This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-770 
entitled 'Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How 
They Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits' which was released on 
July 5, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives: 

July 2002: 

Welfare Reform: 

With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They Implement Work 
Requirements and Time Limits: 

GAO-02-770: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Of 2.1 Million Families Receiving Federal or State MOE-Funded Cash 
Assistance, One Third Are Child-Only Cases: 

With PRWORA Flexibility, the Percentage of Welfare Recipients 
Participating in Work Activities Varied Greatly among States: 

States Excluded 11 Percent of Adult Families from Federal and State 
Time Limits: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: State Funding Choices: 

Appendix II: States’ Separate State Program Caseloads and 
Characteristics: 

Appendix III: States’ Child-Only Caseloads and Reasons for Child-Only 
Cases: 

Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for Fall 2001, by State: 

Appendix V: State Percentages of TANF or MOE-Funded Families with Adult 
Recipients Not Subject to Federal or State Time Limits: 

Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on State Funding, Application 
of Time Limits, and Use of 20 Percent Extension: 

Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults Who Can Receive Time-Limit 
Extension: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 
Table 1: Application of Key TANF Restrictions and Requirements on State 
MOE Funds under the Three Funding Options: 

Table 2: Federal Participation Rate Requirement for All Families 
Adjusted for Caseload Reduction Credit and Actual Participation Rate by 
State for Fiscal Year 2000 (Stated Rate Was 40 percent): 

Table 3: Funding Streams in All States and the District of Columbia: 

Table 4: Total Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Number 
Receiving Cash Assistance through a Separate State Program: 

Table 5: Number of States with Separate State Programs that Target 
Legal Immigrants and Two-Parent Families: 

Table 6: Actual Maximum Percentage of TANF Families With Adults Who May 
Receive Time-Limit Extensions, After Adjusting for Child-Only Cases 
(fall 2001): 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases: 

Figure 2: Range of Federal Work Participation Rates for All Families in 
Fiscal Year 2000, as Reported by HHS[A]: 

Figure 3: Range of State-Defined Work Rates, Fall 2001: 

Figure 4: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State Time 
Limits by Recipient Characteristic: 

Figure 5: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits 
and Method of Exclusion: 

Figure 6: Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to 
Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance: 

Abbreviations: 

PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

MOE: maintenance-of-effort: 

AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

SSI: Supplemental Security Income: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 5, 2002: 

The Honorable Wally Herger: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources: 
Committee on Ways and Means: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) significantly changed federal welfare policy for low-income
families with children, building upon and expanding state-level 
reforms. As part of PRWORA the Congress created the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to replace the previous
welfare program and help welfare recipients transition into employment.
To this end, states are required to enforce work requirements, and 
states face financial penalties if a minimum percentage of adults 
receiving cash assistance do not participate in work or work activities 
each year. This federal participation rate requirement increased each 
year, reaching 50 percent for all families in fiscal year 2002. When 
PRWORA established these federally required participation rates, it 
also allowed them to be adjusted downward, through a “caseload 
reduction credit,” if a state’s caseload declined. This provision 
reduces the participation requirement for those states where the 
welfare caseload declines. In addition to work requirements, TANF 
places a 60 month lifetime limit on the amount of time families with 
adults can receive cash assistance. To receive its TANF block grant, 
each state must also spend at least a specified amount of its own 
funds, referred to as state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds. 

The law allows states considerable flexibility to exclude families from
work requirements and time limits. Work requirements and time limits
apply only to families with an adult receiving aid, not to cases where 
only children receive cash assistance (child-only cases). In addition, 
states may provide cash assistance to families and exempt them from work
requirements and time limits by using state MOE in specified ways, such
as through a state program other than their TANF program, referred to as
separate state programs. In addition, states can extend federal time 
limits for up to 20 percent of their families receiving assistance. As 
the Congress considers reauthorization of TANF, you asked us to 
determine and assess the states’ implementation of these work 
requirements and time limits. More specifically, you asked us to 
determine (1) the number of families, including child-only cases, 
receiving cash assistance funded by federal TANF and state MOE; (2) how 
states made use of work requirement flexibility; and (3) the number of 
families states have excluded from time limits. The information we 
gathered came from site visits in 4 states, telephone interviews with 
TANF officials in 8 other states, and a survey administered to TANF 
officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [Footnote 1] 
We conducted our work from August 2001 through June 2002, in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

States provided cash assistance funded by federal TANF or state MOE
dollars to 2.1 million families in the fall of 2001. [Footnote 2] For 
over 736,000 of these families, or one-third of the cash assistance 
caseload, only the children in the family received assistance. When 
only children receive benefits, it is typically because they are being 
cared for by someone who is not their parent (e.g., grandparents or 
other relatives) or their parents are noncitizens ineligible for cash 
assistance. Because no adult in these cases receives TANF or MOE, work 
requirements and time limits do not apply. 

With the flexibility allowed states, the percentage of adults in work or
work-related activities varied greatly among the states. Because of the
dramatic declines in welfare caseloads that have occurred since 1996,
states have generally faced greatly reduced participation rate 
requirements for their TANF programs. For example, in fiscal year 2000, 
caseload reduction credits reduced required rates from 40 percent (the 
required rate) to 0 in 31 states. As a result, states have increased 
flexibility to determine the numbers of adults required to be involved 
in work or work activities. Almost all states met or exceeded their 
adjusted required rate in fiscal year 2000. However, the fiscal year 
2000 federal participation rates varied tremendously among the states, 
ranging from about 6 percent to more than 70 percent. 

States excluded about 154,000 families from federal or state time 
limits. This number represents 11 percent of the 1.4 million families 
with an adult receiving cash assistance. By using the 20 percent time 
limit extension or their MOE funds, states generally targeted time 
limit exclusions to families they considered hard to employ, families 
who were working but not earning enough to move off of TANF, and 
families that were cooperating with program requirements but had not 
yet found employment. The number of families excluded from time limits 
may increase in the future because most families have not yet reached 
their federal or state-imposed cash assistance time limit. Only about 
one-third of the states have begun using the federal 20 percent time 
limit extension for families who reached the 60 month federal time 
limit. In addition to the 20 percent extension, state officials we 
spoke with said that they will rely more heavily on state MOE to extend 
families’ time on assistance in the future. 

Background: 

PRWORA made sweeping changes to national welfare policy, creating TANF 
and ending the federal entitlement to assistance for eligible needy 
families with children under Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers 
the TANF block grant program, which provides states with up to $16.5 
billion each year through fiscal year 2002. TANF was designed to help 
needy families reduce their dependence on welfare and move toward 
economic independence. The law also greatly increased the discretion
states have in the design and operation of their welfare programs, 
allowing states to determine forms of aid and the categories of 
families eligible for aid. TANF establishes time limits and work 
requirements for adults receiving aid and requires states to sustain 75 
to 80 percent of their historic level of welfare spending through a MOE 
requirement. In addition, TANF gives states funding flexibility, which 
allows states to exclude some families from federal time limits and 
work requirements. 

TANF Establishes Time Limits and Work Requirements for Adults Receiving 
Aid: 

TANF establishes a 60 month time limit for families receiving aid. 
States have the option of establishing shorter time limits for families 
in their state. A state that does not comply with the TANF time limit 
can be penalized by a 5 percent reduction in its block grant. While the 
intent of TANF is to provide temporary, time-limited aid, federal time 
limits do not apply to all forms of aid or to all families receiving 
aid. First, states are only to count toward the 60 month time limit any 
month in which an individual receives a service or benefit considered 
“assistance,” which is defined in the TANF regulations as cash or other 
forms of benefits designed to meet a family’s ongoing basic needs. 
[Footnote 3] Second, time limits do not apply to the following types of 
cases: 

1. Child-only cases in which the adult in the household does not receive
cash assistance. [Footnote 4] 

2. Families who received assistance while living in Indian country or an
Native Alaskan village where 50 percent of the adults are not employed. 

Third, all states have the option to use federal funds to extend 
assistance beyond the federal 60 month limit for reasons of hardship, 
as defined by the state. States can extend assistance for up to 20 
percent of the average monthly number of families receiving assistance 
(“20 percent extension”). [Footnote 5] Finally, assistance that is 
provided solely through state MOE is not subject to the federal time 
limit. 

TANF also establishes work requirements for adults receiving aid. After 
2 years of assistance, or sooner if the state determines the recipient 
is ready, TANF adults are generally required to be engaged in work as 
defined by the state. [Footnote 6] In addition, TANF establishes 
required work participation rates—a steadily rising specified minimum 
percentage of adult recipients who must participate in federally 
specified work or work-related activities [Footnote 7] each year for at 
least a minimum number of hours. [Footnote 8] 

States were required in federal fiscal year 2002 to meet a work
participation rate of 50 percent for all TANF families with adult
members—referred to as the rate for all families. States were also 
required to meet a much higher rate—90 percent—for two-parent families. 
[Footnote 9] States must meet these work participation rates to avoid 
financial penalties. While states have generally met the work 
participation rate for all families, many states have faced financial 
penalties due to failure to meet the two-parent required rate in recent 
years. HHS issued penalty notices to 19 states in fiscal year 1997, 14 
in fiscal year 1998, 9 in fiscal year 1999, and 7 states in fiscal year 
2000. 

In addition to establishing federal participation rate requirements,
PRWORA specified that the required rates are to be reduced if a state’s
TANF caseload declines. States are allowed caseload reduction credits,
which reduce each state’s work participation requirement by 1 percentage
point for each percentage point by which its average monthly caseload
falls short of its fiscal year 1995 level (for reasons other than 
eligibility changes). 

While states are to meet federal participation requirements, they also 
have the flexibility to encourage and require TANF recipients to 
participate in any activity a state chooses or at any level of 
activity, although that activity or the hours of activity may not count 
toward the federal participation rates. 

In addition, federal time limits and work requirements may not apply in
some states that were granted federal waivers to AFDC program rules in
order to conduct demonstration programs to test state reforms. 

The Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002
passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 4737) on May 16, 2002,
reauthorizes the TANF block grant keeping in place key elements of 
TANF, such as time limits and work requirements. It also changes some
aspects of TANF, including the participation rate requirements. It 
increases the federally mandated rate by 5 percent a year to 70 percent 
by 2007, revises the number of hours of participation and types of 
activities required, and made some alterations to the caseload 
reduction credit, among other changes. In addition, the act specifies 
that two-parent families would no longer be subject to a separate and 
higher work participation rate. The Senate is in the process of 
reauthorizing TANF as of June 2002. 

States May Choose Various State Funding Options for Providing Cash 
Assistance: 

Previously, under AFDC, state funds accounted for 46 percent of total
federal and state expenditures. Under PRWORA, the law requires states to
sustain 75 to 80 percent of their historic level of spending on welfare
through a MOE requirement to receive their federal TANF block grant. The
federal TANF funds and state MOE funds can be considered more like
funding streams than a single program and states may use their MOE to
assist needy families in state programs other than their TANF programs. 
In fact, states have flexibility to expend their MOE funds for cash 
assistance in up to three different ways, some of which allow states to 
exclude some families from time limits and work requirements. 

A state may use its state MOE funds in three different ways to provide
cash assistance for needy families. 

* Commingling: A state can provide TANF cash assistance by commingling
its state MOE with federal funds within its TANF program. 

* Segregating: A state can provide some TANF cash assistance with state
MOE accounted for separately from its federal funds within its TANF
program. 

* Separating: A state can use its state MOE to provide cash assistance 
to needy families in any one or more non-TANF state programs, referred 
to as “separate state programs.” 

Each state may choose one or more of these options to provide cash 
assistance. In some cases, in this report, we refer to the second and 
third options as using “state-only” funds when the distinction between 
segregating and separating funds is not necessary. In addition, we focus
only on cash assistance and not on other forms of aid or services,
including, for example, child care and transportation, for which time 
limits and work requirements generally do not apply. (For more 
information on state funding choices, see app. I.) 

How a state structures its funds determines which TANF rules apply to 
the needy families being served. (See table 1.) When a state commingles 
funds, it must meet all TANF requirements. For example, states that 
commingle all their state MOE with federal funds are only able to 
exclude families from time limits through the 20 percent extension, 
cannot exclude families from counting toward the federal work 
participation rate, and cannot provide assistance to certain groups of 
legal immigrants. 

Table 1: Application of Key TANF Restrictions and Requirements on State 
MOE Funds under the Three Funding Options: 

Key program requirements and restrictions for cash assistance: Does 60-
month time limit apply? 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program 
with federal or commingled funds: Yes, except for up to 20 percent of 
the cash assistance caseload; 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program 
with state MOE accounted for separately from federal funds (referred to 
as segregated): No; 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State MOE for 
needy families in any non-TANF state program (referred to as separate 
state program): No. 

Key program requirements and restrictions for cash assistance: Do work-
activities count toward the federal work participation rate? 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program 
with federal or commingled funds: Yes; 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program 
with state MOE accounted for separately from federal funds (referred to 
as segregated): Yes[A]; 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State MOE for 
needy families in any non-TANF state program (referred to as separate 
state program): No. 

Key program requirements and restrictions for cash assistance: Do 
restrictions on assistance to immigrants apply?[B] 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program 
with federal or commingled funds: Yes; 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State TANF program 
with state MOE accounted for separately from federal funds (referred to 
as segregated): No; 
Application of PRWORA rules by state funding option: State MOE for 
needy families in any non-TANF state program (referred to as separate 
state program): No. 

[A] With this option, states have the flexibility to serve families 
they might not otherwise be able to serve in TANF, such as certain 
legal immigrants, but at the same time count their work activities 
toward meeting the federal participation target rate. 

[B] Immigrants arriving in the United States after August 22, 1996, are 
barred from the receipt of federal TANF assistance for a 5-year period. 

[End of table] 

In addition, while not required by federal law, states may choose to 
apply work requirements or time limits on their state-funded 
assistance. [Footnote 10] 

Of 2.1 Million Families Receiving Federal or State MOE-Funded Cash
Assistance, One Third Are Child-Only Cases: 

States reported that in the fall of 2001, 2.1 million families received 
cash assistance funded with federal TANF or state MOE dollars. This 
includes about 110,000 families, or 5 percent, who were provided cash 
assistance through separate state programs funded by state MOE dollars. 
These families are not counted in the TANF caseload data reported by 
HHS. Twenty-six states used separate state programs to provide cash 
assistance, typically to legal immigrants and two-parent families. In 
most of these states, the separate state program caseload represented 5 
percent or less of the total caseload. However, in four of these 
states, families served through separate state programs represented 
from 10 to 30 percent of the total cash assistance caseload. (For more 
information on the separate state program caseload by state and the 
populations served in the states’ programs, see app. II.) 

It is noteworthy that the separate state program caseload represents a
more significant share in two of the nation’s most populous states—
California and New York. More specifically, the number of families
receiving cash assistance through separate state programs in California
alone—nearly 50,000—is greater than the total cash assistance caseload 
in most states. HHS began requiring states in fiscal year 2000 to 
provide information on families provided assistance through separate 
state programs and reported on the separate state program caseload in 
their recently issued Fourth Annual Report to Congress. [Footnote 11] 
However, this caseload is not included in the TANF caseload data. 

Child-only cases, while not generally in separate state programs, 
account for an even more significant proportion of the cash assistance 
caseload. Of the 2.1 million families receiving aid, 736,045, or one-
third, were composed of children only. Generally, child-only cases are 
not subject to work requirements or time limits. [Footnote 12] The 
percentage of child-only cash assistance cases varied greatly among the 
states, ranging from 13 percent in Hawaii to 73 percent in Wyoming. In 
addition, as shown in figure 1, the types of child-only cases vary and 
can include families in which the: 

* caregiver is a nonparent, such as grandparent or other relative; 

* parent is receiving Social Security or Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) and not eligible for TANF; 

* parent is a noncitizen ineligible for federally funded TANF; 
[Footnote 13] and; 

* parent has not complied with TANF program requirements and so has
been denied benefits, called a sanction. [Footnote 14] 

(For more information on each state’s total cash assistance and child-
only caseloads, see app. III.) 

Figure 1: Reasons for Child-Only Cases: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data: 

Reasons for Child-Only Cases: 
Nonparent caregivers: 23%; 
Parent is receiving SSI: 14%; 
Parent is an ineligible noncitizen: 14%; 
Parent is sanctioned: 4%; 
Unknown/state could not report data: 43%; 
Other: 3%. 

Note: We included state-funded child only cases in Florida and Illinois 
because they do not have federally funded child-only cases. We did not 
include the small numbers of state-funded child-only cases in several 
other states, as it does not significantly change these results. 

Source: GAO survey. 

[End of figure] 

With PRWORA Flexibility, the Percentage of Welfare Recipients 
Participating in Work Activities Varied Greatly among States: 

Reduced federal participation rate requirements and states’ use of their
MOE funds give states considerable flexibility in implementing work
requirements. Almost all the states had more adults participating in 
work and work-related activities than they were required to, but the 
percentage of adults participating varied greatly among the states. 
Almost all of the families who received cash assistance through 
separate state programs were subject to state work requirements, even 
though federal work requirements did not apply. 

Federal Work Participation Rates in Fiscal Year 2000 Varied Greatly 
among States: 

States faced greatly reduced federal participation rate requirements for
fiscal year 2000, as caseload reduction credits were triggered by recent
caseload declines. Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically, from
4.4 million in August 1996 to 2.1 million as of September 2001, marking 
a 52 percent decline in the number of families receiving cash welfare. 
As a result, the fiscal year 2000 participation rate requirement was 
adjusted downward from 40 percent to 0 in 31 states. (See table 2.) 

Table 2: Federal Participation Rate Requirement for All Families 
Adjusted for Caseload Reduction Credit and Actual Participation Rate by 
State for Fiscal Year 2000 (stated rate was 40 percent): 

State: Alabama; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 37.7; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Alaska; 
Adjusted required rate: 11; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 42.1; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Arizona; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 39.7; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Arkansas; 
Adjusted required rate: 6; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 20.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: California; 
Adjusted required rate: 8; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 27.5; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Colorado; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 36.6; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Connecticut; 
Adjusted required rate: 28; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 33.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
43.0. 

State: Delaware; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 16.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
27.6. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Adjusted required rate: 11; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 24.4; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Florida; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 33.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Georgia; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 12.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Hawaii; 
Adjusted required rate: 25; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 24.5; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
29.7. 

State: Idaho; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 47.7; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Illinois; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 59.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Indiana; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 40.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
72.3. 

State: Iowa; 
Adjusted required rate: 1; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 41.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Kansas; 
Adjusted required rate: 17; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 49.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
77.4. 

State: Kentucky; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 25.6; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Louisiana; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 33.5; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Maine; 
Adjusted required rate: 9; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 40.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Maryland; 
Adjusted required rate: 1; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 6.3; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 7.1; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
69.2. 

State: Michigan; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 36.4; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Minnesota; 
Adjusted required rate: 9; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 29.3; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
34.7. 

State: Mississippi; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 17.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Missouri; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 30.4; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
34.0. 

State: Montana; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 36.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
68.2. 

State: Nebraska; 
Adjusted required rate: 14; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 15.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
22.6. 

State: Nevada; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 37.4; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 30.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
53.1. 

State: New Jersey; 
Adjusted required rate: 1; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 37.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: New Mexico; 
Adjusted required rate: 17; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 36.9; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: New York; 
Adjusted required rate: 5; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 33.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: North Carolina; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 19.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: North Dakota; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 35.7; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Ohio; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 52.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
52.9. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 33.9; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Oregon; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 10.6; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
64.0. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 11.2; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Adjusted required rate: 24; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 25.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: South Carolina; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 25.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
54.0. 

State: South Dakota; 
Adjusted required rate: 3; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 46.5; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Tennessee; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 24.9; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
35.4. 

State: Texas; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 7.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
25.6. 

State: Utah; 
Adjusted required rate: 6; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 27.9; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
31.1. 

State: Vermont[B]; 
Adjusted required rate: 40; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 11.6; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Virginia; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 24.6; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
44.9. 

State: Washington; 
Adjusted required rate: 2; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 52.8; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: West Virginia; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 17.1; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 73.4; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: Wyoming; 
Adjusted required rate: 0; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 59.0; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
[Empty]. 

State: U.S. average[C]; 
Adjusted required rate: [Empty]; 
Actual federal participation rates for all families (without 
waiver)[A]: 29.7; 
Actual federal participation rate for all families (with waiver)[A]: 
34.0. 

[A] For 18 states, HHS has reported participation rates with and 
without taking into account a state’s waiver that allowed for different 
rules with regard to work requirements. 

[B] Vermont claims that its waivers eliminate any participation rate 
requirements while the waivers are in effect. It did not apply for a 
caseload reduction credit for fiscal year 2000. 

[C] U.S. average includes the U.S. territories. 

Source: The Administration for Children and Families, HHS. 

[End of table] 

Even though most states faced relatively low or no participation rate
requirements, about 30 percent of TANF adults were counted as meeting
federal participation requirements nationwide. However, the federal
participation rates varied greatly among the states, as shown in figure 
2. Officials in one state told us that because the participation rate
requirements are so low, states have more flexibility in choosing 
whether to enroll TANF recipients in work or in other types of 
activities or services, such as substance abuse treatment or mental 
health services, which do not count for purposes of the federal 
participation rate. State officials believe they can make such choices 
without fear of not meeting their federal work participation rates. In 
other cases, the lower participation rates give states more flexibility 
in exempting TANF recipients considered hard to employ from meeting 
work requirements. [Footnote 15] 

Figure 2: Range of Federal Work Participation Rates for All Families in 
Fiscal Year 2000, as Reported by HHS[A]: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percent of families participating in work activities that count toward 
the federal work participation rate: 

Percent: 0-9; 
Number of states: 3. 

Percent: 10-20; 
Number of states: 9. 

Percent: 21-30; 
Number of states: 13. 

Percent: 31-40; 
Number of states: 15. 

Percent: 41-50; 
Number of states: 6. 

Percent: 51-60; 
Number of states: 4. 

Percent: 61-70; 
Number of states: 0. 

Percent: 71-80; 
Number of states: 1. 

Percent: 81-90; 
Number of states: 0. 

Percent: 91-100; 
Number of states: 0. 

[A] Based on participation rates calculated without taking into account 
waivers. 

Note: Data for fiscal year 2000 are the most recent available. 

Source: HHS. 

[End of figure] 

State-Defined Work Rates Also Varied Greatly among States: 

Data also showed that participation rates varied greatly among states 
when using an expanded measure of work participation defined by the 
state. This measure included each state’s own definition of what 
qualified as involvement in an activity; this includes federally 
approved activities and levels of participation in addition to other 
types of activities and levels of participation if allowed by a state. 
[Footnote 16] For example, in some states, this measure would include 
participation in mental health treatment activities. In addition, in 
one state we talked with, an adult working only 1 hour a week would be 
considered as participating in state-defined activities. In contrast, a 
minimum of 30 hours of work would generally be required to count as 
meeting the federal participation requirement. 

Using this state-defined rate, nationwide, about 56 percent of TANF 
adults were involved in work or work-related activities, based on the 
47 states that provided data for fall 2001. [Footnote 17] The 
percentage of the adult caseload involved in work or work-related 
activities (as defined by the state) ranged from 6 percent to 93 
percent. As shown in figure 3, the percentage of adults participating 
was 30 percent or less in 8 states, 31-50 percent in 20 states, and 
more than 50 percent in 19 states, according to state survey responses. 
(See app. IV for more specific data by state.) 

Figure 3: Range of State-Defined Work Rates, Fall 2001: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percent of families participating in state-defined work activities: 

Percent: 0-9; 
Number of states: 1. 

Percent: 10-20; 
Number of states: 1. 

Percent: 21-30; 
Number of states: 6. 

Percent: 31-40; 
Number of states: 10. 

Percent: 41-50; 
Number of states: 10. 

Percent: 51-60; 
Number of states: 5. 

Percent: 61-70; 
Number of states: 4. 

Percent: 71-80; 
Number of states: 5. 

Percent: 81-90; 
Number of states: 3. 

Percent: 91-100; 
Number of states: 2. 

Source: GAO Survey. 

[End of figure] 

While Federal Work Requirements Do Not Apply in Separate State 
Programs, States Typically Impose Their Own Requirements: 

Providing cash assistance through separate state programs has offered
states additional flexibility, as federal work requirements do not 
apply to families served through these programs. the 26 states with 
separate state programs, 16 states used these programs to provide cash 
assistance to two-parent families. Several state officials told us they 
provide aid in this way to avoid the risk of financial penalties for 
failing to meet the federal two-parent participation rate requirement. 
State officials told us that two-parent families often have as many or 
more challenges as single parents, making the higher participation rate 
for two-parent families difficult to meet. [Footnote 18] However, 
states that provided cash assistance through separate state programs 
typically imposed their own work requirements on families receiving 
aid. We found that approximately nine-tenths of the families receiving 
cash assistance in separate state programs are still subject to a state 
work requirement. While states generally imposed work requirements, 
about half of them also have policies in place to exclude families 
facing significant barriers to work from work requirements. For 
example, 13 states exclude families with an adult who is disabled and 13
states exclude families who care for someone with a disability. 

It is possible that states may rely more on separate state programs in 
the future to provide cash assistance free from federal work 
requirements as they take steps to meet state and local goals. H.R. 
4737—the reauthorization bill passed by the House—eliminates the higher 
federal participation requirement for two-parent families that was 
often cited by states as a reason for using separate state programs. 
However, it also includes higher overall federal participation 
requirements for all families. States would still have the option to 
serve other families who they deem may have difficulty meeting higher 
federal requirements through separate state programs. With higher 
participation requirements for all families, the number of families 
that states may consider unable to meet higher federal work 
requirements could increase. 

States Excluded 11 Percent of Adult Families from Federal and State 
Time Limits: 

Through the 20 percent federal extension and the use of state funds, 
states generally excluded the following types of families from federal 
and state time limits: families they considered “hard to employ,” 
families that were working but not earning enough to move off TANF, and 
families that were cooperating with program requirements but had not 
yet found employment. During fall 2001, [Footnote 19] states excluded 
from federal or state time limits 11 percent of the 1.4 million cash 
assistance families with adults. The number of families excluded from 
time limits may increase in the future because most families have not 
yet reached their federal or state-imposed cash assistance time limit. 

Federal 20 Percent Extension and State-Funded Time Limit Exclusion 
Policies Generally Target Working or Hard-to-Employ Families: 

States targeted time limit exclusions to families they considered hard 
to employ, families who were working but not earning enough to move off
TANF, and families who were cooperating with program requirements.
The majority of states excluded hard-to-employ families in which the
parent had a disability or was caring for a child with a disability, 
families dealing with domestic violence, and families with a head of 
household of advanced age. (See fig. 4.) Some of these exclusions are 
granted on a temporary basis (such as for disabled recipients pending 
transfer to the Supplemental Security Income program), while others are 
granted for longer periods of time (such as for family heads of 
advanced age). 

Figure 4: Number of States with Exclusions to Federal or State Time 
Limits by Recipient Characteristic: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Reason for exclusion: Parent or caregiver with a disability; 
Number of states: 46. 

Reason for exclusion: Caring for disabled family member; 
Number of states: 46. 

Reason for exclusion: Domestic violence/extreme cruelty; 
Number of states: 42. 

Reason for exclusion: Family head is of advanced age; 
Number of states: 26. 

Reason for exclusion: Making good faith effort to find job; 
Number of states: 23. 

Reason for exclusion: Caring for young child; 
Number of states: 22. 

Reason for exclusion: Working or in work activity; 
Number of states: 22. 

Reason for exclusion: Parent completing education or training; 
Number of states: 21. 

Reason for exclusion: Family living in high unemployment area; 
Number of states: 19. 

Source: GAO survey. 

[End of table] 

Twenty-two states exclude working families or families participating in 
a work activity from time limits, either through the federal 20 percent
extension or by using state-only funds. Maryland and Illinois, for 
example, “stop the clock” for families who are working or participating 
in a work activity by funding them with state-only dollars. Officials 
from both states told us that their states adopted this policy to 
reward working families for complying with program requirements. 

States that exclude families by using state-only funds use criteria 
similar to those used by states that rely solely on the federal 20 
percent hardship extension. Using the 20 percent extension, states are 
able to extend time limits for a broad range of families, such as 
families cooperating with program requirements or making a “good faith 
effort” to find employment. For example, officials from Michigan, a 
state that commingles all of its state funds with federal funds, told 
us that they will use the 20 percent extension for all recipients 
following the rules of the program; if the number of families to whom 
they want to provide an extension begins to exceed 20 percent, they 
plan to continue providing assistance through state funds. Almost half 
of the states exclude families making a good faith effort to find 
employment. 

While States Had Excluded 11 Percent of Families with Adults from Time 
Limits as of Fall 2001, This Percentage May Increase as More Families 
Reach Their Time Limits: 

States have excluded from time limits 11 percent (about 154,000) of the
approximately 1.4 million families with adults receiving federal- or 
state-funded cash assistance. [Footnote 20] (See app. V for the percent 
of exclusions by state.) As shown in figure 5, 45 percent of these 
families—mostly in Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York—were excluded 
through states use of state-only funds. An additional 43 percent of the 
families were excluded from time limits under federal waivers granted 
to states before welfare reform to conduct demonstration programs. Many 
of these waivers remain in effect. [Footnote 21] 

Figure 5: Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits 
and Method of Exclusion: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Families with Adults Excluded from Time Limits and Method 
of Exclusion: 
Time-limited: 89%; 
Not time-limited: 11%. 

Method of exclusion for not time-limited families: 
Waivers: 43.4%; 
Federal 20% hardship extension: 11.2%; 
Exclusions using state-only funds: 45.2%. 

Note: Exclusions do not total 100 percent due to incomplete data from 
states. Delaware was unable to provide us with caseload data and is not 
included in this figure. 

Source: GAO survey. 

[End of figure] 

While states sometimes use state funds to exclude families from federal
time limits, states are still applying a state time limit to a 
significant portion of state-funded families. Overall, 64 percent of 
families who receive cash assistance through separate state programs or 
segregated state funds are still subject to a state time limit. Twenty-
six of the 33 states with state-funded families apply a state time 
limit to some or all of their state-funded families. (See app. VI for 
additional information on state choices regarding funding and time 
limits.) 

The percentage of the caseload that is excluded from time limits may
increase because most families have not reached their time limit. In 22
states TANF had not been in effect long enough for families to reach 
either the federal or the state time limit by the time we conducted our 
survey. [Footnote 22] Even in those states where it was possible to 
have received 60 months of cash assistance, many families had not 
reached their time limit because they have cycled on and off welfare, 
slowing their accrual of time on assistance. State officials generally 
thought the 20 percent federal time-limit extension was adequate now, 
but were less sure about the future, given that many families have not 
yet reached the 60 month time limit. 

State officials we spoke with told us that they planned to rely more 
heavily on state MOE funds to continue assistance to significant 
numbers of families reaching the 60 month time limit. For example, 
California told us it estimated that over 100,000 families with adults 
would reach the federal time limit in the next year. California plans 
to use state-only funds to continue aid beyond 60 months to children by 
removing the adult from the case. California also plans to continue aid 
to families who are making a good faith effort to find employment and 
to families who are hard to employ because the adult is aged, disabled, 
caring for a disabled family member, or experiencing domestic violence. 
In addition, New York plans to continue assistance to families who 
reach the 60 month time limit through its separate state program. In 
December 2001, New York State had 44,027 families reach the 60 month 
federal time limit. Of these families, 28,781(65 percent) were 
transitioned to the state’s separate state program funded with state 
MOE, 9,873 (22 percent) received the 20 percent extension, and the 
remaining 5,393 (12 percent) were transitioned off assistance. These 
families were among the first to reach time limits with more families 
to follow. 

At the time of our survey, we found that only 15 states had begun to use
the federal 20 percent hardship extension; overall, these states were
applying it to less than 1 percent of their adult caseload. While it is 
difficult to estimate the extent to which states may use the 20 percent 
extension as more families reach the 60 month time limit, it is 
important to note that states’ child-only caseloads can result in 
significantly more than 20 percent of the adult TANF caseload receiving 
the extension. [Footnote 23] As discussed earlier, TANF allows each 
state to extend the 60 month time limit for up to 20 percent of the 
average monthly number of families receiving TANF assistance funded in 
whole or part with federal TANF funds. In each state, the maximum 
number of families who may receive extensions is equal to 20 percent of 
the total number of TANF families, including child-only cases. This 
results in a higher number of adults who can receive the extension than 
if the calculation were based on 20 percent of TANF families with 
adults. We estimated that the maximum percentage of adults who may 
receive the federal extension ranges from 77 percent in Wyoming to 24 
percent in Vermont and New Mexico, based on our analysis of survey data 
for fall 2001. (For more on this analysis, see app. VII). 

Concluding Observations: 

Although states have had TANF programs in place for 5 years now, their
experiences with key elements of TANF are still evolving. The dramatic
caseload decline that greatly reduced the federally required 
participation rates gave states great flexibility in implementing work 
requirements. With this flexibility, the extent of involvement of TANF 
adults in federally or state-required activities varied greatly among 
the states. On the one hand, this means states have adapted their 
programs to meet state and local goals and needs. On the other hand, it 
means states with relatively low participation rates have more limited 
experience than other states in involving welfare recipients in work 
activities. This may affect their ability to meet federal participation 
rate requirements in the future. In addition, many states have used the 
flexibility allowed them in using state MOE to exclude families from or 
to extend federal time limits. In this way, states could ensure a 
safety net for families that state TANF program officials had 
determined needed more time to become self-sufficient or were unable to 
support themselves. Because so many families have not yet reached their 
time limits, much remains unknown about choices states will make in 
enforcing time limits and whether an appropriate balance will be struck 
between ensuring a safety net for families in need and creating a 
transitional aid system that promotes work and personal responsibility. 

Two issues that warrant attention in the future include wider 
implementation of the 20 percent federal time limit extension and 
states’ use of separate state programs to provide cash assistance. 
First, as we reported, the 20 percent time limit extension, when 
applied to adults, represents a larger and varying share of adults 
among the states than when applied to all families, including child-
only cases. As this extension policy is more widely used in the years 
ahead, it will be important to understand whether the 20 percent 
extension as currently calculated affords all states the access needed 
to support families experiencing hardship as well as supporting the 
federal goal of reducing welfare dependence. Second, with the use of 
state MOE through separate state programs, a not insignificant number 
of families—and potentially more in the years to come—receive cash 
assistance although they are not counted in welfare caseload data 
routinely reported by HHS. With continuing attention focused on the 
number of families receiving cash assistance and whether PRWORA has
successfully reduced dependence on welfare, it is important that program
administrators and policymakers have information on the size of the
separate state program caseload. These data should be more regularly
available to consider along with TANF caseload data as HHS has recently
begun to collect and report information on states’ separate state 
programs. 

Agency Comments: 

In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS said that it agreed with 
the findings. HHS’ s written comments are included in appendix VIII. 

We are sending copies of this report to the secretary of Health and 
Human Services and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215 or Gale Harris at (202) 512-7235. Other contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IX. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Cynthia M. Fagnoni: 
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: State Funding Choices: 

Most states use some form of state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding
to provide cash assistance to families. Eighteen states relied solely on
federal or commingled federal and state funds in their Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs to provide cash 
assistance, as shown in figure 6. The other 33 states used at least one 
of the state MOE funding options in addition to commingled funds: 7 had
segregated state funds; 17 had separate state programs; and 9 had both
segregated funds and separate state programs. 

Figure 6: Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to 
Expend State Funds on Cash Assistance: 

This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following information: 

Number of States That Use Different Funding Mechanisms to Expend State 
Funds on Cash Assistance: 
States that only commingle state MOE funds: 18; 
States with state MOE and commingled funds: 33. 

Of the 33 states with state MOE and commingled funds: 
7 have segregated funding; 
9 have segregated funding and separate state programs; 
17 have separate state program; 
There is a total of 16 states with segregated funds; 
There is total of 26 states with separated state programs. 

Source: GAO survey, Fall 2001. 

[End of figure] 

States across the nation have opted to use state MOE funds to provide
cash assistance. (See table 3.) States with larger caseloads are more 
likely to use segregated funds or separate state programs than smaller 
states; similarly, states with the smallest caseloads are more likely 
to commingle all of their state and federal funds. 

Table 3: Funding Streams in All States and the District of Columbia: 

Commingled funds: 
Alaska; 
Arkansas; 
Colorado; 
Idaho; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Kentucky; 
Louisiana;
Michigan; 
Mississippi; 
North Carolina[A]; 
North Dakota; 
New Hampshire; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
South Carolina; 
South Dakota; 
West Virginia; 
Total: 18. 

Commingled + segregated state funds: 
Arizona; 
Massachusetts; 
Minnesota; 
Nebraska; 
Oregon; 
Pennsylvania; 
Washington; 
Total: 7. 

Commingled + separate state programs: 
Alabama; 
Georgia; 
Hawaii; 
Indiana; 
Maine; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
Nevada; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
Tennessee; 
Texas; 
Utah; 
Virginia; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming; 
Total: 17. 

Commingled + segregated + separate state programs: 
California; 
Connecticut; 
District of Columbia; 
Delaware; 
Florida[B]; 
Illinois; 
Maryland; 
Rhode Island; 
Vermont; 
Total: 9. 

[A] North Carolina uses only federal funds to provide cash assistance. 

[B] Florida has segregated and separate state programs but no 
federal/commingled programs. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

Even though two-thirds of the states have opted to use segregated funds,
separate state programs, or both to provide cash assistance, only
11 percent of the total number of families receiving cash assistance is
funded with these funds. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: States’ Separate State Program Caseloads and 
Characteristics: 

Table 4: Total Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Number
Receiving Cash Assistance through a Separate State Program: 

States with separate state programs: Hawaii; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 17,717; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 5,316; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 30.0. 

States with separate state programs: Maine; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 10,525; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 1,563; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 14.9. 

States with separate state programs: New York; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 199,481; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 28,781; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 14.4. 

States with separate state programs: California; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 497,818; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 49,929; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 10.0. 

States with separate state programs: Rhode Island; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 16,943; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 1,210; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 7.1. 

States with separate state programs: Missouri; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 46,486; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 2,837; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 6.1. 

States with separate state programs: Connecticut; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 24,276; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 1,375; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.7. 

States with separate state programs: Vermont; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 5,475; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 310; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.7. 

States with separate state programs: Nevada; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 10,386; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 573; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.5. 

States with separate state programs: Maryland; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 29,537; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 1,608; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.4. 

States with separate state programs: Texas; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 132,788; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 6,351; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 4.8. 

States with separate state programs: Indiana; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 47,073; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 1,935; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 4.1. 

States with separate state programs: New Jersey; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 40,908; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 1,454; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 3.6. 

States with separate state programs: Florida; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 62,877; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 2,175; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 3.5. 

States with separate state programs: Virginia; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 29,846; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 792; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 2.7. 

States with separate state programs: Wisconsin; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 19,160; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 486; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 2.5. 

States with separate state programs: New Mexico; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 19,745; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 445; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 2.3. 

States with separate state programs: District of Columbia; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 16,747; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 251; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.5. 

States with separate state programs: Wyoming; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 465; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 7; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.5. 

States with separate state programs: Illinois; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 54,723; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 767; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.4. 

States with separate state programs: Tennessee; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 63,427; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 911; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.4. 

States with separate state programs: Alabama; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 19,281; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 206; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 1.1. 

States with separate state programs: Georgia; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 54,168; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 490; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 0.9. 

States with separate state programs: Utah; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 8,245; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 73; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 0.9. 

States with separate state programs: Montana; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 5,263; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 38; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 0.7. 

States with separate state programs: Delaware; 
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: NA; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: NA; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: NA. 

States with separate state programs: United States[B]; 5.2
Total number of families receiving cash assistance[A]: 2,132,284; 
Number of families receiving cash assistance in a separate state 
program: 109,883; 
Families receiving cash assistance through a separate state program as a
percent of all families: 5.2. 

[A] Includes families receiving cash assistance funded with federal 
TANF or state MOE. 

[B] U.S. total also includes families receiving cash assistance in 
states without separate state programs. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

States most often used separate state programs to serve two populations—
legal aliens and two-parent families—and applied their own state work
requirements on these two populations. (See table 4.) Other examples of
populations served by some states in their separate state programs 
include parents completing education or training (four states), parents 
or caretakers with a physical impairment (four states), families caring 
for a young child (three states). 

Table 5: Number of States with Separate State Programs that Target Legal
Immigrants and Two-Parent Families: 

States with separate state programs: Alabama; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: California; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Connecticut; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Delaware; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: District of Columbia; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Florida; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Georgia; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Hawaii; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Illinois; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check][A]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Indiana; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: 

States with separate state programs: Maine; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Maryland; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]; 

States with separate state programs: Missouri; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Montana; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Nevada; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: New Jersey; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: New Mexico; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: New York; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Rhode Island; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Tennessee; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Texas; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Utah; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Vermont; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Check]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Virginia; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Wisconsin; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Check]. 

States with separate state programs: Wyoming
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: [Empty]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: [Empty]. 

States with separate state programs: Total: 26; 
Target legal immigrants for separate state programs: 13[B]; 
Target two-parent families for separate state programs: 16. 

[A] Illinois provides cash assistance to refugees under separate state 
programs. 

[B] Six additional states do provide cash assistance to legal immigrant 
families ineligible for federal TANF using segregated state TANF funds: 
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and 
Washington. Georgia provides cash assistance to legal immigrants 
through their segregated funds and their separate state program. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: States’ Child-Only Caseloads and Reasons for Child-Only 
Cases: 

State: Alabama; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 19,281; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,636; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Alaska; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,709; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,080; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 19; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 39;
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 6; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 55; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Arizona; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 37,408; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 16,133; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 43; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 61; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 4; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 3. 

State: Arkansas; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 12,163; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 5,163; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 42; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: California; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 497,818; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 169,756; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 34; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 14; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 39; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 16; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 23; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 8; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Colorado; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 12,711; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,785; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 38; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 25; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 51; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 16; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 7. 

State: Connecticut; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 24,276; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,128; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 33; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 40; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 5; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 1; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 54; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Delaware; 
Total cash assistance caseload: [B]; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: [B]; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: [B]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 16,747; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,216; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 19; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Florida; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 62,877; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 35,950; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 57; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Georgia; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 54,168; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 24,717; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 46; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 100; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Hawaii; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 17,717; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,285; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 13; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Idaho; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 2,257; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 945; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 42; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 100; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Illinois; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 54,723; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 21,977; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 40; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 57; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 10; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 27; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 4; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 2. 

State: Indiana; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 47,073; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 9,342; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 20; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Iowa; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 20,328; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,986; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 25; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Kansas; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 13,534; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,454; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 33; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 35; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 4; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 5; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 56; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Kentucky; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 35,703; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 15,716; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 44; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 15; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 85. 

State: Louisiana; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 25,878; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 11,560; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 45; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 55; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Maine; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 10,525; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,504; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 24; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Maryland; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 29,537; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 9,525; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 18; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 1; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 1; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 76; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 5; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 45,347; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 16,648; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 37; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Michigan; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 72,905; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 23,204; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 54; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 3; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 3; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 40; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Minnesota; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 39,893; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,321; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 21; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Mississippi; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 17,251; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 7,730; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Missouri; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 46,486; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 11,584; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 25; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 50; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 1; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 49; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Montana; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,263; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,135; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 22; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 37; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 7; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 56; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Nebraska; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 10,887; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,325; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 31; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 64; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 36; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Nevada; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 10,386; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,236; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 31; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 9; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 12; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 76; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 3; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,794; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,685; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 29; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 30; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 51; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 19; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: New Jersey; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 40,908; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 13,895; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 34; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: New Mexico; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 19,745; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,961; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 15; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: New York; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 199,481; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 63,143; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: North Carolina; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 44,997; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 22,586; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 50; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: North Dakota; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 3,036; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 744; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 25; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 18; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 50; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Ohio; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 84,104; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 37,877; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 14,501; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 6,452; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 44; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 34; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 6; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 60; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Oregon; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 17,099; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 6,041; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 35; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 28; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 25; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 3; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 37; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 7; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 88,090; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 24,386; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 28; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 16,943; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 3,022; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 18; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 52; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 16; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: South Carolina; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 18,384; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 8,224; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 45; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 41; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 1; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 58; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: South Dakota; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 2,715; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 1,556; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 57; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 22; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 78; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Tennessee; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 63,427; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 17,506; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 28; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 41; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 58; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Texas; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 132,788; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 45,210; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 34; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 38; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 11; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 51. 

State: Utah; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 8,245; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 2,403; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 29; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 30; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 70; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Vermont; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 5,475; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 897; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 16; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 56; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 44; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Virginia; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 29,846; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 7,930; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 27; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Washington; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 53,705; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 17,099; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 32; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 28; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 21; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 48; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 3; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: West Virginia; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 14,525; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 4,440; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 31; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 19,160; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 11,608; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 61; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 51; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 49; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 0; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 0. 

State: Wyoming; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 465; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 339; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 73; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: [Empty];
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: [Empty]; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 100. 

State: US. total/average; 
Total cash assistance caseload: 2,132,284; 
Federally funded child-only cash assistance caseload[A]: 736,045; 
Percent of total caseload that is child-only: 35; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
receiving SSI: 14; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent is 
ineligible noncitizen: 14; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Parent 
received sanction: 4; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Nonparental 
caregivers: 23; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: Other 
reasons: 3; 
Percentage of federally funded child-only cases by reason: 
Unknown/states could not report data: 43. 

[A] Florida and Illinois do not have federally funded child-only cases. 
Therefore, calculations for these states are based on state-funded 
child-only cases. Six other states have small numbers of state-funded
child-only cases such that the percentage of the cash assistance 
caseload that is child-only would only increase by less than 1 
percentage point if the state-funded child-only cases were included. 

[B] Not available. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: State-Defined Work Rate for Fall 2001, by State: 

State: Alabama: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 44. 

State: Alaska: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 45. 

State: Arizona: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 38. 

State: Arkansas: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 32. 

State: California: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 81. 

State: Colorado: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 47. 

State: Connecticut: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 23. 

State: Delaware: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A]. 

State: District of Columbia: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 38. 

State: Florida: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 31. 

State: Georgia: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 6. 

State: Hawaii: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 57. 

State: Idaho: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 44. 

State: Illinois: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 60. 

State: Indiana: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 65. 

State: Iowa: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A]. 

State: Kansas: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 73. 

State: Kentucky: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 86. 

State: Louisiana: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 48. 

State: Maine: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A]. 

State: Maryland: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 66. 

State: Massachusetts: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 75. 

State: Michigan: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 32. 

State: Minnesota: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 57. 

State: Mississippi: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 18. 

State: Missouri: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 36. 

State: Montana: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 89. 

State: Nebraska: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 74. 

State: Nevada: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 69. 

State: New Hampshire: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 25. 

State: New Jersey: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 44. 

State: New Mexico: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 36. 

State: New York: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 34. 

State: North Carolina: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 51. 

State: North Dakota: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 30. 

State: Ohio: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 78. 

State: Oklahoma: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 31. 

State: Oregon: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 50. 

State: Pennsylvania: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 32. 

State: Rhode Island: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 46. 

State: South Carolina: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 49. 

State: South Dakota: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 42. 

State: Tennessee: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 52. 

State: Texas: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 62. 

State: Utah: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 26. 

State: Vermont: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 22. 

State: Virginia: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 30. 

State: Washington: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 93. 

State: West Virginia: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): [A]. 

State: Wisconsin: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 91. 

State: Wyoming: 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 76. 

State: U.S. Average; 
Percentage of TANF adults involved in work (as defined by state): 56. 

[A] Not available. Four states were unable to provide us with 
information on the percent of adults participating in a state-defined 
work-activity. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: State Percentages of TANF or MOE-Funded Families with Adult 
Recipients Not Subject to Federal or State Time Limits: 

State: Alabama: 
Percentage: 1. 

State: Alaska: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Arizona: 
Percentage: 76. 

State: Arkansas: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: California: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Colorado: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Connecticut: 
Percentage: 27. 

State: Delaware: 
Percentage: [A]. 

State: District of Columbia: 
Percentage: 2. 

State: Florida: 
Percentage: 2. 

State: Georgia: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Hawaii: 
Percentage: 27. 

State: Idaho: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Illinois: 
Percentage: 34. 

State: Indiana: 
Percentage: 7. 

State: Iowa: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Kansas: 
Percentage: 1. 

State: Kentucky: 
Percentage: 0; 

State: Louisiana: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Maine: 
Percentage: 25. 

State: Maryland: 
Percentage: 9. 

State: Massachusetts: 
Percentage: 53. 

State: Michigan: 
Percentage: 8. 

State: Minnesota: 
Percentage: 10. 

State: Mississippi: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Missouri: 
Percentage: 6. 

State: Montana: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Nebraska: 
Percentage: 26. 

State: Nevada: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: New Hampshire: 
Percentage: 3. 

State: New Jersey: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: New Mexico: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: New York: 
Percentage: 28. 

State: North Carolina: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: North Dakota: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Ohio: 
Percentage: 4. 

State: Oklahoma: 
Percentage: 1. 

State: Oregon: 
Percentage: 97. 

State: Pennsylvania: 
Percentage: 2. 

State: Rhode Island: 
Percentage: 6. 

State: South Carolina: 
Percentage: 26. 

State: South Dakota: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Tennessee: 
Percentage: 29. 

State: Texas: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Utah: 
Percentage: 4. 

State: Vermont: 
Percentage: 7. 

State: Virginia: 
Percentage: 54. 

State: Washington: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: West Virginia: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Wisconsin: 
Percentage: 0. 

State: Wyoming: 
Percentage: 6. 

Note: States with higher percentages may be due to existing state 
waivers that allow more flexibility with federal time limits. 

[A] Delaware was not able to provide us with data on families excluded 
from time limits. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: State-by-State Information on State Funding, Application 
of Time Limits, and Use of 20 Percent Extension: 

State: Alabama: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Alaska: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Arizona: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Arkansas: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: California: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Colorado: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Connecticut: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Delaware: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [D]. 

State: District of Columbia: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Florida: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Georgia: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Hawaii: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Idaho: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Illinois: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Indiana: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Iowa: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Kansas: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Kentucky: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Louisiana: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Maine: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Maryland: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Massachusetts: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Michigan: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check][A]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Minnesota: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Mississippi: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Missouri: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Montana: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Nebraska: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Nevada: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: New Hampshire: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: New Jersey: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: New Mexico: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: New York: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: North Carolina: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: North Dakota: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Ohio: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Oklahoma: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Oregon: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check][B]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Pennsylvania: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Rhode Island: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: South Carolina: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: South Dakota: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Tennessee: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Texas: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Utah: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Vermont: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check][C]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Virginia: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Washington: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Check]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: West Virginia: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Empty]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Check]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Check]. 

State: Wisconsin: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Check]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Wyoming: 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 
[Check]; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: [Empty]; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: [Empty]; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 
[Empty]; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: [Empty]. 

State: Total; 
Have state MOE funds in segregated and separate state programs: 33; 
Apply state time limit to some/all families served through state MOE 
funds: 26; 
Exclude from time limits families who are working or participating in
work activity: 22; 
Have not reached federal and/or state time limit at time of survey: 22; 
Were using 20 percent extension at time of survey: 15. 

[A] Michigan uses the 20 percent hardship extension to all families 
that reach a time limit and are cooperating with program requirements. 

[B] Oregon currently operates under a waiver and exempts from time 
limits all families that are participating in self-sufficiency 
activities. 

[C] Vermont will extend assistance to all families that reach the 60 
month time limit. 

[D] Delaware was not able to provide data on their use of the federal 
20 percent extension. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Maximum Percent of Adults Who Can Receive Time-Limit 
Extension: 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) specifies that up to 20 percent of families receiving TANF
assistance in each state can receive an extension to the 60 month 
federal time limit. Based on our analysis of survey data, we estimated 
that the maximum percentage of adults who could receive extensions 
ranged from 24 to 77 percent among the states, depending on the size of 
each state’s child-only caseload. For example, Wyoming may extend time 
limits for up to 92 families, which represents 20 percent of the 458 
TANF families in Wyoming. However, because almost three-fourths of its 
TANF families are child-only, only 119 families with adults would have 
time limits in place. This means that the state could provide 
extensions to 92 of the 119 TANF families with adults; this represents 
77 percent rather than 20 percent of TANF families with adults. In 
contrast, in New Mexico, with its much smaller percentage of child-only 
families (15 percent), the maximum percentage of time-limit extensions 
that may be provided to families with adults is 24 percent rather than 
20 percent. 

State: Wyoming; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 458; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 92; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 339; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 74; 
TANF families with an adult: 119; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 77. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 18,674; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,735; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 11,608; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 62; 
TANF families with an adult: 7,066; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 53. 

State: Florida; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 60,702; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 12,140; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 35,950; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 59; 
TANF families with an adult: 24,752; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 49. 

State: South Dakota; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 2,715; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 543; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,556; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 57; 
TANF families with an adult: 1,159; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 47. 

State: North Carolina; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 44,997; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 8,999; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 22,586; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 50; 
TANF families with an adult: 22,411; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 40. 

State: Georgia; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 53,678; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 10,736; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 24,717; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 46; 
TANF families with an adult: 28,961; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 37. 

State: Alabama; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 19,075; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,815; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,636; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45; 
TANF families with an adult: 10,439; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 37. 

State: Ohio; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 84,104; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 16,821; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 37,877; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45; 
TANF families with an adult: 46,227; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: Mississippi; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 17,251; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,450; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 7,730; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45; 
TANF families with an adult: 9,521; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: South Carolina; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 18,384; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,677; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,224; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45; 
TANF families with an adult: 10,160; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: Louisiana; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 25,878; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 5,176; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 11,560; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 45; 
TANF families with an adult: 14,318; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 14,501; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,900; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 6,452; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 44; 
TANF families with an adult: 8,049; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: Arizona; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 37,408; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,482; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 16,479; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 44; 
TANF families with an adult: 20,929; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: Kentucky; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 35,703; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,141; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 15,716; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 44; 
TANF families with an adult: 19,987; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 36. 

State: Arkansas; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 12,163; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,433; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 5,163; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 42; 
TANF families with an adult: 7,000; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 35. 

State: Idaho; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 2,257; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 451; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 945; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 42; 
TANF families with an adult: 1,312; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 34. 

State: Illinois; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 53,956; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 10,791; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 21,977; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 41; 
TANF families with an adult: 31,979; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 34. 

State: California; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 447,889; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 89,578; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 169,756; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 38; 
TANF families with an adult: 278,133; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 32. 

State: Colorado; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 12,711; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,542; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,785; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 38; 
TANF families with an adult: 7,926; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 32. 

State: New York; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 170,700; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 34,140; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 63,143; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 37; 
TANF families with an adult: 107,557; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 32. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 45,347; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 9,069; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 16,648; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 37; 
TANF families with an adult: 28,699; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 32. 

State: Connecticut; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 22,901; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 4,580; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,272; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 36; 
TANF families with an adult: 14,629; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 31. 

State: Texas; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 126,437; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 25,287; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 45,210; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 36; 
TANF families with an adult: 81,227; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 31. 

State: Oregon; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 17,099; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,420; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 6,041; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 35; 
TANF families with an adult: 11,058; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 31. 

State: New Jersey; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 39,454; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,891; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 13,895; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 35; 
TANF families with an adult: 25,559; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 31. 

State: Maryland; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 27,929; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 5,586; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 9,611; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 34; 
TANF families with an adult: 18,318; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 30. 

State: Nevada; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 9,813; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,963; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,236; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 33; 
TANF families with an adult: 6,577; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 30. 

State: Kansas; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 13,534; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,707; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,454; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 33; 
TANF families with an adult: 9,080; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 30. 

State: Washington; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 53,705; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 10,741; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 17,136; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 32; 
TANF families with an adult: 36,569; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 29. 

State: Michigan; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 72,905; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 14,581; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 23,204; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 32; 
TANF families with an adult: 49,701; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 29. 

State: West Virginia; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 14,525; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,905; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,440; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 31; 
TANF families with an adult: 10,085; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 29. 

State: Nebraska; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 10,887; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,177; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,325; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 31; 
TANF families with an adult: 7,562; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 29. 

State: Utah; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 8,172; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,634; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,403; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 29; 
TANF families with an adult: 5,769; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 28. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,794; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,159; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,685; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 29; 
TANF families with an adult: 4,109; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 28. 

State: Tennessee; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 62,516; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 12,503; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 17,506; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 28; 
TANF families with an adult: 45,010; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 28. 

State: Maine; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 8,962; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,792; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,509; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 28; 
TANF families with an adult: 6,435; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 28. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 88,090; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 17,618; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 24,386; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 28; 
TANF families with an adult: 63,704; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 28. 

State: Virginia; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 29,054; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 5,811; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 7,930; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 27; 
TANF families with an adult: 21,124; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 28. 

State: Missouri; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 43,649; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 8,730; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 11,584; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 27; 
TANF families with an adult: 32,065; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 27. 

State: Iowa; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 20,328; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 4,066; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 4,986; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 25; 
TANF families with an adult: 15,342; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 26. 

State: North Dakota; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 3,036; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 607; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 744; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 25; 
TANF families with an adult: 2,292; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 26. 

State: Montana; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,225; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,045; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,135; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 22; 
TANF families with an adult: 4,090; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 26. 

State: Minnesota; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 38,893; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 7,979; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 8,366; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 21; 
TANF families with an adult: 31,527; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 25. 

State: Indiana; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 45,138; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 9,028; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 9,342; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 21;
TANF families with an adult: 35,796; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 25. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 16,496; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,299; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,216; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 19; 
TANF families with an adult: 13,280; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 25. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 15,733; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,147; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 3,022; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 19; 
TANF families with an adult: 12,711; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 25. 

State: Alaska; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,709; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,142; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 1,080; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 19; 
TANF families with an adult: 4,629; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 25. 

State: Hawaii; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 12,401; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 2,480; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,285; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 18; 
TANF families with an adult: 10,116; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 25. 

State: Vermont; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 5,165; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 1,033; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 897; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 17; 
TANF families with an adult: 4,268; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 24. 

State: New Mexico; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: 19,300; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): 3,860; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: 2,961; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: 15; 
TANF families with an adult: 16,339; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 24. 

State: Delaware; 
Total number of TANF families[A]: [B]; 
Maximum number of families who may receive time limit extension (20%
of TANF families): [B]; 
Number of TANF families who are child-only: [B]; 
Percent of child-only cases among TANF families: [B]; 
TANF families with an adult: [B]; 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: [B]. 

Weighted average: 
Maximum percent of families with adult who may receive time-limit 
extension: 31. 

[A] Includes child-only cases and excludes families provided assistance 
through separate state programs. 

[B] Data not available. 

Source: GAO survey, fall 2001. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

Department Of Health & Human Services: 
Office of Inspector General: 
Washington, D.C. 20201: 

June 26, 2002: 

Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Fagnoni: 

Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled, 
"Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They 
Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits." The comments represent 
the tentative position of the Department and are subject to 
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Janet Rehnquist: 
Inspector General: 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office 
reports. The OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these 
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them. 

Enclosure: 

Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The General 
Accounting Office's Draft Report "Welfare Reform: With TANF 
Flexibility, States Vary In How They Implement Work Requirements And 
Time Limits" (GAO-02-770): 

General Comments: 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on this proposed final report, which addresses 
critical provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) on time limits and work 
requirements. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
program was designed to help needy families reduce their dependence on 
welfare and move toward economic independence. Under TANF, States are 
required to engage an increasing percentage of adults in work or work 
activities each year, and families with adults can only receive Federal 
assistance for 60 months. The report contains no recommendations, but 
concludes with observations. 

GAO Concluding Observations: 

Although States have had TANF programs in place for 5 years now, their 
experiences with key elements of TANF are still evolving. The dramatic 
caseload decline that greatly reduced the Federally-required 
participation rates gave States greater flexibility in implementing 
work requirements. With this flexibility, the extent of involvement of 
TANF adults in Federally- or State-required activities varied greatly 
among the States. On the one hand, this means States have adapted their 
programs to meet State and local goals and needs. On the other hand, it 
means States with relatively low participation rates have more limited 
experience than other States in involving welfare recipients in work 
activities. This may affect their ability to meet Federal participation 
rate requirements in the future. In addition, many States have used the 
flexibility allowed them in using State maintenance of effort funds 
(MOE) to exclude families from or to extend Federal time limits. In 
this way, States could ensure a safety net for families that State 
program officials had determined needed more time to become self-
sufficient or were unable to support themselves. Because so many 
families have not yet reached their time limits, much remains unknown 
about choices States will make in enforcing time limits and whether an 
appropriate balance will be struck between ensuring a safety net for 
families in need and creating a transitional aid system that promotes 
work and personal responsibility. 

Two issues that warrant attention in the future include wider 
implementation of the 20 percent Federal time limit extension and 
States' use of separate State programs to provide cash assistance. 
First, as we reported, the 20 percent time limit extension, when 
applied to adults, represents a larger and varying share of adults 
among the States than when applied to all families, including child-
only cases. As this extension policy is more widely used in the years 
ahead, it will be important to understand whether the 20 percent 
extension, as currently calculated, affords all States the access 
needed to support families experiencing hardship while still supporting 
the Federal goal of reducing welfare dependence. Second, with the use 
of State MOE through separate State programs, a not insignificant 
number of families-and potentially more in the years to come-receive 
cash assistance although they are not counted in welfare caseload data 
routinely reported by HHS. With continuing attention focused on the 
number of families receiving cash assistance and whether PRWORA has 
successfully reduced dependence on welfare, it is important that 
program administrators and policymakers have information on the size of 
the separate State program caseload. These data should be more 
regularly available to consider, along with TANF caseload data, as HHS 
has recently begun to collect and report information on States' 
separate programs. 

Department Comments: 

The Department generally agrees with the background and findings of the 
report: 

* Of the 2.1 million families receiving TANF assistance in the fall of 
2001, 736,000 cases or one-third were child-only cases, not subject to 
time limits or work requirements. Twenty-six States provided assistance 
to 110,000 families, or about five percent, through separate State 
programs, which are also not subject to TANF requirements. 

* The caseload reduction credit States derive from declines in 
caseloads has dramatically reduced or eliminated participation rate 
requirements for States; thus, States have increased flexibility to 
determine the number of adults required to participate in work 
activities; and the percentage engaged in such activities varies 
greatly among the States, ranging from six percent to more than 70 
percent. 

* States excluded about 154,000 hardship or hard to employ families 
from time limits or about 11 percent of the 1.4 million families with 
an adult receiving cash assistance. 

As the report highlights, TANF gives States funding flexibility, which 
allows States to exempt some families from Federal time limits. The 
TANF establishes a 60-month time limit, but this Federal limit does not 
apply to all forms of aid or to all families: 

1. The time limit only applies to families receiving "assistance" 
designed to meet a family's ongoing basic needs and does not apply to 
non-assistance services. 

2. Time limits do not apply to "child-only" cases in which an adult is 
not receiving assistance or in Indian country where 50 percent of 
adults are not employed. 

3. Assistance that is provided using State MOE funds is not subject to 
the Federal time limit. 

4. A State may use Federal funds to extend assistance beyond 60 months 
for hardship for up to 20 percent of the entire caseload. 

In fiscal year 2000, States were required to meet a work participation 
rate of 40 percent for all TANF families and a much higher 90 percent 
rate for two-parent families. However caseload declines that reduce 
these participation rate requirements and the use of MOE funds also 
give States considerable flexibility in implementing work requirements. 
Consider the following: 

* With a national caseload decline of 52 percent, the overall 
participation rate for 31 States was adjusted downward from 40 percent 
to 0 percent. 

* Even with low or no participation requirements, about 30 percent of 
TANF adults were meeting participation requirements nationwide; 
however, the rates varied greatly among States. 

* While Federal work requirements do not apply in separate State 
programs, States typically impose their own work requirements on these 
families. 

The Administration for Children and Families has also provided guidance 
and technical assistance to help States recognize and use the 
flexibility outlined by GAO in this report to design temporary and 
effective work programs and supports for low-income working families. 
States are increasingly using this broad flexibility to develop 
strategies that will help recipients enter work, improve wages and 
sustain careers, as Congress considers the reauthorization of the TANF 
program. 

The heart of welfare reform is encouraging and supporting work. While 
States have done a tremendous job of moving families into the workforce 
over the last 5 years, the GAO findings noted above also clearly 
demonstrate that more needs to be done to engage the nearly one million 
adults who are not engaged in activities leading to work. To address 
this need, the President's proposal for reauthorization, "Working 
Toward Independence," strengthened work rules to ensure that all 
families are fully engaged in work and activities that lead to self-
sufficiency. The proposal: 

* maintains the current level of funding and increases State 
flexibility; 

* creates a new universal engagement requirement; 

* increases the minimum participation rate requirements for all 
families to 70 percent over time, and eliminates the separate 
participation requirement for two-parent families; 

* requires families to participate 40 hours a week, 24 of which must be 
in direct work activities; 

* phases out the caseload reduction credit while allowing States to 
count families that leave welfare due to work in the participation rate 
for 3 months, and; 

* retains the 5-year lifetime limit and 20 percent hardship exemption. 

Reflecting agreement with the President's emphasis on work and modeled 
on the Administration's proposal, the House-passed reauthorization 
bill, H.R. 4737, incorporates these provisions, with a modified 
caseload reduction credit. 

The Department appreciates the sensitivity of these issues, and as we 
move into the next phase of welfare reform under reauthorization, we 
will monitor and pay close attention to these and other issues. 

[End of enclosure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Sigurd Nilsen (202) 512-7003: 
Gale Harris (202) 512-7235: 
Katrina Ryan (202) 512-3214: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made 
important contributions to this report: Elisabeth Anderson, Kara Kramer,
and Kim Reniero. Patrick DiBattista and Beverly Ross also provided key
technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to
Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-
615T. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2002. 

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

Welfare Reform: States Are Using TANF Flexibility to Adapt Work 
Requirements and Time Limits to Meet State and Local Needs. GAO-02-
501T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2002. 

Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Efforts Could Help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments Toward Employment. GAO-
02-37. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001. 

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

Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce. 
GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001. 

Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important Role
in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000. 

Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated 
Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2000. 

Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families 
Affected. GAO/HEHS-00-44. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2000. 

Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare-to-Work
Approaches. GAO/HEHS-99-179. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999. 

Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients’ Status. GAO/HEHS-99-
48. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 1999. 

Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance 
to TANF Clients. GAO/HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1999. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] We visited California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York and 
conducted telephone interviews with Colorado, Hawaii, Florida, 
Michigan, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin. The states 
were selected to represent a range of factors, including variation in 
caseload size and in TANF program funding choices. The survey had a 100 
percent response rate, although each state did not respond to all 
questions. 

[2] This represents the number of families receiving cash assistance 
during 1 month between October and December of 2001. 

[3] “Assistance” does not include things like nonrecurrent, short-term 
benefits, such as rent deposits or appliance repairs; work subsidies; 
work supports such as child care or transportation subsidies for 
working families; or any other services such as counseling, case 
management, and peer support that do not provide basic income support. 

[4] HHS has indicated that it would be inconsistent with statutory 
intent for states to simply remove adults from assistance units once 
they reach their 60-month time limit and then continue to use federal 
dollars to pay benefits to the children as a child-only unit. States
may choose to use their MOE funds to do this. 

[5] States can elect the Family Violence Option allowing states to 
waive any TANF requirement, under certain conditions, for victims of 
domestic violence. If a state elects the Family Violence Option and 
waives the time limits for such recipients and later faces a penalty 
for extensions that exceed the 20 percent cap, the state may qualify 
for a reasonable cause penalty exception. 

[6] States may not penalize parents with children under age 6 for not 
working if child care is not available. States have the flexibility to 
exclude other categories of recipients from work requirements, although 
they cannot remove these individuals from the work participation 
calculation. 

[7] States may choose to exempt parents with children under age 1 from 
calculation in the work participation rate. Work activities that count 
for federal participation rate purposes include employment, work 
experience programs, on-the-job training, community service, providing 
child care for other TANF recipients, job search, and (under certain
circumstances) education and training. 

[8] An individual counts as engaged in work each month if he or she 
participates in work activities during the month for an average of at 
least 30 hours per week. A parent with a child under age 6 will count 
as engaged in work if he or she participates for at least an average of 
20 hours per week. 

[9] The two-parent work participation rate of 90 percent means that 
each two-parent family must participate in a federally defined work 
activity for an average of at least 35 hours per week and that a 
specified number of hours be attributable to specific work activities. A
state may have one parent participate for all 35 hours, or both parents 
may share in the work activities. HHS issued penalties for not meeting 
the two-parent work participation rate in fiscal year 2000 to Alaska, 
Arkansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, and 
Wisconsin. 

[10] Nineteen states have chosen a time limit shorter than 60 months as 
allowed by PRWORA, with the most common limit being 24 months. 

[11] HHS required state information on separate state programs if a 
state wanted to qualify for the caseload reduction credit or the high 
performance bonus. PRWORA included a high performance bonus provision 
to reward states that are the most successful in achieving the goals 
and purposes of the TANF program. A total of $1 billion is available in 
fiscal years 1999 through 2003. For more information on what states 
reported to HHS on separate state programs, see HHS’s 2001 Fourth 
Annual Report to Congress (Washington D.C.: April 2002). 

[12] Connecticut has a small number of state-funded child-only cases 
that are subject to a state-imposed time limit on state-funded 
assistance. The time limit exclusion rules in Connecticut’s separate 
state program are the same for both recipient and non-recipient 
parents. 

[13] Some households may include parents who are illegal immigrants or 
legal immigrants ineligible for cash assistance in addition to children 
who are citizens and eligible for cash assistance. 

[14] States can sanction individuals not complying with TANF program 
requirements by taking away part or all their TANF cash benefits and 
possibly other public benefits as well. 

[15] For more information on TANF and persons with disabilities, see 
our report entitled: U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: 
More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and Localities Move 
TANF Recipients with Impairments toward Employment, GAO-02-37 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2002). 

[16] Our survey asked, “What percentage of your (adult) TANF caseload 
was involved in work or work-related activities (as defined by your 
state)?” 

[17] If data for the federal participation rate and the state-defined 
rate were available for similar time periods, comparisons could be made 
to determine the extent to which each state included in the state-
defined rate TANF recipients who were not included in the federal 
participation rate. However, the data available are for different time 
periods. In addition, while federal law determines who is to be counted 
in the numerator and the denominator when calculating the federal 
participation rates, states may have used different definitions of 
“TANF caseload” when responding to our question. 

[18] The caseload reduction credit would also decrease the 90 percent 
work participation requirement for two-parent families; however, some 
states told us that they still moved two-parent families into separate 
state programs because they did not want to rely on caseload reductions 
to avoid a financial penalty. 

[19] In our survey, we asked states to provide us with information for 
the most recent month for which they had complete data. Most states 
reported numbers from a month in the first quarter of federal fiscal 
year 2002. 

[20] If the 736,045 child-only cases, which are not subject to time 
limits, are included in the caseload, the overall percentage of TANF 
families that is excluded from a time limit is 42 percent. 

[21] Eight states exclude federally funded families from time limits 
because of pre-existing waivers to their welfare programs that allow 
them to exempt federally funded families from the federal time limit. 
These states are Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In addition, Connecticut was 
operating under a waiver through September 2001. As a result, the 
federal clock did not start on federally funded families who were 
exempt from Connecticut’s state time limit until October 2001. 
Therefore, Connecticut can extend cash assistance to some of its 
federally funded families well beyond 60 months without using the 
federal 20 percent extension. 

[22] States responded to our survey using their most recent month of 
data available—generally a month in the first quarter of fiscal year 
2002 (October through December of 2001). 

[23] The maximum time-limit extension can also be affected by how 
states choose to structure their funding and by their recent experience 
with caseload decline. First, families funded with segregated state 
funds are taken into account when determining the maximum number of 
families who may receive extensions but are not themselves in need of an
extension because they are not subject to federal time limits. Second, 
states may choose to use the prior year’s caseload numbers to calculate 
their 20 percent extension rather than the current year. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: