To view the report in PDF format, you first need to
download the free Adobe Acrobat Viewer. The Acrobat Viewer will launch the file so that
you can see the document on your monitor and then print it. Download Adobe Acrobat.
Download the Report
Find a
wealth of reports, white papers and other behavioral
health and social service resources in the
OPEN
MINDS
Industry Resources Library. |
|
|
July 21, 2006
Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in States Uses of
the TANF Block Grant
The Government Accountability Organization (GAO) collected state
spending date and conducted site visits in California, Colorado,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and
Wisconsin. These states represent about half of federal spending on
the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program in 2004.
In this follow-up study of state TANF spending (prior TANF spending
trend studies were released in 1998 and 2001) GAO sought to
determine state TANF fund spending trends. This study is focused on
spending for working-age adults and children; spending on the
elderly, long-term care, and institutional care is excluded. The
spending data is classified into five areas: cash assistance,
employment services and training, work and other supports, aid for
the at-risk, and health care. Only programs in which states were
able to make key budget decisions were evaluated.
The GAO found that according to data provided by the states,
spending on low-income programs increased over the ten years covered
by the three trend studies. Health care spending accelerated more
than non-health spending. In eight of the nine states in this study
health care accounted for at least 45% of welfare-related spending
in 2004. Total spending for welfare-related services also increased
during the study period. Since 1995, median non-health spending
increased by 17%. This is in contrast to the 61% median growth rate
for health spending. However, GAO noted that data are not routinely
available about the extent to which eligible individuals targeted by
TANF programs are served, therefore it was not possible to draw
conclusions about how service needs are being met.

|