Report Finds Restrictive TANF Rules Lead to Negative Outcomes for Kansas Families

Dustin Hare | November 11, 2024

In April 2023, the Legislature asked the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) to perform an audit to answer two questions regarding the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. 

1. How has the percentage of TANF funding provided directly to families changed over time?

2. What impact have the changes to TANF rules since 2011 had on the program outcomes?

The issues that prompted this audit go back more than a decade. In 2011, the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) began implementing changes to TANF and other programs that made it more difficult for families to qualify for benefits. In 2015, the Legislature codified those changes by passing a bill known as the HOPE Act. A few more changes were made in 2016 with a subsequent bill, adding even more barriers to low-income Kansans attempting to access safety net programs.

LPA presented its audit findings during a Legislative Post Audit Committee hearing in September 2024.

For question 1, the audit provided the following findings:

• TANF spending has decreased by about 39% since 2009.
  
  
• Cash assistance caseloads have decreased 77% since 2009.
  
  
• Monthly aid per person has remained steady since 2009 at $111, but the spending power of that $111 has decreased by 30% due to inflation.
  
  
• Income eligibility requirements have not been updated since 1997 and have not been adjusted to inflation, making it harder for families to qualify.

For question 2, the audit provided the following findings:

• The research suggested TANF rules like those in Kansas lead to mostly negative program outcomes for TANF families.
  
  
• The research also suggests TANF rules that reduce TANF caseloads, such as time limits less than the federal ceiling of 60 months, negatively impact measures of well-being for families and children. LPA highlighted several studies they reviewed during their audit that led them to their conclusion:
  
  
  • One national study suggested rules that limit TANF caseloads are associated with increased child maltreatment cases and foster care placements.
    
    
  • DCF officials have reported an increase of out-of-home foster care placements in Kansas, from 5,317 in 2009 to 7,484 in 2019.
    
    
  • Another national study suggests that TANF caseload reduction is associated with public school student homelessness and food insecurity in families, especially those headed by single mothers living independently with their children.
    
    
  • One study suggested negative outcomes, such as eviction and food insecurity for mothers of infants, who were unable to meet the requirements.
    
    
  • One study suggests TANF recipients who experienced sanctions had lower earnings up to a year after receiving the sanction compared to those who were not sanctioned.

Committee Comments

After LPA finished its presentation, legislators had a robust conversation about all the hoops Kansans must jump through to not lose access to benefits. Specifically, there was discussion about program participants being forced to take off work to meet with their caseworkers in order to comply with program requirements.

One legislator noted that Kansas has a system that doesn’t encourage functional employment, saying “if you need benefits and you’re trying to work at the same time, we’re going to make your life very, very complicated.” Another legislator was visibly frustrated with the way the current system works when he commented “we have people out there who we’re trying to train to work, and we’re making them leave work to come tell us they’re working? It makes no sense.” DCF responded to the comment, confirming that such a scenario is possible under the current rules.

Several legislators said they’d like to see more TANF money going directly to people who needed it and questioned Kansas’ unallocated TANF balance, which was more than $60 million in 2022. One legislator articulated a preference to spend TANF money on direct cash assistance instead of on programming, stating, “If we’re going to help people, we should help people rather than build institutions and programs.” Others wondered why 14% of the budget goes to administration costs. One legislator answered that question by pointing to external evidence indicating that means testing increases administrative costs, commenting “the more hurdles we create for people to access the funds, the higher the administrative costs will be.”

Another topic of discussion was the income eligibility threshold, which has not been updated since 1997. As it stands today, Kansans must make less than $326 per month to qualify for TANF. More Kansans would become eligible if that metric were adjusted for inflation. DCF expressed interest in adjusting the threshold and said they were looking into it. There was some concern that increasing the eligibility threshold would require money to be pulled from other programs, but that likely would not be necessary since DCF is sitting on a sizeable unallocated balance.

Conclusion

To summarize, LPA found that far fewer Kansas families are able to access the federal TANF safety net program, and that those who are still eligible are receiving less assistance than they did before the changes were made.

When the HOPE Act passed, Kansas Action for Children was vocal in its concern that cutting off critical lifelines to Kansas’ most economically fragile children would perpetuate poverty. LPA’s findings validate the concerns we raised nine years ago.

The 77% drop in caseloads does not mean that the need has declined; rather, it is a reflection of the barriers that have been erected to lock Kansans out of these necessary programs. During a time of rising costs, it is essential that the Legislature reverse the harmful changes implemented through the HOPE Act and provide vital resources to struggling Kansas families.

Download a print-friendly version of this here.

< Back to the news list