Ask the Scholar
Page 4 of 104
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
2
Options:
As requested, this paper identifies a variety of possible approaches to limit the ability of
States to use Federal TANF funds to replace previous State expenditures for low-income
families. The paper illustrates some of these options, and highlights some key advantages
and disadvantages.
1. General Non-Supplantation Provision
The most common method tried in the past has been a general legislative prohibition
against using Federal funds to replace existing (as established by a baseline year) State or
local expenditures for similar programs, purposes or activities. The TANF "new
spending" test for maintenance of effort funds and the non-supplantation provision in the
former JOBS program are examples of this approach.
Pros:
Clear straightforward statement of intent.
Enhances State human service agency ability to address needs.
Preventive in nature.
Cons:
Somewhat burdensome to collect baseline data (especially local), monitor
expenditures by "program" or "activity" and enforce.
May limit flexibility and change.
May be "gamed" by modifying programs/activities
May discourage responsiveness to family needs, especially in States with less
record-keeping capacity
Attachment B illustrates the draft legislative options that have been suggested for this
approach by congressional staff, by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)
and an option based on the JOBS legislative language. To be explicit about what happens
if a State violates the non-supplantation provision, the consequences could be outlined as
in the potential penalty language included in the attachment.
2. Explicit Prohibitions/Limitations on the Use of Federal Funds
Another approach is to focus on the use of Federal funds for specific programs, benefits
or activity uses that are believed to lend themselves to supplantation and to constrain the
use of funds for these purposes either through an absolute ban or limitation (described
here) or a cap (see below). For example:
Existing tax credits might be seen as prone to supplantation. To eliminate that
possibility, Section 404(a) could be amended to prohibit the use of Federal funds for
all tax credits, or tax credits other than State EITC, or State homestead tax credits. As
long as these prohibited programs meet a TANF purpose, a State may continue to
Page data
- Page
- 4
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- a9486467e777ab2d
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 565376738
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "565376738",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 104,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "565376738",
"label": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "565376738",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] Supplantation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 104,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565376738",
"naId": 565376738,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 4,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-025-005-2025-004.jpg",
"mediaId": "a9486467e777ab2d",
"ocrText": "2\nOptions:\nAs requested, this paper identifies a variety of possible approaches to limit the ability of\nStates to use Federal TANF funds to replace previous State expenditures for low-income\nfamilies. The paper illustrates some of these options, and highlights some key advantages\nand disadvantages.\n1. General Non-Supplantation Provision\nThe most common method tried in the past has been a general legislative prohibition\nagainst using Federal funds to replace existing (as established by a baseline year) State or\nlocal expenditures for similar programs, purposes or activities. The TANF \"new\nspending\" test for maintenance of effort funds and the non-supplantation provision in the\nformer JOBS program are examples of this approach.\nPros:\nClear straightforward statement of intent.\nEnhances State human service agency ability to address needs.\nPreventive in nature.\nCons:\nSomewhat burdensome to collect baseline data (especially local), monitor\nexpenditures by \"program\" or \"activity\" and enforce.\nMay limit flexibility and change.\nMay be \"gamed\" by modifying programs/activities\nMay discourage responsiveness to family needs, especially in States with less\nrecord-keeping capacity\nAttachment B illustrates the draft legislative options that have been suggested for this\napproach by congressional staff, by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)\nand an option based on the JOBS legislative language. To be explicit about what happens\nif a State violates the non-supplantation provision, the consequences could be outlined as\nin the potential penalty language included in the attachment.\n2. Explicit Prohibitions/Limitations on the Use of Federal Funds\nAnother approach is to focus on the use of Federal funds for specific programs, benefits\nor activity uses that are believed to lend themselves to supplantation and to constrain the\nuse of funds for these purposes either through an absolute ban or limitation (described\nhere) or a cap (see below). For example:\nExisting tax credits might be seen as prone to supplantation. To eliminate that\npossibility, Section 404(a) could be amended to prohibit the use of Federal funds for\nall tax credits, or tax credits other than State EITC, or State homestead tax credits. As\nlong as these prohibited programs meet a TANF purpose, a State may continue to"
}