Use TANF Payments to Create Subsidized Jobs and Provide Work Supports for Families Living in Poverty
View this resource as a PDF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs should expand opportunities for families living in poverty to increase their incomes through work. Many of the adults in families experiencing homelessness and other very poor families face barriers to employment, including low levels of education, limited skills and work experience, poor health, lack of transportation or childcare, criminal records, and other challenges.
What are subsidized jobs?
Subsidized employment or transitional jobs programs are designed to overcome employment barriers by combining paid work and job skills training, and they often include additional support services. These jobs, created in partnership with public or private sector employers, provide income for participants as well as the opportunity to learn workplace expectations and skills in a real work environment. Participants also get current job references and help finding unsubsidized jobs. Subsidized employment programs are particularly effective for workers who have been unemployed for a long time.
What are the promising practices?
Researchers and practitioners have identified promising program models and a set of best practices that work to increase employment and incomes for people who have significant barriers to employment, including people experiencing homelessness. Some of the most promising approaches:
Provide a pathway to greater economic security for families by offering training, coaching, and support services in addition to employment opportunities; and
Work with employers to create or expand job opportunities that are accessible to people who want to work but face barriers to getting and keeping jobs in the competitive labor market
These programs help workers move beyond entry-level jobs and pursue opportunities for career advancement and higher earnings
How can TANF help?
Funding from TANF programs, supplemented by support from philanthropy or other sources, may be used to subsidize a portion of the costs of wages, support services, and other programs costs.
For more information about best practices in creating employment opportunities for people experiencing homelessness, see these resources created by the Working to End Homelessness Initiative
For more information about using TANF to provide subsidized or transitional jobs, and the evidence that these programs work, see
View this resource as a PDF
Use TANF Payments to Provide Rapid Re-Housing and Emergency Housing Assistance
View this resource as a PDF
Through emergency housing assistance, including rapid re-housing programs, states can use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to prevent and end homelessness among families. Rapid re-housing programs help families move into housing as quickly as possible after they become homeless, instead of allowing families to spend weeks or months in shelters and transitional programs. These programs also minimize the impact of homelessness on children and provide the stability parents need to find jobs or participate in employment programs.
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memorandum explaining that TANF funds can be used to address the housing-related needs of families who are homeless or precariously housed. Use of TANF funds in this way is consistent with rules on providing benefits and services to needy or eligible families. Families do not need to be receiving TANF cash assistance in order to qualify for housing services.
How can TANF funds be used for housing assistance?
States may adjust cash benefit levels in relation to housing costs.
States can also provide a housing supplement to cash assistance. TANF programs can also provide an array of non-recurrent, short-term benefits and services that are designed to address a specific crisis situation and extend no longer than four months.
For example, TANF may be used for short-term rental or mortgage assistance to prevent eviction or to help a homeless family secure housing. This may include security and utility payments, moving assistance, motel or hotel vouchers, case management services, financial and credit counseling, legal services, housing search and placement services, and related administrative costs.
TANF funds can also support rapid re-housing programs. For example, a partnership between The Road Home and Utah’s Department of Workforce Services provides rapid re-housing assistance combined with employment services to help families with children move into housing quickly. TANF funds provide rental assistance, remove barriers to housing, deliver case management services, and connect families to work supports.
TANF agencies should also be active participants in statewide, regional, and local efforts to prevent and end homelessness, including the Continuum of Care. TANF funds can be used in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s targeted homeless assistance grants program, the Continuum of Care program, and Emergency Solutions Grants program.
To learn more about using TANF funding for housing assistance, visit:
For more information about rapid re-housing, visit:
- United States Interagency Council on Homelessness: Rapid Re-Housing
- Rapid Re-Housing: Successfully Ending Family Homelessness
- Utah’s The Road Home
View this resource as a PDF
Supporting Families with the Greatest Needs by Removing Barriers to TANF
View this resource as a PDF
Many families in need with children do not receive any cash assistance, even though they do not have adequate income from work or other sources to pay for housing and other basic living expenses. Since welfare reform, the ratio of the number of families on TANF to the number of families with children in poverty (also known as the TANF-to-poverty ratio) has declined greatly.
How do TANF-to-poverty ratios differ by state?
Our research found a wide range of TANF-to-poverty ratios throughout the United States. For example, in 2011-2012:
California provided TANF cash assistance to roughly 60 of out every 100 families living in poverty while Wyoming provided cash assistance to only about 4 of out every 100 families living in poverty
TANF participation is down. Why?
TANF participation rates among eligible families have also been far lower than that of previous 20 years. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 32 percent of families who were eligible for TANF assistance actually received benefits in an average month in 2009. This is substantially less than the 82% participation rate of eligible families in 2003.
Eligible families can be denied benefits because of time limits or sanctions, or they may be discouraged from applying because of policies or practices implemented by states and local government agencies. For example, in some states, vulnerable families face significant barriers to employment and so may not meet the requirements of welfare-to-work programs.
What can we do?
States have a lot of flexibility in the design and implementation of their TANF programs. To assist the most vulnerable families, we must make changes at the state level to address and remove these barriers to cash assistance.
For more information about TANF’s declining role for families in need, visit: TANF Weakening as a Safety Net for Poor Families
For more information about the needs of families that are disconnected from both work and TANF assistance, and potential policy solutions, visit: Disconnected Families and TANF
View this resource as a PDF
Strengthen Connections Among Welfare-to-Work, Job Training, and Homeless Assistance Programs
View this resource as a PDF
Families experiencing or at risk of homelessness need adequate incomes to pay rent. Many of the adults in these families want to work, and they need access to employment and training services that are effective for people who face barriers to getting and keeping good jobs. They may also need work supports such as child care and transportation assistance, and some families need other services to address additional barriers to employment and housing stability.
Why should we strengthen connections among programs?
Strong linkages and ongoing collaboration among housing and employment services will:
- Provide families with the supports they need to care for children in their own homes and to pursue opportunities for self-sufficiency; and
- Help each system achieve its goals. Housing solutions provide a stable platform for parents to achieve employment goals. Connections to employment and work supports such as childcare and transportation assistance increase families’ incomes and promote housing stability.
How can we do it?
- TANF agencies should be active partners in statewide, regional, and local efforts to prevent and end homelessness, through participation in the Continuum of Care and other cross-sector structures for planning, coordinating, and investing in housing and services for families experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
- TANF agencies and homeless assistance programs can create interagency partnerships to coordinate and streamline services delivered across the two systems, using formalized referral processes to expedite connections to appropriate services and agreements to share client-level data with consent.
- Welfare-to-work and other employment and training services can be co-located with homeless assistance programs that serve families with children.
- Navigators can help families experiencing homelessness meet TANF requirements and use employment and training services effectively, while also offering individualized and flexible supports.
- Cross-training for front-line staff can help TANF workers better understand the needs of homeless families and the resources and strategies available to prevent and end family homelessness, while also helping staff in homeless assistance programs better understand TANF program rules and the resources and supports that can be available to families in need.
For more ideas about partnerships and examples of state TANF agency initiatives, see this TANF Information Memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.
View this resource as a PDF
Increase TANF Payments to Protect Families from Homelessness
View this resource as a PDF
Adequate and stable housing is fundamental to health, childhood education, employment stability, and many other basic needs.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments for a family of three do not cover Fair Market Rent in any state. In fact, in 17 states, TANF payments for a family of three cover less than 40% of Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment. Even worse, in Mississippi and Tennessee, TANF payments for a family of three cover less than 30% of Fair Market Rent. As a result, TANF recipients in every state are unable to meet the cost of a decent, modest apartment, even if they pay more than 100% of their cash income for rent.
How do current TANF levels leave families at risk?
Current TANF payment levels leave many families with children in highly precarious housing situations and at an increased risk of homelessness. When a family spends more than 30% of its household income on housing, this is an indicator of an affordability issue. When a family spends more than 50% of its household income on housing, this is considered a severe hardship and a threat to housing stability. Currently, TANF payments are:
Not adjusted for inflation: Not only are benefits low, but they have also lost value in most states since welfare reform in 1996. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, TANF payments are “at least 20 percent below their 1996 levels in 37 states, after adjusting for inflation.” This means that most states are not making Cost of Living Adjustments to TANF as basic living expenses rise, leaving vulnerable families well below the poverty line.
Disconnected from housing assistance: Affordable housing options are increasingly scarce. Federal funding for public housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers for low-income families has been reduced sharply in recent years. Most housing authorities have closed their waitlists for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.
What can we do?
TANF payments should be increased to give families enough income to pay rent. State TANF payments must be increased to meet the inflation adjusted level established in 1996. This will ensure that the value does not continue to erode and families are better able to address the mounting cost of living.
For more information, visit:
- Maximum TANF Benefits Leave Families Well Below Federal Poverty Level
- TANF Cash Benefits Continued To Lose Value in 2013
- Many States Cutting TANF Benefits Harshly Despite High Unemployment and Unprecedented Need
View this resource as a PDF
Sources: TANF Payments and Fair Market Rent
TANF Sources
A detailed list of sources for each state may be found here.
Some states had varying levels of TANF payments within the state:
- California TANF Numbers
- Connecticut TANF Numbers
- Illinois TANF Numbers
- Kansas TANF Numbers
- New York TANF Numbers
- Pennsylvania TANF Numbers
- Virginia TANF Numbers
Fair Market Rent and Population Data
Family demographic data from the American FactFinder
Data on FMR and median income levels from the National Low Income Housing Coalition's research document “Out of Reach 2013”
TANF-to-poverty ratios were provided by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (using current population survey data).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for offering guidance throughout this project and providing useful raw data. We would also like to extend a special thank you to Ife Floyd, who was extremely helpful, providing feedback and key source data.
We would like to thank Matt Gardner for creating the web tools (maps, etc.) for this project.
We would finally like to thank Carol Wilkins for her assistance and the helpful advice that she provided during this project.
To return to the map, click here.
Inclusive Public Housing: Services for the Hard to House
View this resource
Twenty years ago, dilapidated, high-crime public housing developments populated by impoverished, female-headed households were a powerful symbol of the failures of U.S. social welfare policy. HOPE VI was a key element of a bold effort to transform these public housing communities and demonstrate that housing programs could produce good results for residents and communities. The program provided grants to housing authorities to replace their most distressed developments—those with high crime rates, serious physical decay, and obsolete structures—with new, mixed-income, mixed-tenure communities. In a departure from earlier efforts to “rehabilitate” public housing, HOPE VI sought to move beyond “bricks and mortar” and provided funding for supportive services for residents to help them move toward self-sufficiency and improve their life circumstances.
There is no question that HOPE VI has changed the face of public housing—hundreds of those dilapidated structures have been replaced with attractive new developments, and the program has sparked innovations in financing and management. However, the program has not been a solution for the most vulnerable families—those “hard to house” families with multiple, complex problems that make them ineligible for mixed-income housing or unable to cope with the challenges of negotiating the private market with a Housing Choice Voucher. In many U.S. cities, public housing has served as the housing of last resort for decades, with the poorest and least desirable tenants warehoused in the worst developments. As these developments have been demolished, vulnerable families have often simply been moved from one distressed development to another, and with a concentration of extremely troubled families and a lack of adequate supportive services, these new developments have the potential to become even worse environments than those from where these families started.
This report provides an overview of the Chicago Family Case Management Demonstration and its progress to date, and then focus on one of the major challenges for providers serving vulnerable families: identifying which clients require the full intensive services, and which would benefit from a different approach.
View this resource
Exiting Shelter: An Epidemiological Analysis of Barriers and Facilitators for Families
View this resource as a PDF
This study from University of Chicago’s Social Science Review examines the role of individual- and family-level factors in predicting the length of shelter stays for homeless families. Interviews were conducted with all families exiting one of six emergency family shelters in Worcester, Massachusetts, between November 2006 and November 2007. Analyses, using an ordinary least squares regression model, find that families with a positive alcohol or drug screen in the year prior stay 85 days longer than those without a positive screen; families leaving shelter with a housing subsidy stay 66 days longer than those leaving without a subsidy. Demographic factors, education, employment, health, and mental health are not found to predict shelter stay duration. Consistent with prior research, housing resources relate to families’ time in shelter; with the exception of a positive substance abuse screen, individual-level problems are not related to their time in shelter. Efforts to expand these resources at the local, state, and national levels are a high priority.
View this resource as a PDF
Ending Family Homelessness in Massachusetts
View this resource as a PDF
In Massachusetts, nearly 5,000 families, including 10,000 children, experience homelessness annually. Having such a large number of homeless families, many of whom remain homeless for six months or longer, is unacceptable in a state that devotes considerable resources to the problem. It is well documented that homelessness exacts a heavy toll on children and places severe strain on health, educational outcomes and family composition.
Most families in Massachusetts facing homelessness receive assistance through the Emergency Assistance (EA) program, which serves an important function for families facing housing crises. Nonetheless, in relying primarily on the provision of emergency shelter, the current EA system has become increasingly expensive to support and has proven itself to be ineffective at eliminating homelessness. No child in the Commonwealth should be without a safe, and decent place to call home. Yet, under the current EA system, more and more families facing a housing crisis find themselves staying for extended periods of times in less than ideal emergency shelters and motels instead of quickly securing a more stable and permanent housing arrangement. New approaches to helping families at risk of or experiencing homelessness and a transformation of existing EA policies are urgently needed if Massachusetts hopes to eliminate family homelessness while making efficient use of resources.
The Commonwealth has a strong track record of caring for the health and well-being of its citizens. In 2006, Massachusetts passed innovative health reform legislation, which relied on cooperation between the public and private sectors to extend health coverage to tens of thousands of persons. This landmark reform has set Massachusetts apart from the rest of the nation and has served as a model for current Federal health reform legislation. In transforming the EA program, Massachusetts again has an opportunity to undertake a reform that will greatly benefit some of its most vulnerable residents. If reform is done carefully and correctly, the state can feasibly expect to make real and sustained progress towards ending family homelessness.
This paper, commissioned by the Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation, aims to explore the current opportunity for policy reform of the EA system in Massachusetts. It will first review recent actions by the state that have provided a context for systems change. It will then describe some of the challenges posed by the current system, particularly the lack of cost containment, and the resulting fact that significant public resources are spent supporting long-term stays in shelters and motels, which are not good for families or children. After an exploration of funding and resource issues that are germane to the discussion of EA policy reform, the paper will conclude by establishing the foundation for changing the current system into one that would be outcome oriented, driven by the objective of housing stabilization and serve families in a more timely, effective and efficient manner.
View this resource as a PDF
