Jobs and Opportunity with Benefits and Services (JOBS) for Success Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-16]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 1, 2025
Bottom line
This bill significantly reforms the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by increasing work requirements, enhancing accountability, and restricting how states can use federal funds, aiming to move more recipients into unsubsidized employment.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through fiscal year 2030 and introduces significant reforms. It mandates universal engagement in work activities, establishes new outcome-based performance measures for states, and requires individualized opportunity plans for recipients. The bill also restricts the use of TANF funds for families above 200% of the poverty line and for direct child care services, while reducing the administrative spending cap for states and applying federal improper payments laws to state TANF programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill strengthens TANF by focusing on employment outcomes, ensuring accountability for taxpayer dollars, and directing resources to those most in need, thereby reducing dependency and promoting self-sufficiency. They believe it will streamline program administration and improve the effectiveness of welfare-to-work initiatives.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill's stricter work requirements and reduced flexibility for states could harm vulnerable families, particularly during economic downturns, by making it harder to access essential support. They might also contend that prohibiting direct child care spending and limiting administrative funds could undermine comprehensive support for families seeking employment.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand the numerous amendments to existing Social Security Act provisions. The estimated reading time of 30-45 minutes is reasonable for an informed reader to grasp its implications.
Sec. 4(a)-(d)
Reauthorization of TANF and Related Grants
This section extends the authorization for federal funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, as well as grants for healthy marriage promotion, responsible fatherhood, and assistance to tribal communities and U.S. territories. These programs are reauthorized for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, ensuring continued federal support for welfare and related social services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that reauthorization ensures stability for critical programs that help families achieve self-sufficiency and promote family well-being. It provides states and territories with the certainty needed for long-term planning and service delivery.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against routine reauthorization of core programs, though debates often arise over the terms and conditions of such reauthorizations.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between ensuring continued funding for essential services and the desire to reform the program's structure and accountability, which is addressed in other sections of the bill.
Sec. 5
Universal Engagement and Individual Opportunity Plans
This section mandates that states assess each work-eligible individual receiving TANF assistance to create a personalized "Individual Opportunity Plan." These plans outline work activities, employment goals, and support services, requiring recipients to sign a personal responsibility agreement. States must ensure all work-eligible recipients engage in work activities, with penalties for non-compliance, and conduct quarterly reviews of these plans.
Sec. 6
New Work Outcome Measures and Accountability System
This section overhauls how states are held accountable for welfare-to-work efforts. It replaces traditional work participation rates with new "work outcome" measures focused on actual employment and earnings after leaving the program. States will be evaluated on indicators like the percentage of individuals in unsubsidized employment, their median earnings, and high school attainment for young adults, with performance levels negotiated with the federal government and adjusted for local conditions. It also clarifies work activities to include apprenticeships and career technical education, and mandates public reporting of state performance.
Sec. 7
Restrictions on Fund Use and Transfer Authority
This section imposes several new restrictions on how states can use TANF funds. It prohibits providing assistance to families whose income exceeds 200% of the poverty line and bans direct spending on child care services, effectively redirecting child care support to other programs. It also reduces the amount states can spend on administrative activities from 15% to 10% but allows for greater flexibility in transferring up to 50% of TANF funds to the Child Care and Development Block Grant or Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs.
Sec. 8
Mandated Spending on Core Activities
This section requires states to dedicate a significant portion of both their federal TANF grants and their own matching funds (known as "qualified State expenditures") to a defined set of "core activities." These activities include work supports, education and training, apprenticeships, short-term benefits, work activities, and case management. The mandate is that at least 25% of both federal and state funds must be spent on these direct employment-focused services.
Sec. 9
Improper Payments Accountability
This section extends federal improper payments laws, typically applied to federal agencies, to state-administered TANF programs. This means states will be required to measure, report, and work to reduce erroneous payments within their TANF systems. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is tasked with developing regulations for this process and submitting a plan to Congress to eliminate improper payments within a decade.
Sec. 10
Non-Supplantation Requirement
This section explicitly prohibits states from using federal TANF funds to replace money they would have otherwise spent from their own general revenues on welfare-related activities. Instead, federal funds must be used to add to, or supplement, existing state spending, ensuring that federal aid expands services rather than simply offsetting state budget obligations.
Sec. 11
New Program Purpose: Child Poverty Reduction
This section expands the stated goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to explicitly include reducing child poverty. This new purpose emphasizes achieving this goal by helping needy parents find jobs, keep them, and advance in their careers, aligning the program's objectives more directly with employment and economic mobility.
Sec. 12
Enhanced State Plan Requirements and HHS Approval
This section significantly increases federal oversight of state TANF programs by requiring the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to formally approve state plans, rather than just "finding" them. State plans must now detail how they will implement new work requirements, case management, performance goals, and coordination with other workforce programs. They also need to describe strategies for engaging noncustodial parents, promoting marriage, and offering transitional benefits. HHS will make these plans public and provide technical assistance to states, including disseminating research on effective practices.
Sec. 13
Enhanced Data Reporting Requirements
This section significantly expands and refines the data that states must report to the federal government about their TANF programs. Instead of reporting on a sample, states will now need to provide data on their entire recipient population. This includes detailed information on each individual's work eligibility status, the exact number of hours they participate in work activities (even zero hours), and the reasons for any non-participation. This enhanced data collection is crucial for calculating the new employment and earnings outcome measures introduced in the bill.
Sec. 15
State Reserve for Economic Downturns
This section allows states to save a portion of their federal TANF funds for future use, specifically up to 15% of their annual grant, without a time limit on when those funds must be spent. This flexibility is intended to allow states to build reserves that can be used to respond to increased needs during economic downturns or other emergencies, provided they notify the Department of Health and Human Services of their intent to reserve funds.
Sec. 16
Prohibition on Use of Funds at Marijuana Establishments
This section adds a new restriction preventing the use of federal TANF funds at any business that sells marijuana. This means that cash assistance or other benefits provided through TANF cannot be spent at dispensaries or other establishments involved in the sale of cannabis, even in states where marijuana is legal.
Sec. 18
Elimination of Obsolete Provisions and Conforming Amendments
This section streamlines the Social Security Act by repealing several outdated or inactive provisions related to the TANF program. These include supplemental grants, performance bonuses, welfare-to-work grants, and federal loan programs for states. It also removes associated penalties and reporting requirements, and makes numerous technical corrections to align cross-references and definitions with the updated law.
Allows states that have integrated their TANF program with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) one-stop partner system to adopt an alternative definition of "exit" to align with WIOA's common exit measures.
Section 407(a)(2)(F) (as amended by Sec. 6(a))
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for providing state flexibility within a complex federal framework, but it's a detail that could be missed.
Case for: Proponents argue this promotes better coordination and efficiency between TANF and WIOA programs, reducing administrative burden for states that choose to integrate.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing alternative definitions could complicate nationwide comparability of data, even if it improves state-level alignment.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for states choosing to integrate, streamlining data collection and reporting for workforce development programs.
Changes the heading of Section 412(c) of the Social Security Act from "Minimum Work Participation Requirements" to "Requirements for Work Outcome Measures."
Section 6(g)
Why it matters:This is a purely technical, conforming change to reflect the new policy direction of the bill, not an attempt to hide policy.
Case for: Proponents argue it accurately reflects the shift in accountability from participation rates to outcome measures, improving clarity of the statute.
Case against: No specific opposition.
Estimated impact: Minimal direct impact, but symbolically reinforces the bill's core policy shift.
Establishes a new penalty for states that fail to comply with the reduced 10% administrative spending limit, allowing the Secretary to reduce the state's grant by up to 5%.
Section 409(a)(17) (as amended by Sec. 7(b)(2)(B))
Why it matters:This is a standard enforcement mechanism for a new spending limit, but the specific penalty amount and mechanism might be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue this penalty ensures states adhere to the new, stricter administrative spending limits, directing more funds to direct services.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 5% penalty could disproportionately impact states struggling with administrative capacity, especially given the new reporting and case management requirements.
Estimated impact: Could result in significant financial penalties for states that fail to adapt their administrative spending.
Amends the definition of "qualified State expenditures" (MOE) for the maintenance-of-effort requirement. Specifically, it clarifies that MOE calculations should focus on the "State program funded under this part" and excludes expenditures for families whose monthly income exceeds twice the poverty line. It also adds expenditures for purposes described in paragraphs (3), (4), or (5) of section 401(a) (including the new child poverty reduction purpose) to the MOE calculation.
Section 409(a)(6)(B)(i) (as redesignated by Sec. 18(j))
Why it matters:This is a highly technical but substantively important change to how states calculate their required matching funds, which is often complex legislative drafting.
Case for: Proponents argue these changes ensure MOE calculations accurately reflect state spending on core TANF purposes and align with the new income eligibility limits, preventing states from counting spending on higher-income families towards their MOE.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding expenditures for families above 200% FPL from MOE calculations could disincentivize states from providing services to these families, even if they are still struggling.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter how states calculate and meet their MOE requirements, potentially requiring states to re-evaluate their spending on TANF-related programs.