Section 10. Aid to Families With Dependent Children and Related Programs (Title IV-A) BACKGROUND AND ELIGIBILITY Aid to dependent children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a cash grant program to enable States to aid needy children without fathers. Renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the program provides cash welfare payments for (1) needy children who have been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother is absent from the home continuously, is incapacitated, is deceased or is unemployed, and (2) certain others in the household of such child. Currently all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate an AFDC program. Although 1988 legislation provided that American Samoa could participate in the AFDC program, as of April 1994 it had not chosen to do so. States define ``need,'' set their own benefit levels, establish (within Federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administer the program or supervise its administration. Federal funds currently pay from 50 to about 80 percent of the AFDC benefit costs in a State (55 percent on average) and 50 percent of administrative costs. Table 10-1 summarizes the trends of several key elements in the AFDC program from 1970 to 1993. Between 1970 and 1993, the number of recipients has increased 91 percent, from 7.4 million in 1970 to 14.1 million in 1993. The number of families has increased over the same time period 163 percent, from 1.9 million to 5.0 million. AFDC benefit expenditures have increased 44 percent, after adjusting for inflation, from $15.5 billion in 1970 to $22.3 billion in 1993. Administrative costs remained almost the same in both 1970 and 1993, after adjusting for inflation, at nearly $3.0 billion. AFDC administrative costs were 19 percent of AFDC benefit payments in 1970 and 13 percent in 1993. After accounting for inflation, the average monthly AFDC benefit per family was $676 in 1970 and $373 in 1993, a 45 percent reduction. TABLE 10-1.--SUMMARY OF KEY AFDC PROGRAM ELEMENTS [In dollars, except for caseload numbers] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total AFDC Benefit expenditures (millions)...................... 4,082 8,153 11,540 14,580 16,663 18,539 20,356 22,240 22,286 1993\1\.......................................... 15,496 22,586 20,700 19,627 20,437 20,671 21,606 22,911 22,286 Federal share (millions)............................. 2,187 4,625 6,448 7,817 9,125 10,149 11,165 12,252 12,270 1993\1\.......................................... 8,303 12,813 11,566 10,523 11,192 11,316 11,850 12,621 12,270 Administrative cost (millions)....................... 758 1,082 1,479 1,779 2,353 2,661 2,673 2,764 2,956 1993\1\.......................................... 2,878 2,997 2,653 2,395 2,886 2,967 2,837 2,847 2,956 Federal share (millions)............................. 572 552 750 890 1,194 1,358 1,373 1,422 1,518 1993\1\.......................................... 2,171 1,529 1,345 1,198 1,464 1,514 1,457 1,465 1,518 Average monthly numbers (thousands): Families......................................... 1,909 3,269 3,574 3,692 3,748 3,974 4,375 4,769 4,981 Recipients....................................... 7,429 11,067 10,597 10,813 10,920 11,460 12,595 13,625 14,144 Children......................................... 5,494 7,821 7,220 7,165 7,326 7,755 8,515 9,225 9,539 Average family size.................................. 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Average montly benefit per family.................... 178 208 269 329 370 389 388 389 373 1993\1\.......................................... 676 576 483 443 454 434 412 401 373 AFDC-Basic and AFDC-UP Benefit expenditures (millions), 1993:\1\ Total AFDC....................................... 15,496 22,586 20,700 19,627 20,437 20,671 21,606 22,911 22,286 AFDC-Basic....................................... 14,620 21,583 19,457 17,532 18,695 19,021 19,667 20,728 19,990 AFDC-UP.......................................... 877 1,003 1,243 2,095 1,742 1,650 1,939 2,183 2,298 Average monthly families (thousands): Total AFDC....................................... 1,909 3,269 3,574 3,692 3,748 3,974 4,375 4,769 4,981 AFDC-Basic....................................... 1,831 3,168 3,433 3,431 3,538 3,770 4,107 4,447 4,622 AFDC-UP.......................................... 78 101 141 261 210 204 268 322 359 Average monthly benefit per family--1993:\1\ Total AFDC....................................... 676 576 483 443 454 434 412 401 373 AFDC-Basic....................................... 665 568 472 426 440 420 399 388 360 AFDC-UP.......................................... 937 827 735 669 691 674 603 565 533 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Adjusted for inflation using CPI-U (fiscal year). Note: AFDC benefit expenditures have not been reduced by child support enforcement collections and do not include foster care payments; AFDC enrollment figures do not include foster care children. Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Congressional Research Service. Regardless of the method used to express the need standard, the Social Security Act requires that the standard be uniformly applied within the State or locality to all families in similar circumstances. While participating States must comply with the terms of the Federal legislation, the AFDC program is voluntary, and States traditionally have been at liberty to pay as little or as much in benefits as they choose. In addition to State variations in AFDC eligibility and benefit levels, the benefit levels vary primarily by family size and sometimes by shelter costs. Eligibility for AFDC ends on a child's 18th birthday, or at State option upon a child's 19th birthday if the child is a full-time student in a secondary or technical school and may reasonably be expected to complete the program before he or she reaches age 19. While optional prior to October 1, 1990, States that operate AFDC programs are now required to offer AFDC to children in two-parent families who are needy because of the unemployment of one of their parents (AFDC-UP). Eligibility for AFDC-UP is limited to those families in which the principal wage earner is unemployed but has a history of work. States that did not have an unemployed parent program as of September 26, 1988 may limit benefits under the AFDC-UP program to as few as 6 months in any 13-month period. The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) substantially revised the education and training requirements of the AFDC program. As of October 1, 1990, States are required to have a job opportunities and basic skills training (JOBS) program. The new program is designed to help needy families with children avoid long-term welfare receipt. The JOBS program replaces the work incentive (WIN) and WIN demonstration programs, and incorporates other work requirements of previous law. In addition, the JOBS program must include an educational component. States are required to enroll virtually all able- bodied persons whose youngest child is at least age 3, provided State resources are available. Families receiving AFDC are automatically eligible for Medicaid. The Family Support Act also requires that States provide transitional Medicaid benefits for those who lose AFDC eligibility as a result of increased hours of, or increased income from, employment or as a result of the loss of earnings disregards. The Family Support Act requires that States guarantee child care if it is decided that child care is necessary for an individual's employment or participation in education or training activities (including participation in the JOBS program) approved by the State, and requires that transitional child care be provided for families who lose AFDC eligibility as a result of increased hours of, or increased income from, employment or as a result of the loss of earnings disregards. The AFDC statute also includes entitlement funds to the States to provide child care to families who are not receiving AFDC who need such care in order to work and would otherwise be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC. Finally, Federal law requires AFDC mothers to assign their child support rights to the State and to cooperate with welfare officials in establishing the paternity of a child and in obtaining support payments from the father. TREATMENT OF INCOME AND RESOURCES Federal AFDC law requires that all income received by an AFDC recipient or applicant be counted against the AFDC grant except that income explicitly excluded by definition or deduction. Moreover, AFDC law requires that certain persons be considered part of the AFDC assistance unit and that part of the income of certain other persons be counted in determining the AFDC eligibility status and benefit amount. In 1981, Congress required that a portion of the income of a stepparent be counted in determining AFDC eligibility and benefit amounts. However, in a few States (7 as of October 1, 1990), State law requires that all stepparents assume the legal responsibility of a natural or adoptive parent. In those States all of the stepparent's income must be counted in determining the AFDC eligibility status and/or benefit amount of the children and spouse. In 1984, a standard definition of the AFDC assistance unit was established for the first time. Under this requirement, the parent(s) of a dependent child and any dependent brothers or sisters who are in the home are to be included in the AFDC unit, with eligibility and benefits based on the income and circumstances of this family unit. SSI recipients, stepsiblings, and children receiving foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance are excluded from this requirement. In addition, if a minor who is living in the same home as her parents applies for aid as the parent of a needy child, a portion of the income of the minor's parents is to be counted as available to the filing unit. The law also requires that income from a nonrecurring earned or unearned lump sum payment that exceeds the monthly AFDC need standard must be taken into account in determining AFDC eligibility and/or benefit amount. Lump sum payments in excess of the State's need standard--for the given family size--renders a family ineligible for AFDC for a period of time equal to the lump sum payment divided by the State's monthly need standard. Unearned income States are required by Federal law and/or regulations to disregard certain income in determining the eligibility and benefits of families applying for or receiving AFDC. Unearned income not counted by the AFDC program includes the following: the first $50 of current monthly child support payments received by the family, certain Department of Education grants and loans to undergraduate students for educational purposes, loans and grants, such as scholarships, obtained and used under conditions that preclude their use for current living costs, the value of Department of Agriculture donated foods, benefits received from Child Nutrition programs or nutrition programs for the elderly, payments to VISTA workers, some payments to certain Indian tribes, any amounts paid by a State welfare agency from State-only funds to meet the needs of AFDC children, if the payments are made under a statutorily- established State program that has been continuously in effect since before January 1, 1979, payments for supporting services or reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses made to volunteers serving as foster grandparents, senior health aides, or senior companions, and Agent Orange settlement payments. Earned income States are required by Federal law to disregard certain earned income when determining the amount of benefits to which a recipient family is entitled. States must disregard all the earned income of each dependent child receiving AFDC who is a full-time student or a part-time student who is not a full-time employee and is attending a school, college, university, or vocational training course. States may, for a period of 6 months, disregard all or part of the earned income of a dependent child who is a full-time student and who is applying for AFDC, if and only if the earnings of such child are excluded for such month in determining the family's total income pursuant to the 185 percent gross income eligibility test. States also have the option of disregarding all or any part of income derived from Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs by a dependent child applying for or receiving AFDC (there is a 6-month limit on the disregard of earned income, and no limit on unearned income). With respect to self-employment, ``earned income'' is defined by Federal regulations as the ``total profit from a business enterprise, farming, etc., resulting from a comparison of the gross receipts with the ``business expenses,'' i.e., expenses directly related to producing the goods or services and without which the goods or services could not be produced. However, under AFDC regulations, items such as depreciation, personal business and entertainment expenses, personal transportation, purchase of capital equipment and payments on the principal of loans for capital assets or durable goods are not considered business expenses. Before OBRA of 1981, in order to provide a financial incentive for recipients to seek and maintain employment, Federal law required the deduction of an initial $30 in monthly earnings plus one-third of remaining earnings, plus work expenses (any expenses, including child care costs, reasonably attributable to the earning of income). When making an initial determination of eligibility, however, only work expenses were disregarded. Amendments in OBRA of 1981 changed the order in which the disregards were applied, limited the disregard for work expenses to $75 per month, capped the child care disregard at $160 per month per child, and specified that the HHS Secretary could lower these sums for part-time work. The $30 plus one- third disregard was limited to a period of 4 consecutive months; recipients who left AFDC and then returned could not again qualify for this disregard for 12 months. States were prohibited from paying AFDC to any family with a gross income above 150 percent of the State's standard of need and were required to assume that working AFDC recipients received a monthly earned income tax credit (EITC), if they appeared eligible for it and regardless of when or if the credit was actually available. Under prior law, the EITC was counted only when received; most AFDC recipients did not receive the EITC on a monthly basis. These changes substantially reduced the amount of earnings a recipient could have and remain eligible for an AFDC payment. In 1984, Congress further revised these disregards. The gross income limit was increased to 185 percent of the State standard of need, the work expense disregard of $75 per month was applied to both full- and part-time workers, and the $30 disregard--originally a part of $30 and one-third--was extended for an additional 8 months beyond the 4-month limit on the one- third deduction. The 1984 legislation also returned to prior law policy with respect to the earned income tax credit: it was to be counted only when actually received. The Family Support Act of 1988 revised the treatment of earned income effective October 1, 1989. The work expense disregard is $90 per month, the maximum child care expense allowance is $175 per month per child ($200 for children under age 2), and the child care disregard is now calculated after other disregard provisions have been applied. Furthermore, States are now required to disregard the earned income tax credit in determining eligibility for and benefits under the AFDC program. Table 10-2 illustrates the impact of the 1981, 1984 and 1988 changes on a mother with two children working full-time at a low wage. Two AFDC benefit standards are illustrated: $680 represents the AFDC payment standard for a family of three in a high benefit State and $366 is the payment standard for a three-person family in the median State (January 1994 data). Several States use a method of paying AFDC that allows working families to retain a greater portion of their AFDC grant as earnings increase. This method of payment, commonly referred to as ``fill-the-gap,'' provides greater financial incentives for families to work than the standard payment method. Under the standard payment method, the AFDC grant is determined by subtracting countable income (e.g., earnings less disregards) from the State's payment standard. (States' AFDC payment standard may be less than the State's AFDC ``need standard''--the amount a State recognizes as essential for a family to meet basic and special needs.) Some States having AFDC payment standards below their need standard allow families to fill part or all of the gap between the payment and need standard with earnings, before reducing the AFDC grant. Other States set a maximum payment below the payment standard, allowing families to only ``fill-the-gap'' up to the payment standard. Many States having AFDC payment standards below their need standard do not use a fill-the-gap policy--they begin to reduce the AFDC grant dollar for dollar, for earnings in excess of the standard earnings disregards. In January 1994, ten States were using some form of ``fill-the-gap'': Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, and Maine. Working mothers in these States have higher net income at equivalent earnings than mothers living in States with similar AFDC payment levels that do not use a ``fill-the-gap'' payment method.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\This information on ``fill-the-gap'' payment was taken from an upcoming report: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Work Incentives and Disincentives in the Welfare System. Gabe, Tom and Gene Falk. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABLE 10-2.--CALCULATION OF MONTHLY AFDC BENEFITS FOR A WORKER WITH LOW EARNINGS UNDER PRE-OBRA, OBRA, AND CURRENT LAW -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OBRA (1981) DEFRA (1984) Current law (FSA) (1988) Pre-OBRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1979) First 4 After 4 First 4 After 4 After 12 First 4 After 4 After 12 months months months months months months months months -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income: Gross earnings..................................... 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 EITC............................................... ......... +32 +32 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gross income................................... 581 613 613 581 581 581 581 581 581 ================================================================================================== Disregards: Initial disregards\1\.............................. -30 -105 -75 -105 -105 -75 -120 -120 -90 One-third of rest.................................. -184 (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) -154 (\2\) (\2\) Child care......................................... -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 One-third of rest.................................. (\2\) -136 (\2\) -125 (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) Other expenses..................................... \3\-70 (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total disregards............................... 384 341 175 330 205 175 374 220 190 ================================================================================================== Net countable income........................... 197 272 438 251 376 406 207 361 391 AFDC benefits: $680 payment standard.............................. 483 408 242 429 304 274 473 319 289 $366 payment standard.............................. 169 94 0 115 0 0 159 \4\5 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Pre-OBRA: $30 disregard. OBRA: Standard work expense deduction of $75 plus $30 in first 4 months. DEFRA: Standard work expense deduction of $75 plus $30 disregard in first 12 months. FSA: Standard work expense deduction of $90 plus $30 disregard in first 12 months. \2\Not applicable. \3\Itemized work expenses including payroll deductions and transportation. \4\To receive an AFDC check, the benefit amount must equal at least $10. Note.--EITC is only counted in the years that it is shown. Resources Allowable resources are limited, by Public Law 97-35, to $1,000 (or such lower amount as the State may determine) equity value (i.e., market value minus any encumbrances) per family, excluding the home and one automobile if the family member's ownership interest does not exceed a limit chosen by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In addition, States must disregard from countable resources burial plots and funeral agreements for members of the assistance unit. Also, for a limited time, States must exclude real property the family is making a ``good faith'' effort to sell, but only if the family agrees to repay benefits. HHS regulations set $1,500 or a lower level set by the State as the equity value limit for the automobile and permit States to exclude from countable resources ``basic items essential to day to day living,'' such as clothing and furniture. Previous regulations permitted States to adopt a counted resource limit as high as $2,000 per family member, but allowed States to consider the home and auto as counted resources. Neither law nor Federal regulations mention capital equipment as being exempt from the resource requirement. Notwithstanding this, families with a self-employed caretaker relative are potentially eligible for AFDC benefits. The Characteristics of State Plans indicates that about half of the States specifically exclude from the resource limitation farm machinery, livestock, and tools and equipment essential to employment, livelihood, or income. MONTHLY REPORTING AND RETROSPECTIVE BUDGETING AFDC eligibility and benefits are determined monthly. Public Law 97-35 required States to determine eligibility on the basis of the family's circumstances in the current month. Payment amounts were to be determined ``retrospectively''--on the basis of the family's countable income and resources in the preceding month (or, at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the second preceding month). In addition, States were to require recipients to provide monthly reports on income, family composition, and resources. However, the Secretary could waive this requirement if the State demonstrated that it would be cost-beneficial to do so. The only categories of recipients that could not be exempted were those with earned income or a recent work history. In 1984, Public Law 98-369 revised these monthly reporting and retrospective budgeting requirements. Retrospective budgeting was mandatory only for cases which file a monthly report. Monthly reporting was required for cases with earned income or a recent work history and whenever cost effective. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 gave States the option of specifying which categories of AFDC families, if any, have to file monthly reports. Further, States now have the option to choose to apply retrospective budgeting to any one or more of the categories to whom the reporting requirement applies. AFDC BENEFITS UNDER THE UNEMPLOYED PARENTS PROGRAM The original Social Security Act permitted States to give AFDC only to needy children in one-parent homes, unless the second parent was incapacitated. Then, as now, most AFDC children lived in fatherless homes. For the first 25 years of the program, if a father lost his job and his family became needy, State AFDC programs were forbidden to help the family so long as the father lived at home. In 1961, in an antirecession measure, the law was changed so that families with jobless fathers at home could qualify for AFDC. Since May of that year States were permitted to give AFDC to needy children of unemployed parents. Effective October 1, 1990, all States that operate AFDC programs are required to provide AFDC to two-parent families who are needy because of the unemployment of the principal wage earner. (The requirement did not take effect until October 1, 1992, for American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.) The requirement is repealed September 30, 1998. States that had an AFDC-UP program as of September 26, 1988, are required to continue operating the program without any time limit on eligibility. Other States have the option to impose such a time limit. In exercising this option, a State may not deny AFDC to a family unless the family has received AFDC under the unemployed parents program in at least 6 of the preceding 12 months. As of July 1992, the following States have time limits on eligibility: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Like other AFDC families, families receiving AFDC cash assistance in the unemployed parents program are automatically eligible for Medicaid. The Family Support Act of 1988 requires States electing time-limited benefits to provide Medicaid to all members of the family without any time limitation. At the inception of the AFDC-UP program, States defined ``unemployment,'' and some included in the program families in which the principal wage earner worked as much as 35 hours a week. Since 1971, Federal regulations have specified that an AFDC parent must work fewer than 100 hours in a month to be classified as unemployed, unless hours are of a temporary nature for intermittent work and the individual met the 100- hour rule in the two preceding months and is expected to meet it the following month. The Family Support Act of 1988 authorizes eight State or local demonstrations to test a definition of unemployment that is easier to meet than the present 100-hour rule, including (if any State or locality so requests) at least one demonstration that tests the elimination of the 100-hour rule or any other Federal durational standard. Projects are currently underway in California, Wisconsin, and Utah to demonstrate and evaluate alternative definitions of unemployment. Attachment to the labor force is one condition of eligibility for AFDC-UP. The principal earner must: (1) have 6 or more quarters of work in any 13-calendar-quarter period ending within 1 year prior to application for assistance; or (2) have received or been eligible to receive unemployment compensation within 1 year prior to application for assistance. A quarter of work is a quarter in which an individual earns at least $50 or in which the individual participated in the JOBS program. At State option, attendance in elementary or secondary school, vocational or technical training, or participation in JTPA, may be substituted for up to 4 of the 6 required quarters of work. Participation in the WIN program and CWEP prior to October 1990 also count toward the quarter of work requirement. INTERACTION BETWEEN AFDC AND OTHER PROGRAMS Medicaid States must provide Medicaid to families receiving cash assistance under AFDC. Several recent acts require that States extend this categorically needy Medicaid coverage, at regular Federal matching rates, to other groups. The most important of these groups include (1) pregnant women, and children up to age 6, with family incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level; (2) children born on or after October 1, 1983, with family incomes below the Federal poverty level (this provision is phased in to cover all children up to age 19 by the year 2002); and (3) certain persons whose family income and resources are below the AFDC standards but who fail to qualify for AFDC for other reasons, such as family structure (these include first- time pregnant women). At their option, States may provide coverage to pregnant women and infants with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. When families lose AFDC eligibility, categorical Medicaid eligibility also frequently ends, except under those circumstances outlined above, or if the family qualifies for transitional Medicaid benefits established under Public Law 100-485, the Family Support Act of 1988, which took effect April 1, 1990. As a result of this act, States are required to extend Medicaid coverage for 12 months to families who leave cash assistance due to earnings. During the first 6 months of coverage, the States must provide each family the same Medicaid coverage that the family had while receiving AFDC. States are not permitted to impose premiums for this coverage. States do have a ``Medicaid wrap-around'' option, under which they may use Medicaid funds to pay a family's expenses for premiums, deductibles and coinsurance for any health care coverage offered by the employer of the caretaker relative. The employer coverage would then be treated by the Medicaid program as a third party liability. During the second 6 months of coverage, the States have a number of options. First, they may limit the scope of the Medicaid coverage to acute care benefits, dropping nursing home coverage and other nonacute benefits. Second, States may impose a monthly premium on families with incomes, less necessary child care expenses, in excess of 100 percent of the Federal poverty level. The monthly premium on these families could not exceed 3 percent of gross income. Premiums would be determined on the basis of quarterly reports from families on earnings and child care costs. Third, States have the option of offering families the choice of (1) basic Medicaid coverage (either the same as offered to cash assistance beneficiaries or the more limited acute care package) or (2) one or more types of alternative coverage. These alternative coverages could include enrollment in an employer group health plan, a State employee plan, a State health plan for the uninsured, or a health maintenance organization. Families would always have a choice of staying with their basic Medicaid coverage, although they could not elect both the basic Medicaid and one of the alternative coverages. With respect to the basic Medicaid coverage, States would have the same ``Medicaid wrap-around'' option as during the first 6-month period. In general, transitional coverage would terminate if a family no longer had a child, failed to report earnings on a quarterly basis, failed to pay any required premium, or fradulently obtained cash assistance benefits. Effective October 1, 1990, States are required to extend cash assistance benefits to two-parent families where the principal earner is unemployed (AFDC-UP). States that have an AFDC-UP program as of September 26, 1988, are required to continue operating such programs without any time limit on eligibility. Other States will have the option to limit cash assistance benefits to as few as 6 months in any 13-month period. States are required to provide full Medicaid coverage to all members of these families even in months when cash assistance benefits are not paid because of a State-established time limit. In the mid-1980s, States sought to cover pregnant women and children under the Medicaid program. However, they did not want to raise AFDC benefit levels in order to cover them. Congress thus passed legislation giving States the option of covering pregnant women and children and linking their eligibility to the poverty guidelines rather than receipt of AFDC. To prevent States from reducing AFDC benefits (because the targeted populations could be covered irrespective of the AFDC program), Public Law 100-360 prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from approving a State's Medicaid plan if the State reduced its AFDC payment levels below those that were in effect on May 1, 1988. Food stamps Most AFDC families are also eligible for and participate in the food stamp program, which provides an important in-kind supplement to the cash assistance paid under AFDC. Although food stamp benefits are not counted in determining AFDC eligibility, the food stamp program does consider AFDC payments to be countable income and reduces the food stamp benefit by $0.30 for each dollar of countable cash income. This interaction between AFDC and the food stamp program has important financial implications for a State which desires to increase the income of its AFDC recipients. Because food stamps are reduced by $0.30 for each additional $1 of AFDC income, the State must expend $1.43 to obtain an effective $1 increase in AFDC recipients' total income. For a State with a 50 percent matching rate, the State must expend $0.72 of State-only funds to actually obtain a $1 increase in recipient income. This would be the typical situation for an AFDC recipient with no earnings. Table 10-3 illustrates the interaction of various programs for a mother with two children at various earning levels. The example assumes the family lives in Pennsylvania. Calculations are made after the mother has been working for 4 months and lost the disregard of one-third of ``residual'' earnings (those remaining after subtraction of a $120 standard allowance). TABLE 10-3.--EARNINGS AND BENEFITS FOR A MOTHER WITH TWO CHILDREN WITH DAYCARE EXPENSES--AFTER 4 MONTHS ON JOB (JANUARY 1994)--(PENNSYLVANIA) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taxes Food ------------------------------ Work ``Disposable'' Earnings EITC AFDC\1\ stamps\2\ Medicaid Social Federal State expenses\4\ income Security income\3\ income -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0................................................. 0 $5,052 $2,496 Yes....... 0 0 0 0 \5\$7,548 $2,000............................................ $600 4,892 2,184 Yes....... $153 0 0 $600 \5\8,923 $4,000............................................ 1,200 3,292 2,304 Yes....... 306 0 0 1,200 \5\9,290 $5,000............................................ 1,500 2,492 2,364 Yes....... 383 0 0 1,500 \5\9,473 $6,000............................................ 1,800 1,692 2,424 Yes....... 459 0 0 1,800 \5\9,657 $7,000............................................ 2,100 892 2,484 Yes....... 536 0 0 2,100 \5\9,840 $8,000............................................ 2,400 0 2,568 Yes\6\.... 612 0 0 2,400 \5\9,956 $9,000............................................ 2,528 0 2,388 Yes\7\.... 689 0 $4 2,700 \5\10,523 $10,000........................................... 2,528 0 2,208 No\7\..... 765 0 34 3,000 10,937 $15,000........................................... 1,820 0 1,308 No\8\..... 1,148 0 174 4,200 12,606 $20,000........................................... 936 0 0 No........ 1,530 $58 314 5,200 13,834 $30,000........................................... 0 0 0 No........ 2,295 1,718 594 5,400 19,993 $50,000........................................... 0 0 0 No........ 3,825 5,569 1,154 5,400 34,052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Assumes these deductions: $120 monthly standard allowance (which would drop to $90 after 1 year on the job) and child care costs equal to 20 percent of earnings, up to maximum of $350 for 2 children. \2\Assumes these deductions: 20 percent of earnings, $131 monthly standard deduction and child care costs equal to 20 percent of wages, up to maximum of $320 for 2 children. \3\Head of household rates in effect for 1994. The dependent care tax credit reduces tax liability at earnings of $15,000 and above. \4\Assumed to equal 10 percent of earnings up to maximum of $100 monthly, plus child care costs equal to 20 percent of earnings up to a maximum of $350 for 2 children. \5\In addition, the benefits from Medicaid could be added, but are not, since the extent to which they increase disposable income is uncertain. \6\Family would qualify for Medicaid because the mother, by law, would be deemed still an AFDC recipient, even though no AFDC would be paid; her calculated benefit would be below the minimum amount ($10 monthly) payable. \7\Family would qualify for Medicaid for 12 months after leaving AFDC under the 1988 Family Support Act. State must offer Medicaid to all children up to age 6 whose family income is not above 133 percent of the Federal poverty guideline (ceiling of $16,385 for a family of 3 in 1994) and to children over age 6 born after September 1, 1983 (up to age 10\1/3\ in January 1994), whose family income is below the poverty guideline ($12,320 for a family of 3). \8\After losing her Medicaid transitional benefits, to regain eligibility, mother must spend down on medical expenses to State's medically needy income limit ($5,604 in January 1994). Source: Congressional Research Service. CHART 10-1. DISPOSABLE INCOME AT VARIOUS WAGE LEVELS FOR A FAMILY OF THREE WITH CHILD CARE EXPENSES, PENNSYLVANIA, JANUARY 1994 \1\Net wages equal earnings plus EITC minus taxes and work expenses. Source: Committee on Ways and Means. Child support enforcement Federal law requires AFDC families (and applicants), as a condition of eligibility for aid, to assign their support rights to the State, to cooperate with the State in establishing the paternity of a child born outside of marriage, and to cooperate with the State in obtaining support payments. Families receiving AFDC benefits automatically qualify (free of charge) for CSE services. Their cases are referred to the CSE agency. The provision requiring the AFDC applicant or recipient to assign to the State her rights to support covers both current support and any arrears which have accrued, and lasts as long as the family receives AFDC. When the family no longer receives AFDC, the mother or caretaker relative regains her right to collect support, but if there are arrears, the State may claim those arrears up to the amount paid out as AFDC benefits. Child support payments made on behalf of a child receiving AFDC are supposed to be paid to the CSE agency rather than directly to the family. If the child support collection is insufficient to disqualify the family from receiving AFDC payments, the family receives its full monthly AFDC grant plus (pursuant to the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act) the first $50 of the child support payment made in the child's behalf for that month. In several States where the need standard exceeds the maximum payment, additional amounts of child support are disregarded. The remainder of that monthly child support payment is distributed to reimburse the State and Federal Governments in proportion to their assistance to the family. If the family's income, including the child support payment, is sufficient to make the family ineligible for AFDC payments, the family's AFDC benefits are ended, and future child support payments are paid directly from the noncustodial parent to the family. (The Federal share of child support collections paid on behalf of AFDC children is used first to pay incentives to States on their AFDC and non-AFDC collections. The remainder is used to offset Federal AFDC benefit costs. Neither Federal law nor regulations stipulate the use of the States share of AFDC child support collections.) As noted above, some States are required to provide monthly supplemental payments to AFDC recipients who have less disposable income now than they would have had in July 1975 because child support is paid to the CSE agency instead of directly to the family. States required to pay supplemental payment are often referred to as ``fill-the-gap'' States. These States pay less assistance than their full AFDC need standard, and allow recipients to use child support income to make up all or part of the difference between the payment made by the State and the State's need standard. Section 402(a)(28) of the Social Security Act requires States that had a fill-the-gap policy in 1975 and currently have such a policy, to add to the AFDC benefit all or part of the child support collection (the amount which would have caused no reduction in the AFDC benefit if it had been paid directly to the family). Information obtained from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (June 1990) indicates that seven States that had fill-the-gap policies in July 1975 also have them now and thus must follow the benefit calculation rules of section 402(a)(28) when taking account of child support collections for AFDC families. They are: Georgia, Maine, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming. Another 13 jurisdictions which had fill-the-gap policies in July 1975, no longer have them. SSI and Social Security In AFDC, Social Security benefits are treated as unearned income and thus AFDC benefits are reduced by $1 for each $1 of OASDI benefits. SSI benefits received by a potential member of an AFDC family are treated differently. This member (both a child or an adult receiving SSI benefits) is not regarded as a part of the AFDC unit. Thus his needs are not taken into account in determining the AFDC benefit level. At the same time, the income and resources of the SSI recipient are also ignored in determining the AFDC benefit. Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training Program and Supportive Services The Family Support Act of 1988 established a new employment, education and training program for recipients of AFDC. This new program, called the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training program, replaces the work incentive (WIN) program and other provisions of prior law. Purpose and administration The purpose of the JOBS program is to assure that needy families with children obtain the education, training and employment that will help them avoid long-term welfare dependence. Each State is required to have a JOBS program, under a State plan approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). States were required to implement the program no later than October 1, 1990. No later than October 1, 1992, the program must be available in every subdivision of the State where it is feasible to operate the program. Table 10-4 provides information on JOBS programs in the States, based on JOBS State plans as of January 1994. As the first column of the table shows, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories (Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) met the implementation date requirement for JOBS, and many implemented the program early. The table also shows that, as of January 1994, all of the jurisdictions were implementing the program statewide. The JOBS program is administered at the Federal level by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in HHS, and at the State level by the State welfare agency. The State welfare agency may offer services and activities directly, or through arrangements or contracts with Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) administrative entities, State and local educational agencies and with other public agencies or private organizations (including community-based organizations). Assessment, employability plan, case management, and orientation The State must make an initial assessment of the education, child care and other supportive service needs as well as the skills, prior work experience, and employability of each JOBS participant, and, on the basis of the assessment, develop an employability plan for the participant. The State agency may require the participant to enter into an agreement with the State that specifies the participant's obligations under the program, and the activities and services to be provided by the State. Table 10-4 shows that 8 States chose to require such an agreement (January 1994 data). The State agency may assign a case manager to each participant and the participant's family. The case manager must be responsible for assisting the family to obtain needed services to ensure effective participation in the JOBS program. Table 10-4 shows that only 2 States--Iowa and Oklahoma--chose not to assign a case manager. The State agency is required to provide certain information about the JOBS program and supportive services to applicants and recipients. For example, the agency must inform applicants and recipients of AFDC of the opportunities for which they are eligible under the JOBS program, the obligation of the State agency, and the rights, responsibilities and obligations of participants. The agency must provide detailed information about day care services and must inform applicants and recipients of all other supportive services, including transitional health care benefits (see separate section on supportive services). Services and activities A range of services and activities must be offered by each State under the JOBS program; however, States are not required to operate the JOBS program uniformly in all parts of the State. The services and activities a State must offer include: (1) education activities, including high school or equivalent education, basic and remedial education to achieve a basic literacy level, and education for individuals with limited English proficiency; (2) job skills training; (3) job readiness activities; (4) job development and job placement; and (5) supportive services (see separate section on supportive services). States are required to offer two of the following four activities: (1) group and individual job search; (2) on-the-job training; (3) work supplementation programs; and (4) community work experience (CWEP) programs or any other work experience program approved by the Secretary. In addition to these activities, States may also offer postsecondary education to JOBS participants. Table 10-4 shows which of these activities the individual States are offering, as of January 1994. When an individual age 20 or over who does not have a high school diploma (or equivalent) is required to participate in the JOBS program, the State agency must include education services as a component unless (1) the individual demonstrates a basic literacy level, or (2) the employability plan identifies a long-term employment goal that does not require a high school diploma. Following is a more detailed discussion of the Federal requirements for job search, CWEP, and work supplementation programs. Job search.--States may require AFDC applicants and recipients to participate in a job search program beginning at the time of application. States may require up to 8 weeks of job search for applicants, and may, in addition, require up to 8 weeks of job search for AFDC recipients each year. This means that in the first year, up to 16 weeks of job search may be required, with 8 weeks per year thereafter. Additional job search activities may not be required by the State of an individual unless they are in combination with some other education, training or employment activity which is designed to improve the individual's prospects for employment. In no event may a State require an individual to participate in more than 3 weeks of job search before the State conducts an employability assessment for that individual. Finally, job search cannot be treated for any purpose as an activity under the JOBS program if an individual has participated in job search for 4 out of the preceding 12 months. Community work experience.--The purpose of a CWEP program is to provide experience and training for individuals not otherwise able to obtain employment. CWEP programs must be designed to improve the employability of participants through actual work experience and training and to enable individuals employed under CWEP programs to move into regular employment. CWEP programs must be limited to projects which serve a useful, public purpose in fields such as health, social service, environmental protection, education, urban and rural development and redevelopment, welfare, recreation, public facilities, public safety and day care. A State electing to operate a CWEP program must ensure that the maximum number of hours that any individual may be required to work under the CWEP program is no greater than the number of hours derived by dividing the total AFDC benefit by the Federal minimum wage (or, if greater, the State minimum wage). Any AFDC benefit amount for which the State receives reimbursement through child support collection cannot be taken into account in determining the maximum number of hours that individuals may be required to work. After an individual has been assigned to a CWEP position for 9 months, the individual cannot be required to continue in that assignment unless the maximum number of hours of work is no greater than the cash benefit (excluding child support) divided by the rate of pay for individuals employed in the same or similar occupations by the same employer at the same site. At the conclusion of each CWEP assignment, but, in any event, after each 6 months of participation in CWEP, the State agency must provide a reassessment, and revision, as appropriate, of the individual's employability plan. Work supplementation.--Under a work supplementation program, a State reserves the amount that would have been payable to an AFDC family and uses the amount instead to provide and subsidize a job for the family. Recipients may be placed in jobs offered by private as well as nonprofit employers. The work supplementation is an alternative to an AFDC payment. Under JOBS, States may make work supplementation either mandatory or voluntary, and States are required to provide Medicaid to work supplementation participants. States operating a work supplementation program may adjust the level of their AFDC standard of need in order to carry out the program, and need standards may vary from one area of the State to another. Need standards may also vary among recipient categories, to the extent that the State determines the variation to be appropriate on the basis of the ability of the recipient to participate in the work supplementation program. States are able to make further adjustments to amounts paid to different categories of AFDC recipients participating in work supplementation in order to offset increases in benefits from non-AFDC means-tested programs. States are permitted to reduce or eliminate the amount of earned income disregards for families participating in a work supplementation program, and are permitted to offer the $30 plus one-third earned income disregard for up to 9 months for participants. Federal funding under the program is limited for each participant to the aggregate of 9 months worth of the maximum AFDC grant (unreduced by earned income disregards or changes to the need standard) the participant family otherwise would have received were it not participating in the work supplementation program and had no income (or less if the person participates for fewer than 9 months). Participation requirements To the extent resources are available, a State must require non-exempt AFDC recipients to participate in the JOBS program. Exempt applicants and recipients may participate on a voluntary basis. Exempt recipients would be those who are: (1) ill, incapacitated, or of advanced age; (2) needed in the home because of the illness or incapacity of another family member (who need not be a member of the AFDC unit); (3) the parent or other relative of a child under age 3 who is personally providing care for the child (or, if provided in the State plan, any age that is less than 3 but not less than 1); (4) employed 30 or more hours a week; (5) a child under age 16 or attending, full time, an elementary, secondary or vocational school; (6) a woman who is in at least the second trimester of pregnancy; or (7) residing in an area where the program is not available. Table 10-3 shows that most States exempt recipients with a child under age 3 who are providing care for the child. The 1988 law includes certain limitations on participation. The parent of a child under age 6 (but older than the age for an exemption) who is personally providing care for the child may be required to participate only if child care is guaranteed and required participation is limited to no more than 20 hours per week. In the case of an AFDC-UP family, the exemption relating to age of child may apply to only one parent, except that the State may require both parents to participate if child care is guaranteed. There are certain special requirements under JOBS related to education. To the extent the JOBS program is available and State resources permit, a State must require a custodial parent under age 20 who has not completed high school (or the equivalent), including a parent who is not otherwise required to participate in JOBS solely because of the exclusion relating to providing care for a young child, to participate in an educational activity. Even though such a parent is providing care for a child under 6 years of age, the State agency may require the parent to participate in the educational activity on a full-time basis. Alternative work or training activities may be provided if the parent fails to make progress in an educational activity, or if an educational assessment determines that participation in an educational activity is inappropriate. Participation in alternative activities is limited to 20 hours per week. If an individual is attending school or a course of vocational training, not less than half time, at the time he or she would otherwise begin to participate in the JOBS program, and making satisfactory progress, the attendance may meet the participation requirement for the individual, but the costs of the school or training are not eligible for Federal reimbursement. Certain minimum participation standards are established for fiscal years 1990 through 1995 for the AFDC caseload. States face a reduced Federal match if those participation standards are not met. In fiscal year 1990, at least 7 percent of the nonexempt caseload in each State must participate in the JOBS program in any month. The minimum participation rates in subsequent years are 7 percent in fiscal year 1991, 11 percent in fiscal years 1992-1993, 15 percent in fiscal year 1994, and 20 percent in fiscal year 1995. At least one parent in each AFDC-UP family must participate at least 16 hours a week in a work activity, but, with respect to CWEP, not more hours than the minimum wage equivalent based on the welfare payment less the portion of the payment reimbursed to the State by child support. Participation must be in work supplementation, community work experience or other work experience program, on-the-job training, or a State- designed work program approved by the Secretary. The percentage of AFDC-UP families required to meet this work requirement is 40 percent in fiscal year 1994, 50 percent in fiscal year 1995, 60 percent in fiscal year 1996, and 75 percent in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 (calculated so that, on average, these percentages of the caseload would be participating in each month of the year). A State may substitute participation in an educational program in the case of a parent under age 25 who has not completed high school. Targeting of JOBS funds As described in detail later, Federal matching for JOBS program costs is available as a capped entitlement. The JOBS program includes incentives for States to target funds toward certain populations. States face a reduced Federal match unless 55 percent of JOBS funds is spent on the following populations: (1) families in which the custodial parent is under age 24 and has not completed high school or has little or no work experience in the preceding year; (2) families in which the youngest child is within 2 years of being ineligible for assistance because of age; (3) families who have received assistance for 36 or more months during the preceding 60-month period; and (4) applicants who have received AFDC for any 36 of the 60 months immediately preceding application. Volunteers must be given first consideration within target groups. Funding of JOBS and supportive services Federal matching for JOBS program costs is available as a capped entitlement limited to $600 million in fiscal year 1989, $800 million in fiscal year 1990, $1 billion in fiscal year 1991, 1992 and 1993, $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1994, $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1995, and $1.0 billion a year thereafter. The Federal match is 90 percent for expenditures up to the amount allotted to the States for the WIN program in fiscal year 1987. Of additional amounts, the Federal match is at the Medicaid rate, with a minimum Federal match of 60 percent, for nonadministrative costs and for personnel costs for full-time staff working on the JOBS program. The match for other administrative costs is 50 percent. The Federal match for JOBS is reduced to 50 percent unless (1) 55 percent of funds are spent on certain target populations, and (2) the States meet participation rate requirements. The entitlement cap for JOBS is allocated as follows: States receive an amount equal to their WIN allotment for fiscal year 1987 ($126 million for all States) and the remainder is allocated on the basis of each State's relative number of adult recipients of AFDC. Federal program funds may not be used to supplant non-Federal funds for existing services and activities. Child care during participation in JOBS and for employment is reimbursed as a separate, open-ended entitlement at the Medicaid matching rate. Transportation and other work-related expenses are reimbursed at a rate of 50 percent and are included among those expenditures subject to the JOBS entitlement cap. Table 10-5 provides information on Federal allocations to the States for the JOBS program for fiscal years 1991 through 1993, along with information on the amount of these funds States have expended and obligated. The table also includes information on federally reimbursed expenditures for child care. According to HHS, total Federal and State expenditures for the JOBS program (not including child care) equaled $1.006 billion for fiscal year 1992. Supportive and transitional services State agencies must guarantee child care for a recipient if the care is necessary for the individual to work. In addition, the State must guarantee child care for education and training activities, including participation in the JOBS program, if the State approves the activity and determines that the individual is participating satisfactorily. The State agency must also guarantee child care to the extent the care is necessary for an individual's employment in any case where a family has ceased to receive AFDC assistance as a result of increased hours of, or increased income from, employment or as a result of the loss of earnings disregards. Transitional child care is limited to a period of 12 months after the last month for which the family actually received AFDC assistance. (AFDC child care assistance programs are described in more detail in section 12.) The State must provide payment or reimbursement for necessary transportation and other work-related expenses, including other work-related supportive services, that the State determines are necessary to enable an individual to participate in JOBS. Federal matching is 50 percent subject to the overall JOBS funding cap (see section on Federal and State expenditures for JOBS). There is no Federal limit on the amount of reimbursement with respect to an individual. TABLE 10-4.--SUMMARY OF JOBS PROGRAMS FROM STATE PLANS: JANUARY 1994\1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exemption from Optional participation if Allow postsecondary Require agency State Name of program components\2\ child under education? Any Assign case participant age--\3\ limits? manager? contract? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............. JOBS................ OJT, alt. work exp., JS. ................ Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. No Alaska.............. JOBS................ OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 30 consecutive Yes............. No JS, other ed. & months limit. training. Arizona............. JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS....... 2............... Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. No Arkansas............ Project Success..... Alt. work exp., JS.. 1............... Yes; 4 year limit... Yes............. No California.......... GAIN................ OJT, work supp., ................ Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. Yes CWEP, JS. Colorado............ New Directions...... OJT, work supp., 1............... Yes; 24 month limit. Yes............. No CWEP, JS. Connecticut......... JOBS................ OJT, JS............. 2............... Yes; 2 years; 3 Yes............. No years for certified programs. Delaware............ First Step.......... OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ Yes................. Yes............. No District of Columbia ARC................. OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. No JS. Florida............. Project Independence OJT, work supp., ................ Yes; 4 year limit... Yes............. No CWEP, alt. work exp., JS. Georgia............. PEACH............... OJT, CWEP, alt. work ................ Yes; 28 month limit. Yes............. No exp., JS. Guam................ JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ Yes................. Yes............. No Hawaii.............. JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, alt. work ................ Yes................. Yes............. No exp., alt. education, JS, other ed. & training. Idaho............... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 4 year limit... Yes............. No JS, other ed. & training. Illinois............ Project Chance...... OJT, work supp., ................ Yes; no limits...... Yes............. No CWEP, alt. work exp., JS, other ed. & training. Indiana............. IMPACT: JOBS........ OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ Yes................. Yes............. No Iowa................ Promise JOBS........ OJT, CWEP, alt. work ................ Yes; 30 month limit No.............. No exp., JS, other for 2 year degree training. program; 40 month limit for 3 or 4 year programs. Kansas.............. Kan Work in 23 OJT, CWEP, JS, other ................ Yes; up to BA/BS.... Yes............. No counties; minimal training. JOBS in balance of State. Kentucky............ JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, alt. work ................ Yes; limited to 6 Yes............. No exp., JS. semesters for 2 and 3 year programs; 8 semesters for 4 year programs. Louisiana........... Project Independence OJT, CWEP, JS....... 1............... Yes; 4 year limit... Yes............. Yes Maine............... ASPIRE/JOBS......... OJT, JS, other ed. & ................ Yes; limited to 6 Yes............. Yes training. semesters for AA degree, 12 semesters for BA degree. Maryland............ Project Independence OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes................. Yes............. No JS, work supp., other ed. & training. Massachusetts....... Mass JOBS........... OJT, work supp., JS. ................ Yes; limited to 3 Yes............. No years for 2-year degree, voc-tech programs; 6 years for 4-year programs. Michigan............ MOST................ OJT, work supp, 1............... No.................. Yes............. No CWEP, JS. Minnesota........... Project STRIDE...... OJT, work supp, CWEP ................ Yes................. Yes............. No alt. work exp., JS. Mississippi......... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 4 year limit, 3 Yes............. No JS, other training. year vocational. Missouri............ FUTURES............. OJT, CWEP, JS, other ................ Yes................. Yes............. No ed. & training. Montana............. JOBS................ OJT, work supp., JS, ................ Yes................. Yes............. Yes CWEP, alt. work exp. Nebraska............ JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, alt. work 1............... Yes................. Yes............. No exp., JS. Nevada.............. JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ No.................. Yes............. No New Hampshire....... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ Yes................. Yes............. No New Jersey.......... REACH............... OJT, work supp, 2............... Yes................. Yes............. No CWEP, JS, other ed. & training. New Mexico.......... Project Forward..... OJT, CWEP, alt. work ................ Yes................. Yes............. No exp., JS, other ed. & training. New York............ JOBS................ OJT, work supp., ................ Yes, 2 year limit... Yes............. No CWEP, JS, other ed. & training. North Carolina...... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ Yes................. Yes............. No North Dakota........ JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS....... ................ Yes................. Yes............. No Ohio................ JOBS................ OJT, work supp., ................ Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. No CWEP, alt. work exp., JS. Oklahoma............ Education, Training OJT, work supp., 1............... Yes; 5 year limit... No.............. No and Employment. alt. work exp., JS, other ed. & training. Oregon.............. JOBS................ OJT, work supp., 1............... No.................. Yes............. No CWEP, alt. work exp., JS, other training. Pennsylvania........ New Directions...... OJT, CWEP, alt. work ................ Yes................. Yes............. No exp., JS, other ed. & training. Puerto Rico......... PASOS............... OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes................. Yes............. No work supp., JS, other ed. & training. Rhode Island........ Pathways to Work supp., OJT, JS. ................ Yes; 24 month limit. Yes............. No Independence. South Carolina...... Work Support Program OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 4 year limit... Yes............. No JS, other ed. & training. South Dakota........ FIND................ OJT CWEP, JS........ 1............... Yes................. Yes............. No Tennessee........... JOBS/WORK........... OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 4 year limit... Yes............. No JS. Texas............... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. No JS. Utah................ JOBS................ OJT, alt. work exp. ................ Yes; with limits.... Yes............. Yes (WEAT), JS. Vermont............. Reach Up............ OJT, work supp., ................ Yes; 3 year limit Yes............. No CWEP, JS. for AA certificate, 5 years for BA degree. Virgin Islands...... JOBS/HOPE........... OJT, CWEP, work 2............... Yes; with limits.... Yes............. Yes supp., JS. Virginia............ JOBS................ OJT, work supp., ................ Yes................. Yes............. No alt. work exp., JS, other ed. & training. Washington.......... JOBS/FIP............ OJT, alt. work exp., ................ Yes; with limits.... Yes............. No CWEP, work supp., JS. West Virginia....... JOBS................ CWEP, OJT, JS....... ................ Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. No Wisconsin........... JOBS................ CWEP, OJT, work 2............... Yes; 2 year limit... Yes............. Yes supp., JS, alt. work exp., other training. Wyoming............. Wyoming OJT, alt. work exp, ................ Yes; 4 year limit Yes............. Yes Opportunities for JS. for AA & Work (WOW) Program. vocational; 6 year limit for BA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Information based on State JOBS Plan, filed for the biennium beginning October 1, 1992. \2\All States include a Job Search component. \3\Unless otherwise noted, State follows basic statutory approach and exempts the parent of a child under age 3. Note.--Optional components can include Job Search, Alternative Work Experience, On the Job Training (OJT), Community Work Experience Program (CWEP), Work Supplementation, Other Education, and other activities. Source: ACF/OFA/Division of JOBS Program of Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-5.--FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE JOBS PROGRAM [By fiscal year; in millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indians Awarded Total obligated Title IV-A-- Jobs--total set- to ------------------------------ Total child care States authorization aside States expended ----------------- 1993\1\ 1993\2\ 1993\3\ 1993\5\ 1992\5\ 1991\5\ 1993\4\ 1993 1992 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama.................................................... 9.4 ........ 8.8 9.3 6.2 4.3 9.0 9.9 5.4 Alaska..................................................... 2.8 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.4 American Samoa............................................. 0.1 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ....... ....... Arizona.................................................... 11.7 1.2 5.7 5.8 4.0 3.0 5.6 8.6 6.1 Arkansas................................................... 5.0 ........ 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.5 4.3 1.8 1.6 California................................................. 157.2 0.4 96.8 96.8 94.0 108.3 85.2 19.4 18.0 Colorado................................................... 10.5 (\6\) 6.7 6.7 5.9 5.3 6.7 5.3 4.0 Connecticut................................................ 12.1 ........ 6.1 6.1 7.4 9.2 6.1 7.4 6.4 Delaware................................................... 2.1 ........ 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.6 2.7 2.0 District of Columbia....................................... 4.7 ........ 4.7 4.7 3.6 3.2 4.7 3.1 3.1 Florida.................................................... 38.5 ........ 15.9 15.9 14.4 13.4 15.4 19.9 16.6 Georgia.................................................... 25.9 ........ 15.8 10.3 10.3 8.0 10.3 25.2 16.8 Guam....................................................... 0.4 ........ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ....... ....... Hawaii..................................................... 4.1 ........ 4.1 4.1 5.0 1.7 4.1 0.2 0.2 Idaho...................................................... 2.4 (\6\) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.1 1.0 Illinois................................................... 49.1 ........ 25.9 25.9 20.5 19.2 20.8 12.3 7.2 Indiana.................................................... 14.8 ........ 8.1 8.1 5.7 3.9 8.1 6.3 3.4 Iowa....................................................... 8.4 ........ 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.5 5.9 2.5 1.8 Kansas..................................................... 6.5 (\6\) 6.4 6.4 5.7 4.5 6.4 6.9 5.2 Kentucky................................................... 17.6 ........ 14.8 13.7 11.5 8.3 13.2 11.0 8.7 Louisiana.................................................. 16.5 ........ 16.5 16.5 15.4 7.9 16.5 9.0 6.6 Maine...................................................... 5.8 (\6\) 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.7 0.9 0.7 Maryland................................................... 16.7 ........ 14.1 14.1 16.8 14.1 11.4 15.0 10.9 Massachusetts.............................................. 24.4 ........ 20.5 20.5 20.6 21.5 19.5 27.0 22.1 Michigan................................................... 55.4 0.1 35.2 35.2 28.7 21.1 35.2 22.1 15.5 Minnesota.................................................. 15.8 0.9 11.7 11.7 11.5 9.5 11.5 13.9 11.3 Mississippi................................................ 10.8 (\6\) 10.8 10.8 9.4 1.5 3.2 3.4 2.4 Missouri................................................... 18.9 ........ 9.8 9.8 6.3 3.1 9.8 13.3 7.8 Montana.................................................... 2.9 0.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.8 2.5 1.8 2.1 Nebraska................................................... 3.5 (\6\) 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.7 8.1 6.5 Nevada..................................................... 2.3 (\6\) 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.8 New Hampshire.............................................. 2.3 ........ 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.6 2.9 2.4 2.2 New Jersey................................................. 27.0 ........ 27.0 21.0 24.9 25.7 21.0 9.0 8.0 New Mexico................................................. 6.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.6 3.9 2.1 New York................................................... 85.3 (\6\) 85.2 85.2 85.8 52.4 58.6 56.1 46.7 North Carolina............................................. 22.4 (\6\) 17.7 17.7 14.9 8.0 17.7 38.0 23.6 North Dakota............................................... 1.7 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.9 Ohio....................................................... 58.7 ........ 44.6 58.6 49.0 44.2 50.8 36.1 19.3 Oklahoma................................................... 9.3 0.1 6.9 6.7 6.3 5.6 6.7 16.5 13.7 Oregon..................................................... 11.4 (\6\) 11.4 11.4 11.2 10.3 11.4 8.9 7.8 Pennsylvania............................................... 44.9 ........ 34.5 34.7 31.2 29.1 22.7 25.0 15.8 Puerto Rico................................................ 13.1 ........ 9.5 9.6 7.1 1.7 9.4 ....... ....... Rhode Island............................................... 4.8 ........ 4.2 4.8 4.2 3.6 4.4 3.6 3.2 South Carolina............................................. 8.8 ........ 5.0 5.4 4.6 3.8 4.7 3.9 2.2 South Dakota............................................... 1.7 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 Tennessee.................................................. 18.4 ........ 5.0 7.8 7.2 2.6 5.6 20.0 13.2 Texas...................................................... 48.2 ........ 37.2 37.2 33.6 23.2 33.9 33.5 31.2 Utah....................................................... 4.5 (\6\) 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.1 8.8 7.7 Vermont.................................................... 3.2 ........ 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.0 2.9 2.0 1.7 Virgin Islands............................................. 0.3 ........ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ....... ....... Virginia................................................... 13.6 ........ 9.1 9.1 7.2 6.0 9.1 10.5 8.4 Washington................................................. 24.4 0.5 19.9 23.9 20.1 12.0 16.7 23.2 17.0 West Virginia.............................................. 10.7 ........ 9.8 9.8 8.6 4.8 9.8 4.7 3.2 Wisconsin.................................................. 20.7 0.3 20.4 20.4 21.6 23.4 20.4 10.7 10.2 Wyoming.................................................... 1.6 (\6\) 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.2 2.1 2.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals............................................... 1,000.0 7.1 728.5 738.8 681.4 564.0 646.6 582.5 437.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\JOBS--total authorization: Total federal funds available for the JOBS program for fiscal year 1993. \2\Indian set-aside: Ratio of adult recipients in a tribal service area to the State's total of adult recipients multiplied by the State's total allocation. \3\Excludes the Indian set-aside. \4\Total expended: The amount of funds that left the State's treasury through September 30, 1993, for the program. \5\Total obligated: The amount of funds obligated by the State by September 30, 1993. For example, if a contract is signed by the State to provide services based on a set fee, the amount owed for those services is an obligation. That obligation becomes an expenditure only when the invoice for the services is actually paid. \6\Denotes allocations and expenditures of less than $50,000. Note.--Data are up to date as of February 23, 1994. Table is based on best available data reported by States. Source: Administration for Children and Families. Table 10-6 shows the average monthly percent of JOBS participants in various components by State in fiscal year 1991. The numbers reveal a great deal of variation in the emphasis States place on different JOBS program components. Table 10-7 examines the average monthly expenditures in various components of the JOBS program by State. This table shows a considerable degree of variation among States in the amount of money spent on individual JOBS components. TABLE 10-6.--AVERAGE MONTHLY PERCENTAGE OF JOBS PARTICIPANTS BY STATE AND COMPONENT--FISCAL YEAR 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Self Total Job High Assigned init. Vocational Job Job Job Assess Job Work State participants entry school higher higher training skills readiness develop emp. search OJT supp. CWEP Other ed. ed. training plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama............................................... 5,472 7.1 29.0 1.6 10.4 5.4 5.9 2.3 0.2 27.4 9.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 Alaska................................................ 596 1.8 18.6 11.7 7.9 0.0 3.2 39.6 0.0 9.2 6.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 Arizona............................................... 2,336 9.1 19.1 3.7 4.6 7.1 8.6 0.6 1.3 11.6 30.7 0.7 0.0 2.8 0.0 Arkansas.............................................. 3,660 0.0 22.2 8.8 0.0 10.9 7.8 6.4 0.0 10.8 4.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 27.9 California............................................ 60,567 6.5 43.3 1.3 7.3 6.4 11.3 5.1 0.9 14.5 2.7 1.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 Colorado.............................................. 5,183 6.8 18.4 16.1 5.9 2.0 8.4 3.6 0.0 16.0 8.8 0.4 0.8 12.8 0.0 Connecticut........................................... 5,714 7.0 36.1 8.7 11.1 9.7 5.2 5.3 1.8 6.0 5.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delaware.............................................. 722 3.2 7.5 0.8 11.8 3.6 2.2 0.0 0.3 51.4 5.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 13.6 District of Col....................................... 2,424 1.2 11.9 0.0 0.0 8.6 10.2 1.0 15.4 36.1 4.5 0.1 0.0 1.9 8.8 Florida............................................... 13,750 14.4 20.9 7.0 0.6 2.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 14.7 37.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.0 Georgia............................................... 9,077 6.5 29.0 20.7 8.4 2.0 3.0 6.0 0.1 12.8 9.0 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.3 Guam\1\............................................... ............ ...... ...... ........ ...... .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Hawaii................................................ 252 2.0 32.9 27.0 1.6 0.0 4.4 18.3 0.4 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 1.2 Idaho................................................. 726 9.1 16.3 3.2 9.9 12.5 11.6 10.3 0.4 14.9 4.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.6 Illinois.............................................. 19,180 2.8 25.5 16.2 1.7 1.6 9.7 7.4 0.0 5.7 20.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.6 Indiana............................................... 4,428 7.0 31.9 10.3 8.3 14.4 2.9 8.3 1.2 9.9 3.1 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 Iowa.................................................. 5,667 1.6 15.0 10.9 3.6 1.4 9.1 6.2 0.0 40.3 8.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 3.2 Kansas................................................ 3,520 8.9 29.5 14.2 13.0 6.5 3.3 2.2 1.1 8.3 4.4 0.4 0.1 4.3 2.9 Kentucky.............................................. 2,761 0.0 26.7 8.1 37.2 5.7 8.0 3.8 0.0 3.9 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 Louisiana............................................. 5,624 3.6 41.9 2.2 2.3 8.7 17.8 4.1 0.0 13.6 5.1 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 Maine................................................. 2,261 3.8 18.1 22.9 0.1 0.2 1.5 12.4 0.5 32.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Maryland.............................................. 6,219 6.6 16.1 3.4 1.7 1.4 11.1 15.5 17.4 17.2 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 Massachusetts......................................... 16,910 25.9 14.7 10.3 0.0 0.0 17.2 3.4 0.6 7.4 20.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Michigan.............................................. 41,941 7.1 20.5 0.1 24.2 15.4 3.3 3.1 2.4 15.3 4.6 0.2 0.0 3.9 0.0 Minnesota............................................. 9,785 6.6 16.1 14.9 0.0 0.0 29.5 3.1 6.8 4.6 17.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mississippi........................................... 1,852 5.2 39.1 5.5 5.4 1.9 11.1 4.6 0.9 12.1 8.0 1.0 0.3 3.7 1.2 Missouri.............................................. 3,914 3.6 19.6 7.0 12.1 10.0 11.7 3.0 0.0 17.0 11.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 3.6 Montana............................................... 2,124 24.1 9.1 6.6 2.7 1.4 4.4 6.7 1.6 10.5 17.9 1.3 0.0 8.1 3.6 Nebraska\1\........................................... ............ ...... ...... ........ ...... .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Nevada................................................ 921 6.4 23.1 0.0 2.7 11.3 5.4 1.1 0.0 21.6 9.1 0.1 0.0 19.1 0.0 New Hampshire......................................... 1,414 0.8 22.2 40.8 1.4 0.0 3.7 2.8 0.0 0.8 20.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.0 New Jersey............................................ 13,609 5.6 29.0 6.6 0.2 0.0 18.0 6.3 0.0 24.2 7.7 0.1 0.2 1.9 0.3 New Mexico............................................ 4,970 6.9 22.9 17.3 1.8 2.9 14.1 0.0 0.0 16.9 12.5 0.1 0.0 4.2 0.5 New York.............................................. 32,796 2.6 22.3 5.7 7.6 35.2 5.0 4.5 4.5 2.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 4.4 0.0 North Carolina........................................ 6,895 5.3 25.3 17.9 7.4 2.0 7.0 12.0 0.0 18.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 North Dakota.......................................... 2,494 17.2 8.1 23.3 2.4 0.6 12.9 20.6 0.0 9.5 3.3 0.5 0.0 2.3 0.0 Ohio.................................................. 46,620 2.8 28.0 16,5 1.2 0.2 3.8 1.9 1.2 21.4 7.2 0.0 0.1 15.6 0.0 Oklahoma.............................................. 9,478 8.1 18.8 4.4 34.4 6.1 8.9 1.9 0.1 3.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 1.2 Oregon................................................ 7,408 11.9 17.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 9.2 9.5 0.0 17.3 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Pennsylvania.......................................... 21,435 3.7 17.3 4.6 2.2 0.0 44.6 10.4 0.0 9.8 4.2 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.4 Puerto Rico........................................... 3,532 5.3 6.7 9.4 7.0 13.3 13.3 2.2 1.6 36.8 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.5 Rhode Island.......................................... 2,978 2.7 20.1 22.6 29.3 1.7 16.9 1.2 0.3 3.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 South Carolina........................................ 8,533 6.7 28.8 4.9 1.3 0.8 6.8 1.8 0.0 10.8 34.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 South Dakota.......................................... 880 18.0 8.3 13.0 24.0 10.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 3.0 12.4 1.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 Tennessee............................................. 4,810 4.8 36.3 19.3 6.5 0.5 9.1 5.4 0.0 13.8 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.1 Texas................................................. 20,641 7.5 18.6 2.8 3.1 4.5 3.3 3.2 0.0 46.7 9.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Utah.................................................. 6,394 32.3 12.0 11.8 2.4 2.1 10.4 3.6 0.0 14.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Vermont............................................... 2,012 0.0 11.6 24.7 0.8 0.0 4.7 4.0 0.0 7.7 38.6 0.3 0.0 7.6 0.0 Virgin Islands........................................ 547 3.7 29.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.0 1.8 13.7 40.8 0.0 0.0 5.5 2.7 Virginia.............................................. 8,118 6.0 23.7 14.8 4.2 2.3 7.7 3.4 8.0 9.5 10.5 0.2 0l8 0.0 9.3 Washington............................................ 17,054 6.1 17.5 15.2 7.0 2.6 7.6 1.4 0.1 29.4 10.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.1 West Virginia......................................... 6,763 7.3 6.4 2.6 2.9 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.1 69.2 2.1 0.3 0.0 4.5 3.1 Wisconsin............................................. 18,578 15.1 15.9 7.9 16.5 0.0 3.2 4.2 0.0 10.2 14.8 0.5 1.0 3.3 7.2 Wyoming............................................... 422 5.7 5.0 7.3 12.3 0.2 3.8 4.7 0.0 11.4 18.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 30.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total...................................... 483,417 7.2 24.5 8.2 6.7 6.3 9.5 4.5 1.4 16.5 9.4 0.4 0.1 3.7 1.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\Data not reported. TABLE 10-7.--PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF JOBS IV-F COMPONENT/ACTIVITY EXPENDITURES (STATE AND FEDERAL)\1\ [Fiscal year 1992; in percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Assess./ Job Self- Self- Total State employ. Education Job Job Post Job OJT Work CWEP Other dvpmnt/ initiated initiated component plan skills readiness secondary search supp. placemnt education training expenditures ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.............................................. 38 27 10 5 3 7 (\4\) 0 0 4 1 3 2 $7,427,743 Alaska............................................... 26 14 6 8 6 6 1 0 0 17 2 2 1 1,443,703 Arizona.............................................. 17 69 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,726,660 Arkansas............................................. 38 20 2 8 3 5 0 0 0 14 0 6 4 6,063,886 California........................................... 27 30 13 7 0 3 1 0 4 0 5 0 0 114,205,782 Colorado............................................. 0 3 0 0 62 0 23 0 11 0 0 0 0 1,100,054 Connecticut.......................................... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) Delaware............................................. 37 16 12 1 11 6 (\4\) 0 1 0 0 16 0 1,978,916 District of Columbia................................. 21 12 11 1 0 11 (\4\) 0 1 24 14 1 5 3,798,960 Florida.............................................. 30 22 6 7 1 17 1 (\4\) (\4\) 5 10 1 (\4\) 20,877,410 Georgia.............................................. 2 36 4 5 47 3 (\4\) 0 2 0 1 0 0 4,497,555 Hawaii............................................... 16 24 4 11 42 (\4\) 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 142,879 Idaho................................................ 36 18 1 21 0 10 0 0 0 11 3 1 0 3,015,168 Illinois............................................. 14 38 10 4 16 10 (\4\) 0 2 3 0 2 0 23,887,515 Indiana.............................................. 30 17 24 11 5 5 1 0 (\4\) 4 4 0 0 3,550,914 Iowa................................................. 28 12 18 7 20 8 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 7,839,488 Kansas\3\............................................ 20 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402,625 Kentucky............................................. 29 33 15 7 6 6 1 (\4\) 1 0 0 1 0 6,207,953 Louisiana............................................ 16 48 12 8 1 4 (\4\) 0 (\4\) 6 4 0 0 11,281,195 Maine................................................ 7 27 2 9 37 8 1 0 0 2 5 (\4\) (\4\) 4,361,927 Maryland............................................. 35 18 16 16 3 3 (\4\) 0 0 2 4 0 0 15,717,482 Massachusetts........................................ 17 27 29 5 3 19 0 (\4\) 0 0 0 0 0 28,250,889 Michigan............................................. 14 3 28 23 0 16 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 2,634,092 Minnesota............................................ 16 22 28 4 13 16 1 0 (\4\) 0 0 0 0 13,022,486 Mississippi.......................................... 52 23 6 3 3 6 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 2,702,526 Missouri............................................. 46 6 5 10 4 11 (\4\) 0 (\4\) 2 2 8 7 7,391,960 Montana.............................................. 16 12 14 17 4 19 2 0 12 0 0 2 1 2,280,659 Nebraska............................................. 4 16 3 52 6 18 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3,642,160 Nevada............................................... 20 22 19 2 0 8 2 0 20 0 0 1 6 1,301,326 New Hampshire........................................ 4 21 1 25 20 11 6 0 0 9 3 0 0 1,307,100 New Jersey........................................... 13 27 23 11 0 22 (\4\) 1 1 2 1 0 0 15,047,965 New Mexico........................................... 6 28 19 6 17 4 (\4\) 0 (\4\) 4 0 4 3 1,168,240 New York............................................. 38 26 5 7 4 2 1 1 6 0 8 1 2 76,922,828 North Carolina....................................... 7 34 10 12 21 1 1 0 3 0 0 12 0 24,659,100 North Dakota......................................... 40 6 12 11 10 5 6 0 (\4\) 0 0 (\4\) 0 986,193 Ohio................................................. 27 14 4 4 8 11 (\4\) (\4\) 8 6 5 2 0 68,673,814 Oklahoma............................................. 16 26 10 5 2 11 (\4\) 1 0 14 13 (\4\) 1 3,348,017 Oregon............................................... 8 25 8 27 0 26 1 0 0 4 0 0 (\4\) 10,819,307 Pennsylvania......................................... 6 22 40 10 6 6 1 0 3 1 6 0 0 39,922,098 Rhode Island......................................... 7 26 15 4 28 5 (\4\) 12 0 0 2 1 (\4\) 5,226,935 South Carolina....................................... 25 26 3 10 4 11 0 0 0 13 8 1 (\4\) 5,016,687 South Dakota......................................... 69 2 2 1 8 11 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 794,221 Tennessee............................................ 15 45 9 7 16 2 1 1 (\4\) 0 0 1 5 5,644,179 Texas................................................ 27 30 3 11 4 9 (\4\) 0 0 0 5 5 6 41,745,481 Utah................................................. 25 14 12 8 8 24 (\4\) 0 0 6 3 0 0 3,129,151 Vermont.............................................. 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87,681 Virginia............................................. 21 30 12 6 10 10 (\4\) 1 0 9 0 1 0 9,648,182 Washington........................................... 37 16 9 3 12 8 1 1 (\4\) 3 3 4 2 18,750,258 West Virginia........................................ 20 29 1 26 0 14 4 0 5 0 0 1 0 9,975,705 Wisconsin............................................ 34 14 5 10 9 16 2 2 6 (\4\) 2 1 (\4\) 25,805,311 Wyoming.............................................. 2 12 8 2 18 16 (\4\) 0 0 21 0 18 2 2,212,815 Guam................................................. 87 2 (\4\) 6 3 (\4\) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 265,161 Puerto Rico.......................................... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) Virgin Islands....................................... 59 15 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187,472 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ United States.................................. 25 25 12 10 6 8 1 (\4\) 3 3 4 2 1 673,097,814 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\These expenditures include: (1) actual IV-F administrative expenditures associated with program components/activities and supportive services (excluding child care) and (2) actual program costs (excluding supportive services program costs). \2\State did not report data for any quarter. \3\State did not report any data for the fourth quarter. \4\Less than .5 percent. Source: DHHS/Administration for Children and Families/Office of Family Assistance. Table 10-8 examines State level of effort with respect to participation in the JOBS program. The first four columns present data that the States reported to DHHS. Column 5 shows the percentage of the AFDC caseload that is not exempt from JOBS participation requirements. As with many of the previous tables there is a lot of variation among States. In Mississippi only 20 percent of AFDC families were subject to JOBS participation requirements (7 percent in Hawaii and 20 percent in Tennessee), whereas in Montana 90 percent of AFDC families were required to participate in the JOBS program. Column 6 displays countable JOBS participants (i.e., those who met the 20-hour rule requirement) as a percentage of persons required to participate in the JOBS program. Although column 6 closely approximates the JOBS participation rate for each State, Federal law specifies the exact methodology States must use to derive their participation rates. This methodology is more complex than simply dividing the number of countable JOBS participants by the number of non-exempt AFDC adult recipients (which is how column 6 was calculated). The reader should use the data presented in table 10-8 with caution. These data have not been reviewed for accuracy and appear to overstate participation in the JOBS program, given that States have testified that they may have trouble meeting the 15 percent participation rate in fiscal year 1994 and the 20 percent rate in fiscal year 1995. According to a May 1993 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), ``JOBS participation rates data are not accurate nor comparably derived across States.'' The GAO report asserts that DHHS officials have been aware of the participation rate data problems in the four States surveyed by GAO and in at least 20 other States as well. The report says that DHHS officials responded that inadequate resources have prevented them from validating the processes States use to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the State's data. JOBS: A Status Report Federal law requires that States enroll at least 11 percent of non-exempt AFDC families in their JOBS program during fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 (up from 7 percent in fiscal year 1991). In addition, effective October 1, 1992, States were required to implement the JOBS program statewide. Approximately 16 percent of adult non-exempt AFDC recipients were counted as participants of the JOBS program during fiscal year 1992 (see table 10-8). As of May 1993, information from DHHS indicates that all jurisdictions have implemented the JOBS program statewide. To meet these new requirements, most States had to expand their JOBS program for fiscal year 1993. Some 34 States increased funding for their JOBS program; 6 States reduced funding (Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Wyoming); and 4 States froze funding (Delaware, Guam, Idaho, and Minnesota). To ``draw down'' the $1 billion available in Federal funding for the JOBS program, States must provide matching funds. Due to tight State budgets, only about 70 percent of the eligible Federal funds were claimed by States in fiscal year 1993. Only 16 States claimed their full allocation of Federal JOBS funds. TABLE 10-8.--JOBS PARTICIPATION: STATE LEVEL OF EFFORT, FISCAL YEAR 1992 [Data based on monthly averages from October 1991-September 1992] Total adult recipients Total JOBS participants Countable JOBS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of AFDC participants, as State adults mandatory a percent of AFDC JOBS Mandatories Active Countable for JOBS mandatories (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama\1\............................ 41,219 10,721 5,472 3,188 26 30 Alaska................................ 11,676 2,577 596 452 22 18 Arizona\1\............................ 54,593 13,524 2,336 1,491 25 11 Arkansas.............................. 21,690 7,933 3,680 1,928 37 24 California\2\......................... 704,723 276,199 60,687 33,991 39 12 Colorado\1\........................... 40,875 28,531 5,193 4,765 70 17 Connecticut........................... 51,902 31,729 5,714 7,512 61 24 Delaware.............................. 8,525 3,496 722 638 41 18 District of Columbia.................. 17,827 9,032 2,424 1,054 51 12 Florida\1\............................ 184,262 48,315 13,750 7,488 26 15 Georgia\1\............................ 119,752 46,438 9,077 5,751 39 12 Guam.................................. 1,325 375 NR 13 28 3 Hawaii\1\............................. 16,738 1,124 252 113 7 10 Idaho\1\.............................. 6,450 1,346 726 522 21 39 Illinois.............................. 215,774 122,492 19,180 13,780 57 11 Indiana\1\............................ 66,222 26,031 4,426 1,578 39 6 Iowa.................................. 35,559 11,374 5,687 1,309 32 12 Kansas................................ 27,962 15,542 3,520 3,117 56 20 Kentucky\1\........................... 82,362 19,502 2,761 3,962 24 20 Louisiana\1\.......................... 78,261 25,727 5,624 3,314 33 13 Maine................................. 25,764 14,269 2,261 1,296 55 9 Maryland.............................. 71,996 36,285 6,219 3,670 50 10 Massachusetts......................... 101,762 50,525 16,910 16,323 50 32 Michigan.............................. 233,293 130,704 41,941 22,009 56 17 Minnesota............................. 66,722 19,520 9,785 3,181 29 16 Mississippi\1\........................ 49,608 9,711 1,852 1,289 20 13 Missouri\1\........................... 86,353 24,623 3,914 3,441 29 14 Montana\1\............................ 11,495 10,339 2,124 1,772 90 17 Nebraska.............................. 15,564 6,338 NR 4,891 41 77 Nevada\1\............................. 9,851 2,732 921 398 28 15 New Hampshire......................... 10,358 4,145 1,414 1,027 40 25 New Jersey............................ 111,740 62,316 13,609 8,890 56 14 New Mexico\1\......................... 30,844 8,673 4,970 2,254 28 26 New York.............................. 374,431 169,721 32,798 24,549 45 14 North Carolina........................ 103,944 39,980 6,895 5,543 38 14 North Dakota.......................... 6,404 2,369 2,494 725 37 31 Ohio.................................. 260,048 139,504 46,620 26,280 54 19 Oklahoma.............................. 42,866 30,057 8,478 9,634 70 32 Oregon................................ 39,823 19,215 7,408 4,123 48 21 Pennsylvania.......................... 197,360 91,265 21,435 12,101 46 13 Puerto Rico\1\........................ 62,068 18,450 3,532 3,484 30 19 Rhode Island.......................... 20,477 12,879 2,978 1,784 63 14 South Carolina........................ 39,979 13,922 8,533 2,289 35 16 South Dakota.......................... 6,017 2,067 860 519 34 25 Tennessee............................. 86,605 17,750 4,910 3,485 20 20 Texas\1\.............................. 229,610 104,537 20,841 12,026 46 12 Utah.................................. 17,346 14,601 6,394 5,074 84 35 Vermont............................... 11,290 5,766 2,012 820 51 14 Virginia.............................. 59,443 21,612 8,118 3,855 36 18 Virgin Islands........................ 966 380 547 99 39 26 Washington............................ 97,557 34,876 17,054 10,889 36 31 West Virginia......................... 45,256 23,327 6,763 3,017 52 13 Wisconsin............................. 79,301 41,811 16,578 13,380 53 32 Wyoming............................... 6,332 2,174 422 675 34 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................... 4,400,166 1,888,450 483,417 310,754 43 16 \1\JOBS Program is not statewide as of June 3, 1992. \2\State approved to use a sample to estimate the number of AFDC recipients required to participate in JOBS for fiscal year 1992. NR--Data not reported. Note.--These data should be used with caution. The first four columns from which the other columns are derived, represent State data that were not reviewed or audited for accuracy. Source: Administration for Children and Families, DHHS. TITLE IV-A EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE The Social Security Act permits States, at their option, to operate an Emergency Assistance program for needy families with children (whether or not eligible for AFDC) if the assistance is necessary to avoid the destitution of the child or to provide living arrangements in a home for the child. The statute authorizes 50 percent Federal matching for emergency assistance furnished for a period not in excess of 30 days in any 12-month period. Regulations state that Federal matching is available for emergency assistance authorized by the State during one period of 30 consecutive days in any 12 consecutive months, including payments which are to meet needs which arose before the 30-day period or are for such needs as rent which extend beyond the 30-day period. In fiscal year 1993, 40 jurisdictions operated an Emergency Assistance program. Table 10-9 presents the average monthly caseload and total fiscal year payments for jurisdictions participating in the program. Table 10-10 provides historical data on total payments. As of October 1, 1990, according to State plans on file with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), most EA programs covered natural disasters (23 jurisdictions), such as floods, fires, and storms, and unspecified crisis threatening family or living arrangements (21 jurisdictions). Other qualifying causes for emergency aid specified by various States included (in order of frequency): eviction, potential eviction, or foreclosure; homelessness; utility shut-off or loss of heating energy supply or equipment; civil disorders or crimes of violence; child or spousal abuse; loss of employment or strike; health hazards/risks to health and safety; emergency medical needs; and illness, accident, or injury. Note that AFDC regulations also allow States to include in their State standards of need provision for meeting ``special needs'' of AFDC applicants and recipients. The State plan must specify the circumstances under which payments will be made for special needs. During the mid 1980s, some States began using AFDC special needs funds and/or emergency assistance funds to house otherwise homeless families in hotels. Moreover, a few States were found to be using emergency assistance (EA) funds for more than the 30-day limit specified in law. Placement of a family in a hotel, a last resort that costs an average of more than $1,000 a month, has been controversial, and several reports have found dangerous and squalid conditions in some such ``welfare hotels.'' In response, DHHS issued a proposed rule (published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1987) restricting use of AFDC- special needs for housing expenses, and reconfirming the 30-day limit on EA expenditures. The DHHS proposed regulation would have (1) established an ``unambiguous'' time limit on the use of EA funds and (2) prohibited States from adopting, either as a special or basic need, an AFDC shelter allowance that varied by type of residence (e.g., apartment or hotel). On December 22, 1987, Congress passed legislation that prohibited, until October 1, 1988, the DHHS from taking any action on the proposed EA and AFDC-special needs regulations. The moratorium on promulgation of the regulation was intended to give Congress an opportunity to determine whether and how the current AFDC statute should be amended to respond to the problems of homeless families. The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 extended the moratorium until October 1, 1989, required DHHS to issue a report on recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes in AFDC-special needs and the EA program with respect to improving the responsiveness of those programs to the emergency needs of AFDC-eligible families, and eliminated the use of such funds to provide families shelter in commercial or transient facilities. The report was sent to Congress July 3, 1989, with a proposal to issue a final regulation which would prohibit reimbursement under the EA program for assistance for periods beyond 30 consecutive days in a 12-month period (while continuing to allow EA funds for past-due rent and utility costs and for first month's rent and security deposit). The proposal also would delete from the Department's previously proposed rule the provision precluding States from establishing AFDC shelter allowances that vary by type of residence. In addition, the report stated that the Department would develop legislative proposals to prohibit the use of Federal AFDC and EA matching funds for welfare hotels. The 1989 OBRA prohibited the Secretary from implementing any final EA or AFDC-special need regulations before October 1, 1990. The 1990 OBRA extended this prohibition until October 1, 1991. TABLE 10-9.--EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE: TOTAL CASELOAD AND PAYMENTS (FEDERAL AND STATE) FOR SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1985-93 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average monthly caseload Total fiscal year payments (in thousands) Monthly dollar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- payment per State family 1985\1\ 1990 1992 1993\2\ 1985 1990 1992 1993\2\ ----------------- 1985 1993 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona.................................... 0 0 122 191 0 0 $1,193 $3,675 0 $1,603 Arkansas................................... 48 0 NA 0 $58 0 197 2,557 $101 0 California................................. 734 450 0 0 41,554 $40,956 \3\247 0 4,718 0 Colorado................................... 0 0 852 0 0 0 2,602 24 0 0 Delaware................................... 194 202 161 112 232 417 320 419 100 312 District of Columbia....................... 968 1,682 1,780 1,499 2,381 9,591 2,995 21,276 205 1,183 Florida.................................... 0 2,095 848 921 0 8,828 3,633 3,884 0 351 Georgia.................................... 854 1,704 1,094 1,454 7,405 5,029 4,205 9,529 723 546 Hawaii..................................... 0 0 90 25 0 0 745 371 0 1,237 Illinois................................... 1,161 1,998 1,724 1,177 2,295 3,218 4,799 4,152 165 294 Iowa....................................... 0 0 430 435 0 0 1,701 1,759 0 337 Kansas..................................... 159 197 206 218 394 515 514 637 206 244 Maine...................................... 304 259 461 347 1,007 1,184 1,158 749 276 180 Maryland................................... 1,784 2,000 2,084 2,169 2,445 5,060 4,945 7,156 114 275 Massachusetts.............................. 4,584 5,336 3,721 4,058 17,678 58,970 37,850 45,676 321 938 Michigan................................... 4,211 5,656 1,372 1,490 10,067 20,432 13,926 23,767 199 1,329 Minnesota.................................. 1,165 1,849 1,755 1,913 5,624 10,427 10,028 11,268 402 491 Missouri................................... 0 0 NA 0 0 0 758 2,418 0 0 Montana.................................... 72 60 75 39 386 162 270 227 446 485 Nebraska................................... 181 253 186 172 646 1,641 1,110 1,396 297 676 Nevada..................................... 0 52 0 19 0 147 0 117 0 513 New Hampshire.............................. 0 46 244 329 0 386 882 1,214 0 307 New Jersey................................. 601 3,820 6,577 8,678 2,171 50,902 52,271 53,268 301 512 New York................................... 4,473 12,724 14,580 14,750 37,543 126,878 84,364 542,806 699 3,067 North Carolina............................. 0 1,482 2,303 2,293 0 4,235 5,449 5,464 0 199 North Dakota............................... 0 0 0 335 0 0 0 1,335 0 332 Ohio....................................... 5,037 4,330 4,011 3,921 11,778 6,339 7,767 8,600 195 183 Oklahoma................................... 803 2,197 2,699 2,205 2,548 4,325 5,832 3,591 264 136 Oregon..................................... 1,312 1,758 1,532 1,567 3,415 4,869 4,246 4,763 217 253 Pennsylvania............................... 32 1,512 525 702 92 4,705 2,636 5,157 239 612 Puerto Rico................................ 1,069 538 354 489 247 126 250 192 33 33 South Carolina............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545 0 0 South Dakota............................... 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 359 0 475 Utah....................................... 0 106 120 120 0 257 620 320 0 222 Vermont.................................... 302 395 304 298 364 1,395 1,414 1,450 100 405 Virgin Islands............................. 0 NA NA 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Virginia................................... 18 15 43 43 63 57 89 42 290 81 Washington................................. 727 511 537 610 3,327 2,437 2,731 3,087 381 422 West Virginia.............................. 1,202 1,201 1,225 1,194 1,521 1,529 1,764 1,819 105 127 Wisconsin.................................. 44 889 799 818 197 2,437 3,246 3,174 372 323 Wyoming.................................... 466 196 94 217 1,129 482 232 2,001 202 768 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. total........................... 32,500 55,514 52,906 54,869 156,565 377,942 266,989 788,668 401 1,198 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Expenditure data for fiscal year 1985 does not include prior quarter adjustments. \2\Data for fiscal year 1993 are preliminary. \3\Represents prior year claims. NA--Data not available. Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-10.--TOTAL FEDERAL AND STATE PAYMENTS UNDER THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1970-93 [In millions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year: 1970.................................................... $14 1975.................................................... 70 1980.................................................... 109 1985.................................................... 157 1986.................................................... 175 1987.................................................... 203 1988.................................................... 256 1989.................................................... 310 1990.................................................... 378 1991.................................................... 306 1992.................................................... 631 1993.................................................... 789 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS--WAIVERS FROM AFDC LAW Section 1115 of the Social Security Act authorizes the Secretary of the DHHS to waive specified requirements of the Social Security Act pertaining to the AFDC program in order to enable a State to carry out any experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that the Secretary judges likely to help in promoting the objectives of the program. Since about 1990, States have sought to offset the huge expansion in the AFDC rolls by implementing proposals designed to change the behavior of AFDC recipients and/or by cutting benefits. Several States have linked AFDC receipt to desired behaviors such as regular school attendance, getting children immunized, and marriage. Some have tried to constrain AFDC costs by cutting benefits, providing smaller benefits to new State entrants, and by denying benefit increases to mothers that have additional children while on AFDC. Since 1990, about 20 States have received waivers from one or more AFDC rules. CHILD CARE FOR FAMILIES AT RISK OF AFDC RECEIPT The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 increased funding for the existing AFDC child care program to provide $300 million for fiscal year 1991 and thereafter to the States to provide child care services to low-income, non-AFDC families that (1) need such care in order to work and (2) would otherwise be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC. Capped entitlement funds would be allocated on the basis of child population. Rules relating to Federal matching rates, reimbursement, standards and fee schedules would match the same rules as apply for child care for AFDC families, except that all child care providers that receive funds must be licensed, regulated, or registered. The At-Risk program is described in more detail in section 12. AFDC BENEFIT LEVELS AND TRENDS Each State establishes a ``need standard'' (the income the State decides is essential for basic consumption items) and a ``payment standard'' (100 percent or less of the need level). Benefits are generally computed by subtracting countable income from the State's payment standard. Maximum payments Maximum AFDC payments vary sharply from State to State, as shown by tables 10-11 and 10-12. State payments for AFDC families of three with no countable income in January 1994 ranged from $120 in Mississippi to $923 in Alaska. Table 10-11 presents the gross income limit, the need standard, the maximum monthly potential AFDC and food stamp benefits for a one-parent family of three persons, as of January 1994, combined AFDC and food stamp benefits as a percent of the Census Bureau poverty threshold for a 3-person family, and AFDC benefits as a percent of the poverty threshold. The food stamp benefits are calculated by deducting from the family's AFDC benefit (the only cash income of the family) the maximum deductions allowed under food stamps for a nonaged, nondisabled family: a total of $338. This consists of a standard deduction of $131, given in all households, plus a deduction of $207 for excess shelter costs. If the family qualified only for the standard deduction, its food stamp benefits would be cut in most States by about $62. Table 10-11 shows combined maximum potential benefits of $689 to a Maine AFDC family of 3, including $271 in food stamps. The same family would receive only $626 in combined benefits, including $208 in food stamps, if it were credited only with the standard deduction. Food stamp program data show that most AFDC families do qualify for a deduction of some shelter costs. As table 10-14 illustrates, during 1993, 11 jurisdictions increased AFDC payments. Forty jurisdictions had no payment increases. Three jurisdictions decreased benefits. As a result of these changes, the median State benefit for a family of three decreased from $367 to $366 per month in nominal dollars. TABLE 10-11.--GROSS INCOME LIMIT, NEED STANDARD, AND MAXIMUM MONTHLY POTENTIAL BENEFITS, AFDC AND FOOD STAMPS, ONE-PARENT FAMILY\1\ OF THREE PERSONS, JANUARY 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grossincome Combined AFDC benefits limit (185 100 Maximum benefits as a as a percent State percent of percent AFDC Food stamp Combined percent of of 1993 need of grant\2\ benefit\3\ benefits 1993 poverty poverty standard) ``need'' threshold\4\ threshold\4\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama.................. $1,245 $673 $164 $295 $459 48 17 Alaska................... 1,804 975 923 285 1,208 101 77 Arizona.................. 1,783 964 347 292 639 67 36 Arkansas................. 1,304 705 204 295 499 52 21 California............... 1,323 715 607 214 821 86 63 Colorado................. 779 421 356 289 645 67 37 Connecticut.............. 1,258 680 680 192 872 91 71 Delaware................. 625 338 338 295 633 66 35 District of Columbia..... 1,317 712 420 270 690 72 44 Florida.................. 1,833 991 303 295 598 62 32 Georgia.................. 784 424 280 295 575 60 29 Hawaii................... 2,109 1,140 712 422 1,134 103 65 Idaho.................... 1,833 991 317 295 612 64 33 Illinois................. 1,647 890 \5\367 291 658 69 38 Indiana.................. 592 320 288 295 583 61 30 Iowa..................... 1,571 849 426 268 694 72 44 Kansas................... 794 429 \5\429 284 713 74 45 Kentucky................. 973 526 228 295 523 55 24 Louisiana................ 1,217 658 190 295 485 51 20 Maine.................... 1,023 553 418 271 689 72 44 Maryland................. 938 507 \5\366 295 661 69 38 Massachusetts............ 1,071 579 579 222 801 83 60 Michigan (Washtenaw County)................. 1,086 587 \5\489 249 738 77 51 Michigan (Wayne County).. 1,019 551 \5\459 258 717 75 48 Minnesota................ 984 532 532 236 768 80 55 Mississippi.............. 681 368 120 295 415 43 13 Missouri................. 1,565 846 292 295 587 61 30 Montana.................. 945 511 401 276 677 71 42 Nebraska................. 673 364 364 287 651 68 38 Nevada................... 1,293 699 348 292 640 67 36 New Hampshire............ 3,049 1,648 550 231 781 81 57 New Jersey............... 1,822 985 \5\424 276 700 73 44 New Mexico............... 660 357 357 289 646 67 37 New York (Suffolk County) 1,301 703 \5\703 201 904 94 73 New York (New York City). 1,067 577 \5\577 239 816 85 60 North Carolina........... 1,006 544 272 295 567 59 28 North Dakota............. 757 409 409 273 682 71 43 Ohio..................... 1,626 879 \5\341 295 636 66 36 Oklahoma................. 871 471 324 295 619 65 34 Oregon................... 851 460 \5\460 293 753 78 48 Pennsylvania............. 1,136 614 421 270 691 72 44 Rhode Island............. 1,025 554 \5\554 268 822 86 58 South Carolina........... 814 440 200 295 495 52 21 South Dakota............. 908 491 417 271 688 72 43 Tennessee................ 788 426 185 295 480 50 19 Texas.................... 1,062 574 184 295 479 50 19 Utah..................... 1,021 552 414 272 686 72 43 Vermont.................. 2,079 1,124 638 205 843 88 67 Virginia................. 727 393 354 290 644 67 37 Washington............... 2,142 1,158 \5\546 258 804 84 57 West Virginia............ 919 497 249 295 544 57 26 Wisconsin................ 1,197 647 517 241 758 79 54 Wyoming.................. 1,247 674 360 288 648 68 38 Guam..................... 611 330 330 436 766 80 34 Puerto Rico.............. 666 360 180 0 180 NA 19 Virgin Islands........... 555 300 240 380 620 65 25 Median AFDC State\6\... 938 507 366 295 661 69 38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\In most States these benefit amounts apply also to 2-parent families of 3 (where the second parent is incapacitated or unemployed). Some, however, increase benefits for such families. \2\In States with area differentials, figure shown is for area with highest benefit. \3\Food stamp benefits are based on maximum AFDC benefits shown and assume deductions of $338 monthly ($131 standard household deduction plus $207 maximum allowable deduction for excess shelter cost) in the 48 contiguous States and D.C. In the remaining four jurisdictions these maximum allowable food stamp deductions are assumed: Alaska, $582; Hawaii, $480; Guam, $513; and Virgin Islands, $267. If only the standard deduction were assumed, food stamp benefits would drop by about $62 monthly in most of the 48 contiguous States and D.C. Maximum food stamp benefits from October 1993 through September 1994 are $295 for a family of three except in these 4 jurisdictions, where they are as follows: Alaska, $388; Hawaii, $492; Guam, $436; and Virgin Islands, $380. \4\Except for Alaska and Hawaii, this column is based on the Census Bureau's 1993 poverty threshold for a family of three persons, $11,521, converted to a monthly rate of $960. For Alaska, this threshold was increased by 25 percent; for Hawaii, by 15 percent. \5\In these States part of the AFDC cash payment has been designated as energy aid and is disregarded by the State in calculating food stamp benefits. Illinois disregards $18. Kansas disregards $57. Maryland disregards $43. New Jersey disregards $25. New York disregards $53. Ohio disregards $14. Oregon disregards $118. Rhode Island disregards $127.85. Washington disregards $86. \6\With respect to maximum AFDC benefit among 50 States and D.C. Note.--Puerto Rico does not have a food stamp program, instead a cash nutritional assistance payment is given to recipients. Source: Table prepared by CRS from information provided by a telephone survey of the States. TABLE 10-12.--MAXIMUM AFDC BENEFITS, BY FAMILY SIZE, JANUARY 1994\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person State family family family family family family ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............................................. $111 $137 $164 $194 $225 $252 Alaska*\2\.......................................... 514 821 923 1,025 1,127 1,229 Arizona\3\.......................................... 204 275 347 418 489 561 Arkansas............................................ 81 162 204 247 286 331 California.......................................... 299 490 607 723 824 926 Colorado\2\\4\...................................... 214 280 356 432 512 590 Connecticut*\5\..................................... 430 549 680 792 893 999 Delaware*........................................... 201 270 338 407 475 544 District of Columbia................................ 265 330 420 513 591 695 Florida\3\.......................................... 180 241 303 364 426 487 Georgia............................................. 155 235 280 330 378 410 Hawaii.............................................. 418 565 712 859 1,006 1,153 Idaho............................................... 205 251 317 382 448 513 Illinois\2\\6\...................................... 212 268 367 414 485 545 Indiana\2\.......................................... 139 229 288 346 405 463 Iowa................................................ 183 361 426 495 548 610 Kansas*............................................. 267 352 429 497 558 619 Kentucky............................................ 162 196 228 285 333 376 Louisiana\7\........................................ 72 138 190 234 277 316 Maine\2\............................................ 198 312 418 526 632 739 Maryland............................................ 162 286 366 441 511 562 Massachusetts*...................................... 392 486 579 668 760 854 Michigan: (Washtenaw County)\8\............................. 305 401 489 593 689 822 (Wayne County)\8\................................. 276 371 459 563 659 792 Minnesota*\2\....................................... 250 437 532 621 697 773 Mississippi......................................... 60 96 120 144 168 192 Missouri............................................ 136 234 292 342 388 431 Montana\2\\3\....................................... 235 318 401 484 567 650 Nebraska*........................................... 222 293 364 435 506 577 Nevada\2\........................................... 229 288 348 408 468 527 New Hampshire....................................... 414 481 550 613 673 754 New Jersey.......................................... 162 322 424 488 552 616 New Mexico*......................................... 209 283 357 431 504 578 New York: (Suffolk County)*\9\.............................. 446 576 703 824 949 1,038 (New York City)*\9\............................... 352 468 577 687 800 884 North Carolina...................................... 181 236 272 297 324 349 North Dakota*\2\.................................... 221 333 409 501 569 628 Ohio................................................ 203 279 341 421 493 549 Oklahoma\2\......................................... 200 251 324 402 470 538 Oregon*\2\.......................................... 310 395 460 565 660 755 Pennsylvania\10\.................................... 215 330 421 514 607 687 Rhode Island*\11\................................... 327 449 554 632 710 800 South Carolina...................................... 118 159 200 240 281 321 South Dakota........................................ 293 368 417 464 512 560 Tennessee........................................... 95 142 185 226 264 305 Texas\2\............................................ 75 158 184 221 246 284 Utah................................................ 240 332 414 484 551 607 Vermont\12\......................................... 437 536 638 717 804 860 Virginia\13\........................................ 220 294 354 410 488 518 Washington.......................................... 349 440 546 642 740 841 West Virginia\3\.................................... 145 201 249 312 360 413 Wisconsin\14\....................................... 248 440 517 617 708 766 Wyoming\3\.......................................... 195 320 360 390 450 510 Guam*............................................... 151 258 330 417 497 592 Puerto Rico\15\..................................... 132 156 180 204 228 252 Virgin Islands...................................... 120 180 240 300 360 420 ----------------------------------------------------------- Median State\16\.................................. 212 294 366 435 511 577 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *These States pay 100 percent of the need standard. \1\Maximum benefit paid for a family of given size with zero countable income. Family members include 1 adult caretaker. \2\Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas also have a children-only schedule. \3\Arizona, Florida, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming have 2 payment schedules, 1 that includes shelter expenses and 1 that does not. \4\Colorado no longer has separate payment schedules for winter months and nonwinter months. \5\Connecticut has 3 rent regions. Data shown are from rent region A which has the highest rents. \6\Illinois divides itself into 3 distinct areas with regard to payment schedules. Data shown are from the Cook County area, which includes Chicago. \7\Louisiana has 2 payment schedules--1 for urban areas, from which our data were taken, and 1 for rural areas. \8\Michigan has varied shelter maximums. Shown are benefits for Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) and Wayne County (Detroit). \9\New York has payment schedules for each social service district. Shown are the Suffolk County and New York City amounts. The figures include energy payments. \10\Pennsylvania has four regions. The figures in the table are from region 1, which has the highest benefits. \11\Rhode Island no longer has separate payment schedules for winter months and nonwinter months. \12\Vermont has a base amount plus a shelter maximum that depends on whether the recipient is living inside or outside of Chittenden County. The largest amount paid to a recipient with no other income equals 60.6 percent of the base amount plus 60.6 percent of the shelter allowance. The shelter maximum for families living in Chittenden County is $400 per month, for those living outside Chittenden County the shelter maximum is $325 monthly. \13\Virginia has 3 payment schedules. The figures shown are from area 3 which has the highest benefits. \14\Wisconsin has 2 regions--1 for urban areas, from which our data were taken, and one for rural areas. \15\Puerto Rico pays 50 percent of need plus 50 percent of rent as paid. The figures assume rent at $20 a month. Officials estimate that $20 is the average amount allowed for rent. \16\Among 50 States and D.C. Source: Prepared by Congressional Research Service on the basis of a telephone survey of the States. Need and payment standards To receive AFDC payments, a family must pass two income tests: first, a gross income test, and second, a counted (``net'') income test. The gross income test is 185 percent of the State's need standard for the relevant family size; and it applies to both applicants and enrollees. This was increased by Congress from 150 percent of the need standard by Public Law 98-369 in 1984. No one with gross income that exceeds 185 percent of the need standard can receive AFDC. For applicants, the counted income test is 100 percent of the need standard, and it determines whether the family is deemed to be in ``need'' (see tables 10-11 and 10-12). However, to be eligible for an actual payment, the family's counted income also must be below the State's payment standard, which in 35 jurisdictions is below the need standard. Further, a $10 minimum payment rule imposed by Public Law 97-35 requires that counted income be at least $10 below the payment standard for an actual payment to be made. Table 10-13 shows the change in the AFDC need standard in selected years, from July 1970 to January 1994, by State. The increase in the median State from July 1970 to July 1975 (a period of 5 years) was 20 percent and from July 1975 to July 1980 it was 15 percent. From July 1980 to January 1994 (a period of 13\1/2\ years), the increase was 80 percent. Between July 1970 and January 1994, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose an estimated 275 percent, as compared to a 150 percent increase in the AFDC need standard. Many States increased their need standards (but often not actual benefit levels) after passage of the gross income limit in 1981. Trends Table 10-14 presents information on how the maximum AFDC benefit for a 3-person family with no income has grown from July 1970 to January 1994 by State. In current dollars, the maximum benefit of the median State climbed 28 percent from July 1970-July 1975, 23 percent from July 1975-July 1980, and 27 percent from July 1980-January 1994 (a period of 13\1/2\ years). In constant dollars (after adjustment for inflation), benefit levels failed to keep pace with inflation. The median decline in benefit levels adjusted for inflation from 1970 to 1994 was 47 percent. TABLE 10-13.--AFDC NEED STANDARD FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY BY STATE FOR SELECTED YEARS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July January January January January January January January 1970\1\ July July 1985\2\ 1988\2\ 1989\2\ 1990\2\ 1991\2\ 1992\2\ 1993\2\ January 1975 1980 1994\2\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................................. $184 $180 $192 $384 $384 $571 $578 $603 $637 $673 $673 Alaska.................................................. 350 350 457 719 779 809 846 891 924 923 975 Arizona................................................. 212 233 233 233 621 621 621 621 928 964 964 Arkansas................................................ 149 245 234 234 695 705 705 705 705 705 705 California.............................................. 351 316 480 555 633 663 694 694 694 703 715 Colorado................................................ 193 217 290 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 Connecticut............................................. 283 346 475 546 601 623 649 680 680 680 680 Delaware................................................ 245 245 266 287 319 333 333 338 338 338 338 District of Columbia.................................... 229 286 394 654 712 712 712 712 712 712 712 Florida................................................. 189 195 195 400 775 807 838 880 928 965 991 Georgia................................................. 177 193 193 366 366 376 414 424 424 424 424 Hawaii.................................................. 226 428 468 468 515 557 964 1,012 1,067 1,109 1,140 Idaho................................................... 238 345 371 554 554 554 554 554 554 554 991 Illinois................................................ 232 261 288 657 713 740 777 811 844 867 890 Indiana................................................. 272 307 307 307 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 Iowa.................................................... 247 309 360 497 497 497 497 497 849 849 849 Kansas.................................................. 243 321 345 373 409 427 409 409 422 429 429 Kentucky................................................ 208 185 188 197 207 218 526 526 526 526 526 Louisiana............................................... 172 164 402 538 632 658 658 658 658 658 658 Maine................................................... 277 277 415 510 573 632 652 652 573 553 553 Maryland................................................ 249 259 270 433 497 522 548 562 522 497 507 Massachusetts........................................... 268 259 379 439 510 539 539 539 539 539 579 Michigan (Washtenaw County)............................. NA NA NA 592 576 608 611 622 587 587 587 Michigan (Wayne County)................................. 219 333 425 557 540 572 575 586 551 551 551 Minnesota............................................... 256 330 417 524 532 532 532 532 532 532 532 Mississippi............................................. 202 241 220 286 368 368 368 368 368 368 368 Missouri................................................ 285 325 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 846 Montana................................................. 221 201 259 401 434 434 434 453 478 497 511 Nebraska................................................ 281 279 310 350 350 364 364 364 364 364 364 Nevada.................................................. 269 279 285 285 550 550 550 550 620 620 699 New Hampshire........................................... 262 308 346 378 486 496 506 516 516 1,513 1,648 New Jersey.............................................. 302 310 360 385 424 424 424 424 424 985 985 New Mexico.............................................. 167 197 220 258 264 264 264 310 324 324 357 New York (Suffolk County)............................... NA NA NA 579 665 665 703 703 703 703 703 New York (New York City)................................ 279 332 394 474 539 539 577 577 577 577 577 North Carolina.......................................... 168 183 192 446 532 532 544 544 544 544 544 North Dakota............................................ 232 283 334 371 371 386 386 401 401 401 409 Ohio.................................................... 207 346 346 627 685 712 739 776 817 853 879 Oklahoma................................................ 179 217 282 282 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 Oregon.................................................. 229 369 282 386 412 420 432 444 460 460 460 Pennsylvania............................................ 265 296 332 614 614 614 614 614 614 614 614 Rhode Island............................................ 229 278 340 479 503 517 543 554 554 554 554 South Carolina.......................................... 162 178 187 187 388 403 419 440 440 440 440 South Dakota............................................ 264 289 321 329 366 366 377 385 404 476 491 Tennessee............................................... 179 179 179 246 353 365 387 412 426 426 426 Texas................................................... 198 155 155 494 574 574 574 574 574 574 574 Utah.................................................... 223 327 480 685 693 502 516 537 537 537 552 Vermont................................................. 287 402 670 852 889 930 973 1,029 1,112 1,122 1,124 Virginia................................................ 240 298 344 363 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 Washington.............................................. 258 315 458 768 835 872 907 983 1,014 1,125 1,158 West Virginia........................................... 220 275 275 275 497 497 497 497 497 497 497 Wisconsin............................................... 214 383 522 628 647 647 647 647 647 647 647 Wyoming................................................. 246 240 315 360 360 360 360 674 674 674 674 Guam.................................................... NA NA 261 265 265 265 330 330 330 330 330 Puerto Rico............................................. 108 108 102 180 180 180 180 180 160 360 360 Virgin Islands.......................................... NA 131 209 209 209 300 300 300 300 300 300 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Median State\3\......................................... 232 279 321 401 503 522 539 544 544 554 579 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Data on 3-person families were not published or reported before 1975. Thus, the 1970 data were derived by reducing the reported 4-person need standard by the proportional difference between 3- and 4-person AFDC need standards as shown in the July 1975 DHEW reports. \2\CRS survey data. \3\Among 50 States and the District of Columbia. NA--Not available. Note.--Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the Department of Health and Human Services and, where noted, from CRS itself. These changes in maximum AFDC benefit levels are summarized in table 10-14 below. The median State's maximum AFDC benefit (guarantee) for a family of three rose in nominal terms from $184 in fiscal year 1970 to $366 in fiscal year 1994. In constant dollars, however, the median State's guarantee declined 47 percent. Most AFDC families are eligible also for food stamps (until 1979 all were). As real AFDC benefits declined in the last dozen years, food stamp benefits rose to offset part of their losses. However, combined AFDC-food stamp benefits for a 3- person family without countable income on average dropped from $900 (1993 dollars) in July 1972, when food stamps operated under uniform national rules, to $658 (1993 dollars) in July 1993. This 27 percent drop was almost wholly due to shrinkage in AFDC benefit levels. Food stamp maximum benefits were virtually unchanged in real terms, since they were adjusted for food price inflation in all years except 1982 and 1993. TABLE 10-14.--AFDC MAXIMUM BENEFIT FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY, BY STATE FOR SELECTED YEARS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent July July1975 July1980 January January January January January January January change, 1970\1\ 1985\2\ 1987\2\ 1990\2\ 1991\2\ 1992\2\ 1993\2\ 1994\2\ 1970-94\3\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................ $65 $108 $118 $118 $118 $118 $124 $149 $164 $164 -33 Alaska................................. 328 350 457 719 749 846 891 924 923 923 -25 Arizona................................ 138 163 202 233 293 293 293 334 347 347 -33 Arkansas............................... 89 125 161 164 192 204 204 204 204 204 -39 California............................. 186 293 473 555 617 694 694 663 624 607 -13 Colorado............................... 193 217 290 346 346 356 356 356 356 356 -51 Connecticut............................ 283 346 475 546 590 649 680 680 680 680 -36 Delaware............................... 160 221 266 287 310 333 338 338 338 338 -44 District of Columbia................... 195 243 286 327 364 409 428 409 409 420 -43 Florida................................ 114 144 195 240 264 294 294 303 303 303 -29 Georgia................................ 107 123 164 208 256 273 280 280 280 280 -30 Hawaii................................. 226 428 468 468 468 602 632 666 693 712 -16 Idaho.................................. 211 300 323 304 304 315 315 315 315 317 -60 Illinois............................... 232 261 288 341 342 367 367 367 367 367 -58 Indiana................................ 120 200 255 256 256 288 288 288 288 288 -36 Iowa................................... 201 294 360 360 381 410 426 426 426 426 -43 Kansas................................. 222 321 345 373 403 409 409 422 429 429 -48 Kentucky............................... 147 185 188 197 197 228 228 228 228 228 -59 Louisiana.............................. 88 128 152 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 -42 Maine.................................. 135 176 280 370 405 453 453 453 453 418 -17 Maryland............................... 162 200 270 313 345 396 406 377 359 366 -40 Massachusetts.......................... 268 259 379 396 491 539 539 539 539 579 -42 Michigan (Wayne County)................ 219 333 425 468 473 516 525 459 459 459 -44 Minnesota.............................. 256 330 417 524 532 532 532 532 532 532 -45 Mississippi............................ 56 48 96 96 120 120 120 120 120 120 -43 Missouri............................... 104 120 248 263 279 289 292 292 292 292 -25 Montana................................ 202 201 259 332 354 359 370 390 390 401 -47 Nebraska............................... 171 210 310 350 350 364 364 364 364 364 -43 Nevada................................. 121 195 262 233 285 330 330 372 348 348 -23 New Hampshire.......................... 262 308 346 378 397 506 516 516 516 550 -44 New Jersey............................. 302 310 360 385 404 424 424 424 424 424 -63 New Mexico............................. 149 169 220 258 258 264 310 324 324 357 -36 New York City.......................... 279 332 394 474 497 577 577 577 577 577 -45 North Carolina......................... 145 183 192 223 259 272 272 272 272 272 -50 North Dakota........................... 213 283 334 371 371 386 401 401 401 409 -49 Ohio................................... 161 204 263 290 302 334 334 334 341 341 -44 Oklahoma............................... 152 217 282 282 310 325 341 341 324 324 -43 Oregon................................. 184 337 282 386 397 432 444 460 460 460 -33 Pennsylvania........................... 265 296 332 364 382 421 421 421 421 421 -58 Rhode Island........................... 229 278 340 479 503 543 554 554 554 554 -35 South Carolina......................... 85 96 129 187 199 206 210 210 200 200 -37 South Dakota........................... 264 289 321 329 366 377 385 404 404 417 -58 Tennessee.............................. 112 115 122 138 155 184 195 185 185 185 -56 Texas.................................. 148 116 116 167 184 184 184 184 184 184 -67 Utah................................... 175 252 360 363 376 387 402 402 402 414 -37 Vermont................................ 267 322 492 558 572 662 679 673 659 638 -36 Virginia............................... 225 268 310 327 354 354 354 354 354 354 -58 Washington............................. 258 315 458 476 492 501 531 531 546 546 -44 West Virginia.......................... 114 206 206 206 249 249 249 249 249 249 -42 Wisconsin.............................. 184 342 444 533 544 517 517 517 517 517 -25 Wyoming................................ 213 235 315 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 -55 Guam................................... NA NA 261 265 265 330 330 330 330 330 NA Puerto Rico............................ 43 43 44 90 90 90 90 180 180 180 +12 Virgin Islands......................... NA 131 209 171 171 240 240 240 240 240 NA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Median State\4\...................... 184 235 288 332 354 364 367 372 367 366 -47 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Data on 3-person families were not published or reported before 1975. Thus, the 1970 data were derived by reducing the reported 4-person maximum benefit amount by the proportional difference between 3- and 4-person AFDC maximum benefit as shown in the July 1975 DHEW reports. \2\CRS survey data. \3\Real percentage change, calculated assuming a January 1994 CPI-U value of 146.2 relative to the July 1970 value of 39.0. \4\Among 50 States and the District of Columbia. NA--Not available. Note.--Table compiled by CRS on the basis of data from DHHS and, where noted, from CRS itself. TABLE 10-15.--HISTORICAL TRENDS IN AVERAGE PAYMENT PER RECIPIENT AND PER FAMILY; AND MAXIMUM AND MEDIAN BENEFITS FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR; FOR SELECTED YEARS FROM 1970 TO 1993\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFDC payments 1970 1975 1980 1985 1986 1987 1989 1991 1992 1993 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average monthly benefit per family......................... 178 210 274 339 352 359 381 388 383 377 In constant 1993 dollars\2\... 663 564 480 455 464 457 444 412 394 377 Average monthly benefit per person......................... 46 63 94 116 120 123 131 135 134 133 In constant 1993 dollars\2\... 171 169 165 156 158 156 153 143 138 133 Median State benefit in July for a family unit of 4 with no income\1\...................... 221 264 350 399 415 420 432 435 435 435 In constant 1993 dollars\2\... 823 709 614 536 547 534 503 462 448 435 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Among 50 States and the District of Columbia. \2\The constant dollar numbers were calculated using the CPI-U. Note.--AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support enforcement collections. Source: Family Support Administration and the Congressional Research Service. TABLE 10-16.--INCOME LEVELS AT WHICH AFDC ELIGIBILITY ENDS FOR A FAMILY OF 3, BY STATE AND PERIOD OF RECEIPT, JANUARY 1994\1\\2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First 4 months After 12 months ------------------------------------------------------------- 185 Eligibility Eligibility percent Payment AFDC level as a level as a of need standard maximum Effective percent of-- Effective percent of-- standard benefit eligibility ------------------ eligibility ----------------- level Poverty Minimum level Poverty Minimum level wage level wage ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama.............. $1,245 $164 $164 366 38 50 254 26 34 Alaska............... 1,804 923 923 1,505 125 204 1,013 84 137 Arizona.............. 1,783 347 347 641 67 87 437 46 59 Arkansas............. 1,304 204 204 426 44 58 294 31 40 California........... 1,323 607 607 1,031 107 140 697 73 95 Colorado............. 779 421 356 752 78 102 511 53 69 Connecticut.......... 1,258 680 680 1,140 119 155 770 80 104 Delaware............. 625 338 338 627 65 85 428 45 58 District of Columbia. 1,317 420 420 750 78 102 510 53 69 Florida.............. 1,833 303 303 575 60 78 393 41 53 Georgia.............. 784 424 280 756 79 103 514 54 70 Hawaii............... 2,109 712 712 1,188 108 161 802 73 109 Idaho................ 1,833 317 317 596 62 81 407 42 55 Illinois............. 1,647 367 367 671 70 91 457 48 62 Indiana.............. 592 288 288 552 58 75 378 39 51 Iowa................. 1,571 426 426 759 79 103 516 54 70 Kansas............... 794 429 429 764 80 104 519 54 70 Kentucky............. 973 526 228 909 95 123 616 64 84 Louisiana............ 1,217 190 190 405 42 55 280 29 38 Maine................ 1,023 553 418 950 99 129 643 67 87 Maryland............. 938 366 366 669 70 91 456 48 62 Massachusetts........ 1,071 579 579 989 103 134 669 70 91 Michigan (Wayne County)............. 1,019 459 459 809 84 110 549 57 74 Minnesota............ 984 532 532 918 96 125 622 65 84 Mississippi.......... 681 368 120 672 70 91 458 48 62 Missouri............. 1,565 292 292 558 58 76 382 40 52 Montana.............. 945 401 401 722 75 98 491 51 67 Nebraska............. 673 364 364 666 69 90 454 47 62 Nevada............... 1,293 348 348 642 67 87 438 46 59 New Hampshire........ 3,049 550 550 945 98 128 640 67 87 New Jersey........... 1,822 424 424 756 79 103 514 54 70 New Mexico........... 660 357 357 656 68 89 447 47 61 New York (New York City)............... 1,067 577 577 986 103 134 667 69 91 North Carolina....... 1,006 544 272 936 98 127 634 66 86 North Dakota......... 757 409 409 734 76 100 499 52 68 Ohio................. 1,626 341 341 632 66 86 431 45 58 Oklahoma............. 871 324 324 606 63 82 414 43 56 Oregon............... 851 460 460 810 84 110 550 57 75 Pennsylvania......... 1,136 421 421 752 78 102 511 53 69 Rhode Island......... 1,025 554 554 951 99 129 644 67 87 South Carolina....... 814 200 200 420 44 57 290 30 72 South Dakota......... 908 417 417 746 78 101 507 53 69 Tennessee............ 788 426 185 759 79 103 516 54 70 Texas................ 1,062 184 184 396 41 54 274 29 37 Utah................. 1,021 414 414 741 77 101 504 53 68 Vermont.............. 2,079 638 638 1,077 112 146 728 76 99 Virginia............. 727 354 354 651 68 88 444 46 60 Washington........... 2,142 546 546 939 98 127 636 66 86 West Virginia........ 919 249 249 494 51 67 339 35 46 Wisconsin............ 1,197 517 517 896 93 122 607 63 82 Wyoming.............. 1,247 590 360 1005 105 136 680 71 92 Guam................. 611 330 330 615 64 83 420 44 57 Puerto Rico.......... 296 180 180 390 41 53 270 28 37 Virgin Islands....... 555 240 240 480 50 65 330 34 45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\These calculations assume no child care expenses and work expenses of $90 per month. The breakevens for 5-12 months can be obtained by adding $30 to the breakeven for ``After 12 months.'' The calculations are also based on a 1993 poverty level of $11,521 ($960 per month) for a family of three, and a 1993 minimum wage salary of $8,840 ($737 per month). \2\Income level at which Medicaid eligibility ends. Because of minimum payment rule, actual AFDC benefits may end at a slightly different income level. Source: Congressional Research Service. AFDC benefits for special needs In general, the AFDC need standard provides for basic consumption items such as food, clothing, shelter, fuel and utilities, personal care items, and household supplies that are essential to recipients. The need standard may also provide for special (recurrent or nonrecurrent) needs, such as special dietary requirements, pregnancy allowance, training and/or educational expenses, expenses caused by catastrophe or eviction, etc. ``Special needs,'' which may be recurring or nonrecurring, are usually defined as those needs that are recognized by the State as essential for some persons but not for all, and therefore must be determined on an individual basis. They are part of the total ``need standard'' used to measure AFDC eligibility and determine benefits amount for those families for whom such special needs items are appropriate. Federal funds pay at least 50 percent of each State's AFDC benefit expenditures which include funds spent on special need items, and about 54 percent of U.S. total AFDC benefit costs. (The Federal Government also pays one-half the cost of each State's AFDC administrative costs.) Note that AFDC benefit amount information included elsewhere in this section does not take into account payments related to special needs. The first mention of special needs in Federal regulations occurred on July 17, 1968. These were interim regulations. Final regulations, with identical AFDC-special needs language, were published and took effect on January 29, 1969. Title 45, section 233.20(a)(2)(v) of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (1987), unchanged from the 1969 regulations, requires States to specify in their AFDC State plan a statewide standard, expressed in dollars, to be used in determining need of applicants and recipients and the amount of the benefit payment. Further, if the State includes ``special need'' items in its standard, it must describe them and the circumstances under which they will be taken into account. Regulations require that special needs in a State standard be considered for all AFDC applicants or recipients who require them, except that work expenses and child care/dependent care costs resulting from work, job search, or participation in a community work experience program cannot be defined as special needs. As of October 1, 1990, according to State plans on file with the Department of Health and Human Services, 32 jurisdictions included special need items in their State standard. Examples of the special need items specified by States follow: child care that was not related to employment; training and/or educational expenses; special transportation; pregnancy allowance; special clothing and clothing replacement; expenses caused by catastrophe or eviction; excess shelter, fuel, or utilities costs; repair of property, appliances, or furnishings; special diets; telephone or special telephone services; fees and/or deposits; funeral and burial expenses; temporary shelter; and moving and/or storage expenses. Additional/excess cost of shelter, fuel, or utilities, pregnancy allowance, and child care costs (not employment related), were the most frequently cited special need items. As inferred above, 22 jurisdictions specified no special need items. New York specified the most special needs items, 19, followed by California and Connecticut which both specified 10 items. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING OF AFDC BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AFDC benefit payments and administrative costs The Federal share of a State's AFDC benefit payments is determined by the matching formula specified for Medicaid in title XIX of the Social Security Act (States may choose an alternate formula, but none do so). The Federal Medicaid matching rate is inversely related to State per capita income; thus, Federal matching for AFDC benefit payments varies from State to State, ranging from 50 percent in States with high per capita incomes to close to 80 percent in Mississippi, a State with relatively low per capita income. Table 10-17 provides State-specific information on the Federal share of AFDC benefit payments. For the outlying areas--Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands--75 percent Federal matching is provided for AFDC benefits, but the law imposes a ceiling on total Federal funds for AFDC and several other programs. The ceilings are as follows: Puerto Rico, $82 million; Guam, $3.8 million; and the Virgin Islands, $2.8 million. The Federal Government pays 50 percent of the costs of administering the AFDC program in all States. Some States require their localities to finance a portion of the non-Federal share of benefit payments (see table 10-18), and the non-Federal share of administrative costs (see table 10-19). Table 10-20 provides information on total Federal and State benefit payments under the single parent and unemployed parent programs for fiscal years 1970 through 1993, and DHHS projections for fiscal years 1994 through 1999 (for State-level data on benefit payments, see table 10-23). Table 10-21 breaks these data down into their Federal and State shares, and also includes information on administrative costs for the AFDC program. TABLE 10-17.--FEDERAL SHARE OF AFDC BENEFITS PAYMENTS,\1\ SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1984 THROUGH 1995 [In percent] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State 1984-85\2\ 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............................................... 72.14 73.29 73.21 72.93 71.22 70.45 Alaska................................................ 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Arizona............................................... 61.21 62.12 60.99 62.61 65.90 66.40 Arkansas.............................................. 73.65 74.21 74.58 75.66 74.46 73.75 California............................................ 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Colorado.............................................. 50.00 50.00 52.11 54.79 54.30 53.10 Connecticut........................................... 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Delaware.............................................. 50.00 51.90 50.00 50.12 50.00 50.00 District of Columbia.................................. 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Florida............................................... 58.41 55.39 54.70 54.69 54.78 56.28 Georgia............................................... 67.43 63.84 62.09 61.78 62.47 62.23 Guam (Federal funds limited)\3\....................... 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Hawaii................................................ 50.00 53.71 54.50 52.57 50.00 50.00 Idaho................................................. 67.28 70.47 73.32 73.24 70.92 70.14 Illinois.............................................. 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Indiana............................................... 59.93 63.71 63.76 63.85 63.49 63.03 Iowa.................................................. 55.24 62.75 62.52 65.04 63.33 62.62 Kansas................................................ 50.67 55.20 56.07 59.23 59.52 58.90 Kentucky.............................................. 70.72 72.27 72.95 72.82 70.91 69.58 Louisiana............................................. 64.65 68.26 73.12 75.44 73.49 72.65 Maine................................................. 70.63 67.08 65.20 62.40 61.96 63.30 Maryland.............................................. 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Massachusetts......................................... 50.13 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Michigan.............................................. 50.70 56.48 54.54 55.41 56.37 56.84 Minnesota............................................. 52.67 53.98 52.74 54.43 54.65 54.27 Mississippi........................................... 77.63 79.65 80.18 79.99 78.85 78.58 Missouri.............................................. 61.40 59.27 59.18 60.84 60.64 59.86 Montana............................................... 64.41 69.40 71.35 71.70 71.05 70.81 Nebraska.............................................. 57.13 59.73 61.12 64.50 61.98 60.40 Nevada................................................ 50.00 50.25 50.00 50.00 50.31 50.00 New Hampshire......................................... 59.45 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 New Jersey............................................ 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 New Mexico............................................ 69.39 71.52 72.25 74.33 74.17 73.31 New York.............................................. 50.88 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 North Carolina........................................ 69.54 68.68 67.46 66.52 65.14 64.71 North Dakota.......................................... 61.32 64.87 67.52 72.75 71.13 68.73 Ohio.................................................. 55.44 59.10 59.57 60.63 60.83 60.69 Oklahoma.............................................. 58.47 63.33 68.29 70.74 70.39 70.05 Oregon................................................ 57.12 62.11 62.95 63.55 62.12 62.36 Pennsylvania.......................................... 56.04 57.35 56.86 56.84 54.61 54.27 Puerto Rico (Federal funds limited)\3\................ 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Rhode Island.......................................... 58.17 54.85 55.15 53.29 53.87 55.49 South Carolina........................................ 73.51 73.49 73.07 72.66 71.08 70.71 South Dakota.......................................... 68.31 70.43 70.90 72.59 69.50 68.06 Tennessee............................................. 70.66 70.64 69.64 68.41 67.15 66.52 Texas................................................. 54.37 56.91 61.23 64.18 64.18 63.31 Utah.................................................. 70.84 73.73 74.70 75.11 74.35 73.48 Vermont............................................... 69.37 66.23 62.77 61.37 59.55 60.82 Virgin Islands (Federal funds limited)\3\............. 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Virginia.............................................. 56.53 51.34 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Washington............................................ 50.00 53.21 53.88 54.98 54.24 51.97 West Virginia......................................... 70.57 74.84 76.61 77.68 75.72 74.60 Wisconsin............................................. 56.87 58.98 59.28 60.38 60.47 59.81 Wyoming............................................... 50.00 57.96 65.95 69.10 65.63 62.87 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The Federal share of the AFDC program is calculated by the same formula used to determine the Federal share of medicaid costs except in States that elect an alternate formula or have no medicaid program. Texas chose the alternate formula until July 1, 1983. Arizona used the alternate formula until the first quarter of fiscal year 1983, when it was deemed qualified to use the medicaid formula for the first time. \2\Effective Oct. 1, 1983, through Sept. 30, 1985. \3\Public Law 96-272 made permanent the 75-percent matching rate for AFDC effective Oct. 1, 1979. For medicaid the matching rate remains 50 percent. Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-18.--FINANCING OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS, FOR STATES USING STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS, AS OF OCTOBER 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent Percent State funds local funds ------------------------------------------------------------------------ California\1\............................... 95.0 5.0 Colorado.................................... 57.3 42.7 Indiana..................................... 60.0 40.0 Minnesota\2\................................ 85.0 15.0 Montana\3\.................................. 77.5 22.5 New Jersey.................................. 75.0 25.0 New York\4\................................. 50.0 50.0 North Carolina\5\........................... 50.0 50.0 North Dakota\5\............................. 75.0 25.0 Ohio\6\..................................... 36.1 4.0 Wisconsin\7\................................ 100.0 ............ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\Counties pay up to 100 percent of some types of emergency assistance costs. \2\Counties finance 90 percent of the non-Federal costs of the emergency assistance program. \3\For all cases in State-administered counties and Indian cases in State-supervised counties, State funds only. \4\For persons with State residence. For persons without State residence, for persons eligible for public assistance and care under AFDC and who are released from a State mental hygiene facility after a stay of 5 or more years, and for Indians living on reservations, State pays 100 percent of assistance. \5\State pays 100 percent for Indians living on reservations. \6\Percentage of total costs before deduction of Federal share. \7\State pays State costs and up to 100 percent of local costs. Localities pay foster care and institutional costs in excess of State appropriations. Source: ``Characteristics of State Plans for AFDC,'' Administration For Children and Families. TABLE 10-19.--FINANCING OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION, FOR STATES USING STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS, AS OF OCTOBER 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent State funds Percent local funds ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Arkansas.................. 100% in 50 counties; 25 counties lesser proportion in participate in 25 counties. maintenance costs. California\1\............. 100% of State costs; 30% of local costs. 70% of local costs. Colorado.................. 60%.................. 40% Indiana................... 100% of State costs, 50% or more of plus up to 50% of specified local specified local costs. costs. Iowa...................... 100% of State and 100% of local costs. district costs. Maryland.................. 100% of State 100% of local and budgeted positions. nonbudgeted positions. Minnesota................. Varies with Varies with State appropriations. appropriations. Mississippi............... Varies according to Varies according to county population. county population. Montana\2\................ 50%.................. 50%. Nebraska.................. Varies............... Local funds used for some travel, rent, and equipment. New Jersey................ 100% of State costs.. 100% of local costs. New York.................. 50% (or 100% for 50%. Indians living on reservations). North Carolina............ 100% of State costs Portion of local and varying costs not covered by proportion of local State appropriation. costs, based on prior actual expenditures. North Dakota.............. 100% of State costs.. 100% of local costs if able. Ohio...................... 45.5%\3\............. 4.5%. South Dakota.............. 100% of State costs.. 100% of local costs. Virginia.................. 60%.................. 40%. Wisconsin................. 100% of State costs Any costs in excess and up to 100% of of State local costs. appropriation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\Counties pay 100 percent of non-Federal share of costs for emergency assistance cases involving removal of a child from the home. \2\State pays all administrative costs in State-administered counties. \3\Percentage of total cost before deduction of Federal share (50.0%). Source: State Plans for AFDC, Administration For Children and Families. TABLE 10-20.--FEDERAL AND STATE AFDC BENEFIT PAYMENTS UNDER THE SINGLE PARENT AND UNEMPLOYED PARENT PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEARS 1970 TO 1999 [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Column (4) Single Child support columns expressed Fiscal year parent\1\ Unemployed collections\2\ (1) and in 1993 parent (2) minus constant (3)\3\ dollars\4\ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1970........................................... 3,851 231 0 4,082 14,535 1971........................................... 4,993 412 0 5,405 18,380 1972........................................... 5,972 422 0 6,394 20,996 1973........................................... 6,459 414 0 6,873 21,676 1974........................................... 6,881 324 0 7,205 20,972 1975........................................... 7,791 362 0 8,153 21,586 1976........................................... 8,825 525 286 9,064 22,464 1977........................................... 9,420 617 423 9,614 22,180 1978........................................... 9,624 565 472 9,717 21,063 1979........................................... 9,865 522 597 9,790 19,485 1980........................................... 10,847 693 593 10,947 19,587 1981........................................... 11,769 1,075 659 12,185 19,825 1982........................................... 11,601 1,256 771 12,086 18,372 1983........................................... 12,136 1,471 865 12,742 18,526 1984........................................... 12,759 1,612 983 13,388 18,670 1985........................................... 13,024 1,556 901 13,679 18,397 1986........................................... 13,672 1,563 951 14,284 18,753 1987........................................... 14,807 1,516 1,071 15,252 19,455 1988........................................... 15,243 1,420 1,197 15,466 18,953 1989........................................... 15,889 1,350 1,287 15,952 18,656 1990........................................... 17,059 1,480 1,416 17,123 19,077 1991........................................... 18,529 1,827 1,603 18,753 19,890 1992........................................... 20,121 2,119 1,822 20,418 21,019 1993........................................... 19,990 2,298 1,937 20,351 20,351 1994\5\........................................ 20,462 2,223 2,132 20,553 19,982 1995\5\........................................ 21,009 2,188 2,376 20,821 19,709 1996\5\........................................ 21,763 2,168 2,619 21,312 19,642 1997\5\........................................ 22,615 2,173 2,845 21,943 19,692 1998\5\........................................ 23,453 2,183 3,085 22,551 19,708 1999\5\........................................ 24,396 2,207 3,325 23,278 NA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Includes payments to two-parent families where one adult is incapacitated. \2\Total AFDC collections (including collections on behalf of foster care children) less payments to recipients. \3\Net AFDC benefits--Gross benefits less those reimbursed by child support collections. \4\Adjusted based on the CPI-XI index by Committee staff. \5\Administration projection under current law. NA--Not available. Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-21.--TOTAL, FEDERAL, AND STATE AFDC EXPENDITURES: FISCAL YEARS 1970 TO 1999 [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal share State share Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Administrative Benefits Administrative Benefits Benefits Administrative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1970........................... 2,187 \1\572 1,443 186 4,082 \1\881 1971........................... 3,008 271 2,469 254 5,477 525 1972........................... 3,612 \2\240 2,942 241 6,554 NA 1973........................... 3,865 313 3,138 296 7,003 610 1974........................... 4,071 379 3,300 362 7,371 740 1975........................... 4,625 552 3,787 529 8,412 1,082 1976........................... 5,258 541 4,418 527 9,676 1,069 1977........................... 5,626 595 4,762 583 10,388 1,177 1978........................... 5,701 631 4,890 617 10,591 1,248 1979........................... 5,825 683 4,954 668 10,779 1,350 1980........................... 6,448 750 5,508 729 11,956 1,479 1981........................... 6,928 835 5,917 814 12,845 1,648 1982........................... 6,922 878 5,934 878 12,857 1,756 1983........................... 7,332 915 6,275 915 13,607 1,830 1984........................... 7,707 876 6,664 822 14,371 1,698 1985........................... 7,817 890 6,763 889 14,580 1,779 1986........................... 8,239 993 6,996 967 15,235 1,960 1987........................... 8,914 1,081 7,409 1,052 16,323 2,133 1988........................... 9,125 1,194 7,538 1,159 16,663 2,353 1989........................... 9,433 1,211 7,807 1,206 17,240 2,417 1990........................... 10,149 1,358 8,390 1,303 18,539 2,661 1991........................... 11,165 1,373 9,191 1,300 20,356 2,673 1992........................... 12,252 1,422 9,988 1,342 22,240 2,764 1993........................... 12,270 1,518 10,016 1,438 22,286 2,956 1994\3\........................ 12,470 1,564 10,215 1,493 22,685 3,057 1995\3\........................ 12,756 1,597 10,441 1,558 23,197 3,155 1996\3\........................ 13,160 1,637 10,771 1,619 23,931 3,256 1997\3\........................ 13,631 1,682 11,157 1,682 24,788 3,365 1998\3\........................ 14,097 1,741 11,539 1,741 25,636 3,483 1999\3\........................ 14,629 1,802 11,974 1,802 26,603 3,605 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Includes expenditures for services. \2\Administrative expenditures only. \3\Administration projection under current law. NA--Not available. Note.--Benefits do not include emergency assistance payments or reimbursement from child support enforcement collections. Foster care payments are included from 1971 to 1980. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of certifying AFDC households for food stamps are shown in the food stamp appropriation, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Administrative costs include Child Care administration, Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, SAVE and other State and local administrative expenditures. Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. AFDC CASELOAD DATA Table 10-22 presents State-specific information on caseloads and benefit payments under the AFDC single parent and unemployed parent programs. Average monthly benefits per AFDC family were $373 in fiscal year 1993. Table 10-23 provides similar information for the unemployed parents program only. Table 10-24 presents data on the average monthly number of families and individuals receiving AFDC benefits since 1970. The table includes information on families and individuals in both the single parent and unemployed parent programs. In fiscal year 1993, the average monthly family enrollment in the combined programs was almost 5.0 million, and 359 thousand of these families were in the unemployed parent program. The table also includes historical information on the average monthly benefit under the combined programs. The number of AFDC families rose more than 50 percent from 1971 to 1981, reaching a high of 3.9 million (monthly average) in 1981. In 1982, after OBRA took effect, the number dropped 8 percent, but in 1983 it rose 2.3 percent. Enrollment in 1993 reached an all time high and is projected to increase steadily (but at a much slower rate) over the next 5 years to 5.6 million in 1999. Table 10-25 presents State-by-State data on total AFDC expenditures for the years 1985-93. Table 10-26 shows the number of total AFDC recipients and the number of child recipients for 1970 to 1993, and shows these numbers as percentages of the total population and the poverty population, respectively. As a percentage of the total population, AFDC recipients declined by over one-half a percentage point from the mid-1970s to 1989. Between 1989 and 1991, the percentage of the population receiving AFDC increased significantly but is still below the early 1970 levels. The percentage of children receiving AFDC remained relatively constant at around 11 percent between 1972 and 1989, hitting a low of 10.75 percent in 1982. In 1990, the percentage rose to almost 12 percent and is expected to increase to a little over 13 percent in 1993. As a percentage of children in poverty, child AFDC recipients have fallen from a high of 80.5 percent in 1973 to a low of 49.6 percent in 1982, and have risen to 59.9 percent in 1990. TABLE 10-22.--AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF AFDC FAMILIES AND RECIPIENTS, TOTAL BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND AVERAGE PAYMENT PER FAMILY AND RECIPIENT, FISCAL YEAR 1993 (PRELIMINARY DATA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Average Average Average payment Total Annual assistance monthly monthly per administrative administrative State payments caseload recipients ------------------- costs (in cost per AFDC (millions) (thousands) (thousands) Family Recipient millions)\1\ family\2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................ $95.5 52 140 $154 $57 $20.6 $399 Alaska................. 110.6 12 36 762 253 8.9 736 Arizona................ 268.7 70 197 320 114 35.9 513 Arkansas............... 59.8 27 73 187 69 12.9 485 California............. 5,855.0 859 2,463 568 198 499.4 581 Colorado............... 164.0 43 123 322 111 24.8 584 Connecticut............ 386.3 57 162 562 199 27.5 480 Delaware............... 39.7 11 28 290 119 6.4 561 District of Columbia... 112.6 25 67 378 141 27.9 1,125 Florida................ 804.7 254 695 264 97 125.8 495 Georgia................ 432.1 141 398 255 90 56.7 401 Guam................... 9.2 2 5 511 142 1.7 1,133 Hawaii................. 143.4 18 56 653 214 9.3 508 Idaho.................. 28.5 8 21 301 112 8.3 1,051 Illinois............... 882.9 231 689 318 107 77.1 333 Indiana................ 224.8 73 212 257 88 41.0 562 Iowa................... 163.3 37 101 371 135 17.7 482 Kansas................. 125.9 30 88 347 119 22.3 738 Kentucky............... 210.0 83 225 211 78 39.0 471 Louisiana.............. 176.9 90 263 164 56 20.5 228 Maine.................. 117.1 24 67 408 145 6.4 268 Maryland............... 316.5 80 221 329 119 71.8 895 Massachusetts.......... 749.9 114 325 546 192 70.5 616 Michigan............... 1,190.1 230 688 432 144 168.6 734 Minnesota.............. 384.0 64 192 499 167 57.5 897 Mississippi............ 86.9 60 172 120 42 13.3 221 Missouri............... 283.8 90 262 263 90 34.0 378 Montana................ 49.1 12 35 350 118 9.1 778 Nebraska............... 65.6 17 48 327 113 12.0 719 Nevada................. 44.0 13 35 282 104 10.3 792 New Hampshire.......... 56.0 11 30 424 158 6.7 609 New Jersey............. 538.2 126 349 356 128 145.9 1,159 New Mexico............. 119.1 31 95 317 104 11.0 351 New York............... 2,658.4 433 1,197 512 185 556.1 1,285 North Carolina......... 353.4 131 335 225 88 57.7 441 North Dakota........... 28.1 7 19 360 127 3.7 569 Ohio................... 980.5 258 719 317 114 104.3 404 Oklahoma............... 172.0 49 138 296 104 38.8 800 Oregon................. 202.4 43 118 396 143 38.2 897 Pennsylvania........... 917.7 205 608 372 126 106.2 517 Puerto Rico............ 76.8 61 190 105 34 14.4 237 Rhode Island........... 134.2 22 62 504 181 6.2 279 South Carolina......... 118.0 53 147 184 67 18.9 355 South Dakota........... 25.0 7 20 289 104 3.6 500 Tennesee............... 219.8 108 311 170 59 37.4 347 Texas.................. 532.3 279 782 159 57 79.9 287 Utah................... 78.0 18 53 353 124 16.0 870 Vermont................ 65.7 10 29 548 192 5.0 500 Virgin Islands......... 3.5 1 4 243 77 0.8 667 Virginia............... 231.2 74 194 261 99 44.7 607 Washington............. 605.5 101 288 498 175 67.4 665 West Virginia.......... 121.6 41 119 245 85 7.0 169 Wisconsin.............. 441.2 80 237 460 155 46.3 579 Wyoming................ 26.5 7 18 340 121 3.7 569 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total........... 22,286 4,981 14,144 373 131 2,955.5 593 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Administrative costs include Child Care administration, Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, SAVE, and other State and local administrative expenditures. \2\Average annual administrative cost per family. Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-23.--AFDC-UP RECIPIENTS OF CASH PAYMENTS AND AMOUNTS OF PAYMENTS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1993 (PRELIMINARY DATA) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Average Average monthly UP money monthly monthly payment per-- State payments number of number of ------------------- (thousands) families recipients Family Recipient ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama........................................... $386 495 1,948 $65 $17 Alaska............................................ 21,211 2,026 9,293 872 190 Arizona........................................... 4,730 1,318 5,548 299 71 Arkansas.......................................... 1,458 399 1,688 305 72 California........................................ 1,148,349 141,584 576,161 676 166 Colorado.......................................... 3,667 1,309 3,363 233 91 Connecticut....................................... 17,269 2,200 9,293 654 155 Delaware.......................................... 476 121 500 328 79 District of Columbia.............................. 1,343 173 862 647 130 Florida........................................... 25,507 6,120 24,020 347 88 Georgia........................................... 3,801 1,019 4,237 311 75 Guam.............................................. 1,006 111 614 755 137 Hawaii............................................ 8,308 887 4,269 781 162 Idaho............................................. 2,096 472 1,982 370 88 Illinois.......................................... 44,223 10,036 43,593 367 85 Indiana........................................... 15,114 3,858 16,751 326 75 Iowa.............................................. 11,357 2,200 9,069 430 104 Kansas............................................ 12,081 2,450 10,297 411 98 Kentucky.......................................... 28,603 9,000 36,281 265 66 Louisiana......................................... 2,794 1,091 4,802 213 48 Maine............................................. 17,765 2,656 11,152 557 133 Maryland.......................................... 4,838 967 4,211 417 96 Massachusetts..................................... 45,435 6,525 27,773 580 136 Michigan.......................................... 184,379 31,585 134,236 486 114 Minnesota......................................... 49,817 6,936 32,680 599 127 Mississippi....................................... 263 158 623 139 35 Missouri.......................................... 20,053 5,142 22,104 325 76 Montana........................................... 6,148 1,163 5,113 441 100 Nebraska.......................................... 6,065 1,283 5,524 394 91 Nevada............................................ 1,397 357 1,495 326 78 New Hampshire..................................... 2,941 548 2,332 447 105 New Jersey........................................ 24,161 4,676 19,644 431 102 New Mexico........................................ 8,859 1,779 8,272 415 89 New York.......................................... 116,487 17,063 70,715 569 137 North Carolina.................................... 9,815 3,057 12,098 268 68 North Dakota...................................... 2,583 489 2,154 440 100 Ohio.............................................. 11,531 23,939 96,869 388 96 Oklahoma.......................................... 3,315 698 2,945 396 94 Oregon............................................ 21,240 3,929 16,038 450 110 Pennsylvania...................................... 52,701 10,471 44,864 419 98 Rhode Island...................................... 4,823 703 2,867 572 140 South Carolina.................................... 1,984 867 3,398 191 49 South Dakota...................................... 119 31 153 320 65 Tennssee.......................................... 11,365 4,494 13,474 211 70 Texas............................................. 19,739 7,836 33,251 210 49 Utah.............................................. 1,031 192 853 447 101 Vermont........................................... 9,589 1,427 5,781 560 138 Virginia.......................................... 2,878 767 3,237 313 74 Washington........................................ 118,554 16,051 68,095 616 145 West Virginia..................................... 29,272 8,171 32,778 299 74 Wisconsin......................................... 54,023 7,995 38,693 563 116 Wyoming........................................... 816 185 755 368 90 ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total.................................... 2,297,765 359,009 1,488,748 533 129 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-24.--HISTORICAL TRENDS IN AFDC ENROLLMENTS AND AVERAGE PAYMENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average monthly number of (in thousands) Average monthly ----------------------------------------------------------------- benefit Unemployed ------------------- Fiscal year Families\1\ Recipients\1\ Children\1\ Unemployed parent parent recipients Family Recipient families ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1970....................... 1,909 7,429 5,494 78 420 $178 $46 1971....................... 2,532 9,556 6,963 143 726 180 48 1972....................... 2,918 10,632 7,698 134 639 187 51 1973....................... 3,123 11,038 7,965 120 557 187 53 1974....................... 3,170 10,845 7,824 95 434 194 57 1975....................... 3,342 11,067 7,928 101 451 210 63 1976....................... 3,561 11,339 8,156 135 593 226 71 1977....................... 3,575 11,108 7,818 149 659 242 78 1978....................... 3,528 10,663 7,475 127 567 250 83 1979....................... 3,493 10,311 7,193 113 504 257 87 1980....................... 3,642 10,597 7,320 141 612 274 94 1981....................... 3,871 11,160 7,615 209 881 277 96 1982....................... 3,569 10,431 6,975 232 976 300 103 1983....................... 3,651 10,659 7,051 272 1,144 311 106 1984....................... 3,725 10,866 7,153 287 1,222 322 110 1985....................... 3,692 10,813 7,165 261 1,131 339 116 1986....................... 3,747 10,995 7,294 253 1,101 352 120 1987....................... 3,784 11,065 7,381 236 1,035 359 123 1988....................... 3,748 10,920 7,326 210 929 370 127 1989....................... 3,771 10,935 7,370 193 856 381 131 1990....................... 3,974 11,460 7,755 204 899 389 135 1991....................... 4,375 12,595 8,515 268 1,148 388 135 1992....................... 4,769 13,625 9,225 322 1,348 389 136 1993....................... 4,981 14,144 9,539 359 1,489 373 131 1994\2\.................... 5,055 14,336 9,681 346 1,433 374 132 1995\2\.................... 5,148 14,551 9,859 338 1,398 376 133 1996\2\.................... 5,252 14,809 10,058 331 1,365 380 135 1997\2\.................... 5,363 15,093 10,271 327 1,344 385 137 1998\2\.................... 5,460 15,344 10,456 323 1,326 391 139 1999\2\.................... 5,575 15,649 10,677 321 1,316 398 142 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Includes unemployed parent families and, for 1971-81, foster care children. \2\Administration projection under current law. Note.--AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-25.--TOTAL AFDC BENEFIT EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1985-93\1\ [In millions] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 real change 1985-93\2\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................. $70.6 $68.3 $64.8 $62.1 $61.1 $61.5 $67.5 $85.1 $95.5 0 Alaska.................................. 42.1 46.0 51.0 53.7 54.8 59.5 76.8 96.3 110.6 95 Arizona................................. 65.3 78.6 93.9 103.3 117.0 138.4 177.8 242.6 268.7 206 Arkansas................................ 41.3 48.4 49.8 53.3 55.4 57.0 60.0 61.1 59.8 8 California.............................. 3,364.3 3,573.6 3,869.2 4,091.0 4,436.5 4,954.9 5,519.8 5,828.3 5,855.0 29 Colorado................................ 100.2 106.6 117.5 125.1 131.0 136.7 149.9 162.5 164.0 22 Connecticut............................. 223.2 223.4 221.0 218.4 241.4 295.2 347.2 376.9 386.3 29 Delaware................................ 26.4 24.7 24.2 24.2 25.1 28.7 32.6 37.3 39.7 12 District of Columbia.................... 76.6 76.5 77.7 76.2 77.5 84.0 97.5 102.4 112.6 9 Florida................................. 247.9 261.3 291.7 318.1 354.6 417.5 515.1 733.1 804.7 141 Georgia................................. 197.9 222.8 243.8 265.8 289.3 320.7 376.4 420.3 432.1 62 Guam.................................... 2.7 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.1 5.0 7.1 7.8 9.2 153 Hawaii.................................. 78.6 73.3 68.4 77.2 89.1 98.8 107.9 125.3 143.4 36 Idaho................................... 19.2 19.3 20.2 19.3 18.4 19.5 22.2 24.0 28.5 10 Illinois................................ 869.1 885.8 872.9 814.8 786.5 838.7 892.2 882.6 882.9 -25 Indiana................................. 153.2 147.5 146.2 167.3 162.2 169.9 193.2 218.2 224.8 9 Iowa.................................... 159.6 169.7 166.4 155.0 149.0 152.4 160.2 164.3 163.3 -24 Kansas.................................. 85.1 91.2 96.4 97.3 104.3 105.1 108.7 119.2 125.9 10 Kentucky................................ 138.1 104.4 137.6 142.9 155.4 179.1 204.1 213.1 210.0 13 Louisiana............................... 154.1 161.5 172.8 182.2 184.8 188.0 188.1 181.8 176.9 -15 Maine................................... 78.1 84.0 82.4 79.8 86.1 101.3 113.2 118.3 117.1 11 Maryland................................ 121.6 249.7 250.3 250.2 265.5 295.8 330.4 333.3 316.5 93 Massachusetts........................... 416.8 470.8 515.3 557.9 592.2 630.3 665.6 750.9 749.9 34 Michigan................................ 1,197.9 1,247.8 1,201.0 1,231.4 1,226.4 1,211.3 1,184.1 1,162.0 1,190.1 -26 Minnesota............................... 308.3 322.3 334.4 337.8 343.4 355.0 370.7 387.0 384.0 -7 Mississippi............................. 60.7 74.0 80.7 85.3 84.9 86.3 87.9 88.8 86.9 6 Missouri................................ 195.3 208.6 212.7 214.7 220.0 228.0 250.6 273.9 283.8 8 Montana................................. 32.1 36.8 40.4 41.4 40.6 40.4 42.0 45.7 49.1 14 Nebraska................................ 58.3 61.5 60.4 56.3 56.6 58.6 61.2 65.3 65.6 -16 Nevada.................................. 11.7 15.7 16.3 20.4 24.2 27.2 32.1 41.0 44.0 179 New Hampshire........................... 20.4 19.6 18.1 21.1 24.3 31.8 45.3 54.5 56.0 104 New Jersey.............................. 251.3 509.0 482.8 458.7 440.1 451.4 488.7 \2\515.7 538.2 59 New Mexico.............................. 51.1 51.3 55.9 56.2 55.0 60.6 86.2 105.9 119.1 73 New York................................ 2,021.4 2,098.6 2,097.9 2,140.1 2,153.7 2,254.4 2,480.9 2,927.2 2,658.4 -2 North Carolina.......................... 160.9 137.6 191.0 205.6 220.5 246.7 303.6 335.3 353.4 63 North Dakota............................ 18.2 19.9 20.9 21.9 24.0 24.3 25.0 27.5 28.1 15 Ohio.................................... 759.9 803.5 810.1 805.3 826.6 877.2 935.1 984.0 980.5 -4 Oklahoma................................ 87.8 100.2 111.5 118.5 124.3 132.1 152.2 169.2 172.0 46 Oregon.................................. 106.5 120.4 119.1 128.1 137.5 145.2 177.2 200.1 202.4 41 Pennsylvania............................ 750.6 388.8 750.9 746.8 738.5 798.3 827.3 906.1 917.7 -9 Puerto Rico............................. N.A. 33.0 66.4 66.7 70.6 71.5 75.2 76.9 76.8 N.A. Rhode Island............................ 73.4 78.8 80.9 81.6 85.8 99.0 117.2 128.4 134.2 36 South Carolina.......................... 89.5 103.2 102.7 91.2 91.3 95.7 107.4 119.2 118.0 -2 South Dakota............................ 17.8 14.5 21.2 21.0 21.6 21.7 23.6 25.2 25.0 4 Tennessee............................... 89.3 99.9 117.0 125.4 142.0 167.9 196.6 205.8 219.8 83 Texas................................... 227.7 280.5 319.5 344.1 367.5 415.9 473.3 516.5 532.3 74 Utah.................................... 50.8 54.5 60.5 61.3 63.5 64.1 70.7 75.5 78.0 14 Vermont................................. 38.2 39.5 41.2 40.2 41.4 48.1 54.6 67.0 65.7 28 Virgin Islands.......................... N.A. 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.5 3.5 N.A. Virginia................................ 169.6 178.9 173.3 168.6 168.4 177.4 199.6 224.8 231.2 1 Washington.............................. 343.6 375.2 399.5 401.4 420.7 437.9 485.8 605.9 605.5 31 West Virginia........................... 85.3 109.0 110.0 106.9 110.0 110.0 113.6 120.1 121.6 6 Wisconsin............................... 556.4 443.8 568.7 505.9 454.2 440.4 447.1 453.3 441.2 -41 Wyoming................................. 14.2 15.8 18.1 18.7 18.8 19.3 24.9 27.2 26.5 39 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total............................ 14,580.2 15,235.4 16,322.6 16,663.3 17,240.0 18,538.5 20,356.2 22,223.5 22,286.0 14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Data for fiscal years 1985-89 do not include prior quarter adjustments. \2\Percent change between 1985 and 1993 adjusted for inflation using CPI-X1. Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-26.--NUMBER OF AFDC RECIPIENTS, AND RECIPIENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF VARIOUS POPULATION GROUPS [In thousands] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFDC child AFDC child AFDC recipients AFDC recipients Total recipients as as a recipients as as a Calendar year Total AFDC AFDC child population a percent of percent of a percent of percent of recipients\1\ recipients\1\ ages 0- total total prewelfare children 17\2\ population\2\ child poverty in population population\3\ poverty\4\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1970.................................................... 8,303 6,104 69,759 4.07 8.75 NA 58.5 1971.................................................... 10,043 7,303 69,806 4.86 10.46 NA 69.2 1972.................................................... 10,736 7,766 69,417 5.13 11.19 NA 75.5 1973.................................................... 10,738 7,763 68,762 5.08 11.29 NA 80.5 1974.................................................... 10,621 7,684 67,984 4.98 11.30 NA 75.7 1975.................................................... 11,131 7,952 67,164 5.17 11.84 NA 71.6 1976.................................................... 11,098 7,850 66,250 5.10 11.85 NA 76.4 1977.................................................... 10,856 7,632 65,461 4.94 11.66 NA 74.2 1978.................................................... 10,387 7,270 64,773 4.68 11.22 NA 73.2 1979.................................................... 10,140 7,057 64,106 4.52 11.01 54.5 68.0 1980.................................................... 10,599 7,295 63,684 4.66 11.45 49.2 63.2 1981.................................................... 10,893 7,397 63,212 4.75 11.70 47.1 59.2 1982.................................................... 10,161 6,767 62,812 4.39 10.77 40.6 49.6 1983.................................................... 10,569 6,967 62,566 4.52 11.14 41.9 50.1 1984.................................................... 10,645 7,017 62,483 4.51 11.23 43.6 52.3 1985.................................................... 10,672 7,074 62,624 4.49 11.30 45.0 54.4 1986.................................................... 10,850 7,206 62,866 4.52 11.46 46.6 56.0 1987.................................................... 10,841 7,240 63,056 4.47 11.48 46.7 56.4 1988.................................................... 10,915 7,328 63,247 4.46 11.59 48.5 58.8 1989.................................................... 10,799 7,287 63,456 4.38 11.48 47.6 57.9 1990.................................................... 11,699 7,922 64,185 4.69 12.34 48.0 59.0 1991.................................................... 12,728 8,601 65,145 5.05 13.20 49.1 60.0 1992.................................................... \5\13,623 \5\9,224 66,163 5.34 13.94 NA 63.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Annual numbers. In calculating the number of AFDC recipients, data for Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was subtracted from the total AFDC population. Data for these territories was not available for 1970-76, so an estimate was used based on the ratio in later years (1977-87) of the number of recipients in these areas to the total number of recipients. \2\Population numbers represent U.S. resident population, not including Armed Forces overseas. \3\Poverty population is determined by the number of people whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security before taxes and means- tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold. This information can be found in appendix J, table 20, 1992 Green Book. \4\This information can be found in appendix J, table 2, 1992 Green Book. \5\Recipient estimates assume the same number of AFDC recipients in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands in 1992 and 1993 as existed in 1991. NA--Poverty population data is not available for this time period. CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC FAMILIES This section describes the characteristics of AFDC families, using two main sources of data. For years through 1979, the sources were individual surveys of similar design specially conducted to gather information from agency case files. For 1982 and later years, data were derived from information collected from cases within the National Integrated Quality Control System's (NIQCS) monthly sample of cases. Table 10-27 shows that the share of AFDC families with earnings fell 42 percent from March 1979 to 1992, from 12.8 percent to 7.4 percent. The share of families with no reported income other than AFDC climbed from 80.6 percent in 1979 to 86.8 percent in 1983, and fell to 78.9 percent by 1992. Moreover (table 10-33), the average amount of income deemed to members of the AFDC assistance unit tripled, from $63 per family in March 1979 to $186 in 1992. Table 10-27 also shows the trend in other selected characteristics of AFDC families from 1969 to 1992. During this period, the average family size decreased from 4.0 persons to 2.9, the percent of families participating in the food stamp program increased, and the share of AFDC households with nonrecipient members climbed slightly. Table 10-27 indicates that the share of AFDC families with no more than two children rose from 49.6 percent in 1969 to 72.7 percent in 1992, and the percentage of families reporting no father in the home rose from 84.7 percent in 1979 to 89.4 percent in 1992. TABLE 10-27.--AFDC CHARACTERISTICS, 1969-92 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- May January May March 1969 1973 1975 1979 1983\1\ 1986\1\ 1988\1\ 1990\1\ 1992\1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average family size (persons)..................................... 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 Number of child recipients (percent of AFDC cases): One........................................................... 26.6 NA 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.7 42.5 42.2 42.5 Two........................................................... 23.0 NA 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.8 30.2 30.3 30.2 Three......................................................... 17.7 NA 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.9 15.8 15.8 15.5 Four or more.................................................. 32.5 NA 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.1 Unknown....................................................... ....... NA ....... ....... 1.5 .8 1.7 1.4 .7 Basis for eligibility (percent children): Parents present: Incapacitated............................................... \2\11.7 10.2 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.6 4.1 Unemployed.................................................. \2\4.6 4.1 3.7 4.1 8.7 7.4 6.5 6.4 8.2 Parents absent: Death....................................................... \2\5.5 5.0 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 Divorce or separation....................................... \2\43.3 46.5 48.3 44.7 38.5 36.3 34.6 32.9 30.0 No marriage tie............................................. \2\27.9 31.5 31.0 37.8 44.3 48.9 51.9 54.0 53.1 Other reason................................................ \2\3.5 3.6 4.0 5.9 1.4 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 Unknown..................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1.7 ........ ........ ........ .9 Education of mother (percent of mothers):\3\ 8th Grade or less............................................. 29.4 NA 16.7 9.5 NA 4.8 5.5 5.8 4.9 1-3 years of HS............................................... 30.7 NA 31.7 20.8 NA 14.3 14.7 16.5 18.8 High School Degree............................................ 16.0 NA 23.7 18.8 NA 17.3 17.5 19.3 22.4 Some College.................................................. 2.0 NA 3.9 2.7 NA 3.4 3.9 5.7 6.8 College Graduate.............................................. .2 NA .7 .4 NA .5 .6 .4 .5 Unknown....................................................... 21.6 NA 23.3 47.8 NA 59.7 58.3 52.3 46.6 Age of mother (percent of mothers):\3\ Under 20...................................................... 6.6 NA 8.3 \4\4.1 \4\3.6 \4\3.3 \4\3.4 7.9 7.6 20 to 24...................................................... 16.7 NA (\5\) \6\28.0 \6\28.6 \7\33.6 \7\32.2 23.8 24.5 25 to 29...................................................... 17.6 NA (\5\) 21.4 23.8 \8\20.0 \8\19.4 24.6 23.3 30 to 39...................................................... 30.4 NA 27.9 27.2 27.9 30.1 31.5 32.0 32.7 40 or over.................................................... 25.0 NA 17.6 15.4 15.7 13.0 13.4 11.7 11.8 Unknown....................................................... 3.6 NA 3.0 4.0 0.3 ........ ........ ........ .1 Ages of children (percent of recipient children): Under 3....................................................... 14.9 NA 16.5 18.9 22.5 21.9 21.1 24.2 24.6 3 to 5........................................................ 17.6 NA 18.1 17.5 20.1 21.1 21.0 21.5 21.7 6 to 11....................................................... 36.5 NA 33.7 33.0 31.5 32.4 33.3 27.5 32.4 12 and over................................................... 31.0 NA 30.9 29.8 25.5 24.3 22.4 21.3 21.2 Unknown....................................................... ....... NA .8 .9 .3 .1 1.3 .0 .0 Mother's employment status (percent):\3\ Full-time job................................................. 8.2 9.8 10.4 8.7 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.5 2.2 Part-time job................................................. 6.3 6.3 5.7 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Presence of income (percent families): With earnings................................................. NA 16.3 14.6 12.8 5.7 7.5 8.4 8.2 7.4 No non-AFDC income............................................ 56.0 66.9 71.1 \9\80.6 \9\86.8 \9\81.3 \9\79.6 \9\80.1 \9\78.9 Median months on AFDC since most recent opening................... 23.0 27.0 31.0 29.0 26.0 27.0 26.3 23.0 22.5 Race (percent parents)\10\ White......................................................... NA 38.0 39.9 40.4 41.8 39.7 38.8 38.1 38.9 Black......................................................... 45.2 45.8 44.3 43.1 43.8 40.7 39.8 39.7 37.2 Hispanic...................................................... NA 13.4 12.2 13.6 12.0 14.4 15.7 16.6 17.8 Native American............................................... 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 Asian......................................................... NA NA .5 1.0 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.8 Other and unknown............................................. 4.8 1.7 2.0 .4 NA 1.4 1.9 1.5 2.0 Incidence of households (percent): Living in public housing...................................... 12.8 13.6 14.6 NA 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.2 Participating in food stamp or donated food program........... 52.9 68.4 75.1 75.1 83.0 80.7 84.6 85.6 87.3 Including nonrecipient members................................ 33.1 34.9 34.8 NA 36.9 36.7 36.8 37.7 38.9 Father's relationship to youngest child (percent): No father..................................................... NA NA NA 84.7 89.8 91.2 91.6 92.0 89.4 Natural father................................................ NA NA NA 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA Adoptive father............................................... NA NA NA .0 NA NA NA NA NA Stepfather.................................................... NA NA NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Data are for the Federal fiscal year October through September. All percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data for 1986 include Hawaii, but not the territories. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii. \2\Calculated on the basis of total number of families. \3\For years after 1983, data are for adult female recipients. \4\Under age 19. \5\The percentage for 20 to 29 year olds was 43.1. \6\The ages were 19-24 in 1979, 1983 and 1990. \7\In 1986 and 1988 this age group was 19 to 25. \8\In 1986 and 1988 this age group was 26-29. \9\State collected child support directly beginning in 1975, removing one source of non-AFDC income. \10\For 1983, 12.6 percentage points where race was unknown were allocated proportionately across all categories. NA--Not available. Source: Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, and Congressional Budget Office. Table 10-28 indicates that the share of families who received benefits for more than 5 years (since the most recent opening of their case) did not change dramatically during the 1980's, and has dropped in 1990, 1991, and 1992. TABLE 10-28.--EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF AFDC MOTHERS AND TENURE OF AFDC FAMILIES\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of total caseload --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 1979\2\ May 1982 1983\3\ 1986\3\ 1988\3\ 1990\3\ 1991\3\ 1992\3\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment status of mother (or other caretaker):\4\ No mother (caretaker)........ 8.3 12.2 8.7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... Full-time work, 30 or more hours per week............... \5\8.0 \5\1.3 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.2 Part-time work, fewer than 30 hours per week........... \5\5.0 \5\4.3 3.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Incapacitated....... 6.0 NA 4.1 3.4 3.8 ......... ......... ......... At school or training........... 2.6 NA 2.0 1.9 2.2 11.5 12.5 16.1 On layoff........... .5 NA .8 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2 Seeking work........ 9.1 NA NA 27.3 27.6 \6\10.5 \6\11.2 \6\11.8 Other--needed at home or not actively seeking work............... 60.5 82.2 64.8 58.3 55.5 \7\68.6 \7\68.8 \7\65.1 Unknown............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.6 .8 .6 Number of months on AFDC since most recent opening (percent of cases): 1 to 6 months....... 16.4 20.0 18.9 17.2 18.2 19.8 20.4 19.0 7 to 12 months...... 12.5 12.4 13.1 12.6 13.2 14.4 14.8 15.2 13 to 24 months..... 16.7 16.2 16.6 17.2 17.3 18.4 19.2 19.3 25 to 36 months..... 11.4 12.6 12.0 11.8 11.2 11.9 12.2 12.8 37 to 60 months..... 15.3 14.2 15.4 14.9 15.0 13.7 12.8 14.1 61 plus months...... 26.9 23.5 23.7 25.9 24.9 21.7 20.5 19.6 Unknown............. .8 1.1 .3 .4 .2 .01 .1 .1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\See text about difference in data sources for 1979, and 1982 and later years. \2\Source: Committee staff tabulation of March 1979 AFDC recipients' data base. \3\Fiscal year average monthly. 1983 does not include Hawaii or the territories. 1986 data do not include the territories. 1988-1992 data include the territories and Hawaii. \4\Since 1986, the data are percent of female adult recipients. \5\Full-time work,35hoursormoreperweek;part-timework,fewerthan35hoursperweek. \6\For 1990-1992, unemployed, not on layoff or strike. \7\For 1990-1992, not employed, not participating in any educational or training activities. NA--Not available. Source: Department of Health and Human Services. Table 10-29 presents data on income sources of AFDC families. It indicates that the share of AFDC families with earnings from the mother (or other caretaker relative) or from the spouse of the caretaker relative declined from 12.6 percent in March 1979 to 7.4 percent in 1992. Further, according to the table, the average monthly amount earned dropped in nominal terms from $382 to $330 for mothers with earnings, and stay relatively constant in nominal dollars from $323 to $307 for fathers (or spouses of caretaker relatives) with earnings. These changes resulted primarily from provisions of OBRA 1981, which reduced eligibility for AFDC among families with earnings. TABLE 10-29.--INCOME SOURCES OF AFDC FAMILIES,\1\ SELECTED YEARS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of caseload with income type Average amount for those with income type ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income source Fiscal year Fiscal year March May -------------------------------------------------- March May ------------------------------------------------- 1979 1982 1986\3\ 1988\3\ 1990\3\ 1991\3\ 1992\3\ 1979 1982 1986\3\ 1988\3\ 1990\3\ 1991\3\ 1992\3\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earned income: Mother (or caretaker relative)........ 12.0 5.3 6.2 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.1 $382 $261 $264 $276 $318 $324 $330 Father (or spouse of caretaker relative)........ .6 .4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 323 244 271 316 332 307 325 Children (14+).... .1 (\4\) .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 206 398 323 299 301 348 358 Other adults...... .1 NA .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 265 NA 420 450 285 338 252 Public service.... .1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 246 NA NA NA NA NA NA OASDI............... 3.1 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 134 145 207 211 235 211 226 Veterans' benefits.. .4 NA .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 128 NA 139 122 135 114 182 Other government income............. .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .5 .7 143 134 131 109 105 159 96 Unemployment compensation....... .7 1.0 .7 .6 .6 .9 .9 238 255 289 285 310 359 354 Workmen's compensation....... .1 (\4\) .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 237 200 299 267 396 542 348 Deemed income....... .2 .3 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 63 159 153 143 132 253 186 Contributions from other persons...... .6 .9 NA 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.6 72 79 NA 92 105 109 109 Other cash income... 1.9 2.5 \5\2.0 \5\2.0 \5\2.0 \5\2.3 \5\4.2 81 251 128 83 105 67 162 SSI (Federal)..... NA NA 3.0 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 NA NA 334 369 442 410 436 Other public assistance or State SSI........ NA NA 1.1 .8 .6 .6 .3 NA NA 374 299 299 311 315 In-kind income...... .4 NA NA NA \6\.0 NA NA 71 NA NA NA \6\125 NA NA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total......... 19.4 NA 18.7 20.4 19.9 19.9 21.1 299 NA 228 ........ 239 238 246 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\See text about differences in data sources for 1979, and 1982, and subsequent years. \2\Source: Committee staff tabulation of March 1979 AFDC recipients' data base. \3\Fiscal year average monthly. 1986 data do not include the territories. 1988-92 data include both Hawaii and the territories. \4\Less than 0.05 percent. \5\Includes Federal SSI, State SSI, general assistance, income from assets and property and other unearned income. \6\EITC. NA--Not available. Source: ACF, Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-30.--INCOME OF AFDC FAMILIES NOT COUNTED BY THE PROGRAM,\1\ SELECTED YEARS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of caseload with disregard Average amount for those with disregard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disregards March Fiscal year Fiscal year 1979\2\ May -------------------------------------------------- March May ------------------------------------------------- 1982 1986\3\ 1989\3\ 1990\3\ 1991\3\ 1992\3\ 1979 1982 1986\3\ 1989\3\ 1990\3\ 1991\3\ 1992\3\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Optional $5 disregard 1.1 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) $6 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) $30 and one-third of earned income\5\.... 12.5 2.5 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 147 $62 $76 83 92 89 89 Child care........... 3.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.4 101 86 106 119 128 132 153 Other work expenses.. 8.4 5.2 6.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.3 95 54 76 77 89 92 92 Cases with child care and other work expenses\6\......... 3.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA Child support........ .1 (\7\) 3.0 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.7 93 NA \8\47 \8\48 \8\48 \8\48 \8\48 Other................ 1.6 .4 NA NA NA NA NA 77 100 NA NA NA NA NA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total.......... 13.8 NA 6.3 7.0 6.8 7.0 6.4 250 NA 146 153 171 172 177 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\See text about differences in data sources for March 1979, 1982, and subsequent years. \2\Source: Committee staff tabulation of March 1979 AFDC recipients' data base. \3\Average monthly for fiscal years. \4\Repealed by 1981 law. \5\Limited to 4 months' duration by 1981 law; however, 1984 law extended $30 disregard to 12 months. \6\In these cases, there was insufficient information in the data file to distinguish between child care and other work expenses. \7\Less than 0.05 percent. \8\Average amount of $50 child support passthrough. NA--Not available. Note.--The child support pass through is not included in the total amount disregarded. It is part of unearned income rather than earned income. Source: ACF, Department of Health and Human Services. The AFDC recipient population is not a homogenous group of families or individuals, as illustrated in table 10-31. The table subdivides the 1992 AFDC caseload into seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive groups. Column one of the table contains data on the entire caseload. Column two of the table describes the AFDC units with no adult recipients. They represent 14.7 percent of the AFDC units and 11.5 percent of total payments. The average payment per case was $285 per month. Columns 3-6 represent characteristics of the more typical AFDC units--one adult with children. The one adult caseload was split into four groups based on the reason for deprivation of the youngest child. Column three includes those cases with one adult for whom the reason for AFDC eligibility is that the other adult is absent because they are not married; these represent 48 percent of AFDC units. The final two columns (columns seven and eight) of the table present characteristics of cases with two adult recipients. Column eight represents those cases where one parent is incapacitated, and column seven presents data on the unemployed parents (AFDC-UP) program caseload. In total, they represent a little over 7.0 percent of the total caseload and receive about 10.6 percent of the total payments. The cases where one parent is incapacitated tend to be older, as demonstrated by both the age of the mother and the age of the youngest child. Tables 10-32 through 10-35 present selected 1992 characteristics of the AFDC population by State. Table 10-32 presents selected demographic characteristics, including the number of persons in the AFDC unit and household, the percent of units with household members not in the unit, the percent of units with no adult recipients and with one adult recipient, and the percentage distribution of the units by age of youngest child and race of parent. Table 10-33 presents selected income characteristics, including the percent of units with earned income, unearned income, and various income disregards. This table also supplies the average monthly amount of these sources of income for those receiving them. Finally, table 10-33 provides information on the percent of units participating in the food stamp program. Table 10-34 provides a detailed percentage distribution of AFDC units by shelter arrangement. Table 10-35 provides a detailed percentage distribution of AFDC units by the reason for deprivation of the youngest child. TABLE 10-31.--1992 AFDC CHARACTERISTICS BY UNIT TYPE\1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One adult Two adult ------------------------------------------------------------------- Not Total No Divorced legally Unknown adult Not or separated Other Unemployed Other married legally or reasons parent separated divorced -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of units (in thousands)............................ 4,769 669 2,289 527 560 240 263 75 116 Percent of total.......................................... 100.0 14.7 48.0 11.0 11.7 5.0 5.5 1.6 2.4 Average monthly payment................................... $374 $285 $367 $381 $405 $372 $568 $464 ......... Percent of total dollars paid out......................... 100.0 11.5 48.3 11.5 13.0 5.1 8.6 2.0 ......... Average number in assistance unit......................... 2.9 1.7 2.9 2.9 3.2 2.7 4.6 4.3 ......... Food Stamps: Percent participating................................. 87.3 64.3 91.7 90.5 92.3 86.3 96.1 84.2 ......... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage Distribution --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of recipients: One................................................... 9.3 56.1 0 0 0 17.6 0 0 ......... Two................................................... 37.0 26.0 46.3 40.4 32.0 35.9 0 1.4 ......... Three................................................. 27.9 11.2 29.2 35.9 36.2 21.8 25.7 29.7 ......... Four.................................................. 15.2 4.8 14.8 16.1 20.2 13.4 30.4 28.7 ......... Five.................................................. 6.6 1.2 6.0 5.6 7.9 6.3 21.4 21.9 ......... Six................................................... 2.5 0.4 1.9 1.4 2.5 3.2 12.2 12.4 ......... Seven or more......................................... 1.5 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.1 1.7 10.4 5.8 ......... Number of nonrecipients: Zero.................................................. 57.6 1.2 67.8 66.6 71.1 41.2 80.8 80.2 ......... One................................................... 19.8 43.6 14.4 17.7 13.8 33.9 10.9 11.5 ......... Two................................................... 10.7 24.2 8.3 9.2 7.9 13.1 4.5 3.5 ......... Three................................................. 5.3 12.2 4.5 3.5 3.8 5.7 1.5 1.2 ......... Four or more......................................... 6.5 18.8 5.0 3.0 3.4 6.2 2.2 3.6 ......... Shelter: Owns or buying........................................ 4.4 6.0 1.9 6.8 4.3 8.3 9.9 18.9 ......... Homeless/emergency shelter............................ 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 ......... Public housing........................................ 9.1 6.3 11.4 7.2 7.7 8.6 5.0 5.5 ......... HUD rent subsidy...................................... 12.1 6.3 14.2 14.7 12.1 8.5 8.4 6.8 ......... Other subsidy......................................... 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.7 ......... Private housing....................................... 63.5 67.5 60.8 62.0 66.2 65.4 71.1 63.2 ......... Rents free............................................ 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.1 ......... Group quarters........................................ 7.3 10.9 7.4 5.6 7.1 5.9 3.5 3.7 ......... Number of child recipients: Zero.................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 ......... One................................................... 43.7 54.7 46.3 40.4 32.1 46.9 25.9 25.2 ......... Two................................................... 30.7 27.4 29.9 35.9 36.2 25.0 30.3 31.9 ......... Three................................................. 15.5 11.2 14.8 16.1 20.2 14.4 21.4 23.6 ......... Four or more.......................................... 10.0 6.8 9.0 7.6 11.6 13.7 22.4 19.4 ......... Race of caretaker: White................................................. 39.0 25.8 30.8 69.7 43.8 46.2 62.2 53.8 ......... Black................................................. 37.3 36.4 50.9 14.0 28.0 26.1 7.4 8.0 ......... Hispanic.............................................. 17.6 31.7 13.6 12.7 22.9 14.4 13.6 24.5 ......... Asian................................................. 2.8 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.2 9.7 13.1 10.5 ......... American Indian....................................... 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.6 2.8 0.9 ......... Unknown............................................... 1.9 2.7 1.9 0.9 2.2 2.0 0.8 2.2 ......... Age of youngest child in AFDC unit: Under 3............................................... 42.4 30.9 51.6 14.1 38.4 48.3 52.5 41.9 ......... 3 to 5................................................ 21.4 18.0 21.6 24.2 24.0 15.8 23.3 16.1 ......... 6 to 11............................................... 23.3 28.5 18.9 39.3 25.2 18.9 15.7 23.5 ......... 12 to 15.............................................. 9.4 15.3 6.0 16.6 9.2 11.0 6.5 13.2 ......... 16 to 18.............................................. 3.6 7.3 1.9 5.8 3.1 6.1 2.0 5.3 ......... Unknown............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 ......... Number of months continuously on AFDC: 6 or less............................................. 18.9 17.1 16.1 18.6 24.7 26.7 28.9 22.1 ......... 7 to 12............................................... 15.0 15.6 14.1 14.7 17.7 12.5 19.0 14.1 ......... 13 to 18.............................................. 10.9 10.5 10.6 12.2 12.4 8.8 10.5 13.0 ......... 19 to 24.............................................. 8.4 8.3 8.9 8.4 8.1 5.7 7.9 9.7 ......... 25 to 36.............................................. 12.9 12.9 13.7 12.3 11.6 12.9 10.1 11.4 ......... 37 to 48.............................................. 8.3 7.9 8.7 9.3 6.8 9.6 5.3 7.6 ......... 49 to 60.............................................. 5.8 5.7 6.4 5.9 4.3 5.3 5.0 5.7 ......... 61 to 120............................................. 13.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 10.6 13.7 11.1 10.8 ......... 121 to 180............................................ 4.2 4.6 4.9 3.5 2.7 2.9 1.9 4.5 ......... 181 and up............................................ 1.8 2.5 2.2 0.8 1.0 1.9 0.3 1.2 ......... Age of female adult recipient: 11 to 18.............................................. 3.8 NA 4.9 0.7 1.7 6.3 3.9 0.6 ......... 19 to 21.............................................. 13.7 NA 17.5 3.8 8.9 14.0 10.9 8.6 ......... 22 to 25.............................................. 19.5 NA 22.2 12.1 17.9 17.5 18.3 9.3 ......... 26 to 29.............................................. 18.6 NA 18.7 19.6 20.2 10.9 19.4 17.3 ......... 30 to 34.............................................. 20.3 NA 18.5 28.1 23.4 15.7 19.7 18.2 ......... 35 to 39.............................................. 12.5 NA 10.4 19.3 13.7 11.2 14.4 18.9 ......... 40 and up............................................. 11.5 NA 7.9 16.4 14.2 24.5 13.5 26.3 ......... Unknown--............................................. 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 ......... AFDC female adults employment status: Employed full-time.................................... 2.3 NA 2.1 3.5 2.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 ......... Employed part-time.................................... 3.3 NA 2.8 5.0 3.8 2.7 3.6 3.9 ......... Employed other........................................ 1.0 NA 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.9 ......... Not employed.......................................... 81.2 NA 83.0 74.9 79.7 83.5 77.8 85.3 ......... Unemployed............................................ 12.2 NA 11.2 15.1 13.1 11.2 15.8 8.5 ......... Percent with non-AFDC income.............................. 21.1 3.2 20.3 34.2 21.9 28.3 37.3 29.3 24.3 Average monthly amount of income.......................... $246 $206 $214 $219 $257 $284 $364 $413 $307 Percent with earned income................................ 7.4 0.1 6.7 12.0 8.8 6.0 20.7 10.9 8.5 Average monthly earned income............................. $335 $345 $326 $344 $358 $322 $338 $341 $309 Percent of earned income disregarded...................... 52.7 39.7 58.9 51.0 52.2 46.2 43.2 44.5 47.2 Percent with unearned income.............................. 15.0 3.1 14.7 25.1 14.3 23.1 20.4 21.7 16.8 Average amount of unearned income......................... $181 $199 $148 $134 $175 $263 $321 $387 $288 Percent with countable assets............................. 16.5 6.5 13.5 29.5 16.1 22.5 36.4 30.4 14.1 Income of persons not in assistance unit: Percent with income................................... 50.0 93.8 22.0 30.2 20.6 56.6 22.6 20.7 43.0 Average monthly amount................................ $537 $526 $543 $607 $479 $584 $611 $714 $486 Percent with earned income............................ 6.6 8.8 5.4 10.9 4.1 3.3 3.4 1.3 1.3 Percent with public assistance income................. 43.8 92.5 13.7 14.5 13.1 50.8 15.8 18.9 32.1 Percent with other unearned income.................... 10.5 16.9 5.8 7.7 5.5 14.6 4.5 0.7 12.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Characteristics information was not always available for 100 percent of cases. The number of missing cases, to the extent there were any with respect to a particular characteristic, was small as a percent of the AFDC family caseload (usually below 3 percent). Source: Administration for Children and Families, HHS. TABLE 10-32.--SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC UNITS, BY STATE, OCTOBER 1991-SEPTEMBER 1992 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of units Percentage distribution Percentage distribution by race of natural/ --------------------------------- by age of youngest adoptive parent\1\\2\ Average Average With child\1\ -------------------------------------------------- State number number in household With no With 1 --------------------------- in unit household members adult adult 6 or Hispanic Native of unit not in recipient recipient 0-2 3-5 more White Black Asian American unit yrs. yrs. yrs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total..... 2.9 3.8 42.3 14.8 77.4 42.0 21.2 35.9 38.9 37.2 17.8 2.8 1.4 Alabama.............. 2.8 4.1 54.8 19.5 78.1 43.0 18.4 37.6 24.8 74.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 Alaska............... 2.8 3.4 26.3 8.0 80.0 39.7 22.0 37.7 53.1 9.4 2.9 2.0 31.7 Arizona.............. 2.8 4.4 63.0 16.8 79.5 46.6 20.3 32.5 36.1 8.9 37.0 0.8 16.7 Arkansas............. 2.8 4.2 61.2 20.5 77.8 42.9 20.6 36.4 40.4 58.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 California........... 2.9 4.4 59.9 25.5 60.2 43.7 22.3 33.7 30.7 17.2 35.6 10.0 1.3 Colorado............. 2.9 3.3 25.2 10.0 84.7 44.8 23.3 31.5 42.8 13.5 40.8 1.6 1.1 Connecticut.......... 2.8 3.4 35.5 10.7 86.1 41.8 20.2 37.7 33.8 30.5 34.5 0.6 0.0 Delaware............. 2.8 3.4 33.1 20.6 75.0 42.5 21.6 35.7 26.6 65.9 6.9 0.0 0.3 District of Columbia. 2.7 4.2 62.1 16.5 82.5 50.2 17.2 31.8 0.0 98.7 0.8 0.4 0.0 Florida.............. 2.8 3.8 51.2 18.6 79.5 45.2 22.1 32.3 33.4 50.8 15.3 0.3 0.1 Georgia.............. 2.8 3.8 47.6 16.0 82.4 41.3 21.3 37.2 25.2 73.5 0.8 0.5 0.0 Hawaii............... 3.2 3.4 12.4 7.4 79.4 43.2 21.8 34.1 23.3 0.7 0.9 68.2 0.0 Idaho................ 2.8 3.2 28.5 12.8 83.2 46.9 20.9 31.6 84.6 0.6 10.1 0.3 4.5 Illinois............. 3.0 3.9 41.8 10.3 85.4 44.9 20.5 34.1 28.9 60.7 9.9 0.5 0.1 Indiana.............. 2.9 3.7 43.8 9.1 86.7 40.1 22.6 36.3 52.8 36.6 2.2 0.1 0.1 Iowa................. 2.8 3.3 27.7 11.0 81.3 42.3 21.0 36.5 84.6 11.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 Kansas............... 3.0 3.8 37.8 10.6 76.7 45.5 21.5 32.8 65.7 27.4 4.5 1.4 1.0 Kentucky............. 2.7 3.7 49.6 14.2 74.2 33.6 19.6 46.7 81.2 18.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 Louisiana............ 3.0 4.5 61.0 16.9 82.1 40.3 21.2 38.0 18.0 80.5 0.7 0.4 0.2 Maine................ 2.9 3.4 29.1 4.2 81.0 40.1 20.6 39.0 98.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 Maryland............. 2.7 3.5 44.1 11.4 86.7 41.8 21.8 36.4 27.7 68.3 1.2 0.5 0.1 Massachusetts........ 2.8 3.2 24.4 8.9 84.8 43.5 22.0 34.1 51.8 16.4 24.0 3.8 0.0 Michigan............. 3.0 3.3 23.0 5.7 85.4 45.4 20.0 33.8 48.9 47.2 2.7 0.4 0.7 Minnesota............ 3.0 3.6 31.4 7.6 80.3 39.0 21.9 37.8 62.6 18.2 3.1 8.1 7.7 Mississippi.......... 2.9 4.4 59.8 18.4 80.9 39.2 19.4 41.1 17.3 82.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 Missouri............. 3.0 3.8 40.7 8.1 84.4 44.5 20.5 35.1 54.5 44.2 0.7 0.5 0.0 Montana.............. 2.9 3.2 20.9 6.7 81.4 39.8 20.1 39.8 68.9 0.3 1.7 0.6 28.2 Nebraska............. 2.8 3.6 42.1 19.8 73.0 49.3 19.6 30.7 64.6 23.5 4.9 2.3 4.7 Nevada............... 2.6 2.8 19.0 19.0 78.5 52.4 17.1 30.1 54.9 30.2 10.6 1.1 3.3 New Hampshire........ 2.7 2.9 20.0 13.6 79.0 39.0 23.9 36.0 84.8 2.3 1.9 0.3 0.0 New Jersey........... 2.9 3.1 18.8 15.8 79.8 43.7 22.1 33.8 23.8 49.3 26.0 0.7 0.0 New Mexico........... 2.9 3.2 19.6 12.8 78.8 38.4 19.0 41.6 20.7 4.8 59.1 0.0 15.1 New York............. 2.8 3.1 18.6 8.5 84.5 37.9 22.6 34.6 22.5 35.8 32.8 0.5 0.2 North Carolina....... 2.6 3.9 58.3 17.3 80.5 42.2 20.9 36.6 29.3 67.2 0.6 0.2 2.8 North Dakota......... 2.9 3.2 17.6 5.8 87.8 43.9 21.4 34.7 60.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 38.4 Ohio................. 2.9 3.7 42.4 12.8 75.6 41.1 18.4 38.9 59.1 38.4 2.1 0.2 0.0 Oklahoma............. 2.9 3.6 35.2 10.8 86.5 39.5 19.9 40.4 58.5 28.9 2.2 0.4 9.9 Oregon............... 2.9 3.9 48.6 10.7 80.1 46.5 22.6 30.7 86.3 6.1 4.3 1.5 1.6 Pennsylvania......... 3.0 3.3 22.2 9.1 81.1 39.2 24.9 35.5 48.1 41.3 9.0 1.2 0.2 Rhode Island......... 2.8 3.4 29.6 8.7 85.6 42.1 21.9 34.8 60.8 14.5 13.9 10.3 0.1 South Carolina....... 2.9 4.2 55.5 21.3 76.3 42.2 20.8 36.6 21.4 78.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 South Dakota......... 2.7 3.7 50.8 20.1 78.3 39.0 24.6 36.3 48.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 51.4 Tennesee............. 2.7 3.7 47.6 13.5 82.3 39.7 19.9 39.5 48.1 51.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 Texas................ 2.9 3.8 47.1 18.4 78.3 43.4 19.0 37.6 24.5 33.7 41.0 0.6 0.2 Utah................. 2.9 3.3 25.3 10.7 86.0 40.0 24.1 35.8 78.6 2.8 11.5 1.7 5.4 Vermont.............. 3.0 3.4 30.1 5.3 70.5 37.3 20.7 40.8 97.2 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 Virginia............. 2.7 3.9 55.3 18.2 78.9 42.1 22.0 35.9 32.2 64.7 1.7 1.4 0.0 Washington........... 2.8 3.7 44.1 13.8 70.9 43.6 21.0 35.0 71.6 9.3 7.9 5.7 4.8 West Virginia........ 3.0 3.6 35.8 10.9 66.5 35.8 20.3 43.5 88.7 7.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 Wisconsin............ 3.0 3.8 42.5 12.3 77.6 46.7 19.1 34.0 48.7 37.2 6.2 4.4 3.1 Wyoming.............. 2.8 3.3 27.2 8.3 87.8 39.5 19.2 41.5 75.4 3.9 10.4 0.0 10.4 Guam................. 3.5 5.1 46.6 3.8 87.8 60.3 18.7 20.8 1.2 0.6 0.3 97.6 0.0 Puerto Rico.......... 3.2 4.1 44.2 10.5 76.0 19.6 21.9 58.4 0.1 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 Virgin Islands....... 3.6 4.4 36.6 10.6 87.0 42.5 20.2 37.4 1.0 32.9 18.8 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Percentages will not add to total as ``unknown'' and ``other'' not included. \2\All race categories are mutually exclusive. Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-33.--SELECTED INCOME CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC UNITS, BY STATE, OCTOBER 1991-SEPTEMBER 1992 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Units with earned income Units with unearned Units with income Units that have $30 plus --------------------------- income disregarded for child one-third disregard Percent of --------------------------- care --------------------------- units Average --------------------------- participating State Percent of monthly Percent of Average Percent of Average Percent of Average in the food total amount total monthly units with monthly units with monthly stamp units (dollars)\1\ units\1\ amount earned amount earned amount program\2\ (dollars)\1\ income (dollars)\1\ income (dollars)\1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama...................... 3.1 167.58 13.0 73.55 22.6 79.75 32.3 72.83 90.7 Alaska....................... 16.9 440.51 16.3 534.98 17.1 130.50 60.9 134.42 62.9 Arizona...................... 7.0 264.83 3.7 180.22 18.6 118.94 65.7 89.62 93.3 Arkansas..................... 6.2 210.25 20.2 172.17 21.0 141.62 61.3 77.64 86.1 California................... 7.5 387.43 16.2 263.47 18.7 183.61 44.0 71.95 82.9 Colorado..................... 8.6 309.22 11.9 165.31 22.1 143.44 45.3 81.98 89.8 Connecticut.................. 5.9 374.49 17.4 170.03 15.3 219.60 45.8 130.12 89.2 Delaware..................... 10.3 236.73 15.0 99.71 5.8 107.50 57.3 133.21 87.5 District of Columbia......... 1.5 539.93 5.4 321.05 40.0 192.03 86.7 135.38 89.8 Florida...................... 4.9 387.06 10.7 113.51 34.7 182.96 71.4 108.09 91.2 Georgia...................... 7.6 309.44 27.0 121.14 25.0 113.33 60.5 90.91 85.9 Hawaii....................... 14.0 525.90 9.2 258.57 8.6 112.29 52.1 133.57 91.7 Idaho........................ 12.8 255.39 22.9 109.95 24.2 138.00 60.9 125.04 89.1 Illinois..................... 5.3 302.89 12.0 198.89 35.8 220.25 39.6 88.81 95.3 Indiana...................... 6.9 266.62 25.1 115.89 29.0 120.46 65.2 68.86 90.6 Iowa......................... 19.1 307.01 23.2 103.08 30.9 136.74 35.6 96.79 89.4 Kansas....................... 11.5 290.95 13.0 111.99 5.2 71.29 57.4 86.24 88.9 Kentucky..................... 12.6 334.21 16.0 148.70 26.2 139.02 54.8 74.16 89.9 Louisiana.................... 3.5 200.98 17.6 110.30 20.0 126.50 68.6 71.10 94.5 Maine........................ 18.0 386.91 79.9 263.38 35.6 139.11 42.2 132.59 93.6 Maryland..................... 4.0 330.98 12.6 85.71 30.0 129.56 55.0 110.37 92.0 Massachusetts................ 4.0 281.96 19.7 192.60 10.0 102.60 45.0 88.96 39.2 Michigan..................... 13.2 361.98 18.7 184.53 9.8 132.52 41.7 83.20 94.1 Minnesota.................... 13.8 312.71 24.9 154.20 22.5 110.38 50.0 104.49 90.8 Mississippi.................. 11.3 261.25 23.0 94.98 16.8 107.46 38.9 71.83 93.4 Missouri..................... 5.7 253.36 19.0 148.23 19.3 123.23 52.6 78.39 92.2 Montana...................... 16.9 303.79 14.5 174.22 20.7 201.92 62.1 104.69 86.6 Nebraska..................... 14.2 289.75 7.5 182.35 8.5 135.71 57.0 91.24 90.4 Nevada....................... 4.1 322.73 29.1 96.03 19.5 100.00 85.4 124.92 78.8 New Hampshire................ 8.1 342.92 21.0 159.49 3.7 216.00 51.9 91.92 85.5 New Jersey................... 2.7 339.03 3.6 368.07 22.2 122.14 51.9 91.65 88.4 New Mexico................... 9.3 222.52 8.1 194.75 12.9 85.75 62.4 67.12 90.0 New York..................... 4.3 349.60 11.3 213.73 20.9 242.77 34.9 85.38 93.1 North Carolina............... 11.6 350.43 23.8 134.05 19.8 110.29 60.3 110.31 76.7 North Dakota................. 16.2 251.75 36.7 111.61 21.6 159.92 56.8 75.59 89.9 Ohio......................... 7.0 352.86 17.1 118.16 14.3 126.54 68.6 105.42 91.9 Oklahoma..................... 5.4 248.69 7.4 218.80 0.0 0.00 68.5 71.94 90.6 Oregon....................... 12.2 281.04 23.2 129.93 26.2 100.43 55.7 89.46 93.4 Pennsylvania................. 5.9 319.00 6.1 272.92 22.0 118.94 54.2 86.07 92.5 Rhode Island................. 5.8 320.11 13.1 200.56 10.3 116.00 58.6 38.07 95.5 South Carolina............... 8.3 359.64 18.3 182.81 22.9 122.03 68.7 106.47 86.7 South Dakota................. 13.7 263.65 45.1 131.72 23.4 120.10 70.1 66.73 82.1 Tennessee.................... 11.2 402.38 13.4 289.21 16.1 147.50 69.6 109.84 92.6 Texas........................ 5.6 213.77 6.5 114.50 12.5 135.17 50.0 66.67 95.2 Utah......................... 14.8 328.48 16.0 120.97 9.5 97.67 62.2 103.83 90.2 Vermont...................... 12.8 383.34 20.4 161.51 2.3 100 60.9 119.24 94.0 Virginia..................... 5.2 300.58 9.9 176.82 13.5 143.37 59.6 68.05 86.9 Washington................... 9.1 346.87 14.6 259.16 7.7 180.94 45.1 99.84 87.3 West Virginia................ 3.2 216.92 20.4 98.12 0.0 0.00 28.1 54.57 93.6 Wisconsin.................... 16.1 354.01 23.7 131.52 28.0 148.39 62.7 81.15 86.6 Wyoming...................... 26.2 377.08 13.0 205.42 0.0 0.00 53.4 101.37 93.8 Guam......................... 3.0 413.80 10.4 183.09 10.0 100 70.0 152.00 82.8 Puerto Rico.................. 0.5 78.67 2.3 94.74 0.0 0.00 40.0 47.00 0.0 Virgin Islands............... 0.7 103.00 5.8 108.41 0.0 0.00 100.0 48.5 90.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total............. 7.4 335.11 15.0 181.02 18.9 152.93 51.4 89.27 87.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Average amount for those with the income source or income disregard. \2\Unknown category was distributed proportionately within States reporting proportions of unknown. NA--Not available. Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-34.--AFDC FAMILIES BY TYPE OF SHELTER ARRANGEMENT--OCTOBER 1991-SEPTEMBER 1992 [In percent except total families] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rent subsidy-- Rents in Homeless Owns Rents in ---------------- private Shares State Total shelter/ or is public housing group Rents Unknown families emergency buying housing HUD Other with no quarters free housing subsidy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total............................................... 4,768,572 .1 4.4 9.2 12.1 1.7 63.1 1.7 7.2 .5 Alabama.................................................... 50,631 .1 5.2 22.5 10.8 .9 29.3 2.1 29.0 * Alaska..................................................... 10,807 .3 7.1 15.1 6.0 7.1 52.6 .3 11.4 * Arizona.................................................... 63,598 .1 3.5 7.0 10.5 1.3 62.7 .2 14.6 * Arkansas................................................... 26,769 .1 5.2 11.6 24.1 .6 26.4 3.8 28.2 * California................................................. 806,086 * 1.1 1.6 6.4 .7 88.9 1.1 .2 * Colorado................................................... 42,081 .1 2.8 7.1 17.8 7.2 58.0 6.0 1.0 * Connecticut................................................ 55,499 .7 1.0 14.1 20.7 2.4 52.9 4.9 3.3 * Delaware................................................... 10,661 .3 7.2 10.6 24.1 .6 54.1 2.2 .9 * District of Columbia....................................... 22,566 1.6 3.3 17.8 24.0 6.0 36.8 7.9 * 2.6 Florida.................................................... 221,205 .1 2.5 8.4 7.9 .4 75.8 .7 4.2 * Georgia.................................................... 135,972 .1 5.3 16.8 10.8 1.8 46.1 3.5 11.6 4.1 Hawaii..................................................... 16,530 .2 4.7 11.7 18.5 1.2 43.5 10.7 9.5 * Idaho...................................................... 7,335 .6 4.5 3.6 27.7 3.4 44.4 5.6 9.2 1.1 Illinois................................................... 228,625 .2 2.0 11.2 7.7 1.1 71.1 1.1 5.5 * Indiana.................................................... 69,134 * 3.6 8.0 14.0 5.0 61.2 .5 6.2 1.5 Iowa....................................................... 37,158 * 8.3 1.3 23.1 1.0 60.5 2.2 3.6 * Kansas..................................................... 28,741 * 3.7 8.5 13.1 .6 66.4 .7 6.7 .3 Kentucky................................................... 83,133 * 13.6 10.3 11.4 .7 51.7 * 12.4 * Louisiana.................................................. 92,200 * 5.4 13.8 13.0 1.6 35.7 3.4 27.0 * Maine...................................................... 23,919 * 15.5 15.1 15.1 7.7 40.0 2.2 4.2 .2 Maryland................................................... 79,807 .1 1.1 9.1 13.9 1.6 73.9 .2 .2 * Massachusetts.............................................. 111,448 .2 1.6 11.9 21.2 8.4 54.5 1.8 .3 * Michigan................................................... 225,609 .1 10.2 1.9 7.7 2.0 73.4 .2 4.0 .7 Minnesota.................................................. 63,656 * 10.5 15.0 17.4 7.2 44.7 .6 2.8 1.8 Mississippi................................................ 60,810 * 7.7 9.8 17.2 1.3 25.8 * 38.1 .1 Missouri................................................... 85,176 .5 6.0 4.8 20.1 1.0 57.5 .7 9.3 .1 Montana.................................................... 10,909 * 6.4 31.4 16.0 4.9 38.4 1.7 1.2 * Nebraska................................................... 16,551 * 6.3 6.0 26.0 4.2 50.7 4.0 2.8 * Nevada..................................................... 11,867 * * * 26.6 .8 49.5 .8 22.3 * New Hampshire.............................................. 10,499 .3 3.5 10.3 5.5 5.2 68.1 4.5 .3 2.3 New Jersey................................................. 125,847 .3 1.5 5.2 9.4 4.0 72.7 5.9 1.1 * New Mexico................................................. 28,764 .1 13.3 12.3 19.9 4.2 38.7 5.5 5.9 * New York................................................... 397,172 .3 1.0 16.3 10.5 1.9 68.3 .6 1.1 * North Carolina............................................. 121,427 .2 1.0 14.3 9.5 .5 68.0 1.9 4.7 * North Dakota............................................... 6,394 * 6.9 5.8 48.0 9.0 19.9 5.5 4.9 * Ohio....................................................... 264,271 .1 4.4 12.0 14.3 1.9 59.3 1.1 7.1 * Oklahoma................................................... 46,837 * 3.9 2.2 31.1 1.6 38.0 4.5 18.5 .2 Oregon..................................................... 41,460 .1 2.9 4.4 17.5 2.0 71.3 .4 1.4 * Pennsylvania............................................... 200,699 * 3.7 13.4 6.4 .2 71.9 3.0 1.2 .2 Rhode Island............................................... 21,288 .1 2.3 9.6 20.1 .6 58.4 5.4 3.5 * South Carolina............................................. 49,710 .2 6.9 7.9 19.4 .1 36.6 * 28.8 .1 South Dakota............................................... 7,223 * 6.4 3.5 21.4 15 39.3 5.1 8.9 * Tennessee.................................................. 95,179 * 5.6 17.7 12.6 1.0 53.5 .8 8.7 .1 Texas...................................................... 265,819 .1 7.6 7.6 18.8 .1 32.1 2.5 31.2 * Utah....................................................... 17,882 * 1.9 2.2 20.3 1.7 68.0 3.0 2.8 .2 Vermont.................................................... 10,047 * 9.4 15.4 7.5 .6 57.1 6.9 3.1 * Virginia................................................... 70,677 .1 1.7 7.3 19.6 .9 43.2 .4 7.1 19.7 Washington................................................. 96,407 .3 5.3 9.3 11.9 1.6 69.4 .8 1.3 .1 West Virginia.............................................. 40,469 * 13.0 6.9 18.2 .2 42.5 2.6 16.4 .1 Wisconsin.................................................. 81,680 .2 4.2 4.8 11.0 2.0 70.2 4.5 3.2 * Wyoming.................................................... 6,625 .3 11.7 22.8 14.2 1.0 42.5 4.7 2.6 .3 Guam....................................................... 1,283 * 1.8 .6 32.0 5.0 7.1 .9 52.5 * Puerto Rico................................................ 61,375 * 32.3 20.4 5.6 2.5 19.9 2.7 16.6 .1 Virgin Islands............................................. 1,053 * 4.5 64.0 1.4 .3 11.3 .7 13.7 4.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Less than .05 percent. Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-35.--AFDC FAMILIES BY REASON FOR DEPRIVATION OF THE YOUNGEST CHILD, OCTOBER 1991-SEPTEMBER 1992 [In percent except total families] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parent absent -------------------------------------------------------- Total Parent Parent Parent Divorced Paternity State families deceased incapacitated unemployed or Not -------------------------- Unknown legally legally Not Other separated separated Established established -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. total......................... 4,768,572 1.5 3.6 7.0 12.6 14.6 23.6 32.7 1.5 1.6 Alabama.............................. 50,631 1.1 5.0 2.5 10.8 10.2 22.9 43.8 2.3 1.6 Alaska............................... 10,807 2.0 2.0 12.0 25.4 11.4 16.3 24.3 4.3 1.1 Arizona.............................. 63,598 1.4 3.3 1.9 13.1 15.9 17.5 42.9 1.7 1.1 Arkansas............................. 26,769 1.3 3.0 1.7 16.8 9.4 34.8 31.7 1.0 .4 California........................... 806,086 1.1 5.4 17.1 12.0 17.4 13.3 29.1 1.9 .4 Colorado............................. 42,081 .5 3.5 3.6 19.7 11.8 15.2 40.6 1.5 .7 Connecticut.......................... 55,499 1.2 .9 3.2 10.2 11.3 39.8 29.0 2.7 .5 Delaware............................. 10,661 .9 4.4 1.9 7.5 8.1 40.6 33.4 2.2 .9 District of Columbia................. 22,566 2.3 1.3 5.2 1.1 4.5 17.0 64.3 1.5 1.7 Florida.............................. 221,205 1.0 1.0 2.4 10.7 20.6 24.4 35.9 2.2 .5 Georgia.............................. 135,972 1.8 3.3 .6 13.4 13.4 57.5 8.7 .6 .5 Hawaii............................... 16,530 2.2 9.0 5.0 13.1 14.9 24.5 29.9 .5 .9 Idaho................................ 7,335 2.8 5.3 8.4 22.6 14.8 19.3 20.7 3.6 .8 Illinois............................. 228,625 .6 .9 3.9 9.0 9.7 14.8 57.7 1.0 1.3 Indiana.............................. 69,134 1.1 4.4 2.0 19.4 8.6 33.9 28.1 1.0 1.5 Iowa................................. 37,158 1.9 3.8 5.6 25.1 9.9 25.0 27.3 .4 .9 Kansas............................... 28,741 1.0 2.9 8.0 21.8 13.2 17.2 30.8 3.4 .3 Kentucky............................. 83,133 1.9 12.0 9.6 16.7 14.5 16.0 28.3 .5 .4 Louisiana............................ 92,200 2.2 3.1 .8 7.0 12.1 16.8 54.0 1.9 1.3 Maine................................ 23,919 2.0 5.5 12.2 22.7 13.3 23.9 17.7 .4 .7 Maryland............................. 79,807 1.9 1.7 1.9 4.9 11.1 52.1 24.0 .7 .5 Massachusetts........................ 111,448 2.8 3.1 5.1 10.4 15.0 25.9 34.2 1.3 .8 Michigan............................. 225,609 1.5 1.7 8.2 15.1 6.9 30.2 32.1 1.1 1.3 Minnesota............................ 63,656 1.5 2.8 10.8 21.9 6.6 39.6 13.8 1.1 1.9 Mississippi.......................... 60,810 1.7 2.6 .2 6.4 18.1 21.8 48.5 .5 .2 Missouri............................. 85,176 1.3 3.2 6.5 14.4 13.2 25.6 33.3 1.6 1.0 Montana.............................. 10,909 1.7 4.4 9.9 23.8 12.5 19.8 25.3 .9 .3 Nebraska............................. 16,551 .9 2.6 7.2 20.2 12.5 13.7 35.8 .2 1.2 Nevada............................... 11,867 2.2 .5 5.4 11.1 20.4 13.3 40.5 * .8 New Hampshire........................ 10,499 .3 3.9 5.2 20.6 23.2 21.0 23.5 1.3 1.0 New Jersey........................... 125,847 1.9 .3 4.6 6.2 10.8 36.9 37.6 .8 .8 New Mexico........................... 28,764 2.2 3.9 5.8 17.4 15.2 16.2 35.9 .6 1.7 New York............................. 397,172 1.7 2.0 4.2 8.3 18.6 32.6 20.2 .9 9.3 North Carolina....................... 121,427 1.8 2.5 1.8 8.6 13.6 37.5 31.1 1.1 .5 North Dakota......................... 6,394 .9 1.7 5.2 27.5 8.7 34.7 19.4 * .6 Ohio................................. 264,271 1.5 2.9 11.0 17.0 10.3 13.6 37.4 2.5 2.0 Oklahoma............................. 46,837 .8 3.7 1.2 22.5 18.6 16.5 35.0 1.2 .5 Oregon............................... 41,460 .8 2.7 8.5 19.4 15.9 23.4 27.0 1.4 .6 Pennsylvania......................... 200,699 1.4 4.1 4.1 9.3 12.5 27.0 38.3 1.0 1.3 Rhode Island......................... 21,288 .9 3.7 3.4 17.0 19.2 23.0 30.4 .5 1.3 South Carolina....................... 49,710 .3 2.4 1.5 6.4 21.9 18.1 48.1 * 1.2 South Dakota......................... 7,223 1.0 2.2 .3 25.2 3.2 26.8 37.4 2.6 1.3 Tennessee............................ 95,179 1.8 5.6 2.5 14.1 17.2 20.8 33.8 1.8 1.1 Texas................................ 265,819 2.5 3.4 2.9 12.4 20.8 11.0 43.8 2.4 .8 Utah................................. 17,882 .9 3.1 1.6 26.6 19.3 20.3 23.3 .8 .3 Vermont.............................. 10,047 1.6 7.8 13.8 26.3 5.3 26.3 16.0 .6 2.2 Virginia............................. 70,677 1.3 3.5 1.2 8.2 17.2 26.2 40.4 .9 1.1 Washington........................... 96,407 .9 4.1 15.2 16.9 16.3 16.4 24.2 3.0 .5 West Virginia........................ 40,469 1.5 7.7 21.0 19.2 16.5 10.3 21.9 1.2 .6 Wisconsin............................ 81,680 1.5 5.0 9.6 15.1 5.8 30.0 25.4 2.0 .6 Wyoming.............................. 6,625 1.0 1.0 3.9 41.5 9.6 11.7 29.0 .5 1.3 Guam................................. 1,283 3.0 4.7 2.7 9.5 4.5 30.9 39.2 .9 .6 Puerto Rico.......................... 61,375 2.5 14.2 (\1\) 16.1 19.5 40.8 4.8 1.8 .2 Virgin Islands....................... 1,053 .3 3.8 .7 9.9 3.4 60.6 20.2 (\1\) .3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Less than .05 percent. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. THE AFDC QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM Description of AFDC QC system The AFDC quality control system has two goals: correcting faults in program administration that contribute to erroneous payments and reducing the extent of misspent benefit dollars. To these ends, it attempts to: (1) measure the extent and dollar value of ``errors'' in administration; (2) identify the types and causes of error; and (3) specify and monitor corrective actions taken to eliminate or reduce errors. Sanctions are also imposed on States whose error rates are above the national average. The ``errors'' identified and measured in the quality control system range from simple arithmetical mistakes, to incomplete or inaccurate reporting of income, to outright recipient fraud. Although quality control error rates and the information behind them do give a picture of the extent to which improper payments are being made and help administering agencies pinpoint areas where improvement is needed, only part of the error rate can be attributed to recipient fraud. In fact, ``agency-caused'' errors make up nearly half the errors typically identified in quality control surveys, and ``recipient-caused'' errors may often be simple mistakes in understanding what is required or failure to provide correct information on a timely basis. The AFDC quality control system and sanction rules were completely revised under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239), beginning for fiscal year 1991. The new system: (1) Imposes penalties on States whose payment error rates are above the national average. (2) Establishes penalties based on a sliding scale which reflect the degree to which a State's error rate exceeds the national average. (3) Takes into account both overpayments and underpayments that are made to AFDC recipients, and gives States an incentive to improve their overpayment recoveries and AFDC child support collection programs. (4) Establishes a new Quality Control Review Panel to assure that quality control review cases that are in dispute between States and the Federal Government are resolved in a uniform and fair manner. (5) Retains the Departmental Appeals Board to resolve all other issues in dispute between the States and the Federal Government. Error measurement. The core of the quality control system is the quality control case survey. The system annually compiles the results of a statistically valid sample of cases. Each selected case is subjected to a thorough review by quality control personnel, including a full field investigation. This review identifies payments to ineligibles, overpayments, underpayments, the type of error made, the responsibility (recipient versus administering agency) for the error, and, to a limited degree, incorrect denials of aid. Error ``rates'' are then established for that review period for each State: ``caseload'' error rates indicate the proportion of ineligible cases, overpaid cases, underpaid cases, and, in some cases, improperly denied cases in the sample caseload; ``payment'' error rates indicate the extent of erroneous payments as a proportion of total dollars paid out to the sampled caseload. Before the official error rate is determined, States may challenge the Federal review decisions by requesting reconsideration of any decisions on cases that are different from their own (``difference'' cases) by a Quality Control Review Panel. Decisions by the Quality Control Review Panel are on the record and are not appealable to the Departmental Appeals Board. Decisions on difference cases may not be appealed to the court until and unless any disallowance becomes final. A disallowance becomes final if a State does not appeal the disallowance determination to the Departmental Appeals Board, or, if the State does appeal, once the Board has made a decision. In establishing a State's error rate, certain types of errors are excluded: (1) errors based on failure to carry out properly changes in Federal legislation for a period of 6 months after the effective date of the legislation or the issuance of interim final or final regulations, whichever is later (however, States would not be relieved of the obligations to implement new legislation); (2) errors resulting from a State agency's correct use of erroneous information received from Federal agencies; (3) errors resulting from a State agency's action based on written Federal policies (e.g., Federal written advisories made in response to State inquiries); (4) errors due to circumstances (defined as those resulting in a declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor or the President); and (5) errors due to monthly reporting that do not affect the amount of payment. The following errors are among those that are counted: lack of a Social Security number in the file (unless an application for a number has been filed) and failure to assign child support rights. The decision as to whether a case is in error is made by comparison against permissible State practice (i.e., policies consistent with the approved State plan). However, if the State plan is inconsistent with Federal regulations, Federal regulations prevail if the Secretary has informed the State of the inconsistency. If a change in State law is required, the Secretary may allow a reasonable time for the State to make the required change. A case which is at variance with Federal law and regulations because of compliance with a court order is reviewed against the court order. The Secretary, in consultation with the States, is required to establish regulations setting forth the time period in which reviews must be completed and findings must be reported; the time period in which difference cases must be resolved; the time period in which error rates must be issued; and the sample size necessary to obtain a statistically valid error rate. To enable the Department of HHS to meet these regulatory timetables, the Secretary must insure that there will be adequate staff to perform required functions, and must report annually to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means as to whether the time-tables have been met. If a State fails to complete its reviews on a timely basis, the Secretary may conduct the reviews on his own initiative and will charge the State for any costs incurred in making the reviews. Determination of disallowances.--In general, the Federal Government provides matching funds for all approvable State expenditures except for those in excess of the error tolerance level. The error tolerance level is the national average error rate or 4 percent, whichever is higher, computed by determining the overpayment error rate for each State and determining the average for all States. Disallowances for States with error rates above the error tolerance level will be assessed on a sliding scale, reflecting the degree to which the State's error rate exceeds the error tolerance level. For example, a State with an error rate of 7.8 percent is 20 percent above a 6.5 percent national average tolerance level and would owe 20 percent of the sanction on the entire amount of its overpayments above the tolerance level (20 percent x 1.3 percent x the Federal share of benefits). In no case, however, would a State be required to repay more than 100 percent of its overpayments above the tolerance level. Any sanction amount owed by a State is due upon issuance by the Secretary of the notice to the State of a disallowance. The State may pay immediately, or the Secretary and the State may negotiate an agreement under which repayment may be made over a period of up to 2\1/2\ years. Interest will accrue beginning 45 days after the date the State receives the notice of the disallowance. If a subsequent appeal is decided in the State's favor, the Federal Government will repay all State payments with interest. Before repayment to the Federal Government, several adjustments must be made. (1) If a State's error rate for underpayments is below the national average, its repayment amount will be reduced by reducing its overpayment error rate. For example, if the underpayment rate is 0.1 percentage point below the national average, the overpayment error rate would be reduced by 0.1 percentage point. This reduction could be applied to any penalty due for the measurement year or for either of the following 2 years. The Secretary is required to conduct a study and report to Congress on negative case actions--improper denials and terminations. (2) A State's repayment amount will also be reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage improvement in its AFDC child support collection rate (the number of AFDC cases for which a child support collection is made over the total number of AFDC cases) measured against the average collection rate for the State in the preceding 3 years, or the percentage by which the State's AFDC child support collection rate exceeds the national average, whichever is greater. (3) The amount to be repaid will be further reduced to reflect overpayments recovered by the State. Appeal procedures.--If a State decides to appeal its disallowance to the Departmental Appeals Board, it must do so within 60 days of the notice of disallowance. In deciding whether to uphold the disallowance or any portion of it, the Board must conduct a thorough review of the issues and take into account all relevant evidence. With respect to difference cases, the Departmental Appeals Board will adopt the decision of the Quality Control Review Panel. If an appeal is not completed by the Board within 90 days, interest will be suspended until the appeal is completed. A State may appeal a decision by the Departmental Appeals Board (including a decision adopted by the Board with respect to a difference case) to Federal district court within 90 days of the decision by the Board. Court review shall be on the record established in the Departmental Appeals Board review in accordance with the standard of review prescribed by section 706(2) (A) through (E) of title 5 of the United States Code. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF QUALITY CONTROL DISALLOWANCE COMPUTATION [Assumes: State overpayment rate: 8%, underpayment rate: 2.8%; National overpayment rate: 6%, underpayment rate: 3.0%] 1. Calculation of State error rate: a. National underpayment rate.......................... 3.0% (less) State underpayment rate......................... 2.8% ------------ Underpayment ``bonus''............................... 0.2% ============ b. State overpayment rate.............................. 8.0% (less) Underpayment ``bonus''.......................... 0.2% ------------ ``Error rate''....................................... 7.8% ============ 2. Calculation of ``basic'' disallowance: State's AFDC payments.................................. $10,000,000 (times) Federal match rate............................. 50% ------------ Gross Federal cost................................... $5,000,000 (times) Excess error rate (7.8% is 1.8 percentage points above 6% national average)..................... 1.8% ------------ Excess erroneous payment............................. $90,000 (times) Percent by which error rate exceeds national average. (7.8% is 30% above 6%)....................... 30% ------------ ``Basic'' disallowance............................... $27,000 ============ 3. Adjustment for overpayment recoveries: Overpayment recoveries (Federal share)................. $5,000 (times) State error rate above national average (1.8%) as a percent of total State error rate (7.8%). (1.8% is 23% of 7.8%)....................................... 23% ------------ Overpayment adjustment............................... $1,150 ============ 4. Adjustment for child support improvement: a. Percent by which AFDC child support collection rate (e.g. 16%) exceeds national AFDC child support collection rate (e.g. 12%). (16% is 33% higher than 12%).................................................. 33% b. Percent by which AFDC child support collection rate (e.g. 16%) exceeds State average over 3 prior years (e.g. 14%). (16% is 14% higher than 14%).............. 14% ============ c. ``Basic'' disallowance from step 2.................. $27,000 (less) Overpayment adjustment (step 3)................. $1,150 ------------ Adjusted disallowance................................ $25,850 (times) Child support adjustment percent (higher of 4.a. or 4.b.)......................................... 33% ------------ Child support adjustment............................. $8,530 ============ 5. Final calculation: Adjusted disallowance (4.c.)........................... $25,850 (less) Child support adjustment........................ $8,530 ------------ Final disallowance amount............................ $17,320 Effective date; treatment of disallowances for prior years.--The new quality control system is effective beginning with fiscal year 1991. All disallowances for error rates determined for years prior to 1991 were waived permanently under the provisions of OBRA 1989. Administration In the AFDC program, the quality control system is operated by State quality control staff under Federal instructions and guidelines. A State's error rate is determined by using findings from both the State's full sample and a Federal subsample. The cost of operating quality control systems is carried as a regular administrative cost and is shared by the States and Federal Government, just as any other administrative expense. Corrective action The basic goal of quality control systems is to reduce, over time, the extent and cost of errors in program administration. As part of the system, ``corrective action plans'' for error reduction are regularly formulated based on the findings of the quality control sample surveys. Corrective actions can range from personnel policy changes or new computer systems, to substantive changes in eligibility rules or procedures for verifying information provided by recipients. Very often, ``error-prone'' profiles are drawn up from the results of quality control surveys to assist administrators in identifying cases to which particular attention should be paid. Recent quality control statistics Table 10-36 summarizes national overpayment error rates for the AFDC program over recent quality control review periods. Table 10-37 provides a State-by-State comparison of fiscal year 1991 overpayment and underpayment error rates. Table 10-38 depicts the estimated sanction amounts and estimated collection schedule, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Table 10-39 provides information on negative case actions, improper denials and terminations of aid. TABLE 10-36.--SUMMARY OF NATIONAL OVERPAYMENT DOLLAR ERROR RATES UNDER THE AFDC PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 1979-March 1980.................................... 8.3 April 1980-September 1980.................................. 7.3 October 1980-March 1981.................................... 8.3 April 1981-September 1981.................................. 7.0 October 1981-March 1982.................................... 7.2 April 1982-September 1982.................................. 6.6 October 1982-March 1983.................................... 6.2 April 1983-September 1983.................................. 6.8 October 1983-March 1984.................................... 6.2 April 1984-September 1984.................................. 5.7 Fiscal year 1985........................................... 6.1 Fiscal year 1986........................................... 7.1 Fiscal year 1987........................................... 6.3 Fiscal year 1988........................................... 6.8 Fiscal year 1989........................................... 5.7 Fiscal year 1990........................................... 6.0 Fiscal year 1991........................................... \1\5.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\This is the lowest national overpayment error rate achieved under the AFDC-QC system. Note: Overpayment errors include payments made to ineligible families but do not include underpayments. Source: Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-37.--AFDC--QUALITY CONTROL PAYMENT ERROR RATES [In fiscal year 1991] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overpayment State -------------------------- Underpayment State Rate rate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Total................ ........... 4.96 0.80 Alabama......................... 40 6.29 0.77 Alaska.......................... 8 2.88 1.31 Arizona......................... 52 8.31 1.18 Arkansas........................ 20 3.76 0.75 California...................... 15 3.49 0.54 Colorado........................ 5 2.67 1.72 Connecticut..................... 6 2.74 0.34 Delaware........................ 42 6.68 0.19 District of Columbia............ 38 5.98 1.01 Florida......................... 54 9.66 1.21 Georgia......................... 12 3.37 0.88 Guam............................ 49 7.55 1.88 Hawaii.......................... 10 3.18 0.68 Idaho........................... 25 4.17 1.50 Illinois........................ 33 4.99 0.54 Indiana......................... 36 5.80 0.42 Iowa............................ 34 5.22 0.44 Kansas.......................... 27 4.36 0.35 Kentucky........................ 9 3.10 0.72 Louisiana....................... 47 7.14 0.78 Maine........................... 11 3.27 0.06 Maryland........................ 45 6.88 0.54 Massachusetts................... 23 3.99 0.66 Michigan........................ 24 4.14 0.86 Minnesota....................... 7 2.80 0.56 Mississippi..................... 48 7.47 0.94 Missouri........................ 35 5.27 0.49 Montana......................... 28 4.36 1.08 Nebraska........................ 46 6.89 0.37 Nevada.......................... 22 3.97 0.45 New Hampshire................... 18 3.74 1.77 New Jersey...................... 29 4.69 0.29 New Mexico...................... 31 4.92 1.05 New York........................ 44 6.73 2.08 North Carolina.................. 17 3.68 0.86 North Dakota.................... 3 1.65 0.42 Ohio............................ 53 8.36 0.77 Oklahoma........................ 21 3.86 0.82 Oregon.......................... 19 3.74 0.37 Pennsylvania.................... 32 4.92 0.18 Puerto Rico..................... 39 6.10 1.25 Rhode Island.................... 14 3.46 0.16 South Carolina.................. 41 6.56 0.90 South Dakota.................... 1 1.18 1.05 Tennessee....................... 43 6.71 0.31 Texas........................... 50 8.02 0.63 Utah............................ 16 3.64 0.57 Vermont......................... 4 1.96 0.22 Virgin Islands.................. 2 1.49 0.00 Virginia........................ 13 3.39 0.31 Washington...................... 37 5.83 0.51 West Virginia................... 51 8.17 0.53 Wisconsin....................... 30 4.77 0.82 Wyoming......................... 26 4.27 0.68 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. TABLE 10-38.--ESTIMATED AFDC SANCTION AMOUNTS AND COLLECTION SCHEDULE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HHS projected HHS estimated HHS estimated schedules for error rate sanction amounts collecting (in millions) sanctions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year: 1991............................................... 5.0 5.0 0 1992............................................... 5.0 38.3 0 1993............................................... 5.0 38.2 0 1994............................................... 5.0 38.6 60.7 1995............................................... 4.9 38.5 50.8 1996............................................... 4.8 38.7 38.6 1997............................................... 4.7 39.1 38.5 1998............................................... 4.7 40.3 38.7 1999............................................... 4.7 41.6 39.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Office of Financial Management, Administration for Children and Families. TABLE 10-39.--DATA ON AFDC QUALITY CONTROL NEGATIVE CASE ACTIONS [Fiscal year 1991] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Negative case action error Total number of incorrect rates negative case actions Total ------------------------------------------------------- number of Advance Advance State negative notice/ notice/ case Eligibility hearing Eligibility hearing actions requirements requirements requirements requirements only only ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States\1\....................... 3,676,280 2.22 1.90 81,760 69,675 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama.................................... 31,838 1.29 1.29 410 410 Alaska..................................... 10,231 2.02 0.00 207 0 Arizona.................................... 83,793 1.53 0.87 1,281 732 Arkansas................................... 37,332 0.32 1.29 120 480 California................................. 650,379 1.84 3.31 11,955 21,520 Colorado................................... 67,928 0.26 1.54 174 1,045 Connecticut................................ 30,134 0.00 0.00 0 0 Delaware................................... 8,480 0.00 1.10 0 93 Dist. of Col............................... 23,764 0.00 2.56 0 609 Florida.................................... 129,656 10.23 2.70 13,266 3,504 Georgia.................................... 135,835 3.07 1.41 4,169 1,911 Guam....................................... 765 2.65 1.59 20 12 Hawaii..................................... 11,985 0.00 1.62 0 194 Idaho...................................... 17,383 4.00 1.78 695 309 Illinois................................... 169,933 1.69 0.56 2,880 960 Indiana.................................... 36,036 2.17 4.04 783 1,455 Iowa....................................... 20,854 2.74 0.46 571 95 Kansas..................................... 21,805 1.63 0.54 356 119 Kentucky................................... 56,447 0.94 1.88 529 1,058 Louisiana.................................. 71,146 1.11 0.28 793 198 Maine...................................... 17,197 1.55 0.00 266 0 Maryland................................... 35,100 0.66 2.30 231 808 Massachusetts.............................. 64,445 0.76 0.50 487 325 Michigan................................... 167,383 4.00 1.27 6,695 2,123 Minnesota.................................. 46,310 1.42 2.49 659 1,154 Mississippi................................ 32,068 2.40 0.40 770 128 Missouri................................... 52,088 2.05 2.39 1,067 1,244 Montana.................................... 4,316 0.57 6.25 25 270 Nebraska................................... 7,731 1.05 1.05 81 81 Nevada..................................... 15,580 1.41 0.00 219 0 New Hampshire.............................. 14,205 0.83 0.83 118 118 New Jersey................................. 59,059 0.00 0.00 0 0 New Mexico................................. 29,155 3.38 0.42 984 123 New York................................... 259,518 0.39 1.16 1,006 3,018 North Carolina............................. 78,021 0.94 0.47 733 366 North Dakota............................... 5,554 2.40 0.00 133 0 Ohio....................................... 87,383 3.74 6.78 3,267 5,921 Oklahoma................................... 42,621 0.00 0.00 0 0 Oregon..................................... 31,159 0.00 4.90 0 1,526 Pennsylvania............................... 148,649 1.77 4.82 2,625 7,158 Puerto Rico................................ 24,222 1.15 4.60 278 1,114 Rhode Island............................... 11,224 1.57 0.52 176 59 South Carolina............................. 53,663 5.45 3.03 2,927 1,626 South Dakota............................... 7,915 1.05 0.53 83 42 Tennessee.................................. 61,096 1.86 1.60 1,137 975 Texas...................................... 384,185 3.92 0.51 15,057 1,943 Utah....................................... 23,783 1.86 0.93 442 221 Vermont.................................... 12,185 0.00 0.96 0 117 Virgin Islands............................. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Virginia................................... 73,054 0.52 1.81 379 1,325 Washington................................. 103,548 1.19 1.58 1,230 1,640 West Virginia.............................. 26,280 1.49 4.98 392 1,307 Wisconsin.................................. 74,787 2.70 0.00 2,016 0 Wyoming.................................... 7,072 0.97 3.38 68 239 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Weighted average excluding the Virgin Islands. N/A--Data not available. THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT (OBRA) OF 1993 On August 10, 1993, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) was signed into law. The provisions of the Act pertaining to the AFDC program are summarized below. Limit all AFDC administrative cost matching rates to 50 percent. OBRA 93 reduces the 90-percent matching rate for automated systems to 50 percent, reduces the 75-percent matching rate for fraud control programs to 50 percent, and reduces the 100-percent matching rate for immigration verification systems to 50 percent. Increase in disregard of stepparents income. OBRA 93 increases the earnings disregard for stepparents to $90 monthly, from $75 monthly. This amount of earnings is not to be counted in determining the eligibility or benefit amounts of AFDC applicants and recipients. THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT (OBRA) OF 1990 On November 5, 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) was signed into law. The provisions of the Act pertaining to the AFDC program are summarized below. State option to require monthly reporting and retrospective budgeting. OBRA 90 gives States the option of specifying from which categories of families, if any, monthly reports will be required. States also may choose to apply retrospective budgeting procedures to any one or more of the categories to whom the reporting requirement applies. Treatment of foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance. OBRA 90 requires that State and/or local foster care maintenance payments not be counted in determining the family's income or resources. Similarly, State and/or local adoption assistance payments are not to be counted, unless the family would benefit from their inclusion. Eliminating the term ``legal guardian.'' OBRA 90 deletes all references in AFDC law to legal guardians. Reporting of child abuse and neglect. OBRA 90 mandates State agencies to report, to an appropriate agency, known or suspected instances of child abuse and neglect of children receiving AFDC, foster care, or adoption assistance. Permissible uses of AFDC information. OBRA 90 allows title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs to access information about AFDC applicants and recipients. Moratorium on final regulations for emergency assistance. OBRA 90 extends the prohibition of issuance of final regulations, and the prohibition on modifying current policy, to October 1, 1991. Allow good cause exemption for child care transition benefits. OBRA 90 corrects an oversight of previous law by applying the good cause exemption to transitional child to make it consistent with the exception that applies to AFDC cash benefits. Technical correction to the JOBS program regarding failure to participate. OBRA 90 repeals penalty language that denied AFDC to children of a principal earner who fails to participate in the JOBS program without good cause. Thus, the children of such parents continue to receive benefits. Technical correction regarding AFDC-UP eligibility requirements. OBRA 90 amended previous law to allow participation in WIN and CWEP prior to October 1, 1990, to count toward the quarter of work requirement for AFDC-UP eligibility. Technical correction to community development demonstration. OBRA 90 amends previous law to specify that DHHS can enter into agreements with up to 10 nonprofit organizations each year. GAO study of JOBS funding for Indian Tribes. OBRA 90 directs GAO to conduct a study of the implementation of the JOBS program with respect to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native organizations. THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 1988 Summary of provisions On October 13, 1988, the Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) was signed into law. The major elements of the JOBS, child care transition, and Medicaid transition programs are summarized in table 10-40. TABLE 10-40.--IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF JOBS AND THE TRANSITIONAL CHILD CARE AND MEDICAID PROGRAMS Important elements of JOBS: Funding provisions.................. Federal match rates: 90 percent for $126 million (equal to 1987 WIN funding); AFDC benefit match rate with a floor of 60 percent for most expenditures (the highest state benefit match in 1993 will be 79 percent); AFDC benefit match rate for child care; 50 percent for most administrative costs and other services. Entitlement caps (excluding child care). [Fiscal year, in millions of dollars] 1989..................................................... 600 1990..................................................... 800 1991..................................................... 1,000 1992..................................................... 1,000 1993..................................................... 1,000 1994..................................................... 1,100 1995..................................................... 1,300 1996 and after........................................... 1,000 Work-related activities............. States must include these activities: education, job skills training, job readiness, job development and job placement. States must include two of the following activities: group and individual job search, on- the-job training, work supplementation, community work experience or other approved work experience. Priority groups..................... States must spend 55 percent of their funds on: (1) Recipients or applicants who have received AFDC for any 36 of the preceding 60 months. (2) Parents under age 24 who have not completed high school or had little or no work experience in the preceding year. (3) Members of families whose youngest child is within two years of being ineligible for AFDC. States must give priority to volunteers within these three groups. Participation requirements: [Fiscal year, in percent] General: 1990\1\.............................................. 7 1991................................................. 7 1992................................................. 11 1993................................................. 11 1994................................................. 15 1995................................................. 20 AFDC-UP: 1994................................................. 40 1995................................................. 50 1996................................................. 60 1997................................................. 75 1998................................................. 75 Important elements of the Transitional Child Care Program: Funding provisions.................. Uncapped entitlement at AFDC benefit match rate (50 percent to 79 percent). Eligibility......................... Families who leave AFDC because of increased earnings, hours of work, or loss of the earnings disregards. Families must have received AFDC in at least three of the preceding six months. No income limits. Benefits............................ Direct child care services, vouchers, cash, reimbursements, or other arrangements adopted by state agency. Care must meet state and local standards. Last for 12 months. Maximum payments.................... Reimbursements are limited to actual costs, up to local market rates. States may set payment maximums below market rates. These caps may not be less than the AFDC child care disregards of $175 a month for children two years and older and $200 a month for children under age two unless local market rates are lower than these levels. Family copayments................... Vary with family's ability to pay as determined by states in sliding scale formulas. Effective dates..................... Program begins April 1, 1990. Program ends September 30, 1998. Important elements of the Transitional Medicaid Program: Funding provisions.................. Uncapped entitlement at Medicaid match rate (50 percent to 79 percent). Eligibility......................... Families who leave AFDC because of increased earnings, hours of work, or loss of the earnings disregards. Families must have received AFDC in at least three of the preceding six months. Families whose average gross monthly earnings (less necessary child care expenses) are below 185 percent of the poverty thresholds. Benefits............................ Last for 12 months. Second six months are contingent on payment of a premium, which is at state option. Premiums............................ States allowed to charge a premium after six months to families whose average gross monthly earnings (less necessary child care expenses) are above the poverty thresholds. Premiums limited to no more than 3 percent of a family's average gross monthly earnings. Effective dates..................... Program begins April 1, 1990. Program ends September 30, 1998. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\There is no penalty for not meeting the 1990 requirements. Source: Congressional Budget Office. Impact of the Family Support Act of 1988 Table 10-41 shows CBO's estimated costs of the Family Support Act at the time of enactment. New Federal Government costs were estimated to total $3.3 billion over the 5-year period from fiscal years 1989 through 1993. The act included funding provisions primarily dealing with the recovery of debts owed the Federal Government and changes in the dependent care credit under the income tax system. Revenues and receipts from the funding provisions balanced the added spending and left the projected Federal deficit essentially unchanged over the 5 years. Also, as shown in table P10-41, the bill was projected to add a cost of $0.7 billion to State and local governments, one-fifth of Federal Government costs. TABLE 10-41.--COST SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 1988 [Fiscal year, in millions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1989-93 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal costs (CBO estimates): JOBS Program: Establish JOBS..................................... 33 242 357 277 167 1,076 Add mandatory participation rates.................. ....... ....... 45 75 45 165 Other.............................................. 0 1 7 6 2 18 Transitional assistance: Reimburse child care for 12 months after leave AFDC ....... 25 205 245 260 735 Provide Medicaid for 12 months after leave AFDC.... ....... 5 105 155 165 430 AFDC-UP Program: Mandate AFDC-UP\1\................................. ....... ....... 315 397 441 1,153 Child support enforcement: Mandate income withholding......................... ....... ....... -25 -55 -90 -170 Mandate child support guidelines................... ....... -25 -70 -115 -160 -370 Other.............................................. 5 12 56 38 30 141 Miscellaneous: Expand earnings disregards......................... ....... 30 45 45 45 165 Other.............................................. 24 23 -16 -30 -39 -38 -------------------------------------------------------- Total outlays.................................... 62 313 1,024 1,038 866 3,305 Revenues (Joint Committee on Taxation estimates): IRS debt collection................................ 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 Restrict child care tax credit to children < 13 (current law < 15)................................ 9 86 90 93 97 375 Taxpayer id no. required of service provider to obtain child care credit.......................... 37 102 121 132 137 529 Other.............................................. 27 90 97 105 111 430 -------------------------------------------------------- Total revenues................................... 473 678 708 730 745 3,334 State and local costs: JOBS Program: Establish JOBS..................................... -4 -63 -133 -158 -169 -527 Add mandatory participation rates.................. ....... ....... 30 50 35 115 Other.............................................. 0 0 1 1 1 3 Transitional assistance: Reimburse child care for 12 months after leave AFDC ....... 15 120 145 150 430 Provide Medicaid for 12 months after leave AFDC.... ....... 5 85 125 135 350 AFDC-UP Program: Mandate AFDC-UP\1\................................. ....... ....... 232 294 323 849 Child support enforcement: Mandate income withholding......................... ....... ....... -25 -65 -105 -195 Mandate child support guidelines................... ....... -35 -85 -135 -180 -435 Other.............................................. -1 -2 18 -3 -22 -10 Miscellaneous: Expand earnings disregards......................... ....... 47 57 57 62 223 Other.............................................. 13 -6 -29 -38 -40 -99 -------------------------------------------------------- Total outlays.................................... 8 -39 271 273 190 704 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Includes two related provisions, one of which allows States to amend the ``quarters of work'' rule and a second which requires demonstrations of the 100-hour rule. Source: Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO recently received available data on actual spending under the Family Support Act and the following compares actual spending with CBO's 1988 estimates in two areas. Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS). In 1988, CBO estimated that not all of the States would spend enough to draw down the full amount of available Federal funds. According to CBO, Federal outlays would reach $345 million in 1990 and $600 million in 1991. Actual outlays were $264 and $546 million, respectively. In 1991, spending totaled only 55 percent of the $1 billion in available funds. Aid to Families with Dependent Children for Unemployed Parents (AFDC-UP). For fiscal year 1991, an average 22,000 AFDC-UP cases in States that had not previously had AFDC-UP programs received benefits each month, at an estimated annual cost to the Federal Government of about $50 million. This cost is significantly below CBO's estimated cost of $150 million in AFDC benefit payments at the time the Family Support Act was passed. In addition, Medicaid costs for these families in 1991 were overestimated in 1988. The major source of the error is in the projection of the number of participating families. CBO estimated that 65,000 families would participate, about three times the actual number. One element is that participating families were probably overestimated primarily because of an assumed participation rate that was too high. The participation rate is the proportion of families eligible for program benefits who participate in the program. CBO assumed a participation rate of 55 percent, slightly below the participation rate that prevailed in the AFDC-UP program in the early 1980's. Participation rates in the States that had to implement an AFDC-UP program, however, turned out to be lower on average than rates in other States. Also, participation rates have been estimated to vary widely across States in the AFDC-UP program, from barely 1 percent to over 90 percent, for reasons no one understands. In March 1991, only two of the new AFDC-UP States--Kentucky and Texas--had more than 5,000 families receiving AFDC-UP; 11 of the States had fewer than 500 families receiving benefits. THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT (OBRA) OF 1987 In December of 1987, Congress enacted H.R. 3545, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203). This new law includes four AFDC amendments, which are summarized below: 1. Fraud control under AFDC program.--Effective April 1, 1988, authorizes 75 percent Federal funding for the costs of a State's fraud control program. 2. Assistance to Homeless Families.--Prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, prior to October 1, 1988, from taking any action that would have the effect of implementing, in whole or in part, the proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1987. These regulations would have restricted the use of AFDC emergency assistance funds for homeless families and would have limited States' authority to make payments for special needs of AFDC recipients. The moratorium on promulgation of regulations is intended to give Congress an opportunity to determine whether and how the current AFDC statute should be amended to respond to the problems of homeless families. 3. Washington State Demonstration Program.--Allows the State of Washington to conduct a demonstration of its proposed Family Independence Program. 4. New York State Demonstration Program.--Allows the State of New York to test a child support supplement demonstration program as an alternative to the present AFDC program. THE DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 1984 In June of 1984, Congress enacted H.R. 4170, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369). This new law, which took effect on October 1, 1984, includes 22 AFDC amendments and an income and asset verification amendment which affected several programs, and are summarized below: 1. Gross income limitation.--Under prior law, eligibility for AFDC was limited to families with gross incomes at or below 150 percent of the State standard of need. The act increases the gross income limitation to 185 percent of the State standard of need. 2. Work expense deduction.--Under prior law, States were required to disregard the first $75 of monthly earnings for full-time work expenses; a lower deduction applied to part-time workers. The act requires States to disregard the first $75 monthly for full and part-time workers. 3. Continuation of $30 disregard.--Under prior law, the $30 plus one-third of remaining earnings disregard was limited to 4 months. The act retains the 4-month limit on the one-third disregard but extends the $30 disregard for an additional 8 months for a total of 12 months. 4. Work transition status.--Under prior law, a family who lost AFDC eligibility due to the 4-month limit on the earnings disregard, simultaneously lost categorical eligibility for Medicaid. The act provides that families who lose AFDC because of the termination of the earnings disregard will be eligible for 9 months of Medicaid coverage. At State option, an additional 6 months of Medicaid coverage can be provided. In addition, families who lost AFDC eligibility prior to enactment of the work transition will also be eligible for Medicaid under certain specified circumstances. 5. Clarification of earned income provisions.--The act clarifies that the term ``earned income'' as used in the AFDC program means the gross amount of earnings, prior to the taking of payroll or other deductions. 6. Burial plots, funeral agreements and certain property.-- Under prior law, burial plots and funeral agreements were counted toward the $1,000 asset limit. The act exempts from the AFDC resources limitation, burial plots and funeral agreements. An AFDC policy on real property that is similar to SSI policy is also established. 7. Federal matching for Community Work Experience Program (CWEP) expenses.--Under prior law, States were required to reimburse a CWEP participant for necessary transportation and other expenses. Federal matching for this reimbursement was by regulation, limited to $25 per month. The act requires States to reimburse a CWEP participant for costs incurred if the State is unable to provide directly any transportation or day care services. Reimbursement of day care expenses is limited to those determined by the State to be reasonable, necessary and cost effective up to $160 per month per child. 8. Retrospective budgeting and monthly reporting.--Under prior law, monthly reporting and retrospective budgeting were required for all AFDC cases; however, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could waive the monthly reporting requirement if it was not cost effective to require the report. The act mandates retrospective budgeting for cases filing a monthly report. Monthly reporting is required when cost effective; cases with earned income and recent work history must report monthly. 9. Earned income tax credit (EITC).--Under prior law, States were required to assume that an individual was receiving the earned income tax credit on an advance basis regardless of when or if it was received. The act requires States to count the EITC only when actually received. 10. Demonstrations of one-stop service delivery.--The act authorizes from 3 to 5 Federally-assisted demonstration projects designed to test the effectiveness and efficiency of integrating the delivery of human services. 11. Work requirements for pregnant women.--The act adds to those who are exempt from work registration, any woman who is in the third trimester of pregnancy. 12. Recalculation of lump sum income.--Under prior law, States could only recalculate ineligibility due to receipt of lump sum income if a life threatening circumstance occurred. The act allows States to recalculate the ineligibility period under other specified circumstances. Ineligibility may be recalculated if: (1) an event occurs which would have changed the amount of AFDC paid; (2) the income becomes unavailable for reasons beyond the family's control; and/or (3) the family incurs, becomes responsible for and pays medical bills which offset the lump sum income. 13. Overpayment recoupment.--Under prior law, States were required to attempt to recover all benefit overpayments. The act permits States to waive overpayment recovery when it is not cost effective. States will be permitted to automatically waive overpayments of less than $35. Larger overpayments must be collected unless the State determines, after attempting to collect the overpayment, that the cost to collect would exceed the amount owed. 14. Protective payments.--Under prior law, States were required to make protective payments to a third party when a parent on AFDC failed to meet certain statutory procedural requirements. The act permits States to make the payment to the parent if, after all reasonable efforts have been made, a suitable protective payee cannot be found. 15. Eligibility requirements for aliens.--Under prior law the income of an individual who sponsors a non-refugee alien was deemed to be available to the alien for 3 years after entry into the United States. The act establishes a similar policy for aliens who are sponsored by organizations or agencies. 16. Fugitive felons.--The act permits States to disclose the current address of an AFDC recipient if a law enforcement agency provides the correct social security number and demonstrates that the recipient is a fugitive felon. 17. Payment schedule for back claims.--The act establishes a payment schedule for court-ordered reimbursements and certain other back claims owed by the Federal Government to the States that have been allowed or are pending. 18. Work supplementation program.--The act modifies the existing work supplementation program to provide additional flexibility to States in operating grant diversion programs in which all or part of the AFDC grant can be used to subsidize a job. 19. Disregard of in-kind income.--The act extends, until October 1, 1987, the disregard of certain in-kind assistance provided on the basis of need. 20. Standard filing unit/child support payments.--There was no requirement in prior law that parents and all siblings be included in the AFDC unit. The act requires States to include in the filing unit the parents and all minor siblings living with a dependent child who applies for or receives AFDC. In addition, a monthly disregard of $50 of child support received by a family is established. 21. CWEP work for Federal agencies.--The act permits Federal agencies or offices to serve as community work experience program (CWEP) sites under the same requirements as apply to other sites. 22. Earned income of full-time students.--For purposes of applying the gross income limitation, the act allows States to disregard the income of an AFDC child who is a full-time student. 23. Income and eligibility verification procedures.--Under present law, IRS wage information furnished by employers to IRS is available to State welfare agencies for use in their AFDC and food stamp programs, and to the Social Security Administration for administering the SSI program. However, IRS unearned income information (filed by a financial institution or corporation with respect to payments to individuals in the form of interest, dividends, etc.) is not available to Federal and State agencies for use in the administration of these programs. Quarterly wage information from the unemployment compensation program is available to State welfare agencies in most States. Public Law 98-369 provides for the IRS to disclose return information with respect to unearned income to Federal, State, or local agencies administering AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, food stamps, and the cash assistance programs administered in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Disclosure can only be made to agencies that meet the requirements to safeguard this confidential information against disclosure, and verification of the unearned income information is required prior to taking action to reduce or terminate benefits. The provision also replaces existing statutory provisions relating to use (for purposes of AFDC) of return and other wage information and use of social security numbers, by adding a new section to the Social Security Act requiring States to have in effect an income and eligibility verification system for use in administering the AFDC, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and food stamp programs (and the adult assistance programs in the territories). State agencies must request and make use of: (1) wage and other income information available under the Internal Revenue Code; and (2) quarterly wage information. Each State is required as of September 30, 1988, to maintain a quarterly wage reporting system, although not necessarily through its unemployment compensation system. The income and eligibility system requires use of standardized data formats to facilitate exchange of information, for the purpose of identifying and reducing ineligibility and incorrect payments. THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT (OBRA) OF 1981 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA) imposed a gross income limit for AFDC eligibility (150 percent of a State's need standard), capped the deduction for child care costs ($160 monthly per child), set a standard deduction for other work expenses ($75 monthly), and ended the work incentive disregard for working recipients after their first 4 months on a job. These provisions affected AFDC parents with jobs by reducing or ending their benefits. They also had potential effects on welfare mothers without jobs by reducing the gains possible from work, and on nonwelfare mothers with low earnings. Under previous law, a person in the latter group could increase total income by decreasing or ending earnings, enrolling in AFDC, and then resuming work. OBRA also required States to count part of the income of a stepparent as available to an AFDC child. Former HHS Assistant Secretary Rubin reported in testimony that 408,000 families lost eligibility and 299,000 lost benefits as a result of the OBRA changes. The changes saved the Federal and State governments about $1.1 billion in 1983. This implies an average loss in benefits per family of $1,555 per year. GAO evaluation of the 1981 amendments At the request of the House Ways and Means Committee, the U.S. General Accounting Office conducted an in-depth evaluation of the effect of the 1981 amendments on individual AFDC families in five cities: Boston, Dallas, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Syracuse. GAO examined case records, analyzed 10 years of HHS program data, and interviewed former working AFDC recipients more than a year after their termination from AFDC due to the 1981 amendments. Findings include: --Once the declines in caseload and outlays stabilized, OBRA had decreased the national AFDC-basic monthly caseload by 493,000 cases and monthly outlays by $93 million. However, because the caseload rose faster than predicted after this point, long-term effects are less certain. --Working AFDC recipients who lost eligibility due to the OBRA cuts were more likely to be non-white, younger than those who remained on AFDC (28-33) and had been working for their current employer between 1.7 and 3.4 years. --Recipients who lost AFDC eligibility suffered a substantial loss of income which they could not make up by increased earnings or other means. The average monthly income loss for working single parent families who lost AFDC eligibility was $186 in Memphis, $229 in Dallas, $180 in Milwaukee, $151 in Syracuse, and $115 in Boston. --A large number of families interviewed had fallen below the poverty level after the OBRA changes were implemented. This ranged from a high of 85.5 percent of families below poverty in Memphis to a low of 28 percent of the Milwaukee families interviewed in poverty. --Lack of health coverage was common among these former AFDC recipients. In Dallas, 59.2 percent of those families who lost AFDC did not have any health coverage. In Memphis, 45 percent, in Boston 27.5 percent, in Syracuse, 17.1 percent and in Milwaukee, 13.9 percent had no health coverage at all. Private health insurance coverage was more common in high AFDC benefit States. --Families terminated from AFDC were more likely to face increased emergency situations. In several sites, significantly more families had to forgo medical treatment or were refused medical and/or dental treatment because they could not pay. It was also more common for these families to run out of food before the end of the month, have to seek food from a church or charity group, or need to borrow $50 or more from friends or relatives to meet expenses. In all but one site, those terminated from AFDC said they are eating worse now than before. LENGTH OF TIME ON WELFARE AND TURNOVER WITHIN THE AFDC CASELOAD LENGTH OF TIME ON WELFARE Average length of time on welfare.--A 1983 study of AFDC families\2\ using annual data, found that although most ``spells'' of AFDC are relatively short, most persons enrolled in the program at any point in time are in the midst of spells that last at least 8 years. As the first two columns of table 10-42 illustrate, the study reported that 50 percent of AFDC spells lasted less than 2 years and 62 percent lasted less than 4 years. At the same time, the study reported that 50 percent of the persons enrolled at a point in time were in the midst of very long episodes (8 or more years) of AFDC receipt, and such long-term recipients used most of the resources of the program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\Bane, Mary Jo, and Ellwood, David T., The Dynamics of Dependence: The Routes to Self-Sufficiency. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract No. HHS-100-82- 0038, June 1983. (Prepared by Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 1983 study has since been updated by one of its authors, because it understated the extent of long-term welfare dependence by neglecting to take into account the fact that multiple spells of welfare receipt are common (about one-third of all welfare spells are followed by subsequent spells). Accounting for multiple spells alters the distribution of total expected time on welfare, as the last two columns of table 10- 42 illustrate. The fact remains, however, that while a significant percent of all persons on welfare will be enrolled for less than 2 years (30 percent) or less than 4 years (50 percent), a majority of persons enrolled in AFDC at a point in time are in the midst of what will be long periods of welfare receipt (65 percent). TABLE 10-42.--DISTRIBUTION OF LENGTH OF TIME ON AFDC [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single spell Multiple spell analysis analysis ------------------------------------------- Persons Persons Persons Expected time on AFDC Persons on AFDC beginning on AFDC beginning at a first at a a spell point in AFDC point in time spell time ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 to 2 years................ 48 14 30 7 3 to 4 years................ 14 10 20 11 5 to 7 years................ 20 25 19 17 8 or more years............. 17 50 30 65 ------------------------------------------- All................... 100 100 100 100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This seemingly paradoxical finding that there are large differences between point-in-time and ever-began estimates of welfare dependency highlights a crucial element of welfare dynamics that is characteristic of the dynamics of spells of poverty and unemployment as well. The differences in the estimates occur because the probability of being on welfare (or being poor or unemployed) at a given time is necessarily higher for longer-term recipients than for those who have shorter welfare spells. Thus, the point-in-time welfare sample is a biased sample of all persons who have ever received welfare. An example of spells of hospitalization will help to establish this point. Consider a 13-bed hospital in which 12 beds are occupied for an entire year by 12 chronically ill patients, while the other bed is used by 52 patients, each of whom stays exactly 1 week. On any given day, a hospital census would find that about 85 percent of patients (12/13) were in the midst of long spells of hospitalization. Nevertheless, viewed over the course of a year, short-term use clearly dominates: out of the 64 patients using hospital services, about 80 percent (52/64) spent only 1 week in the hospital. Exactly the same dynamic accounts for the results with regard to welfare experience. One of the most important lessons from the longitudinal evidence is that while the welfare population at any point in time is composed predominantly of long-term users, the typical recipient is a short-term user. Recent research seems to indicate that studies based on annual data, such as the 1983 Bane and Ellwood (and 1986 Ellwood) study on welfare dynamics, underestimate the movement on and off the AFDC program and overestimate long-term welfare dependence. A study by Pavetti\3\ compares the 1983 Bane/ Ellwood data with annual National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) data and monthly NLSY data. Pavetti concludes that while the use of monthly data does change the general findings (1983) of Banes and Ellwood, monthly data ``produces a distribution with many more short spells of welfare [and] fewer long spells,'' Table 10-43 displays Pavetti's findings and indicates that 70 percent of all recipients who begin a spell of welfare will have spells that last for 2 years or less; only 7 percent of recipients who begin a spell of welfare receipt will have a spell that will last for more than 8 years. Bane and Ellwood's 1983 data in column 2 of the table show that 48 percent of AFDC recipients who begin a spell of AFDC receipt are expected to stay on the program for 2 years or less, and nearly 15 percent are expected to stay on the program for more than 8 years. (In 1986, Ellwood revised the report to take account of multiple spells of AFDC receipt; see earlier discussion.) The finding of the three States, California, Minnesota, and Washington, which have conducted cohort studies using monthly data, support the work done by Pavetti.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\``The Dynamics of Welfare and Work: Exploring the Process By Which Young Women Work Their Way Off Welfare'' [by] Pavetti, LaDonna A. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Draft, October 1992, revised chapter 1993. \4\The reader should note that the Bane/Ellwood study measured years in which the family received at least the equivalent of 1 month of the maximum AFDC grant per family size, rather than years of continuous AFDC receipt. Further, the State cohort studies define exits differently; using monthly data, California defined an exit as being off AFDC for at least 1 month, while Washington defined it as being off AFDC for at least 3 months. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABLE 10-43.--DISTRIBUTION OF AFDC SPELLS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Persons beginning a spell Completed spell --------------------------- distribution for persons on AFDC at a point in time\2\ Spell length in years\1\ Bane/ NLSY NLSY -------------------------- Ellwood annual monthly Bane/ (1983) Ellwood NLSY NLSY (1983) annual monthly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 (5.3)................................................... 29.0 26.0 56.0 6.2 6.3 11.0 2 (18.6).................................................. 19.2 20.7 14.1 8.2 10.0 9.7 3 (30.6).................................................. 8.8 13.9 8.1 5.6 10.0 9.2 4 (43.9).................................................. 5.2 11.4 6.3 4.4 11.0 10.4 5 (55.2).................................................. 6.8 6.2 3.3 7.3 7.4 6.7 6 (67.7).................................................. 10.6 3.7 2.0 13.5 5.4 4.9 7 (80.4).................................................. 3.1 3.1 1.7 4.6 5.2 5.2 8 (92.0).................................................. 2.6 2.6 1.5 4.5 4.9 5.0 Over 8.................................................... 14.8 12.3 7.0 45.7 39.9 37.8 ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 Average................................................... 4.7 4.2 2.3 10.0 8.4 7.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The number in parentheses in this column represents the average spell length in months for persons who completed a spell of welfare during this year. For example, the average spell length for spells that lasted between 1 and 12 months was 5.3 months; the average spell length for spells that lasted between 13 and 24 months was 18.6 months. I observe very few spells that last longer than 8 years. Therefore, I assume that the average length of spells that last longer than 8 years is 90 percent of the full width of the interval. \2\These distributions assume a no-growth steady state for the AFDC population. Source: The Dynamics of Welfare and Work: Exploring the Process by Which Young Women Work Their Way Off Welfare [by] Pavetti, LaDonna A. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Draft, revision of chapter 2, p. 18. 1993. Subgroup analysis of length of time on welfare.--Tables 10- 44 and 10-45 present data on the length of time on welfare for various subgroups of the population. Table 10-44 is based on ever-began estimates of welfare receipt which take into account multiple spells. This table shows that the most powerful predictor of long-term welfare receipt is marital status. Single women average 9 years of AFDC receipt, and 39 percent are predicted to receive AFDC for 10 or more years. Race and work experience also seem to distinguish themselves among different subgroups of AFDC recipients. Blacks and those who did not work in the 2 years prior to their first receiving welfare are estimated to average over 8 years of AFDC receipt, and nearly one-third of each group are expected to receive AFDC for 10 or more years. Education may well be another important grouping: high school graduates seem to fare better than dropouts. However, these education-related estimates are less reliable because the sample size with less than 9 years of education is very small. Table 10-45 presents another approach to evaluating length of time on welfare. It takes a sample of the entire 1970 population, and chronicles welfare receipt patterns for the next 10 years. Eighty-five percent of this 1970 sample lived in families in which no AFDC income was received in the following 9 year period, 1970-1979. Fewer children (81 percent) received no AFDC. This table also presents data on individuals for whom AFDC and Food Stamps together constituted 50 percent of their family's annual income. Only 4 percent of all nonwhite Americans and 0.2 percent of all white Americans in this group were on welfare 8 to 10 years out of the total 10-year period. Note that these data do not describe the welfare receipt patterns of the population in anything but this 10-year window. Years of welfare receipt prior to and after this period are not accounted for. Thus, these data represent a lower bound estimate of long-term receipt. Table 10-46 shows similar patterns for the 1980-89 time period. TABLE 10-44.--PERCENTAGE OF AFDC RECIPIENTS WITH VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS AND AVERAGE TOTAL DURATIONS OF AFDC RECEIPT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent Percent of Percent of Average who will Recipient characteristics all first- recipients number of have AFDC at time of first spell time at any years of spells of beginning recipients point in AFDC 10 or (new time\1\ receipt more beginnings) years ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Age: Under 22............... 30.0 35.9 8.23 32.8 22 to 30............... 40.7 41.9 7.08 25.8 31 to 40............... 11.8 8.8 5.15 15.0 Over 40................ 17.6 13.4 5.23 15.8 Race/ethnicity: White.................. 55.2 47.7 5.95 19.6 Black.................. 40.1 47.4 8.14 32.0 Other.................. 4.8 4.8 6.94 25.5 Years of education: Under 9................ 9.7 9.6 6.81 24.5 9 to 11................ 37.6 41.9 7.65 29.2 Over 11................ 52.7 48.5 6.33 21.8 Marital status: Single................. 29.5 40.0 9.33 39.3 Divorced............... 28.1 20.2 4.94 13.7 Separated.............. 32.3 31.9 6.80 24.4 Widowed................ 8.4 5.3 4.37 10.2 Number of children: 0 to 1................. 43.4 48.7 7.71 29.7 2 to 3................. 42.8 37.3 6.04 20.1 Over 3................. 13.8 13.7 6.83 24.5 Age of youngest child: Under 3................ 51.3 60.4 8.09 31.9 3 to 5................. 22.5 22.3 6.79 24.2 6 to 10................ 19.7 12.9 4.51 11.3 Over 10................ 6.5 4.4 4.71 12.4 Work experience: Worked in the last 2 years................. 65.8 59.6 6.53 23.0 Did not work in the last 2 years.......... 34.2 39.8 8.00 31.2 Disability status: No disability.......... 81.6 81.4 6.85 24.8 Disability limits work. 18.4 18.6 6.97 25.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\These figures assume that the AFDC caseload is a ``steady state.'' Source: David T. Ellwood. ``Targeting Would-Be Long-Term Recipients of AFDC,'' Table IV-1. Simulation model estimates are based on the 15- year panel study of income dynamics. For each individual who began a first spell on or after the third sample year of the PSID, probabilities are predicted for exiting from first spell, for recidivism, and for exiting from later spells, based on logic models. TABLE 10-45.--WELFARE DEPENDENCY, 1970-79, BY TWO DEFINITIONS OF DEPENDENCY [In percent] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fraction living in Fraction living in households in which at households in which AFDC of least $1 of AFDC was head and wife plus food received by head or wife stamps was at least 50 ----------------------------- percent of total family Years on welfare income Women, ---------------------------- Children, age 18 Women, All age 0 to to 55 Children, age 18 5 in 1970 in 1970 All age 0 to to 55 5 in 1970 in 1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All races: 0 years........................................... 84.8 80.5 85.7 92.5 88.4 92.7 1 to 2 years...................................... 7.5 7.7 6.6 3.7 4.7 3.3 3 to 7 years...................................... 5.5 7.8 5.2 3.0 5.4 3.1 8 to 10 years..................................... 2.2 4.0 2.4 .7 1.6 .8 --------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ========================================================= White: 0 years........................................... 89.9 86.8 90.7 95.7 93.3 95.8 1 to 2 years...................................... 5.7 6.3 5.0 2.6 3.3 2.2 3 to 7 years...................................... 3.4 4.8 3.1 1.8 3.1 1.8 8 to 10 years..................................... 1.1 2.2 1.3 .2 .3 .2 --------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ========================================================= Nonwhite: 0 years........................................... 57.2 52.5 57.8 75.6 66.3 75.4 1 to 2 years...................................... 17.2 13.9 16.1 10.3 11.3 9.5 3 to 7 years...................................... 17.1 21.6 17.5 10.4 15.4 11.1 8 to 10 years..................................... 8.6 12.1 8.7 3.8 6.8 3.9 --------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table reads: 85.0 percent of the population lived in households in which no AFDC income was received during the 1970-79 period. Source: Special tabulations of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics by Greg J. Duncan and Kavitha Sitaram. TABLE 10-46.--WELFARE DEPENDENCY, 1980-89, BY TWO DEFINITIONS OF DEPENDENCY [In percent] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fraction living in Fraction living in households in which at households in which AFDC least $1 of AFDC was of head and wife plus food received by head or wife stamps was at least 50 ---------------------------- percent of total family Years on welfare income Children Women, --------------------------- age 0 to age 18 Children Women, All 5 in to 55 age 0 to age 18 1980 in 1980 All 5 in to 55 1980 in 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All races: 0 years............................................. 88.2 80.2 86.3 93.6 87.7 92.8 1 to 2 years........................................ 5.5 8.1 6.2 3.1 5.6 3.4 3 to 7 years........................................ 4.3 6.3 5.6 2.3 3.6 2.8 8 to 10 years....................................... 2.0 5.4 2.6 .9 3.1 1.1 ------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ======================================================= White: 0 years............................................. 92.6 88.2 92.2 96.1 92.3 96.0 1 to 2 years........................................ 3.9 5.1 4.1 2.2 4.6 2.1 3 to 7 years........................................ 2.6 3.8 2.7 1.3 2.1 1.4 8 to 10 years....................................... .9 2.7 1.2 .3 1.0 .3 ------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ======================================================= Nonwhite: 0 years............................................. 66.3 41.8 65.7 81.2 65.2 81.3 1 to 2 years........................................ 13.8 22.4 13.5 7.6 10.8 7.5 3 to 7 years........................................ 12.6 18.1 13.0 7.4 11.1 7.5 8 to 10 years....................................... 7.2 17.7 7.7 3.7 12.8 3.7 ------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table reads: 88.2 percent of the population lived in households in which no AFDC income was received during the 1980-89 period. Source: Special tabulation of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics by Greg J. Duncan and Kavitha Sitaram. TABLE 10-47.--LONG-TERM WELFARE DEPENDENCY, 1970-79 AND 1980-89 [In percent] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fraction living in households in which AFDC of head and wife plus food stamps was at least 50 percent of total family income ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Women, age 18 Women, age 18 Children, age Children, age Individuals on welfare for 8 to 10 years to 55 in 1970 to 55 in 1980 0 to 5 in 1970 0 to 5 in 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All races....................................... 0.7 2.6 1.6 3.1 White........................................... .2 1.2 .3 1.0 Nonwhite........................................ 3.8 7.7 6.8 12.8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Special tabulations of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics by Greg J. Duncan and Kavitha Sitaram. Table prepared by Committee staff. INTERGENERATIONAL WELFARE RECEIPT Researchers have held great interest in identifying possible intergenerational effects of welfare receipt,\5\ particularly the extent that children growing up in welfare- recipient households are more likely to receive welfare when they become adults. Theories of poverty have often included an intergenerational component which has led to the belief that a similar process occurs with welfare use. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\Borrowed heavily from Duncan, Greg J., Martha S. Hill, and Saul D. Hoffman, ``Welfare Dependence Within and Across Generations,'' Science, Vol. 239, January 29, 1988. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two perspectives pervade the culture-of-poverty theories--a cultural perspective and a structural perspective. The cultural perspective supports the existence of a welfare ``culture'' that shapes the values and attitudes of children raised in dependent homes, either through early parental socialization or from more general childhood experiences that guide development into adulthood. The structural view holds that the values and attitudes of children being raised in dependent homes or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of welfare families are not significantly different from those of other children. Instead, these children develop different values and attitudes as they encounter the same kinds of structural impediments to jobs and marriages (such as discrimination or poor employment opportunities) that blocked their parents. The data necessary to sort out these two explanations do not exist for the United States. However, descriptive intergenerational information can help to provide a more accurate perspective on the patterns of AFDC receipt. It must be kept in mind, though, that these data fail to adjust for other aspects of parental background and environment that may also affect the likelihood of AFDC receipt. Children from AFDC- dependent homes generally have fewer parental resources available to them, live in worse neighborhoods, and go to lower quality schools. All of these factors could have an effect on their chance of receiving AFDC that is independent of the effect of their parents' AFDC receipt. The results of two studies are presented below. The first, by Martha S. Hill and Michael Ponza (1984), uses data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. The study found that most daughters in families that received welfare did not receive welfare as young adults. As table 10-48 illustrates, only 19 percent of black daughters and 26 percent of white daughters in ``highly dependent'' welfare families became ``highly dependent'' themselves. It is also interesting to note that fully 42 percent of the black daughters and 27 percent of the white daughters who grew up in families with high welfare receipt received no welfare as young adults. At the same time, the data also show a higher incidence of welfare receipt among women with some welfare backgrounds (defined as both high and low welfare dependence). From this perspective, young women who grew up in welfare families were more than twice as likely to receive welfare themselves as young adults whose parents received no welfare assistance--58 percent versus 27 percent, respectively. The numbers also remain high when subdivided by race (see table 10-48). A second study, conducted by Greg Duncan and colleagues (1988), shows similar results to the Hill and Ponza study. Duncan's data, taken from a 19-year longitudinal study of American families, surveyed a sample of daughters whose parents' economic status was observed while the daughters were between the ages of 13 and 15, and later when they were between the ages of 21 and 23 years. For each of the two 3-year periods, ``AFDC dependence'' was defined in terms of whether AFDC income was not reported in any of the years (no dependence), in one or two years (moderate dependence), or in all three years (high dependence) (table 10-49). Despite the stereotype that high welfare receipt is routinely passed from mother to child, the data showed that a majority of daughters who grew up in highly dependent homes did not share the fate of their parents. Only one out of five (20 percent) of the daughters from high welfare receipt families were themselves highly dependent on AFDC in their early 20s; and more than three out of five (64 percent) of the daughters with welfare backgrounds received no AFDC during the 3-year period. TABLE 10-48.--INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF WELFARE DEPENDENCY [In percent] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status of daughters as young adults ---------------------------------- Some Parental welfare status Low High welfare Number of Received welfare welfare dependence observations no dependence dependence welfare ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Received no welfare: Black........................................... 53 33 14 47 108 White........................................... 79 19 2 21 354 All women....................................... 73 22 5 27 462 Low welfare dependence: Black........................................... 31 49 20 69 130 White........................................... 63 31 5 36 75 All women....................................... 42 42 15 57 205 High welfare dependence: Black........................................... 42 39 19 58 92 White........................................... 27 47 26 73 25 All women....................................... 41 41 21 61 117 Some welfare dependence: Black........................................... 36 45 19 64 222 White........................................... 54 35 11 45 100 All women....................................... 42 42 16 58 322 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--``High welfare dependence'' is defined as receiving at least 25 percent of average family income as cash welfare payments. ``Some welfare dependence'' accounts for all women with either low or high welfare dependence. Source: Reanalysis by the Committee on Ways and Means staff based on data from: Hill, Martha S., and Ponza, Michael. ``Does Welfare Dependency Beget Dependency?'' Institute for Social Research, mimeo, Fall 1984. However, Duncan's data, like Hill and Ponza's data, also showed a higher likelihood of welfare receipt among women with welfare backgrounds. The fraction of daughters from highly dependent homes who themselves become highly dependent (20 percent) is much greater than the fraction of daughters from nonrecipient families who become highly dependent (only 3 percent). And while more than three out of five of the daughters who grew up in AFDC-dependent homes received no AFDC themselves, more than nine-tenths of those who grew up in nonrecipient families received no AFDC in their early adult years. TABLE 10-49.--INTERGENERATIONAL PATTERNS OF AFDC RECEIPT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dependence of daughters (percent) Unweighted Dependence of parents (percent) -------------------------------------------- number of No Moderate High Total cases ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No...................................................... 91 6 3 100 811 Moderate................................................ 62 22 16 100 127 High.................................................... 64 16 20 100 147 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Duncan, Greg J., Martha S. Hill, and Saul D. Hoffman, ``Welfare Dependence Within and Across Generations,'' Science, Vol. 239, January 29, 1988. TURNOVER WITHIN THE AFDC CASELOAD To further understand the dynamics of welfare receipt, data are available which describe which events in an individual's life provide the explanation for beginnings and endings of spells of AFDC receipt. Beginnings of AFDC spells.--As table 10-50 illustrates, three-fourths of all spells in the PSID data set began with a relationship change that created a female-headed family with children. Almost half the AFDC spells started after a wife became a female family head (by loss of the male head and his earnings due to absence, divorce, separation, death). Another 30 percent began when a never-married, divorced, or separated woman acquired a child. In contrast to changes in family composition, changes in earnings were a relatively minor cause of resorting to welfare. Only 15 percent of AFDC spells could be traced to a drop in family earnings. Endings of AFDC spells.--The most common route out of AFDC was by way of a change in family structure. Some 46 percent of endings occurred this way--35 percent when a female head became a wife and 11 percent when the household no longer contained a child under 18. Increased earnings were much more significant in ending AFDC than decreased earnings were in starting it. Some 26 percent of endings occurred this way--21 percent when the female head herself earned more money and 5 percent when another member of the family increased earnings. A more recent analysis (Pavetti, 1993) indicates that 46 percent of exits from the AFDC program occur because of work, rather than the 21 percent estimated by Bane and Ellwood (1983). Pavetti maintains that most of the difference in the estimates is caused by the use of monthly versus annual data. The Pavetti study also indicates that by the end of 5 years about two-thirds of all women who leave AFDC for work return to the AFDC program. Pavetti's study also indicates that 11 percent exit AFDC because of marriage, remarriage, or reconciliation; the 1983 Bane/Ellwood study indicated that marriage was the most common route out of welfare, with 35 percent of recipients exiting that way. Poverty status.--About 40 percent of those who ended AFDC spells were poor after their exit. About 52 percent of those whose AFDC eligibility ended because they no longer had an eligible child were poor in the following year. For those who earned their way off AFDC, about 32 percent were poor in the year after their welfare spell; their poverty reflected the sub-poverty gross income eligibility limits of AFDC in many States. TABLE 10-50.--EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS OF AFDC SPELLS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent Beginnings Endings Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Divorce/separation........ 45 Marriage.................. 35 Childless, unmarried woman 30 Children leave parental 11 becomes a female head home. with children. Earnings of female head 12 Earnings of female head 21 fell. increased. Earnings of others in 3 Earnings of others in 5 family fell. family increased. Other income fell......... 1 Transfer income increased. 14 Other (including 9 Other (including 14 unidentified). unidentified). --------------------------------------------- All................. 100 All................... 100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources: ``Beginnings'': Bane and Ellwood (1983), p. 18, using PSID data. ``Endings'': Ellwood (1985), p. 46, using PSID data. WELFARE AND OTHER SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR ADOLESCENT MOTHERS Young mothers, like all young adults, are in the process of making a transition from childhood to adulthood and eventual self-sufficiency. In this process, the young mother relies on a changing mix of private resources and, in many cases, public assistance to support herself and her family. One of the subgroups at greatest risk for long-term welfare receipt is comprised of young never-married women who enter the AFDC program when their child is less than 3 years old. For example, it is estimated that over 40 percent of never-married women who enter the AFDC system at age 25 or less with a child less than 3 years old will spend 10 years or more on AFDC.\6\ This subsection provides data on the number of teenage mothers in the United States and the proportion receiving AFDC, and presents data on some of the dynamics of their welfare receipt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\Ellwood, David T. ``Targeting `Would-Be' Long-Term Recipients of AFDC,'' prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services under contract No. 100-84-0059, June 1986. (Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Teenage Mothers.--There are several different estimates of the number of teenage mothers in the United States. Probably the best estimates are based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). These are shown in table P10-51 for 1983. TABLE 10-51.--NUMBER OF TEENAGE MOTHERS IN THE UNITED STATES BY CURRENT AGE AND AGE AT BIRTH OF FIRST CHILD, 1983 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unmarried Unmarried at time at time Current age Total of first Age at first birth Total of first birth birth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under 15.......................... 10,234 9,583 Under 15.......................... 58,860 54,320 15................................ 33,798 30,215 15................................ 117,811 100,792 16................................ 82,425 68,889 16................................ 195,333 151,725 17................................ 162,949 127,065 17................................ 227,039 160,670 18................................ 256,161 183,695 18................................ 195,041 124,142 19................................ 361,801 633,231 19................................ 113,284 61,029 --------------------- -------------------- Total....................... 907,368 652,678 .................................. 907,368 652,678 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Based on data from NCHS annual natality reports, 1978-83. Preliminary NCHS data indicate that the number of teenage mothers equaled 907,368 in 1983, of which 652,678 were unmarried. Private Sources of Income.--A young mother has three potential sources of private income: her parents or relatives, the father of her children, and her own earnings. The private resources that a young mother has access to depend heavily on her marital status and living arrangements. Although the marital status and living arrangements of young mothers tend to change over time, more than 90 percent of young mothers in the Current Population Survey (March 1986 and 1987) fell into one of three combinations: 42 percent were married and living with their husbands and children; 28 percent were single and living with their parents or other relatives; and 21 percent were single and living with their children in their own homes. Each of these groups rely on different sources of income for their economic well-being. Those mothers living at home or with relatives likely benefit from the household income and may, in some cases, contribute to the family's income themselves. Young mothers living alone appear to be less able to support themselves and their children than older mothers who delayed childbearing. Young mothers may also receive support from their husband or the absent father of their children. The amount of support available from husbands varies by the husbands' characteristics--such as age, employment status, and level of educational attainment. Studies suggest that roughly half of absent fathers maintain contact with their children and that many provide both financial aid and in-kind resources such as food, clothing, and child care, particularly during the first few years after their children are born. Some absent fathers also pay court-mandated child support payments, although mothers who were never married are much less likely to receive such aid--and get smaller payments when they do--than are their counterparts who were previously married. Furthermore, the low levels of support provided by some absent fathers may be related to their own inadequate resources. These fathers tend to have less education, to have higher unemployment rates, and to rely on parents or other relatives for their own support. The Dynamics of Welfare Receipt Among Teenage Mothers.-- Because adolescent mothers often have limited private resources, many of them receive public assistance, primarily AFDC, during their first few years of motherhood. Data from AFDC quality control records indicate that in 1983 the average monthly number of teenage mothers receiving AFDC was 236,000. Of these teenage mothers on AFDC, 199,000 were unmarried. Data from AFDC records suggest that by 1986, the number of teenage mothers had fallen to roughly 213,000, of which 172,000 were unmarried. Of these teenage mothers on AFDC in 1986, 52.3 percent were 19, 31.1 percent were 18, 10.5 percent were 17, 4.4 percent were 16, and the remainder were 15 and younger. An examination of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) reveals patterns of young mother's entries into and exits from the AFDC program. Table 10-52 describes the probability that an adolescent mother will begin to receive AFDC within the first 48 months after the birth of her first child.\7\ Of these adolescents who had their first child between 1979 and 1985,\8\ about 27 percent reported receiving welfare at some point within the 12 months following the birth of that child. This proportion increased slightly to 30 percent in the fourth year (37 to 48 months after birth). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\In this table, adolescent mothers are defined as those who were between the ages of 15 and 19 when they had their first child. The mothers examined here had their first children between 1979 and 1985. \8\Through the AFDC-Unemployed Parent (AFDC-UP) program, States had the option to provide benefits to married couples where the principal earner is unemployed. In 1983, for example, 29 States did not provide AFDC-UP benefits--meaning that a married couple would not be eligible for assistance unless one was incapacitated. The Family Support Act of 1988 now requires States to operate an AFDC-UP program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adolescent mothers who were unmarried at the time of the birth of their first child were much more likely to receive welfare than were those teenage mothers who were married when they gave birth. Approximately 48 percent of the unmarried mothers received welfare for at least one month in the first year after the birth of their first child, compared with roughly 7 percent of those who were married when they gave birth. Both groups of young mothers were slightly more likely to receive welfare 13 to 24 months after giving birth than in the first 12 months after birth. As might be expected, mothers who were unmarried when they gave birth continued to be much more likely to receive welfare--namely, 49 percent of the unmarried mothers reported at least one month of welfare receipt 13 to 24 months after giving birth compared with about 8 percent of the married adolescents. Although the differences in the recipiency rates of the two marital status groups are likely to be due to a number of factors, it is useful to recognize that marriage directly affects the eligibility of the young mother. Married couples are likely to have higher incomes than are unmarried adolescent mothers and thus are less likely to need or to qualify for benefits. In addition, many States did not operate AFDC-UP programs during this period; therefore, married couples, where the principal earner was unemployed, could not receive AFDC benefits. Mothers who were 15 to 17 years old when they gave birth were slightly more likely to report being on welfare in the first 12 months after birth (29 percent) than were 18- to 19- year-old mothers (26 percent). This difference becomes larger during the subsequent 12 months (13 to 24 months after giving birth), when the proportion of younger adolescent mothers who report receiving welfare in at least one month increased to 32 percent, while that of older adolescent mothers stayed fairly steady at 25 percent. TABLE 10-52.--ADOLESCENT MOTHERS RECEIVING AFDC [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Time between birth and receipt of AFDC (months) Characteristics of mother ------------------------------------------- 0 to 12 13 to 24 25 to 36 37 to 48 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All......................... 27 28 29 30 Marital status at birth of first child: Married................. 7 8 12 14 Unmarried............... 48 49 50 49 Age at birth of first child all mothers: 15 to 17................ 29 32 39 38 18 to 19................ 26 25 23 24 Mothers who were unmarried when they first gave birth: 15 to 17.......... 45 49 57 52 18 to 19.......... 51 49 42 44 Race: All mothers: White............... 21 21 22 23 Black............... 42 46 50 47 Mothers who were unmarried when they first gave birth: White............... 52 49 45 47 Black............... 46 51 56 52 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979-1985). Notes.--Adolescent mothers are defined as all women who first gave birth when they were between the ages of 15 and 19. These findings are based on relatively small samples and therefore should be taken as indicative of general patterns of behavior rather than as precise estimates, particularly for the period furthest from the birth. The differences in the welfare recipiency patterns of adolescent mothers of different ages could be due to a number of factors. In particular, they are likely to be partially due to marital status differences between the two groups--the younger mothers in this sample were much less likely to be married than were older mothers. Other factors that might play a role include differences in living arrangements and in the likelihood of having a subsequent birth.