Jobs and Opportunity with Benefits and Services (JOBS) for Success Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 1, 2025
Bottom line
The Jobs and Opportunity with Benefits and Services (JOBS) for Success Act of 2025 reauthorizes TANF while fundamentally restructuring its work requirements, accountability metrics, and allowable uses of funds to emphasize employment outcomes and program integrity.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through fiscal year 2030, introducing significant reforms. It shifts the program's accountability from work participation rates to outcome-based measures, mandates universal engagement in work activities with individual opportunity plans, and tightens eligibility by prohibiting assistance to families with incomes exceeding twice the poverty line. The bill also restricts administrative spending, prohibits direct TANF funds for child care services, and applies improper payments laws to state TANF programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill strengthens TANF by focusing on measurable employment outcomes, promoting self-sufficiency, and ensuring that federal funds are used efficiently and effectively to move individuals into unsubsidized employment. They contend that universal engagement and individual opportunity plans will provide tailored support, while stricter eligibility and administrative limits will prevent misuse of funds and target resources to the truly needy. The application of improper payments laws is seen as a crucial step to enhance program integrity and accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill's stricter work requirements and income limits could create barriers for vulnerable families, potentially increasing hardship and child poverty rather than reducing it. They may argue that prohibiting direct child care spending from TANF funds, even with transfer authority, could exacerbate child care shortages and make it harder for parents to work. Critics could also express concern that the new outcome measures might incentivize states to 'cream' easier-to-employ clients or prematurely exit families from assistance, rather than serving those with the greatest barriers to employment.
The bill is moderately complex due to its numerous amendments to existing law and introduction of new programmatic and accountability frameworks, requiring a dedicated read to understand its full implications.
Section 4
Reauthorization of TANF Grants
This section reauthorizes the core funding streams for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It extends family assistance grants, healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grants, tribal grants, and grants to U.S. territories through fiscal years 2026 to 2030. This ensures the continuation of federal financial support for state and tribal welfare programs for another five years.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that reauthorizing TANF funding is essential to provide a stable safety net for needy families and support state efforts to promote self-sufficiency. They emphasize the importance of continued investment in programs that help families achieve economic independence.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the general reauthorization of TANF funding, though debates often arise regarding the specific reforms or conditions attached to that funding.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between ensuring continued funding for a vital program and implementing reforms that address perceived shortcomings or align with evolving policy priorities.
Section 5
Universal Engagement and Case Management
This section mandates that states implement 'Individual Opportunity Plans' for all work-eligible individuals receiving TANF assistance. These plans, developed in consultation with the individual, must include a personal responsibility agreement, work activity obligations, an employment goal, and descriptions of state-provided services. States must assess individuals' skills and barriers to work, and review plans every 90 days. Non-compliance by individuals can result in a pro-rata reduction of assistance.
Section 6
Promoting Accountability by Measuring Work Outcomes
This section overhauls TANF's accountability system, replacing the existing work participation rates with new outcome-based measures. States will now be evaluated on the percentage of employment exits, retention in unsubsidized employment, median earnings, and high school attainment for young adults. The Secretary of HHS will negotiate performance levels with states, using a statistical adjustment model to account for economic conditions and participant characteristics. States failing to meet these outcomes will face penalties, and their performance will be publicly displayed on an HHS online dashboard.
Section 7
Targeting Funds to Truly Needy Families and Core Purposes
This section introduces several restrictions on how states can use TANF funds. It prohibits providing assistance or services to families whose monthly income exceeds twice the poverty line. It reduces the cap on administrative activities from 15% to 10% of the grant, with exceptions for information technology and case management. Additionally, it explicitly prohibits states from using TANF grants for direct spending on child care services or early childhood education programs. However, it expands states' authority to transfer up to 50% of their TANF grants to the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990 or Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
Section 8
Requirement for Core Activities Spending
This section mandates that states dedicate a significant portion of their TANF funding to activities directly related to employment and self-sufficiency. Specifically, states must expend not less than 25% of their federal TANF grant and not less than 25% of their 'qualified State expenditures' (state maintenance-of-effort funds) on 'core activities.' These core activities include work supports, education and training, apprenticeships, non-recurring short-term benefits, work activities (as defined in Section 407(d)), and case management necessary for individual opportunity plans.
Section 9
Strengthening Program Integrity by Measuring Improper Payments
This section extends federal improper payments laws to state TANF programs. It mandates that the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 apply to states in the same manner as they apply to federal agencies. Within two years of enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is required to prescribe regulations governing how states review and report improper payments under their TANF programs. Additionally, HHS must submit a plan to Congress within one year to reduce or eliminate improper payments within 10 years.
Section 11
Inclusion of Poverty Reduction as a Program Purpose
This section amends the stated purposes of the TANF program. It adds a fifth purpose: 'reduce child poverty by increasing employment entry, retention, and advancement of needy parents.' This explicitly integrates child poverty reduction, specifically through parental employment, into the core objectives of the TANF program.
Section 12
Strengthening Accountability Through HHS Approval of State Plans
This section requires states to submit 2-year TANF plans to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) for approval, rather than merely being 'found' to meet requirements. These plans must detail how states will implement work requirements, case management practices, proposed performance levels, coordination with other programs (including WIOA), improper payments compliance, and efforts to promote marriage and provide transitional benefits. HHS will make these approved plans publicly available online. States also have the option to submit a combined TANF and WIOA state plan.
Section 16
Prohibition on Welfare for Needs Not Weed
This section expands the existing prohibitions on where TANF funds can be used. It adds 'any establishment that offers marihuana (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) for sale' to the list of places where TANF funds cannot be accessed or used. This means TANF benefits, such as Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, cannot be used at marijuana dispensaries.
Allows states to adopt an alternative definition of 'exit' for TANF recipients to align with workforce programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), provided the state has not opted out of making TANF a mandatory one-stop partner under WIOA.
Section 6(f)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for providing state-specific options or exceptions within broader federal mandates. It offers flexibility to states that have already integrated their workforce systems.
Case for: Supporters argue this flexibility promotes better coordination and reduces administrative burden for states that have already aligned their TANF and WIOA programs, leading to more streamlined services for individuals seeking employment.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing alternative definitions could complicate nationwide comparability of data, potentially undermining the goal of consistent performance measurement across states, especially if not all states adopt the same approach.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for states that choose to exercise this option, as it could simplify data collection and reporting for integrated workforce systems, affecting thousands of individuals transitioning from TANF to employment.
Specifies conditions for funds transferred from TANF to Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). These funds must be used to support individuals eligible for TANF assistance, and no more than 15% can be reserved for statewide workforce investment activities.
Section 7(d)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to ensure that transferred funds retain some connection to their original purpose and are not entirely fungible, while also setting limits on administrative or overhead spending.
Case for: Proponents argue these conditions ensure that transferred TANF funds continue to serve low-income individuals and are primarily directed towards direct services rather than excessive statewide administrative costs within the WIOA framework.
Case against: Critics might argue that the 15% cap on statewide activities could limit states' ability to invest in essential system-wide improvements, data infrastructure, or technical assistance that could ultimately benefit more individuals.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for states that transfer large portions of their TANF funds to WIOA, as it dictates how those funds can be allocated and ensures they remain targeted to TANF-eligible populations.
Modifies the Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) requirement for states by specifying that expenditures for families whose monthly income exceeds twice the poverty line are excluded from the calculation of qualified State expenditures. It also refines what counts as MOE spending by adding expenditures for purposes described in paragraphs (3), (4), or (5) of section 401(a).
Section 18(j)
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to align the MOE calculation with the new income eligibility limits and program purposes, a common practice in legislative drafting to ensure consistency across different parts of the law.
Case for: Proponents argue that this modification ensures state MOE funds are also targeted to the 'truly needy' (below 200% poverty line) and align with the core purposes of the reformed TANF program, promoting greater efficiency and focus.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding expenditures for families above 200% of the poverty line from MOE calculations could reduce states' flexibility to serve a broader range of low-income families who may still require support to avoid falling into deeper poverty. It could also complicate state accounting.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for states, as it could alter the composition of their MOE spending and require adjustments to how they track and report these expenditures, potentially impacting millions of dollars in state funds.