Running Header: Emergency Fund Emergency fund Introduction Program Instruction TANF-ACF-PI-2010-06 was first published in August 18, 2010, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) as an outlined process for funding Emergency Fund Applications. At this time, the request application for funds was over $5 billion as per American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. According to assessment done, out of all the $5 billion applications, only a small percentage qualified. This was an implication that by September 30, 2010, they could have responded to all this applications but not every application received will receive finances. It was assumed that there was likelihood that some jurisdictions will return some amounts of money especially where there were overestimations in the applications. In this Program Instruction, provided instruction on the deadline for final emergency fund data and also provides guidelines on how to put expenditures together and the criterion for setting reward amounts. It is through the guidelines provided in this program that individuals get to know how excess monies returned from jurisdiction overestimation are redistributed. This is done in such a way that all jurisdictions are treated the same. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 can be termed as a Recovery Act which signed in to law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. It was one of the strategies to improve the American economy, through creating or saving million jobs, and address the challenges facing the country which have long been neglected. It is an Act which is considered unique in the way that it provides strategies which can be used to improve the country’s infrastructure, improve energy independence, increase opportunities to get education, improve the condition of health care, ensure reduction in tax load, and help less fortunate individuals. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provide $220,000,000 for IBWC which will be used to improve water quality programs in the area. The funds were readily available to be used all the way to September 30, 2010 and will specifically be utilized to improve infrastructure especially in the 510 miles flood control levees for the Rio Grande Flood Control System. TANF Emergency Fund TANF Emergency Fund was established by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with the aim of helping states in times of low economic status. It specifically targeted those states whose expenditure had increased. They considered states that had increased their expenditure in terms of assisting the poor, short term non recurrent benefits or those which had subsidized their level of employment during FYs 2009 and 2010. They were able to receive compensations of around 80% to cater for the increments they incurred. TANF Emergency Fund came to an end on September 30, 2010. At this point, all the states had received all $5 billion which they were officially supposed to receive. As at September 30, 2010 all the funds were exhausted. TANF Emergency Fund was a very helpful aspect especially to vulnerable and low income families. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a program which was meant to help needy families where the officially recognized beneficiaries were moved in to work and ultimately change the program to a program of temporary assistance. These families were supposed to receive funds for their assistance as a temporary measure of improving their up keep. Although this program came to an end, there are suggestions that it should continue because there are still too many families who stay in poverty due to unemployment. It was formed under the welfare reform legislation of 1996 where TANF was meant to take the place of the previously used welfare programs. The previous welfare programs included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program. All these programs were based on Federal forms of assistant. These were replaced by TANF which is basically gives assistance to individuals in states, territories, and tribes. TANF is charged with the responsibility giving Federal funds to needy individuals each year. The Federal funds provided are supposed to benefit the poor and the needy families. After the funds are given, each state is independent and has the responsibility of implementing their welfare programs. TANF can give monetary assistance or give job opportunities to poor and needy families. TANF is termed as a temporary program because it gives individuals jobs hence they can work and get income to sustain their families. Individuals though from poor and needy families do not have to depend on this program forever. There comes a time when they become independent. TANF program was reauthorized by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 through fiscal year 2010. In this reauthorization, a lot of emphasizes was work, program integrity and strengthening families. Families were to be strengthened by ensuring that individuals are responsible in their marriages and faithful and respectful to one another. In addition to these changes, by Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, there were other changes made by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act introduced Emergency Contingency Fund which could be used by TANF programs. Emergency Contingency Fund was to provide non-recurrent short term payments, basic assistance and subsidized employment to homeless families across different states to empower them in order to improve their lives. The Emergency contingency fund stated that, states with increased cash welfare caseloads under TANF or those programs that were funded with TANF were eligible for grants from the fund. This policy encouraged states to show increased expenditures for them to receive more funding because the TANF expenditure was a reflection of what the states contributed. The fund further compensated states for 80% of increased expenditures on assistance to TANF such as short term non-current benefits and subsidized employment while separate state programs were compensated up to 25% of the expenditure. This helped reduce the poverty level in many states since there was proper planning of addressing poverty issues. Through the funds families were provided with enough support in their work activities so as to reduce economic disadvantage in their homes. However, for proper accountability of the TANF emergency funds some advocacy was required so that resources could be maximized to benefit those families that were experiencing homelessness in their states. The role of the advocates was to identify key decision makers at the state level and also at the local level. There was also the need for stakeholders to be educated about the needs of homeless families and the possibilities of collaboration between TANF agencies and service providers to homeless families so as to serve vulnerable families. The provisions of non-recurrent and short term benefits according to the U.S. department of health and human service stated that the expenditures; were not to exceed a four months period, they were to be used for specific and intended purpose therefore the current and ongoing needs were to be left out of the funds. Non-recurrent and short term benefits are meant to achieve the three criteria, whereby short term benefits are designed to address crisis needs within a period of four months. However, the provision of short term benefits should not prevent families from receiving TANF financial assistance. These resources were for long been used by states and local jurisdictions under the TANF program in addressing vulnerable family like utility bills, emergency shelter and provision of short term rental assistance. Emergency contingency funds provided greatly needed fiscal relief to those states and jurisdictions that recorded an increase in demand for shelter, provided that it was paid for with the TANF resources. States and local jurisdictions were therefore encouraged to use resources that could help stabilize families in their own housing and communities through homelessness prevention and building of new houses. It is important for states and local agencies to often review their rules on the eligibility when it comes to financial assistance to prevent more homelessness cases by serving those families that are on the risk of loosing their homes. In most cases of emergency contingency funds, short term benefits are used to provide families with diversionary assistance and the TANF cash assistance is exempted from the other forms of assistance. However, some families rely on employment to meet their needs rather than receive cash assistance since they want to develop a culture of working and not always receiving. The reasoning behind it is that when one is working cash is always assured unlike when one is receiving whereby you may sometimes fail to receive the expected cash. Other support needs can be addressed through enrollment into the TANF programs where vulnerable families should be highly encouraged to join so as to receive assistance. Many families who benefit from the TANF Emergency contingency funds are subject to a number of rules among them time limits on funded benefits and a requirement to participate in working activities so that they can improve their lives. The TANF is a block grant but there are connections to the way different states’ use their funds especially to those families receive essential cash welfare. The states must work towards achieving the TANF standards or risk been penalized by a reduction in their block grants. According to the law, the set standards stipulate that it is a must for 50% of all families and 90% of two parents to participate in the law, although the statutory standards are reduced for declines in cash welfare caseload. Federal TANF is not applicable to families that have adults who have received assistance of the funds for more than 60 years. TANF is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services at the federal level although its services are provided by the state. Emergency funds grants fall under Federal TANF funds and they are available until they are expended. There are four TANF grants found in a state i.e. basic block, supplemental and two contingency grants. In addition states are required to spend some of their funds only on TANF related activities for families with needy children. In section 404 of the Emergency Contingency fund, it is mandatory for jurisdictions to use the funds according to how the Act states. However this does not include the authority to transfer emergency funds to Child Care and Development Block Grant, or Social Services Block Grant. This is because the transfer authority limits grants made under section 403(a) of the Act. Section 404(e) of the Act authorizes jurisdictions to carry over their emergency funds for use in a succeeding fiscal year, while the amount of funding the jurisdiction is allowed to receive for a period of two years is clearly imposed in a cumulative cap under section 403 (c)(5) of the Act. These rules help in the appropriate use of jurisdictions Federal TANF block grants which are also applied when using emergency funds. When applying for emergency funding, states and tribes are required to submit their estimated expenditures and caseloads whereby at the end of each fiscal year their submitted estimates are combined with actual expenditure data to ensure that the jurisdictions received proper funding. Jurisdictions are also required to report all their expenditures of emergency funding on quarterly basis and the amount in expenditures are reviewed at the end of each year. This enhances efficiency and transparency in the use of funds since the requirements in TANF also apply to families receiving assistance with the emergency contingency fund. Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (HPRP) is an initiative that offers resources to local jurisdictions and states for the purposes of shelter diversion, prevention of homelessness and re-housing of families. Coordination between TANF agencies and organizations implementing the HPRP initiative is highly encouraged since it would maximize the use of resources and enhance efficiency. Local jurisdictions can use the resources from HPRP to provide short term and medium term rental assistance to ensure that families stabilize in terms of their housing and lifestyles. This can best be implemented in small towns or in rural areas by the TANF agencies where re-housing of the communities can be done to prevent homelessness. The main aim of TANF block grant was to provide assistance to those families that were challenged financially therefore empowering them with cash assistance. Although the benefits level varied in different states, it appeared that cash assistance compromised with the house hold income therefore bringing the difference in homelessness and great housing stability. This resulted to a decline in the number of families receiving cash assistance through Emergency contingency fund nationally since the enactment of the TANF. Recession is an economic depression whereby there is a decline in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters thus resulting into unemployment and an increase in food prices. We have seen nations struggling with their economies as a result of major sectors of their economies been affected by recession and therefore finding it difficult to provide basic necessities to their people. It is for these reasons that some analyst strongly criticized the TANF program in times of recession thus questioning its ability to withstand the tough times. In times of recession there was an increase in the number of families seeking assistance from emergency funds in order to cope with the harsh economic conditions. It was out of the difficult times that the TANF emergency contingency fund was formed, so as to allow states to support vulnerable families in their states who were in dire need of cash assistance, while at the same time reducing the financial toll of the states as the states were only allowed to pay 20 cent on the dollar for any assistance provided. In response to the economic recession which begun in 2007, several additional changes were made from the Recovery Act, although they did not affect the federal work rule required. For full implementation of the TANF emergency fund, states were asked to actively identify, outreach and enroll those families that were eligible for TANF cash assistance and work support. The resources available were then given out to vulnerable families after identifying their food stamp caseloads and unemployment. Coordination between local TANF agencies and homeless service programs was highly encouraged by advocates and policymakers to facilitate a quick enrollment of homeless families and for them to get assistance from the TANF. This policy helped states to be organized, save time and also prevent more cases of homelessness since they were able to keenly observe their environments. In some cases needy families were not eligible for TANF cash assistance despite their vulnerable conditions due to issues such as sanctions imposed on them. However, those homeless families received an in-depth assessment of barriers, while other ways were developed to help those families through assistance from the less challenged families. In ensuring that TANF remained true to its vision and mission of assisting homeless families, it was required that homeless service providers and advocates were keenly monitored to enhance efficiency of the whole process. Since its formation in 2009 the TANF emergency contingency fund has achieved three major things; it has helped cash-strapped states and jurisdictions in recording a rise in welfare caseloads. The welfare reforms have risen over time since they were passed in 1996 doubling unemployment rate for single mothers in 25 years, the fund has created over 240,000 jobs to low income parents and also it has provided help for onetime, non recurring expenses e.g. emergency moving cost for homeless families. Although a bill to extend TANF emergency contingency funds has been passed three times by the House of Representatives, it has never gone through the senate hence posing a great challenge. Various states modified their policies so as to encourage welfare and potential recipients to adopt behaviors that would make them to become more self-sufficient. This expanded the roles of welfare workers as they aimed at increasing the number of adults who participated in working activities. The responsibilities to the workers varied but it included tasks such as motivation of clients to seek more work, exploring the potential for welfare diversion and collection of information on recipients to determine their needs so as to facilitate their needs. Development of some states also influenced the way families addressed various issues such as employments since the state provided funding to the people thus empowering them. States were required to maintain significant portions of their historic financial commitments to welfare programs so as to support their people in future through the emergency contingency funds. Additional budgetary funds for state welfare programs were used by states to invest more on programs that would inspire people to get jobs and prevent them from returning to welfare while still making their saving. Most states believed that achieving self-sufficiency and job placement meant significant investment in social incentives. They states did not increase their cash benefit levels but rather they spent additional resources to provide jobs services, child care and other services that could help the people improve their lives. Policies related to self employment were reviewed in some states to encourage people to start up their own business and support themselves. Funding for these programs was reduced through higher level of federal funds and lower caseloads which were used by states to achieve budgetary savings and constitute higher levels of spending per recipients. Additional budgetary resources for vulnerable families’ assistance were made in a context of strong economies whereby these trends were expected to go on for a very short time due to the changes in economies. For sound fiscal planning to be realized, some dedication was required to reserve for contingencies and other future welfare. However, some states predicted of future economic downturns therefore coming up with factors in their decision making that could help them cope with the recession. A good example is the emergency contingency funds that were to be used to assist homeless families during the hard economic times. This could in turn help in reducing the number of poor families seeking assistance from the TANF funds since they could now venture into income generating activities to help themselves and their families. The inability of states and jurisdictions to provide TANF assistance to homeless families during recession was simply because of the depression in the economies of the states whereby the demand from the people increased due to lack of some basic commodities while the few that were available were unaffordable to the people since they were very expensive. The number of people asking for seeking employments rose due stand offs and retrenchments in companies by employers to workers. These challenges led to the state homeless service providers and the TANF program to determine ways of recouping shortfalls in funding in times when the demand for income services were unusually higher than normal so as to reduce unemployment rates in the states. Towards the end of the year 2010 the TANF emergency fund was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act therefore extending a temporary TANF block grant that included cuts in supplementary grants. It is appropriate for states to live within their budgets hence requiring the process reevaluation and prioritizing so as to avoid those mistakes that might cost the too much time and resources. The state should have a set of well organized policies that governs the people and work activities towards the growth of the economy in the state. In a caseload reduction credit there is the recovery package that includes options for state modification of the case loads establishing the target work participation that states must meet under the TANF. The emergency contingency fund been a temporary means of assisting needy families, and also authorizes states to carry over funds from previous years for any purposes of permissible spending. Any other funds accorded to states other than the contingency funds, were always available to the state until they were expended for the sole purpose of assisting TANF programs. Emergency contingency funds were only used for expenditures only in the fiscal year for which the funding is provided (42 USC 603(b) and 604(c). In claiming administrative costs, the state had several options when providing assistance with unobligated balances of the previous year. It charged administrative costs whilst providing assistance to previous year grants when the state had not expended 15 percent of the prior year’s administrative costs. A state can be penalized if it doesn’t meet its requirement of ensuring that at least 50 percent of all families receiving TANF cash assistance participate in one or 12 categories of working activities. Collection of data on caseload trends, state policies and the way in which different families are fairing can provide an insight how the TANF programs are working. However, a key accountability measure TANF is the work participation rates which appear to be achieving the intended purpose of encouraging states to engage specified proportions. States and jurisdictions made it easier to meet their required rates by taking advantage of the different programs were available to meet their required amounts. Due to significant drops in caseload size many states reduced their required work participation rates to zero which gave the states the option of using their emergency fund base instead of caseloads of the prior fiscal year. This ensured that states with rising caseloads did not see their target work participation rise since they were required to engage more families in their work activities. The emergency contingency fund also had provisions that provided states on how they could use their funds without transferring the funds to SSBG or the CCDBG. According to TANF, some families had limited hardship extensions depending on how those families complied with the work first requirements. Families which complied with their job search requirements were not granted extensions that exceeded 60 days. However, those families which had not found employment or the ones which were working but with minimal wages still qualified for the TANF. In addition to the hardship extension, some reduction eligibility for working connections child care was granted to families which earned 200% of the federal poverty line allowing them to qualify for subsidized child care. The families were eligible to receive and co-pay that increased in line with their increments in income. TANF programs provided exemptions from their requirements as needed, therefore protecting clients from domestic violence issues. This was done by ensuring that their services were accessible to their clients. Families were encouraged to work and it also placed time limits on when federal cash was to be received by those families therefore requiring cooperation from child support authorities. The program faced challenges of domestic violence simply because some victims of were not willing to report the cases hence making it difficult for some states to know of the happenings. Advocates of domestic violence victims explained how TANF clients thought that the TANF staff was believed to be government officials who were not to be trusted in keeping confidential information like domestic violence cases. Additionally addressing domestic violence cases was thought to be conflicting by some researchers on the main focus of ensuring that all the TANF clients became employed. The TANF programs had a variety of goals and the funds were used for several purposes including marriage programs and the formation and maintenance of two parent families. To fulfill this, several measures like education were to be achieved, while it was also suggested that some of the funds should go towards supporting father hood programs. State TANF programs played an important role in offering victims of domestic violence waivers through their programs hence helping them to obtain the services they needed. Regulations set in the Federal TANF allowed considerable flexibility to states regarding the conditions for their clients to obtain good cause domestic violence waivers. Some waivers were also tailored by states so as to fit a specific client’s circumstance which assisted the client’s to maximize their compliance on programs requirements. Some waivers which were granted to states were relatively small because some clients ventured into other ways while some complied with the programs requirement inspire of the situations they were going through. Additionally states were given greater responsibilities for welfare programs enhancing interest among welfare administrators and states policy makers about the conditions of those families which didn’t receive TANF. Federal law required families to assign their rights to child support to the states in order for them to be able to receive TANF benefits. Families were therefore required to cooperate with the state in establishing the paternity of a child who was born out of wedlock and also obtain the child’s support payments. To ascertain the identity of the child and obtain a child support order, the law required that it was first of all important to legally identify the father of the child. The federal law required TANF block grant to families as a condition of receiving and obtaining cash benefits. Stiff penalties were imposed to those families that did not cooperate with the requirements of the law as a way of encouraging people to acquire the funds. The law also aimed at reducing the number of homeless children who of been abandoned by their parents due to conflicts in the family. During the enactment of TANF block grant program, some child support advocates had made recommendations that the primary focus for paternity actions be shifted towards the maximization of involvement of more fathers in the paternity cases. According to some observers and researchers, it was believed that the best time to establish voluntary paternity was at the time when the child was born and that the probability of establishing paternity declined as the children grow. It was also established that the contact between a child and his unmarried parents diminished as the child aged. There was therefore the need to expand location capabilities to ease the work of CSE agencies trying to locate fathers of older children. Conclusion TANF programs have really helped a lot in reducing the poverty level in many states since many families have benefited from the program. It has also encouraged people to work hard and generate their own income rather than depending on been given all the time. Many states have learnt the idea of planning, and being prepared for disasters by borrowing the idea of emergency contingency funding. Therefore we should all be willing to assist our neighbors by way of encouraging them and empowering them through funding or otherwise so that they may improve their states. References National Conference of State Legislatures. (2009, February 10). New TANF Emergency Contingency. Retrieved June 6 20, 2011, from National Conference of State Legislatures.: NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNES. (2010, August 16). TANF Emergency Contingency Fund Extension. Retrieved 6 20, 2011, from National Alliance to End homelessness: National Center for Appropriate Technology. (2005). LIHEAP CLEARING HOUSE. Retrieved 6 20, 2011, from ncat.org: Schott, S. P. (2009, February 26). Overview of the TANF Provisions in the Economic Recovery Act. Retrieved 6 20, 2011, from Center on Budget and Policy Prioritie: Solomon-Fears, C. (2003). Paternity Establishment Child Support and Beyond. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers. United States Generak Accounting Office. (2001). Welfare reform,DATA available to Assess TANF’S Progress. WAshington D.C: Walter W. Herger.