United Way outlines Missouri TANF rollout; Kansas committee asks whether state should replicate model

At a Committee on Social Services Budget meeting, Dr. Todd Jordan, vice president of community impact and executive director of 2-1-1 with United Way of Greater Kansas City, described a 2024 Missouri program that funneled several million dollars of TANF-related funding through United Way partners to pay vendors for rent, utilities, childcare and transportation for eligible households.

The discussion focused on how the model worked and whether Kansas could replicate it. "We wound up moving about $3,000,000 in assistance into the hands of households," Jordan said, summarizing the program's pace and scale. He told committee members the program processed roughly a couple thousand applications, approved a similar number of households and reached about 7,000 Missouri residents, about 5,000 of whom were children.

The project in Missouri used a state appropriation that the Missouri Department of Social Services contracted through United Way of Greater St. Louis, with United Way partners operating intake, eligibility screening and vendor payments. Jordan said payments were made directly to vendors — "we paid the utility company directly. We paid the landlord company directly" — rather than distributing cash to recipients. He said local United Way chapters decided how to deliver assistance in their communities, using options that ranged from volunteer-run operations to hybrid partnerships with local agencies such as Salvation Army or Catholic Charities.

Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) representatives and legislators asked detailed questions about program mechanics and federal rules. Doctor Whiteside, identified in the meeting as director of TANF, outlined Kansas TANF rules, funding limits and program design choices. She said federal law allows states to transfer up to 30% of the TANF block grant (with a 10% cap to the Social Services Block Grant) and described how Kansas currently budgets TANF for cash assistance, nonrecurring short-term benefits, employment services and other uses. "My vision for my team is that families are stable, connected, and progressing toward their goals," Whiteside said, describing a two-generation approach that links parents' employment assistance with services for children in school.

Committee members pressed on several operational details. Representative Rivas asked whether Missouri simplified the application; Jordan said Missouri and United Way created a common, simplified application and eligibility criteria that focused on households at or below about 185% of the federal poverty level with an economic hardship, and that all payments were vendor-directed. Representative Rees and others asked about administrative costs; Jordan and committee members confirmed the Missouri contract included a 10% administrative fee. "There was an administrative fee of 10% of the total award," the TANF director confirmed when asked about administrative caps for grantees.

Kansas DCF staff explained constraints that shape how much TANF can be used and for what purpose. Whiteside outlined limits on nonrecurring short-term benefits (federal guidance permits up to four months of assistance in some cases), said cash-assistance monthly allotments vary by county (for a family of four she cited a range from about $4.50 to roughly $500 depending on county), and described Kansas's 24-month lifetime benefit limit for most recipients. She also explained work-participation requirements that count toward federal thresholds: a single-parent household generally must meet roughly 30 hours per week of federally allowable activities to be counted toward the state work-participation rate.

Several legislators expressed interest in whether Kansas could use a United Way-style intermediary to get money quickly into households. Jordan said the Missouri contract structure centralized administrative accountability with one United Way partner while delegating local delivery across many United Way chapters and partner agencies; he said that structure helped reach 89 of Missouri's 125 counties during the project’s roughly 60-day operational window. Kansas DCF and United Way representatives suggested potential synergy but noted differences in existing systems, staff capacity and program rules.

Committee members asked about auditing and accountability. Jordan said the Missouri program faced multiple checks: state oversight by the contracting agency, the United Way’s own finance controls and external auditing, including a single audit because the award exceeded federal thresholds. Kansas DCF staff said TANF funds are used in multiple ways across DCF and other state programs and that MOE (maintenance-of-effort) and work-participation measures affect budget choices.

The committee did not take any formal votes on a new partnership model at the meeting. Several legislators asked staff to explore whether aspects of the Missouri model could fit Kansas’s needs and budget process; DCF and United Way presenters said they would continue discussions if the committee wanted follow-up.

The meeting concluded with several members saying they found the Missouri example informative and asking staff to return with further options or analysis.

Ending: The committee adjourned with a plan to continue the conversation; presenters and members left open the possibility of a more detailed follow-up on how a United Way-mediated vendor-payment approach might be structured for Kansas.