Luckily, there’s one program whose funds weren’t touched. It’s the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant, federal dollars given to states to support the same low-income families that will be most impacted by these cuts. States are given a combined $16.5 billion in annual TANF grants to spend at their discretion. The bad news? As we document in a new report, most states are allocating a significant share of their TANF funds to uses that don’t directly address the needs of residents who most need the support.
Today, nearly 1 in 6 children in the United States lives in poverty — roughly 12 million kids. Many of them are being raised in families that qualify for TANF-funded direct cash assistance, but only 1 in 5 TANF-eligible households actually receives support.
Take Mississippi, for example, where nearly 25 percent of children live in poverty and direct cash assistance to more of those families would have a powerful impact. There, former NFL star Brett Favre has been accused of being involved in misusing millions of TANF dollars to fund a volleyball arena at the University of Southern Mississippi, where both he and his daughter played sports.
Or consider states like Louisiana and Nebraska, where millions of TANF dollars were allocated to fund “crisis pregnancy centers” that do not target services by income. Such facilities are typically staffed by volunteers without medical training and offer support to pregnant women to dissuade them from abortion. Since 2017, these centers have received over $100 million from federal TANF funds intended to support the lowest-income families.
As research conducted on the 2021 temporary expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit during the COVID-19 pandemic shows, even a small amount of cash provided to families with children living on low incomes meaningfully reduces the rate of childhood poverty. This is why states should resist the urge to further drain funds from the TANF Block Grant to backfill other state spending and instead work to provide direct cash assistance to more eligible families.
The issues, though, are about more than money. Accessing direct cash assistance funded by TANF is really difficult due to strict work reporting requirements. When parents do receive cash assistance, they are predominantly single mothers with children under the age of 12. In some states, those parents must visit regional employment offices multiple times before they can qualify for direct cash assistance benefits that can take weeks to process. Even when a family can access the benefits, benefit amounts are low and don’t go far. In July 2023, TANF benefits for a single parent with two children could be as little as $204 a month in Arkansas to as high as $1,243 a month in New Hampshire. The median cost of housing for renters in 2023 was $1,406 — greater than any state’s TANF benefits.
Getting the cash to families that need it has multiple benefits. Evidence shows that investments in children lead to increased performance in school, reduced involvement in the criminal justice system, and higher earnings and tax revenue over time. Researchers estimate that the return on investment for programs that support the development of young children could be $15 or higher for every dollar spent. And providing cash directly to families can be much cheaper to administer when uncoupled from the strict work reporting requirements TANF programs have implemented.
Research shows that when you provide money to low-income families, they spend the bulk of it on food, school supplies, and child and medical care. But right now, millions of kids are growing up without their basic needs being met. While TANF dollars can’t fix the entire problem, direct cash assistance can help, and it’s time for states to start allocating these dollars appropriately while removing unnecessary red tape. The nation’s long-term economic growth and stability depend on it.
Megan E. Rivera is a fellow for policy and advocacy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, which focuses on advancing evidence-backed ideas and policies that promote strong, stable and broad-based economic growth.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
