oversight

Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: More Accountability Needed to Reflect Breadth of Block Grant Services

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-12-06.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                United States Government Accountability Office

GAO             Report to Congressional Requesters




                TEMPORARY
December 2012



                ASSISTANCE FOR
                NEEDY FAMILIES

                More Accountability
                Needed to Reflect
                Breadth of Block
                Grant Services




GAO-13-33
                                            December 2012

                                            TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
                                            FAMILIES
                                            More Accountability Needed to Reflect Breadth of
Highlights of GAO-13-33, a report to
                                            Block Grant Services
congressional requesters




Why GAO Did This Study                      What GAO Found
The TANF block grant, created as part       Nationwide, states have used Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
of the 1996 welfare reforms, gives          block grant funds not only to provide cash assistance, but also to provide non-
states flexibility to make key decisions    cash services, such as job preparation and work supports for low-income families
about how to allocate funds to provide      and aid for at-risk children. Among our 10 selected states, job preparation and
services to low-income families. The        work activities included help with the job search process, skills training, and
number of families receiving cash           subsidized employment. California generally provides such services to families
assistance declined by over half within     receiving cash assistance while the other nine states extend some of them to
the first 5 years of TANF, and states       other low-income families. Florida and Utah provide such services in coordination
shifted their TANF priorities to other
                                            with the Workforce Investment Act one-stop center system. Work supports
forms of aid, or non-cash services. In
                                            among these states mainly include child care subsidies for low-income working
fiscal year 2011, states spent about 64
percent of nearly $31 billion in federal
                                            families. Services for at-risk children include child welfare activities, such as child
and state funds for such services, with     abuse hotlines, investigative and legal services, child protection, and preventive
federal funds accounting for nearly $9      services. TANF has allowed states to make funding decisions based on state
billion. GAO examined (1) how states        priorities, particularly as cash assistance caseload declines freed up funds for
have used TANF funds for non-cash           non-cash services. However, according to officials in three states GAO reviewed,
services and (2) what information is        state decisions to fund a broad array of services can create tensions and trade-
available to assess TANF performance        offs between meeting cash assistance and other service needs.
for non-cash services and what
                                            TANF’s accountability framework provides incomplete information on how states’
challenges are involved in doing so.
                                            non-cash services are contributing to TANF purposes. Plans that states submit to
GAO reviewed past reports and
relevant federal laws and regulations;      the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) outlining how they intend
analyzed state TANF expenditure             to run their TANF programs provide limited information on goals and strategies
information; and interviewed HHS            for non-cash services. In addition, past HHS reports and selected states
officials, TANF experts, and officials in   identified some weaknesses in TANF expenditure reporting. For example,
10 selected states through site visits      officials in one selected state noted that the use of TANF funds for child welfare
and phone conferences. These 10             services is not clearly identifiable in HHS’s reporting categories for TANF
states accounted for nearly half of all     expenditures. HHS is working to revise reporting categories, with a goal of
TANF spending for non-cash services         implementing them for fiscal year 2014. No reporting requirements currently
in fiscal year 2010.                        mandate performance information specifically on families receiving non-cash
                                            services or TANF’s role in filling needs in prominent spending areas for TANF
What GAO Recommends                         funds, like child welfare. These reporting gaps limit the information available for
Congress may wish to consider ways          oversight of TANF block grant funds by HHS and Congress. Generally, HHS has
to improve reporting and performance        limited authority to impose new TANF reporting requirements on states unless
information so that it encompasses the      directed by Congress. While GAO’s previous work on grant design highlights
full breadth of states’ uses of TANF        several features of grants, such as broad and varied purposes, that pose
funds. GAO recommends that HHS              challenges to the development of performance information and measures, it also
develop a detailed plan with timelines      lays out accountability principles that can help address these issues for TANF.
to revise reporting categories for TANF
expenditures. In its response, HHS          Percentage of Federal and State Funds Spent on Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services
provided some timeframes that we            from Fiscal Years 1997 to 2011
added to the report, although we
maintain a more detailed plan will help
HHS monitor its progress in completing
this effort.

View GAO-13-33. For more information,
contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or
brownke@gao.gov.

                                                                                       United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                      1
                       Background                                                           4
                       States Use Flexible Federal TANF Funds to Emphasize Job
                         Preparation and Work Supports for Low-Income Families and
                         Services for At-Risk Children                                     14
                       TANF’S Accountability Framework Provides Incomplete
                         Information on States’ Use of TANF Funds                          26
                       Conclusions                                                         33
                       Matter for Congressional Consideration                              33
                       Recommendation for Executive Action                                 33
                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                  34

Appendix I             HHS Categories of Expenditures for Cash Assistance and
                       Non-Cash Services on the Form ACF-196                              36



Appendix II            TANF Spending Areas for Non-Cash Services                          39



Appendix III           Selected State Profiles                                            40



Appendix IV            Comments from the Department of Health and Human
                       Services                                                           51



Appendix V             GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments                             53



Related GAO Products                                                                      54



Tables
                       Table 1: HHS Categories of Expenditures on the Form ACF-196         36
                       Table 2: Nationwide Federal TANF and State MOE Expenditures as
                                Reported on HHS’s Form ACF-196 for Fiscal Year 2011        37
                       Table 3: TANF Spending Areas for Non-Cash Services                  39



                       Page i                                          GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figures
          Figure 1: Percentage of Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Spent
                   on Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services Nationwide
                   from Fiscal Years 1997 to 2011                                                   8
          Figure 2: Percent of Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Spent
                   Nationwide on Non-Cash Services from Fiscal Years 1997
                   to 2011                                                                          9
          Figure 3: Percentage of Federal TANF Funds Used for Non-Cash
                   Services by States in Fiscal Year 2011                                           10
          Figure 4: Number of Families with Children under Age 18 in
                   Poverty and AFDC/TANF Cases from 1988 through 2010
                   (in thousands)                                                                   12
          Figure 5: Federal TANF Funds Used by States for Non-Cash
                   Services Nationwide by Spending Area in Fiscal Year 2011                         15
          Figure 6: Top Spending Areas for States’ Federal TANF Funds for
                   Non-Cash Services in Fiscal Year 2011                                            16
          Figure 7: State Spending of Federal Funds on Child Welfare in
                   Fiscal Year 2010                                                                 19
          Figure 8: Examples of How State Policies May Affect the Allocation
                   of Resources for Child Care Subsidies                                            22
          Figure 9: Florida State Agencies Receiving Federal TANF Funds in
                   Fiscal Year 2010                                                                 24



          Abbreviations

          AFDC              Aid to Families with Dependent Children
          CCDF              Child Care and Development Fund
          HHS               U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
          MOE               maintenance of effort
          PRWORA            Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
                             Reconciliation Act of 1996
          SSBG              Social Services Block Grant
          TANF              Temporary Assistance for Needy Families


          This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
          United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
          without further permission from GAO. However, 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.




          Page ii                                                         GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   December 6, 2012

                                   The Honorable Max Baucus
                                   Chairman
                                   The Honorable Orrin Hatch
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Committee on Finance
                                   United States Senate

                                   The Honorable Tom Coburn
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                                   Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
                                   United States Senate

                                   In 1996, the federal government made sweeping changes to federal
                                   welfare policy by replacing the previous cash assistance program with the
                                   Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The
                                   Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
                                   (PRWORA), 1 which created TANF, ended the Aid to Families with
                                   Dependent Children (AFDC) program that had entitled eligible families to
                                   monthly cash assistance. Instead, Congress has provided $16.5 billion in
                                   TANF funds to states each year to operate their own welfare programs
                                   within federal guidelines. At the federal level, the U.S. Department of
                                   Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for overseeing TANF
                                   programs. The number of families receiving cash assistance declined by
                                   over half within the first 5 years of TANF, and states shifted their TANF
                                   spending priorities to other forms of aid, which we refer to as non-cash
                                   services. 2 TANF funds may be used for a broad array of non-cash


                                   1
                                       Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
                                   2
                                     Federal law governing TANF generally refers to the term “assistance” and does not
                                   make distinctions between different forms of aid funded by TANF. However, HHS draws
                                   distinctions between “assistance” and “nonassistance.” HHS regulations define assistance
                                   to include cash, payments, vouchers, or other forms of benefits designed to meet families’
                                   ongoing, basic needs. 45 C.F.R. § 260.31. HHS also generally includes in assistance
                                   services, such as child care and transportation assistance for parents who are
                                   unemployed. HHS uses the term nonassistance to refer to TANF expenditures that fulfill
                                   one of the four TANF purposes, but do not meet this regulatory definition. In our report, we
                                   refer to HHS’s definition of assistance as “cash assistance” and its reference to
                                   nonassistance as “non-cash services.”




                                   Page 1                                                          GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
services, ranging from job preparation activities to emergency aid for
housing, energy, food, and clothing. In fiscal year 2011, states spent
about two-thirds of total federal TANF and state-related funds (about
$19.5 billion out of $30.6 billion) on a range of non-cash services for
families who receive cash assistance and other low-income families. 3

Although a large share of federal TANF and state-related funds are spent
on non-cash services, we reported in 2006 that little information exists on
the numbers served by TANF funds beyond those receiving cash
assistance, what services are funded, and how these services fit into a
strategy or approach for meeting TANF goals. 4 More recently, in 2012 we
noted that this information gap hinders decision makers in determining
the success of TANF and what trade-offs might be involved in any
changes to the TANF block grant. 5 You asked us to provide information
on non-cash services to help inform the potential reauthorization of the
TANF block grant. This report examines: (1) how states have used TANF
funds for non-cash services, and (2) what information is available to
assess TANF performance for non-cash services and what challenges
may be involved in improving performance information.

To answer our research objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws
and regulations as well as past reports related to non-cash services and
performance measurement. We also reviewed and analyzed HHS data
and documents related to state reports of national and state TANF
expenditures from fiscal years 1997 through 2011. Expenditures reported
in any given year may include adjustments made by states to data
reported in prior years. Through reviews of previous GAO reports and
interviews with HHS officials, we determined the data to be sufficiently


3
  For the purposes of our report, TANF expenditure data includes American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to states with
increased caseloads, or with increased expenditures on non-recurrent short-term benefits
or subsidized employment. It also includes TANF Contingency funds provided to states
when certain triggers indicate increased needs. It excludes allowable transfers states
made to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) for states to provide social services to
meet certain needs of individuals residing within each state and the Child Care and
Development Fund (CCDF) for states to provide child care subsidies for low-income
families.
4
  GAO, Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in States’ Uses
of the TANF Block Grant, GAO-06-414 (Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2006).
5
 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Program Performance,
GAO-12-812T (Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2012).




Page 2                                                        GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
reliable for providing TANF expenditure information as reported by states.
We also conducted interviews with HHS officials and TANF experts as
well as semi-structured interviews with officials in 10 selected states,
including the District of Columbia, to provide more in-depth information on
state TANF spending for non-cash services as well as TANF reporting
and performance measures. State interviews were conducted through
four site visits to Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Louisiana, and
Washington as well as six phone conferences with California, Colorado,
Florida, Illinois, New York, and Utah. 6 Furthermore, we collected
additional information from selected states on these topics using a data
collection instrument. We focused on TANF-funded programs and
services for fiscal year 2010 in our selected states, as this was the latest
year for which information was available when we selected states for our
study. States were judgmentally selected to capture a variety of state
characteristics, including the proportion of federal and state funds states
spent on TANF non-cash services; the proportion spent for specific non-
cash services including child welfare, emergency aid, and other services,
job preparation and work activities, and work supports such as child care;
the total amount of federal and state expenditures for non-cash services;
and organizational, geographic, and other considerations. While these 10
states accounted for nearly half of all federal and state spending for TANF
non-cash services in fiscal year 2010, the results from our interviews are
not generalizable to all states. In addition, we relied on a survey of states
funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Casey Family Programs to
describe how states generally fund their child welfare systems. 7 We found
the survey’s data reliable for these purposes.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2011 to December
2012 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.



6
  For the purposes of our report, we include the District of Columbia when we refer to
states. In addition, we include expenditure information from Puerto Rico when discussing
national expenditure data for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
7
 Kerry DeVooght et al., Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and
Neglect in SFYs 2008 and 2010, Child Trends, (Washington, D.C.: June 2012).




Page 3                                                        GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
             PRWORA ended AFDC, which provided states with federal funds to
Background   share states’ costs for monthly cash assistance to eligible low-income
             families, and created TANF. Congress has provided states with $16.5
             billion per year in fixed federal TANF funding to cover cash benefits,
             administrative expenses, and services primarily targeted to needy
             families; the amount does not vary according to the number of cash
             assistance recipients, referred to as the TANF caseload. Under TANF,
             states are given flexibility in setting various welfare program policies. For
             example, states generally determine cash assistance benefit levels and
             eligibility requirements. States are also generally allowed to spend TANF
             funds on other services as long as these services meet TANF purposes,
             which are: (1) to provide assistance to needy families so that children
             may be cared for in their own homes or homes of relatives; (2) to end
             dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job
             preparation, work, and marriage; (3) to prevent and reduce out-of-
             wedlock pregnancies; and (4) to encourage two-parent families.

             Federal law sets some conditions for states receiving federal funds for
             TANF. For example, states are required to maintain a specified level of
             their own past spending on certain welfare programs to receive all of their
             TANF funds, referred to as state maintenance of effort (MOE). In addition,
             states must ensure that a minimum percentage of families receiving cash
             assistance meet work participation requirements set in law, referred to as
             the work participation rate. Activities creditable towards meeting work
             participation rates are defined in federal law and are generally focused on
             participants gaining employment, work-related skills, and vocational
             education. States that do not meet minimum work participation rates may
             be penalized by a reduction in their block grant. States can use various
             policy options to help them meet their work participation rates, such as by
             reducing cash assistance caseloads and spending state funds for TANF
             purposes above the required MOE amount. In addition, states are limited
             in the amount of time they can provide federal cash assistance to
             families. In general, states may not use federal TANF funds to provide
             cash assistance to a family that includes an adult who has received cash
             assistance for 5 years or more. 8 Such time limits do not apply to other
             TANF-funded services.



             8
               States may extend federal cash assistance benefits beyond 5 years for up to 20 percent
             of their caseloads for families experiencing “hardship,” which is defined by the states.
             States may also use their own state MOE funds to provide cash benefits to families
             beyond 5 years.




             Page 4                                                        GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                   The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 reauthorized the TANF block grant 9
                   and included changes expected to strengthen the work participation rate
                   requirement for states, among other changes. TANF is authorized
                   through March 27, 2013.


HHS Oversight      Federal law sets forth the basic TANF reporting requirements for states.
Responsibilities   For example, states are required to provide information and report on
                   their use of TANF funds to HHS through quarterly reports on
                   demographic and economic circumstances and work activities of families
                   receiving cash assistance, state TANF plans outlining how each state
                   intends to run its TANF program, and quarterly financial reports providing
                   data on federal TANF and state MOE expenditures, among other things.
                   HHS reviews state information and reports to ensure that states meet the
                   conditions outlined in federal law. For example, HHS uses information on
                   demographic and economic circumstances and work activities of families
                   receiving cash assistance to determine whether states are meeting work
                   participation rates.

                   For quarterly financial reports, HHS collects information on two types of
                   state expenditures. 10

                   1. Assistance, which we refer to throughout the report as cash
                      assistance, primarily includes monthly cash payments directed at
                      ongoing, basic needs. 11
                   2. Nonassistance, which we refer to throughout the report as non-cash
                      services, can include any other services meeting TANF purposes.
                      These include services such as job preparation activities, child care
                      and transportation assistance for parents who are employed, family
                      formation efforts, and child welfare services, as well as some cash


                   9
                       Pub. L. No. 109-171 § 7101, 120 Stat. 4, 134.
                   10
                      These two types of expenditures are broken into various expenditure categories that
                   states report on quarterly through HHS’s Form ACF-196. For more information on the
                   categories on the Form ACF-196 and nationwide fiscal year 2011 expenditures, see
                   appendix I.
                   11
                      While we refer to assistance as “cash assistance” in our report, a small portion of
                   spending in this category includes spending for services such as child care and
                   transportation assistance for parents who are unemployed. A benefit can fall into this
                   category if it is designed to meet on-going basic needs, even if it is not in the form of cash,
                   such as a voucher for a specific service or in an electronic form.




                   Page 5                                                            GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                benefits such as non-recurring short-term benefits and refundable tax
                                credits to low-income working families. 12
                          The distinction between cash assistance and non-cash services is
                          important because only families that receive cash assistance are included
                          in the work participation rate calculation and are subject to time limits on
                          receiving federally-funded cash assistance. Such conditions do not apply
                          to families who receive non-cash services.

                          Amid concerns regarding limited information on TANF expenditures,
                          Congress included additional reporting requirements in the Claims
                          Resolution Act of 2010, 13 which extended TANF authorization through
                          September 2011. The act required states to submit additional information
                          to HHS on nonassistance (or non-cash services) broadly categorized on
                          HHS’s expenditure reporting form as either “other” or “authorized solely
                          under prior law” for March 2011 and April through June 2011. 14 The act
                          only required these reports in 2011, and did not require on-going
                          reporting for following years. Expenditures in these categories made up
                          nearly 28 percent of all federal TANF and state MOE spending for non-
                          cash services nationwide in fiscal year 2011, and the resulting reports
                          indicated that over half of them were for child welfare services. 15

National Trends in TANF   The major contrasts between the funding structure of the TANF block
Expenditures              grant and its predecessor became apparent in the early years of TANF.
                          When TANF was first implemented in fiscal year 1997, on average over



                          12
                            While we refer to nonassistance as “non-cash services” in our report, some portion of
                          spending in this category includes some cash benefits, such as those mentioned above as
                          well as costs that may not be considered services, such as administration and systems
                          costs.
                          13
                               Pub. L. No. 111-291, 124 Stat. 3064.
                          14
                             The “authorized solely under prior law” category includes expenditures that are not
                          consistent with the purposes of TANF but are allowable for activities provided under prior
                          law. States reported various expenditures under this category, such as for juvenile justice
                          or state foster care payments.
                          15
                             Under the act, states are required to report “other” expenditures for both federal TANF
                          and state MOE funds. The act also required states to provide additional detail to HHS on
                          the work participation of families receiving cash assistance. See HHS, Engagement in
                          Additional Work Activities and Expenditures for Other Benefits and Services: A TANF
                          Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: August 1, 2011) and Engagement in Additional
                          Work Activities and Expenditures for Other Benefits and Services: A TANF Report to
                          Congress (Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2012).




                          Page 6                                                          GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
3.9 million families were receiving cash assistance every month. This
number declined by over half within the first 5 years of TANF, and
averaged about 1.9 million families in fiscal year 2011. The composition
of the overall TANF caseload also changed, with the percentage of “child-
only” cases increasing from about 23 percent from July through
September 1997 to over 40 percent in fiscal year 2010. These cases
consist of families receiving cash assistance on behalf of children only, in
contrast to other cases in which adults in the families also receive
benefits on their own behalf. Generally, in child-only cases, the parent or
adult caregiver is not eligible for benefits for one or more of a variety of
reasons, such as receipt of other federal benefits or immigration status. 16

With the financial structure of the block grant, states have generally
maintained access to their full TANF block grant allocation each year and
have still been required to meet minimum MOE requirements, even as
cash assistance caseloads declined. We examined issues related to the
federal-state fiscal partnership under TANF in 2001 amid concerns that
states would replace their own spending with federal TANF funds—
thereby freeing up state funds for other purposes, including tax relief. 17
Although we have not updated this work, we found at that time that the
MOE requirement, in many cases, limited the extent to which states used
their federal funds to replace state funds. 18 Declining cash assistance
caseloads also freed up federal TANF funds that states could save under
a “rainy day fund” for use in future years, providing states additional
flexibility in their budget decisions. In fact, we reported in 2010 that many
states had some TANF reserves that they drew down to meet increasing
needs in the recent economic downturn. 19



16
  GAO, TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data Sharing Could Improve
Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2, (Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2011).
17
  GAO, Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal Partnership,
GAO-01-828 (Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001).
18
   TANF does not include a provision that prohibits states from using federal TANF funds
to replace state funds. However, if they did so, they may have had to increase their own
spending on other low-income programs to satisfy minimum MOE requirements. For
example, a state could withdraw its own funds from a state refundable earned income tax
credit for low-income families and use federal TANF dollars instead. However, it would
need to have enough other state spending to count toward its MOE requirement.
19
  GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and
Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates, GAO-10-525
(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010).




Page 7                                                        GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                      Over time, states also used TANF flexibility to shift spending to non-cash
                                      services. In fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent about 23 percent of
                                      federal TANF and state MOE funds on non-cash services. In contrast,
                                      states spent almost 64 percent of federal TANF and state MOE funds for
                                      these purposes in fiscal year 2011 (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Spent on Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services Nationwide
from Fiscal Years 1997 to 2011




                                      The shift in combined federal TANF and MOE spending over time is also
                                      reflected in federal and state spending when considered separately. In
                                      fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent about 23 percent of federal
                                      TANF funds for non-cash services, compared to about 58 percent in fiscal
                                      year 2011 (see fig. 2). An even greater shift occurred in MOE spending
                                      patterns over time. While in fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent
                                      about 23 percent of state MOE funds for non-cash services, this rose to
                                      about 70 percent in fiscal year 2011.




                                      Page 8                                                 GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 2: Percent of Federal TANF and State MOE Funds Spent Nationwide on Non-
Cash Services from Fiscal Years 1997 to 2011




The increased emphasis on non-cash services is widespread among the
states. Thirty-four states spent half or more of their federal TANF funds
for non-cash services in fiscal year 2011. Fifteen of these states spent
three-quarters or more of their federal TANF funds in this way (see fig. 3).




Page 9                                                 GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 3: Percentage of Federal TANF Funds Used for Non-Cash Services by States in Fiscal Year 2011




                                        Note: Expenditures reported may include adjustments made by states in prior years. Also, the data
                                        reflect federal TANF funds used by states. In addition, states may spend state MOE funds for cash
                                        assistance and non-cash services.



The Decline in TANF’s                   The move away from traditional cash assistance toward non-cash
Cash Assistance Role                    services by states is not necessarily driven by reduced need for cash
                                        assistance among low-income families. Several factors have affected the
                                        early decline and continued low levels of cash assistance since states
                                        implemented TANF. The initial decline occurred during a strong economy
                                        where federal support for work supports like child care increased and
                                        TANF provided new program emphasis on work. Many former welfare
                                        recipients increased their income through employment, and employment
                                        rates among single parents increased. At the same time that some
                                        families worked more and had higher incomes, others had incomes that
                                        left them still eligible for cash assistance. However, many of these eligible
                                        families were not participating in the program. According to our estimates
                                        in a 2010 report, the vast majority—87 percent—of the caseload decline
                                        through 2005 can be explained by the decline in eligible families




                                        Page 10                                                               GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
participating in the program, in part because of changes to state welfare
programs. 20 These changes included mandatory work requirements;
changes to application procedures; lower benefits; policies such as
lifetime limits on assistance; diversion strategies such as providing one-
time, non-recurring benefits instead of monthly cash assistance to
families facing temporary hardships; and sanctions for non-compliance,
according to a review of the research. Among eligible families who did not
receive cash assistance, 11 percent did not work, did not receive means-
tested disability benefits, and had very low incomes. While we have not
updated this analysis, some recent research shows that this potentially
vulnerable group may be growing. 21 Overall, the relationship between the
number of families in poverty and those receiving cash assistance
through TANF is not as strong as it has been in the past (see fig. 4).




20
   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, GAO-10-164 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2010).
21
  Pamela Loprest and Austin Nichols, The Dynamics of Disconnection for Low-Income
Mothers, Focus, Vol. 28, No. 2, (Fall/Winter 2011-2012).




Page 11                                                    GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 4: Number of Families with Children under Age 18 in Poverty and AFDC/TANF Cases from 1988 through 2010 (in
thousands)




                                       Note: Poverty data were measured from March through March of each year. Caseload data were
                                       measured for each calendar year.


                                       Some low-income families not receiving cash assistance may be
                                       receiving other forms of aid or services (non-cash services) funded by
                                       federal TANF or state MOE funds, as allowed under TANF. However, the
                                       number receiving this aid is not known because it is not reported by
                                       states and is not included in TANF program data.


The Role of State MOE                  This report generally focuses on how states have spent federal TANF
Expenditures in TANF                   funds, but state MOE spending also plays an important role in TANF. Our
                                       previous work has shown that the overall amount of state MOE spending
                                       has increased in recent years. More specifically, we reported in 2012 that
                                       according to HHS data, state MOE expenditure levels remained stable
                                       around the required minimum spending level of $11 billion through fiscal
                                       year 2005, and then increased to about $4 billion higher than this
                                       minimum in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 22 As we noted in that report,



                                       22
                                         GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort
                                       Requirements and Trends, GAO-12-713T (Washington, D.C.: May, 17, 2012).




                                       Page 12                                                           GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
several reasons likely accounted for these increases, including states’
reliance on higher levels of MOE spending to help them get credit toward
meeting their TANF work participation rate, as allowed under federal
regulations, as well as to gain access to the full amount of contingency
funds available to states that meet certain criteria related to increased
need. 23 We noted that states generally began relying on MOE spending to
get credit toward meeting TANF work participation rates in fiscal year
2007 because of statutory changes in allowable activities made to the
rate requirements enacted in 2006.

Our previous and current work highlights some ways in which states may
have increased their MOE spending in recent years. We reported in 2012
that the number of states that reported counting third party
nongovernmental expenditures toward their state MOE spending
increased over the past 5 years. 24 In addition to its own spending, a state
may count toward its MOE certain in-kind or cash expenditures by third
parties, such as a nongovernmental organization like a food bank, as long
as the expenditures meet other MOE requirements, including those
related to eligible families and allowable activities. 25 In addition, while we
did not fully explore states’ MOE spending in this current work, officials in
a number of states selected for our study discussed new ways in which
they have claimed MOE funds to meet TANF requirements. For example,
officials in one state said they began claiming MOE expenditures for an
existing state early-childhood education program for needy families in
fiscal year 2008. Officials in two other states said they hired consultants
during the economic downturn to identify opportunities to claim MOE
expenditures from existing state programs that were not originally used
for TANF purposes. For example, one state found that many of its
programs could be counted under TANF as “prevention of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies” so claimed funds spent on these programs as MOE.

As noted in our previous work, we have not reviewed HHS’s existing
efforts to monitor MOE and cannot comment on its effectiveness in doing
so. However, the extent to which states have relied on third party and



23
  A capped amount of funds, referred to as the Contingency Fund, was created at the
same time as TANF that helps states meet increased need under certain conditions.
24
   GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: More States Counting Third Party
Maintenance of Effort Spending, GAO-12-929R (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2012).
25
     45 C.F.R. 263.2(e).




Page 13                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                           existing state expenditures to help them meet work participation rate
                           requirements as well as MOE requirements generally highlights the
                           importance of having reasonable assurances that current oversight is
                           working. If MOE claims do not actually reflect maintaining or increasing
                           service levels, low-income families may not be getting the services they
                           need, particularly in the current fiscal environment.


                           In fiscal year 2011, nationwide, the top areas of state spending of federal
States Use Flexible        TANF funds for non-cash services were child welfare, emergency aid,
Federal TANF Funds         and other services; job preparation and work activities; and work supports
                           including child care. 26 Among the 10 states we reviewed, target
to Emphasize Job           populations for services and delivery methods differed within and across
Preparation and Work       these three spending areas. State decisions on how to allocate funding
                           for non-cash services were influenced by state priorities and TANF’s
Supports for Low-          funding structure, according to officials we interviewed.
Income Families and
Services for At-Risk
Children
States Focus Federal       In fiscal year 2011, nationwide, states spent federal TANF funds for non-
Funds for Non-Cash         cash services in common areas including child welfare, emergency aid,
Services in Common Areas   and other services; job preparation and work activities; and work supports
                           including child care. These spending areas accounted for 70 percent of
but Can Differ in Target   over $8.7 billion in federal TANF funds spent on non-cash services
Populations and Service    nationwide that year (see fig. 5).
Delivery




                           26
                              We combined HHS TANF expenditure reporting categories under “spending areas” for
                           the purposes of our report. For example, the “child welfare, emergency aid, and other
                           services” spending area includes expenditures categorized as “authorized solely under
                           prior law” and “other” for non-cash services by HHS, the “job preparation and work
                           activities” spending area includes the “work related activities” category, and the “work
                           supports” spending area includes “child care” and “transportation” categories for parents
                           who are employed. For a crosswalk of HHS TANF expenditure reporting categories and
                           our spending areas, see appendix II.




                           Page 14                                                        GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 5: Federal TANF Funds Used by States for Non-Cash Services Nationwide by
Spending Area in Fiscal Year 2011




a
  Data for this analysis exclude allowable transfers states made to the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG) and the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), two other HHS programs that provide
funds to states to provide social services and subsidize child care for low-income families,
respectively. States transferred nearly an additional $1.6 billion in federal TANF funds to CCDF for
states to provide child care subsidies for low-income families in fiscal year 2011.
b
  Federal TANF funds for administrative costs are capped at 15 percent of the grant amount, excluding
systems costs related to monitoring and tracking the program.
c
  In this spending area, “cash-related benefits” include non-recurring, short-term benefits to families
that could be in the form of cash to help with a family’s specific need; it does not include expenditures
for cash assistance.


As shown in figure 6, based on each state’s spending for non-cash
services, these areas—child welfare, emergency aid, and other services;
job preparation and work activities; and work supports—also represented
the three areas most frequently emphasized by states. For example, 18
states spent the largest percentage of their federal TANF funds for non-
cash services for child welfare, emergency aid, and other services and 17
states spent the largest percentage for job preparation and work
activities.




Page 15                                                                  GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 6: Top Spending Areas for States’ Federal TANF Funds for Non-Cash Services in Fiscal Year 2011




                                        a
                                         Data for this analysis exclude allowable transfers states made to SSBG and CCDF. States
                                        transferred nearly an additional $1.6 billion in federal TANF funds to CCDF for states to provide child
                                        care subsidies for low-income families in fiscal year 2011.


                                        The spending area referred to as child welfare, emergency aid, and other
                                        services includes a range of services categorized as “authorized solely
                                        under prior law” and “other,” which were primarily child welfare services.
                                        According to expenditures reported by states in HHS’s report to Congress
                                        required by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 for April through June
                                        2011, 27 states spent over 54 percent of federal funds categorized as
                                        “authorized solely under prior law” and “other” combined on child welfare
                                        services. 28 States spent an average of 29 percent of their federal TANF




                                        27
                                          This report was based on one quarter (3 months’ worth) of a fiscal year of state
                                        spending, and may not reflect percentages based on a full year of data. However, it gives
                                        an indication of the types of services provided and reported under the “authorized solely
                                        under prior law” and “other” categories.
                                        28
                                           In addition, states spent 19 percent of federal funds categorized as “authorized solely
                                        under prior law” and “other” on TANF program expenses, such as salaries and benefits for
                                        TANF workers, case management, and other operating costs; 17 percent on services
                                        such as domestic violence, mental health, and youth education programs; 5 percent on
                                        emergency aid; and the remaining 5 percent on additional expenditures. States reported
                                        on spending categorized as “authorized solely under prior law” combined for both cash
                                        assistance and non-cash services, and HHS did not break out state spending between
                                        these two types of assistance.




                                        Page 16                                                                  GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
funds for non-cash services in this area, ranging from under 5 percent in
12 states to over 85 percent in 2 states. 29

TANF requires each state to engage a specified percentage of families
receiving cash assistance in work or work-related activities, and
combined, states had spending on job preparation and work activities
totaling over $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2011. Nationwide, 17 states had
these services as a top spending area for federal TANF funds for non-
cash services that same year. Overall, states spent an average of about
25 percent of their federal TANF funds for non-cash services in this area,
ranging from under 5 percent in eight states to 79 percent in one state. 30
Expenditures are not reported in a way to determine what portion of
spending in this area is spent on those receiving cash assistance versus
other eligible low-income individuals.

Eight states had work supports as a top spending area for federal TANF
funds for non-cash services in fiscal year 2011. We reported in 2006 that
growth in TANF spending for work supports, particularly for child care,
reflected state efforts to support employment as these supports helped
many families formerly receiving cash assistance maintain jobs. 31 States
spent an average of about 13 percent of their federal TANF funds for non-
cash services in this area, ranging from under 5 percent in 25 states to 67
percent in 1 state. 32

While states spent a large portion of their federal TANF funds in these
areas, we found in our interviews with selected states that target
populations for services and delivery methods can differ. The following
provides examples of these differences in our selected states for child
welfare, emergency aid, and other services; job preparation and work
activities; and work supports.


29
   One state had spending in this area that exceeded 100 percent of its spending for non-
cash services. As noted above, expenditures reported in any given year may include
adjustments made by states to data reported in prior years. A positive change to data from
a prior year could show amounts that exceed total expenditures for a category.
30
  As mentioned, expenditures reported may include adjustments made by states to prior
years. Also, our data reflects federal TANF funds used by states. In addition, states may
spend state MOE funds in these areas.
31
     GAO-06-414.
32
     This excludes TANF funds states transferred to CCDF.




Page 17                                                        GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Child Welfare, Emergency Aid,   Among our selected states, federal TANF funds were used to support
and Other Services              child welfare services, such as child abuse hotlines, investigative and
                                legal services, child protection, and preventive services as well as
                                emergency aid, such as clothing and shelter. Child welfare services are
                                generally provided to children and their families to prevent the occurrence
                                of child abuse or neglect, to help stabilize the family and prevent the need
                                to remove the child from the home if abuse has occurred, and to improve
                                the home and enable the child to reunite with his or her family if the child
                                has been removed from the home. Officials in several of our ten selected
                                states said that TANF funds helped expand existing child welfare
                                programs that were also funded with other federal sources, such as Title
                                IV-E of the Social Security Act for foster care payments and adoption
                                assistance, Medicaid for health care coverage for low-income individuals
                                including children, Title IV-B of the Social Security Act for child and family
                                services to promote the welfare of children, and Social Services Block
                                Grant (SSBG) funds for states to provide social services to meet certain
                                needs of individuals residing within each state. The officials noted that
                                TANF’s flexibility allowed them to meet budgetary needs in this area. One
                                study shows that states rely on federal TANF funds to help support
                                children and families served by state child welfare agencies (see fig. 7). 33




                                33
                                  Ibid. DeVooght et al., Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and
                                Neglect.




                                Page 18                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                           Figure 7: State Spending of Federal Funds on Child Welfare in Fiscal Year 2010




                           Note: This figure excludes data from Rhode Island and West Virginia as well as Puerto Rico. “SSBG”
                           includes funds transferred from TANF to SSBG. “Other” includes funds both dedicated to child
                           welfare and other federal dollars.


                           In addition to child welfare services, selected states used funds in this
                           spending area to provide a variety of other services. For example, the
                           District of Columbia used federal TANF funds to support homeless
                           shelters, provide case management, and conduct home visits to families
                           formerly receiving cash assistance.

Job Preparation and Work   Among our selected states, job preparation and work activities included
Activities                 job readiness training related to resume-writing and interview preparation,
                           help with the job search process, skills training, and subsidized
                           employment. These activities provided work-related assistance that
                           typically counts toward the state’s work participation requirement, and
                           that the state must track for reporting and compliance purposes. Officials
                           in one selected state noted that they also provided activities such as
                           English as a Second Language courses that do not count toward meeting
                           work participation requirements. Officials in 5 of our 10 selected states
                           said they provide services like resume and interview assistance through
                           contractors or directly through the state.




                           Page 19                                                              GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Opportunities for Improving Efficiency          While selected states provided similar services, the populations served
in Employment and Training Programs             and delivery methods often differed. For example, California targets its
We reported in 2011 on options to colocate      non-cash services to families receiving cash assistance, with the
services and consolidate administrative         exception of those receiving short-term aid in an effort to divert them from
structures in federal employment and
training programs to promote efficiencies,
                                                the caseload. Its TANF-funded services promote job preparation and
including services provided through the         work activities directed at this population. Other states we reviewed said
Workforce Investment Act and TANF.              they provide certain non-cash services to low-income families regardless
Florida and Utah blended Workforce
Investment Act and TANF funding, and            of whether they receive cash assistance. For example, Arkansas and
Utah officials noted that this had allowed      Washington use federal funds from TANF to partner with local colleges
them to expand the population served as
well as provide more intensive services for
                                                and businesses to provide tailored education and training opportunities
low-income families. Officials in two other     designed to meet the needs of local industries. Arkansas officials said
selected states told us that coordination       that the state’s Career Pathways program provides eligible individuals
was difficult to do since different program
rules and requirements apply to the             who have children, such as cash assistance recipients and those with
Workforce Investment Act programs and           incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line, 34 with education
TANF, and they target different
populations. We recommended that the            and career training at participating community colleges for high demand
Department of Labor and HHS disseminate         jobs. Arkansas officials noted that the program was originally going to be
information about state efforts to
consolidate administrative structures and
                                                supported using federal funds under the Workforce Investment Act, but
co-locate services and, as warranted,           these funds were not available, so TANF funds were used instead.
identify options for increasing incentives to   Meanwhile, Florida and Utah coordinate work-related services with those
undertake these initiatives. Both agencies
agreed with our recommendations, and            provided through the Workforce Investment Act one-stop center system,
have taken some steps to implement them.        through which job seekers can access most federally-funded employment
For more information on our 2011 study,
                                                and training programs and services.
see GAO, Multiple Employment and
Training Programs: Providing Information
on Colocating Services and Consolidating
Administrative Structures Could Promote
Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 (Washington,
D.C.: January 13, 2011).

Work Supports                                   Among our selected states, work supports primarily included child care
                                                subsidies or vouchers for low-income families that are working, which
                                                may include those receiving cash assistance. Selected states provided
                                                child care services similarly through statewide child care systems,
                                                counties, or contract vendors. Officials in several selected states said
                                                they use TANF funds to provide child care services in combination with
                                                federal funds from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which
                                                helps states provide child care subsidies for low-income families. This
                                                practice of using both TANF and CCDF funds for child care services was
                                                also noted in our previous work, which indicated that states use a
                                                combination of TANF, CCDF, TANF funds transferred to CCDF, SSBG,



                                                34
                                                     This is equivalent to $47,725 for a family of three in fiscal year 2012.




                                                Page 20                                                              GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
and state funds to provide child care subsidies to low-income families.
Officials in several of our selected states said that TANF funds helped
them address unmet needs and expand services provided through CCDF
to larger populations. However, they also noted that even with these
combined funding sources, they have had waitlists for child care
subsidies in their state. Our prior work shows that waitlists are not always
an accurate indicator of need. For example, in our 2005 and 2010 reports
on the decline of the number of children served by CCDF, we noted that
states have made changes since 2001 that could decrease the number of
families that can access child care but could also provide larger subsidies
to those who receive services. 35 These included eligibility and enrollment
changes, increased provider payment amounts, and increased co-
payment amounts for families (see fig. 8). An official we spoke with in one
state said that they do not use waitlists, and instead adjust key features of
their child care subsidy program, such as eligibility criteria, to match the
resources they have available. These adjustments allow them to avoid
waitlists but also make some families that could potentially benefit from
the program unable to participate.




35
  GAO, Child Care: Additional Information Is Needed on Working Families Receiving
Subsidies, GAO-05-667 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005) and Child Care: Multiple
Factors Could Have Contributed to the Recent Decline in the Number of Children Whose
Families Receive Subsidies, GAO-10-344 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010).




Page 21                                                     GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 8: Examples of How State Policies May Affect the Allocation of Resources for Child Care Subsidies




                                         a
                                          The term “transitioning families” refers to families transitioning off of receiving cash assistance
                                         through the TANF program or that have recently received TANF cash assistance.


                                         For additional information on selected states’ TANF programs and
                                         spending for non-cash services, see appendix III. 36


State Decisions for Non-                 TANF’s funding structure has given states flexibility in making decisions
Cash Services are                        regarding non-cash services. As mentioned earlier, the dramatic caseload
Influenced by TANF’s                     declines during the first few years of TANF’s implementation allowed
                                         states to spend federal funds not used on cash assistance for new or
Funding Structure and                    existing non-cash services. For example, Louisiana officials said their
State Priorities                         state’s caseload declines freed up federal TANF funds for new programs
                                         to encourage marriage, provide pre-kindergarten services, and help
                                         prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In fiscal year 2010, Louisiana spent
                                         71 percent of its federal TANF funds for non-cash services on these
                                         efforts. Further, they noted that caseloads continued to decline or stayed
                                         the same, since many families that would have been eligible for cash
                                         assistance left the state following Hurricane Katrina.


                                         36
                                            As mentioned for our selected states, we focused on TANF-funded programs and
                                         services for fiscal year 2010 as this was the latest information available when we selected
                                         states for our study.




                                         Page 22                                                                    GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Officials in several other selected states also said that federal TANF
funds were spent on existing or new programs according to state
legislative priorities, and, as a result, funds are often allocated to and
administered through multiple state and local agencies. This is in contrast
to TANF’s predecessor program, AFDC, which was typically administered
through state welfare agencies. More specifically, in 2 of our 10 selected
states, officials said that federal TANF funds were allocated directly to a
lead agency, usually the state TANF office, which may have allowed it to
focus funds in specific areas. For example in Utah, federal TANF funds
were generally provided first to its Department of Workforce Services.
While the department had agreements with other state agencies to
provide services, 63 percent of its federal TANF funds for non-cash
services in fiscal year 2010 were used for job preparation and work
activities. Similarly, in Louisiana, federal TANF funds were generally
provided to the state Department of Child and Family Services, which
used interagency agreements to support its emphasis on the family
formation and out-of-wedlock pregnancy prevention efforts mentioned
above. In contrast, federal TANF funds can be allocated to multiple
agencies through a state’s annual legislative budget process. For
example in Florida, federal TANF funds went to several agencies that
provided a variety of services to low-income families as well as those
receiving cash assistance (see fig. 9). Florida officials said legislative
priorities can shift from year to year, and recent emphasis has been on
out-of-wedlock pregnancy prevention programs and child welfare
initiatives, such as protective investigations and adoption subsidies.




Page 23                                              GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Figure 9: Florida State Agencies Receiving Federal TANF Funds in Fiscal Year 2010




                                        a
                                         In fiscal year 2010, Florida spent 16 percent of its federal TANF funds for cash assistance and 84
                                        percent for non-cash services. Of federal TANF funds spent on non-cash services, 45 percent were
                                        spent on child welfare, emergency aid, and other services; 24 percent on job preparation and work
                                        activities; 24 percent on work supports; 6 percent on administration and systems; 0.6 percent on
                                        family formation efforts; and 0.3 percent on tax credits and cash-related benefits.


                                        States’ use of federal TANF funds for a broad array of non-cash services
                                        beyond traditional cash assistance can create tensions and trade-offs in
                                        state funding decisions, particularly in times of severe fiscal constraints.
                                        Officials in three of our selected states cited tensions between the need to
                                        provide cash assistance and the need to provide other state services.
                                        They noted that this has become more apparent as the number of
                                        families needing cash assistance increased during the recent economic
                                        downturn. Officials in five selected states cited recent spending
                                        reductions in non-cash areas including job preparation and work
                                        activities, and officials in one state noted the need to reduce family
                                        formation efforts, particularly after American Recovery and Reinvestment
                                        Act of 2009 funds were no longer available.



                                        Page 24                                                                GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
To help manage costs, states may make changes to key elements of their
cash assistance programs, such as adjusting eligibility criteria, benefit
levels, and other features. For example, officials in one selected state
said that instead of reducing spending for non-cash services to meet
increased need for cash assistance during the recession, the state
recently enacted more stringent eligibility criteria and reduced benefit
amounts for cash assistance. They explained that their state legislature
allocates TANF funds to the cash assistance program just like any other
program for non-cash services and thus, funding is not shifted between
programs to accommodate increased need. Almost no federal
requirements or benchmarks exist as to eligibility criteria or benefit
amounts or on the percentage of low-income families who are to be
covered by a state’s cash assistance program. 37 Officials in 9 of our 10
selected states said that the state allocates funds for cash assistance
based on caseload projections using data from previous years.
Remaining funds are then available for non-cash services.




37
   Eligibility criteria and benefit amounts for cash assistance can vary greatly by state. For
example, in Arkansas, as of July 2011, for a family of three, earnings had to be equal to or
below $279 per month in order to be eligible for cash assistance, and their maximum
benefit amount was $204. In contrast, in California, as of July 2011, a family of three’s
income had to be equal to or below $1,224 per month to be eligible for cash assistance,
and their maximum benefit amount was $714. See Urban Institute, Welfare Rules
Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2011 (Washington, D.C.: August 2012).




Page 25                                                           GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
TANF’S
Accountability
Framework Provides
Incomplete
Information on States’
Use of TANF Funds

Current Reporting            Although the TANF block grant has evolved into a flexible funding stream
Provides Limited             that states use to support a broad range of allowable services while also
Information on State’s Use   serving as the nation’s major cash assistance program for low-income
                             families with children, the accountability framework currently in place in
of Funds for Non-Cash        federal law and regulations has not kept pace with this evolution. As a
Services                     result, there is incomplete information available for assessing TANF
                             performance.

                             Under federal law and regulations, states are required to submit several
                             reports to HHS related to TANF. These generally include:

                             •   quarterly reports on demographic and economic circumstances and
                                 work activities of families receiving cash assistance;
                             •   state TANF plans outlining how each state intends to run its TANF
                                 program, generally filed every two years;
                             •   quarterly financial reports providing data on federal TANF and state
                                 MOE expenditures;
                             •   quarterly state MOE reports providing data on families receiving cash
                                 benefits under separate state programs, which are funded entirely
                                 with state MOE funds and are not subject to certain federal
                                 requirements; and
                             •   annual single audit reports resulting from required audits of nonfederal
                                 entities that expend federal funds.

                             Taken together, this set of reports and the information provided serves as
                             the accountability framework in place to help HHS and Congress ensure
                             that states use TANF funds in keeping with the block grant’s purposes
                             and identify any program improvements that may be warranted. Yet,
                             these numerous requirements provide limited information on state
                             strategies for using their TANF funds for non-cash services. Our past
                             work has shown that a sound accountability framework includes (1)
                             defining desired outcomes, (2) measuring performance to gauge



                             Page 26                                              GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
progress, and (3) using performance information as a basis for decision-
making. 38 This requires complete, accurate, and reliable data. However,
this type of performance information is not available for a majority of
TANF funds nationwide. There are no reporting requirements mandating
performance information specifically on families receiving non-cash
services or their outcomes, or information related to TANF’s role in filling
needs in other areas like child welfare, even though this has become a
more prominent spending area for TANF funds in many states. 39 These
reporting gaps limit the information available for oversight of TANF block
grant funds by HHS and Congress.

State TANF plans serve as a potential source of useful program
information. However, they currently provide limited descriptions of a
state’s goals and strategies for its TANF block grant, including how non-
cash services fit into these goals and strategies, and the amount of
information in each plan can vary by state. Federal law includes general
language on what should be included in the state TANF plan. For
example, the law states that plans are to outline how a state will “conduct
a program…that provides assistance to needy families with (or expecting)
children and provides parents with job preparation, work, and support
services to enable them to leave the program and become self-sufficient.”
Federal law does not require states to include descriptions in their state
plans of how they intend to use TANF funds beyond the cash assistance
population for non-cash services, and states have used their discretion in
determining how much detail to put in their plans. 40 For example, a state
plan prepared by one of the selected states outlined its cash assistance
program and provided descriptions of a variety of non-cash services it
intends to provide. In contrast, the state plan of another selected state
described its intentions to provide supportive services, particularly to
families who have exhausted cash assistance benefits, but did not
describe what those services would be.



38
  GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and
Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996).
39
  We primarily focused on examining the information available to assess TANF
performance for non-cash services and did not fully assess the adequacy of TANF
reporting requirements in providing information on cash assistance.
40
   HHS officials also noted that they do not have the authority to require states to include
basic information about their cash assistance programs, including state TANF eligibility
criteria, benefits levels, and other program features.




Page 27                                                          GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
The financial reports on federal TANF and state MOE expenditures also
provide some information on the types of non-cash services provided by
states, but recent HHS studies and officials in most selected states we
spoke to have noted some weaknesses in the information collected from
states. Specifically, an HHS study from 2009 reviewed most states’
expenditures and noted incomplete and inconsistent information related
to HHS’s current TANF expenditure reporting form for states. HHS
identified similar issues in its reports to Congress required under the
Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which examined more detailed information
from states on TANF expenditures reported on the form. For example, the
reports show that spending for child welfare services is often reported in
the “other” category for non-cash services as well as the “authorized
solely under prior law” categories for cash assistance and non-cash
services. In addition, the reports noted inconsistencies between states
with the activities counted under the form’s reporting categories. Officials
in 7 of the 10 selected states said that the form does not fully capture the
purposes of their TANF spending. For example, one state official
described how their state’s use of TANF funds for child welfare services is
not identifiable in the form’s reporting categories. Also, current
expenditure reporting does not provide data in a way that allows
distinctions between expenditures made on behalf of cash assistance
recipients to help them find employment and leave welfare, and
expenditures provided to other individuals and families not directly related
to welfare-to-work purposes.

While state plans and expenditure reports individually provide some
information on non-cash services, even when considered together, they
do not provide a complete picture on state goals and strategies for uses
of TANF funds. This is because the state plan is not required to be written
in a way that connects to HHS’s financial reporting categories. This
makes it difficult to determine how and whether spending areas fit into
each state’s stated goals and strategies. One state official we interviewed
said that with the current reporting requirements, it was hard for them to
know how much TANF funding each of their state programs were using
and what benefit the state was getting from each program. As a result,
the state developed an additional internal report that presents the costs of
performing activities by program, which provides it with better information
for assessing the return on investment for each program. Officials from
another state also said that it might be helpful to have the state plan more
closely tied to the TANF expenditure reporting form, but they would want
very specific instructions for how this should be done.




Page 28                                              GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                          HHS officials noted the department’s recent efforts to improve TANF
                          expenditure reporting and acknowledged that reporting could be improved
                          in certain other areas as well. HHS officials said they are revising the
                          TANF expenditure reporting form to the extent permitted by law to include
                          additional reporting categories, such as those related to child welfare
                          services. They said they are also revising reporting instructions for states
                          to improve consistency across states. Officials noted the importance of
                          considering the implications for states of any changes or additions to
                          current reporting requirements. For example, some state officials we
                          interviewed described how new or revised reporting requirements can
                          require costly and time-consuming changes to automated and other
                          systems and practices in states and localities, and need to be carefully
                          considered in terms of burden and appropriate timing for states. HHS
                          officials were unable to provide a detailed plan with specific timeframes
                          for the reporting revisions, but said that they are working on them, that
                          they will seek input from relevant parties, and that when the revisions are
                          finalized, they will be shared with Congress to assist in potential TANF
                          reauthorization. In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS stated that it
                          intends to publish draft revisions and instructions for comment in early
                          2013, with a goal of implementing the revisions for fiscal year 2014.


A Key Performance         The work participation rate for states, established in law and focused on
Measure Focuses on Cash   families receiving cash assistance, serves as a key performance measure
                          for state TANF programs. 41 This focus remains, even though the cash
Assistance Recipients
                          assistance component of TANF no longer reflects how most TANF funds
                          are spent. Our 2010 report shows that the emphasis on the work
                          participation rate as a measure of program performance has helped
                          change the culture of state welfare programs so that they focus on
                          moving families off cash assistance and into employment. 42 States are
                          held accountable for ensuring that a specified percentage of all families
                          receiving TANF cash assistance, and considered work-eligible, participate



                          41
                             An HHS official noted that the work participation rate is prominent because it can result
                          in financial penalties for states that fail to meet it. PRWORA also created the TANF High
                          Performance Bonus program that provided additional federal awards to states that chose
                          to participate and who achieved relatively high performance on certain measures related
                          to TANF purposes. Funding for these performance incentive awards was eliminated under
                          the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, although HHS still tracks information on these
                          measures and reports them in its annual TANF reports to Congress.
                          42
                               GAO-10-525.




                          Page 29                                                         GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
in one or more of the federally-defined allowable activities for the required
number of hours each week. We noted in our 2010 report that while the
rate specified in law is 50 percent, states have used various policy
options, such as credits for caseload reductions and spending above
required MOE amounts, to reduce their required rates below 50 percent,
as permitted by law. TANF also provides states some flexibility regarding
which families to include or exclude in calculating their rates. Our 2010
report noted that over the years, states have typically engaged about one-
third of work-eligible families in allowable work activities nationwide and
generally met their reduced rates. State participation rates have remained
essentially the same since TANF’s implementation, despite legislative
changes in 2005 that were generally expected to strengthen the work
requirements, as we also reported in 2010 and again in 2011. 43 We also
noted in 2012 that the TANF work participation rate requirements, as
enacted, in combination with the allowable credits and flexibility provided
to states, may not serve as an incentive for states to engage more
families in work. 44

Our previous work and our work in selected states also shows that the
work participation rate measure may not capture aid and services that
states believe are important and that it may also serve as a disincentive
to work with families with complex needs. All 10 selected states were
using federal TANF funds to offer a range of non-cash services that
could, for example, help remove barriers to work and/or keep families off
the cash assistance caseload. A few of these states provided emergency
aid to help meet low-income families’ immediate needs, including
housing, child care, and transportation. 45 These efforts are not captured in
the key performance measure, the work participation rate. Also, some
officials in several selected states also said that the pressure to meet
TANF work participation rate requirements causes them to focus on the
“ready to work” cash assistance population, which can leave the “harder-
to-serve” population without services.




43
  GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Served and Work
Participation, GAO-11-880T (Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2011).
44
     GAO-12-812T.
45
  Because our report focuses on non-cash services, in our interviews with state officials
we only referred to child and transportation assistance for parents who are employed. See
appendix I.




Page 30                                                       GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Selected States Are        In our interviews with state officials in the 10 selected states, we found
Developing Some            that eight said their states had developed or are developing performance
Performance Measures for   measures of their own that include at least some TANF non-cash
                           services. Officials from seven of these eight states said that their states
Non-Cash Services          had tracked information that included the number of people served by
                           some state programs that used federal TANF funds for non-cash
                           services. In addition, of these eight states, officials in Washington and the
                           District of Columbia said they are going through a “re-design process” for
                           their cash assistance program. For example, they are more closely
                           aligning services across multiple state agencies to provide
                           comprehensive services to meet the individual needs of families receiving
                           cash assistance and to help them attain self-sufficiency. Washington
                           officials said they are developing alternative measures of family well-
                           being to measure the effectiveness of TANF as a whole for these families
                           under the re-designed TANF program. Examples of measures
                           Washington officials are considering for families receiving cash
                           assistance include examining whether parents are attaining higher levels
                           of education, training, and financial literacy; whether children have
                           increased access to early childhood and preschool programs; and
                           whether families have increased access to health care, stable housing,
                           and supports for family conflict and domestic violence.


Improving Performance      Several features of TANF pose challenges to designing performance
Information to Include     measures, as indicated by our previous work. In our 2006 report on
TANF Non-Cash Services     improving performance accountability in grant programs, we noted that
                           some grant features in particular affect the difficulties of designing
Is Challenging             accountability mechanisms. 46 These features include the extent to which
                           a grant:

                           •    operates as a funding stream rather than a distinct program, and
                           •    supports a limited or diverse array of objectives.

                           We also said in our 2012 guidance on designing evaluations that a block
                           grant, with loosely defined objectives that simply adds to a stream of
                           funds supporting on-going state programs, presents a significant




                           46
                             GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could
                           Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006).




                           Page 31                                                  GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
challenge to efforts to portray the results of the federal program. 47
Moreover, we noted in 1995 that accountability for block grants can be
difficult since accountability provisions need to strike a balance between
the potentially conflicting objectives of increasing state flexibility while
attaining certain national objectives—a balance that inevitably involves
philosophical questions about the proper roles and relationships among
the levels of government in our federal system. 48 The four stated TANF
purposes in the law that generally define allowable use of funds for states
are broad, so the ways in which states use TANF funds can often be
complex and varied across states. Also, as discussed previously, as
allowed under TANF, states have used TANF funds to expand existing
state programs that may be funded with other federal sources, such as
Workforce Investment Act funds for employment and training services;
CCDF funds for child care; and SSBG and Title IV-B and E funds of the
Social Security Act for child welfare services.

While accountability for the TANF block grant can be challenging, general
principles of performance measurement can help guide the development
of improved performance information. As we cited earlier, our previous
work noted that an essential first step in any system of performance
information and measurement is to establish goals to be achieved
through the relevant program or funding stream. This work also identified
characteristics of successful performance measurement systems. 49
These include ensuring that performance measures are tied to program
goals, demonstrate the degree to which the desired results were
achieved, and take into account stakeholder concerns. In addition, real
world considerations, such as the cost and effort involved in gathering
and analyzing data, must be taken into account while striving to collect
sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent data to be useful for
decision makers. Moreover, other key decisions in establishing
performance measures relate to whether to link penalties or rewards to
any such measures. Although in many situations HHS can revise its
reporting form to make adjustments to the reporting categories, generally
HHS has limited authority to impose new TANF reporting requirements on


47
  GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.:
January 2012).
48
   GAO, Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions, GAO/AIMD-95-226
(Washington, D.C.: September 1, 1995).
49
     GAO/GGD-96-118.




Page 32                                                     GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                     states unless directed by Congress, so many changes to the types of
                     performance information that states are required to report would require
                     congressional action.


                     Over the years, TANF has clearly evolved beyond a traditional cash
Conclusions          assistance program and now also serves as a source of funding for a
                     broad range of services states provide to other eligible families. States
                     still spend some portion of TANF funds on welfare-to-work programs for
                     the cash assistance population, but their new and varied uses of TANF
                     funds for non-cash services over time beyond this population raise
                     questions about how state efforts are contributing to TANF purposes. Yet,
                     without an accountability framework that encompasses the full breadth of
                     states’ uses of TANF funds, Congress will not be able to fully assess how
                     funds are being used, including who is receiving services or what is being
                     achieved. We acknowledge HHS’s steps toward improving TANF
                     expenditure reporting and its concerns about reporting revisions for
                     states. Any efforts to require more information or make changes to
                     existing reporting and performance measures must consider this potential
                     reporting burden for states. At the same time, gaps in TANF reporting and
                     performance information make it difficult for policymakers to fully assess
                     the workings of TANF. If Congress determines that TANF, as currently
                     structured, continues to address its vision for the program, improved
                     reporting and performance information will be important to enhance
                     Congress’ decision making and oversight of TANF in the future.


                     To provide better information for making decisions regarding the TANF
Matter for           block grant and better ensure accountability for TANF funds, Congress
Congressional        should consider ways to improve reporting and performance information
                     so that it encompasses the full breadth of states’ uses of TANF funds.
Consideration
                     As HHS takes steps to revise expenditure reporting for TANF to better
Recommendation for   understand how states use TANF funds, it should develop a detailed plan
Executive Action     with specific timelines to assist in monitoring its progress for revising its
                     financial reporting categories for expenditures of federal TANF and state
                     MOE funds.




                     Page 33                                               GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                     We provided a draft of our report to HHS for review and comment. HHS
Agency Comments      indicated in its general comments (see appendix IV) that it agrees that
and Our Evaluation   current reporting on TANF expenditures provides limited information on
                     the range of ways in which states use federal TANF and state MOE
                     funds. HHS noted that it intends to publish draft revisions to its reporting
                     categories for TANF expenditures and instructions for states for comment
                     in early 2013, with a goal of implementing the revisions in fiscal year
                     2014. We have added this information to the report. We commend HHS’s
                     efforts to improve TANF expenditure reporting, and maintain that a
                     detailed plan with timelines for revising the reporting categories will
                     facilitate monitoring of its progress and help ensure that the revisions are
                     implemented in a timely fashion. We also agree with HHS that as it works
                     to improve financial reporting, it will be helpful to develop more refined
                     categories of spending than the current categories in existing federal
                     reporting, and to look at overall usage of funds, including transfers and
                     MOE spending.

                     In addition, HHS said that it lacks the authority to require states to provide
                     certain types of information in their state plans, such as plans for using
                     TANF funds or meeting MOE requirements as well as strategic goals or
                     performance targets or measures. HHS noted that absent a statutory
                     change, it cannot add additional categories of required information to the
                     state plan, and any decision to establish such new requirements is one
                     for Congress to consider.

                     HHS also noted that the report underscores that a large share of TANF
                     spending now goes to categories of spending other than cash assistance,
                     and that improved information can assist in considering both appropriate
                     allowable expenditure categories and the potential for performance
                     measurements for these other categories of TANF and MOE spending. In
                     addition to these general comments, HHS also provided us with technical
                     comments that we 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 the appropriate
                     congressional committees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
                     and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no
                     charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.




                     Page 34                                                GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
If you or your staff have any questions concerning 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. GAO staff who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.




Kay E. Brown
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues




Page 35                                             GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix I: HHS Categories of Expenditures
                                              Appendix I: HHS Categories of Expenditures
                                              for Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services
                                              on the Form ACF-196


for Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services
on the Form ACF-196
Table 1: HHS Categories of Expenditures on the Form ACF-196

Assistance (Cash Assistance)                                               Nonassistance (Non-Cash Services)
Basic assistance: cash, payments, vouchers, or other forms of              Work-related activities: work subsidies, education and training,
assistance designed to meet on-going, basic needs.                         and other work-related activities, such as job search and job
                                                                           readiness, job skills training, employment counseling, job
                                                                           development, and work clothes and equipment.
Child care: child care for parents who are not employed but need           Child care: child care provided to employed parents and as a non-
child care to participate in other work activities, such as job            recurrent, short-term benefit (e.g., during applicant job search or to
search, community service, education, or training, or for respite          a recently employed parent during a temporary period of
purposes.                                                                  unemployment).
Transportation: transportation for parents who are not employed            Transportation: transportation provided to employed parents and
but need supportive services to participate in other work activities,      as a non-recurrent, short-term benefit (e.g., during applicant job
such as job search, community service, education, or training, or          search or to a recently employed parent during a temporary period
for respite purposes.                                                      of unemployment).
Assistance authorized solely under prior law: expenditures that            Individual development accounts: contributions to individual
are not consistent with the purposes of TANF but authorized                development accounts, or matched savings accounts.
under prior law, such as for juvenile justice or state foster care
payments.
                                                                           Refundable earned income tax credits: refundable tax credits for
                                                                           qualifying families under federal law.
                                                                           Other refundable tax credits: refundable tax credits for qualifying
                                                                           families under state or local law that are consistent with the
                                                                           purposes of TANF.
                                                                           Non-recurrent short-term benefits: one-time, short-term benefits to
                                                                           families in the form of cash, vouchers, subsidies, or similar form of
                                                                           payment to deal with a specific crisis situation or episode of need.
                                                                           Prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancies: prevention of out-of-
                                                                           wedlock pregnancy activities.
                                                                           Two-parent family formation: two-parent family formation and
                                                                           maintenance activities.
                                                                           Administration: administrative costs, which for federal TANF funds
                                                                           cannot exceed 15 percent of the funds available for TANF.
                                                                           Systems: systems costs related to monitoring and tracking under
                                                                           the program.
                                                                           Non-assistance authorized solely under prior law: expenditures
                                                                           that are not consistent with the purposes of TANF but are
                                                                           authorized under prior law, such as for juvenile justice or state
                                                                           foster care payments.
                                                                           Other: other expenditures on non-cash services not covered in
                                                                           aforementioned categories, such as family preservation activities,
                                                                           parenting training, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence
                                                                           services, and case management.
                                              Source: GAO summary of HHS’s Form ACF-196.




                                              Page 36                                                                GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                             Appendix I: HHS Categories of Expenditures
                                             for Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services
                                             on the Form ACF-196




Table 2: Nationwide Federal TANF and State MOE Expenditures as Reported on HHS’s Form ACF-196 for Fiscal Year 2011

                                                                         Federal TANF                      State MOE      Total Federal TANF and
ACF-196 line                                                             Expenditures                    Expenditures    State MOE Expenditures
1. Awarded                                                            $20,813,254,416                             N/A            $20,813,254,416
2. Transferred to CCDF Discretionary                                    $1,564,877,339                            N/A             $1,564,877,339
3. Transferred to SSBG                                                  $1,135,445,928                            N/A             $1,135,445,928
4. Adjusted State Family Assistance Grant                             $18,112,931,149                             N/A            $18,112,931,149
5. Expenditures On Assistance                                           $6,448,705,694                  $4,682,701,982           $11,131,407,676
    5a. Basic Assistance                                                $5,254,652,818                  $4,349,517,973            $9,604,170,791
    5b. Child Care                                                        $268,016,212                   $282,642,653              $550,658,865
    5c. Transportation and Other Supportive Services                      $255,879,888                    $50,541,356              $306,421,244
    5d. Assistance Authorized Solely under Prior Law                      $670,156,776                             $0              $670,156,776
6. Expenditures on Non-Assistance                                       $8,734,643,760                 $10,758,066,878           $19,492,710,638
    6a. Work Related Activities / Expenses                              $1,927,990,980                   $720,343,007             $2,648,333,987
        6a1. Work Subsidies                                               $336,434,610                   $154,261,278              $490,695,888
        6a2. Education and Training                                       $179,425,211                   $148,566,956              $327,992,167
        6a3. Other Work Activities / Expenses                           $1,412,131,159                   $417,514,773             $1,829,645,932
    6b. Child Care                                                      $1,084,113,242                  $2,322,993,702            $3,407,106,944
    6c. Transportation                                                    $156,056,064                    $31,401,499              $187,457,563
        6c1. Job Access                                                     $12,630,313                     $2,546,879              $15,177,192
        6c2. Other                                                        $143,425,751                    $28,854,620              $172,280,371
    6d. Individual Development Accounts                                       $2,126,290                     $851,194                 $2,977,484
    6e. Refundable Earned Income Tax Credits                              $157,079,151                  $1,847,939,785            $2,005,018,936
    6f. Other Refundable Tax Credits                                                      $0             $528,810,084              $528,810,084
    6g. Non-Recurrent Short Term Benefits                                 $331,410,974                   $390,766,769              $722,177,743
    6h. Prevention of Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancies                          $418,507,687                  $1,543,562,600            $1,962,070,287
    6i. 2-Parent Family Formation and Maintenance                         $267,079,277                    $32,806,130              $299,885,407
    6j. Administration                                                  $1,313,374,517                   $780,512,072             $2,093,886,589
    6k. Systems                                                           $162,076,546                    $48,129,036              $210,205,582
    6l. Non-Assistance Authorized Solely Under Prior Law                  $971,928,140                             $0              $971,928,140
    6m. Other                                                           $1,942,900,892                  $2,509,951,000            $4,452,851,892
7. Total Expenditures                                                 $15,183,349,454                  $15,440,768,860           $30,624,118,314
8. Transitional Services for Employed                                                   N/A                       N/A                       N/A
9. Federal Unliquidated Obligations                                     $1,074,584,456                            N/A             $1,074,584,456
10. Unobligated Balance                                                 $1,854,997,239                            N/A             $1,854,997,239
                                             Source: GAO analysis of TANF expenditure data from HHS.

                                             Note: TANF expenditure data includes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds
                                             provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to states with increased caseloads, or with increased




                                             Page 37                                                                     GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix I: HHS Categories of Expenditures
for Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services
on the Form ACF-196




expenditures on non-recurrent short-term benefits or subsidized employment. It also includes TANF
Contingency funds provided to states when certain triggers indicate increased needs.




Page 38                                                              GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix II: TANF Spending Areas for Non-
              Appendix II: TANF Spending Areas for Non-
              Cash Services



Cash Services

              HHS’s TANF expenditure reporting form, the Form ACF-196, includes 13
              categories for states to report spending for non-cash services. We
              combined HHS TANF expenditure reporting categories under the
              following “spending areas” for the purposes of our report.

              Table 3: TANF Spending Areas for Non-Cash Services

                                                                HHS Non-Cash Services
                  TANF Spending Area                            Categories Included from the Form ACF-196
                  Job preparation and work                      •     Work-related activities
                  activities
                  Work supports                                 •     Child care
                                                                •     Transportation
                  Child welfare, emergency aid,                 •     Non-assistance authorized solely under prior law
                                     a
                  and other services                            •     Other
                  Tax credits and cash-related                  •     Individual Development Accounts
                  benefits                                      •     Refundable earned income tax credits
                                                                •     Other refundable tax credits
                                                                •     Non-recurrent short-term benefits
                  Family formation efforts                      •     Prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
                                                                •     Two-parent family formation
                  Administration and systems                    •     Administration
                                                                •     Systems
              Source: GAO definitions based on HHS’s Form ACF-196 for nonassistance (non-cash services).
              a
               The child welfare, emergency aid, and other services spending area includes expenditures states
              categorize as “authorized solely under prior law” and “other.” We named this spending area “child
              welfare, emergency aid, and other services” because HHS’s report to Congress under the Claims
              Resolution Act of 2010 for April through June 2011 shows that a large number of states reported
              having expenditures for child welfare services as well as emergency aid—such as housing, energy,
              food, and clothing—in these two categories. According to the report, states spent 54 percent of
              federal funds categorized as “authorized solely under prior law” and “other” combined on child welfare
              services; 19 percent on TANF program expenses, such as salaries and benefits for TANF workers,
              case management, and other operating costs; 17 percent on services, such as domestic violence,
              mental health, and youth education programs; 5 percent on emergency aid; and the remaining 5
              percent on additional expenditures. States reported on spending categorized as “authorized solely
              under prior law” for both cash assistance and non-cash services, and HHS did not break out state
              spending between these two types of assistance.




              Page 39                                                                                  GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix III: Selected State Profiles
               Appendix III: Selected State Profiles




               This appendix provides selected TANF-related information—such as
               TANF caseload and spending data—as well as data on numbers of
               families and children in poverty for each of the 10 states we reviewed in
               this report: Arkansas, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia,
               Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Utah, and Washington. 1

               States were judgmentally selected to capture a variety of state
               characteristics including the proportion of federal and state funds states
               spent on TANF non-cash services; the proportion spent for specific non-
               cash services including child welfare, emergency aid, and other services,
               job preparation and work activities, and work supports such as child care;
               the total amount of federal and state expenditures for non-cash services;
               and organizational, geographic, and other considerations. These 10
               states accounted for nearly half of all federal and state spending for TANF
               non-cash services in fiscal year 2010.




               1
                 TANF expenditure data includes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
               funds provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to states with increased caseloads, or with
               increased expenditures on non-recurrent short-term benefits or subsidized employment. It
               also includes TANF Contingency funds provided to states when certain triggers indicate
               increased needs. It excludes allowable transfers states made to the SSBG and CCDF.




               Page 40                                                       GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Arkansas



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 2,839,798
•   In poverty: 534,898 (19%)
Children: 699,403
•   In poverty: 193,081 (28%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $279 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $204
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 19,488
•     2005: 18,759
•     1997: 53,188
Children
•     2010: 13,993
•     2005: 14,407
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                             Spending area                    cash services                 and services provided
Agencies Involved in
                                                             Job preparation                  45%                           Education, training, and job search
Providing Non-Cash                                           and work activities                                            services for TANF caseload families as well
Services                                                                                                                    as incentive bonuses for families no longer
State TANF Offices:                                                                                                         receiving cash assistance to continue finding
                                                                                                                            employment.
Department of Workforce Services
                                                                                                                            Career Pathways initiative to increase
Department of Human Services                                                                                                access to education credentials to help TANF
                                                                                                                            caseload and other low-income families attain
Other Agencies:                                                                                                             higher paying jobs through partnerships with
Department of Health                                                                                                        local colleges and businesses.
                                                             Work supports                    24%                           Subsidized child care services primarily
Department of Education
                                                                                                                            for TANF caseload families through the
Department of Higher Education                                                                                              state’s child care system.
Source: GAO analysis of state information and                Administration and               17%                           Administration costs for the Departments
interviews with state officials.                             systems                                                        of Workforce Services and Human Services.
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.




                                                           Page 41                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            California



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 36,593,372
•   In poverty: 5,783,043 (16%)
Children: 9,157,681
•   In poverty: 2,012,585 (22%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.

Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $1,224 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $714
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.

Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 1,415,960
•     2005: 1,255,635
•     1997: 2,403,510
Children
•     2010: 1,103,629
•     2005: 1,002,222
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
Agencies Involved in                                                                            Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                                                                                                                   a
                                                                Spending area                   cash services                 and services provided
Providing Non-cash Services
State TANF Office:                                              Job preparation                 46%                           Education and training for TANF caseload
                                                                and work activities                                           families only.
Department of Social Services
                                                                                                                              Wage subsidies for TANF caseload families
(supervises funds provided                                                                                                    as well as other eligible low-income families
to 58 counties)                                                                                                               not on the TANF caseload.
Other Agencies:                                                 Administration                  25%                           Administration costs for both the counties
                                                                and systems                                                   and the state, in addition to some related
Department of Child Support
                                                                                                                              costs for contractors.
Services
                                                                Child welfare,                  14%                           Domestic violence services for TANF
Department of Education                                         emergency aid,                                                caseload families only.
                                                                and other services                                            Temporary transitional services such as
Department of Health Care                                                                                                     child protection, family preservation, and
Services                                                                                                                      case management to meet a specific crisis
                                                                                                                              situation.
Department of Public Health
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.
Employment Development                                      a
                                                             Programs and services are primarily administered by California’s 58 counties.
Department
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.


                                                           Page 42                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Colorado



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 4,934,178
•   In poverty: 659,786 (13%)
Children: 1,213,411
•   In poverty: 210,532 (17%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $421 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $462
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 29,367
•     2005: 38,313
•     1997: 79,874
Children
•     2010: 21,911
•     2005: 27,509
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                                                                                                                 a
                                                                Spending area                 cash services                 and services provided
Agencies Involved in
                                                                Job preparation               82%                           Child welfare services for TANF caseload
Providing Non-cash Services                                     and work activities                                         families as well as other eligible low-income
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          families not on the TANF caseload.
Department of Human Services                                                                                                Homeless Prevention and Rapid
(supervises funds provided                                                                                                  Re-housing Program, in partnership with
to 64 counties)                                                                                                             the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority,
                                                                                                                            for TANF caseload families as well as other
Other Agencies:                                                                                                             eligible low-income families not on the TANF
Department of Health Care Policy                                                                                            caseload.
and Finance                                                     Administration                11%                           Administrative costs for both the counties
                                                                and systems                                                 and the state.
Department of Labor/Employment                                  Tax credits and               4%                            Child care tax credits for TANF caseload
Department of Public Health                                     cash-related                                                families as well as other eligible low-income
                                                                benefits                                                    families not on the TANF caseload.
and Education
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.
Housing and Finance Authority                               a
                                                             Programs and services are primarily administered by Colorado’s 64 counties.
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.



                                                           Page 43                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            District of Columbia



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 570,953
•   In poverty: 109,423 (19%)
Children: 100,353
•   In poverty: 30,555 (30%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.

Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $588 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $428
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.

Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 19,785
•     2005: 43,077
•     1997: 66,272
Children
•     2010: 14,149
•     2005: 32,453
•     1997: N/A
                                                            Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.
                                                                                              Percent of non-                 Examples of programs
Agencies Involved in                                         Spending area                    cash services                   and services provided
Providing Non-cash Services                                  Work supports                    40%                             Child care vouchers for TANF caseload
State TANF Office:                                                                                                            families as well as other eligible low-income
                                                                                                                              families not on the TANF caseload, delivered
Department of Human Services                                                                                                  through the Office of the State
Other Agencies:                                                                                                               Superintendent for Education.
Addiction, Prevention and                                    Child welfare,                   31%                             Child welfare services for TANF caseload
Recovery Services Agency                                     emergency aid,                                                   families only, with case management
                                                             and other services                                               services provided through the Department of
Child and Family Services Agency                                                                                              Child and Family Services.
                                                                                                                              Emergency aid such as shelter, food, and
Department of Health                                                                                                          clothing for TANF caseload families as well
                                                                                                                              as other eligible low-income families not on
Department of Mental Health                                                                                                   the TANF caseload.
Office of the State Superintendent                                                                                            Home visits to TANF caseload families to
for Education                                                                                                                 identify barriers to employment and link
                                                                                                                              these families to needed services.
Rehabilitation Services                                      Family formation                 13%                             Teen pregnancy prevention program
Administration                                               efforts                                                          through the Department of Health, which
Source: GAO analysis of state information and                                                                                 provides sex education to young women.
interviews with state officials.
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.


                                                           Page 44                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Florida



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 18,436,788
•   In poverty: 3,047,343 (17%)
Children: 3,936,572
•   In poverty: 923,963 (24%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $393 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $303
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 107,023
•     2005: 112,242
•     1997: 447,369
Children
•     2010: 85,524
•     2005: 90,785
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                             Spending area                    cash services                 and services provided
Agencies Involved in
                                                             Child welfare,                   45%                           Child welfare services including protective
Providing Non-Cash                                           emergency aid,                                                 investigations, abuse hotlines, case
Services                                                     and other services                                             management, and other family safety
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          activities for TANF caseload families as well
                                                                                                                            as other eligible low-income families not on
Department of Children and                                                                                                  the TANF caseload.
Families
                                                             Work supports                    24%                           School readiness child care program for
Other Agencies:                                                                                                             TANF caseload families as well as other
Department of Education                                                                                                     eligible low-income families not on the TANF
                                                                                                                            caseload.
Department of Economic                                       Job preparation                  24%                           Education, training and work subsidies for
Opportunity                                                  and work activities                                            TANF caseload families as well as other
                                                                                                                            eligible low-income families not on the TANF
Department of Health                                                                                                        caseload.
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.




                                                           Page 45                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Illinois



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 12,543,457
•   In poverty: 1,731,711 (14%)
Children: 3,086,916
•   In poverty: 600,045 (19%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $772 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $432
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 62,009
•     2005: 98,270
•     1997: 580,324
Children
•     2010: 54,551
•     2005: 78,163
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
Agencies Involved in                                         Spending area                    cash services                 and services provided
Providing Non-Cash                                           Child welfare,                   39%                           Child welfare screening, assessments,
                                                             emergency aid,                                                 and investigations for TANF caseload
Services                                                     and other services                                             families.
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          Home visits and parent training for child
Department of Human Services                                                                                                welfare cases.
Other Agencies:                                              Job preparation                  35%                           Employment and training programs
                                                             and work activities                                            provided to TANF caseload families through
Department of Children and Family                                                                                           contractors administered by the state.
Services
                                                             Work supports                    19%                           Child care certificate and voucher program
Department of Healthcare and                                                                                                for TANF caseload families as well as other
                                                                                                                            eligible low-income families not on the TANF
Family Services
                                                                                                                            caseload.
Department of Revenue                                       Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.

State Board of Education
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.




                                                           Page 46                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Louisiana



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 4,413,890
•   In poverty: 825,144 (19%)
Children: 1,098,598
•   In poverty: 299,779 (27%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $359 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $240
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 23,707
•     2005: 37,458
•     1997: 186,565
Children
•     2010: 20,305
•     2005: 31,472
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                             Spending area                    cash services                 and services provided
Agencies Involved in
                                                             Family formation                 71%                           Pre-kindergarten program to reduce
Providing Non-Cash                                           efforts                                                        out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encourage
Services                                                                                                                    two-parent families by increasing literacy
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          and responsible behavior for TANF caseload
                                                                                                                            families as well as other eligible low-income
Department of Children and Family                                                                                           families not on the TANF caseload.
Services
                                                             Administration                   12%                           Administration costs associated with
Other Agencies:                                              and systems                                                    multiple programs.
Department of Education                                      Job preparation                  8%                            Work-related activities, education, and
                                                             and work activities                                            skills training for TANF caseload families.
Department of Safety/Corrections
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.
Department of Economic
Development
Department of Health/Hospitals
Louisiana Workforce Commission
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.


                                                           Page 47                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            New York



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 18,879,810
•   In poverty: 2,821,470 (15%)
Children: 4,242,462
•   In poverty: 900,626 (21%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $878 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $788
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 388,226
•     2005: 490,194
•     1997: 1,048,257
Children
•     2010: 281,814
•     2005: 342,618
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                                                                                                                 a
                                                                Spending area                 cash services                 and services provided
Agencies Involved in
                                                                Child welfare,                44%                           Child protective and preventive services
Providing Non-Cash                                              emergency aid,                                              and maintenance of a child welfare hotline
Services                                                        and other services                                          for TANF caseload families as well as other
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          eligible low-income families not on the TANF
                                                                                                                            caseload.
Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance (supervises funds                                    Administration                24%                           Administration costs including TANF
                                                                and systems                                                 eligibility determination.
provided to 58 local social service
districts)                                                      Job preparation               18%                           Work programs for TANF caseload families
                                                                and work activities                                         as well as other eligible low-income families
Other Agencies:                                                                                                             not on the TANF caseload.
Office of Children and Family                               Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.
Services                                                    a
                                                             Programs and services are primarily administered by New York’s 58 local social service districts.
Department of Health
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.




                                                           Page 48                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Utah



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 2,730,176
•   In poverty: 359,242 (13%)
Children: 862,300
•   In poverty: 135,565 (16%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $668 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $498
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 19,106
•     2005: 22,960
•     1997: 33,805
Children
•     2010: 12,143
•     2005: 16,557
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
Agencies Involved in                                         Spending area                    cash services                 and services provided
Providing Non-Cash                                           Job preparation                  63%                           Employment, education, and job training
                                                             and work activities                                            services for TANF caseload families as well
Services                                                                                                                    as other eligible low-income families not on
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          the TANF caseload.
Department of Workforce Services                                                                                            Subsidized employment for TANF caseload
                                                                                                                            families.
Other Agencies:
                                                             Administration                   24%                           Administration and systems costs for the
Department of Health                                         and systems                                                    state.
Source: GAO analysis of state information and
interviews with state officials.                             Family formation                 8%                            Healthy marriage promotion programs
                                                             efforts                                                        through education and training.
                                                                                                                            After-school youth development programs
                                                                                                                            to help prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.




                                                           Page 49                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                                                            Appendix III

                                                            Washington



State Characteristics                                       Expenditures for Cash Assistance versus Non-Cash Services
Population: 6,615,922
•   In poverty: 888,718 (13%)
Children: 1,559,990
•   In poverty: 284,045 (18%)
Source: 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates.


Design of State’s Cash
Assistance Program
For a family of three, as of July 2011
Income Eligibility: Earnings must
be no more than $954 per month.
Max monthly benefit: $478
Source: The Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Databook,
August 2012.


Average Number Receiving
Cash Assistance per Month
All people
•     2010: 169,967
•     2005: 144,425
•     1997: 254,039
Children
•     2010: 117,759
•     2005: 100,838
•     1997: N/A
Source: HHS fiscal year TANF caseload data.                 Top Three Non-Cash Services Spending Areas
                                                                                              Percent of non-               Examples of programs
                                                                                                           a
Agencies Involved in                                         Spending area                    cash services                 and services provided
Providing Non-Cash                                           Job preparation                  39%                           Vocational education and GED support
                                                             and work activities                                            generally through community colleges as well
Services                                                                                                                    as job preparation and job search
State TANF Office:                                                                                                          assistance for TANF caseload families as
Department of Social and Health                                                                                             well as other eligible low-income families not
                                                                                                                            on the TANF caseload.
Services
                                                                                                                            Subsidized employment for TANF caseload
Other Agencies:                                                                                                             families only.
Employment Security Department                               Work supports                    33%                           Child care assistance for TANF caseload
                                                                                                                            families as well as other eligible low-income
State Board for Community and                                                                                               families not on the TANF caseload.
Technical Colleges
                                                             Administration                   17%                           Administration and systems costs for the
Department of Commerce                                       and systems                                                    state.
                                                            Source: GAO analysis of HHS fiscal year 2010 TANF expenditure data for federal funds and information from state officials.
Department of Early Learning                               a
                                                            Washington officials noted discrepancies between their fiscal year-end 2010 TANF expenditure data
Source: GAO analysis of state information and              with the data HHS published for that year. Officials said further that discrepancies are likely due to
interviews with state officials.
                                                           differences in reporting time frames between the state and HHS.



                                                           Page 50                                                                                      GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix IV: Comments from the
             Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
             of Health and Human Services



Department of Health and Human Services




             Page 51                                     GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services




Page 52                                     GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff
                   Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff
                   Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                   Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov
GAO Contact
                   In addition to the contact named above, Robert Campbell, Gale Harris,
Staff              Kristy Kennedy, Nhi Nguyen, Michael Pahr, and Michelle Loutoo Wilson
Acknowledgements   made significant contributions to all aspects of this report. Also
                   contributing to this report were James Bennett, Elizabeth Curda, Rachel
                   Frisk, Alexander Galuten, Kathleen van Gelder, Thomas James, Edward
                   Leslie, Jennifer McDonald, Ellen Phelps Ranen, Almeta Spencer, and
                   Walter Vance.




                   Page 53                                           GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
Related GAO Products
                           Related GAO Products




Temporary Assistance for   Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Program
Needy Families             Performance. GAO-12-812T. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2012.

                           Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort
                           Requirements and Trends. GAO-12-713T. Washington, D.C.: May 17,
                           2012.

                           Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Served
                           and Work Participation. GAO-11-880T. Washington, D.C.: September 8,
                           2011.

                           Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent
                           Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work
                           Participation Rates. GAO-10-525. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 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. GAO-10-164. Washington, D.C.: February
                           23, 2010.

                           Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in
                           States’ Uses of the TANF Block. GAO-06-414. Washington, D.C.: March
                           3, 2006.

                           Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to
                           Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance.
                           GAO-02-564. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.

                           Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal
                           Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001.


Accountability             Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision. GAO-12-208G. Washington, D.C.:
                           January 2012.

                           Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions
                           Could Lead to Better Results. GAO-06-1046. Washington, D.C.:
                           September 29, 2006.

                           Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions.
                           GAO/AIMD-95-226. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 1995.




(131138)
                           Page 54                                            GAO-13-33 Non-Cash TANF
                      The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
GAO’s Mission         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.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
GAO Reports and       afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
                      and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
Testimony             products, go to 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 website,
                      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.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
                      Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in   E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.