Direct cash transfer programs are increasingly popular as an efficient, equitable way to quickly get cash into the hands of people who need it while giving recipients agency over how they spend their money. Though consensus is growing on the impacts of cash transfer, there are still no agreed-upon mechanisms for how to fund them. This issue is complicated by the fact that where program funds come from can affect a recipient's eligibility for other benefits and can trigger a “benefit cliff.” This blogpost examines funding mechanisms used in cash transfer programs in Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Los Angeles to understand how their respective funding models affect recipients’ benefits and outcomes.

This Annie E. Casey Foundation brief shares six pivotal strategies for coordinating and funding community efforts to support families at risk of entering the child welfare system: invest in infrastructure at the state and local levels, create funding structures that maximize prevention funds, support community-led planning and design, align programs at the state level to better serve families, invest in evaluation, and leverage private and local dedicated funding streams. Strategies presented in this brief include practices from Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Washington State, and the District of Columbia.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) conducted the 2021 National TANF Directors’ Meeting from September 20 - 24, 2021. During this concurrent workshop, presenters addressed the question, “does seamless necessarily mean inefficacy?” This workshop explored the timeliness of transforming PDF and paper-based processes into online services to support case management efforts. To advance the seamless experience, workshop attendees were introduced to intranet and web-based portals used to submit, process, and verify the online forms.

The Family Resource Simulator shows how earnings, benefits, and expenses interact as circumstances change. It makes “what if” scenarios visible in a way that is difficult to capture through conversation alone. In Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) settings, the simulator can support planning discussions by helping families see how small changes in work hours, income, or benefits affect overall stability.

The National Center for Children in Poverty’s Basic Needs Budget Calculator breaks down what it actually costs to meet essential needs like housing, food, childcare, and transportation. It highlights gaps between wages, benefits, and real household expenses. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) practitioners can use it to support budgeting work that feels concrete and locally relevant, helping families understand what stability requires in practical terms.

Research from SmartAsset explores what it takes financially for one parent to stay home and the other to support the household. It adds context to the tradeoffs families face when making caregiving and work decisions. Within Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) services, it can support more realistic financial planning discussions and help families think through how income choices affect stability, caregiving roles, and long-term goals.

The MIT Living Wage Calculator estimates the income families need to cover basic expenses based on where they live and family size. It helps clarify a common disconnect in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work—employment alone does not always equal economic stability. Practitioners can use it to ground conversations about self-sufficiency in local reality, making it easier to connect job planning and financial goals to actual household needs and improve family stability.

The need for a tech-savvy, well-prepared workforce continues to rise. This MDRC resource discusses the development of the partnership between NPower and Urban Alliance, which are two national nonprofits working to deliver digital literacy and IT training to high school students. This resource offers lessons for improving cross-organizational partnerships that support youth career pathways. It also describes the two programs developed during the partnership, discusses some of the challenges that the two organizations encountered during the development and implementation of the programs and how they addressed those challenges, and provides additional considerations for future partnerships.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program plays a key role in promoting strength and stability for families experiencing poverty. By helping families to meet their basic needs, obtain employment, and nurture healthy family relationships, TANF programs can foster long-term family wellbeing and economic independence. States have significant flexibility to use TANF funds to address unique family needs and accomplish any of the four purposes of TANF.

The Office of Family Assistance released a series of briefs that highlight innovative and strategic ways that states are leveraging TANF funds to strengthen families and communities by building capacity for self-sufficiency and economic independence. This brief highlights the Mental Health Outreach for MotherS (MOMS) Partnership which aims to meet the mental health needs of mothers and primary caregivers with low incomes. This partnership addressing the mental health needs of mothers and caregivers supports the first statutory purpose of TANF and can have lasting positive impacts on families and children. This brief looks at MOMS partnerships offered in Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Supporting families and individuals means understanding that their needs are complex, interrelated, and affected by the opportunities available in their communities. Integrated service approaches to prevent homelessness or involvement in systems like child welfare may be best positioned to succeed when they recognize these holistic needs and identities and when they coordinate access to resources and services. This Mathematica brief highlights the efforts made by programs to coordinate services and supports for participants by focusing on their holistic needs, including how programs identified their participants’ strengths and needs and how the sites integrated services to be responsive to those needs. The findings are based on interviews with staff and partners from nine case studies sites across the country and with people who have been served by these programs.