Problem
After fixing TANF resource inputs and re-profiling full-takeup caseloads against FY2024 ACF targets, the remaining worst states are structural TANF eligibility misses rather than takeup-prior issues:
- Oregon modeled average monthly TANF recipients:
0 vs admin target 18,196
- Kansas modeled average monthly TANF recipients:
0 vs admin target 2,933
- Maryland modeled average monthly TANF recipients:
4,852 vs admin target 12,919
- New York modeled average monthly TANF recipients:
97,049 vs admin target 128,335
DC was separately fixed by removing work-requirement compliance as an upfront TANF eligibility gate; that brought DC from 0 to 4,852 vs admin 5,056.
Findings
1. TANF is being screened on SPM-unit structure rather than narrower TANF need-group / assistance-unit concepts
Oregon is the clearest example. In the CPS baseline:
- Oregon weighted demographic-eligible TANF units:
354,227
- Oregon weighted income-eligible TANF units:
126,163
- Oregon weighted top-level eligible TANF units:
0
The demographic-eligible and income-eligible sets are disjoint. Income-eligible units are only size 1-2, while nearly all child-family TANF cases are size 3+.
This suggests current formulas are applying TANF income limits to whole SPM units, not a narrower need group / assistance unit.
2. TANF monthly income tests are using CPS annual-income constructs rather than a defensible application-month proxy
For Oregon demographic-eligible units, the weighted median current TANF countable income is on the order of $8k-$10k per month against TANF payment standards under $1k, which is implausibly high for a caseload program.
This is driven by feeding monthly TANF rules with annual CPS income constructs. A quick counterfactual using current-hours/current-wage proxies materially restores plausible Oregon eligibility counts, but a naive shared replacement was not stable enough to land yet.
3. Kansas gross-income screen remains binding after other screens
Kansas still has zero modeled recipients even though there are weighted units that pass demographic, resource, and net-income screens before the gross-income gate.
Next steps
- Add a TANF-specific current-month earned-income proxy for CPS baseline construction or in-model TANF screening.
- Audit TANF formulas that should use assistance-unit / need-group structure rather than raw SPM-unit size and income.
- Re-profile implied state takeup rates after the above before introducing state-specific TANF takeup priors.
Context
This came out of the TANF calibration / asset hookup audit and ACF FY2024 caseload comparison.
Problem
After fixing TANF resource inputs and re-profiling full-takeup caseloads against FY2024 ACF targets, the remaining worst states are structural TANF eligibility misses rather than takeup-prior issues:
0vs admin target18,1960vs admin target2,9334,852vs admin target12,91997,049vs admin target128,335DC was separately fixed by removing work-requirement compliance as an upfront TANF eligibility gate; that brought DC from
0to4,852vs admin5,056.Findings
1. TANF is being screened on SPM-unit structure rather than narrower TANF need-group / assistance-unit concepts
Oregon is the clearest example. In the CPS baseline:
354,227126,1630The demographic-eligible and income-eligible sets are disjoint. Income-eligible units are only size 1-2, while nearly all child-family TANF cases are size 3+.
This suggests current formulas are applying TANF income limits to whole SPM units, not a narrower need group / assistance unit.
2. TANF monthly income tests are using CPS annual-income constructs rather than a defensible application-month proxy
For Oregon demographic-eligible units, the weighted median current TANF countable income is on the order of
$8k-$10kper month against TANF payment standards under$1k, which is implausibly high for a caseload program.This is driven by feeding monthly TANF rules with annual CPS income constructs. A quick counterfactual using current-hours/current-wage proxies materially restores plausible Oregon eligibility counts, but a naive shared replacement was not stable enough to land yet.
3. Kansas gross-income screen remains binding after other screens
Kansas still has zero modeled recipients even though there are weighted units that pass demographic, resource, and net-income screens before the gross-income gate.
Next steps
Context
This came out of the TANF calibration / asset hookup audit and ACF FY2024 caseload comparison.