Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates Gao ID: GAO-10-525 May 28, 2010The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and made modifications expected to strengthen work requirements for families receiving cash assistance through state TANF programs. Both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and states were required to take steps to implement these changes. Work participation rates, or the proportion of families receiving TANF cash assistance that participated in work activities, are the key performance measure HHS uses to assess state TANF programs. In response to the economic recession that began in 2007, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), provided additional TANF funding to eligible states and made additional modifications to TANF. GAO examined (1) How did DRA affect state TANF programs, including work participation rates? (2) How has the recent economic recession affected state TANF programs? (3) How did the Recovery Act affect state TANF programs? To address these questions, GAO analyzed federal TANF data, as well as relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; interviewed HHS officials; surveyed all state TANF administrators; and conducted site visits to meet with state and local officials in Florida, Ohio, and Oregon. GAO is not making recommendations in this report.
Nationally, TANF work participation rates changed little after DRA was enacted, though states' rates reflect both recipients' work participation and states' policy choices. Although federal law generally requires that a minimum of 50 percent of families receiving TANF cash assistance in each state participate in work activities, both before and after DRA, about one-third of TANF families nationwide met their work requirements. However, after DRA, many states were able to meet federally required work participation rates because of additional factors. For example, 29 states funded cash assistance for certain families that may be less likely to meet the work requirements with state dollars unconnected to the TANF program, as this removed these families from the rate calculation. Further, DRA required other changes to state TANF programs, and states reported challenges with some of DRA's changes to the TANF work rules, such as verifying participants' actual work hours. From the beginning of the economic recession, in December 2007, to September 2009, the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance, particularly two-parent families, increased in the majority of states but went down in others. At the same time, many states have faced budget deficits and difficult decisions about the use of state resources for TANF programs. Thirty-one states reported that budget constraints led to changes in local TANF service delivery, such as reductions in available services and the number of staff. Forty-six states have applied for the Recovery Act's Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs since it was made available in 2009. More states reported using these funds to maintain their TANF programs rather than expand or create programs and services. Some states reported challenges accessing the funds. For example, some expressed frustration with the amount of time it has taken to receive guidance and responses to questions from HHS, particularly related to qualifying subsidized employment and short-term, nonrecurrent benefit expenditures. State officials also expressed concern about the September 30, 2010, expiration date for the Recovery Act TANF funds.
GAO-10-525, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-525
entitled 'Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: Implications of
Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work
Participation Rates' which was released on June 25, 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2010:
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families:
Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State
Programs and Work Participation Rates:
GAO-10-525:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-525, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) reauthorized the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and made
modifications expected to strengthen work requirements for families
receiving cash assistance through state TANF programs. Both the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and states were required
to take steps to implement these changes. Work participation rates, or
the proportion of families receiving TANF cash assistance that
participated in work activities, are the key performance measure HHS
uses to assess state TANF programs. In response to the economic
recession that began in 2007, the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), provided additional TANF funding to
eligible states and made additional modifications to TANF. GAO
examined (1) How did DRA affect state TANF programs, including work
participation rates? (2) How has the recent economic recession
affected state TANF programs? (3) How did the Recovery Act affect
state TANF programs? To address these questions, GAO analyzed federal
TANF data, as well as relevant federal laws, regulations, and
guidance; interviewed HHS officials; surveyed all state TANF
administrators; and conducted site visits to meet with state and local
officials in Florida, Ohio, and Oregon. GAO is not making
recommendations in this report.
What GAO Found:
Nationally, TANF work participation rates changed little after DRA was
enacted, though states‘ rates reflect both recipients‘ work
participation and states‘ policy choices. Although federal law
generally requires that a minimum of 50 percent of families receiving
TANF cash assistance in each state participate in work activities,
both before and after DRA, about one-third of TANF families nationwide
met their work requirements. However, after DRA, many states were able
to meet federally required work participation rates because of
additional factors. For example, 29 states funded cash assistance for
certain families that may be less likely to meet the work requirements
with state dollars unconnected to the TANF program, as this removed
these families from the rate calculation. Further, DRA required other
changes to state TANF programs, and states reported challenges with
some of DRA‘s changes to the TANF work rules, such as verifying
participants‘ actual work hours.
From the beginning of the economic recession, in December 2007, to
September 2009, the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance,
particularly two-parent families, increased in the majority of states
but went down in others. At the same time, many states have faced
budget deficits and difficult decisions about the use of state
resources for TANF programs. Thirty-one states reported that budget
constraints led to changes in local TANF service delivery, such as
reductions in available services and the number of staff.
Forty-six states have applied for the Recovery Act‘s Emergency
Contingency Fund for state TANF programs since it was made available
in 2009. More states reported using these funds to maintain their TANF
programs rather than expand or create programs and services. Some
states reported challenges accessing the funds. For example, some
expressed frustration with the amount of time it has taken to receive
guidance and responses to questions from HHS, particularly related to
qualifying subsidized employment and short-term, nonrecurrent benefit
expenditures. State officials also expressed concern about the
September 30, 2010, expiration date for the Recovery Act TANF funds.
Figure: Total TANF Recipients and Recent Legislative and Economic
Changes:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Prior to FY 1997: TANF created.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
3.19 million.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
3.20 million.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.67 million.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.36 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.20 million.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.19 million.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.18 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.16 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.09 million.
Fiscal year: 2006; DRA enacted;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.95 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.75 million.
Fiscal year: 2008; Economic downturn began;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.69 million.
Fiscal year: 2009; Recovery Act enacted;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.79 million.
Source: HHS data.
[End of figure]
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-525] or key
components. For more information, contact Kay Brown at (202) 512-7215
or brownke@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
After DRA, States Changed Their TANF Programs, in Part to Affect Work
Participation Rates:
Since the Economic Recession, the Number of TANF Recipients Has
Increased, and Many States Reported Changes to Service Delivery:
Recovery Act TANF Funds Have Helped Many States Maintain Their
Programs, Though Some Reported Challenges Accessing Funds:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Numbers of TANF Families Meeting Work Requirements in
Recent Years:
Appendix III: Factors Affecting States' Ability to Meet Work
Participation Rates:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of States That Did Not Meet the Required Work
Participation Rates, in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008:
Table 2: States' TANF and MOE Expenditures on Pro-Family Activities in
Selected Years Before and After DRA:
Table 3: Purposes for Which States Had Used, or Were Considering
Using, Recovery Act TANF Funds, at the Time of Our Survey:
Table 4: For States That Met Their All-Families Work Participation
Rates in FY 2007, Various Factors May Have Affected This Outcome:
Table 5: For States that Did Not Meet Their All-Families Work
Participation Rates in FY 2007, Various Factors May Have Affected This
Outcome:
Figures:
Figure 1: How State Work Participation Rates Are Calculated:
Figure 2: How States' Choices to Fund Cash Assistance for Selected
Families through SSPs Affected State Work Participation Rates:
Figure 3: How a State's Work Participation Rates Are Calculated When
It Claims Excess MOE Expenditures:
Figure 4: Number of States That Met Their Fiscal Year 2007 All
Families Work Participation Rates Because of Families Engaged in Work,
Caseload Reductions, and Excess MOE Expenditures:
Figure 5: Extent to Which the 22 States That Met Their Fiscal Year
2007 All Families Work Participation Rates in Part because of Excess
MOE Expenditures Relied on Such Expenditures:
Figure 6: States' Choices to Fund Cash Assistance for Selected
Families through SSFs Can Affect Their Work Participation Rates:
Figure 7: Majority of States Used SSFs to Fund Cash Assistance for
Various Groups of Low-Income Families at the Time of Our Survey:
Figure 8: Number of States That Had to Make Changes to Various Aspects
of Their TANF Programs after DRA, by Extent of Change Reported:
Figure 9: Number of States That Continue to Experience Challenges
Implementing Various Aspects of the DRA Changes to TANF Work
Requirements, by Extent of Challenge Reported:
Figure 10: Changes in the Average Monthly Number of Families Receiving
TANF Cash Assistance Since TANF Was Created in Fiscal Year 1997:
Figure 11: Percentage Change in the Total Number of Families Receiving
TANF Cash Assistance, by Type, between December 2007 and September
2009:
Figure 12: Dollars Accessed, as Well as the Number of States
Accessing, the TANF Contingency Fund Since Fiscal Year 1997:
Figure 13: States That Had Been Awarded Emergency Contingency Funds
for TANF, as of March 18, 2010, by Qualifying Increase:
Abbreviations:
DRA: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
MOE: maintenance-of-effort:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996:
SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
SSF: solely state funds:
SSP: separate state program:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act of 1998:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 28, 2010:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Linder:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant
provided cash assistance to 1.8 million low-income families nationwide
in September 2009. About half of those families included an adult or
teen parent who was required to participate in work activities as a
condition of benefit receipt, with the remaining families--often those
in which only the children receive benefits--excluded from these
requirements. TANF work requirements have been in place since the
Congress, through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, imposed them and stated that one of the
purposes of TANF was to end families' dependence on government
benefits by promoting job preparation and work. Further, through the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), which reauthorized the TANF block
grant, the Congress took steps that were generally expected to
strengthen these work requirements by adding several provisions to
improve the reliability of work participation data and program
integrity and by modifying the credit provided to states for reducing
the number of families receiving TANF. Both the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees TANF at the federal
level, and states administering TANF cash assistance programs, were
required to take steps to implement the DRA changes.
In 2007 and 2008, the U.S. economy experienced a severe recession and,
as a result, the Congress passed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which included provisions
affecting TANF. For example, the Recovery Act created the $5 billion
Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs, which states
qualify for based on increases in specific types of TANF expenditures
or the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance.
As DRA and the Recovery Act both made changes to TANF rules in recent
years, little research has examined how states' correspondingly
modified their TANF programs. In response to your request, we answered
the following questions: (1) How did DRA affect state TANF programs,
including work participation rates? (2) How has the recent economic
recession affected state TANF programs? (3) How did the Recovery Act
affect state TANF programs?
As criteria for program implementation, we reviewed relevant federal
laws, regulations, and agency guidance. To answer the questions, we
collected and analyzed information through several methods. At the
federal level, we interviewed HHS officials and reviewed the agency's
TANF data, including the number of families receiving TANF cash
assistance, work participation rates, and federal and state
expenditures, as well as states' applications for the Emergency
Contingency Fund. We determined that these data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report. To gather information from
states about changes to their TANF programs after DRA was enacted, the
economic recession began, and the Recovery Act was enacted,[Footnote
1] we surveyed state TANF administrators from the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, and we conducted site visits in 3 states
(Florida, Ohio, and Oregon). We administered our Web-based survey
between November 2009 and January 2010, and all state TANF
administrators responded. While we did not validate specific
information that administrators reported through our survey, we
reviewed their responses, and we conducted follow-up, as necessary, to
determine that their responses were complete, reasonable, and
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Our site visit
states were selected because they made varied modifications to their
TANF programs after DRA and the Recovery Act, and the number of
families receiving TANF cash assistance in these states had increased
since the economic recession began. These states were also selected
because they varied in geographic location and selected TANF program
characteristics, including the maximum amount of TANF cash assistance
provided to each recipient family. Within each state, we interviewed
state TANF administrators, as well as TANF officials from two to three
local offices serving urban and rural areas. We cannot generalize our
findings from the site visits beyond the states and localities we
visited. To gather additional perspectives about changes to state TANF
programs, we also interviewed researchers knowledgeable about TANF
from a range of organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to May 2010, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I
for additional information on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Background:
Enactment of the TANF block grant in 1996 significantly changed
federal welfare policy, as it both limited HHS's authority to regulate
welfare programs and gave states more flexibility in designing and
funding related programs. The TANF block grant is a $16.5 billion per
year fixed federal funding stream to states, which is coupled with a
maintenance-of-effort (MOE) provision that requires states to maintain
a significant portion of their historic financial commitment to their
welfare programs.[Footnote 2] TANF gave states flexibility in setting
various welfare program aspects, such as cash assistance benefit
levels and eligibility requirements, as well as in spending TANF
funds. For example, when the number of families receiving cash
assistance benefits declined after welfare reform, states were able to
use available funds to enhance spending for noncash services, such as
child care, work supports, and a range of other supports for low-
income families. Due to these flexibilities, TANF programs differ
substantially by state. Further, because of differences in state
administration of the program, some state TANF programs also differ by
local jurisdiction.
TANF Work Requirements Included in PRWORA:
In creating the TANF block grant, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) set out to increase
the flexibility of states in operating a program designed for the
following four purposes:
1. providing assistance so that children could be cared for in their
own homes or in the homes of relatives;
2. ending families' dependence on government benefits by promoting job
preparation, work, and marriage;
3. preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies; and:
4. encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
In line with the second purpose, PRWORA (1) established work
participation rates as a requirement for states, which HHS uses to
measure performance; (2) named 12 categories of work activities to be
counted for the purpose of the measure;[Footnote 3] and (3) defined
the average number of weekly hours that each family receiving TANF
cash assistance must be engaged in an activity to count as
participating.[Footnote 4] If TANF recipients engage in other
activities provided or permitted under the state's TANF program, then
those activities do not count toward meeting the federal work
participation requirements. In addition, TANF recipients who engage in
work activities for less than the minimum required number of hours
each week generally do not count as being engaged in work for purposes
of the requirements. PRWORA also excluded some families from these
work requirements, such as those in which children alone receive the
cash assistance benefits.[Footnote 5]
PRWORA established separate annual work participation rates for all
families and all two-parent families receiving TANF cash assistance in
each state.[Footnote 6] Although the required rates increased in the
immediate years following TANF implementation, when they reached their
maximums, the rates were set at 50 percent for all TANF families and
90 percent for two-parent TANF families. In short, these rate
requirements mean that states are held accountable for ensuring that
generally at least 50 percent of all families receiving TANF cash
assistance participate in one or more of the 12 work activities for an
average of 30 hours per week.[Footnote 7]
However, the act also allowed states to annually apply for a reduction
to the required work participation rates through the caseload
reduction credit. This credit was annually calculated by determining
the change in caseload--or, the average number of families receiving
cash assistance--in the state between fiscal year 1995 and the fiscal
year preceding the current one.[Footnote 8] If a state's caseload has
decreased, the credit allows the state to decrease its required work
participation rate by the equivalent percentage. For example, if a
state's caseload decreased by approximately 20 percent between fiscal
year 1995 and the fiscal year preceding the current one, the state
would receive a caseload reduction credit equal to 20 percent, which
would result in the state having an adjusted work participation rate
requirement of 30 percent for the current year. Because TANF caseloads
significantly declined following TANF implementation, this credit
enabled many states with fewer than 50 percent of their TANF families
sufficiently engaged in countable work activities to still meet the
federal work participation rates. (See figure 1.)
Figure 1: How State Work Participation Rates Are Calculated:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Work participation rate:
Percentage of TANF families with work requirements participating in
the 12 approved work activities for the required number of hours:
Families receiving TANF cash assistance: 3 of 10 families working
(30%).
The state in this example would fall well short of federal
requirements to have at least half of its families receiving TANF cash
assistance participating in work activities.
Impact of the caseload reduction credit:
Decline in caseload: Compares the number of families receiving welfare
cash assistance in 1995 to the number in the year preceding the
current year:
Caseload in 1995: 13;
Caseload last year: 10;
Caseload reduction: 23%.
Federal law allows states to apply for caseload reduction credits,
which decrease their required work participation rates. The state in
this example would have its minimum work participation rate reduced to
27 percent.
Work participation rate:
Percentage of TANF families with work requirements participating in
the 12 approved work activities for the required number of hours:
Families receiving TANF cash assistance: 3 of 10 families working
(30%).
Source: GAO analysis of federal law and regulations.
Note: Figure reflects fiscal year 1995 as the base year established in
PRWORA. The DRA changed the base fiscal year to 2005, as discussed
below.
[End of figure]
In addition, states could modify the calculation of their work
participation rates through funding decisions. Specifically, because
PRWORA's work participation requirements only applied to families
receiving cash assistance funded with TANF block grant dollars, states
could opt to use their MOE dollars to fund cash assistance for
families less likely to meet their individual work participation
requirements.[Footnote 9] By creating these MOE-funded separate state
programs (SSP), states were able to remove selected families from the
work participation rate calculation. (See figure 2.)
Figure 2: How States' Choices to Fund Cash Assistance for Selected
Families through SSPs Affected State Work Participation Rates:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Separate state programs (SSPs):
SSPs use state MOE funds to provide cash assistance to some families,
which allows a state to exclude those families when calculating its
work participation rate.
Served by SSPs: 4 families;
Families receiving TANF cash assistance:
Not working: 6;
Working: 5 (45%).
Source: GAO analysis of federal law and regulations.
Note: As discussed previously, states with 45 percent work
participation likely also applied for a caseload reduction credit to
decrease their required work participation rates. This figure
represents rules established in PRWORA. The DRA changed the way SSPs
affect the work participation rate calculation, as discussed below.
[End of figure]
PRWORA established penalties for states that did not meet their
required work participation rates and gave HHS the authority to make
determinations regarding these penalties. When a state does not meet
its required level of work participation, HHS will send the state a
penalty notice. The state can accept the penalty, which reduces its
annual block grant, or it can try to avoid the penalty. To do so, a
state can opt to provide reasonable cause as to why it did not meet
the work participation rate or submit a corrective compliance plan
that will correct the violation and demonstrate how the state will
comply with work participation requirements. In addition, if the
state's failure to meet the work participation rate is due to
circumstances that caused the state to become a "needy state"[Footnote
10] or extraordinary circumstances such as a natural disaster, HHS has
the discretion to reduce a state's penalty.
Modifications to TANF Work and Funding Requirements Included in DRA:
In 2006, DRA reauthorized the TANF block grant through fiscal year
2010 and made several modifications that were generally expected to
strengthen TANF work requirements intended to help more families'
attain self-sufficiency, and improve the reliability of work
participation data and program integrity.[Footnote 11] Specifically,
DRA directed HHS to issue regulations by June 30, 2006, defining the
12 work activities, methods for reporting and verifying hours of work
participation, and the circumstances under which a parent who resides
with a child receiving assistance should be included in work
participation rates. DRA also required (1) states to establish and
maintain procedures consistent with the new regulations and (2) HHS to
review these procedures to ensure they will provide an accurate
measure of work participation. Further, DRA mandated that families
receiving cash assistance through SSPs be included in the calculation
of work participation rates, and it changed the caseload reduction
credit by moving the base year for measuring caseload declines from
1995 to 2005.
In addition to the work requirement changes, DRA also added a
provision allowing states to count a broader range of their own
expenditures toward the TANF MOE requirement. Previously, states could
claim as MOE their expenditures related to the four purposes of TANF
that provided benefits or services only to financially needy families
with children. However, DRA expanded states' ability to count as MOE
other expenditures on TANF purposes 3 and 4--the prevention and
reduction of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families. Specifically, the act allowed
states to count their total expenditures toward these purposes,
regardless of the composition and financial need of the families
benefiting from these expenditures.
HHS issued interim final regulations in response to DRA on June 29,
2006, which were generally applicable beginning in fiscal year 2007.
These regulations addressed the changes related to work rules required
by DRA, such as issuing federal definitions of the 12 work activities,
and also required specific state actions. For example, in response to
the DRA requirement that states establish procedures for counting,
verifying, and reporting work participation, HHS required states to
submit an interim Work Verification Plan to the agency by September
30, 2006, and have a final approved version in place by September 30,
2007. The interim regulations also addressed the DRA change to MOE
spending on pro-family activities by clarifying that states could
claim as MOE all spending reasonably calculated to address TANF
purposes 3 and 4.
HHS issued the final DRA-related regulations on February 5, 2008,
which were effective beginning in fiscal year 2009. Although the final
regulations made some modifications to the work rules included in the
interim final regulations, HHS officials reported that these
modifications were generally minor. For example, HHS clarified that
some activities not directly addressed in the interim final
regulations fit within specific work activity definitions. In
contrast, the final regulations made a significant change to the
interim regulations related to allowable MOE expenditures on pro-
family activities. Specifically, under the final regulations, states
can count toward MOE their total spending on specific pro-family
activities listed in the healthy marriage promotion and responsible
fatherhood section of DRA, rather than their total spending on all pro-
family activities under TANF purposes 3 and 4. For the specified
activities alone, a state can count all of its expenditures toward MOE
regardless of the family composition and financial need of the people
benefiting from these activities.
TANF Modifications in the Recovery Act:
In response to the economic recession that began in 2007, the Recovery
Act made several additional changes to TANF, which generally did not
affect the federal work rule changes required by DRA. Specifically,
the Recovery Act created the $5 billion Emergency Contingency Fund for
state TANF programs, which states can qualify for based on increases
in the number of families receiving cash assistance or in TANF and
state MOE expenditures for short-term, nonrecurrent benefits and
subsidized employment. States can apply for funds each quarter through
the end of fiscal year 2010, and they are eligible to have 80 percent
of their expenditure increases reimbursed from the fund. In total,
each state is eligible for a portion of the fund equal to up to half
of its annual basic TANF block grant, as long as dollars
remain.[Footnote 12] Because these funds are afforded the same
flexibilities as the TANF block grant, Emergency Contingency funds can
be spent on any TANF-related purpose for TANF-eligible families.
Before the creation of the Emergency Contingency Fund, PRWORA had
originally created a TANF Contingency Fund of up to $2 billion that
states could access in times of economic distress. States have to meet
criteria to qualify for the TANF Contingency Fund that differ from
those for the Emergency Contingency Fund,[Footnote 13] and only a
portion of the TANF Contingency Fund had been drawn down by the states
when the recent economic recession began in 2007.
The Recovery Act also made two additional funding modifications to
TANF, as well as a temporary modification to the caseload reduction
credit. First, the Recovery Act extended TANF supplemental grants,
which amounted to $319 million, to qualified states through fiscal
year 2010. Beginning with PRWORA, annual supplemental grants had been
awarded to states that had historically low welfare spending per
person and high population growth, but these grants were due to expire
at the end of fiscal year 2009. In addition, the Recovery Act
increased states' flexibility by permitting them to spend prior year
TANF block grant funds on all TANF-allowable benefits and services.
Prior to this modification, states had been permitted to spend prior
year TANF block grant funds only on assistance--a category that
includes cash benefits and supportive services for families receiving
these benefits. Finally, the Recovery Act also modified the caseload
reduction credit calculation for fiscal years 2009-2011, by allowing
states the option to use the lower total number of cash assistance
recipients in their state in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 as
the comparison caseload for calculating the credit. For example, if a
state had 20,000 families receiving TANF cash assistance in fiscal
year 2007, and 21,000 such families in fiscal year 2009, it could opt
to use 20,000 for the purposes of calculating its fiscal year 2010
caseload reduction credit, resulting in a greater credit and a lower
required work participation rate.
After DRA, States Changed Their TANF Programs, in Part to Affect Work
Participation Rates:
Since DRA, national TANF work participation rates have changed little,
although the rates reflect both recipients' work participation and
state policies that affected the work participation rate calculation.
Specifically, the factors that influenced the calculation of a state's
work participation rate included:
* the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance who
participated in work activities,
* changes in the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance,
* state spending on TANF-related programs in excess of what is
required,
* state policies that keep working families in the rate calculation,
and:
* state policies that keep nonworking families out of the rate
calculation.
In addition, in order to comply with DRA, states made other changes to
their TANF programs, which may also have affected their work
participation rates. Although HHS provided guidance to states after
DRA, states reported differing opinions about the usefulness of this
assistance, as well as continued challenges implementing certain
aspects of DRA's changes to the TANF work requirements.
National Work Participation Rates Changed Little after DRA, and
States' Rates Reflected Both Recipients' Work Participation and
States' Policy Choices:
Nationally, the proportion of families receiving TANF cash assistance
who met their individual work requirements by participating in one of
12 work activities for a minimum number of hours each week[Footnote
14] changed little after DRA,[Footnote 15] as did the types of work
activities in which they most frequently participated. In fiscal year
2007 and fiscal year 2008--the two years following DRA for which
national data are available--between 29 and 30 percent of families
receiving TANF cash assistance met their work requirements.[Footnote
16] Similarly, between 31 and 34 percent of families receiving TANF
cash assistance met their work requirements in each year from fiscal
year 2001 to fiscal year 2006. In other words, approximately 295,000
of the 875,000 families receiving TANF cash assistance who had work
requirements in fiscal year 2005 met those requirements, and 243,000
of 816,000 families met their work requirements in fiscal year 2008.
[Footnote 17] The small decrease in the proportion of families that
met their requirements after DRA may be related, in part, to the
federal work activity definitions and tightened work hour reporting
and verification procedures states had to comply with after the act,
as well as states' ability to make the required changes.[Footnote 18]
The types of work activities in which families receiving TANF cash
assistance most frequently participated were also similar before and
after DRA. For example, among families that met their work
requirements, the majority participated in unsubsidized employment in
the years both before and after DRA. In all of the years analyzed,
[Footnote 19] the next most frequent work activities were job search
and job readiness assistance, vocational educational training, and
work experience.
While the national proportion of TANF families who were sufficiently
engaged in countable work activities did not significantly change
after DRA, fewer states met the required work participation rates for
all TANF families and for two-parent TANF families. This is in part
because other factors, including states' policy and funding decisions,
affected states' ability to meet the required rates after DRA.
Specifically, after DRA, in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, 13 and 10
states, respectively, did not meet at least one of the required
rates,[Footnote 20] compared with a maximum of 4 states that did not
meet at least one of the rates in each year between fiscal years 2001
and 2006, according to HHS data (see table 1). States that do not meet
the rates may receive a penalty reducing their annual block grants;
however, HHS has not yet finalized state penalties for the two years
following DRA.[Footnote 21]
Table 1: Number of States That Did Not Meet the Required Work
Participation Rates, in Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008:
FY: 2001;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 0;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 4;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 4.
FY: 2002;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 0;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 4;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 4.
FY: 2003;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 1;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 3;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 4.
FY: 2004;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 0;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 3;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 3.
FY: 2005;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 1;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 1;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 2.
FY: 2006;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 1;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 2;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 3.
FY: 2007;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 12;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 7;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 13.
FY: 2008;
Number of states not meeting the all-families work rate: 7;
Number of states not meeting the 2-parent family work rate: 5;
Total states not meeting at least one of the work rates: 10.
Source: GAO summary of HHS data.
[End of table]
Role of Caseload Reductions in Meeting Work Participation Rates:
Fewer states met the federally required work participation rates after
DRA in part because of a modification that DRA made to the caseload
reduction credit. Specifically, DRA changed the calculation of this
credit, which adjusts the required work participation rates, so it now
compares the change in the number of families receiving cash
assistance in each state between the fiscal year 2005 base year and
the comparison year. Before DRA, the credit's base year was fiscal
year 1995 and states had larger caseload reduction credits because of
the dramatic declines in the number of families receiving cash
assistance after TANF implementation. For example, in fiscal year
2006, states' caseload reductions ranged from 11 to 91 percent, and 18
states had reductions that were at least 50 percent, which reduced
their required work participation rates to 0. However, in part because
of the base year change, caseload reductions had less of an effect on
states' ability to meet the required work participation rates after
DRA. Specifically, after DRA in fiscal year 2007, 3 states could not
claim a credit related to caseload reduction, and other states had
much smaller caseload reductions than they had before DRA. For
example, 25 states had caseload reductions ranging from 1 to 5
percent, and the remaining 23 states had caseload reductions from 6 to
26 percent. As a result, only 8 states met the all families work
participation rate in fiscal year 2007 solely because of their
caseload reductions and the number of families who were sufficiently
engaged in countable work activities, although 9 additional states met
the rate solely because 50 percent or more of their families were
sufficiently engaged in countable work activities.
Role of Excess MOE Expenditures in Meeting Work Participation Rates:
Although caseload reductions were significantly smaller after DRA,
some states increased their caseload reduction credits and their
ability to meet the federally required work participation rates by
claiming excess MOE expenditures. Specifically, states are required to
spend a certain amount of state MOE funds every year in order to
receive their federal TANF block grants. However, if states spend in
excess of the required amount, they are allowed to reduce the number
of families included in the calculation of their work participation
rates through the caseload reduction credit calculation (see figure
3).[Footnote 22] HHS officials told us that, prior to DRA, Delaware
alone had claimed these expenditures toward its caseload reduction
credit. In contrast, in fiscal year 2007, 32 states claimed excess MOE
expenditures toward their caseload reduction credits. Further, of the
39 states that met the all-families work participation rate in fiscal
year 2007, 28 claimed excess MOE expenditures toward their caseload
reduction credits, and 22 would not have met their rates without
claiming these expenditures (see figure 4). Among the 22 states that
needed to rely on excess MOE expenditures to meet their work
participation rates, most relied on excess MOE expenditures to add
between 1 and 20 percent to their caseload reduction credits, but 4
states relied on excess MOE expenditures to add between 25 and 35
percent to their credits. (See figure 5.) In fiscal year 2008, 30 of
the 44 states that met the all-families work participation rate
claimed excess MOE expenditures toward their caseload reduction
credits, and 14 would not have met their rates without claiming these
expenditures.
Figure 3: How a State's Work Participation Rates Are Calculated When
It Claims Excess MOE Expenditures:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Work participation rate:
Percentage of TANF families with work requirements participating in
the 12 approved work activities for the required number of hours:
Families receiving TANF-and MOE-funded cash assistance:
Not working: 7 families;
Working: 3 families (30%).
The state in this example would fall well short of federal
requirements to have at least half of its families receiving TANF cash
assistance participating in work activities.
Federal minimum: 50%.
Impact of the caseload reduction credit:
Decline in caseload:
Compares the number of families receiving welfare cash assistance in
2005 to the number in the year preceding the current year:
Caseload in 2005: 11;
Caseload last year: 10;
Percentage reduction: 9%.
Maintenance-of-effort (MOE):
Spending on programs in excess of the amount a state is required to
spend on MOE increases the state‘s caseload reduction credit:
Total MOE spending last year: MOE calculation: 15% ’Excess“ MOE
spending.
Federal law allows states to apply for caseload reduction credits,
which decrease their required work participation rates. The state in
this example would have its minimum work participation rate reduced to
26 percent.
Work participation rate:
Percentage of TANF families with work requirements participating in
the 12 approved work activities for the required number of hours:
Families receiving TANF- and MOE-funded cash assistance:
Not working: 7 families;
Working: 3 families (30%).
Source: GAO analysis of federal law and regulations.
Note: In this figure, year refers to fiscal year.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Number of States That Met Their Fiscal Year 2007 All
Families Work Participation Rates Because of Families Engaged in Work,
Caseload Reductions, and Excess MOE Expenditures:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Work rates over 50%: 9 states;
plus:
Caseload decline: 8 additional states;
plus:
Excess MOE: 22 additional states.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Extent to Which the 22 States That Met Their Fiscal Year
2007 All Families Work Participation Rates in Part because of Excess
MOE Expenditures Relied on Such Expenditures:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of states: 10;
Percentage of Excess MOE credit needed to meet required work
participation rate: 1 to 10%.
Number of states: 8;
Percentage of Excess MOE credit needed to meet required work
participation rate: 11 to 20%.
Number of states: 4;
Percentage of Excess MOE credit needed to meet required work
participation rate: 25 to 35%.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
[End of figure]
Although the majority of states reported excess MOE expenditures after
DRA, which helped some states to meet work participation rates, we did
not determine whether these increases reflect new state spending or
spending that had been occurring before DRA but was not reported as
MOE. Specifically, we did not examine the totality of state
expenditures on TANF-related programs and services in the years before
and after DRA, which would have provided this information. However, we
did examine states' TANF and MOE expenditures reported to HHS before
and after DRA to further understand these increases.[Footnote 23]
Total state MOE expenditures increased by almost $2 billion between
fiscal years 2006 and 2008, from $12.0 to 13.7 billion, respectively.
In addition, this increase appears to be related to state spending on
programs and services referred to as pro-family by DRA--the prevention
and reduction of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families (see table 2). Although federal
regulations have allowed states to count spending on these types of
programs and services as MOE since TANF was implemented, interim DRA
regulations allowed states to count additional expenditures in this
area as MOE for fiscal years 2007 and 2008, including those that were
not directed at low-income families with children. For example,
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, some
states counted a broad range of spending under these categories,
including afterschool and pre-kindergarten programs and juvenile
justice services. Although final DRA regulations modified states'
ability to report all of these expenditures as MOE beginning in fiscal
year 2009, state MOE expenditures on pro-family activities did not
significantly decrease in that year.
Table 2: States' TANF and MOE Expenditures on Pro-Family Activities in
Selected Years Before and After DRA:
2001;
Total Pro-Family TANF and MOE expenditures: $0.4 billion;
Total Pro-Family expenditures as a percent of total TANF and MOE
expenditures: 1%;
Total Pro-Family MOE expenditures: $0.1 billion;
Total Pro-Family MOE Expenditures as a Percent of total Pro-Family
expenditures: 25%.
2005;
Total Pro-Family TANF and MOE expenditures: $0.8 billion;
Total Pro-Family expenditures as a percent of total TANF and MOE
expenditures: 3%;
Total Pro-Family MOE expenditures: $0.4 billion;
Total Pro-Family MOE Expenditures as a Percent of total Pro-Family
expenditures: 49%.
2006;
Total Pro-Family TANF and MOE expenditures: $0.9 billion;
Total Pro-Family expenditures as a percent of total TANF and MOE
expenditures: 3%;
Total Pro-Family MOE expenditures: $0.5 billion;
Total Pro-Family MOE Expenditures as a Percent of total Pro-Family
expenditures: 50%.
2007;
Total Pro-Family TANF and MOE expenditures: $2.1 billion;
Total Pro-Family expenditures as a percent of total TANF and MOE
expenditures: 7%;
Total Pro-Family MOE expenditures: $1.5 billion;
Total Pro-Family MOE Expenditures as a Percent of total Pro-Family
expenditures: 72%.
2008;
Total Pro-Family TANF and MOE expenditures: $2.5 billion;
Total Pro-Family expenditures as a percent of total TANF and MOE
expenditures: 8%;
Total Pro-Family MOE expenditures: $1.7 billion;
Total Pro-Family MOE Expenditures as a Percent of total Pro-Family
expenditures: 70%.
2009[A];
Total Pro-Family TANF and MOE expenditures: $2.5 billion;
Total Pro-Family expenditures as a percent of total TANF and MOE
expenditures: 8%;
Total Pro-Family MOE expenditures: $1.5 billion;
Total Pro-Family MOE Expenditures as a Percent of total Pro-Family
expenditures: 61%.
Source: HHS data.
Note: DRA refers to pro-family expenditures as those related to TANF
purposes 3 and 4--the prevention and reduction of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies and the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
[A] We used preliminary fiscal year 2009 expenditures data that HHS
provided to us before its public release for this analysis.
[End of table]
Role of Policies on Working Families in Meeting Work Participation
Rates:
Some states made other policy changes to their TANF programs after DRA
that may have affected their work participation rates. For example,
many states use several types of policies to ensure that families
complying with their individual work requirements are included in the
calculation of the state's work participation rate, such as worker
supplement and earned income disregard policies. Because these
families are meeting their TANF work requirements, including them in
the rate calculation can improve the state's rate. For instance,
worker supplement programs are used by some states to provide monthly
cash assistance to low-income working families who were previously on
TANF or about to lose TANF eligibility because their incomes were too
high. When states fund these programs with TANF or MOE dollars to help
meet families' ongoing basic needs, families receiving these benefits
are included in the calculation of the state's work participation
rate. On our survey, 23 states reported that they provide worker
supplement cash assistance programs, and 18 of these states
implemented these programs since fiscal year 2006. In the majority of
states with these programs (15), the average cash assistance benefit
provided to each family in the worker supplement program is less than
the average TANF cash assistance benefit. Further, states with these
programs allow families to receive these benefits for a maximum of 1
to 60 months, with a median of 7.5 months. Like worker supplement
programs, earned income disregards encourage families receiving TANF
cash assistance to work. However, instead of providing additional cash
benefits to working families, these policies disregard part of a
family's earned income when the state determines the amount of monthly
TANF cash assistance the family receives. Forty-nine states reported
on our survey that they have earned income disregards, and 10 of these
states have made changes to these policies since fiscal year 2006.
Specifically, 9 states increased the amount of income disregarded, and
1 began indexing the amount disregarded on an annual basis. No states
reported that they had decreased or eliminated their earned income
disregards since fiscal year 2006.
Role of Policies on Nonworking Families in Meeting Work Participation
Rates:
In contrast, states also made policy changes to their TANF programs
after DRA that removed certain families from the calculation of
states' work participation rates. Specifically, some states opted to
fund cash assistance for low-income families with state dollars not
reported as MOE, known as solely state funds (SSF). While DRA required
that the calculation of a state's work participation rates include
families receiving cash assistance funded with MOE dollars--a group
that had previously been excluded--states are able to still exclude
certain families from their rate calculations by using SSFs to serve
them. (See figure 6.)
Figure 6: States' Choices to Fund Cash Assistance for Selected
Families through SSFs Can Affect Their Work Participation Rates:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Separate state programs (SSPs):
SSPs use state MOE funds to provide cash assistance to some families,
which allows the state to exclude those families when calculating its
work participation rate:
Served by SSPs: 4;
Families receiving TANF cash assistance: not working: 6;
Families receiving TANF cash assistance: working: 5;
Before DRA: 5 of 11 families: 45%.
Separate state programs (SSPs):
DRA required that families whose cash assistance is funded with state
MOE funds through SSPs be included when calculating the state‘s work
participation rate:
Served by SSPs: 4;
Families not working: 6;
Families working: 5;
After DRA: 5 of 15 families: 33%.
Solely state funds (SSFs):
After DRA, some states chose to exclude families from the calculation
of a state‘s work participation rate by using SSFs to provide those
families with cash assistance:
Served by SSFs: 4;
Families receiving TANF- and MOE-funded cash assistance: not working:
6;
Families receiving TANF- and MOE-funded cash assistance: working: 5;
With SSFs: 5 of 11 families: 45%.
Source: GAO analysis of federal laws and regulations.
[End of figure]
According to several state TANF administrators who responded to our
survey and officials we interviewed during our Oregon site visit,
families for whom states use SSFs to provide cash assistance are those
that typically have the most difficulty meeting the TANF work
requirements. For instance, Oregon used SSFs to provide cash
assistance to families applying for TANF that included a parent with
disabilities.[Footnote 24] Oregon officials said that parents with
disabilities are often unable to meet their TANF work requirements,
and, with this program, the state instead provides case management and
assistance with applying for Supplemental Security Income.[Footnote
25] Similarly, one state TANF administrator responding to our survey
reported that they use SSFs to provide cash assistance to several
types of low-income families, which is necessary both for the state to
remain in compliance with TANF work participation rates and to
maintain or try new policies that might otherwise negatively impact
the state's rates. Further, another state TANF administrator
responding to our survey reported that individual counties decide
whether to use SSFs to provide cash assistance to families receiving
such assistance in that state, and these staff take into account both
families' needs and their ability to meet TANF work requirements when
making that decision. In total, 29 states reported through our survey
that they fund cash assistance for certain low-income families with
SSFs, and almost all of these states first began using SSFs for this
purpose after DRA.[Footnote 26] Almost all of those states (28) use
SSFs to provide cash assistance to low-income, two-parent families,
and almost half (14) use SSFs to provide cash assistance to low-income
families with significant barriers to employment, such as families
with a disabled member or recent immigrants and refugees. Some states
also use SSFs to provide cash assistance to families enrolled in
postsecondary education and other types of families, such as those who
have received 60 months of TANF-funded cash assistance and those with
children under age 1 or 2. (See figure 7.) Overall, states reported
using SSFs to serve a range of less than 1 percent to 50 percent of
their total number of families receiving cash assistance.
Figure 7: Majority of States Used SSFs to Fund Cash Assistance for
Various Groups of Low-Income Families at the Time of Our Survey:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Provide cash assistance to low-income families using solely state
funds (SSFs): 29:
CO:
CT:
DE:
DC:
GA:
HI:
ID:
IL:
LA:
MD:
MA:
MI:
MN:
MS:
MO:
NE:
NH:
NJ:
NM:
NY:
OK:
PA:
SC:
TX:
UT:
VT:
VA:
WV:
WY:
SSF-funded cash assistance to low-income, two-parent families: 28:
CO:
CT:
DE:
DC:
GA:
HI:
ID:
IL:
LA:
MD:
MA:
MI:
MN:
MS:
MO:
NE:
NH:
NJ:
NM:
NY:
OK:
PA:
SC:
TX:
UT:
VT:
VA:
WV:
SSF-funded cash assistance to low-income families with significant
barriers to employment[A]: 14:
CO:
CT:
DE:
GA:
HI:
IL:
MD:
MI:
MN:
NE:
NM:
PA:
SC:
VT:
SSF-funded cash assistance to low-income families enrolled in
postsecondary education: 7:
CO:
DC:
HI:
NM:
VT:
WV:
WY:
SSF-funded cash assistance to other types of low-income families[B}: 7:
CO:
DC:
IL:
MI:
MS:
NJ:
VT:
Source: GAO survey of state TANF administrators.
[A] In our survey, we indicated that "families with significant
barriers to employment" could include families with disabled members
or recent immigrants and/or refugees.
[B] "Other types of low-income families" include various subgroups,
depending on the state, such as those who have received 60 months of
TANF-funded cash assistance and those with children under age 1 or 2.
[End of figure]
Because SSFs are not connected to the funds for states' TANF programs,
states can develop their own work participation rules for families
served with SSFs. In addition, if families served through SSFs do not
meet the work requirements established by the state, they do not
affect the state's TANF work participation rates. In all states that
use SSFs to provide cash assistance to two-parent families, and in the
majority of states that use SSFs to provide cash assistance to
families enrolled in postsecondary education, work participation rules
for families served through SSFs are generally the same as for
families served through the state's TANF program. In contrast, in 9 of
the 14 states that provide cash assistance with SSFs to recipients
with significant barriers to work, work participation rules are
generally not the same for these families as for families in the
state's TANF program.
Through other policy choices, states can similarly exclude certain
families from their work participation rates. For example, some states
have diversion programs that can reduce the number of families
included in the calculation of their rates. Because diversion programs
provide eligible low-income families with short-term, nonrecurrent
cash benefits and support services in lieu of TANF cash assistance,
families participating in these programs are not included in states'
work participation rates. Thirty-one states reported through our
survey that they have a statewide diversion program,[Footnote 27] and
14 states had made at least one change to these programs since fiscal
year 2006. Of these 14 states, 11 made at least one change that may
have expanded the use of diversion in their states since DRA,
including implementing a program, significantly increasing the number
of families receiving support, increasing the types of support
provided through the program, or increasing the maximum amount of the
cash benefit. Conversely, 6 made at least one change that may have
reduced the use of diversion in their states. These changes included
eliminating the program, significantly decreasing the number of
families receiving support, and decreasing the maximum amount of the
cash benefit.[Footnote 28]
Some states also made changes to their TANF sanction policies after
DRA, which, like diversion programs, may reduce the number of families
included in the calculation of states' work participation rates. Such
policies reduce or remove a family's TANF cash assistance benefits
when they are not complying with their individual work requirements.
At the time of our survey, 27 states reported that they remove a
family's entire cash assistance benefit the first time that the family
does not comply with work requirements, and 4 of those states had
changed to a full family sanction policy from one that sanctioned
fewer family members, since fiscal year 2006. While a total of 13
states reported that they had made at least one change to their
sanction policies since fiscal year 2006, a similar number of these
states reported making changes toward a more strict sanctioning policy
as did toward a less strict sanctioning policy. It is likely that many
factors, including DRA and other state TANF program characteristics,
influenced state changes to these policies after DRA.
Overall Effect on States' Work Participation Rates:
As a result of the various factors that affect the calculation of
states' work participation rates, the work participation rate does not
allow for clear comparisons of state TANF programs. In short, each
state's ability to meet the required work participation rates reflects
not only the number of its TANF families sufficiently engaged in
countable work activities but also changes in the number of families
receiving TANF cash assistance in the state and the state's policy
choices that (1) lower their required work participation rates, (2)
keep working families in the calculation of their rates, and (3)
remove certain families from the calculation of these rates.[Footnote
29] In addition, these factors make it difficult to evaluate
individual states' performance, or the influence of these individual
factors, both before and after DRA.
After caseload reduction credits (including adjustments related to
excess MOE expenditures) were subtracted from the federally required
work participation rate of 50 percent for all families receiving TANF
cash assistance, some states had to have a much greater proportion of
families sufficiently engaged in countable work activities in order to
meet their rates after DRA than before, while other states had the
opposite outcome. Specifically, when comparing fiscal years 2006 and
2008, 28 states had higher adjusted work participation rate
requirements after DRA than before, 15 had lower requirements, and 8
had 0 percent adjusted requirements in both years. For example,
according to HHS data, Michigan needed to have 0 percent of its
families receiving TANF cash assistance meeting their individual work
requirements to meet its all-families work participation rate in
fiscal year 2006, and 50 percent of its families meeting the work
requirements to meet its rate in fiscal year 2008. This state was
directly affected by DRA's change to the caseload reduction credit
base year, as it had over a 50 percent decline in its TANF caseload
before DRA but no decline since. In contrast, according to HHS data,
Kansas needed to have 39 percent of its families receiving TANF cash
assistance meeting their individual work requirements to meet its work
participation rate in fiscal year 2006, and 0 percent of its families
meeting work requirements to meet its rate in fiscal year 2008. While
Kansas had a caseload reduction of 11 percent before DRA, after DRA,
the state's caseload reduction credit was based on a 16 percent
reduction in its TANF caseload after fiscal year 2005 and a
significant amount of excess MOE expenditures.
States Made Other Changes to Their TANF Programs to Comply with DRA
but Reported Challenges with the Act's Work Requirements:
While some states were able to comply with DRA by making only minimal
changes to their TANF programs' work policies and procedures, many had
to make more extensive changes. Several aspects of state TANF
programs' work-related policies and procedures were potentially
affected by DRA because it required states to take certain steps to
improve the reliability of work participation data and HHS to issue
definitions of the 12 work activities. The extent to which each state
had to make changes to its TANF program's work rules and related
procedures to comply with DRA was therefore directly related to
procedures the state had in place before DRA was passed when all
states had significant flexibility over their work definitions,
policies, and procedures.[Footnote 30] Through our site visits and
survey, many states reported making changes to their programs to
comply with DRA and consequent HHS regulations, and they identified
several of the changes as particularly challenging. Specifically, 41
states reported through our survey that they made moderate, great, or
very great changes to their processes for reporting and verifying TANF
families' reported hours of work participation to comply with DRA, and
40 reported that they made such changes to their internal controls
over work participation data. (See figure 8.) For example, officials
in all three states we visited told us that, to comply with DRA, they
needed to develop new processes to track and verify TANF families'
hours of work participation. In addition, through our survey, one
state reported that it created a monitoring process to track both
internal staff and contractor activities to ensure the state
accurately reported and verified work participation hours after DRA.
Although still a majority, fewer states reported making moderate,
great, or very great changes to their definitions of work activities
after DRA. For example, two of the states we visited changed their
definitions of the job search and job readiness work activity after
DRA, as the definition in HHS regulations now requires these
activities to be supervised. In a local office within one of these
states, officials discussed how they no longer offer this activity to
TANF families because staff are unable to provide the required
supervision.
Figure 8: Number of States That Had to Make Changes to Various Aspects
of Their TANF Programs after DRA, by Extent of Change Reported:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of states answering, Reporting hours of participation:
No degree: 2;
Some degree: 7;
Moderate degree: 14;
Great degree: 17;
Very Great degree: 10.
Number of states answering, Verifying hours of participation
(including supervision):
No degree: 3;
Some degree: 6;
Moderate degree: 11;
Great degree: 19;
Very Great degree: 11.
Number of states answering, Internal controls over work participation
data:
No degree: 3;
Some degree: 8;
Moderate degree: 11;
Great degree: 14;
Very Great degree: 15.
Number of states answering, Definitions of work activities:
No degree: 7;
Some degree: 14;
Moderate degree: 16;
Great degree: 8;
Very Great degree: 5.
Source: GAO survey of state TANF administrators.
Note: States answering "don't know" are not charted.
[End of figure]
The extent to which states had to make changes to comply with DRA work
requirements may have affected whether some states met their work
participation rates in the years immediately following DRA. For
example, during our site visits, officials in Ohio and Oregon both
discussed having to make extensive changes to their work rules and
procedures after DRA to comply with the federal requirements, while
Florida officials generally reported having to make few policy changes
to comply. In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, both Ohio and Oregon did not
meet their work participation rates for all families receiving TANF
cash assistance, while Florida did meet the rate.
As required by DRA, HHS issued regulations and guidance that defined
work activities and internal control requirements to standardize work
participation measurement, but states reported divergent opinions on
the extent to which they found HHS assistance useful in implementing
the DRA changes. For example, 15 states reported that such assistance
was of great or very great use, 20 states reported that it was of
moderate use, and 13 states reported that it was of some or no use.
[Footnote 31] Through both our survey and site visits, state officials
provided additional information on areas in which guidance was
helpful. For example, a few states noted that they appreciated HHS's
assistance after DRA with clarifying procedures states needed to have
in place to comply. During our three site visits, the effect of such
assistance was evident, as state and local officials we met with all
had a clear understanding of the work-related policies and procedures
required by DRA. In contrast, other states expressed frustrations with
several aspects of HHS assistance since DRA, including the time frames
allowed for initially completing their Work Verification Plans,
[Footnote 32] changes the agency made between the interim and final
regulations that affected MOE expenditures and work participation
reporting, and the timeliness of HHS assistance when questions arose.
Although states and localities we visited seem to understand the work-
related policies and procedures required since DRA, through our
survey, states reported continued challenges implementing these
requirements. (See figure 9.) However, some of these continued
challenges are not surprising, as some states had significantly
different work definitions, policies, and procedures in place, and
lacked internal controls over work participation data, prior to DRA.
[Footnote 33] For example, 38 states reported that they continued to
experience a moderate, great, or very great degree of challenge
implementing changes to computer systems or databases related to DRA.
Some states reported that they continue to lack data systems that
efficiently track and verify recipients' work hours. In all of our
site visits, officials discussed related challenges. In Oregon,
because the state needed to make various changes to its TANF work
activity definitions in order to comply with the definitions in HHS
regulations, these changes required significant data system
programming.[Footnote 34] After programming was complete, officials
reported that the state used considerable resources to train staff to
correctly code TANF families' work participation, in order to ensure
accurate application of these changes.[Footnote 35] Similarly, in
Florida, officials reported that had to make significant changes to
the work force data system after DRA in order to capture additional
information required by the state's Work Verification Plan approved by
HHS. In Ohio, local staff discussed how the state's TANF data system
is antiquated, slow, and unable to provide useful case management
information at the local level. Further, the state is continually
updating the system, but it often does not have all of the functions
needed for local officials to effectively document information
required by DRA within the system.
Figure 9: Number of States That Continue to Experience Challenges
Implementing Various Aspects of the DRA Changes to TANF Work
Requirements, by Extent of Challenge Reported:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of states answering, Durational limits placed on countable work
activities:
No degree: 7;
Some degree: 6;
Moderate degree: 14;
Great degree: 13;
Very Great degree: 11.
Number of states answering, Related changes to computer systems or
databases:
No degree: 5;
Some degree: 7;
Moderate degree: 12;
Great degree: 17;
Very Great degree: 9.
Number of states answering, Verification of participants‘ actual work
hours:
No degree: 6;
Some degree: 9;
Moderate degree: 17;
Great degree: 9;
Very Great degree: 10.
Number of states answering, Daily supervision requirements:
No degree: 6;
Some degree: 12;
Moderate degree: 16;
Great degree: 8;
Very Great degree: 8.
Number of states answering, Classification of core/noncore work
activities:
No degree: 9;
Some degree: 13;
Moderate degree: 16;
Great degree: 10;
Very Great degree: 2.
Number of states answering, Definitions of countable work activities:
No degree: 17;
Some degree: 15;
Moderate degree: 10;
Great degree: 5;
Very Great degree: 4.
Number of states answering, Definitions of work-eligible individuals:
No degree: 14;
Some degree: 17;
Moderate degree: 10;
Great degree: 5;
Very Great degree: 4.
Source: GAO survey of state TANF administrators.
Note: States answering "don't know" are not charted.
[End of figure]
In addition, 36 states reported they continue to experience a
moderate, great, or very great degree of challenge verifying
participant's actual work hours, and 32 states reported that they
continue to experience the same degrees of challenge implementing
daily supervision of work activities. For example, local officials in
almost all of the offices we visited told us that verification of TANF
families' work participation requires significant time and
collaboration between TANF staff and employers and other staff at work
activity sites. Because of this, some noted that they have had to
designate or hire specific staff to manage the tracking and
verification of families' work participation, and yet these activities
also remain a routine part of all local TANF staff's responsibilities.
Further, some discussed how verification of TANF families' hours spent
in certain work activities is particularly difficult to obtain, such
as community college classes for which professors and instructors need
to verify attendance and substance abuse treatment for which multiple
providers are frequently involved. In addition, one local office
discussed how verifying work hours for job search is particularly
difficult, such as confirming whether a recipient interviewed for a
job. Although the process of verifying work participation was
consistently noted as a challenge by those we visited, federal data
suggests that a significant group of families receiving TANF cash
assistance are not spending any time participating in work activities,
which limits the number of families for which staff are having to
fulfill this role.[Footnote 36] Concerning supervision, as previously
mentioned, some local officials we met with discussed how the
requirement to supervise job search activities is challenging because
of the staff resources needed.
Over half of the states also reported that they continue to experience
a moderate, great, or very great degree of challenge with the
classification of core and noncore work activities.[Footnote 37] In
short, federal law limits the weekly hours that a TANF family can
participate in 3 of the 12 work activities, which are commonly
referred to as noncore activities. In the states we visited, local
officials discussed how this distinction makes it more challenging to
prepare TANF families for employment and help move them toward self-
sufficiency. For example, a local official discussed how TANF adult
recipients who lack a high school diploma or certificate of general
equivalency face a significant barrier to work. However, the official
noted that addressing this barrier is difficult, given the limit on
the weekly amount of time they may spend in classes preparing them to
obtain such a certificate and count toward their work requirements.
Similar to limits on families' participation in noncore activities,
federal law imposes time limits on families' participation in two of
the core work activities--vocational educational training and job
search and job readiness assistance--which states report are a
challenge.[Footnote 38] Specifically, 38 states reported that they
experience a moderate, great, or very great degree of challenge
implementing the time limits placed on certain work activities.
Through our survey and site visits, officials reported that the 12-
month lifetime limit on vocational educational training and the 6-week
general limit on job search and job readiness assistance (with no more
than 4 weeks consecutively) are challenging to implement. Although the
limits on the amount of time that a state can count these activities
as work participation for each family have been in federal law since
TANF was created, several state and local officials reported that the
time limit on job search and job readiness assistance is particularly
challenging now. Specifically, one local official we met with noted
that TANF families who have been out of the workforce for an extended
period of time often need more than 6 weeks of time in job search and
job readiness assistance to remove their barriers to work.[Footnote
39] Further, another local official also noted that the 12-month
lifetime limit on vocational educational training can be problematic
because any length of class taken during a month counts as a full
month against the TANF family's eligibility for vocational educational
training. For example, according to the official, if a TANF recipient
took a 1-day class and no other vocational educational training
activities in that month, the recipient would be counted as having 11-
months of vocational educational training left for work participation
purposes. Officials in two of the states we visited also discussed
how, since DRA, local staff place certain families with significant
barriers to work in other types of work activities that do not count
toward the state's work participation rate. They indicated that
participation in these activities is sometimes necessary to ensure
that families successfully overcome their barriers, in part because of
limits on related activities included in the federal work activity
definitions.
Since the Economic Recession, the Number of TANF Recipients Has
Increased, and Many States Reported Changes to Service Delivery:
Subsequent to DRA, the economy weakened in 2007 and 2008, which
affected the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance, as
well as many state budgets. Specifically, the number of families
receiving TANF cash assistance increased between December 2007 and
September 2009, particularly those with two parents. In addition,
state and local officials report that the economic recession has
decreased TANF resources and challenged TANF service delivery.
The Number of Families Receiving TANF, Particularly Those with Two
Parents, Has Increased Since the Economic Recession Began in 2007:
Since the beginning of the economic recession in December 2007, 37
states had increases in the number of families receiving TANF-and MOE-
funded cash assistance benefits, and 13 states had decreases, as of
September 2009.[Footnote 40] Nationwide, the total number of families
receiving TANF cash assistance increased by 6 percent between December
2007 and September 2009.[Footnote 41] (See figure 10.) Among states
with changes in the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance,
the degree of change varied, likely due to differences in states' TANF
program characteristics, unemployment rates, and fiscal conditions.
[Footnote 42] For instance, while Kentucky reported a 1 percent
increase in families receiving TANF cash assistance between December
2007 and September 2009, Utah reported a 35 percent increase, and
Oregon reported a 48 percent increase in such families.[Footnote 43]
In contrast, while four states reported a 1 percent decrease in
families receiving TANF cash assistance during this time period, Texas
reported a 16 percent decrease, and Vermont reported a 28 percent
decrease. As previously discussed, the number of families receiving
TANF cash assistance does not include all families receiving welfare
cash assistance in every state, as some states provide such assistance
through SSFs, and these families are not included in the federal data.
States reported through our survey that approximately 82,000 families
received cash assistance through SSFs in September 2009 in addition to
the 1.8 million families that received TANF cash assistance. However,
we did not collect data on changes in the numbers of families
receiving cash assistance funded by SSFs, so we do not know the extent
to which the total number of families receiving welfare cash
assistance has changed during the economic recession.[Footnote 44]
Figure 10: Changes in the Average Monthly Number of Families Receiving
TANF Cash Assistance Since TANF Was Created in Fiscal Year 1997:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Prior to FY 1997: TANF created.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
3.19 million.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
3.20 million.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.67 million.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.36 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.20 million.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.19 million.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.18 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.16 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
2.09 million.
Fiscal year: 2006; DRA enacted;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.95 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.75 million.
Fiscal year: 2008; Economic downturn began;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.69 million.
Fiscal year: 2009; Recovery Act enacted;
Average monthly number of families receiving TANF cash assistance:
1.79 million.
Source: HHS data.
[End of figure]
Although the total number of families receiving TANF cash assistance
has increased slightly during the current economic recession, the
number of two-parent families receiving these benefits has increased
at a faster rate. For example, the number of two-parent families
receiving TANF cash assistance nationwide increased by 57 percent
between December 2007 and September 2009. In comparison, the number of
one-parent and child-only families receiving TANF cash assistance
nationwide increased by 8 percent and decreased by 1 percent,
respectively, during the same time period.[Footnote 45] (See figure
11.) All three of our site visit states also experienced the most
significant increases in their number of two-parent families receiving
TANF cash assistance during the current economic recession. For
example, Oregon officials reported that the number of two-parent
families receiving TANF cash assistance had risen from 906 families in
July 2007 to 2,703 families in September 2009, an increase of almost
200 percent. Similarly, the number of two-parent families receiving
TANF cash assistance in Florida increased by approximately 200 percent
between December 2007 and December 2009. Local officials in Florida
also noted that they have seen an increase in two-parent families
receiving TANF who were previously composed of a stay-at-home mother
and a working father who had been laid off or lost his business during
the current economic recession.
Figure 11: Percentage Change in the Total Number of Families Receiving
TANF Cash Assistance, by Type, between December 2007 and September
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Family type: Two parent;
Percentage change in caseload, December 2007-September 2009: 56.9%.
Family type: One parent;
Percentage change in caseload, December 2007-September 2009: 8.3%.
Family type: Child only;
Percentage change in caseload, December 2007-September 2009: -0.7%.
Source: HHS data.
Note: While the number of two-parent families receiving TANF-and MOE-
funded cash assistance increased by 57%, this group is a small portion
of all families receiving cash assistance. Specifically, in September
2009, two-parent families comprised 5 percent of all families
receiving cash assistance nationwide.
[End of figure]
Local officials in all three states we visited also reported an
increase in the number of TANF applicants who had never before applied
for TANF cash assistance--many of whom have higher educational
attainment and more job experience than families who applied before
the current economic recession. Some of these officials noted that
applicants with higher educational attainment and more job experience
have been surprised to learn about the extent of the TANF program's
work requirements. For example, officials in one locality reported
that because these new TANF recipients are hoping to quickly find new
employment, some have resisted the idea of participating in certain
available work activities when they did not view those activities as a
means to that end. This situation may occur more frequently now, as
states and localities cut programs and services, including those
related to the 12 work activities, in response to budget constraints.
Local officials in two of the three states we visited also reported
that some new TANF applicants were former small business owners, who
were applying for TANF cash assistance in part because they did not
qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Officials in two of the three
states we visited said that they expect to see an increase in
applicants for TANF cash assistance after the Unemployment Insurance
extensions end.[Footnote 46]
State and Local Officials Reported That the Economic Recession Has
Decreased TANF Resources and Challenged TANF Service Delivery:
Due to the economic recession, many states have faced large budget
deficits in 2009 and 2010 that have required states to make difficult
budget decisions about the use of state resources for TANF programs.
According to the National Governor's Association and the National
Association of State Budget Officers' "Fiscal Survey of States," state
revenues decreased in fiscal year 2009, with state revenue collections
below expectations in 41 states in 2009, compared with 20 states in
2008. As a further indication of declining state fiscal conditions,
the "Fiscal Survey of States" reported that in fiscal year 2009, state
general fund expenditures declined for the first time since 1983. In
our recent report, we found that when the number of families receiving
TANF cash assistance rose during the current economic recession, some
states decreased TANF spending on family and work supports, while
others increased such spending.[Footnote 47] States that increased
this spending did so in part because they were able to draw from other
funding streams, but they expressed concern about their ability to
continue this as resources dwindle. This is consistent with our
previous work, in which we found that when TANF spending for families
receiving cash assistance increased, there was an associated
contraction in TANF spending for other forms of aid and services in
the states we reviewed.[Footnote 48] Through their comments in our
national survey and during our site visits, state officials discussed
how TANF programs and budgets are being affected by state budget
constraints related to the economic recession. For instance, Oregon's
state budget constraints have decreased the amount of cash payments
available to families participating in the state's Post-TANF welfare
transition program. This program provides a small amount of monthly
cash payments, as well as access to TANF program resources, to TANF
clients whose earned income has recently made them ineligible for TANF
cash assistance. While the program originally provided recipients with
$150 per month in 2007, the payment was decreased to $100 in July 2009
and will be reduced to $50 in October 2010. In Florida, the state
budget situation has reduced the TANF funds available to support
workforce development services for TANF recipients at the same time
that such recipients have increased. In one locality that we visited,
the budget for these services was approximately $452 per TANF
recipient per month in 2007-2008, and it was expected to decrease to
$157 per recipient per month in 2010-2011, if recipient growth
continues at the current rate.
Under federal law, states are permitted to retain unspent[Footnote 49]
federal TANF block grant funds for use in future years,[Footnote 50]
giving states the flexibility to draw upon these funds as needed. HHS
data show that 33 states utilized unspent funds, as well as their
annual TANF block grant allocations, to cover their TANF-related
expenditures in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 51] In contrast, 15 states
increased their total amounts of unspent TANF funds in fiscal year
2009. While, in every year, an average of 22 states utilize their
unspent TANF funds to cover current year expenditures, the number of
states utilizing these funds seems to increase during and after
economic recessions. For example, in each of the 3 years following the
2001 recession, 25 to 32 states used unspent TANF funds. Economic
recessions also seem to affect the national unspent TANF fund balance.
For instance, between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, the national total
of unspent TANF funds decreased by 41 percent. Between fiscal years
2007 and 2009, the national total of unspent TANF funds decreased by
16 percent, though the total increased by 4 percent between fiscal
years 2008 and 2009. A total of $3.3 billion unspent TANF dollars
remained at the end of fiscal year 2009. In addition, while some
states have had significant reductions in their unspent TANF funds
during the current economic recession, others have had significant
increases. For example, while Ohio's unspent TANF funds decreased by
$541 million between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, New York's unspent
funds increased by $395 million during the same time period.[Footnote
52]
Through our national survey, state officials expressed concern about
federal TANF resources, particularly the long-term viability of the
TANF Contingency Fund[Footnote 53] and the decreasing value of TANF
block grant dollars. Specifically, state officials indicated their
concerns that the Contingency Fund would be depleted before state
economic situations improve, which has since occurred. Although a
total of 3 states accessed Contingency Fund dollars between fiscal
years 1998 and 2005, 19 states accessed these dollars in one or more
years between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. (See figure 12.) By December
2009, the Contingency Fund was depleted without additional
appropriations having been made to the fund. While the President has
proposed additional money for the Contingency Fund in the fiscal year
2011 budget, as of March 18, 2010, it is unknown if the Congress will
approve the additional funds. States also expressed concern through
our national survey about the fixed amount of the TANF block grant.
The annual TANF block grant appropriation has remained constant since
it was created in 1996, which states report has been particularly
challenging in times of state budget deficits and increasing numbers
of families applying for and receiving TANF cash assistance. In
Oregon, state officials noted that it would require an additional
estimated $100 million to continue providing TANF services at current
levels, assuming that the number of families applying for TANF cash
assistance in the state continues to rise at the current rate.
Figure 12: Dollars Accessed, as Well as the Number of States
Accessing, the TANF Contingency Fund Since Fiscal Year 1997:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1998;
States receiving the funds: 1;
Amount accessed: $0.002 billion.
Fiscal year: 2005;
States receiving the funds: 2;
Amount accessed: $0.06 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006[A];
States receiving the funds: 21;
Amount accessed: $0.09 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
States receiving the funds: 4;
Amount accessed: $0.06 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
States receiving the funds: 7;
Amount accessed: $0.43 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
States receiving the funds: 18;
Amount accessed: $1.11 billion.
Fiscal year: 2010[B] (fund depleted);
States receiving the funds: 15;
Amount accessed: $0.21 billion.
Source: HHS data.
[A] Both the dollars accessed and the number of states accessing the
Contingency Fund in fiscal year 2006 reflect states that received
reimbursements for the costs of providing short-term, nonrecurrent
benefits to families that traveled from the Hurricane Katrina impacted
states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In addition, two states
(South Carolina and Tennessee) accessed $58.3 million in fiscal year
2006 after HHS determined that they met the fund's required
eligibility criteria.
[B] The TANF Contingency Fund was given a maximum appropriation of $2
billion when PRWORA was enacted in 1996. However, the Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997 reduced the appropriation for the
Contingency Fund by $40 million and simultaneously increased funds
going to states in other non-TANF areas. These funds are not shown in
the above figure.
[End of figure]
In addition to its effects on state budgets and funds for TANF
programs, the economic recession has also caused changes to local TANF
service delivery in some states. A majority of state TANF officials
nationwide, as well as TANF officials from all eight localities we
visited, reported that they made changes in local offices' TANF
service delivery because of the economic recession. Specifically, of
the 31 states reporting such changes through our survey, 22 had
reduced the number of TANF staff, 11 had reduced work hours at
offices, and 7 had reduced the number of offices. In contrast, 5
states reported that they had increased the number of TANF staff, 4
had increased work hours at offices, and 1 had increased the number of
offices.[Footnote 54] During our site visits, officials discussed how
TANF staff had been reduced through employee attrition without
replacement hires, or due to staff transfers from TANF to SNAP. For
instance, in one local office in an urban area, 40 staff vacancies
remained unfilled, which, combined with increased numbers of TANF
applicants, meant that applications took longer to process and were
often delayed. In Oregon, although both TANF and SNAP caseloads have
increased during the current economic recession, because SNAP
increases have been greater, some local TANF staff were temporarily
moved to process SNAP applications.
Officials in all three states we visited also reported that local TANF
caseworkers are now managing an increased number of TANF cash
assistance families per person. For instance, in one local office in
Florida, officials explained that they hoped to restructure their TANF
service delivery model soon, as the increasing number of TANF cash
assistance recipients has made their one-on-one caseworker to
recipient model difficult to sustain. Under this model, a TANF family
is served by the same caseworker for all TANF-related support service
needs and self-sufficiency planning. According to the local officials,
the one-on-one model was possible when the caseload averaged 58
recipients per caseworker, but it was not designed for the current
caseload average of 160 recipients per caseworker. In addition, local
officials in one Ohio county reported that their caseworkers' overall
workload has increased because increases in TANF and other public
assistance applications have occurred at the same time that staff have
left and not been replaced. At present, the county is serving 422 TANF
families with a staff of 16 caseworkers. Ten of these caseworkers
determine eligibility for TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid, and the remaining
6 are responsible for supporting TANF families' efforts to meet their
work requirements and tracking families' participation in work
activities.
As a result, local officials in all three of the states we visited
expressed their concerns that, as state and local resources tighten
and caseloads continue to rise, staff are less able to provide
services to meet TANF cash assistance families' needs and move them
toward self-sufficiency. According to local officials in Oregon,
caseload increases and staff reductions sometimes result in
prioritization of TANF services. For example, one district diverted
caseworkers to process new applications, leaving fewer staff available
to work directly with TANF recipients. Before the recession, all
families receiving TANF cash assistance worked with a caseworker to
develop and implement a self-sufficiency plan. However, due to budget
constraints, the district prioritized the TANF families that receive
direct caseworker support, focusing on new TANF families, families who
are actively participating in the program, and families in crisis
situations. Local officials in all three states we visited also
reported that caseworkers' abilities to provide families with the
supports they need to move toward self-sufficiency has been further
challenged by reductions to TANF support services, such as domestic
violence programs and transportation assistance. Officials noted that
such cuts to services have particularly challenged their abilities to
serve clients with significant barriers to work. While officials in
one Oregon locality noted that they have been able to maintain some of
their support services through local partnerships, officials from
another locality in that state have had to reduce mental health and
substance abuse support services. These officials noted that this was
a difficult cut to make, as reductions in these services can lead to
challenging and potentially deadly outcomes in the current economic
environment, as unemployed families may be more likely to leave mental
health and substance abuse issues untreated.
[Side bar: In light of the increased numbers of families receiving
TANF cash assistance, state budget deficits, and staff reductions,
peer collaboration may help localities address current TANF
challenges. Local officials in two of the three states we visited
cited their participation in the HHS Rural Communities and Urban
Partnership Initiatives as examples of effective peer collaboration.
Through these initiatives, the officials participated in facilitated
collaboration and idea sharing sessions, online and in-person, among
TANF officials operating their programs in similar local areas
nationwide, and also received technical assistance from HHS. These
officials reported that the sessions were very useful, and one noted
that additional sessions would be particularly useful now to exchange
ideas and strategies for delivering TANF services in the current
economic environment. For instance, one local official is currently
working with a new FedEx branch in her district to coordinate
subsidized employment positions for TANF clients, based on an idea
gleaned from another Urban Partnership participant. End of side bar]
Additionally, some TANF officials stated that certain characteristics
of the TANF work activity definitions and work participation
verification requirements limit their flexibility to help TANF
recipients reach self-sufficiency in the current economy. During our
three site visits, local officials indicated that, in their
experience, the current time limits on vocational educational training
and job search and job readiness assistance are too short to prepare
workers for new industries and careers, which may be necessary in the
current economy.[Footnote 55] With national unemployment at 9.7
percent as of January 2010, officials commented through our site
visits and survey that TANF recipients are encountering increased
competition for all jobs, including low-wage, low-skill positions
previously held by some TANF recipients. This increased job
competition poses a particular challenge as states try to meet their
work participation rates in the current economy, as unsubsidized
employment has consistently been the most frequently reported work
activity for TANF recipients. In addition, state and local officials
reported that the work participation verification procedures required
by DRA have been particularly challenging recently, due to the
increased workloads of TANF staff.
Recovery Act TANF Funds Have Helped Many States Maintain Their
Programs, Though Some Reported Challenges Accessing Funds:
In response to the economic recession, the Recovery Act authorized
additional federal funding for state TANF programs, which most states
had applied for as of March 2010. States reported primarily using
these funds to cover increased cash assistance costs and to maintain
their TANF programs. However, states report some challenges applying
for Recovery Act TANF funds, as well as concern about their TANF
programs after the funds run out.
Most States Have Applied for Recovery Act TANF Funds, Which They Are
Using Primarily to Maintain Their Programs:
In response to the recent economic recession, the Recovery Act's $5
billion Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF programs has
provided additional federal funding to qualifying state TANF programs
that have had increases in the number of families receiving cash
assistance or in two specific types of expenditures. As of March 12,
2010, 46 states, including the District of Columbia, had applied for
the Recovery Act's Emergency Contingency Fund since it was created in
February 2009.[Footnote 56] In addition, almost all states reported
through our survey that they plan to apply for the fund in the future.
As of March 18, 2010, HHS had awarded $1.8 billion of this fund to 42
of the states that applied, with almost half of this amount awarded to
36 states because of increases in families receiving cash assistance.
States also have been applying for and receiving funds related to the
two types of expenditure increases that qualify for the fund.
Specifically, 40 percent of the total funds awarded to date were
provided to 21 states because of their increases in short-term,
nonrecurrent benefit expenditures, and 13 percent of all awarded funds
were provided to 27 states because of their increases in subsidized
employment expenditures.[Footnote 57] (See figure 13.) Further, 11
states had received Recovery Act TANF funds[Footnote 58] related to
expenditure increases in all three areas. Almost half of the Recovery
Act TANF funds already awarded have been expended by states.[Footnote
59]
Figure 13: States That Had Been Awarded Emergency Contingency Funds
for TANF, as of March 18, 2010, by Qualifying Increase:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 illustrated U.S. maps]
Basic assistance: 36 states:
Alabama:
Arkansas:
California:
Colorado:
Delaware:
Florida:
Hawaii:
Illinois:
Iowa:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Louisiana:
Maine:
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
Minnesota:
Mississippi:
Montana:
Nevada:
New Hampshire:
New Jersey:
New Mexico:
New York:
North Carolina:
Ohio:
Oklahoma:
Oregon:
Pennsylvania:
South Carolina:
South Dakota:
Tennessee:
Utah:
Vermont:
Virginia:
Washington:
West Virginia:
Short-term, Nonrecurrent benefits: 21 states:
Colorado:
Delaware:
Hawaii:
Kansas:
Maine:
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
Michigan:
Minnesota:
New Jersey:
New York:
North Carolina:
Oregon:
Pennsylvania:
Rhode Island:
Texas:
Utah:
Vermont:
Virginia:
Washington:
West Virginia:
Subsidized employment: 27 states:
Alabama:
California:
Delaware:
District of Columbia:
Florida:
Georgia:
Hawaii:
Illinois:
Kentucky:
Michigan:
Minnesota:
Mississippi:
Montana:
New Jersey:
New York:
North Carolina:
North Dakota:
Ohio:
Oklahoma:
Oregon:
Pennsylvania:
Rhode Island:
South Carolina:
Tennessee:
Utah:
Virginia:
Washington:
Sources: HHS (data); National Atlas of the United States (base map).
[End of figure]
States report that they have used Recovery Act TANF funds primarily to
maintain their programs and cover increased cash assistance
recipients, in part because many states' budgets have been stretched
during the recent economic recession. For example, of the states that
applied for these funds, 24 reported through our survey that they are
using the funds to cover increased cash assistance costs, and 18
reported using them to fill TANF budget gaps caused by the recent
economic recession, such as those for noncash services. Seventeen of
these states reported using them for both purposes. In addition, other
states reported that they were considering using the funds for these
purposes at the time of our survey. (See table 3.) During each of our
three site visits, state officials discussed how Recovery Act TANF
funds were allowing them to pay for increased cash assistance costs
and maintain their TANF programs. For example, in Florida, these funds
allowed the state to avoid certain TANF program budget cuts to
services other than cash assistance that had been under consideration
before the Recovery Act was enacted. The state had been considering
such cuts because of the need to direct more of its TANF funds to pay
for the increasing number of families receiving cash assistance
benefits--a number that increased by 28 percent between December 2007
and December 2009. Similarly, Oregon officials discussed how these
funds had allowed their state to avoid additional TANF program cuts
that had been under consideration. These proposed cuts were to several
supports aimed at helping TANF families move toward self-sufficiency,
including a $10 million decrease in the state's workforce development
services for TANF recipients and eliminating the state's case
management program for TANF families at risk of entering the child
welfare system.
Table 3: Purposes for Which States Had Used, or Were Considering
Using, Recovery Act TANF Funds, at the Time of Our Survey:
Purpose: Cover increased cash assistance costs;
Number of states that had used funds for this purpose: 24;
Number of states that were considering using funds for this purpose: 6.
Purpose: Fill TANF budget gaps caused by the economic recession;
Number of states that had used funds for this purpose: 18;
Number of states that were considering using funds for this purpose: 7.
Purpose: Expand existing programs and supports, other than TANF cash
assistance, for low-income families;
Number of states that had used funds for this purpose: 10;
Number of states that were considering using funds for this purpose:
10.
Purpose: Create new programs and supports for low-income families;
Number of states that had used funds for this purpose: 10;
Number of states that were considering using funds for this purpose: 8.
Source: GAO Survey of state TANF administrators.
[End of table]
Some states have also used Recovery Act TANF funds to expand existing
or create new programs or services for low-income families, including
short-term, nonrecurrent benefits and subsidized employment positions.
Specifically, 10 states reported through our survey that they are
using these funds to expand existing programs, and 10 states also
reported using the funds to create new programs. Additional states
reported that they were considering using the funds for these purposes
at the time of our survey. (See table 3.) Two of the three states we
visited were considering expanding or creating new programs or
services for low-income families at the time of our visits. Although
Recovery Act TANF funds can be used for any TANF-eligible program or
service, these two states were focusing on one of the areas
specifically targeted by Recovery Act TANF funds--subsidized
employment. For example, Florida officials were in the process of
working with the state's regional workforce boards to create new
subsidized employment opportunities for low-income families across the
state. We visited one such work site in Marion County, at which low-
income parents were processing SNAP applications at a call center.
This center was established in direct response to the economic
recession, both in its location and its type of employment.
Specifically, Marion County has one of Florida's highest unemployment
rates, and the center was created shortly after the closure of a
mortgage-processing firm that employed call agents in the area.
Further, the center provided needed assistance with processing new
SNAP applications, a program that has seen a 183 percent increase in
the number of households receiving these benefits in Florida during
the recent economic recession.
In addition to Recovery Act TANF funds, local officials we met with
during our three site visits reported that Recovery Act funds directed
to certain other federal programs have also benefited families
applying for and receiving TANF cash assistance. Specifically, the
Recovery Act allocated almost $300 million to states to help cover
administrative costs associated with the increased numbers of SNAP
applicants and recipients. In localities where determination of a
family's eligibility for SNAP and TANF are handled by the same case
workers, as they are in Florida, these funds have helped localities
manage the increased numbers of applicants and recipients for both
programs through the employment of temporary staff, overtime pay, and
other staffing options. The Recovery Act also allocated $1.2 billion
for Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) youth activities, including
summer employment. These funds are directed toward providing work
experience opportunities to low-income youth age 24 and under, and
they can also be used by localities for activities such as tutoring
and study skills training, occupational skills training, and support
services. In two of the states we visited, local officials discussed
how the Recovery Act WIA funds used for summer employment had
benefited some of their TANF recipients by providing opportunities for
these recipients to gain work experience and fulfill their TANF work
requirements.
In addition to creating the Emergency Contingency Fund, the Recovery
Act also extended TANF supplemental grants to states through fiscal
year 2010 and increased states' flexibility to spend prior year TANF
block grant funds. However, state officials we surveyed and
interviewed did not mention modifying their programs in response to
these changes. Further, although the Recovery Act also modified the
caseload reduction credit calculation for fiscal years 2009-2011,
because those credits have yet to be determined by HHS, the effect of
that change is currently unknown.
States Reported Some Challenges Applying for Recovery Act TANF Funds
and Concern about the Fund's Expiration Date:
Although HHS has provided ongoing guidance since April 2009 to help
states access and utilize Recovery Act TANF funds, some states
reported being challenged by a lack of guidance in certain areas. HHS
issued initial implementation guidance shortly following the creation
of the Emergency Contingency Fund and then continued to issue multiple
program instructions and other types of guidance, such as a new data
collection form, throughout 2009 and into 2010. Further, HHS officials
provided related technical assistance directly to states through
conference presentations, teleconferences, and one-on-one phone calls.
While most states reported that HHS assistance with applying for and
utilizing Recovery Act TANF funds had been useful, some expressed
frustration with the amount of time it had taken to receive guidance
and responses to questions. For example, throughout the beginning of
2009, HHS had provided states with limited guidance on allowable short-
term, nonrecurrent benefit and subsidized employment expenditures. A
senior HHS official explained that the department had not anticipated
the range of questions states would have about qualifying subsidized
employment and short-term, nonrecurrent benefit expenditures, and
therefore it took several months to work with the department's lawyers
to ensure an accurate and consistent response was provided to all
states. When completing our survey, two states mentioned that examples
of allowable expenditures would be helpful, and Florida officials we
met with during our site visit discussed how the lack of early
guidance on subsidized employment was a challenge. Specifically,
Florida state officials participated in HHS-initiated conference calls
about subsidized employment expenditures and submitted questions
directly to HHS, but the department took longer than anticipated to
respond. As a result, Florida moved forward with its Marion County
subsidized employment project in October, though the state was not
assured that the project qualified for Recovery Act TANF funds until
December. However, in November and December 2009, HHS issued examples
of allowable short-term, nonrecurrent benefit expenditures and
additional guidance on allowable subsidized employment expenditures,
and during our site visit, Florida officials indicated that the new
subsidized employment guidance had been particularly helpful.
States have also been challenged by certain requirements related to
accessing the Emergency Contingency Fund. For example, a few states
reported through our survey that the requirements for qualifying for
the fund should be more flexible. For example, some states may be
challenged by the requirement that they can qualify for the fund only
after increases in the number of families receiving cash assistance or
in expenditures on short-term, nonrecurrent benefits or subsidized
employment.[Footnote 60] While over two-thirds of states have
experienced increases in the numbers of families receiving TANF cash
assistance during the economic recession, due to various
factors,[Footnote 61] some of these increases have been relatively
small, and other states have experienced no increase. In addition,
states had limited experience with short-term, nonrecurrent benefits
and subsidized employment prior to 2009, which clarifies why they had
questions for HHS about allowable expenditures in these areas.
Specifically, 1 to 2 percent of all TANF expenditures were directed to
short-term, nonrecurrent benefits, and less than 1 percent to work
subsidies, in the fiscal years we analyzed between 2001 and 2008.
[Footnote 62] Further, less than 1 percent of all work-eligible TANF
cash assistance recipients participated in subsidized employment in
fiscal years 2007 and 2008--the two most recent years for which data
are available.[Footnote 63]
Some states also report that the Emergency Contingency Fund's
reimbursement level is a challenge in the current economic
environment. Specifically, states are reimbursed for 80 percent of
allowable expenditure increases from the fund.[Footnote 64] Two of the
states we visited, and a few states through our survey, reported that
this reimbursement level is challenging because of current state
budget constraints caused by the economic recession. For example,
officials from two of the states we visited reported that, while they
would like to access the Recovery Act TANF funds to provide subsidized
employment opportunities and believe those would benefit low-income
families in their states, their current state budgets are so tight
that the funds for 20 percent of these expenditure increases are
unavailable. As previously discussed, while some states continue to
have unspent federal TANF funds that they could potentially use to
fund 20 percent of the expenditure increases in these areas, other
states have had significant decreases in their unspent fund balances.
At the time of our visits, officials in these two states were pursuing
outside funding sources, such as local governments and private
entities, to help fund subsidized employment positions. According to
HHS officials, the department has been working with states to improve
their understanding of the various potential sources of funding they
can use to qualify for Recovery Act TANF funds.
Finally, states also reported concerns about the expiration date for
the Emergency Contingency Fund, which is currently September 30, 2010.
For example, some officials expressed concerns about the start-up time
associated with creating new short-term, nonrecurrent benefit programs
and subsidized employment positions and questioned whether there would
be time left to draw down Recovery Act TANF funds for those supports
once they were created. In addition, states that have been relying on
these funds to maintain their TANF programs likely have concerns about
the effect on their TANF programs when the Recovery Act TANF funds are
no longer available. As previously noted, all three of the states we
visited, as well as many states nationwide, have used these funds to
avoid cuts and related policy changes to their programs. For example,
according to state officials, when the Oregon state legislature passed
its current biennial budget in the summer of 2009, it assumed that the
state would be able to access most of the Recovery Act TANF funds
available to the state, to avoid making further cuts to the state's
TANF program. Because these funds are set to expire, however, they are
a temporary solution, and states will likely still face these budget
deficits in future years. During our site visits and through our
survey, several TANF officials expressed their hopes that the federal
government will modify the expiration date for the Emergency
Contingency Fund and allow states to access any remaining funds
through fiscal year 2011. Related to this, the President's fiscal year
2011 budget request recommends extending the fund's expiration date to
September 30, 2011, and the House of Representatives approved a bill
in March 2010 that included this extension.[Footnote 65] The budget
request also addressed several other state concerns by proposing
adding $2.5 billion to the fund, counting new types of expenditure
increases for which states can qualify for the fund, and allowing
states to be reimbursed for 100 percent of their subsidized employment
expenditure increases.
Concluding Observations:
States have taken advantage of the various policy and funding options
available to adjust their TANF work participation rates since DRA. As
a result, while measuring work participation of TANF recipients is key
to understanding the success of state programs in meeting one of the
federal purposes of TANF, whether states met federal work
participation rates after DRA provides only a partial picture of state
TANF programs' effort and success in engaging recipients in work
activities. Although the DRA changes to TANF work requirements were
expected to strengthen the work participation rate as a performance
measure and move more families toward self-sufficiency, states' use of
the modifications currently allowed in federal law and regulations, as
well as states' policy choices, have diminished the rate's usefulness
as the national performance measure for TANF.
In addition, state and local officials have found the work
participation rate measure particularly challenging during the recent
economic recession, as opportunities for employment have become less
available, and more families seek assistance from TANF. As many state
and local officials face resource constraints during the economic
recession, some are making choices to fund basic cash assistance
instead of services that may help address families' movement toward
work and long-term self-sufficiency. Given the block grant structure
of TANF, its design has not supported significant program expansion
during the recent recession; however, Recovery Act TANF funds appear
to be helping many states maintain their programs and avoid further
funding cuts. Nonetheless, the original TANF Contingency Fund was
recently depleted, and states will likely face even more difficult
decisions about the future of their TANF programs after the Recovery
Act TANF funds expire or run out. It remains to be seen what decisions
states will make and how those will affect their programs, as well as
how federally defined goals for TANF will be affected, if at all, by
the next reauthorization of the TANF block grant.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment, and
a copy of the agency's written response is in appendix IV. In its
comments, HHS did not disagree with our findings and said that the
department appreciated our analysis of developments in state TANF
programs following DRA and the Recovery Act, as well as the economic
context in which states are now operating their TANF programs.
However, HHS also suggested that it is incomplete to say that states'
work participation rates after DRA reflect both recipients' work
participation and states' policy choices, without acknowledging that
federal law changed in a number of ways after DRA. We agree, and we
believe that the report appropriately acknowledges the DRA changes to
TANF, the extent to which states reported having to make changes to
their programs to comply with DRA, and the extent to which states
reported continuing to be challenged by the DRA changes. Further, the
report also directly acknowledges that the extent to which states had
to make changes to comply with DRA may have affected whether some met
their work participation rates in the years immediately following DRA.
HHS also indicated that more inquiry is needed to discern whether
states believe that the DRA requirements enhanced their ability to run
more effective programs. While we did not directly ask states this
question through our state survey, we agree that this would be
interesting to know. Finally, HHS also indicated that they have
undertaken a major technical assistance effort to help states
understand how to access and use the Recovery Act TANF funds. In our
interactions with the department during this study, we saw the extent
of those efforts, and we agree. As such, while the relevant section of
our report is focused more on state TANF programs' responses to the
Recovery Act, it also acknowledges related HHS assistance to states
and notes that most states reported finding this assistance useful.
However, our findings in this section also address areas in which
states continue to be challenged in utilizing the Recovery Act TANF
funds, which may help HHS target its assistance efforts moving
forward. HHS also provided technical comments on the draft report,
which we have incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees and to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Kay E. Brown:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To obtain information about changes to state Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) programs after the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(DRA), economic recession, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), we:
* reviewed available TANF data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), including the number of families receiving TANF
cash assistance, work participation rates, federal and state
expenditures, and states' applications for the Emergency Contingency
Fund for state TANF programs;
* conducted a nationwide survey of state TANF administrators;
* visited three states and selected localities within each state and
interviewed officials administering TANF;
* interviewed officials from HHS and reviewed pertinent federal laws,
regulations, and agency guidance; and:
* interviewed researchers knowledgeable about TANF from a range of
organizations.[Footnote 66]
We conducted our work from August 2009 to May 2010, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Review of TANF Data from HHS:
Because HHS is responsible for collecting state TANF data and
reporting on state TANF programs nationally, we reviewed relevant TANF
data compiled by that agency. Specifically, we reviewed published data
on (1) the number and types of families receiving TANF cash assistance
between fiscal years 1997 and 2009, (2) work participation in fiscal
years 2001 and 2005-2008, (3) states that did not meet the work
participation rates between fiscal years 2001 and 2008, (4) states'
TANF block grant and maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures in
fiscal years 2001 and 2005-2009, and (5) states' unspent TANF funds in
fiscal years 1997-2009. Because the scope of our work extended to the
50 states and Washington, D.C., we excluded data for the U.S.
territories from our analysis. The years of work participation and
expenditure data analyzed were selected for two reasons. First, we
chose to analyze work participation and expenditure data from fiscal
year 2001 because it is an approximate base year between both initial
TANF implementation and the enactment of DRA. In addition, we chose to
analyze the years immediately preceding and following DRA
implementation. In all cases, we analyzed the most recent data
available, including preliminary fiscal year 2009 expenditures data
HHS provided to us before its public release. While we interviewed HHS
officials to gather information on the processes they use to ensure
the completeness and accuracy of the TANF caseload, work
participation, and expenditures data, we did not independently verify
these data with states. In addition, although HHS does not perform on-
site reviews of states' TANF data, auditors in each state periodically
review state TANF programs, including administrative data, to comply
with the Single Audit Act of 1984. Because of these reviews, as well
as the steps taken by HHS officials to ensure the completeness and
accuracy of these data, we determined that they were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also reviewed selected documents submitted by states to HHS, which
the agency does not publish. These included states' (1) caseload
reduction credit reports for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that had been
approved by HHS and (2) applications for the Emergency Contingency
Fund for state TANF programs through March 12, 2010. Specifically, we
reviewed caseload reduction credit reports to analyze state
application of excess MOE expenditures toward their credits after DRA.
Survey of States:
To better understand recent changes in state TANF programs, we
conducted a Web-based survey of state TANF administrators in all 50
states and the District of Columbia. The survey was conducted between
November 2009 and January 2010 with administrators from every state
and the District of Columbia responding. The survey included questions
about: changes made to TANF programs and policies since DRA,
challenges related to complying with DRA, cash assistance programs
funded with solely state funds, use of the Emergency Contingency Fund
for state TANF programs, changes to TANF service delivery related to
the economic recession, and HHS assistance to states after DRA and the
Recovery Act.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents
interpret questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses.
We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting
draft instruments and using a Web-based administration system.
Specifically, during survey development, we pretested draft
instruments with TANF administrators from four states (Connecticut,
Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio) in October 2009. We selected the
pretest states to provide variation in selected state TANF program
characteristics and geographic location. In the pretests, we were
generally interested in the clarity, precision, and objectivity of the
questions, as well as the flow and layout of the survey. For example,
we wanted to ensure definitions used in the surveys were clear and
known to the respondents, categories provided in closed-ended
questions were complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey
sections and the questions within each section was appropriate. We
revised the final survey based on pretest results. Another step we
took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a Web-based survey.
Allowing respondents to enter their responses directly into an
electronic instrument created a record for each respondent in a data
file and eliminated the need for and the errors associated with a
manual data entry process. To further minimize errors, programs used
to analyze the survey data and make estimations were independently
verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
While we did not fully validate specific information that states
reported through our survey, we took several steps to ensure that the
information was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
For example, we reviewed the responses and identified those that
required further clarification and, subsequently, conducted follow-up
interviews with those respondents to ensure the information they
provided was reasonable and reliable. In our review of the data, we
also identified and logically fixed skip pattern errors for questions
that respondents should have skipped but did not. In addition, we
compared our findings on recent policy changes with information
contained in the Urban Institute's Welfare Rules Database[Footnote 67]
and found that our results were consistent. On the basis of these
checks, we believe our survey data are sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our work.
Site Visits:
To gather additional information about changes to state TANF programs
after DRA, the economic recession, and the Recovery Act, we conducted
site visits to Florida, Ohio, and Oregon, and selected localities in
those states, between September 2009 and December 2009. Specifically,
we met with state officials in each state and visited Hillsborough,
Marion, and Leon counties in Florida; Franklin and Pike counties in
Ohio; and Districts 2, 3, and 4 in Oregon. These three Oregon
districts are responsible for TANF administration in the Portland
metropolitan area, as well as Benton, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, and
Yamhill counties. We selected these three states because they made
varied modifications to their TANF programs after DRA and the Recovery
Act, and the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance in
these states had increased since the economic recession began. In
addition, these states were selected because they varied in geographic
location and selected TANF program characteristics, including the
maximum amount of TANF cash assistance provided to each recipient
family. We worked with the states to select localities that were
located in both urban and rural areas to ensure that we captured any
related differences in TANF program implementation and work
participation.
During the site visits, we interviewed state and local administering
agency officials. Through these interviews, we collected information
on changes to TANF programs, policies, and procedures since DRA and
the recession in the economy, strategies employed to comply with DRA,
use of funds received from the Emergency Contingency Fund for state
TANF programs, challenges related to implementing the TANF program
since DRA, and HHS assistance since DRA and the Recovery Act. We
cannot generalize our findings beyond the states and localities we
visited.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Numbers of TANF Families Meeting Work Requirements in
Recent Years:
United States:
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 874,798;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 295,294;
Percentage: 33.8%;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 807,710;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 269,679;
Percentage: 33.4%;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 870,140;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 263,092;
Percentage: 30.2%;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 815,877;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 243,026;
Percentage: 29.8%.
State: Alabama;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 8,383;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,235;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 7,829;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,260;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 8,317;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,830;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 7,302;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,727.
State: Alaska;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 2,549;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,165;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 2,158;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 982;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 1,873;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 878;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,713;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 735.
State: Arizona;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 21,993;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,645;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 18,349;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,475;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 16,065;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,854;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 15,473;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,273.
State: Arkansas;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 2,967;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 913;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 2,885;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 839;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,489;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,239;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,515;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,361.
State: California;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 179,908;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 47,037;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 169,333;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 37,244;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 282,016;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 62,813;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 279,288;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 70,334.
State: Colorado;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 9,067;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,341;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 8,145;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,451;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 5,303;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,435;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,893;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,255.
State: Connecticut;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 9,262;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,154;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 7,913;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,446;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 10,443;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,014;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 8,667;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,187.
State: Delaware;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 2,896;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 654;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 2,768;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 700;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 1,397;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 446;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,044;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 508.
State: District Of Colombia;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 8,323;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,937;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 7,859;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,349;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,042;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 715;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,337;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 663.
State: Florida;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 15,163;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,082;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 10,855;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,859;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 15,105;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 9,749;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 7,651;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,321.
State: Georgia;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 13,142;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,303;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 5,875;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,808;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,189;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,735;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 2,343;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,364.
State: Hawaii;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 4,553;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,616;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 3,647;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,360;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,208;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 920;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,686;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,268.
State: Idaho;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 476;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 211;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 355;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 161;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 156;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 83;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 87;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 52.
State: Illinois;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 12,127;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,366;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 11,738;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,911;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 8,583;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,885;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,865;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,644.
State: Indiana;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 21,203;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,559;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 19,451;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,191;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 27,446;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,554;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 18,570;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,450.
State: Iowa;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 10,955;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,243;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 9,780;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,817;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 10,961;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,407;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 10,440;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,295.
State: Kansas;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 11,732;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 10,168;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 11,321;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 8,746;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 8,698;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,131;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 7,012;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,423.
State: Kentucky;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 14,962;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,827;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 13,183;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,401;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 10,123;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,884;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 9,319;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,540.
State: Louisiana;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 5,111;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,024;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 3,215;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,345;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,641;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,110;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 2,303;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 925.
State: Maine;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 6,800;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,927;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 6,574;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,748;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 10,334;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,268;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 9,636;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,096.
State: Maryland;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 12,235;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,544;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 9,228;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,978;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 5,949;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,776;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 7,207;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,653.
State: Massachusetts;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 11,061;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,624;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 23,699;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,818;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 21,616;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,110;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 31,740;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 14,326.
State: Michigan;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 44,638;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 9,864;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 47,639;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 10,299;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 38,604;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 10,828;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 35,196;
After DRA: FY 2008: v11,835.
State: Minnesota;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 15,645;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,673;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 14,255;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,346;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 13,142;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,749;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 9,922;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,984.
State: Mississippi;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 6,736;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,381;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 4,486;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,575;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,213;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,989;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,695;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,332.
State: Missouri;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 24,095;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,943;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 23,915;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,057;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 26,010;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,644;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 23,835;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,386.
State: Montana;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 3,102;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,581;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 2,532;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,008;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 1,461;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 681;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,206;
After DRA: FY 2008: v534.
State: Nebraska;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 6,233;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,182;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 6,555;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,206;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,589;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 795;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,562;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,822.
State: Nevada;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 2,516;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,054;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 1,649;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 792;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,897;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,002;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,509;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,479.
State: New Hampshire;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 3,407;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 839;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 3,269;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 787;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,292;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 947;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,662;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 780.
State: New Jersey;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 25,427;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,460;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 24,440;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,150;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 20,486;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,766;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 19,625;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,702.
State: New Mexico;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 9,694;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,061;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 9,005;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,827;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 7,022;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,568;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 6,668;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,473.
State: New York;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 70,344;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 24,814;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 66,820;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 25,251;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 87,185;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 33,168;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 80,691;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 30,090.
State: North Carolina;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 11,846;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,734;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 9,377;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,522;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 7,013;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,277;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 7,383;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,823.
State: North Dakota;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 1,585;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 511;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 1,745;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 903;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 1,294;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 763;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 888;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 447.
State: Ohio;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 36,189;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 21,117;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 33,722;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 18,533;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 30,632;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,253;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 30,649;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,508.
State: Oklahoma;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 4,427;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,506;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 3,140;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,030;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,289;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 986;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,939;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 881.
State: Oregon;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 8,492;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,267;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 8,109;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,229;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 8,782;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,315;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 10,848;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 2,659.
State: Pennsylvania;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 65,832;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 10,003;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 62,396;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 17,258;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 26,388;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 13,286;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 21,550;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 8,897.
State: Rhode Island;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 6,564;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,589;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 5,748;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,438;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 4,708;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,289;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 4,809;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 845.
State: South Carolina;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 6,692;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,643;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 6,304;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,109;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 7,484;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,962;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 7,807;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,025.
State: South Dakota;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 785;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 449;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 793;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 458;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 708;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 377;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 631;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 392.
State: Tennessee;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 39,259;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 20,449;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 36,985;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 21,134;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 36,599;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 16,887;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 31,995;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 8,029.
State: Texas;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 35,275;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 13,667;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 24,145;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 10,091;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 24,057;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 8,218;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 16,791;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,969.
State: Utah;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 5,845;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,818;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 4,368;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,844;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,116;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,057;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 2,079;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 781.
State: Vermont;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 3,047;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 683;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 2,837;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 631;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 2,806;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 628;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 1,947;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 419.
State: Virginia;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 9,916;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,588;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 9,148;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 4,923;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 16,176;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,041;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 16,740;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 7,538.
State: Washington;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 30,219;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 11,663;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 28,872;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 10,431;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 26,468;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 6,723;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 27,417;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 5,027.
State: West Virginia;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 5,296;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,031;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 4,388;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,162;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,815;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 592;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 2,835;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 504.
State: Wisconsin;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 6,779;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 3,112;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 4,868;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,765;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 3,914;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,441;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 3,857;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 1,439.
State: Wyoming;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families with work requirements: 45;
Before DRA: FY 2005: TANF families who met work requirements: 37;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families with work requirements: 40;
Before DRA: FY 2006: TANF families who met work requirements: 31;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families with work requirements: 36;
After DRA: FY 2007: TANF families who met work requirements: 24;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families with work requirements: 50;
After DRA: FY 2008: TANF families who met work requirements: 26.
Source: HHS data.
Note: Numbers are average monthly numbers for families receiving TANF
cash assistance.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Factors Affecting States' Ability to Meet Work
Participation Rates:
As discussed in this report, each state's ability to meet the required
work participation rates reflects not only the number of its TANF
families sufficiently engaged in countable work activities, but also
changes in the number of families receiving TANF cash assistance in
the state, and the state's policy choices that (1) lower their
required work participation rates, (2) keep working families in the
calculation of their rates, and (3) remove certain families from the
calculation of these rates. See tables 4 and 5 for information on
factors that may have affected each state's ability to meet the all-
families work participation rate in fiscal year 2007.
Table 4: For States That Met Their All-Families Work Participation
Rates in FY 2007, Various Factors May Have Affected This Outcome:
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Alabama;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Alaska;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Arizona;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Arkansas;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Colorado;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Connecticut;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Delaware;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: D.C.;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Florida;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Georgia;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Hawaii;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: Idaho;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Empty];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Illinois;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Empty];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: Iowa;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Kansas;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Louisiana;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Maryland;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Massachusetts;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Mississippi;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Missouri;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Montana;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Nebraska;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: New
Hampshire;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: New
Jersey;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: New
York;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: North
Carolina;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: North
Dakota;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Oklahoma;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Pennsylvania;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: Rhode
Island;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: South
Carolina;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: South
Dakota;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Tennessee;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*.
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: Texas;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]: Utah;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Virginia;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Washington;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Wisconsin;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
States that met FY 2007 all-families work participation rate[A]:
Wyoming;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Caseload
reductions: [Shaded];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits[B]: Excess
MOE spending (*=relied on this spending to meet their rates): [Shaded];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[C]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [C]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Empty].
[A] Source: HHS data.
[B] Source: HHS data. States that have cells shaded in these columns
had at least 50 percent of their TANF families with work requirements
participating in work activities in FY 2007. Some of these states
still applied for caseload reduction credits, but they did not need
those credits to meet their work participation rates.
[C] Our survey data was used for this analysis. We did not collect
information on states that had each of these policies in FY 2007 but
had eliminated them by the time they were completing our survey in
late 2009. Therefore, some states may be missing checks in the table
above.
[End of table]
Table 5: For States that Did Not Meet Their All-Families Work
Participation Rates in FY 2007, Various Factors May Have Affected This
Outcome:
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: California;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Check].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Indiana;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Empty].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Kentucky;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Check].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Maine;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Check].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Michigan;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Empty];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Empty].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Minnesota;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Check].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Nevada;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Empty].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: New Mexico;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Check]*.
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Ohio;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Empty].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Oregon;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Empty].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: Vermont;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check]*;
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Empty].
States that did not meet the FY 2007 all-families work participation
rate[A]: West Virginia;
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Caseload reductions: [Check];
Factors that increased states' caseload reduction credits for FY 2007:
Excess MOE spending: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had a worker supplement program
in FY 2007 (*=implemented FY 2006-2007): [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by keeping working
families in the rate calculation[B]: Had earned income disregards in
FY 2007 (*=expanded since FY 2006): [Check];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Provided cash assistance to
certain families with solely state funds in FY 2007: [Empty];
Factors that may have affected states' rates by removing nonworking
families from the rate calculation [B]: Had a diversion program in FY
2007 (*=expanded since FY2006): [Check].
[A] Source: HHS data.
[B] Our survey data was used for this analysis. We did not collect
information on states that had each of these policies in FY 2007 but
had eliminated them by the time they were completing our survey in
late 2009. Therefore, some states may be missing checks in the table
above.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office Of The Secretary:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Washington, DC 20201:
May 4, 2010:
Kay E. Brown, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Brown:
Enclosed are the Departments comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled: "Temporary
Assistance For Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and
Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates" (GAO-
10-525).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this report
before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Andrea Palm:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS)
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled,
"Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: Implications Of Recent
Legislative And Economic Changes For State Programs And Work
Participation Rates" (GAO-10-525):
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
GAO report.
We appreciate GAO's analysis of developments in State TANF programs
following implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) TANF
regulations and enactment of ARRA, as well as the economic context in
which States now operate their programs. We are encouraged by the ways
in which ARRA funds have helped States to forestall reductions in
benefits and services and have spurred innovative efforts in States.
We note that the President's FY2011 Budget contains a proposal for a
one-year extension of the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund.
We were, of course. aware prior to this report that State
participation rates since adoption of the DRA regulations have, in the
aggregate, changed little from their pre-ARRA levels, though the
aggregate total does not reflect that changes for some individual
States have been quite dramatic. However, we believe that it is
incomplete to simply say that States' rates reflected both recipients'
work participation and States' policy choices. A crucial third factor
was that Federal law changed in a number of important ways in and
after enactment of DRA. DRA required States to include their
participants in "separate state programs" when calculating the rates.
DRA provided for a Federal definition of "work-eligible individual"
and precluded States from certain practices under which families were
excluded from the rates. HHS' regulations under the DRA provided
explicit definitions of work activities in ways that often narrowed
countable activities beyond what States had previously counted. And,
the regulations provided for new and stringent work verification
procedures that further limited States' abilities to count certain
previously countable participants.
It remains unclear what the relative impact of this set of Federal
changes was in the context of State policies and efforts, but we
believe it is essential to recognize that a set of Federal changes
restricted States' ability to exclude families from the rates and
restricted the ability to count a range of activities, and this surely
is a relevant factor in understanding the overall change that has
occurred since DRA. The report notes that "41 states reported through
our survey that they made moderate, great or very great changes
to their processes for reporting and verifying TANF families' reported
hours of work participation to comply with DRA..." This point should
be incorporated in the overall discussion of factors affecting the
rates attained by States.
We note that the survey of States sought information from States about
the challenges and issues faced in complying with the new requirements
and the degree of difficulty in doing so. It does not appear that the
survey invited States to offer their views as to whether the new
requirements had enhanced their ability to run more effective programs
in connecting families with employment. This is an important question
for further inquiry. For example, according to the survey, officials
reported that the 12-month lifetime limit on vocational educational
training and the 6-week general limit on job search and job readiness
(presumably, as defined in the DRA regulations) were "challenging to
implement," but it would also be helpful to ask if States believe that
such restrictions improve the effectiveness of their programs.
We are greatly encouraged by the range of ways in which States have
been able to use TANF Recovery Act funds to address increased needs,
sustain services at a time of great budgetary cutbacks, and to
innovate in areas such as the adoption of subsidized jobs programs. In
discussing Recovery Act funds, the draft report notes that "Recovery
Act TANF Funds Have Helped Many States Maintain Their Programs, Though
Some Reported Challenges Accessing Funds." ACF has engaged in a major
technical assistance effort with States and others to help ensure that
jurisdictions understand the rules governing the Recovery Act funding,
allowable uses, and opportunities presented. We think it is important
to clarify that in a set of instances, State applications have gone
beyond straightforward requests to reimburse basic assistance, and
have sometimes presented previously unaddressed policy or grants
management issues. States also have asked hundreds of policy-related
questions regarding the definitions of activities and allowable uses
of funds. In some instances, it has taken time to resolve highly
technical and legal policy questions, but doing so is important to
ensure the integrity of the process and the TANF program, and the
proper use of the funds under law and regulation. When faced with such
obstacles, we have tried to find viable alternatives, instead of
simply denying a request for funding. In these instances, it
necessarily takes longer to review an application to ensure full
compliance with Federal law. ACF has been working hard to address
questions and to respond to proposals submitted by States in a timely
manner. Our office has received repeated statements of appreciation
from our State partners for the efforts that have been made to help
States access the Emergency Contingency Fund in accordance with law.
In the Florida example, aspects of the State's subsidized employment
program were initially structured in a non-compliant manner. As a
result, HHS was required to invest additional efforts and time in
developing an alternative approach to address the State's needs.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215, or brownke@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Heather McCallum Hahn, Assistant Director, and Rachel Frisk, Analyst-
in-Charge, managed this assignment and made significant contributions
to all aspects of this report. Karen Febey, Maria Gaona, Jean McSween,
and Betty Ward-Zukerman also made important contributions to this
report. Susan Aschoff, James Bennett, and Jessica Orr provided writing
and graphics assistance, and Alex Galuten provided legal assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Changes in
Participation Rates. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-495T]. Washington, D.C.: March 11,
2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have
Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession's Impact
on Caseloads Varies by State. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-164]. Washington, D.C.: February
23, 2010.
Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families: A Review of Recent
GAO Work. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-342R].
Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2010.
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further
Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to
Help HHS Improve Program Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1002]. Washington, D.C.: September
26, 2008.
Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in
States' Uses of the TANF Block Grant. [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.
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 TANF Balances. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1094]. Washington, D.C.: September
8, 2003.
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: 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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] From this point forward in the report, when we refer to changes
that occurred after DRA or the Recovery Act, we are referring to
changes made after those laws were enacted.
[2] To meet the MOE requirement, each state must generally spend 75 or
80 percent of what it was spending in fiscal year 1994 on welfare-
related programs, including: Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency
Assistance (EA), and AFDC-related child care programs.
[3] The 12 work activities are: unsubsidized employment, subsidized
private sector employment, subsidized public sector employment, work
experience (if sufficient private sector employment is not available),
on-the-job training, job search and job readiness assistance,
community service programs, vocational educational training, job
skills training directly related to employment, education directly
related to employment (for recipients who have not received a high
school diploma or certificate of high school equivalency),
satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study
leading to a certificate of general equivalence (for recipients who
have not completed secondary school or received such a certificate),
and the provision of child care services to an individual who is
participating in a community service program.
[4] Throughout this report, we refer to families receiving TANF cash
assistance, for ease of reporting. However, this is a simplification
of PRWORA, which actually refers to families receiving "assistance."
Federal regulations define "assistance" as including cash, payments,
vouchers, and other forms of benefits designed to meet a family's
ongoing basic needs.
[5] However, families that include a minor child head-of-household are
not excluded from these requirements.
[6] All families receiving assistance that include an adult or minor
child head-of-household (e.g., teen parents) are included in the
calculation of a state's all families' work participation rate. In
contrast, only two-parent families receiving assistance are included
in the calculation of a state's two-parent families' work
participation rate.
[7] To be counted as engaging in work for a month, most TANF families
are required to participate in work activities for an average of 30
hours per week in that month. However, PRWORA defined different weekly
work hour requirements for teen parents attending school, single
parents of children under age 6, and two-parent families.
[8] For the purposes of the caseload reduction credit, federal
regulations define the total number of families receiving cash
assistance in a state as families that receive cash assistance both in
states' TANF programs and in separate state programs that are used by
states to meet their MOE requirements. However, under federal TANF
statutes, the credit calculation excludes caseload reductions required
by federal law and reductions resulting from changes in states'
eligibility criteria. Regulations also allow a state that spent in
excess of its required MOE amount in the year preceding the current
one to include only the pro rata share of the total number of families
receiving MOE-funded cash assistance required to meet its basic MOE
requirement.
[9] Although federal law does not impose work requirements on
families, it poses the potential of a financial penalty on states that
do not engage the requisite percentage of families in countable work
activities for the required number of hours. Because of this statutory
requirement, states require certain families receiving cash assistance
to engage in these work activities for the required number of hours.
We refer to these state-imposed requirements as families' "individual
work requirements."
[10] States qualify as "needy" based on criteria related to increases
in unemployment or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
participation.
[11] In our 2005 report on TANF work participation, we found
differences in how states defined the 12 TANF work activities, which
had resulted in some states counting activities that others did not
count, and, therefore, an inconsistent measurement of work
participation across states. We also found that some of the states in
our review lacked internal controls over work participation data. See
GAO, 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.: Aug. 19,
2005).
[12] However, if a state also receives funds from the TANF Contingency
Fund created under PRWORA, the maximum amount payable to the state
from both contingency funds together is equal to up to half of its
annual basic TANF block grant.
[13] To qualify for the TANF Contingency Fund, states have to be
defined as a "needy state" and submit a request to HHS. States qualify
as "needy" based on criteria related to increases in unemployment or
SNAP participation.
[14] To be counted as engaging in work, most TANF families are
required to participate in one of 12 work activities for a minimum
average of 30 hours each week. However, federal law defines different
weekly work hour requirements for teen parents attending school,
single parents of children under age 6, and two-parent families.
[15] The data in this section reflect families receiving TANF-or MOE-
funded cash assistance who are required to participate in work
activities as a condition of benefit receipt. Some families are
excluded from work requirements, with the most significant group being
certain child-only cases. In a child-only TANF family, the parent or
nonparent caregivers receive the cash benefit on behalf of the child,
but the adult's needs are not included in the calculation of the cash
benefit.
[16] An additional 8 and 10 percent of TANF families in fiscal years
2007 and 2008, respectively, participated in work activities for less
than the amount required to meet their individual work requirements.
Further, some states reported TANF families participating in "other"
work activities that do not count toward the federal work
requirements, both before and after DRA.
[17] See appendix II for state by state information on work
participation by families receiving TANF cash assistance.
[18] In our 2005 report on TANF work participation before DRA, we
found differences in how states defined the 12 TANF work activities,
which had resulted in some states counting activities that others did
not count, and, therefore, an inconsistent measurement of work
participation across states. We also found that some of the states in
our review reported the hours recipients were scheduled to work,
rather than those actually worked, as work participation. As a result,
some states likely needed to make significant changes to their work
definitions and procedures after DRA. See [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-821].
[19] We analyzed states' work participation data reported to HHS for
selected years. For more information, see appendix I.
[20] While 13 states received penalty letters from HHS for not meeting
the work participation rates in fiscal year 2007, one state, Vermont,
submitted corrected data demonstrating that it had met the work
participation rate. As a result, HHS notified Vermont that it was no
longer subject to a penalty in December 2009.
[21] According to a senior HHS official, as of March 3, 2010, HHS had
approved all corrective compliance plans submitted by states that did
not meet the fiscal year 2007 rates but had not yet responded to
states that submitted reasonable cause or needy state claims.
[22] Specifically, when calculating the caseload reduction credit,
federal regulations allow a state that spent in excess of its required
MOE amount in the year preceding the current one to include only the
pro rata share of the total number of families receiving MOE-funded
cash assistance required to meet the state's basic MOE requirement.
[23] We analyzed states' expenditures of federal TANF funds and
related state MOE funds for selected fiscal years. For more
information, see appendix I.
[24] Oregon provided cash assistance to these families with SSFs
between the summer of 2007 and the summer of 2009. However, in 2009,
the state began using TANF-related funds to provide cash assistance to
these families.
[25] Supplemental Security Income is federally administered by the
Social Security Administration and provides cash assistance to the
aged, blind, and disabled.
[26] Three states indicated that they began funding cash assistance
for certain low-income families with SSFs before fiscal year 2006.
Other states reported that they funded cash assistance for certain low-
income families through SSPs before fiscal year 2006 and changed to
funding cash assistance for these families with SSFs after fiscal year
2006.
[27] Officials in 3 other states reported that they have no statewide
diversion program, but one or more counties have a diversion program.
[28] While we did not ask states to report the reasons for their
policy changes on our survey, during our Ohio site visit, officials
discussed recent cutbacks to funds for diversion programs that were
made because of the economic recession.
[29] See appendix III for state by state information on these factors.
[30] In our 2005 report on TANF work participation, we found
differences in how states defined the 12 work activities, which
resulted in some states counting specific types of activities toward
families' work requirements that other states did not. We also found
that some of the states in our review reported the hours recipients
were scheduled to work, rather than those actually worked, as work
participation. As a result, some states likely needed to make
significant changes to their work definitions and procedures to comply
with DRA. See GAO-05-821.
[31] In addition, 2 states reported that they did not know the extent
to which HHS assistance was useful in implementing the DRA changes,
and 1 state did not respond to this question.
[32] Although HHS interim final regulations issued in June 2006
reiterated the timeframes states had to establish their Work
Verification Plans, DRA initially imposed the requirement that states
have work verification and related procedures in place by September
30, 2006.
[33] As noted previously, prior to DRA, we found differences in how
states defined the 12 work activities, which resulted in some states
counting specific types of activities toward families' work
requirements that other states did not, as well as a lack of internal
controls over work participation data in some states. As a result,
some states needed to make significant changes to comply with DRA,
which likely took some time to implement. See GAO-05-821.
[34] Prior to the creation of TANF until June 30, 2003, Oregon had a
waiver that allowed the state significant flexibility to design its
TANF program. As part of those flexibilities, Oregon was able to
define what types of work activities counted as work participation for
families receiving TANF cash assistance.
[35] Officials did not provide an estimate of the amount of financial
resources the state used to make these changes.
[36] Specifically, states reported that 57 and 56 percent of their
families with work requirements had 0 hours of work participation in
fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008--the two years after DRA for
which HHS data are available. While the challenges related to
verifying participation may have some effect on these data, these data
also suggest that a significant proportion of families receiving TANF
cash assistance are not participating in work activities for any
amount of time.
[37] Federal regulations define the 12 work activities and reiterate
the law in limiting the number of weekly hours that TANF families can
participate in 3 activities, which are commonly referred to as
noncore--education directly related to employment, job skills training
directly related to employment, and satisfactory attendance at
secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of
general equivalency--and have those hours count toward their work
requirements. Specifically, for families generally, a maximum of 10
weekly hours in these activities count toward their minimum work
requirements, and for two-parent families, a maximum of 5 weekly hours
in these activities count toward their minimum work requirements.
[38] Specifically, the limits apply to the amount of time states can
count each family's participation in these two activities toward the
work requirements. However, federal law does not prohibit states from
spending TANF or MOE dollars to support families in these activities
past the time limits.
[39] While the time limit on job search and job readiness assistance
is generally 6 weeks, states can extend this limit to 12 weeks during
times of economic distress. Specifically, states qualify for the
extended limit if they meet specific criteria related to increases in
unemployment and SNAP participation.
[40] We used HHS data for this analysis and excluded the U.S.
territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As of
March 17, 2010, HHS had not published data for one state's September
2009 TANF-and MOE-funded cash assistance caseload--Michigan.
Therefore, Michigan was excluded from this analysis.
[41] Throughout the remainder of this report, we use "TANF cash
assistance" to represent TANF-and MOE-funded cash assistance. The data
on the total number of families receiving TANF-and MOE-funded cash
assistance nationwide are HHS data. As of March 17, 2010, HHS had not
published data for all months of fiscal year 2009 for Guam and
Michigan. See appendix 1 for more information. Further, these data
only include families receiving cash assistance and not families
solely receiving other programs and services funded with federal TANF
and state MOE dollars.
[42] However, the increase in the total number of families receiving
TANF cash assistance nationwide during the current economic recession
has not followed the rise in unemployment rates the same way that
other public assistance programs, such as SNAP, have. Specifically,
the total number of SNAP recipients nationwide has increased at a
similar rate to the increase in the national unemployment rate, while
the increase in the number of TANF cash assistance recipients has been
more moderate.
[43] The extent of Oregon's increase in the number of families
receiving TANF cash assistance is partly related to a state funding
change that occurred in July 2009. At that time, Oregon began funding
certain families who had been receiving cash assistance funded with
SSFs since the summer of 2007 with TANF and MOE funds. Because of this
funding change, these families are now reported in the state's data to
HHS. We gathered this information during our Oregon site visit;
however, we did not gather information from all states on the extent
to which they have made similar changes to how they fund cash
assistance for low-income families during the economic recession. As a
result, we do not know if other states' data have been similarly
affected.
[44] In our recent report that also addressed TANF changes during the
current economic recession, we found that including families whose
cash assistance was funded with SSFs provided a more accurate picture
of increases or decreases in states' cash assistance caseloads during
the recession. In some states, this resulted in greater increases or
decreases, while in others, this lessened the extent of the change.
See 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).
[45] In a child-only TANF family, the parent or nonparent caregivers
receive the cash benefit on behalf of the child, but the adult's needs
are not included in the calculation of the cash benefit.
[46] In our recent report that also addressed TANF changes during the
current economic recession, we reported that two experts we
interviewed questioned the extent to which Unemployment Insurance has
lessened or delayed the need for TANF cash assistance. Specifically,
they explained that many TANF-eligible single-mothers likely do not
meet state criteria for receipt of Unemployment Insurance. See
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-164].
[47] In our recent report that also addressed TANF changes during the
current economic recession, we surveyed 21 states about their changes
to TANF spending during the recession. Of the 11 states that reported
increased spending on cash assistance, 4 reduced spending for family
and/or work supports to offset these increases. However, this report
collected data from states through June 2009, so it, therefore, does
not address changes states have made since that time. See GAO-10-164.
[48] TANF and MOE funds can be used to provide a range of programs and
services for low-income families. Therefore, when a state's spending
on TANF cash assistance increases, it has the option of shifting
resources away from other programs and services currently funded with
TANF and state MOE dollars. See GAO, 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.: Mar. 3, 2006).
[49] In this paragraph, unspent TANF funds refer to unobligated
balances and unliquidated obligations reported by states to HHS. While
the latter category implies that there is an underlying commitment on
these funds, we reported in 2001 that it is difficult to tell from the
states' reports whether these funds have actually been committed or
whether they might be available to use in the future. See GAO, Welfare
Reform: Challenges Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal Partnership,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-828] (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 10, 2001).
[50] Since TANF was created in 1996, states have been permitted to
spend prior year TANF block grant funds on assistance--a category that
includes cash benefits and supportive services for families receiving
these benefits. However, the Recovery Act increased states'
flexibility to spend prior year TANF block grant funds on all TANF-
allowable benefits and services.
[51] We used preliminary fiscal year 2009 expenditures data that HHS
provided to us before its public release for this analysis.
[52] According to New York state officials, this increase was partly
related to a sizable TANF expenditure that the state was delayed in
processing at the end of fiscal year 2009. New York processed this
expenditure in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, which reduced
the state's unspent funds balance.
[53] When it was enacted in 1996, PRWORA established a TANF
Contingency Fund of up to $2 billion, which states could access in
times of economic distress, after meeting the required criteria for
eligibility. To qualify for this fund, states had to be defined as a
"needy state" and submit a request to HHS. States qualified as "needy"
based on criteria related to increases in unemployment or SNAP
participation.
[54] Twelve states also reported making other changes to local service
delivery in response to the economic recession. These changes included
providing TANF services online or over the phone, reducing support
service contracts, imposing mandatory furloughs on staff, and
increasing staff overtime authorizations.
[55] However, as noted previously, while the time limit on job search
and job readiness assistance is generally 6 weeks, states can extend
this limit to 12 weeks during times of economic distress.
Specifically, states qualify for the extended limit if they meet
specific criteria related to increases in unemployment and SNAP
participation.
[56] Each of these states has applied for the Emergency Contingency
Fund at least once. States may choose to apply in each quarter that
they have qualifying increases, or apply once for multiple quarters.
Therefore, while some states have applied for these funds once, others
have applied multiple times. States are generally eligible to receive
a maximum amount of the Emergency Contingency Fund equal to one-half
of each state's annual TANF block grant.
[57] While states' applications for the Emergency Contingency Fund
include qualitative information on the types of programs and services
funded with their expenditures for short-term non-recurrent benefits
and subsidized employment, as well what the related expenditure
increases are due to, states are not required to report the number of
people benefiting from these expenditures. According to a senior HHS
official, as of April 27, 2010, HHS was not collecting national data
on the total number of people that have benefited from these funds,
such as those who have received related subsidized jobs.
[58] Throughout this report, we periodically use the phrase Recovery
Act TANF funds in place of the Emergency Contingency Fund for state
TANF programs.
[59] We obtained data on outlays of the Recovery Act's Emergency
Contingency Fund for state TANF programs from www.recovery.gov. The
most recent data available at the time of our analysis were from March
5, 2010. These data also include some outlays to tribes administering
their own TANF programs. Because Recovery Act TANF funds can be
expended for any TANF-allowable purpose, we do not know the extent to
which states' expenditures of these funds have been directed to the
areas for which they qualified for the funds.
[60] In contrast, other Recovery Act funds for public assistance
programs were provided directly to states without restriction, such as
Child Care and Development Block Grant and SNAP funds.
[61] As previously discussed, factors such as a state's unemployment
rate, TANF eligibility and asset requirements, TANF application
process, and other TANF program characteristics affect the number of
families receiving TANF cash assistance. In addition, states' choices
to provide certain families with welfare cash assistance outside of
the TANF program through SSFs may affect these numbers.
[62] We analyzed states' expenditures of federal TANF funds and
related state MOE funds for selected fiscal years. For more
information, see appendix I. These expenditures include states' total
reported spending on TANF-allowable programs and services, which
includes expenditures beyond those for families receiving cash
assistance.
[63] In these two years, states may have also funded subsidized
employment positions for TANF-eligible families who were not receiving
cash assistance. However, federal data is only available on the
numbers of families receiving cash assistance who participated in
subsidized employment.
[64] For the purposes of the Emergency Contingency Fund for state TANF
programs, allowable expenditure increases are the same as allowable
expenditures under TANF. As such, allowable expenditures increases
include state spending of (1) state funds that are counted as MOE, (2)
qualifying third-party funds that are counted as MOE, and (3) federal
TANF dollars--including block grant, Contingency fund, and Emergency
Contingency Fund. In 2009, HHS provided guidance to states on how
third-party funds can qualify as state spending for the purposes of
the Emergency Contingency Fund, and the agency also provided a policy
announcement on the use of these funds for TANF purposes generally in
2004.
[65] The House of Representatives passed the Small Business and
Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010 on March 24, 2010, which includes
a one-year extension of the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund. The bill
was then referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, which had not
taken action on it as of April 20, 2010.
[66] We interviewed selected researchers from the Brookings
Institution, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., Center for Law and Social Policy, University of
Maryland, and Congressional Research Service.
[67] The Urban Institute's Welfare Rules Database, provides
information from 1996-2008 about states' TANF cash assistance
programs, including the policies and rules governing their programs.
[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:
