Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families
ISSUE 2
Temporary
Assistance for
Needy Families:
Oklahoma’s Cash Assistance
Program
JULY 2012
BETTER BENEFITS FOR OKLAHOMA FAMILIES: ISSUE 2 JULY 2012
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
Oklahoma’s Cash Assistance Program
Community Action Project produces Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families so that
Oklahoma’s citizens, advocates and leaders can better understand how the State’s public
benefit programs compare nationally in terms of program design, use, and funding.
Each report ends with recommendations to better serve the needs of Oklahoma children
and their families. This report was written by Paul Shinn, Public Policy Analyst, and Diama
Norris, Policy Research Specialist. The authors thank Liz Schott, Elizabeth Lower-Basch, and
David Blatt for their review of previous drafts, and Linda Hughes and staff in the Family
Support Services Division of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services for insight, data
and patient explanations.
For more information, please contact Paul Shinn, Public Policy Analyst, at [email protected]
or (918)855-3638
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
WHAT IS TANF? 7
WHAT TANF SHOULD BE10
HOW HAS OKLAHOMA IMPLEMENTED TANF?11
HOW DOES A FAMILY QUALIFY FOR TANF?
15
INCOME ELIGIBILITY15
WORK REQUIREMENTS16
CHILD SUPPORT17
ASSET LIMITS17
IMPACT OF ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS AND FAMILY TYPE
17
WHAT DOES A TANF FAMILY RECEIVE?19
CASH ASSISTANCE FOR WORKING PARENT FAMILIES19
CASH ASSISTANCE IN CHILD-ONLY CASES20
TANF AND OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE21
WHEN AND WHY DO FAMILIES LEAVE TANF?
23
SANCTIONS23
PROGRAM FINANCES26
FUNDING SOURCES26
PROGRAM SPENDING27
WORK SUPPORT SPENDING27
RECOMMENDATIONS: MAKING TANF A MORE EFFECTIVE
ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM IN OKLAHOMA30
Appendix A33
Appendix B36
Sources39
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
3
Executive Summary
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a federal-state program that provides cash and other
assistance to low-income families with children. In 1996, as a result of increasing pressure to reduce welfare
caseloads and promote more families to self-sufficiency and the passing of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Significant differences between AFDC and TANF include: 1) the elimination of individual entitlements; 2)
transition from open-ended payments to welfare recipients to defined block grant funding; 3) discretion
to spend funds for purposes other than cash assistance, such as child care subsidies and family formation;
4) stringent work requirements; 5) sanctions which affect children if work requirements are not met; 6)
and time limits in which recipients can only receive assistance for a maximum of 5 years with very few
exceptions. After TANF replaced AFDC, States made it difficult for some very poor families to get both
income assistance and the job help that should have gone with it.
In the past 10 years, Oklahoma has dramatically reduced the proportion of families it helps and has allowed
benefit levels to decline as well. Even in the context of a national decline in participation and benefits,
Oklahoma’s record is cause for concern. Oklahoma’s strict eligibility, benefits, and case closure practices are
a choice, not a necessity. As compared to other States, Oklahoma spends a very small portion of its TANF
funds (10% in 2009) on cash assistance and a large portion on child care assistance and other programs.
The first step to making TANF a more effective program is to adopt clear expectations. CAP uses the
following goals to evaluate the current TANF program and to identify needed improvements.
Goal 1: TANF should support work by serving more working parents.
Goal 2: TANF should protect children so that they have adequate food, housing, and other
basic needs regardless of their economic and family circumstances.
Goal 3: TANF should promote self-sufficiency by continuing benefits so that families leave
TANF only when they can support themselves without it.
4
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
This paper argues that the State of Oklahoma should adopt these goals to make TANF an effective program
and demonstrates that TANF cash assistance is not meeting Oklahoma’s needs to protect children and
move families toward self-sufficiency. It offers detailed recommendations for a thoughtful re-evaluation of
TANF. Policy recommendations to improve the administration of TANF in Oklahoma include:
1.
Increase benefit levels so that purchasing power is the same as it was in 1996.
2.
Reduce severity of sanctions so that the neediest of TANF recipients including children of sanctioned
families still have access to benefits.
3.
Allow TANF recipients to earn more by increasing the earned income disregard early in participation.
4.
Allow families to keep more child support, instead of assigning the whole portion to the State, so that
families can keep more cash in their pockets to go towards basic needs.
5.
Increase the benefit in child-only cases to at least double the current amount and develop appropriate
family supports for the non-parental caretakers of these children. Oklahoma currently has one of the
lowest benefit levels in the country for child-only cases.
By implementing these changes, Oklahoma can increase the number of working and two parent families
who benefit from TANF, increase financial and other supports that families need to reach financial stability,
and maintain benefits long enough for families to stand on their own as they leave TANF.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
5
What is TANF?
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a combined
federal-state program that provides cash and other assistance to low-income families with children. TANF
plays an important part in the menu of income supports for low-income families, because it is the only
widely available source of cash assistance. While most TANF recipients also receive assistance from separate
medical, nutrition, and housing programs, some needs may only be met with cash. Absent another source
of income, low-income families cannot survive without TANF. In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Department of
Human Services (OKDHS) is the lead TANF agency.
Under the welfare reform legislation of
1996, (the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act – PWRORA
– Public Law 104-193), TANF replaced the
welfare programs known as Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) and
related programs. Established in 1935 under
the Social Security Act of 1935, AFDC was
designed to support children in need if one
parent was absent, deceased, unemployed
or disabled. States were given entitlement
funds to administer only cash assistance to
all families who met program requirements.
TANF plays an important part in the menu
of income supports for low-income families,
because it is the only widely available
source of cash assistance. While most TANF
recipients also receive assistance from
separate medical, nutrition, and housing
programs, some needs may only be met with
cash. Absent another source of income, low-
income families cannot survive without
After rising concern over the prevalence of
families abusing AFDC funds and a concern
over the legislation’s lack of structure to promote self-sufficiency, the Clinton Administration and Congress
redesigned the program in PRWORA. The law ended federal entitlement to assistance and instead created
TANF as a block grant that provides States, territories and tribes federal funds each year. These funds cover
benefits, administrative expenses, and services targeted to needy families. The legislation established four
main purposes for the program:
1.
To provide cash assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes.
2.
To improve family self-sufficiency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.
3.
To reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock births.
4.
To encourage formation and maintenance of two-parent families (Lower-Basch 2011).
TANF.
The most important differences between TANF and AFDC can be captured in six provisions.
1. Individual entitlements eliminated. AFDC required that States serve all families who met
income guidelines, while TANF allows States to establish their own guidelines and limit services
based on available funding. The signal sent by this policy change was that no longer could ablebodied parents qualify for cash assistance simply by being destitute.
2.
Block grant funding. Open-ended federal payments for every person added to the welfare
rolls by States was replaced by a block grant with a fixed amount of funding for each State. Thus,
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
7
if States help families leave welfare, they retain the funds that had been used to pay the family’s
welfare benefit. This feature was enacted to provide States a financial incentive to decrease
caseloads.
3.
Discretion in spending. States were also given far more discretion in TANF than in AFDC to
spend funds for purposes other than cash assistance, such as child care subsidies, child welfare
services, job-related services to families, transportation, wage subsidies, pregnancy prevention,
and family formation. Nationally, less than 30% of TANF spending is for cash assistance, which
most Americans think of as “welfare.” Oklahoma is an extreme example; it is one of just two
States spending less than 10% of 2009 TANF funds on cash assistance.
4.
Work requirements. States were required to place an escalating percentage of their caseload in
work programs. States face financial penalties unless they engage 50% of adult TANF recipients
in a limited number of countable work activities for a specified number of hours per week1.
MUCH OF WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT TANF
IS INCORRECT
Much of what we “know” about TANF is colored by stereotypes and misperceptions dating back to the
debate over the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PROWRA)
and before. Here are a few of these myths and the facts about TANF in Oklahoma.
MYTH: Most poor Oklahomans receive “welfare” assistance.
FACT: Oklahoma TANF helps only 10% of eligible low-income families with children, compared to the US
average of 27%. Indeed, families are not even eligible for TANF in Oklahoma if they make more than 52%
of the federal poverty level ($824 monthly).
MYTH: The typical TANF recipient is a single African-American mother with several children.
FACT: TANF serves more white families than any other race or ethnicity in Oklahoma. More than half of
TANF families have just one or two children. More than a quarter of Oklahoma TANF children live with
their grandparents or other relatives, not their parents.
MYTH: TANF provides a comfortable living for people who receive it.
FACT: The most an Oklahoma family of 3 can receive on TANF is $292 per month, just 18% of the federal
poverty level. The average benefit for all families is only $1,410 per year! Payment levels have not been
increased for 15 years.
MYTH: If it weren’t for the time limits created in the 1996 welfare reforms, most TANF recipients
would be on welfare forever.
FACT: Less than 7 of every 1,000 Oklahoma TANF cases that are closed are because of time limits. Nearly
half of all cases are closed because participants cannot meet the strict work requirements. The average
time on TANF in Oklahoma is only 27 months, compared to 37 months nationwide.
Only certain education and training activities can count towards this. No more
than 30% of individuals counting toward a State’s work participation rate can
1
be vocational education or high school, and no individual can be counted as
participating in vocational education for more than 12 months. After those
first 12 months, hours spent in education and training programs can count if
related to employment and when combined with at least 20 hours a week in
employment (CLASP 2011).
8
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
5.
Sanctions. Financial sanctions were placed both on States and individuals who fail to meet
the work standards. In the case of individuals, States must reduce the cash TANF benefit and
sometimes the food stamp benefit of adults who fail to meet the work requirements designed
by States. AFDC placed no work requirements on States or participants.
6.
Time Limits. With a few exceptions, States are not allowed to use federal TANF dollars to pay
the benefits of families who have been on welfare for more than 5 years; under AFDC, families
could keep benefits as long as they met income guidelines (Haskins, Sawhill and Weaver 2001).
After TANF replaced AFDC, States made it difficult for some very poor families to get both income assistance
and the job help that should have gone with it. In fact, in the mid-1990s, the AFDC lifted 64% of otherwise
deeply poor children — children with incomes below half the poverty line — out of deep poverty. In 2005,
by contrast, the TANF program lifted just 23% of deeply poor children above 50% of the poverty line.
TANF was reauthorized in February 2006 under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). The DRA
substantially increased the proportion of recipients required to participate in work activities and required
strict documentation of work hours. Caseloads continued to decline after the enactment of the DRA.
A focus on welfare-roll reduction—instead of poverty reduction—may have contributed to this drop
as States limited their share of TANF recipients. Other reasons for the falling participation are higher
employment rates among low-income mothers, higher minimum wage rates, higher Earned Income Tax
Credits, and stricter work requirements, which discourage families with adults who cannot or do not wish to
work. Research also suggests that TANF participation is falling in part because families might not apply due
to the declining value of benefits and increasing administrative burden (U.S. Government Accountability
Office 2010).
During the current recession, TANF caseloads have continued to decline in some States, have flattened in
some States, and have begun to rise in others. In contrast, food stamp caseloads have increased in all States
over the last few years. The TANF program faces a key test of whether it can respond to increased need and
provide a safety net for families with children.
ARRA HELPED OKLAHOMA FUND INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS
DURING THE RECESSION
While TANF funding does not increase when needed to shrink high unemployment, the 2009 American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) did provide additional funds for States to combat the recent
recession. Oklahoma used this opportunity to create a subsidized employment program (SEP) to
encourage firms to hire low-income adults. The SEP served a broader audience than cash assistance
families; any parent with a child receiving any OKDHS assistance such as the child care subsidy was
eligible. OKDHS paid the entire wage for eligible newly hired employees making $10-12 hourly for
30 days, then half the wages for the next 3 months and a bonus payment to firms that retained the
employee for 6 months. During the 15 months the program existed, 923 workers participated, at a cost
of $14.4 million (of which 80% was federal).
An incomplete OKDHS survey found employers were highly satisfied with the program and that
approximately half of employees were retained for 3 months or more.
Oklahoma received an additional $15 million in ARRA funding for additional costs of cash assistance
and for a food distribution program and other short-term benefits spending. The State discontinued all
these efforts in October 2010 when federal funding ended.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
9
What TANF Should Be
The first step to making TANF a more effective program is to adopt clear
expectations. CAP uses the following goals to evaluate the current TANF program and to identify needed
improvements. OKDHS should formally adopt these or similar goals so that it can guide TANF to meet its
legislative purposes, protect children, and support families.
Goal 1: TANF should support work by
serving more working parents.
Low-income families receiving TANF are
more likely than other families, regardless
of income, to participate in training and
education opportunities, including programs
to find work, jobs skills building, and formal
training and education (U.S. Department
of Commerce 2011). However, only 4%
of Oklahoma TANF families have earned
income, compared to 12% nationally.
Oklahoma has more cases without an adult
and fewer cases with two adults in the family.
ILLINOIS REFORMS SHOW HOW TANF
CAN BE IMPROVED
Responding to very low TANF access rates, Illinois reformed its
program in 2010. The reforms encourage participating adults to
work by disregarding all earnings up to 50% of the federal poverty
level and 75% of all earned income. The new law also sped up
delivery of benefits by requiring outreach to eligible families,
setting deadlines for action, and making benefits start on the day
of application. It also allows waivers to work requirements and child
support cooperation in cases of domestic and sexual violence. By
making benefits available sooner and to more very low-income
families, Illinois has made its TANF program a more effective tool to
reduce poverty (Pollack 2010, Illinois Public Act 96-0886).
Goal 2: TANF should protect children
so that they have adequate food,
housing, and other basic needs regardless of their economic and family circumstances.
Poverty is the single best predictor of child maltreatment; children in families with income below $15,000
are 22 times more likely to be abused than those with income over $30,0002.
TANF families are among the most vulnerable in our society, and child abuse and neglect are closely
related to family vulnerability. Indeed, over half of foster care children come from TANF-eligible families
(Geen 2002). Children in Oklahoma TANF families are less likely to be children of the head of household
and more likely to be grandchildren than in the nation as a whole.
Goal 3: TANF should promote self-sufficiency by continuing benefits so that families
leave TANF only when they can support themselves without it.
TANF eligible families face significant barriers to successful long-term employment. TANF has not
prepared recipients for success in the workforce and ability to support their children. Research in the late
1990s and early 2000s concluded that TANF and other changes in policy and the economy have moved
many recipients, especially single mothers, into the workforce. However, they most frequently enter lowpaying and unstable jobs with little chance for advancement. In spite of extensive work supports, TANF
recipients end up in jobs that are no better
than jobs of comparable non-TANF parents
2
Research shows that receipt of cash assistance reduces child abuse and neglect
(Lower-Basch and Greenburg 2009). If we
and that loss of cash assistance is associated with more abuse and neglect
expect TANF to support work, it must better
and longer times to reunify families (Hutson 2001, Cauthen 2006, Center for Law
prepare families for long-term success in the
and Social Policy 2009). TANF thus can be a cost-effective way to reduce child
abuse and neglect if participation does not end prematurely; but evidence
job market.
indicates TANF and child welfare programs must work more closely together
to protect children and provide adequate support to those who care for them
(Charlesworth, Hercik and Kakuska, n.d.).
10
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
How Has Oklahoma
Implemented TANF?
When PROWRA was
enacted, Oklahoma already served a smaller
proportion of low-income families with children than the
national average and provided a lower level of benefit.
Since PROWRA, and particularly in the last 10 years,
Oklahoma has dramatically reduced the proportion of
families served and has allowed benefit levels to decline
as well. Even in the context of a national decline in
participation and benefits, Oklahoma’s record is cause for
concern.
The State has had between
70,000 and 90,000 families
with children below the
poverty level since 1996.
TANF participation,
however, has declined
regardless of family need.
Figure 1 shows the growing disconnect between the
number of poor Oklahoma families with children and the number of families receiving TANF assistance.
The State has had between 70,000 and 90,000 families with children below the poverty level since 1996.
TANF participation, however, has declined regardless of family need. The State has simply chosen to help
fewer families through cash assistance. Since 1996, Oklahoma went from serving 49 of every 100 poor
families with children to only 10 of every 100 (Trisi and Pavetti 2012). TANF cases fell dramatically during
the implementation of PRWORA. After leveling off in the early 2000s, cases dropped again from 2004
to 2006. Participation barely rose after 2008 in spite of an increase in family poverty resulting from the
recession.
140,000
Figure 1
Okahoma Families in Poverty and TANF
Families, 1979-2010
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Poor Families with Children
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
0
TANF Families
This figure shows that Oklahoma has served fewer poor families with children over
time, with the biggest drop being since the late 1990s. In 2010, 83,000 poor families
with children did not receive TANF, up from 62,000 families in 2000.
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2012
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
11
Oklahoma’s reduced caseload has affected thousands of low-income adults and children. Table 1 shows
that the number of adults served by TANF has fallen by more than half in just 8 years. The reduction in the
number of children served has been smaller proportionally but larger numerically. The State now helps
10,000 fewer children than it did in 2003.
Table 1.
Adults and Children Participating in TANF in Oklahoma,
2003 and 2011
2003
2011
Change
Total Cases
14,755
9,371
-5,384 (-36%)
Adults
Participating
8,438
4,089
-4,349 (-52%)
Children
Participating
27,531
17,317
-10,214 (-37%)
Annual averages.
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services 2003, 2011.
Oklahoma’s reduced participation reflects a national trend in which the number of TANF participants has
dropped dramatically since the adoption of PRWORA. Even in the context of the national case decline,
however, Oklahoma stands out. Figure 2 compares national monthly TANF participants for the United
States and for Oklahoma for the last three decades. It shows that Oklahoma’s caseload has fallen faster
than national caseloads and that the gap has widened further over the last decade.
Figure 2
Oklahoma and US Total AFDC/TANF cases, 1978-2010
6,000,000
60,000
5,000,000
50,000
4,000,000
40,000
3,000,000
30,000
2,000,000
20,000
1,000,000
10,000
0
78-79
80-81
82-83
84-85
86-87
88-89
90-91
92-93
94-95
96-97
98-99
00-01
02-03
04-05
06-07
08-09
0
US Total (left scale)
Oklahoma (right scale)
Fiscal Year
While Oklahoma has always served fewer low income families with cash assistance, this graph shows
that Oklahoma cases fell much further as PROWRA was implemented and a widening gap since 2000.
While US cases increased due to the 2008 recession, Oklahoma's were virtually unchanged.
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2012
12
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
Oklahoma’s declining caseload means it now helps a much smaller proportion of low-income families
with children than the nation as a whole. Figure 3 shows that Oklahoma’s program access is close to that
of the lowest State and is less than one-sixth the level of the highest State3.
Figure 3
TANF Participants per 100 Families in Poverty,
Oklahoma vs. U.S., 2009-10
TANF:Poverty Ratio
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oklahoma
Minimum
US Total
US Maximum
Oklahoma serves 10 TANF families for every 100 poor families, well under the U.S. total and closer to the lowest
state than the highest. Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2012
The table and figure show TANF participation as a ratio of low-income families
and not a percentage since some TANF recipients might not be low-income. For
example, a family with moderate income at the beginning of the year could have
income over the poverty level for the year but lose a job or other income and be
eligible for TANF based on low or no monthly income by the end of the year.
3
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
13
Table 2 shows the wide difference between Oklahoma’s
Oklahoma’s declining
TANF access and that of the nation as a whole. The top
portion of the table shows that Oklahoma’s program
caseload means it now
access, the proportion of families in poverty who receive
helps a much smaller
TANF, is barely one-third of the national average. One
reason a State’s TANF program may have low access
proportion of low-income
rates is complex eligibility rules that mean only some
low-income families can qualify. While that is certainly
families with children than
the case in Oklahoma and elsewhere, Oklahoma widens
the nation as a whole.
the gap between need and participation by serving a
comparatively small proportion even of eligible families.
The lower half of the table shows that Oklahoma’s take-up
rate, the proportion of families who are eligible and actually receiving help, is similarly just over one-third
of the national average.
Table 2.
Program Access Rates and Take-Up Rates, Oklahoma vs. U.S.
Program Access: TANF Families Served
per 100 Families in Poverty, 2009-10
Oklahoma
United States
Families with Children in Poverty
91,786
7,068,761
TANF Families Served
9,492
1,933,003
TANF Families per 100 Families in
Poverty
10.3
27.3
Program Take-Up: Percantage of
Eligible Families Receiving TANF,
2006-07
Oklahoma
United States
Families Eligible for TANF
67,886
4,939,005
TANF Families Served
9,882
1,960,305
% of Eligible Families Served
15%
40%
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Prioirites 2012, Urban Institute 2012.
Low-income families need the financial and other supports that TANF can offer, but Oklahoma has
reduced its support for these families. The next sections show that low-income children and their families
face barriers in qualifying for TANF, receive inadequate financial support when they do qualify, and do
not retain benefits long enough to reach financial stability. Oklahoma’s TANF must be improved so it
provides sufficient and consistent support to low-income children and families who need it.
14
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
How Does a Family Qualify
for TANF?
Oklahoma’s TANF eligibility rules do not at the present adequately
support work, protect children, or promote self-sufficiency, because income limits are too low and
restrictions too great for most working families to qualify for benefits. Eligibility for TANF cash assistance
is determined by evaluating specific nonfinancial and financial criteria established by federal and State
regulations.
Families and individuals must also meet the following financial criteria:
1. Assets must be less than $1,000;
2. Countable income (earned or unearned), which is determined by allowing the appropriate
income disregards, cannot exceed the income standards for the family size requesting
assistance; and
3. The right to any child support payments must be assigned to the State.
Families and individuals must meet the following nonfinancial criteria:
1. Age limitations (family must have dependent children under the age of 19 only);
2. Minor living with a specified caretaker relative as a dependent child;
3. Individual must be a resident of Oklahoma;
4. Furnishing a social security number;
5. Residency (intending to reside in the State) requirements;
6. Citizenship/alien status requirements;
7. Complying with all work requirements.
Below is a summary and discussion of the major rules that particularly affect participation in Oklahoma.
INCOME ELIGIBILITY: Families must meet both a gross and net income test to be eligible in Oklahoma.
The monthly maximum TANF gross income for eligibility is $1,193 for a family of 34. If the family meets
the gross income test, States may choose to not count , or “disregard,” some income toward the TANF net
income test. This increases the number of eligible families and the amount of cash assistance provided.
The most important of these disregards encourages TANF adults to work by subtracting a part of earnings
from gross income to determine whether a family is eligible and the amount of its benefit. Oklahoma
disregards the first $240 and 50% of remaining monthly earned income. Several States disregard
considerably more (up to 100%) earned income in the first months of receiving TANF so families can
achieve employment and economic stability5.
The State establishes a “standard of need” for each family size and then sets the
maximum gross income for each family size at 185% of the standard of need.
See Appendix B.
4
Like most states, Oklahoma also allows families to deduct $175 in monthly child
care costs ($200 for children under 2), which is typical of national practice.
Income eligibility is calculated as follows (examples are for a mother and two
children with $500 total monthly income, of which the mother earns $300):
5
Gross income (must be below $1,185 for a family of three)=$500
Less earned income disregard ($240 plus half remaining earnings)=$270
Less child care expenses (up to $200 for 2 children)=$0
Equals net income (must be below $645 for a family of three)=$230
This family would thus meet the income test for eligibility.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
15
Figure 4 shows the clearest way to compare income eligibility between States is to compare maximum
income eligibility for families with earnings (that is, net income after disregards). The maximum income
for Oklahoma families with earned income to be eligible for TANF is $824, or 52% of the federal poverty
level. The figure also shows how Oklahoma’s maximum TANF eligibility compares with the U.S. in terms of
FPL.
Figure 4
Maximum TANF Monthly Income Eligibility
Oklahoma vs U.S.
$269
U.S. Minimum
$739
U.S. Median
$1526
U.S. Maximum
$824
Oklahoma
0
% of Federal Poverty Level
% of Federal Poverty Level
0.2
Oklahoma
0.518238994
Oklahoma
52%
0.4
U.S. Maximum
U.S. Maximum
0.959748428
96%
0.6
0.8
U.S. Median
U.S. Median
0.464779874
46%
1
U.S. Minimum
U.S. Minimum
0.16918239
17%
Oklahoma's
maximum
income
be eligible
for
the
national
but
half
the national
Oklahoma’s maximum
income
to betoeligible
for TANF
is TANF
above is
theabove
national
median
but median
about half
theabout
national
maximum,
excluding Alaska
and Hawaii.
Anand
Oklahoma
cannot be eligible
income
over 52%
of the
Federalover
Poverty
($1,590).
maximum
excluding
Alaska
Hawaii.family
An Oklahoma
family with
cannot
be eligible
with
income
52%Level
of the
Data for aPoverty
family ofLevel
three,($1,590).
with earnings.
Source:
Welfare
Databook
Federal
Data for
a family
ofRules
3 with
earnings. Source: Welfare Rules Databook
WORK REQUIREMENTS: Federal law requires that half of the families receiving assistance under TANF
must be engaged in some kind of work-related activity for at least 30 hours a week (or 20 hours a week
for single-parents with young children). States must have a higher share of two-parent families — 90
percent— engaged in work, generally for 35 hours per week.) Oklahoma follows the federal standard6.
TANF sets forth the following work requirements in order to qualify for benefits:
1) Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no
later than two years after coming on assistance. 2) Single parents are required
to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent
families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending
upon circumstances. 3) Failure to participate in work requirements can result
in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family. 4) States, in fiscal year
2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent
families are participating in work activities. If a state meets these goals without
restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit
reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve to continue
receiving federal funding.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=936
6
16
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
CHILD SUPPORT: Families in Oklahoma on TANF must assign their right to receive child support to the
government as a condition of receiving cash assistance. As long as the family remains on TANF, any child
support collected on behalf of the family is kept by the government as reimbursement for TANF benefits.
States can choose to count all child support payments as income or can disregard a portion as passthrough to the families. Fifteen States pass more than $50 through. Oklahoma is among only 10 States that
do not have complete or partial pass through of child support. If Oklahoma adopted a $100 pass-through
and disregarded $200 as income, custodial parents would receive $300 more per month and be much
more likely to move toward self-sufficiency. A $100/$200 pass-through and disregard would provide a
greater incentive for custodial parents to seek child support and for nonresident parents to pay child
support because more child support would go to the family. As a result of this incentive, child support
collections could increase, which would increase the benefits of the policy change to custodial families
and decrease the costs to government (Wheaton 2007).
Oklahoma’s child support enforcement has a significant impact on caseload but has not collected support
payments on a par with national results. In 2009, Oklahoma closed over 4% of cases due to clients’ failure
to cooperate with child support enforcement. Only Iowa closes more cases for this reason. This policy has
not necessarily contributed to better child support results. In Oklahoma, 7% of TANF families received
child support in 2009, compared to 9% nationally. Oklahoma child support receipts were higher however,
with an average of $304 monthly in Oklahoma and $228 nationally (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services 2010). On average, OKDHS collects approximately $2 million in child support annually from
parents whose children receive TANF assistance, amounting to just 1% of annual TANF spending.
Table 3.
Oklahoma Poor Families, TANF Applications and Opened Cases, 2003 and 2011
2003
2011
% Change
Poor Families with Children
77,656
91,786
18%
TANF Applications
51,538
40,634
-21%
Opened TANF Cases
26,819
13,658
-49%
% of Appplications Approved
52%
34%
-35%
Poor families with children for 2011 is the 2-year average for 2009-10, the latest available. Source: Oklahoma
Department of Human Services 2003, 2011, Trisi and Pavetti 2012.
ASSET LIMITS: Most States deny TANF benefits to income-eligible families if they have more assets than
allowed by State limits. The average asset limit set by States is in the $2,000-$3,000 range and Oklahoma
falls slightly below this range at $1,000. Like most States, Oklahoma also has a vehicle exemption which
is set at a flat $5,000 based on the equity value with no special stipulations. Oklahoma’s asset limit is
established in State statute. Oklahoma has been a national example in removing asset limits from other
assistance programs. Oklahoma does not have asset limits on its Medicaid or SNAP programs. Asset limits
may harm the goal of self-sufficiency by denying TANF families the opportunity to set aside reserves they
will need after they stop receiving TANF benefits.
IMPACT OF ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS AND FAMILY TYPE: Oklahoma’s strict eligibility
guidelines have resulted in fewer TANF applications over time and a smaller share of of applications being
approved, as shown in Table 3. In the past 8 years, while the number of poor families with children has
increased, the number of TANF applications has fallen, and the number of new cases has been cut in half.
Another layer to TANF’s complexity are the types of family situations that can qualify for benefits based on
current living arrangement which are divided into parental cases versus child-only cases:
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
17
Parental cases: In these families children and at least one parent live together and all receive TANF
benefits. These type of cases are made up of the following:
• single-parent families
• teen-parent families, which require the family to live under adult supervision, and
• two-parent families, of which Oklahoma has none, because many exceed the maximum income
level and because they are subject to stringent work requirements.
We call this type of case “working-parent families” in this analysis.
Child-only cases: These are cases where a child is eligible for TANF but adults in the household are not.
These families are:
• Child-only cases living with parents: The most common reason is that the parent receives
Supplemental Security Income due to a disability. Other parental child-only cases result from the
parent losing eligibility because of time limits, sanctions, or immigration policy (Gibbs 2004). In
Oklahoma there are few cases of this type since time limits and sanctions apply to the full family
including children.
• Non-parental cases: These families include children eligible for TANF who live with an adult other
than a parent, most commonly a grandparent. This may be a temporary arrangement where the
child lives with a grandparent.
Figure 5 shows the relative importance of each type of case.
Figure 5
Estimated Oklahoma TANF Cases by Family Type
Parental cases--single adult parent
32%
Parental cases--two parent
39%
Parental cases--teen parent
Child-only cases living w/parent
Non-parental cases
25%
0%
4%
This graph shows the most common TANF family type is a single-parent and child(ren) who all receive benefits,
followed by child(ren) living away from their parents, then child(ren) living with parents who do not receive TANF.
There are no two-parent families receiving TANF in Oklahoma.
Source: CAP estimate from Oklahoma Department of Human Services 2011, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services 2010.
18
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
What does a TANF Family
Receive?
Families that meet all eligibility requirements may qualify for cash
assistance. If adults are subject to work requirements, they may receive work and other supports.
CASH ASSISTANCE FOR WORKING PARENT FAMILIES: States set a maximum benefit for different
types of families. Oklahoma’s maximum benefit is much lower than the national median, as shown in
Figure 6. The maximum TANF benefit for an Oklahoma family is less than 20% of the federal poverty level.
Figure 6
Monthly Maximum Benefit, 2009
Oklahoma vs U.S.
$170
U.S. Minimum
$429
U.S. Median
$923
U.S. Maximum
$292
Oklahoma
0
% of
Federal
% of
FederalPoverty
Poverty Level
Level
0.1
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
0.183647799
18%
0.2
0.3
U.S. Maximum
U.S.
0.580503145
58%
0.4
0.5
U.S. Median
Median
U.S.
0.269811321
27%
0.6
U.S. Minimum
Minimum
U.S.
0.106918239
11%
Oklahoma’s maximum TANF benefit is just 18% of the Federal Poverty Level and well below the U.S. Median. Maximum benefit for
Oklahoma's maximum TANF benefit is just 18% of the Federal Poverty Level and well below the U.S. Median.
a family of three. Source: Welfare Rules Databook
Maximum benefit for a family of 3. Source: Welfare Rules Databook
Families with any significant income receive an even smaller benefit, which makes it very difficult for poor
working –parent families to keep participating. Figure 7 shows that a working mother would lose TANF
benefits well below the level she would need to support her children7. In fact, the maximum earnings for
which she could claim any TANF benefit is less than a third of the cost of supporting a family of three in
Oklahoma at the self-sufficiency standard7.
Figure 7
Oklahoma TANF Benefits by Earnings Level
Monthly Benefit
350
$ 833--Maximum
earnings to
receive any
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
$0
$250
$500
$750
$1,000
$1,250
Monthly Earnings
This graph shows the TANF payments to a working mother of 2 children at various earning levels.
Each dollar earned (except for $240 per month) reduces the monthly benefit by 50 cents.
A mother working 26 or more hours a week at minimum wage would earn no benefit.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
19
The maximum TANF benefit for an Oklahoma family is less than 20%
of the federal poverty level.
Because many families have earnings or other income, the average benefit for an Oklahoma family with
two children is just $185 monthly, compared to a national average of $408 (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services 2010).
Oklahoma’s benefit for a single-parent family of 3 has fallen from $307 to $210, adjusted for inflation, since
1996. Table 4 below shows that Oklahoma has allowed the value of benefits to erode more than most
States.
Table 4
Change in Inflation-Adjusted TANF Benefit Levels, 1996-2010
Oklahoma
Minimum State
Median State
Maximum State
-31.6%
-42.6%
-21.3%
12.1%
For single-parent family of 3 Source: Schott and Finch 2010.
TANF AND OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: Most Oklahoma TANF families also qualify for
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. However, Oklahoma ranked as the 14th
lowest State with combined value of SNAP/TANF payments which makes up barely half of the federal
poverty level. TANF and SNAP together are only slightly higher than the rent for a 2-bedroom apartment
as illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5:
Oklahoma SNAP + TANF Benefits Compared to Poverty Levels and Rent for a Family of 3
Family of 3
% of FPL
% of Fair Market Rent
Maximum TANF Benefit
$292
19%
42%
Maximum SNAP + TANF Benefit
$818
53%
117%
Fair market rent is for a 2-bedroom apartment in Oklahoma City. Source: Schott and Finch 2010.
Using the example in the footnote on page 13, a mother with two children
and $500 monthly income, of which $300 is earned, has net income of $230.
TANF benefits are determined by subtracting the net income from the “payment
standard,”which is the maximum benefit for the family size. In this case, the TANF
benefit would be the $292 payment standard less the $230 net income, just $62
per month.
7
Unlike the federal poverty level, the Self-Sufficiency Standard is calculated based
on the actual costs of basic needs – food, housing, health care, transportation,
etc. – and takes into consideration geographic variations and differences in costs
for children of different age. The result is a report that calculates the Standard
for eight family types (based on the number of working age adults and number
and ages of children) for all 77 Oklahoma counties, plus Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
For a single-parent family with a preschooler, the report finds the self-sufficiency
wage varies from a low of $11.42 per hour ($24,111 annually) in Grady County to a
high of $16.54 per hour ($34,933 annually) in Tulsa County. These amounts are all
8
substantially above the federal poverty level, which in 2009 was set at $18,310 for a
family of three and $22,050 for a family of four (Oklahoma Policy Institute 2009).
9
20
OKDHS’ budget for this program is $767,500.
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
CASH ASSISTANCE IN CHILD-ONLY
CASES: In a child-only case, because the
adult does not count as part of the family
for TANF purposes, Oklahoma chooses
to provide lower benefits. For example,
a mother and child would receive $225
monthly from TANF, but a grandparent
would receive just $87 to care for one child
and $171 to care for two children. Oklahoma
differs in this practice from many States,
which provide the same benefit in child-only
cases as in other cases. Currently, no national
compilations exist of child-only benefits.
However, we did find that Florida, Indiana,
Louisiana, Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio
all pay the same for child-only cases as for
other cases with the same number of people.
For example, a grandparent would receive
a higher TANF benefit in each of these
States than in Oklahoma. In some cases,
Oklahoma non-parental caretakers may
receive some additional funds to help pay
for supplemental expenses such as school,
clothing, counseling, and emergency shelter
and transportation. Payments are based on a
specific schedule and limited annually9.
CHILD-ONLY CASES NEED FAMILY
SUPPORT AS WELL AS FINANCIAL
SUPPORT
Children under the care of non-parental caregivers have been
found to have complex emotional and behavioral uses. One
national study found that these children shared similar issues with
children in foster care (Golden and Hawkins 2012). However, children
in TANF child-only cases with non-parental caregivers do not
have access to the comprehensive assessments, support services,
financial support, and permanency planning provided to those
in state custody (Gibbs, et al. 2004). If relatives were unable to care
for children with TANF child-only funds, the children would enter
foster care families and be eligible for supportive services and are
also monitored on a frequent basis to ensure child safety (Stoltzfus
2002).
Several States have developed programs that focus on TANF childonly cases for parental and non-parental families. For example,
some States provide supplemental monthly payments or one-time
payments. Other States provide legal assistance or a provision of
clothing and other types of services (Golden and Hawkins 2012).
Further, States also support child-only families by allowing them
to keep more child support, assisting more adults (such as qualified
immigrants), and providing supportive services for adults in childonly cases (Charlesworth, Hercek and Kakusaka, n.d.). Washington,
Tennessee, Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kansas
incorporate integrated service coordination, financial options to
address needs of relative caregivers, informal care options outside
of the formal child welfare system, and navigation help for State
human services departments (Washington State Department of
Human Services 2012).
TANF child-only cases also receive far less
financial support than do children in foster
care. In Oklahoma, the foster care rate for a
birth-5 year old is $365, which is four times
as much as the TANF child-only rate of $87.
As the child reaches certain ages, the foster
care rate increases whereas in TANF it stays
the same. Several studies have shown that child-only cases share many of the same material and complex
emotional needs with foster children.
WORK SUPPORTS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS: In cases with adults who must meet work
requirements, OKDHS provides a range of assessment, education, and other supportive services. This
“Special Projects” program has been identified as a leading work support effort. The program, started in
1996, provides a comprehensive range of services to help TANF recipients pursue postsecondary degrees
and credentials from Oklahoma community colleges and technology center campuses. All TANF cash
assistance recipients are eligible for Special Projects; and based on capacity it is also open to individuals
with children that are using other OKDHS services. Each year approximately 4,500 TANF clients receive
secondary or post-secondary education under this program . Features of the program include:
•
Extensive assessment administered by Carl Albert State College that includes a battery of tests to
help create a career pathway plan. The tests help assess skills and career interests.
•
Thirteen community colleges and 20 technology centers have designated program staff. In
addition to job and education support, program staff also provides workshops on issues such as life
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
21
and soft skills in addition to other issues that might affect a TANF recipient’s ability to get a job and
up to six months of post-training job search and six months of employment retention follow-up.
•
Many students participate in work-study opportunities and internships which provide valuable
work experience and sometimes full-time jobs.
•
Program staff are responsible to ensure that recipients are meeting work participation rate
requirements (Kenefick 2011).
Other work supports offered to TANF adults and children include substance abuse testing, counseling,
education; General Education Development (GED), English as a second language, and adult basic
education courses; transportation to work, training, child care, and other requirements for work
participation; youth mentoring and legal aid for participants applying for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI).
Oklahoma provides some families with additional funds through its work participation allowance
program. In addition to cash assistance payments described above Oklahoma pays adult TANF recipients
$8 daily for engaging in unpaid work activities such as supervised job searches and approved training up
to 4 hours and $13 daily for unpaid work activities over 4 hours. A family could thus earn as much as $260
per month through this allowance.
22
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
When and Why Do Families
Leave TANF?
Many families leave TANF without the tools to support themselves, without
other means to care for their children, and without prospects for moving up the economic ladder. Even
with Oklahoma’s model Special Projects Program, clients come to the table at an extreme disadvantage,
often including low literacy levels, mental health issues, and little or no work experience. Even a
new client with a high school education and high work readiness would be hard pressed to complete
assessments and a 2-year degree within the 27 month average stay on TANF. As indicated in Table 6 below,
only 10% of TANF leavers leave due to employment indicating that they may be exiting before getting the
full benefit of work supports.
Table 6 summarizes the length of TANF participation and reasons for and impact of case closures for
Oklahoma and the U.S. as a whole. It illustrates several key features of TANF participation in Oklahoma.
• Oklahoma families receive TANF for a shorter period than the national average, both for parental
cases and child-only cases . Limited available information suggests that most Oklahoma TANF
recipients maintain benefits for even less than the average time10.
• Oklahoma closes cases at a much higher rate than the national average.
• Oklahoma closes more cases than other States, for sanction and other policy reasons. Fewer cases
are closed as a result of TANF adults finding emplyment.
• Half of Oklahoma TANF children are age 5 or younger when their cases are closed.
• Most TANF adults are not working when they leave TANF and most families have no non-TANF
income when the case is closed.
As discussed below, Oklahoma’s strict
sanctions and time limit policies contribute
to its short period of support for children and
families.
SANCTIONS PUT TANF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES AT RISK
Based on the available national data, it is impossible to know
exactly how much of the TANF participation decline is due to
sanctions. HHS recently acknowledged that full family sanctions
were a contributing factor, stating that it is difficult to isolate
the effect of any one factor, and expressing the hope that
“additional work may help refine understanding of the sharp
drop in participation among eligible families” (U.S. Government
Accountability Office 2010a).
SANCTIONS: Clients who do not follow
program rules and requirements face
sanctions (such as losing some of the benefit
or having the case closed). Federal TANF
law directs States to sanction clients for not
cooperating with child support enforcement
efforts and/or not participating in work
activities. States also may sanction clients for
testing positive for controlled substances,
not following an “Individual Responsibility
Plan,” refusing to work towards achieving a
An OKDHS analysis of 349,000 cases from 1996 to 2009 indicated an average
of 15 months on benefits and a median (half the cases above and half the cases
below) of 9 months. The most frequent length of benefit was 3 months and
62% of cases had benefits for one year or less (Salehezadeh 2009). Nearly 60%
of Oklahoma TANF adults have one year or less countable against time limits
(compared to 41% nationally) and only 0.7% of closed TANF cases in fiscal year
2011 were closed due to reaching the time limit (Oklahoma Department of Human
Services 2011).
10
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
23
high-school diploma or the equivalent, failing to attend school, and/or failing to attend required meetings
or to attend other program activities (e.g., training sessions). The law mandates a minimum benefit
reduction for some sanctions (e.g., a 25% cash assistance reduction for failure to participate in child
support enforcement efforts), but States can set a maximum sanction, ranging from a pro rata sanction to
a “full family” sanction that eliminates all cash assistance to the entire family.
Table 6
Length of TANF Participation and Characteristics of Closed Cases, Oklahoma and U.S. (2009)
Oklahoma
U.S.Average
Average months receiving TANF, all active cases
26.9
37.3
Average months receiving TANF, child-only cases
38.5
50.0
Closed cases in year per 100 active cases
174.6
100.1
Employed
9.8%
17.5%
Time limits
0.1
2.3
Sanctions, State policy
45.1
27.3
All other*
Reason cases were closed
45.0%
52.6
Children in closed cases
30,516
3,111,993
% of children in closed cases age 5 or under
50.2%
49.6%
% of adults working when case is closed
18.6%
25.7%
% with no income other than TANF when case is
closed
63.0%
68.1%
*Includes marriage, failure to cooperate, voluntary closure, and unspecified reasons.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2010.
Currently, Oklahoma is among 17 States that will reduce the entire benefit until compliance is met as an
initial sanction. Ten States only reduce the adult benefit either until compliance is met or after a period
of time such as a month, whichever is longer. A 2007 study found that States were more likely to return
participants to compliance with partial sanctions, sanctions that ended as soon as families complied, and
intensive efforts to re-engage non-compliant participants (Kauff, et al. 2007).
Research shows that that sanctioned families across the nation face severe disadvantages. A significant
percentage families negatively affected by sanctions are:
• more likely to be single female headed households with children, minority, have low levels of
educational attainment, have mental and physical health problems, live in a household where
domestic violence is prevalent, and face logistical barriers such as transportation and child care issue
(Hasenfeld, Ghose and Larson 2004).
Categories are for type of head of household which includes: (1) disabled
or caring for a disabled family member; (2) victim of domestic violence; (3)
other significant barriers; (4) a minor parent; (5) cooperating but unable to find
employment; (6) elderly (often grandparents); (7) employed; and (8) completing
an education or training program. At least half of States (22) have at least one
time limit exemption. (Welfare Rules Databook 2010).
11
Of adults subject to work requirements, 79% have received assistance for less
than 24 months (U.S. Department of Human Services 2011).
12
24
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
• more likely to rely on emergency food programs, face residential instability, experience
homelessness, and not be able to pay rent or utility bills (Legal Momentum 2010).
These studies suggest that over-reliance on sanctions can leave families worse off than before they
received TANF.
TIME LIMITS: No family that includes an adult recipient may receive federally-funded assistance for
longer than 60 months (whether or not consecutive). Oklahoma’s lifetime limit is set at 60 months with
no exceptions, even for children. Oklahoma only has a monthly time limit extension that is available to
households that fall within categorically eligible exemption guidelines during those months11. Current
data indicates that Oklahoma’s time limit policy has not had a significant impact on TANF families since
few receive benefits for more than a year or two12. Available evidence suggests that most Oklahoma TANF
cases that extend beyond two years involves adults who are disabled or have other significant barriers to
employment, such as low education levels, substance abuse, or inability to maintain employment above
the minimum wage. Time limit policies thus may not affect a large portion of the caseload, but most likely
face those families with the fewest opportunities to support themselves without TANF. Studies conducted
by the Department of Health and Human Services in other States on TANF recipients indicate that families
reaching time limits are far more likely than other TANF recipients to experience employment barriers
such as physical and mental health problems, and have lower levels of education that significantly reduce
their chances of finding employment.
OKLAHOMA’S SANCTIONS ARE SEVERE WHEN STEPS TO
COMPLIANCE ARE NOT MET
SANCTION
ISSUED
GOOD CAUSE
FOR NONPARTICIPATION
DETERMINATION
NO GOOD
CAUSE FOR
DETERMINATION
CASE CLOSURE
NO SANCTION
NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH WORK PLAN
AND CASEWORKER
CLIENT
FOLLOWS WORK
PLAN AND IS
COMPLIANT
CLIENT RE-APPLIES
FOR TANF
PERMANENT
CLOSURE
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
CLIENT
FOLLOWS WORK
PLAN AND IS
COMPLIANT
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
25
Program Finances
Oklahoma’s strict eligibility, benefits, and case
closure practices are a choice, not a necessity. The State spends a very small proportion of TANF
funds on actual cash assistance, choosing instead to finance specific programs to support both TANF and
non-TANF families including child care subsidies, child welfare, and programs promoting family stability.
It could more effectively support work, protect children, and promote self-sufficiency by shifting more
resources into cash assistance which promotes the original goal of supporting more working families.
FUNDING SOURCES: TANF is funded through a federal block grant to States and through State
maintenance of effort (MOE) spending. The federal TANF block grant is distributed to States based on
State spending on the earlier AFDC program; under this formula, relatively poor States receive more
federal funding. Block grant funding has not changed since 1996 (Schott and Pavetti 2010). In federal fiscal
year 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
reported that Oklahoma received $146 million in TANF block grant funding and was required to spend $60
million in MOE (Lower-Basch and Kenefick 2010). Block grant funding in 2010 included one-time funding
for additional cash assistance, subsidized
employment, and short-term food and income
13
The table below shows the major components of Oklahoma’s MOE:
assistance from the American Recovery and
Oklahoma Sources of TANF MOE, FY 2010
Reinvestment Act (Lower-Basch and Kenefick
Amount
% of MOE
2010a).
States can meet Maintenance of Effort
requirements through cash spending and by
documenting other State spending for services
that benefit low-income families. Oklahoma’s
MOE is approximately two-thirds direct
spending and one-third recognition of other
state spending for low-income families, mostly
for child care and pre-kindergarten. Over half
of MOE is spent on cash assistance, child care,
and work supports and most of the remainder
is spent for administration and systems costs13.
States have broad discretion in how they use
federal TANF grant and State MOE funds, but
most spending is subject to several basic
restrictions14.
State spending on TANF programs
39,086,712
65%
State child care spending
10,630,233
18%
State pre-kindergarten spending
6,937,472
12%
Other state programs
3,465,296
6%
60,119,713
100%
Source: Oklahoma Department of Humans Services 2011c.
The table below compares Oklahoma’s spending of federal TANF grant money
and state MOE by major category of spending:
Oklahoma TANF Grant and MOE Spending by Category, FY 10
Category
Federal TANF
State MOE
Cash assistance
9%
17%
Child care
38%
18%
Transportation and work
supports
11%
22%
Other supports
9%
1%
Social Services Block Grant
9%
0%
Family programs
3%
8%
Admin. systems, and other
21%
35%
Total
100%
100%
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2011a.
Funding is generally limited to programs furthering the four basic purposes
of TANF described in the history section. Most funds must be used for “needy”
families, which include a minor child and either a parent or another relative who
cares for the child. Some programs that prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
those that encourage formation and maintenance of two-parent families are not
restricted to helping needy families. States may transfer funds within limits to
the Child Care and Development Fund to finance subsidized child care and the
Social Services Block Grant to fund child welfare programs (Lower-Basch 2011).
14
26
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
PROGRAM SPENDING: Oklahoma spends far less TANF funds on cash assistance than the national
average. Instead, Oklahoma funds specific and restricted services for TANF families. As compared to
other States, Oklahoma spends more on subsidized child care than the national average. This has allowed
Oklahoma to serve a higher number of low-income families with child care needs. However, to the extent
this reduces funds for cash assistance, it has significant
detrimental impacts on low-income families, especially
Oklahoma spends far
those with greatest needs.
% of total spending from federal and state funds
Child care assistance is available only to families with
an adult who works or is in education and training, thus
excluding much of the TANF-eligible population. Figure 8
compares Oklahoma’s distribution of TANF spending with
that of the nation as a whole.
less TANF funds on cash
assistance than the
national average.
Figure 8
Program Spending by Category, FY 10,
Oklahoma and U.S.
Oklahoma
US
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Cash assistance
Child care
Transportation Other supports Social Services
and work
Block Grant
supports
Family
programs
Admin. systems,
and other
Oklahoma spends only 11% of TANF funds on cash assistance, compared to 30% nationally. Oklahoma also spends more TANF funds
than most states on child care, transportation/work supports, child welfare and administration/systems but less on other supports
for families. Source: CAP calculations from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2011b.
WORK SUPPORT SPENDING: In fiscal year 2011, OKDHS spent approximately $20 million (9% of TANF
spending) on contracts for work support activities for TANF families. These programs address the second
purpose of TANF - to improve family self-sufficiency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.
Figure 9 shows the major purposes of this funding, while Table 7 shows the contracting agencies, services
provided, persons served, and key results where available.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
27
Figure 9
TANF Expenditures for Work Supports, FY 11 ($000s)
Transportation,
$2,750
Job supports, $520
Other,
$2,821
Assessment,
$5,540
Postsecondary
education, $6,700
Basic education,
$1,800
This graph shows how Oklahoma spends TANF money on contracts for work supports for TANF families.
Assessments for work readiness and substance abuse and payments for education account for over half
of these expenditures.Source: Oklahoma Department of Human Services 2011a.
Table 7.
TANF Contracts for Work Supports
Purpose
Provider and Services
Persons Served
Assessment
Carl Albert State College assesses new TANF
clients’ aptitude, language, learning disabilities,
vision, and other key indicators of school and
work readiness.
6,400 applicants assessed in FY 10.
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services to provide substance
abuse testing, counseling, education, and other
services
4,089 clients received at least 1 service
in FY 10.
Basic Education
Oklahoma Department of Libraries and Oklahoma
State Department of Education provide courses
for TANF adults who are not ready for college,
including literacy courses, adult basic education,
and preparation for the GED exam.
1,372 clients participated in FY 10. 147
persons passed the GED exam.
Postsecondary
Education
State Regents for Higher Education provided up
to 2 years of courses on campuses across the State
1,202 clients received training. 341
were employed after completing
training, at an average wage of $8.69
per hour.
Oklahoma Career and Technology Education
provides vocational training for TANF recipients at
centers across the State.
1,889 clients received services. 457
were employed after training at an
average wage of $9.45 per hour.
Job Supports
4 State agencies received funding for job
placement services, subsidized employment, and
internships
Transportation
3 urban transit systems provide bus passes for
TANF clients and 19 local agencies provide doorto-door transportation to work requirements and
child care for TANF adults and children.
Other
TANF paid for miscellaneous services including
youth mentoring, life skills development, legal
assistance for clients seeking Supplemental
Security Income benefits and transportation of
commodities for food banks.
11,400 clients (duplicated count) were
served in FY 10; approximately half
were children15.
This is a duplicated count of persons served, so is more than the unique
individuals served in the year. It is also more than the number of total contracted
trips during the year since some trips have multiple passengers.
15
28
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
MUCH OF OKLAHOMA’S TANF FUNDS GOES TO NON-TANF
FAMILIES
OKDHS uses one-third of its TANF funds to support programs that assist low-income families who do not
participate in TANF, including:
•
A $29.1 million transfer to the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidizes child care for
low-income parents who are working or in school. This transfer supports families whose income
exceeds TANF’s limits but are still low-income (up to 192% of FPL).
•
A $5.0 million contract with Public Strategies, Inc. funds Family Expectations, a program to support
low-income couples who are expecting or have just had a baby. In FY 2010, the program enrolled
600 married and unmarried couples. An early evaluation of the program found it to positively
affect parental relationships and cooperative parenting, but not to affect family economic status.
(Devaney and Dion 2010).
•
Additional DHS contracts with Public Strategies for $2.7 million and with several smaller
organizations to provide relationships skill development under the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.
•
Approximately $35 million on child welfare programs. Oklahoma spends a larger share of TANF
funds on child welfare programs than the national average. Oklahoma’s spending, includes a
transfer to the Social Services Block Grant, funding for various foster care programs, social services
for child welfare clients, and the supported permanency program, totals approximately $35 million
annually, or 16% of the State’s TANF spending16. The most recent national estimate, for fiscal year
2006, is that all states spent $3.1 billion, or 11%, of TANF funds on child welfare programs17.
Supported Permanancy provides assistance to non-relative caretakers for
TANF-eligible children, serving 250-275 children monthly. Under this program,
neither the child nor adults may receive TANF cash assistance.
16
There are no state or national reports on the precise amount of TANF funds
spent on child welfare, so the figures given are estimates. Readers should be
aware that Oklahoma spending is accumulated for different years from different
sources and that national spending is a one-time estimate. Oklahoma expenses
include actual transfer to the Social Services Block Grant for fiscal year 2009 (from
Center on Law and Social Policy 2011), actual payments for foster care and other
child welfare expenses for one quarter of fiscal year 2011 (multiplied by 4) from
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2012, and budgeted amounts
for fiscal year 2011 for supported permanency payments and county-authorized
caretaker payments from Oklahoma Department of Human Services 2011a.
National estimates of child welfare spending from TANF are from DeVooght,
Allen and Geen 2008. Total TANF spending for FY 2006 is from Weadon-Moreno
and Lower-Basch 2007.
17
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
29
Recommendations
Making TANF a More Effective Anti-Poverty
Program in Oklahoma
In Oklahoma and across the nation, TANF remains an incomplete work that is not meeting the needs of
low-income children and families. The recommendations below will help Oklahoma achieve TANF’s four
purposes and help the state achieve the goals laid out early in this report
RECOMMENDATION 1: Increase program benefits
Oklahoma should restore benefit levels so their purchasing power is the same now as in 1996 and
index future benefits so that purchasing power does not erode in the future. In 1996 the $307 monthly
maximum payment for a family of 3 represented 29% of FPL. By 2010 the benefit was reduced to $292, a
32% drop adjusting for inflation (Schott and Finch 2010). The current benefit is just 20% of FPL. Oklahoma
should restore benefits to 30% of FPL and index benefits to the poverty level. Ohio provides a good
model as a State that indexes its benefit to 50% of FPL each July (TANF Purpose: Supports work,
protects children).
RECOMMENDATION 2: Reduce the severity of sanctions
Oklahoma should eliminate artificial barriers that harm children for the actions of adults and end family
participation prematurely. Oklahoma has higher sanction rates compared to most States and should
lessen the severity of its initial sanction reduction in benefit. Studies consistently show that sanctioned
families face extreme hardship in comparison to non-sanctioned and other low-income families.
Oklahoma should end full-family sanctions, should not reduce benefits during an initial sanction period
and work to quickly restore benefits instead of placing children in further disadvantaged situations for
reasons that they can neither understand nor control (TANF Purpose: Protects children, promotes
self-sufficiency).
RECOMMENDATION 3: Allow TANF recipients to earn more
Oklahoma should increase the earned income disregard for families early in their TANF participation.
Disregards encourage TANF adults to work by subtracting earnings from gross income to determine
whether a family is eligible and the amount of its benefit. Oklahoma should join States that encourage
participants to work by disregarding all income in the first three months of TANF participation and 75%
in the remainder of the first year of assistance18. After one year, the existing, the $240/50% disregard
should expand to each adult in the household so that two parents working part-time low-wage jobs still
qualify for some TANF assistance (TANF Purpose: Supports work, protects children, promotes selfsufficiency).
States that disregard 100% of earnings are Connecticut (without a time limit,
up to the FPL), Alabama and Mississippi (for the first 6 months), Nevada and
North Carolina (for 3 months), Kentucky (for 2 months), and New Jersey (for
1 month). Five other States have percentage or dollar disregards that exceed
Oklahoma’s, at least in the first months of assistance (WRD Table II.A.1).
18
30
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
RECOMMENDATION 4: Allow families
to keep more child support
Oklahoma should allow at least partial passthrough of child support to its TANF families.
The State currently requires participants
to cooperate with OKDHS in seeking child
support and requires families to assign
their right to receive child support to the
government as a condition of receiving cash
assistance. Oklahoma should pass through
$100 in child support to the TANF family and
disregard $200 from income. The average
amount of child support received while on
TANF would more than double with this
change (TANF Purpose: Protects children,
promotes self-sufficiency).
RECOMMENDATION 5: Increase
the benefit in child-only cases and
develop appropriate family supports
OKLAHOMA NEEDS SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR TANF
CASH ASSISTANCE
Measuring Progress: How Can We Know Cash Assistance is Getting More Effective?
Each of the three goals that CAP proposes for TANF offers an
opportunity to measure progress and guide future program
improvements. CAP recommends that Oklahoma commit to these
progress measures:
Goal 1: Support Work
• Increase the percentage of TANF adults who are working from
9% to 25%
• Increase the percentage of TANF families with two parents
from 0% to 5%.
Goal 2: Protect Children
• At least double the average benefit from $185 to $370 for a
family of 3 and make sure the average benefit is never less than
30% of the federal poverty level.
• Raise support for child-only cases, both financial and
otherwise, equivalent to supports for foster children.
• Insure that child-only cases are active until the child reaches
age 18 or is adequately supported by non-TANF income.
Oklahoma should immediately increase
the benefit for child-only cases to equal
Goal 3: Promote Self-sufficiency
the regular TANF benefit for the same
• Increase the average time families receive TANF to the national
number of participants. This would raise the
average both for working-family and child-only cases.
benefit for one child from $87 to $180 and
• Increase the percentage of adults who are employed when
they leave TANF from 19% to 33%.
for two children from $171 to $225. While
these benefits would remain inadequate
to support children, they might encourage
relatives to care for children who otherwise
would be placed in OKDHS custody or foster
care. Within three years, the child-only benefit should be increased to equal the average foster care
benefit. Further, attention should be given to developing appropriate family supports and comprehensive
service access for child-only TANF families. Many child-only children face the same challenges as children
in the foster care system. Many of their caregivers are living on low to moderate fixed incomes and face
multiple health problems of their own -- sometimes creating fragile care giving situations. Creating a
solution where caregivers of child-only cases could voluntarily access family supports and other beneficial
services would ensure that child-only TANF cases support the whole child and the family members caring
for that child (TANF Purpose: Protects children).
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
31
32
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
Appendix A
Comparison of Oklahoma and U.S. TANF Participants
Oklahoma
United States
Average household size
2.2
3.0
Average number of
children
2.2
1.8
0
62%
48%
1
39%
47%
2 or more
0%
5%
1
37%
51%
2
29%
27%
3 or more
34%
22%
Hispanic
11%
29%
White
44%
31%
African-American
33%
33%
Native American
12%
1%
Other
0%
6%
Under 20
11%
8%
20-29
54%
50%
30-39
26%
26%
40 and over
10%
16%
Single
67%
70%
Married
8%
14%
Separated
16%
10%
Divorced
10%
6%
Less than 9th grade
10%
15%
9th-11th grade
31%
27%
12th grade
51%
53%
More than 12th grade
8%
5%
5%
4%
Family Composition:
Number of adults in family (as % of families)
Number of children in family (as % of families)
Race/Ethnicity (as % of families)
Adult Recipients
Age (as % of all adults)
Marital status (as % of all adults)
Education (as % of all adults)
Teen Parents (as % of all recipients)
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
33
Oklahoma
United States
0-1
13%
16%
2-5
24%
27%
6-11
32%
30%
12-19
30%
27%
Child Recipients
Age (as % of all children)
Relationship to head of household (as % of all children)
Child
64%
84%
Grandchild
27%
10%
Other
9%
6%
27
37
One
$138
$324
Two
$185
$408
Three
$231
$496
Percent with any nonTANF income
12%
17%
Average monthly nonTANF income
$683
$689
Percent with earned
income
4%
12%
Average monthly earned
income
$688
$821
Percent with unearned
income
9%
6%
Average monthly
unearned income
$681
$322
Percent with child support
7%
9%
Average monthly child
support
$304
$228
Employed
9%
24%
Unemployed
91%
76%
Average months receiving TANF
Average monthly benefit by number of children
Income profile of TANF families:
Employment status of adults:
34
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
Oklahoma
United States
No
69%
58%
Yes
31%
42%
Unsubsidized
employment
8%
22%
Work preparation
3%
8%
Job search
4%
8%
Training/Education
19%
11%
Other
0%
4%
Work participation status of adults:
Work participation?
Work activities
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2010.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
35
Appendix B
Oklahoma Department of Human Services Maximum Income,
Resource, and Payment Standards Effective 2/1/2010 (excerpts)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 or
more
Need standard
$398
$499
$645
$798
$933
$1,068
$1,203
$1,323
$1,436
Monthly maximum gross
income cannot exceed
$736
$923
$1,193
$1,476
$1,726
$1,975
$2,225
$2,447
$2,656
Payment standard
(45% need standard)
$180
$225
$292
$361
$422
$483
$544
$598
$650
EA payment standard
$90
$113
$146
$181
$211
$242
$272
$299
$325
Number of persons
36
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
Sources
Cauthen, Nancy K. 2006. Looking Forward, Looking Back; Reflections on the 10th Anniversary of Welfare
Reform. (New York: National Center for Children in Poverty); available at
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_675.html.
Center for Law and Social Policy. 2009. Poverty and Child Maltreatment: Common Challenges and Solutions.
Presentation to Family Economic Success Learning Network Webinar, December 11; available at
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/CSSP-FES-Learning-Network-12-09.pdf.
_______. 2011. Oklahoma: Use of TANF and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Funds in Fiscal Year 2009;
available at http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_States/files/TANF2009-OK.pdf.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2012. TANF-to-Poverty Ratios. Excel spreadsheet; available at
http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-12tanf-data.xlsx.
Charlesworth, Leanne, Jeanette M. Hercik, and Courtney J. Kakuska, n.d. TANF Child-Only Cases Trends and Issues
(Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network); available at
http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/pdf/child_only.pdf
Devaney, Barbara and Robin Dion. 2010. 15-Month Impacts of Oklahoma’s Family Expectations Program
(Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research); available at
http://www.publicstrategies.com/FullReport.pdf
DeVooght, Kerry, Tiffany Allen and Rob Geen. 2008. Federal, State and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse
and Neglect in SFY 2006 (Washington: Child Trends); available at
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2009_02_17_FR_CWFinancePaper.pdf
Geen, Rob. 2002. Shoring up the Child Welfare-TANF Link. Short Takes on Welfare Policy Number 7
(Washington: The Urban Institute); available at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=shoring%20up%20the%20child&source=web&cd=
1&ved=0CDgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urban.org%2FuploadedPDF%2FShortTakes_7.
pdf&ei=uT1RT4zGGcGCtgeMlsTPDQ&usg=AFQjCNHsCZZRKd4D84cfodEEGEoqyGZhNw.
Gibbs, Deborah et al. 2004. Children in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Child-Only Cases
with Relative Caregivers Final Report. RTI Project Number 07147.018. June 2004; available at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/child-only04/index.htm.
Golden, Olivia and Amelia Hawkins. 2012. TANF Child-Only Cases. Research Synthesis Brief Series No. 3
(Washington: The Urban Institute); available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/other_resrch/tanf_ccdf/reports/child_only.pdf.
Hasenfeld, Yeheskel, Torho Ghose, and Kandyce Larson. 2004. The Logic of Sanctioning Welfare Participants:
An Empirical Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Columns, Departmental Papers (June); available at
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=spp_papers.
Haskins, Ron, Isabel Sawhill, and Kent Weaver. 2001. Welfare Reform: An Overview of Effect to Date.
(Washington: The Brookings Institution); available at
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2001/01poverty_haskins.aspx.
Hughes, Linda. 2012. Electronic mail to the authors (January 26).
Hutson, Rutledge. 2001. Red Flags: Research Raises Concerns about the Impact of “Welfare Reform” on Child
Maltreatment. (Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy).
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
37
Illinois Public Act 096-0886. 2010. Available at
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=096-0866.
Kauff, Jacqueline, Michelle Derr, LaDonna Pavetti, and Emily Sama Martin. 2007. Using Work-oriented Sanctions
to Increase TANF Program Participation. (Washington: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.); available at
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/worksanctions.pdf.
Kenefick, Elizabeth. 2011. TANF Education and Training: The Oklahoma Special Projects. (Washington: Center
for Law and Social Policy); available at
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Oklahoma-Special-Projects.pdf.
Legal Momentum. 2010. The Sanction Epidemic in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program.
(New York: The Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund); available at
http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/sanction-epidemic-in-tanf.pdf.
Lower-Basch, Elizabeth. 2011. TANF Policy Brief: The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant.
(Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy); available at
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/TANFBlockGrant.pdf.
Lower-Basch, Elizabeth and Mark Greenburg. 2009. “Single Mothers in the Era of Welfare Reform,” Chapter 7
of The Gloves-off Economy: Workplace Standards at the Bottom of America’s Labor Market, A. Bernhardt, H.
Boushey, L. Dresser, and C.Tilly, eds., Champaign IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association, pp. 163–190.
Lower-Basch, Elizabeth and Elizabeth Kenefick. 2010. Analysis of Fiscal Year 2009 TANF and MOE Spending by
States. Excel spreadsheet (Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy); available at
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/2009TANFspending.xls.
_______.2010a. TANF Emergency Fund: State Applications Approved as of September 30. (Washington:
Council for Law and Social Policy); available at
http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/TANF-ECF-Use-Sept-30.pdf.
Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2003. Riding the Economic Wave: Overview. Fiscal Year 2003
Annual Report; available at
http://www.okdhs.org/NR/rdonlyres/48FD462F-09EB-4E88-8DC4-27AD9A12A9B2/0/S03148_2003AnnualReport_
okdhs_03092007.pdf.
_______. 2011. Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report Tables. Accessed Dec. 5, 2011 at
http://www.okdhs.org/library/rpts/ar/2011/s11080_okdhsannualreport_tables.htm.
_______. 2011a. FSSD TANF Budget FY12-5-1-11 (Excel spreadsheet).
Pollack, Wendy. 2010. Hearing on Welfare Reform: A New Conversation on Women and Poverty. Testimony
before the United States Senate Committee on Finance, September 21; available at
http://www.povertylaw.org/advocacy/women-and-family/pollack-welfare-testimony.pdf.
Rowe, Gretchen, Mary Murphy, and Ei Yin Mon. 2010. Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July
2009 (Washington: The Urban Institute); available at
http://anfdata.urban.org/databooks/Databook%202009%20FINAL.pdf (cited as “Welfare Rules Databook”.
Salehezadeh, Zohre. 2009. TANF Data: A Preliminary Analysis. (PowerPoint presentation, Oklahoma City:
Oklahoma Department of Human Services).
Schott, Liz and Ife Finch. 2010. TANF Benefits are Low and Have Not Kept Pace with Inflation: Benefits are
not Enough to Meet Families’ Basic Needs. (Washington: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). Available at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.cbpp.org%2Fcms%2Findex.cfm%3Ffa%3Dview%26id%3D3306&ei=oyjpTt36F8H-sQKF8IDjCA&usg=AFQjCNEr43DjVr_
i18eRvDcj3UZBxy6yaQ.
38
Community Action Project
www.captc.org
Schott, Liz and LaDonna Pavetti. 2010. Federal TANF Funds Shrinking While Need Remains High. (Washington:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities); available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3345.
_______. 2011. “Many States Cutting TANF Benefits Harshly Despite High Unemployment and
Unprecedented Need,” (Washington: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities); available at
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3498.
Stoltzfus, Emilie. 2002. Child Welfare and TANF Implementation: Recent Findings. Report for Congress.
Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress; available at
http://wikilieaks.org/wiki/CRS-FL31508.
Trisi, Danilo and LaDonna Pavetti. 2012. TANF Weakening as a Safety Net for Poor Families. (Washington:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities); available at
http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-12tanf.pdf.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 2011. Comparing Program Participation of TANF and NonTANF Families Before and During a Time of Recession. Household Economic Studies P70-127; available at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=comparing%20program%20participation%20of%20tanf%20and%20non-tanf%20
families&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2F2011pubs%2Fp70-127.
pdf&ei=lJNOT43vHu_HsQLZ6eAh&usg=AFQjCNEMwmPXCLwLVjmLcd2KEkPZKLUwTw.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF
Recipients, Fiscal Year 2009. Available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/fy2009/indexfy09.htm.
_______. 2012. Appendix V: State ACF-196 (SUP) Reports. April-June 2011. Accessed April 16, 2012 at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/cra/2011/june2011/appendix-v-sup196_apr-jun.pdf.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2010. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families
Have Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s and the Recession’s Impact on Caseloads Varies By State.
(GAO-10-164); available at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
gao.gov%2Fnew.items%2Fd10164.pdf&ei=utLGTrz-HarksQKYkYle&usg=AFQjCNF8GZTIF2A-XsEbdKUGxRWP61YtUQ.
_______. 2010a. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have Received Cash
Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact on Caseloads Varies by State. Report to the
Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives; available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10164.pdf.
Urban Institute. 2012. TRIM3. Economic model maintained and supported by U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; accessed January 27, 2012 at
http://trim3.urban.org/T3Cite.php.
Washington State Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. Child-Only/Kinship Care. Staff Document.
Weadon-Moreno, Marcie and Elizabeth Lower-Basch. 2007. Analysis of Fiscal Year 2006 TANF and MOE
Spending by States (Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy); available at
http://www.clasp.org/resources_and_publications/publication?id=0380&list=publications.
Wheaton, Laura and Elaine Sorensen. 2007. The Potential Impact of Increasing Child Support Payments to
TANF Families. (Washington: The Urban Institute); available at
http://www.urban.org/publications/411595.html.
Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families (Issue 2)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
39