About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (November 3, 2015)

handle is hein.crs/govcczx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: FF. ' ,iE ,E .$r. i , November 3, 2015 TANF Reauthorization: House Ways and Means Committee Discussion Draft of July 10, 2015 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant provides grants to states, tribes, and the territories for a wide range of benefits and services that seek to address the effects of and root causes of child poverty and economic disadvantage. It and related programs providing mandatory child care funding and responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage grants have been operating on annual temporary extensions since 2010. On July 10, 2015, the House Ways and Means Committee released a discussion draft bill that would fund TANF and certain related programs through FY2020. It would also make other changes to TANF policies. Under current law, TANF's purpose is to increase state flexibility to achieve four statutory goals: (1) provide assistance for needy families so that children may remain in their own homes; (2) end dependence of needy parents on government benefits through work, job preparation, and marriage; (3) reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) promote the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. The discussion draft would add a fifth statutory goal: reduce poverty by increasing employment entry, retention, and advancement. For FY2015, TANF provides grants to states in its basic block grant (national total $16.5 billion) and contingency funds ($583 million). In addition to federal funds, TANF requires states to spend a minimum of $10.4 billion per year in their own funds on TANF or TANF-related programs. This is known as the state maintenance of effort requirement (MOE). The discussion draft would extend the TANF basic block grant through FY2020. The grants to states would be reduced slightly to reserve funding for TANF research and technical assistance. In addition, beginning in FY2018 a portion of each state's grant would be reserved, and paid only if the state met certain employment outcome performance standards. The discussion draft would end the TANF contingency fund, replacing it with an Opportunity Fund (discussed below). The MOE requirement would be maintained under the discussion draft. &Jsces oCfT A NF Nu -,ds States have broad leeway in determining how they use federal TANF funds and what state expenditures may count toward the MOE requirement. States determine which families are needy for purposes of both their TANF cash assistance programs and the other TANF benefits and services. Further, TANF may fund activities related to the statutory goals to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies and promote two-parent families without a needs-test. The discussion draft would impose a needs-test for all TANF funds, set at 200% of the federal poverty level. It would phase-in a prohibition on counting toward the MOE donated third-party expenditures (i.e., the value of TANF- related expenditures made by non-governmental entities in a state). The discussion draft leaves further restrictions on TANF's use of funds as an open issue. Current law permits states to transfer up to 30% of TANF funding to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). The discussion draft would also allow states to transfer up to 10% of TANF funds to child welfare services provided under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, while maintaining the total transfer limit for all three programs at 30% of the total block grant. Under current law, individuals served by TANF funds transferred to the SSBG must have incomes below 200% of poverty. The draft would expand this restriction to children and families served by TANF transfers to the CCDBG, but would not similarly restrict TANF transfers to child welfare programs. Because TANF is a block grant, federal TANF requirements apply to states rather than individual recipients. Most TANF debates on work requirements focus on performance measures that apply to states. Under current law, state performance is measured based on the percentage of their cash assistance families on the rolls who are engaged in work or work-related activities. The discussion draft would revise these rules for measuring engagement in activities for those on the rolls, and would also establish a new performance system to measure work and earnings after families have left the rolls. Current law requires that states have a specified percentage of their families on the rolls engaged in work or work- related activities, with the statute setting target standards of 50% for all families and 90% for two-parent families. However, these targets are reduced by credits for (1) caseload reduction; and (2) families aided by state spending beyond what is required under the MOE. In FY2012, the effective, after-credit target standards ranged from 0% (4 states) to 50% (10 states and Guam). A state's effective target standard is compared with its actual work participation rate (WPR). A state's WPR represents the percentage of its cash assistance families engaged in work or job preparation activities for at least a minimum number of hours per week. The rules for computing the WPR emphasize work or participation in work-related activities; .O 'T gogn, q \pp\\m -,\\mw-m ggmm g , q aS ' X 11LULANJILiN,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most