not
apply to families served through these programs. the 26 states with
separate state programs, 16 states used these programs to provide cash
assistance to two-parent families. Several state officials told us they
provide aid in this way to avoid the risk of financial penalties for
failing to meet the federal two-parent participation rate requirement.
State officials told us that two-parent families often have as many or
more challenges as single parents, making the higher participation rate
for two-parent families difficult to meet. [Footnote 18] However,
states that provided cash assistance through separate state programs
typically imposed their own work requirements on families receiving
aid. We found that approximately nine-tenths of the families receiving
cash assistance in separate state programs are still subject to a state
work requirement. While states generally imposed work requirements,
about half of them also have policies in place to exclude families
facing significant barriers to work from work requirements. For
example, 13 states exclude families with an adult who is disabled and 13
states exclude families who care for someone with a disability.
It is possible that states may rely more on separate state programs in
the future to provide cash assistance free from federal work
requirements as they take steps to meet state and local goals. H.R.
4737”the reauthorization bill passed by the House”eliminates the higher
federal participation requirement for two-parent families that was
often cited by states as a reason for using separate state programs.
However, it also includes higher overall federal participation
requirements for all families. States would still have the option to
serve other families who they deem may have difficulty meeting higher
federal requirements through separate state programs. With higher
participation requirements for all families, the number of families
that states may consider unable to meet higher federal work
requirements could increase.
States Excluded 11 Percent of Adult Families from Federal and State
Time Limits:
Through the 20 percent federal extension and the use of state funds,
states generally excluded the following types of families from federal
and state time limits: families they considered ’hard to employ,“
families that were working but not earning enough to move off TANF, and
families that were cooperating with program requirements but had not
yet found employment. During fall 2001, [Footnote 19] states excluded
from federal or state time limits 11 percent of the 1.4 million cash
assistance families with adults. The number of families excluded from
time limits may increase in the future because most families have not
yet reached their federal or state-imposed cash assistance time limit.
Federal 20 Percent Extension and State-Funded Time Limit Exclusion
Policies Generally Target Working or Hard-to-Employ Families:
States targeted time limit exclusions to families they considered hard
to employ, families who were working but not earning enough to move off
TANF, and families who were cooperating with program requirements.
The majority of states excluded hard-to-employ families in which the
parent had a disability or was caring for a child with a disability,
families dealing with domestic violence, and families with a head of
household of advanced age. (See fig. 4.) Some of these exclusions are
granted on a temporary basis (such as for disabled recipients pending
transfer to the Supplemental Security Income program), while others are
granted for longer periods of time (such as for family heads of
advanced age).
Figure 4: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State Time
Limits by Recipient Characteristic:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Reason for exclusion: Parent or caregiver with a disability;
Number of states: 46.
Reason for exclusion: Caring for disabled family member;
Number of states: 46.
Reason for exclusion: Domestic violence/extreme cruelty;
Number of states: 42.
Reason for exclusion: Family head is of advanced age;
Number of states: 26.
Reason for exclusion: Making good faith effort to find job;
Number of states: 23.
Reason for exclusion: Caring for young child;
Number of states: 22.
Reason for exclusion: Working or in work activity;
Number of states: 22.
Reason for exclusion: Parent completing education or training;
Number of states: 21.
Reason for exclusion: Family living in high unemployment area;
Number of states: 19.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of table]
Twenty-two states exclude working families or families participating in
a work activity from time limits, either through the federal 20 percent
extension or by using state-only funds. Maryland and Illinois, for
example, ’stop the clock“ for families who are working or participating
in a work activity by funding them with state-only dollars. Officials
from both states told us that their states adopted this policy to
reward working families for complying with program requirements.
States that exclude families by using state-only funds use criteria
similar to those used by states that rely solely on the federal 20
percent hardship extension. Using the 20 percent extension, states are
able to extend time limits for a broad range of families, such as
families cooperating with program requirements or making a ’good faith
effort“ to find employment. For example, officials from Michigan, a
state that commingles all of its state funds with federal funds, told
us that they will use the 20 percent extension for all recipients
following the rules of the program; if the number of families to whom
they want to provide an extension begins to exceed 20 percent, they
plan to continue providing assistance through state funds. Almost half
of the states exclude families making a good faith effort to find
employment.
While States Had Excluded 11 Percent of Families with Adults from Time
Limits as of Fall 2001, This Percentage May Increase as More Families
Reach Their Time Limits:
States have excluded from time limits 11 percent (about 154,000) of the
approximately 1.4 million families with adults receiving federal- or
state-funded cash assistance. [Footnote 20] (See app. V for the percent
of exclusions by state.) As shown in figure 5, 45 percent of these
families”mostly in Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York”were excluded
through states use of state-only funds. An additional 43 percent of the
families were excluded from time limits under federal waivers granted
to states before welfare reform to conduct demonstration programs. Many
of these waivers remain in effect. [Footnote 21]
Figure 5: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits
and Method of Exclusion:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits and Method
of Exclusion:
Time-limited: 89%;
Not time-limited: 11%.
Method of exclusion for not time-limited families:
Waivers: 43.4%;
Federal 20% hardship extension: 11.2%;
Exclusions using state-only funds: 45.2%.
Note: Exclusions do not total 100 percent due to incomplete data from
states. Delaware was unable to provide us with caseload data and is not
included in this figure.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
While states sometimes use state funds to exclude families from federal
time limits, states are still applying a state time limit to a
significant portion of state-funded families. Overall, 64 percent of
families who receive cash assistance through separate state programs or
segregated state funds are still subject to a state time limit. Twenty-
six of the 33 states with state-funded families apply a state time
limit to some or all of their state-funded families. (See app. VI for
additional information on state choices regarding funding and time
limits.)
The percentage of the caseload that is excluded from time limits may
increase because most families have not reached their time limit. In 22
states TANF had not been in effect long enough for families to reach
either the federal or the state time limit by the time we conducted our
survey. [Footnote 22] Even in those states where it was possible to
have received 60 months of cash assistance, many families had not
reached their time limit because they have cycled on and off welfare,
slowing their accrual of time on assistance. State officials generally
thought the 20 percent federal time-limit extension was adequate now,
but were less sure about the future, given that many families have not
yet reached the 60 month time limit.
State officials we spoke with told us that they planned to rely more
heavily on state MOE funds to continue assistance to significant
numbers of families reaching the 60 month time limit. For example,
California told us it estimated that over 100,000 families with adults
would reach the federal time limit in the next year. California plans
to use state-only funds to continue aid beyond 60 months to children by
removing the adult from the case. California also plans to continue aid
to families who are making a good faith effort to find employment and
to families who are hard to employ because the adult is aged, disabled,
caring for a disabled family member, or experiencing domestic violence.
In addition, New York plans to continue assistance to families who
reach the 60 month time limit through its separate state program. In
December 2001, New York State had 44,027 families reach the 60 month
federal time limit. Of these families, 28,781(65 percent) were
transitioned to the state‘s separate state program funded with state
MOE, 9,873 (22 percent) received the 20 percent extension, and the
remaining 5,393 (12 percent) were transitioned off assistance. These
families were among the first to reach time limits with more families
to follow.
At the time of our survey, we found that only 15 states had begun to use
the federal 20 percent hardship extension; overall, these states were
applying it to less than 1 percent of their adult caseload. While it is
difficult to estimate the extent to which states may use the 20 percent
extension as more families reach the 60 month time limit, it is
important to note that states‘ child-only caseloads can result in
significantly more than 20 percent of the adult TANF caseload receiving
the extension. [Footnote 23] As discussed earlier, TANF allows each
state to extend the 60 month time limit for up to 20 percent of the
average monthly number of families receiving TANF assistance funded in
whole or part with federal TANF funds. In each state, the maximum
number of families who may receive extensions is equal to 20 percent of
the total number of TANF families, including child-only cases. This
results in a higher number of adults who can receive the extension than
if the calculation were based on 20 percent of TANF families with
adults. We estimated that the maximum percentage of adults who may
receive the federal extension ranges from 77 percent in Wyoming to 24
percent in Vermont and New Mexico, based on our analysis of survey data
for fall 2001. (For more on this analysis, see app. VII).
Concluding Observations:
Although states have had TANF programs in place for 5 years now, their
experiences with key elements of TANF are still evolving. The dramatic
caseload decline that greatly reduced the federally required
participation rates gave states great flexibility in implementing work
requirements. With this flexibility, the extent of involvement of TANF
adults in federally or state-required activities varied greatly among
the states. On the one hand, this means states have adapted their
programs to meet state and local goals and needs. On the other hand, it
means states with relatively low participation rates have more limited
experience than other states in involving welfare recipients in work
activities. This may affect their ability to meet federal participation
rate requirements in the future. In addition, many states have used the
flexibility allowed them in using state MOE to exclude families from or
to extend federal time limits. In this way, states could ensure a
safety net for families that state TANF program officials had
determined needed more time to become self-sufficient or were unable to
support themselves. Because so many families have not yet reached their
time limits, much remains unknown about choices states will make in
enforcing time limits and whether an appropriate balance will be struck
between ensuring a safety net for families in need and creating a
transitional aid system that promotes work and personal responsibility.
Two issues that warrant attention in the future include wider
implementation of the 20 percent federal time limit extension and
states‘ use of separate state programs to provide cash assistance.
First, as we reported, the 20 percent time limit extension, when
applied to adults, represents a larger and varying share of adults
among the states than when applied to all families, including child-
only cases. As this extension policy is more widely used in the years
ahead, it will be important to understand whether the 20 percent
extension as currently calculated affords all states the access needed
to support families experiencing hardship as well as supporting the
federal goal of reducing welfare dependence. Second, with the use of
state MOE through separate state programs, a not insignificant number
of families”and potentially more in the years to come”receive cash
assistance although they are not counted in welfare caseload data
routinely reported by HHS. With continuing attention focused on the
number of families receiving cash assistance and whether PRWORA has
successfully reduced dependence on welfare, it is important that program
administrators and policymakers have information on the size of the
separate state program caseload. These data should be more regularly
available to consider along with TANF caseload data as HHS has recently
begun to collect and report information on states‘ separate state
programs.
Agency Comments:
In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS said that it agreed with
the findings. HHS‘ s written comments are included in appendix VIII.
We are sending copies of this report to the secretary of Health and
Human Services and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215 or Gale Harris at (202) 512-7235. Other contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IX.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: State Funding Choices:
Most states use some form of state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding
to provide cash assistance to families. Eighteen states relied solely on
federal or commingled federal and state funds in their Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs to provide cash
assistance, as shown in figure 6. The other 33 states used at least one
of the state MOE funding options in addition to commingled funds: 7 had
segregated state funds; 17 had separate state programs; and 9 had both
segregated funds and separate state programs.
Figure 6: Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to
Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance:
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following information:
Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to Expend State
Funds on Cash Assistance:
States that only commingle state MOE funds: 18;
States with state MOE and commingled funds: 33.
Of the 33 states with state MOE and commingled funds:
7 have segregated funding;
9 have segregated funding and separate state programs;
17 have separate state program;
There is a total of 16 states with segregated funds;
There is total of 26 states with separated state programs.
Source: GAO survey, Fall 2001.
[End of figure]
States across the nation have opted to use state MOE funds to provide
cash assistance. (See table 3.) States with larger caseloads are more
likely to use segregated funds or separate state programs than smaller
states; similarly, states with the smallest caseloads are more likely
to commingle all of their state and federal funds.
Table 3: Funding Streams in All States and the District of Columbia:
Commingled funds:
Alaska;
Arkansas;
Colorado;
Idaho;
Iowa;
Kansas;
Kentucky;
Louisiana;
Michigan;
Mississippi;
North Carolina[A];
North Dakota;
New Hampshire;
Ohio;
Oklahoma;
South Carolina;
South Dakota;
West Virginia;
Total: 18.
Commingled + segregated state funds:
Arizona;
Massachusetts;
Minnesota;
Nebraska;
Oregon;
Pennsylvania;
Washington;
Total: 7.
Commingled + separate state programs:
Alabama;
Georgia;
Hawaii;
Indiana;
Maine;
Missouri;
Montana;
Nevada;
New Jersey;
New Mexico;
New York;
Tennessee;
Texas;
Utah;
Virginia;
Wisconsin;
Wyoming;
Total: 17.
Commingled + segregated + separate state programs:
California;
Connecticut;
District of Columbia;
Delaware;
Florida[B];
Illinois;
Maryland;
Rhode Island;
Vermont;
Total: 9.
[A] North Carolina uses only federal funds to provide cash assistance.
[B] Florida has segregated and separate state programs but no
federal/commingled programs.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
Even though two-thirds of the states have opted to use segregated funds,
separate state programs, or both to provide cash assistance, only
11 percent of the total number of families receiving cash assistance is
funded with these funds.
[End of section]
Appendix II: States‘ Separate State Program Caseloads and
Characteristics:
Table 4: Total Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Number
Receiving Cash Assistance through a Separate State Program:
States with separate state programs: Hawaii;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 17,717;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 5,316;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 30.0.
States with separate state programs: Maine;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 10,525;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 1,563;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 14.9.
States with separate state programs: New York;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 199,481;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 28,781;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 14.4.
States with separate state programs: California;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 497,818;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 49,929;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 10.0.
States with separate state programs: Rhode Island;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 16,943;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 1,210;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 7.1.
States with separate state programs: Missouri;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 46,486;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 2,837;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 6.1.
States with separate state programs: Connecticut;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 24,276;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 1,375;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.7.
States with separate state programs: Vermont;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 5,475;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 310;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.7.
States with separate state programs: Nevada;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 10,386;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 573;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.5.
States with separate state programs: Maryland;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 29,537;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 1,608;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.4.
States with separate state programs: Texas;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 132,788;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 6,351;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 4.8.
States with separate state programs: Indiana;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 47,073;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 1,935;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 4.1.
States with separate state programs: New Jersey;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 40,908;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 1,454;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 3.6.
States with separate state programs: Florida;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 62,877;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 2,175;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 3.5.
States with separate state programs: Virginia;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 29,846;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 792;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 2.7.
States with separate state programs: Wisconsin;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 19,160;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 486;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 2.5.
States with separate state programs: New Mexico;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 19,745;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 445;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 2.3.
States with separate state programs: District of Columbia;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 16,747;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 251;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.5.
States with separate state programs: Wyoming;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 465;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 7;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.5.
States with separate state programs: Illinois;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 54,723;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 767;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.4.
States with separate state programs: Tennessee;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 63,427;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 911;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.4.
States with separate state programs: Alabama;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 19,281;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 206;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.1.
States with separate state programs: Georgia;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 54,168;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 490;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 0.9.
States with separate state programs: Utah;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 8,245;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 73;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 0.9.
States with separate state programs: Montana;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 5,263;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 38;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 0.7.
States with separate state programs: Delaware;
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: NA;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: NA;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: NA.
States with separate state programs: United States[B]; 5.2
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 2,132,284;
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state
program: 109,883;
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.2.
[A] Includes families receiving cash assistance funded with federal
TANF or state MOE.
[B] U.S. total also includes families receiving cash assistance in
states without separate state programs.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
States most often used separate state programs to serve two populations”
legal aliens and two-parent families”and applied their own state work
requirements on these two populations. (See table 4.) Other examples of
populations served by some states in their separate state programs
include parents completing education or training (four states), parents
or caretakers with a physical impairment (four states), families caring
for a young child (three states).
Table 5: Number of States with Separate State Programs that Target Legal
Immigrants and Two-Parent Families:
States with separate state programs: Alabama;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: California;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Connecticut;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Delaware;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: District of Columbia;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Florida;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Georgia;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Hawaii;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Illinois;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check][A];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Indiana;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs:
States with separate state programs: Maine;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Maryland;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check];
States with separate state programs: Missouri;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Montana;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Nevada;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: New Jersey;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: New Mexico;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: New York;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Rhode Island;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Tennessee;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Texas;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Utah;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Vermont;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Virginia;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Wisconsin;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check].
States with separate state programs: Wyoming
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty].
States with separate state programs: Total: 26;
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: 13[B];
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: 16.
[A] Illinois provides cash assistance to refugees under separate state
programs.
[B] Six additional states do provide cash assistance to legal immigrant
families ineligible for federal TANF using segregated state TANF funds:
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and
Washington. Georgia provides cash assistance to legal immigrants
through their segregated funds and their separate state program.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: States‘ Child-Only Caseloads and Reasons for Child-Only
Cases:
State: Alabama;
Total cash assistance caseload: 19,281;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,636;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Alaska;
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,709;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,080;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 19;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 39;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 6;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 55;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Arizona;
Total cash assistance caseload: 37,408;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 16,133;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 43;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 61;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 4;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 3.
State: Arkansas;
Total cash assistance caseload: 12,163;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 5,163;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 42;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: California;
Total cash assistance caseload: 497,818;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 169,756;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 34;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 14;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 39;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 16;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 23;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 8;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Colorado;
Total cash assistance caseload: 12,711;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,785;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 38;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 25;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 51;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 16;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 7.
State: Connecticut;
Total cash assistance caseload: 24,276;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,128;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 33;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 40;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 5;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 1;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 54;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Delaware;
Total cash assistance caseload: [B];
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: [B];
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: [B];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: District of Columbia;
Total cash assistance caseload: 16,747;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,216;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 19;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Florida;
Total cash assistance caseload: 62,877;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 35,950;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 57;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Georgia;
Total cash assistance caseload: 54,168;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 24,717;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 46;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 100;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Hawaii;
Total cash assistance caseload: 17,717;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,285;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 13;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Idaho;
Total cash assistance caseload: 2,257;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 945;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 42;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 100;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Illinois;
Total cash assistance caseload: 54,723;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 21,977;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 40;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 57;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 10;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 27;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 4;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 2.
State: Indiana;
Total cash assistance caseload: 47,073;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 9,342;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 20;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Iowa;
Total cash assistance caseload: 20,328;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,986;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 25;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Kansas;
Total cash assistance caseload: 13,534;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,454;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 33;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 35;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 4;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 5;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 56;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Kentucky;
Total cash assistance caseload: 35,703;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 15,716;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 44;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 15;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 85.
State: Louisiana;
Total cash assistance caseload: 25,878;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 11,560;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 45;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 55;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Maine;
Total cash assistance caseload: 10,525;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,504;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 24;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Maryland;
Total cash assistance caseload: 29,537;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 9,525;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 18;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 1;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 1;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 76;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 5;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Massachusetts;
Total cash assistance caseload: 45,347;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 16,648;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 37;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Michigan;
Total cash assistance caseload: 72,905;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 23,204;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 54;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 3;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 3;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 40;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Minnesota;
Total cash assistance caseload: 39,893;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,321;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 21;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Mississippi;
Total cash assistance caseload: 17,251;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 7,730;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Missouri;
Total cash assistance caseload: 46,486;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 11,584;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 25;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 50;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 1;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 49;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Montana;
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,263;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,135;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 22;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 37;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 7;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 56;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Nebraska;
Total cash assistance caseload: 10,887;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,325;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 31;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 64;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 36;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Nevada;
Total cash assistance caseload: 10,386;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,236;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 31;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 9;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 12;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 76;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 3;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: New Hampshire;
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,794;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,685;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 29;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 30;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 51;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 19;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: New Jersey;
Total cash assistance caseload: 40,908;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 13,895;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 34;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: New Mexico;
Total cash assistance caseload: 19,745;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,961;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 15;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: New York;
Total cash assistance caseload: 199,481;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 63,143;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: North Carolina;
Total cash assistance caseload: 44,997;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 22,586;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 50;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: North Dakota;
Total cash assistance caseload: 3,036;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 744;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 25;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 18;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 50;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Ohio;
Total cash assistance caseload: 84,104;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 37,877;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Oklahoma;
Total cash assistance caseload: 14,501;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 6,452;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 44;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 34;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 6;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 60;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Oregon;
Total cash assistance caseload: 17,099;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 6,041;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 35;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 28;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 25;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 3;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 37;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 7;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Total cash assistance caseload: 88,090;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 24,386;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 28;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Rhode Island;
Total cash assistance caseload: 16,943;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,022;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 18;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 52;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 16;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: South Carolina;
Total cash assistance caseload: 18,384;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,224;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 41;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 1;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 58;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: South Dakota;
Total cash assistance caseload: 2,715;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,556;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 57;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 22;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 78;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Tennessee;
Total cash assistance caseload: 63,427;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 17,506;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 28;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 41;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 58;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Texas;
Total cash assistance caseload: 132,788;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 45,210;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 34;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 38;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 11;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 51.
State: Utah;
Total cash assistance caseload: 8,245;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,403;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 29;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 30;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 70;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Vermont;
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,475;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 897;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 16;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 56;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 44;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Virginia;
Total cash assistance caseload: 29,846;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 7,930;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 27;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Washington;
Total cash assistance caseload: 53,705;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 17,099;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 28;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 21;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 48;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 3;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: West Virginia;
Total cash assistance caseload: 14,525;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,440;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 31;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: Wisconsin;
Total cash assistance caseload: 19,160;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 11,608;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 61;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 51;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 49;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 0;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 0.
State: Wyoming;
Total cash assistance caseload: 465;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 339;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 73;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 100.
State: US. total/average;
Total cash assistance caseload: 2,132,284;
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 736,045;
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 35;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
receiving SSI: 14;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is
ineligible noncitizen: 14;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent
received sanction: 4;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental
caregivers: 23;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other
reasons: 3;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason:
Unknown/states could not report data: 43.
[A] Florida and Illinois do not have federally funded child-only cases.
Therefore, calculations for these states are based on state-funded
child-only cases. Six other states have small numbers of state-funded
child-only cases such that the percentage of the cash assistance
caseload that is child-only would only increase by less than 1
percentage point if the state-funded child-only cases were included.
[B] Not available.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for Fall 2001, by State:
State: Alabama:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 44.
State: Alaska:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 45.
State: Arizona:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 38.
State: Arkansas:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 32.
State: California:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 81.
State: Colorado:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 47.
State: Connecticut:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 23.
State: Delaware:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A].
State: District of Columbia:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 38.
State: Florida:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 31.
State: Georgia:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 6.
State: Hawaii:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 57.
State: Idaho:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 44.
State: Illinois:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 60.
State: Indiana:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 65.
State: Iowa:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A].
State: Kansas:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 73.
State: Kentucky:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 86.
State: Louisiana:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 48.
State: Maine:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A].
State: Maryland:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 66.
State: Massachusetts:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 75.
State: Michigan:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 32.
State: Minnesota:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 57.
State: Mississippi:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 18.
State: Missouri:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 36.
State: Montana:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 89.
State: Nebraska:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 74.
State: Nevada:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 69.
State: New Hampshire:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 25.
State: New Jersey:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 44.
State: New Mexico:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 36.
State: New York:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 34.
State: North Carolina:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 51.
State: North Dakota:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 30.
State: Ohio:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 78.
State: Oklahoma:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 31.
State: Oregon:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 50.
State: Pennsylvania:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 32.
State: Rhode Island:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 46.
State: South Carolina:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 49.
State: South Dakota:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 42.
State: Tennessee:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 52.
State: Texas:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 62.
State: Utah:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 26.
State: Vermont:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 22.
State: Virginia:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 30.
State: Washington:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 93.
State: West Virginia:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A].
State: Wisconsin:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 91.
State: Wyoming:
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 76.
State: U.S. Average;
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 56.
[A] Not available. Four states were unable to provide us with
information on the percent of adults participating in a state-defined
work-activity.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: State Percentages of TANF or MOE-Funded Families with Adult
Recipients Not Subject to Federal or State Time Limits:
State: Alabama:
Percentage: 1.
State: Alaska:
Percentage: 0.
State: Arizona:
Percentage: 76.
State: Arkansas:
Percentage: 0.
State: California:
Percentage: 0.
State: Colorado:
Percentage: 0.
State: Connecticut:
Percentage: 27.
State: Delaware:
Percentage: [A].
State: District of Columbia:
Percentage: 2.
State: Florida:
Percentage: 2.
State: Georgia:
Percentage: 0.
State: Hawaii:
Percentage: 27.
State: Idaho:
Percentage: 0.
State: Illinois:
Percentage: 34.
State: Indiana:
Percentage: 7.
State: Iowa:
Percentage: 0.
State: Kansas:
Percentage: 1.
State: Kentucky:
Percentage: 0;
State: Louisiana:
Percentage: 0.
State: Maine:
Percentage: 25.
State: Maryland:
Percentage: 9.
State: Massachusetts:
Percentage: 53.
State: Michigan:
Percentage: 8.
State: Minnesota:
Percentage: 10.
State: Mississippi:
Percentage: 0.
State: Missouri:
Percentage: 6.
State: Montana:
Percentage: 0.
State: Nebraska:
Percentage: 26.
State: Nevada:
Percentage: 0.
State: New Hampshire:
Percentage: 3.
State: New Jersey:
Percentage: 0.
State: New Mexico:
Percentage: 0.
State: New York:
Percentage: 28.
State: North Carolina:
Percentage: 0.
State: North Dakota:
Percentage: 0.
State: Ohio:
Percentage: 4.
State: Oklahoma:
Percentage: 1.
State: Oregon:
Percentage: 97.
State: Pennsylvania:
Percentage: 2.
State: Rhode Island:
Percentage: 6.
State: South Carolina:
Percentage: 26.
State: South Dakota:
Percentage: 0.
State: Tennessee:
Percentage: 29.
State: Texas:
Percentage: 0.
State: Utah:
Percentage: 4.
State: Vermont:
Percentage: 7.
State: Virginia:
Percentage: 54.
State: Washington:
Percentage: 0.
State: West Virginia:
Percentage: 0.
State: Wisconsin:
Percentage: 0.
State: Wyoming:
Percentage: 6.
Note: States with higher percentages may be due to existing state
waivers that allow more flexibility with federal time limits.
[A] Delaware was not able to provide us with data on families excluded
from time limits.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on State Funding, Application
of Time Limits, and Use of 20 Percent Extension:
State: Alabama:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Alaska:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Arizona:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Arkansas:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: California:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Colorado:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Connecticut:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Delaware:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [D].
State: District of Columbia:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Florida:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Georgia:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Hawaii:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Idaho:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Illinois:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Indiana:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Iowa:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Kansas:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Kentucky:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Louisiana:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Maine:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Maryland:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Michigan:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check][A];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Minnesota:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Mississippi:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Missouri:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Montana:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Nebraska:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Nevada:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: New Hampshire:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: New Jersey:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: New Mexico:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: New York:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: North Carolina:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: North Dakota:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Ohio:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Oklahoma:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Oregon:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check][B];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Rhode Island:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: South Carolina:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: South Dakota:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Tennessee:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Texas:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Utah:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Vermont:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check][C];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Virginia:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Washington:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: West Virginia:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Empty];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Check];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check].
State: Wisconsin:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Check];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Wyoming:
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs:
[Check];
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: [Empty];
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty];
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey:
[Empty];
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty].
State: Total;
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 33;
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE
funds: 26;
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: 22;
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 22;
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: 15.
[A] Michigan uses the 20 percent hardship extension to all families
that reach a time limit and are cooperating with program requirements.
[B] Oregon currently operates under a waiver and exempts from time
limits all families that are participating in self-sufficiency
activities.
[C] Vermont will extend assistance to all families that reach the 60
month time limit.
[D] Delaware was not able to provide data on their use of the federal
20 percent extension.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults Who Can Receive Time-Limit
Extension:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) specifies that up to 20 percent of families receiving TANF
assistance in each state can receive an extension to the 60 month
federal time limit. Based on our analysis of survey data, we estimated
that the maximum percentage of adults who could receive extensions
ranged from 24 to 77 percent among the states, depending on the size of
each state‘s child-only caseload. For example, Wyoming may extend time
limits for up to 92 families, which represents 20 percent of the 458
TANF families in Wyoming. However, because almost three-fourths of its
TANF families are child-only, only 119 families with adults would have
time limits in place. This means that the state could provide
extensions to 92 of the 119 TANF families with adults; this represents
77 percent rather than 20 percent of TANF families with adults. In
contrast, in New Mexico, with its much smaller percentage of child-only
families (15 percent), the maximum percentage of time-limit extensions
that may be provided to families with adults is 24 percent rather than
20 percent.
State: Wyoming;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 458;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 92;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 339;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 74;
TANF families with an adult: 119;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 77.
State: Wisconsin;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 18,674;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,735;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 11,608;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 62;
TANF families with an adult: 7,066;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 53.
State: Florida;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 60,702;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 12,140;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 35,950;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 59;
TANF families with an adult: 24,752;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 49.
State: South Dakota;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 2,715;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 543;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,556;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 57;
TANF families with an adult: 1,159;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 47.
State: North Carolina;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 44,997;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 8,999;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 22,586;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 50;
TANF families with an adult: 22,411;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 40.
State: Georgia;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 53,678;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 10,736;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 24,717;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 46;
TANF families with an adult: 28,961;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 37.
State: Alabama;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 19,075;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,815;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,636;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45;
TANF families with an adult: 10,439;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 37.
State: Ohio;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 84,104;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 16,821;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 37,877;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45;
TANF families with an adult: 46,227;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: Mississippi;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 17,251;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,450;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 7,730;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45;
TANF families with an adult: 9,521;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: South Carolina;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 18,384;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,677;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,224;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45;
TANF families with an adult: 10,160;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: Louisiana;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 25,878;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 5,176;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 11,560;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45;
TANF families with an adult: 14,318;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: Oklahoma;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 14,501;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,900;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 6,452;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 44;
TANF families with an adult: 8,049;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: Arizona;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 37,408;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,482;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 16,479;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 44;
TANF families with an adult: 20,929;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: Kentucky;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 35,703;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,141;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 15,716;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 44;
TANF families with an adult: 19,987;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 36.
State: Arkansas;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 12,163;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,433;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 5,163;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 42;
TANF families with an adult: 7,000;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 35.
State: Idaho;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 2,257;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 451;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 945;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 42;
TANF families with an adult: 1,312;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 34.
State: Illinois;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 53,956;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 10,791;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 21,977;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 41;
TANF families with an adult: 31,979;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 34.
State: California;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 447,889;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 89,578;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 169,756;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 38;
TANF families with an adult: 278,133;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 32.
State: Colorado;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 12,711;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,542;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,785;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 38;
TANF families with an adult: 7,926;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 32.
State: New York;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 170,700;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 34,140;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 63,143;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 37;
TANF families with an adult: 107,557;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 32.
State: Massachusetts;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 45,347;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 9,069;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 16,648;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 37;
TANF families with an adult: 28,699;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 32.
State: Connecticut;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 22,901;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 4,580;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,272;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 36;
TANF families with an adult: 14,629;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 31.
State: Texas;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 126,437;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 25,287;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 45,210;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 36;
TANF families with an adult: 81,227;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 31.
State: Oregon;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 17,099;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,420;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 6,041;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 35;
TANF families with an adult: 11,058;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 31.
State: New Jersey;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 39,454;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,891;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 13,895;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 35;
TANF families with an adult: 25,559;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 31.
State: Maryland;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 27,929;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 5,586;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 9,611;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 34;
TANF families with an adult: 18,318;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 30.
State: Nevada;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 9,813;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,963;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,236;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 33;
TANF families with an adult: 6,577;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 30.
State: Kansas;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 13,534;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,707;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,454;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 33;
TANF families with an adult: 9,080;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 30.
State: Washington;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 53,705;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 10,741;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 17,136;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 32;
TANF families with an adult: 36,569;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 29.
State: Michigan;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 72,905;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 14,581;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 23,204;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 32;
TANF families with an adult: 49,701;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 29.
State: West Virginia;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 14,525;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,905;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,440;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 31;
TANF families with an adult: 10,085;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 29.
State: Nebraska;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 10,887;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,177;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,325;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 31;
TANF families with an adult: 7,562;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 29.
State: Utah;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 8,172;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,634;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,403;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 29;
TANF families with an adult: 5,769;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 28.
State: New Hampshire;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,794;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,159;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,685;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 29;
TANF families with an adult: 4,109;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 28.
State: Tennessee;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 62,516;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 12,503;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 17,506;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 28;
TANF families with an adult: 45,010;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 28.
State: Maine;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 8,962;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,792;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,509;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 28;
TANF families with an adult: 6,435;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 28.
State: Pennsylvania;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 88,090;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 17,618;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 24,386;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 28;
TANF families with an adult: 63,704;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 28.
State: Virginia;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 29,054;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 5,811;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 7,930;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 27;
TANF families with an adult: 21,124;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 28.
State: Missouri;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 43,649;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 8,730;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 11,584;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 27;
TANF families with an adult: 32,065;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 27.
State: Iowa;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 20,328;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 4,066;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,986;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 25;
TANF families with an adult: 15,342;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 26.
State: North Dakota;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 3,036;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 607;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 744;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 25;
TANF families with an adult: 2,292;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 26.
State: Montana;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,225;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,045;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,135;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 22;
TANF families with an adult: 4,090;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 26.
State: Minnesota;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 38,893;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,979;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,366;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 21;
TANF families with an adult: 31,527;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 25.
State: Indiana;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 45,138;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 9,028;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 9,342;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 21;
TANF families with an adult: 35,796;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 25.
State: District of Columbia;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 16,496;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,299;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,216;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 19;
TANF families with an adult: 13,280;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 25.
State: Rhode Island;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 15,733;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,147;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,022;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 19;
TANF families with an adult: 12,711;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 25.
State: Alaska;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,709;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,142;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,080;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 19;
TANF families with an adult: 4,629;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 25.
State: Hawaii;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 12,401;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,480;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,285;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 18;
TANF families with an adult: 10,116;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 25.
State: Vermont;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,165;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,033;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 897;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 17;
TANF families with an adult: 4,268;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 24.
State: New Mexico;
Total number of TANF families[A]: 19,300;
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,860;
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,961;
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 15;
TANF families with an adult: 16,339;
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 24.
State: Delaware;
Total number of TANF families[A]: [B];
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): [B];
Number of TANF families who are child-only: [B];
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: [B];
TANF families with an adult: [B];
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: [B].
Weighted average:
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit
extension: 31.
[A] Includes child-only cases and excludes families provided assistance
through separate state programs.
[B] Data not available.
Source: GAO survey, fall 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
June 26, 2002:
Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Fagnoni:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They
Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits." The comments represent
the tentative position of the Department and are subject to
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Janet Rehnquist:
Inspector General:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office
reports. The OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
Enclosure:
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The General
Accounting Office's Draft Report "Welfare Reform: With TANF
Flexibility, States Vary In How They Implement Work Requirements And
Time Limits" (GAO-02-770):
General Comments:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this proposed final report, which addresses
critical provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) on time limits and work
requirements. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program was designed to help needy families reduce their dependence on
welfare and move toward economic independence. Under TANF, States are
required to engage an increasing percentage of adults in work or work
activities each year, and families with adults can only receive Federal
assistance for 60 months. The report contains no recommendations, but
concludes with observations.
GAO Concluding Observations:
Although States have had TANF programs in place for 5 years now, their
experiences with key elements of TANF are still evolving. The dramatic
caseload decline that greatly reduced the Federally-required
participation rates gave States greater flexibility in implementing
work requirements. With this flexibility, the extent of involvement of
TANF adults in Federally- or State-required activities varied greatly
among the States. On the one hand, this means States have adapted their
programs to meet State and local goals and needs. On the other hand, it
means States with relatively low participation rates have more limited
experience than other States in involving welfare recipients in work
activities. This may affect their ability to meet Federal participation
rate requirements in the future. In addition, many States have used the
flexibility allowed them in using State maintenance of effort funds
(MOE) to exclude families from or to extend Federal time limits. In
this way, States could ensure a safety net for families that State
program officials had determined needed more time to become self-
sufficient or were unable to support themselves. Because so many
families have not yet reached their time limits, much remains unknown
about choices States will make in enforcing time limits and whether an
appropriate balance will be struck between ensuring a safety net for
families in need and creating a transitional aid system that promotes
work and personal responsibility.
Two issues that warrant attention in the future include wider
implementation of the 20 percent Federal time limit extension and
States' use of separate State programs to provide cash assistance.
First, as we reported, the 20 percent time limit extension, when
applied to adults, represents a larger and varying share of adults
among the States than when applied to all families, including child-
only cases. As this extension policy is more widely used in the years
ahead, it will be important to understand whether the 20 percent
extension, as currently calculated, affords all States the access
needed to support families experiencing hardship while still supporting
the Federal goal of reducing welfare dependence. Second, with the use
of State MOE through separate State programs, a not insignificant
number of families-and potentially more in the years to come-receive
cash assistance although they are not counted in welfare caseload data
routinely reported by HHS. With continuing attention focused on the
number of families receiving cash assistance and whether PRWORA has
successfully reduced dependence on welfare, it is important that
program administrators and policymakers have information on the size of
the separate State program caseload. These data should be more
regularly available to consider, along with TANF caseload data, as HHS
has recently begun to collect and report information on States'
separate programs.
Department Comments:
The Department generally agrees with the background and findings of the
report:
* Of the 2.1 million families receiving TANF assistance in the fall of
2001, 736,000 cases or one-third were child-only cases, not subject to
time limits or work requirements. Twenty-six States provided assistance
to 110,000 families, or about five percent, through separate State
programs, which are also not subject to TANF requirements.
* The caseload reduction credit States derive from declines in
caseloads has dramatically reduced or eliminated participation rate
requirements for States; thus, States have increased flexibility to
determine the number of adults required to participate in work
activities; and the percentage engaged in such activities varies
greatly among the States, ranging from six percent to more than 70
percent.
* States excluded about 154,000 hardship or hard to employ families
from time limits or about 11 percent of the 1.4 million families with
an adult receiving cash assistance.
As the report highlights, TANF gives States funding flexibility, which
allows States to exempt some families from Federal time limits. The
TANF establishes a 60-month time limit, but this Federal limit does not
apply to all forms of aid or to all families:
1. The time limit only applies to families receiving "assistance"
designed to meet a family's ongoing basic needs and does not apply to
non-assistance services.
2. Time limits do not apply to "child-only" cases in which an adult is
not receiving assistance or in Indian country where 50 percent of
adults are not employed.
3. Assistance that is provided using State MOE funds is not subject to
the Federal time limit.
4. A State may use Federal funds to extend assistance beyond 60 months
for hardship for up to 20 percent of the entire caseload.
In fiscal year 2000, States were required to meet a work participation
rate of 40 percent for all TANF families and a much higher 90 percent
rate for two-parent families. However caseload declines that reduce
these participation rate requirements and the use of MOE funds also
give States considerable flexibility in implementing work requirements.
Consider the following:
* With a national caseload decline of 52 percent, the overall
participation rate for 31 States was adjusted downward from 40 percent
to 0 percent.
* Even with low or no participation requirements, about 30 percent of
TANF adults were meeting participation requirements nationwide;
however, the rates varied greatly among States.
* While Federal work requirements do not apply in separate State
programs, States typically impose their own work requirements on these
families.
The Administration for Children and Families has also provided guidance
and technical assistance to help States recognize and use the
flexibility outlined by GAO in this report to design temporary and
effective work programs and supports for low-income working families.
States are increasingly using this broad flexibility to develop
strategies that will help recipients enter work, improve wages and
sustain careers, as Congress considers the reauthorization of the TANF
program.
The heart of welfare reform is encouraging and supporting work. While
States have done a tremendous job of moving families into the workforce
over the last 5 years, the GAO findings noted above also clearly
demonstrate that more needs to be done to engage the nearly one million
adults who are not engaged in activities leading to work. To address
this need, the President's proposal for reauthorization, "Working
Toward Independence," strengthened work rules to ensure that all
families are fully engaged in work and activities that lead to self-
sufficiency. The proposal:
* maintains the current level of funding and increases State
flexibility;
* creates a new universal engagement requirement;
* increases the minimum participation rate requirements for all
families to 70 percent over time, and eliminates the separate
participation requirement for two-parent families;
* requires families to participate 40 hours a week, 24 of which must be
in direct work activities;
* phases out the caseload reduction credit while allowing States to
count families that leave welfare due to work in the participation rate
for 3 months, and;
* retains the 5-year lifetime limit and 20 percent hardship exemption.
Reflecting agreement with the President's emphasis on work and modeled
on the Administration's proposal, the House-passed reauthorization
bill, H.R. 4737, incorporates these provisions, with a modified
caseload reduction credit.
The Department appreciates the sensitivity of these issues, and as we
move into the next phase of welfare reform under reauthorization, we
will monitor and pay close attention to these and other issues.
[End of enclosure]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Sigurd Nilsen (202) 512-7003:
Gale Harris (202) 512-7235:
Katrina Ryan (202) 512-3214:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report: Elisabeth Anderson, Kara Kramer,
and Kim Reniero. Patrick DiBattista and Beverly Ross also provided key
technical assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to
Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-
615T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Services to Many Low-Income
Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-564. Washington,
D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Are Using TANF Flexibility to Adapt Work
Requirements and Time Limits to Meet State and Local Needs. GAO-02-
501T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2002.
Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Efforts Could Help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments Toward Employment. GAO-
02-37. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal
Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce.
GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important Role
in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated
Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2000.
Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families
Affected. GAO/HEHS-00-44. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare-to-Work
Approaches. GAO/HEHS-99-179. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999.
Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients‘ Status. GAO/HEHS-99-
48. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 1999.
Welfare Reform: States‘ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance
to TANF Clients. GAO/HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1999.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] We visited California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York and
conducted telephone interviews with Colorado, Hawaii, Florida,
Michigan, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin. The states
were selected to represent a range of factors, including variation in
caseload size and in TANF program funding choices. The survey had a 100
percent response rate, although each state did not respond to all
questions.
[2] This represents the number of families receiving cash assistance
during 1 month between October and December of 2001.
[3] ’Assistance“ does not include things like nonrecurrent, short-term
benefits, such as rent deposits or appliance repairs; work subsidies;
work supports such as child care or transportation subsidies for
working families; or any other services such as counseling, case
management, and peer support that do not provide basic income support.
[4] HHS has indicated that it would be inconsistent with statutory
intent for states to simply remove adults from assistance units once
they reach their 60-month time limit and then continue to use federal
dollars to pay benefits to the children as a child-only unit. States
may choose to use their MOE funds to do this.
[5] States can elect the Family Violence Option allowing states to
waive any TANF requirement, under certain conditions, for victims of
domestic violence. If a state elects the Family Violence Option and
waives the time limits for such recipients and later faces a penalty
for extensions that exceed the 20 percent cap, the state may qualify
for a reasonable cause penalty exception.
[6] States may not penalize parents with children under age 6 for not
working if child care is not available. States have the flexibility to
exclude other categories of recipients from work requirements, although
they cannot remove these individuals from the work participation
calculation.
[7] States may choose to exempt parents with children under age 1 from
calculation in the work participation rate. Work activities that count
for federal participation rate purposes include employment, work
experience programs, on-the-job training, community service, providing
child care for other TANF recipients, job search, and (under certain
circumstances) education and training.
[8] An individual counts as engaged in work each month if he or she
participates in work activities during the month for an average of at
least 30 hours per week. A parent with a child under age 6 will count
as engaged in work if he or she participates for at least an average of
20 hours per week.
[9] The two-parent work participation rate of 90 percent means that
each two-parent family must participate in a federally defined work
activity for an average of at least 35 hours per week and that a
specified number of hours be attributable to specific work activities. A
state may have one parent participate for all 35 hours, or both parents
may share in the work activities. HHS issued penalties for not meeting
the two-parent work participation rate in fiscal year 2000 to Alaska,
Arkansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin.
[10] Nineteen states have chosen a time limit shorter than 60 months as
allowed by PRWORA, with the most common limit being 24 months.
[11] HHS required state information on separate state programs if a
state wanted to qualify for the caseload reduction credit or the high
performance bonus. PRWORA included a high performance bonus provision
to reward states that are the most successful in achieving the goals
and purposes of the TANF program. A total of $1 billion is available in
fiscal years 1999 through 2003. For more information on what states
reported to HHS on separate state programs, see HHS‘s 2001 Fourth
Annual Report to Congress (Washington D.C.: April 2002).
[12] Connecticut has a small number of state-funded child-only cases
that are subject to a state-imposed time limit on state-funded
assistance. The time limit exclusion rules in Connecticut‘s separate
state program are the same for both recipient and non-recipient
parents.
[13] Some households may include parents who are illegal immigrants or
legal immigrants ineligible for cash assistance in addition to children
who are citizens and eligible for cash assistance.
[14] States can sanction individuals not complying with TANF program
requirements by taking away part or all their TANF cash benefits and
possibly other public benefits as well.
[15] For more information on TANF and persons with disabilities, see
our report entitled: U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform:
More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move
TANF Recipients with Impairments toward Employment, GAO-02-37
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2002).
[16] Our survey asked, ’What percentage of your (adult) TANF caseload
was involved in work or work-related activities (as defined by your
state)?“
[17] If data for the federal participation rate and the state-defined
rate were available for similar time periods, comparisons could be made
to determine the extent to which each state included in the state-
defined rate TANF recipients who were not included in the federal
participation rate. However, the data available are for different time
periods. In addition, while federal law determines who is to be counted
in the numerator and the denominator when calculating the federal
participation rates, states may have used different definitions of
’TANF caseload“ when responding to our question.
[18] The caseload reduction credit would also decrease the 90 percent
work participation requirement for two-parent families; however, some
states told us that they still moved two-parent families into separate
state programs because they did not want to rely on caseload reductions
to avoid a financial penalty.
[19] In our survey, we asked states to provide us with information for
the most recent month for which they had complete data. Most states
reported numbers from a month in the first quarter of federal fiscal
year 2002.
[20] If the 736,045 child-only cases, which are not subject to time
limits, are included in the caseload, the overall percentage of TANF
families that is excluded from a time limit is 42 percent.
[21] Eight states exclude federally funded families from time limits
because of pre-existing waivers to their welfare programs that allow
them to exempt federally funded families from the federal time limit.
These states are Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In addition, Connecticut was
operating under a waiver through September 2001. As a result, the
federal clock did not start on federally funded families who were
exempt from Connecticut‘s state time limit until October 2001.
Therefore, Connecticut can extend cash assistance to some of its
federally funded families well beyond 60 months without using the
federal 20 percent extension.
[22] States responded to our survey using their most recent month of
data available”generally a month in the first quarter of fiscal year
2002 (October through December of 2001).
[23] The maximum time-limit extension can also be affected by how
states choose to structure their funding and by their recent experience
with caseload decline. First, families funded with segregated state
funds are taken into account when determining the maximum number of
families who may receive extensions but are not themselves in need of an
extension because they are not subject to federal time limits. Second,
states may choose to use the prior year‘s caseload numbers to calculate
their 20 percent extension rather than the current year.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
