State-Level Predictors of Core Priorities Spending in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program: Implications for Human Rights and Equity

Background and Purpose

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is aimed at reducing poverty and increasing self-sufficiency. The funding structure of TANF allows states wide discretion in spending beyond core program priorities of cash assistance, childcare, work activities and supports, leading to wide variability between states and low spending on core programs. This has important implications for human rights and equity, with the state a person lives in determining the level of assistance they can access. Except for Fusaro (2020; 2021), predictors of TANF budget priorities, specifically on core programs, remain underexamined. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that political party affiliation of policymakers, social issues, economic conditions, and racial composition of the TANF caseload in a state will all impact how much of the block grant a state spends on core program areas. This paper expands on a 2021 analysis by Fusaro, who examined similar predictors of TANF spending.

Method

This study used existing data sources from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to test 5 two-level longitudinal hierarchical linear growth models over a period of 12 years (2009-2020). This study examines how political party affiliation (political party of the governor and state legislature), social issues (rates of unmarried births and children in foster care), economic conditions (unemployment and poverty rates), and racial composition of caseloads (percentages of TANF caseload who identified as Black and Hispanic) in a state predict the percentages of state TANF budgets spent on cash assistance, childcare, work activities, work supports, as well as overall spending on core TANF priorities.

Results

Across all states, there was a significant decline between 2009-2020 in spending on basic assistance (-0.32,SE=0.11,p=0.001), childcare (-0.22,SE=0.09,p=0.02) work supports

(-0.13,SE=0.03,p=0.001), and overall core priorities (-0.83,SE=0.14,p=0.001), with the decline in work activity not significant. Political party, specifically having a democratic governor, was associated with more childcare spending (2.15,SE=0.57,p=0.001). States with higher percentages of democratic state senators spent more on work supports (0.04,SE=0.01,p=0.001) and had higher percentages of core priorities spending (0.13,SE=0.06,p=0.02). Social issues, specifically unmarried birth rates, were a significant negative predictor of work activity spending (-0.37,SE=0.12,p=0.001), and had a significant positive impact on childcare spending (0.63,SE=0.17,p=0.001). Economic conditions, specifically unemployment rates were a significant positive predictor of basic assistance spending (0.84,SE=0.20,p=0.001) and a significant negative predictor of childcare spending (-0.72,SE=0.16,p=0.001). The racial composition of caseloads impacted two models, with higher percentages of Black TANF recipients resulting in less basic assistance spending (-0.18,SE=0.05,p=0.001) and higher rates of Hispanic TANF recipients associated with more spending on childcare (0.13,SE=0.06,p=0.04).

Conclusions and Implications

Political party affiliation of policymakers, social issues, economic conditions, and racial composition of the TANF caseload all impacted TANF spending on core program areas. Even though spending on core TANF priorities was somewhat influenced by state economic conditions, the findings show that there is not equity for disadvantaged families across states when political party affiliation, social issues, and race are considered. Understanding how programs are shaped and what factors impact their funding can help battle inequities and shape advocacy efforts to build solutions.