Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Implications of Changes in Participation Rates Gao ID: GAO-10-495T March 11, 2010This testimony is based on our report entitled "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession's Impact on Caseloads Varies by State." As a result of sweeping changes made to federal welfare policy in 1996 with the creation of TANF, welfare changed from a program entitling eligible families to monthly cash payments under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to a capped block grant that emphasized employment and work supports for most adult participants who receive such assistance. With the creation of TANF, the number of families who received cash assistance fell significantly, from 4.8 million families on average each month in 1995--just prior to the creation of TANF--to 1.7 million in 2008. During this time frame, poverty among all children initially fell, from about 21 percent in 1995 to about 16 percent in 2000, and then rose thereafter to 19 percent in 2008. Most families receiving cash assistance are single mothers with children, and children in such families have historically experienced high rates of poverty. Furthermore, the recession, which began in late 2007 and deepened nationally in 2008, put additional pressures on families living in poverty, especially families with children, who are particularly vulnerable. Under the TANF block grant program, created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), states receive federal funds to design and operate their own welfare programs within federal guidelines. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the TANF program, which provides states with up to about $16.5 billion each year in TANF block grant funds, and each state must contribute a specified level of its own funds to qualify for the grant. In addition, under TANF, states must involve a minimum percentage of their adult TANF cash assistance recipients in work activities for a required number of hours each week. They must also restrict most families to a lifetime limit of 60 months of federally funded TANF cash assistance. Within certain limitations, states set their own eligibility limits and benefit levels for cash recipients. States also impose financial consequences, or sanctions, on families that do not comply with TANF work or other requirements, and many states have also implemented programs or strategies intended to divert families from cash assistance. To help states in an economic downturn, PRWORA created a TANF contingency fund of up to $2 billion, and most recently, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 made an additional $5 billion available to states for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 through a new Emergency Contingency Fund.
First, with regard to the decline in the number of poor families receiving cash assistance from 1995 to 2005, we found that the changes reflect declines on two fronts--both in the number of eligible families and in the number of eligible families who participated in the program. The strong economy of the 1990s, TANF's focus on work, and other factors such as increases in the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit contributed to increased family incomes, which in turn led to a decline in the number of families eligible for TANF cash assistance. We also found that changes to eligibility rules, such as restrictions on immigrants and the 60-month time limit, had a small impact on the number of eligible families. According to our research, the decline in participation reflected, among other things, families' responses to changes in state welfare programs, including mandatory work activities, declining cash benefit levels, and time limits as well as state diversion strategies and sanctions for non-compliance with work and other program requirements. According to a research synthesis conducted for HHS, mandated work activities may have caused declines in the caseload, as families chose not to apply rather than be expected to fulfill the requirement to work. Other families may have found it difficult to apply for or continue to participate in the program, especially those with poor mental or physical health or other characteristics that make employment difficult, as we noted in previous work. In examining the characteristics of eligible nonparticipants and TANF participants, we found that eligible families not participating in TANF had higher annual incomes on average than TANF participants in 2005, but that a small but distinct subgroup of non-participants had lower incomes than TANF participants. With regard to child poverty, we found that if the percent of eligible families participating in TANF in 2005 was 84 percent--the rate of participation in AFDC in 1995--rather than about 40 percent, an estimated 3.3 million families would gain TANF benefits and experience an increase in their net income. According to our TRIM3 analysis, this higher participation would have resulted in 800,000 fewer children in extreme poverty--defined as those with incomes below half the federal poverty threshold. In terms of more recent TANF trends, the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance increased in 12 of the 21 states we reviewed between June 2008 and June 2009, although the recession's impact on cash assistance caseloads varied widely by state, according to state-provided data.
GAO-10-495T, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Changes in Participation Rates
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-495T
entitled 'Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: Implications of
Changes in Participation Rates' which was released on March 11, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Thursday, March 11, 2010:
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families:
Implications of Changes in Participation Rates:
Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director: Education, Workforce, and Income
Security:
GAO-10-495T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's
discussion of the role of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program in providing assistance to low-income families. My
remarks to you are based on our report, released today, entitled
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have
Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession's Impact
on Caseloads Varies by State.[Footnote 1] As you know, as a result of
sweeping changes made to federal welfare policy in 1996 with the
creation of TANF, welfare changed from a program entitling eligible
families to monthly cash payments under Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) to a capped block grant that emphasized employment and
work supports for most adult participants who receive such assistance.
With the creation of TANF, the number of families who received cash
assistance fell significantly, from 4.8 million families on average
each month in 1995--just prior to the creation of TANF--to 1.7 million
in 2008. During this time frame, poverty among all children initially
fell, from about 21 percent in 1995 to about 16 percent in 2000, and
then rose thereafter to 19 percent in 2008. Most families receiving
cash assistance are single mothers with children, and children in such
families have historically experienced high rates of poverty.
Furthermore, the recession, which began in late 2007 and deepened
nationally in 2008, put additional pressures on families living in
poverty, especially families with children, who are particularly
vulnerable.
Under the TANF block grant program, created by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA), states receive federal funds to design and operate their own
welfare programs within federal guidelines. The Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) administers the TANF program, which provides
states with up to about $16.5 billion each year in TANF block grant
funds, and each state must contribute a specified level of its own
funds to qualify for the grant. In addition, under TANF, states must
involve a minimum percentage of their adult TANF cash assistance
recipients in work activities for a required number of hours each
week. They must also restrict most families to a lifetime limit of 60
months of federally funded TANF cash assistance. Within certain
limitations, states set their own eligibility limits and benefit
levels for cash recipients. States also impose financial consequences,
or sanctions, on families that do not comply with TANF work or other
requirements, and many states have also implemented programs or
strategies intended to divert families from cash assistance. To help
states in an economic downturn, PRWORA created a TANF contingency fund
of up to $2 billion, and most recently, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 made an additional $5 billion available to
states for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 through a new Emergency
Contingency Fund.
In light of these issues, my remarks today--based on our February 2010
report--will focus on the following issues: (1) the factors that have
contributed to the decline in the number of families receiving TANF
cash assistance since the 1990s; (2) the characteristics of
participating and nonparticipating eligible families; (3) the impact
of higher participation in TANF cash assistance on child poverty; and,
more recently, (4) the changes states are experiencing in caseloads
and TANF-related spending in the current recession.
To develop our findings for this report, we used multiple
methodologies. These included using microsimulation analyses conducted
for us by the Urban Institute using a model known as TRIM3; analyzing
relevant federal laws and regulations; and reviewing relevant research
on the factors affecting the decline in the number of cash recipient
families.[Footnote 2] When we conducted our work, 2005 was the most
recent year of publicly available TRIM3 data. We also interviewed TANF
officials in 21 selected states; analyzed federal data on cash
assistance caseloads and spending; and interviewed researchers,
federal officials at HHS, and other experts. We assessed the data we
received from TRIM3 and from state agencies for data reliability and
concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
our report.
We conducted our work from November 2008 to February 2010 in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings
and conclusions in this product.[Footnote 3]
Because our report is now released, my written remarks today will be
brief and very summarized.
Factors Contributing to the Decline in the Number of Poor Families
Receiving Cash Assistance:
First, with regard to the decline in the number of poor families
receiving cash assistance from 1995 to 2005, we found that the changes
reflect declines on two fronts--both in the number of eligible
families and in the number of eligible families who participated in
the program. The strong economy of the 1990s, TANF's focus on work,
and other factors such as increases in the minimum wage and the Earned
Income Tax Credit contributed to increased family incomes, which in
turn led to a decline in the number of families eligible for TANF cash
assistance. We also found that changes to eligibility rules, such as
restrictions on immigrants and the 60-month time limit, had a small
impact on the number of eligible families. In total, about 420,000
fewer families were eligible for cash assistance in 2005 than were
eligible in 1995, according to HHS data. However, most of the decline
in the cash assistance caseload--about 87 percent--resulted from fewer
eligible families participating in the program. In 1995, about 84
percent of eligible families participated, but over the decade,
participation in cash assistance fell dramatically, to about 40
percent of eligible families in 2005.[Footnote 4] Correspondingly, the
number of families who were eligible but not participating rose
substantially in this time period to about 3.14 million in 2005. (See
figure 1.)
Figure 1: Families Estimated as Eligible for and Participating in
These Cash Assistance Programs, Monthly Average, by Calendar Year,
1995 through 2005:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Year: 1995;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,690,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 4,800,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 890,000.
Year: 1996;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,600,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 4,430,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 1,170,000.
Year: 1997;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,400,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 3,700,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 1,700,000.
Year: 1998;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,470,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 3,050,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 2,465,000.
Year: 1999;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,070,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,650,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 2,405,000.
Year: 2000;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 4,440,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,300,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 1,140,000.
Year: 2001;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 4,560,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,190,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 2,370,000.
Year: 2002;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 4,550,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,190,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 2,360,000.
Year: 2003;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 4,770,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,180,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 2,590,000.
Year: 2004;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,220,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,190,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 3,030,000.
Year: 2005;
Eligible for AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 5,270,000;
Participating in AFDC or TANF Cash Assistance Programs: 2,130,000;
Eligible, but not participating: 3,140,000.
Source: GAO analysis of data from HHS's Indicators of Welfare
Dependence, based on the TRIM3 model.
[End of figure]
According to our research, the decline in participation reflected,
among other things, families' responses to changes in state welfare
programs, including mandatory work activities, declining cash benefit
levels, and time limits as well as state diversion strategies and
sanctions for non-compliance with work and other program requirements.
According to a research synthesis conducted for HHS, mandated work
activities may have caused declines in the caseload, as families chose
not to apply rather than be expected to fulfill the requirement to
work. Other families may have found it difficult to apply for or
continue to participate in the program, especially those with poor
mental or physical health or other characteristics that make
employment difficult, as we noted in previous work.[Footnote 5] A
decline in average cash benefits may have contributed to the decline
in participation. Average cash benefits under 2005 TANF rules were 17
percent lower than they were under 1995 AFDC rules, according to our
TRIM3 estimates, as cash benefit levels in many states have not been
updated or kept pace with inflation. Research also suggests that, in
response to lifetime limits on the amount of time a family can receive
cash assistance, eligible families may hold off on applying for cash
assistance and "bank" their time, a practice that could contribute to
the decline in families' use of cash assistance. In addition, fewer
families may have applied or completed applications for TANF cash
assistance because of state policies and practices for diverting
applicants from cash assistance; nearly all states have at least one
type of diversion strategy, such as the use of one-time nonrecurring
benefits instead of monthly cash assistance. Finally, some studies and
researchers noted that full sanctions for families' noncompliance--
those that cut off all benefits for a period of time--are associated
with declines in the number of families receiving cash assistance,
although more research is needed to validate this association. While
there is a general consensus that these factors played a role in
contributing to the decline in the number of families receiving cash
assistance, there is not agreement on the relative weight of each
factor, according to researchers and other experts we interviewed.
Characteristics of Nonparticipating Eligible Families Compared with
TANF Families:
In examining the characteristics of eligible nonparticipants and TANF
participants, we found that eligible families not participating in
TANF had higher annual incomes on average than TANF participants in
2005, but that a small but distinct subgroup of non-participants had
lower incomes than TANF participants.[Footnote 6] While all families
who were eligible to receive TANF cash assistance in 2005 had low
incomes, eligible families who did not participate in TANF in any
month in 2005 generally worked more and had relatively higher incomes
and higher education levels than TANF families and were less likely to
receive other public supports. However, a subgroup of families who
were eligible but did not participate in TANF (732,000 families in
2005) did not work or receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits--a cash assistance program for low-income people with
disabilities. This subgroup of more disadvantaged nonparticipants
accounted for 11 percent of all families who were eligible for TANF
cash assistance in 2005, according to our TRIM3 analysis. They had
incomes lower than those of families participating in TANF--a median
of $7,020 compared to $9,606--and a smaller portion of this subgroup
received benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) and subsidized housing. (See figure 2.)
Figure 2: Estimated Eligible Nonparticipating Families as a Share of
Total Eligible Families in 2005, Annual Basis:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Participating in TANF: 40% (2.7 million);
Not participating in TANF, but employed or receiving SSI: 49% (3.2
million);
Not participating in TANF, not employed, and not receiving SSI: 11%
(732,000).
Source: GAO analysis of TRIM3 microsimulation model data.
[End of figure]
Impact of Participation on Child Poverty:
With regard to child poverty, we found that if the percent of eligible
families participating in TANF in 2005 was 84 percent--the rate of
participation in AFDC in 1995--rather than about 40 percent, an
estimated 3.3 million families would gain TANF benefits and experience
an increase in their net income. According to our TRIM3 analysis, this
higher participation would have resulted in 800,000 fewer children in
extreme poverty--defined as those with incomes below half the federal
poverty threshold.[Footnote 7] However, some families would remain in
extreme poverty even with TANF benefits, such as those with no earned
income or with low earned incomes who receive the maximum cash benefit
in their state. Higher participation also would not significantly
change the number of children in poverty overall. This is partly
because many children in poverty are not poor enough to be eligible
for TANF--since the majority of states set TANF eligibility standards
at less than half of the federal poverty guidelines--and also TANF
cash benefits are typically too low to raise the incomes of
participating families above the federal poverty threshold.
Changes in State Caseload and TANF-Related Spending in the Current
Recession:
In terms of more recent TANF trends, the number of families receiving
TANF cash assistance increased in 12 of the 21 states we reviewed
between June 2008 and June 2009, although the recession's impact on
cash assistance caseloads varied widely by state, according to state-
provided data. For instance, over this time period, the number of
families receiving TANF cash assistance increased by 22 percent in
Nevada and decreased by 9 percent in Texas. (See figure 3.)
Figure 3: Percent Change in the Number of Families Receiving TANF Cash
Assistance, by State, June 2008 through June 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the United States]
Arizona: 7% increase;
California: 12% increase;
Colorado: 15% increase;
District of Columbia: 19% increase;
Florida: 14% increase;
Georgia: 3% decrease;
Illinois: 2% increase;
Iowa: 7% increase;
Massachusetts: 3% decrease;
Michigan: 3% decrease;
Mississippi: 1% decrease;
Nevada: 22% increase;
New Hampshire: 38% increase;
New Jersey: 3% decrease;
New York: 1% decrease;
North Carolina: 10% increase;
Ohio: 17% increase;
Pennsylvania: 1% increase;
Rhode Island: 10% decrease;
Texas: 9% decrease;
Washington: 18% increase;
Other states were not surveyed.
Source: GAO analysis of state-provided data.
[End of figure]
We found no clear association between the change in the number of
families receiving cash assistance in a state and its unemployment
rate in this time frame, although the impact of expiring extensions of
unemployment insurance (UI) on state caseloads is hard to predict. For
example, although Illinois, Florida, Georgia, and the District of
Columbia all had similar unemployment rates of between 10 and 11
percent in June 2009, cash assistance caseloads rose to varying
degrees in three of these states while falling in Georgia. (See table
1.) Unemployment is one of many factors--including the state's
eligibility and asset limits, the state's application process, and
other state-specific program characteristics--that may affect a
state's caseload. Officials from eight states believed that the number
of families receiving cash assistance in their states had not
increased, or had not increased as much as might have been expected,
because families were still collecting UI benefits. If jobs are still
not available when UI benefits end, these families may turn to TANF
for cash assistance. However, two experts we interviewed said that
many TANF-eligible single mothers would not likely meet state criteria
for UI receipt.
Table 1: Cash Assistance Caseload Changes and Unemployment Information
in Selected States, June 2008 through June 2009:
State: Arizona;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 7.25%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 8.7%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 3.2%.
State: California;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 11.51%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 11.6%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.5%.
State: Colorado;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 33.29%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 7.6%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 2.8%.
State: District of Columbia;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 8.44%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 10.9%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.1%.
State: Florida;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 14.25%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 10.7%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.7%.
State: Georgia;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -2.50%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 10.1%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.0%.
State: Illinois;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 3.82%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 10.3%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 3.7%.
State: Iowa;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 6.65%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 6.2%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 2.1%.
State: Massachusetts;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -1.91%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 8.6%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 3.5%.
State: Michigan;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -1.71%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 15.2%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 7.1%.
State: Mississippi;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -0.83%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 9.1%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 2.2%.
State: Nevada;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 21.66%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 11.9%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 5.5%.
State: New Hampshire;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 23.39%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 6.8%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 3.1%.
State: New Jersey;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -2.61%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 9.2%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.0%.
State: New York;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -0.28%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 8.7%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 3.4%.
State: North Carolina;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 9.96%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 11.0%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.9%.
State: Ohio;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 16.54%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 11.1%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.7%.
State: Pennsylvania;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 0.68%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 8.4%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 3.1%.
State: Rhode Island;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -21.27%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 12.4%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.7%.
State: Texas;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: -8.51%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 7.5%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 2.7%.
State: Washington;
Percent change in caseload, June 2008 to June 2009: 17.76%;
Unemployment rate June 2009: 9.2%;
Change in unemployment rate June 2008 to June 2009: 4.0%.
Source: GAO analysis of state-provided data and data from U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
Note: In addition to TANF block grant funds, caseload data here
include two kinds of cash assistance provided by states--funds that
count towards state contributions that are required to qualify for the
TANF grant and funds that states provided through solely state-funded
programs.
[End of table]
Finally, to offset higher costs of cash assistance, few states
reported reducing TANF-related spending on family and/or work supports
during this time period, but instead used funding sources such as the
Emergency Contingency Fund that was created by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. According to HHS data, as of October
2009, all 21 surveyed states had applied for funds from the temporary
Emergency Contingency Fund to respond to rising caseloads and/or to
establish or expand subsidized employment programs. Since June 2009,
state and local fiscal conditions have continued to deteriorate, and
the effect of the changes in the economic climate on TANF cash
assistance programs is unknown.
We provided a draft of the report we released today to HHS for its
review, and a copy of the agency's written response is in appendix II
of the report. In its comments, HHS said that the report was
informative and the department did not disagree with our findings. HHS
also provided technical comments on the draft report; in response to
the comments, we made changes where appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For questions about this statement, please contact Kay E. Brown at
(202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this
statement include Alexander G. Galuten, Kathryn A. Larin, Deborah A.
Signer, Shana B. Wallace, and Monique B. Williams.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have
Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession's Impact
on Caseloads Varies by State. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-164] (Washington, D.C.: February
23, 2010).
Poverty in America: Consequences for Individuals and the Economy.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-343T]. Washington,
D.C.: January 24, 2007.
Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in
States' Uses of the TANF Block Grant. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-414]. Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2006.
Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies
to Increase Parents' Incomes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-108]. Washington, D.C.: December 2,
2005.
Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF Work
Participation Is Measured Consistently across States. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-821]. Washington, D.C.: August 19,
2005.
Means-Tested Programs: Information on Program Access Can Be an
Important Management Tool. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-221]. Washington, D.C.: April 11,
2005.
TANF AND SSI: Opportunities Exist to Help People with Impairments
Become More Self-Sufficient. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-878]. Washington, D.C.: September
15, 2004.
Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State Fiscal
Conditions. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-977].
Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003.
Welfare Reform: Former TANF Recipients with Impairments Less Likely to
Be Employed and More Likely to Receive Federal Supports. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-210]. Washington, D.C.: December 6,
2002.
Welfare Reform: Outcomes for TANF Recipients with Impairments.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-884]. Washington, D.C.:
July 8, 2002.
Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They
Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-770]. Washington, D.C.: July 5, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to
Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-615T]. Washington,
D.C.: April 10, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Are Using TANF Flexibility to Adapt Work
Requirements and Time Limits to Meet State and Local Needs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-501T]. Washington,
D.C.: March 7, 2002.
Welfare Reform: Progress in Meeting Work-Focused TANF Goals.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-522T]. Washington,
D.C.: March 15, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients into the Workforce.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-368]. Washington, D.C.:
March 15, 2001.
Unemployment Insurance: Role as Safety Net for Low-Wage Workers Is
Limited. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-181].
Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible
Families Have Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the
Recession's Impact on Caseloads Varies by State, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-164] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23,
2010).
[2] TRIM3 is maintained and developed at the Urban Institute under
primary funding from HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. Using TRIM3 for these analyses required our
input on assumptions and/or interpretations about economic behavior
and the rules governing federal programs. Therefore, the conclusions
presented in this testimony are attributable only to GAO.
[3] For more detailed information on our methodology, see appendix I
of our report (GAO-10-164).
[4] This analysis of the share of eligible and participating families
is based on trend data for an average month by calendar year in HHS's
Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2008
(Washington, D.C.: 2008), which uses TRIM3 to model estimates of the
TANF participation rate. In reporting participants, the data includes
families receiving cash assistance through both TANF and separate
state programs (SSP) using state MOE funds. TRIM3 does not model
certain aspects of program eligibility, such as sanctions from a
family's failure to comply with work rules or child support rules. It
also does not model state diversion strategies such as the use of one-
time, non-recurring benefits, or families' behavioral responses to
TANF program rules, such as staying off TANF to conserve eligibility
for time-limited assistance.
[5] GAO, Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients into the
Workforce, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-368]
(Washington, D. C: Mar. 15, 2001).
[6] The TRIM3 estimates in this analysis are based on annual data. In
comparing the characteristics of cash recipients and eligible
nonrecipients, differences are statistically significant at the 95
percent confidence level unless otherwise noted.
[7] Poverty is measured in the United States using the federal poverty
threshold, which is calculated annually by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Persons or families having income below this threshold amount are, for
statistical purposes, considered to be living in poverty. The poverty
threshold varies by family size and composition but does not vary by
geographic location. Extreme or deep poverty is defined as income
below 50 percent of the federal poverty threshold for a given family.
Poverty is also measured through the poverty guidelines, which are
published annually by HHS and are used by some federal programs in
determining the income eligibility of individuals and families for
need-based assistance. The poverty guidelines are a simplified version
of the Census poverty thresholds.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
