Understanding the AFDC/TANF Child-Only Caseload:
Policies, Composition, and Characteristics in Three States

Chapter 1:
National Overview

Contents

• Introduction
• The 1996 Welfare Legislation
• Trends in the TANF Population
  1. TANF Caseloads
  2. Child-Only Caseloads
  3. Growth in Child-Only Caseloads
  4. Proportion of Child-Only Caseload to Total TANF Caseload
• Alternative Programs for Kinship Caregivers
• Key Questions for the Study and Methodology
  1. What are State Policies and Pactices Regarding Child-Only Cases?
  2. What are the Characteristics of the Child-Only Caseload?
     1. HHS Data
     2. Case File Data
     3. State Administrative Data
  3. What is the Relationship Between State Policies and Caseloads?
• The Three States

Introduction

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, most families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are subject to work requirements and time limits on benefit receipt. However, one portion of the TANF caseload, cases where only a child or children are receiving assistance, are generally exempt from these federal requirements. These "child-only" cases are not currently growing in absolute numbers but are becoming an increasing proportion of the overall TANF caseload. This has led to increasing interest in understanding the characteristics of child-only cases and the program services they receive.

A variety of circumstances result in child-only cases. In some cases, the child is not living with a parent, but with a relative, who chooses not to be included in the assistance group or whose income and assets preclude him or her from receiving cash assistance. In other situations, the child is living with a parent, but the parent is a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient, a non-qualified alien, a qualified alien who entered the country after August 1996, a sanctioned adult, or otherwise excluded.⁽¹⁾

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contracted with The Lewin Group to obtain more information about the characteristics and trends of the child-only population, focusing on three states: California, Florida, and Missouri. The Lewin Group interviewed state officials and staff, conducted case file reviews, and analyzed administrative data to understand the trends in the child-only caseload and the policies and practices that affect this population.

This chapter presents an overview of the 1996 welfare legislation, discusses the national TANF and child-only caseload trends, examines the characteristics of child-only cases, and outlines the study questions and the methodology and data used to answer these questions. Chapter 2 examines the policies in the three states chosen for the study, while Chapter 3 analyzes the characteristics of the child-only cases in the three states. Chapter 4 concludes with a summary of the findings and the implications this analysis has on future research.

The 1996 Welfare Legislation

PRWORA changed the direction of the nation's welfare system by replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program with the TANF program. PRWORA imposes federal requirements on time limits, work participation requirements, and sanctions. However, with the new welfare legislation, states have been given broad latitude to design their own welfare policies, which include policies that affect child-only cases. In some cases, states that wish to deviate from federal policies must use state funds (which can count towards the maintenance of effort requirement); in other cases federal funding can be used. Five policies that affect child-only are worth noting:

• Sanction policy. Under federal TANF, states must sanction families for refusing to comply with work requirements or not cooperating with child support, although states have substantial leeway in deciding what constitutes noncompliance, the severity of the penalty, and the appeals process which restores benefits.⁽²⁾ These policies may include removing the parent's benefits from the TANF case (which converts the case to child-only), reducing the overall benefit, but keeping the adult in the assistance unit, or closing the TANF case.
• Alien policy. PRWORA distinguishes between "qualified" aliens, a category which includes permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and certain others granted conditional entry, and "non-qualified" aliens, which includes both undocumented aliens and those in PRUCOL (permanently residing under color of law) status, among others.⁽³⁾ In general, the federal block grant does not fund TANF benefits for most qualified aliens who entered the country after August 1996 for five years after entering the country or unqualified aliens. However, in both cases, the children may receive assistance if they are United States citizens (often because they were born in the United States). Federal funding can be used to provide assistance to qualified aliens who entered prior to this point in time, while states may use their own funds to extend TANF benefits to qualified aliens entering the country after August 1996.⁽⁴⁾
• Treatment of SSI. Individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled and who have little or no income and resources are eligible for SSI benefits. As was true under the AFDC program, SSI recipients may not receive TANF assistance for themselves, but can apply for their children. In almost all states, the SSI income is excluded when calculating TANF benefits. A small number of states have opted to include SSI benefits in the TANF benefit calculation; in these states, it is less likely that an SSI recipient's family will be eligible for a child-only TANF grant.
• Non-parental caregivers. Unlike parents who are caring for their children, in most states, non-parental caregivers may choose to apply for cash assistance for children under their care and themselves or for the children only. Non-parental caregivers are most often caregivers related to the children, although some states allow non-relative caregivers who have legal custody or guardianship to receive cash assistance. There are several reasons a non-parental caregiver may choose to be excluded from the assistance unit. First, most states exclude the income of non-parental caregivers who are not in the assistance unit. Thus, unlike parental cases, a non-parental caregiver can have income that would make them ineligible for cash assistance but obtain the assistance for the children. Second, requirements in PRWORA may discourage providers from being included in the assistance unit. The five-year federal time limit on assistance would apply to a case with a non-parental caregiver included in the unit since there is an adult receiving assistance. PRWORA also imposes work participation requirements on states and since non-parental caregivers who are in the assistance unit count toward a state's participation rate, states might have a difficult time meeting work participation rates if they exempted large numbers of these providers from work requirements. Finally, other factors such as welfare stigma may discourage some caregivers from applying for themselves.
• Time limit policy. The federal block grant can be used to provide assistance to families that include an adult or teen parent head-of-household (or spouse) for up to five cumulative years. Some states have indicated that they may decide to apply time limits to the parents only, which would transform the case to a child-only case at the time limit. States may also impose a time limit that is shorter than five years. Time limits that terminate the entire household's cash benefits may result in a greater number of child-only non-parental caregiver cases if the parents reach the time limit and cannot care for their children, placing the children in the care of relatives or other caregivers.

In addition, many states are creating alternative programs for relative caregivers, offering higher payments than TANF, which may result in a shift of cases from TANF into the alternative programs. Depending on state financing choices, these cases may or may not be counted as TANF child-only cases. ⁽⁵⁾

Recent regulations clarified ambiguities in the law that dealt with child-only cases and definitions of "family." States have the flexibility to develop their own definition of family, with the qualifier that HHS "will consider proposing appropriate legislative or regulatory remedies if [HHS] finds that States are using the flexibility under the rules to avoid work requirements or time limits or otherwise undermine the goals of TANF."⁽⁶⁾ For example, states that encourage parents to remove themselves from the grant in order to avoid a time limit or meet a participation requirement are violating the spirit of the law. HHS will be monitoring trends, especially practices of converting regular TANF cases to child-only cases.

Trends in The TANF Population

A. TANF Caseloads

In 1994, when the national AFDC caseload peaked, 5.0 million families were receiving cash assistance; in 1998, 3.2 million families were on the welfare rolls, a 37 percent decline. Almost all states or regions experienced a decline from 1994 to 1998, although some states experienced a more rapid decline than others did (see Exhibit 1.1, Columns (A) and (D)). This trend can be attributed in part to a movement promoting the reform of the nation's welfare system that began over twenty years ago and which culminated with the 1996 welfare reform legislation. The focus on reducing welfare dependency by encouraging welfare recipients to work spurred some TANF recipients to leave welfare for work and others to leave to avoid the more mandatory requirements.

The decline in caseloads can also be attributed to the economic expansion experienced during the mid-1990s. The economic growth the nation experienced undoubtedly allowed more welfare recipients to leave welfare for employment and allowed others to maintain employment and not enter the welfare rolls.

Exhibit 1.1
AFDC/TANF Caseloads in 1994 and 1998

State	Fiscal Year 1994			Fiscal Year 1998
	Total AFDC Families	Total Child-Only Families	Child-Only/ Total Families (%)	Total TANF Families	Total Child-Only Families	Child-Only/ Total Families (%)
	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)
U.S. Total	5,046,263	868,646	17.2	3,089,492a/	723,891	23.4
Alabama	50,340	16,140	32.1	23,792	11,081	46.6
Alaska	12,759	836	6.6	10,210	1,059	10.4
Arizona	71,984	15,145	21.0	40,163	12,441	31.0
Arkansas	26,014	6,866	26.4	13,844	5,538	40.0
California	908,999	201,288	22.1	707,062	180,755	25.6
Colorado	41,614	6,367	15.3	21,194	5,835	27.5
Connecticut	59,201	6,530	11.0	47,188	8,040	17.0
Delaware	11,460	2,783	24.3	7,568	2,488	32.9
District of Columbia	27,117	4,476	16.5	21,263	2,752	12.9
Florida	247,087	47,852	19.4	111,143	40,814	36.7
Georgia	141,451	26,595	18.8	78,196	29,208	37.4
Guam	1,955	79	4.0	2,075	206	9.9
Hawaii	20,420	1,806	8.8	17,031	2,085	12.2
Idaho	8,676	1,446	16.7	1,860	798	42.9
Illinois	240,319	32,117	13.4	170,917	24,858	14.5
Indiana	73,803	10,408	14.1	39,679	4,730	11.9
Iowa	39,555	5,287	13.4	25,167	4,790	19.0
Kansas	30,102	4,146	13.8	13,914	4,256	30.6
Kentucky	79,840	14,751	18.5	52,645	15,697	29.8
Louisiana	86,915	19,379	22.3	47,916	11,985	25.0
Maine	22,934	1,565	6.8	15,331	3,135	20.4
Maryland	80,123	12,064	15.1	47,564	10,968	23.1
Massachusetts	111,783	14,911	13.3	66,409	15,670	23.6
Michigan	223,950	21,958	9.8	123,693	21,556	17.4
Minnesota	62,979	6,449	10.2	48,464	6,939	14.3
Mississippi	56,785	14,941	26.3	23,631	9,596	40.6
Missouri	92,110	12,215	13.3	60,074	14,134	23.5
Montana	11,908	826	6.9	7,275	1,069	14.7
Nebraska	15,934	4,069	25.5	13,374	3,152	23.6
Nevada	14,047	3,455	24.6	10,383	3,343	32.2
New Hampshire	11,475	1,506	13.1	6,295	1,559	24.8
New Jersey	122,427	20,117	16.4	78,143	16,782	21.5
New Mexico	33,633	5,321	15.8	21,363	3,248	15.2
New York	454,951	61,976	13.6	336,857	51,145	15.2
North Carolina	131,220	26,134	19.9	76,337	27,535	36.1
North Dakota	5,877	527	9.0	3,275	734	22.4
Ohio	250,208	43,595	17.4	140,286	35,417	25.2
Oklahoma	46,971	6,410	13.6	24,135	6,852	28.4
Oregon	42,135	8,010	19.0	18,898	4,014	21.2
Pennsylvania	210,155	24,665	11.7	134,995	25,773	19.1
Puerto Rico	58,827	6,711	11.4	--	c/	--
Rhode Island	22,654	2,400	10.6	19,229	2,529	13.2
South Carolina	51,925	15,341	29.5	25,293	8,673	34.3
South Dakota	6,926	1,507	21.8	3,851	1,452	37.7
Tennessee	110,766	19,466	17.6	57,185	17,955	31.4
Texas	283,744	53,510	18.9	145,232	35,747	24.6
Utah	17,801	2,684	15.1	--	b/	--
Vermont	9,883	748	7.6	7,366	807	11.0
Virgin Islands	1,098	103	9.4	--	b/	--
Virginia	74,818	16,249	21.7	42,718	9,874	23.1
Washington	102,952	15,120	14.7	77,762	14,241	18.3
West Virginia	40,729	5,420	13.3	--	b/	--
Wisconsin	77,188	13,712	17.8	--	c/	--
Wyoming	5,739	662	11.5	1,247	579	46.4
a/  The total number of TANF families in 1998 is 3,175,646. The total does not include the five states/regions for which child-only caseload data are not reported or considered unreliable. b/  Data not reported. c/  Data reported, but not reliable. Source:  Department of Health and Human Services, ACF, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients, 1994 and Characteristics of Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, 1998.

Finally, federal welfare waivers granted to states during the 1990s encouraged states to test a variety of reform strategies, including strategies focused on work requirements, time-limited assistance, child support enforcement, and parental responsibility. During the Clinton Administration, federal welfare waivers were granted to 43 states.⁽⁷⁾ Many of the states that had received waivers between 1993 and 1996 were the same states that experienced significant declines in their welfare caseload numbers. Thus, welfare caseload decline could be attributed in part to welfare waiver implementation.

B. Child-Only Caseloads

This study defines child-only cases as all TANF cases without an adult in the assistance unit.⁽⁸⁾ Some states use the term "child-only" to mean cases that are not required to participate in a work requirement or are not assigned a time limit. The focus of this study is understanding the cases without adults, regardless of whether they are subject to a time limit.⁽⁹⁾

As shown in Exhibit 1.1, Column F above, the proportion of TANF cases that are child-only varies tremendously by state. The proportion ranges from about ten percent in Alaska, Indiana, and Vermont to close to half of all TANF cases in Alabama, Idaho, and Wyoming.

While TANF cases become child-only for a variety of reasons, most child-only cases fall in one of the following categories:

• The state has sanctioned the parent for a program violation by removing her from the assistance unit.
• The parent is in the home but is ineligible because she is receiving SSI.
• The parent is a non-qualified alien.
• A non-parental caregiver is caring for the child and either chooses not to receive assistance for herself or is ineligible due to income or resource limits.

Note that when TANF recipients begin reaching time limits in states that continue to provide assistance to the children, this will result in additional child-only cases. This has not occurred to a large extent yet.

C. Growth in Child-Only Caseload

As Exhibit 1.2 shows, the number of child-only families receiving AFDC/TANF assistance has increased steadily throughout most of the 1990s, declining only in the last two years. The largest increase in child-only cases occurred between 1989 and 1993, when the child-only caseload increased from 399,700 in 1989 to 786,700 in 1993, an increase of 97 percent. While the total AFDC/TANF caseload also increased during this period, from 3.8 million to 5.0 million, the percentage increase was 32 percent, one-third of the child-only percentage increase. The child-only caseload continued to grow through 1996.

Even though the child-only caseload began to decline starting in 1997, the percentage decline is smaller than the decline in the total TANF caseload. It is estimated that the child-only caseload declined by 18 to 19.5 percent between 1997 and 1998, compared to a percent reduction of 24 percent in the total TANF caseload. A range is presented because for 1998, five states/regions did not report data or reported data considered to be unreliable. Imputing for these missing states/regions adds between 15,000 to 29,000 to the national child-only caseload, depending on the estimation method used, resulting in a total caseload of between 739,000 and 752,000. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Exhibit 1.2
AFDC/TANF Families and Child-Only Families
(numbers in thousands)

Year	Total Families	Annual Change in TANF Families (%)	Families With No Adult Recipients	Annual Change in Families With No Adults (%)
1985	3,692	--	437	--
1986	3,748	1.5	437	0.0
1987	3,784	1.0	361	-17.4
1988	3,748	-1.0	360	-0.3
1989	3,771	0.6	400	11.1
1990	3,974	5.4	459	14.8
1991	4,374	10.1	558	21.6
1992	4,768	9.0	707	26.7
1993	4,981	4.5	787	11.3
1994	5,046	1.3	869	10.4
1995	4,873	-3.4	923	6.2
1996	4,553	-6.6	978	6.0
1997	4,058	-10.9	918	-6.1
1998	3,176	-23.9	739 - 753a/	-19.5 to -18.0a/
a/  1998 child-only are unavailable or not reliable for five states/regions. Data were imputed for the five states using two assumptions: the upper bound assumes the 1998 caseloads are equal to the 1997 caseloads; the lower bound assumes the 1998 caseloads declined by the same percentage as total TANF caseload reductions in the states. Source:  Department of Health and Human Services, ACF, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients, various years.

Within the child-only caseload, both parental and non-parental caregiver cases have increased, although the parental cases increased at a greater rate than non-parental cases from the late 1980s to the 1990s (see Exhibit 1.3). This is especially true of sanctioned cases, which increased from 14,000 to 112,000 cases between 1988 and 1996.

Exhibit 1.3
Composition of Child-Only Cases, 1988 to 1997
(numbers in thousands)

Year	Non-parental	SSI	Alien	Sanction	Other Parental	Total Parental Cases	Total Child-Only Casesa/
1988	206	62	41	14	45	162	368
1991	263	96	87	36	60	279	542
1994	321	176	145	62	118	501	822
1995	364	179	140	86	99	505	869
1996	388	195	160	112	124	590	978
1997	341	214	145	75	134	568	909
a/  The total number of child-only cases here differs slightly from the total number of no-adult cases in Exhibit 1.2 due to rounding and differences in the identification of subgroups. Source:  AFDC QC Data. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

This is illustrated also in the first two panels of Exhibit 1.4, which shows how the composition changed in child-only cases from 1988 to 1994, the period of explosive growth in the child-only caseload. The proportion of child-only cases in sanction status more than doubled, from 4 percent to 10 percent, the proportion of alien cases increased by 5 percentage points, and the proportion of SSI cases increased by 4 percentage points.⁽¹¹⁾ As a result, the parental cases increased from 44 percent to 58 percent. The proportion of cases that are non-parental child-only cases declined, although this is not due to a decline in the absolute number of non-parental cases but to the larger increase in parental cases. (As Exhibit 1.3 shows, the non-parental cases increased from 206,000 in 1988 to 321,000 in 1994.)

Exhibit 1.4
Proportion of AFDC Child-Only Cases in 1988, 1994, and 1997

Source:  AFDC QC Data. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

From 1994 to 1997, the most recent year for which data are available, the composition of child-only cases did not change substantially. The non-parental cases comprised the largest portion of child-only cases, while SSI cases make up close to one-quarter of the caseload.

Several explanations may account for the increases in child-only cases from the late 1980s to the 1990s:

• An increase in sanctions for non-compliance with program requirements. The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 required non-exempt AFDC recipients to participate in job search, work experience, or education and training activities or be sanctioned. States sanctioned cases by removing the parent from the assistance unit, converting regular AFDC cases to child-only cases. In addition, some states were granted waivers that made additional AFDC recipients mandatory for the work requirements outlined by FSA, and thus, increased the number who could be sanctioned. Also, some states were granted waivers to impose harsher sanctions, such as extending the sanction period.⁽¹²⁾
• An increase in the number of individuals eligible for SSI. Congress enacted a series of legislation reforms in the mid-eighties and early-nineties that significantly expanded the scope of the SSI program. The biggest change was the enactment of the 1984 Disability Reform Act that significantly expanded eligibility, particularly for those with mental impairments. Outreach efforts in the early nineties coupled with major expansions in the child SSI program also had a major impact on the number of adults who applied for SSI benefits over this period. ⁽¹³⁾
• An increase in the number of non-qualified aliens. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) allowed formerly illegal immigrants to attain legal status, although barred them from receiving AFDC for the first five years after their legalization. It is possible that the new legal status of the parents increased the likelihood that they would seek benefits for their citizen children. In addition, IRCA instituted employer sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens, perhaps putting more non-qualified aliens in need of cash assistance for their families. Finally, illegal aliens living in the U.S. began growing by about 200,000 to 300,000 each year starting in 1989, after IRCA initially reduced the number of non-qualified aliens. ⁽¹⁴⁾
• An increase in non-parental caregivers. One study examined Current Population Survey data and found an increase of kinship care between 1983 and 1993. Specifically, the number of children in the U.S. increased by 6.6 percent while the number of children living with relatives other than parents increased by 8.4 percent.⁽¹⁵⁾ This growth in relative caregivers may have increased the number of TANF children living with relatives and receiving assistance on child-only cases. Additionally, there may have been an increased awareness on the part of relatives that cash assistance was available.

A decline in child-only cases began in 1997, with a greater reduction occurring in 1998. (Although, as explained above, data are incomplete; more complete data will be available starting in fiscal year 2000, when new federal data requirements take effect.) If this trend continues, there are several possibilities that may explain the decline. First, some states have changed their sanction policies in recent years, some imposing full-family sanctions, which closes the TANF case for noncompliance, and others reducing the overall grant level, but including the parent in the assistance group. These policy changes will reduce the number of sanctioned child-only cases in the state (to zero in some states). In addition, states are implementing programs for relative caregivers that could be considered alternatives to TANF, perhaps persuading some non-parental caregivers to migrate from TANF to these other programs. However, this might be offset partially by an increase of qualified aliens entering the country who can only get assistance for their children.

D. Proportion of Child-Only Caseload to Total TANF Caseload

As Exhibit 1.6 illustrates, the proportion of child-only cases has been steadily increasing from 1988 to 1998 (right-hand axis). During this period, the proportion of TANF cases comprised of child-only cases increased from 10 percent to 23 percent. The proportion continued to increase during the last two years despite the fact that the absolute number of child-only cases declined.

Exhibit 1.6
AFDC/TANF Families With No Adult Recipients, 1985 - 1998
(Number and Percentage of Total AFDC/TANF Families)

^a/  1998 child-only data are unavailable or not reliable for five states/regions. As discussed in Section III.C, the total number of child-only cases is estimated to be between 739,000 and 753,000 for fiscal year 1998, if these states/regions were included.

Note:  The total number of child-only cases here differs slightly from the total number of no-adult cases in Exhibit A  [in the Executive Summary] due to rounding and differences in the identification of subgroups.

Source:  Department of Health and Human Services, ACF, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients, 1994 and Characteristics of Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, 1998.

The child-only cases are not declining as rapidly as regular TANF cases, in part, because they are generally not subject to the work requirements and time limits imposed on regular cases. In addition, because TANF excludes non-parental caregivers' income in determining benefits for child-only cases, these caregivers of child-only cases are able to work while children remain eligible for cash assistance. Thus, these cases are not likely to be closed due to income limits.

IV. Alternative Programs for KINSHIP Caregivers

In the past, many relative caregivers in need of financial assistance for children accessed AFDC/TANF or foster care funds. In order to receive payment as a foster parent, the state takes legal custody of the child, which has legal implications for family decision-making. In addition, foster care has more stringent licensing and other requirements, such as training.⁽¹⁶⁾ In most instances, these alternative programs offer higher payments than TANF (but sometimes lower payments than foster care) with more relaxed licensing requirements than foster care. Some of these alternative programs offer services not offered in the state TANF programs. Currently, several states are creating alternative programs for relative caregivers.

Some states are classifying these cases as TANF, while others are not, depending in part on the funding source. Three state programs are discussed in Chapter 2.

V. Key Questions for the Study and Methodology

HHS funded this study to answer three key research questions:

1. What are state policies and practices regarding child-only cases?
2. What are the characteristics of the child-only caseload?
3. What is the relationship between state policies and caseloads?

To answer these questions, The Lewin Group (TLG) interviewed state and local staff, examined national data and administrative data in three states, and conducted a case file review in three counties. These questions and the methods and data sources that were used to answer these questions are summarized below.

A. What are State Policies and Practices Regarding Child-only Cases?

HHS was interested in learning about state policies enacted with regard to child-only cases. Additionally, the implementation of these policies is important as well. TLG conducted interviews with state officials in California, Florida, and Missouri, and administrators and eligibility workers in Alameda, Duval, and Jackson counties. The focus of the interviews was to understand state policy choices, operational practices, and perspectives on trends and changes in the TANF child-only population. Results from these interviews are summarized in Chapter 2.

B. What are the Characteristics of the Child-only Caseload?

To examine the characteristics of the child-only caseload, this study examines national data collected by HHS, state administrative data for three states, and case file data for three counties.

1. HHS Data

HHS collects sampled data from states, which permits it to determine the size and composition of cases by states. The data sources are the National Integrated Quality Control System (QC) prior to 1997 and the Emergency TANF Data Report starting in 1997. Both data sources rely on a sample of records submitted by states.

The data are limited in two ways. First, sample sizes are generally not large enough to examine basic demographic information of the child-only caseload by state. Second, the reasons the cases are child-only are often unknown (13 percent of the cases in 1997 were unknown). To supplement these data, HHS contracted with TLG to collect more detailed information from case files in three counties and, to the extent possible, state administrative data.

2. Case File Data

A more in-depth analysis of the child-only caseload is presented in Chapter 3. This is based on information collected from income maintenance case files of 761 child-only cases randomly selected from each of three county's child-only caseloads in May 1999. The sample was selected to be representative of each county at the 90 percent confidence level.

A focal child was randomly selected from each sampled child-only case, and counties were requested to pull all case files associated with the focal child since the child's birth. In some instances, earlier case files had been archived or destroyed and information on the earlier cases was unavailable, although complete information was generally available for the current case. As a result, much of the information presented in Chapter 3 focuses on the current child-only case.

Information was collected on the characteristics of the caregiver, focal child, and absent parent, the household composition, the circumstances surrounding the child-only case (i.e., how it became child-only), and the household's benefit receipt and income.

3. State Administrative Data

TLG requested information from state administrative data for the three states. This study hoped to compare California, Florida, and Missouri child-only caseloads in 1999 to a point in time prior to the enactment of PRWORA to examine the differences in composition of child-only cases. In addition, child-only caseloads could be compared to regular caseloads for these two points in time. Unfortunately, due to small sample sizes and confidentiality concerns, California was not able to supply data. (Some data on the California caseload were available by examining HHS' QC data.) Florida was able to supply data for two points in time: September 1997 and May 1999; all calculations were made by TLG. Missouri was able to supply basic information for May 1994 and May 1999; calculations were conducted by staff in Missouri's Department of Social Services, Research and Evaluation branch.

In addition, Florida and Missouri were both able to supply similar data for Duval County and Jackson County. The information from this data source is compared with the case file data to ensure that the case file data is representative of the county. Analysis of these data is included in Appendix C.

C. What is the Relationship Between State Policies and Caseloads?

Certain composition data can be linked directly with state policies. For example, states that sanction by reducing the benefit levels or closing the case, but not removing the adult, will not have sanctioned cases in their child-only caseload. Other policies and practices may indirectly affect the caseload. Chapter 3 links the results from the data analysis with information that was learned from interviews with state and county officials and county eligibility workers.

VI. The Three States

As discussed above, this study focuses more attention on the policies and caseload composition of California, Florida, and Missouri child-only cases and, in particular, Alameda, Duval, and Jackson counties. These states were not selected randomly, but were selected after examining HHS data with regard to the TANF child-only composition and size of child-only caseloads.

The study sought to include three states that had a large and increasing proportion of TANF child-only caseloads, that offered geographic diversity, and that implemented different policies that might be reflected in the composition of child-only cases. Because cooperation and assistance were key in conducting this study, only states that indicated an interest in participating in the study were considered.

After selecting the states, discussions were held with state officials to select a county for the case file review. Only counties with sufficiently large child-only caseloads for a case file review could be considered. In addition, since the California caseload would have a relatively high percentage of aliens, a county in Florida that had a relatively low percentage of aliens was selected for diversity. With this general guidance, each state selected counties that were amenable to a case file review.

Exhibit 1.7 presents a summary of some of the major characteristics of the program environment of the state and selected counties. Below is a brief description of each county.

• Alameda County, California, which is located on the east side of San Francisco Bay, is the largest and most urban county in this study, with a population of 1.4 million. Oakland is the largest city in Alameda County, with a population of 387,600 (1995) followed by Fremont, Hayward, and Berkeley. The population is ethnically more diverse than the other two counties, with a higher share of Hispanics and Asians. It has the highest median household income and the lowest poverty rate relative to the other two counties. The county has the largest TANF caseload and offers the highest TANF grant.
• Duval County, Florida includes the city of Jacksonville and a few neighboring beach communities. In Duval, the population is about two-thirds white; it has a higher share of blacks (28 percent) compared with the state and U.S. average. The unemployment rate in Duval is lower than the state, overall, and lower than the other two counties.
• Jackson County, Missouri includes Kansas City, Independence, and Grandview. While Missouri is more rural than the U.S., on average, Jackson County has only a small share of the population living in rural areas. It has the highest share of whites (70 percent) relative to the other two counties; one-quarter of the county is black.

Exhibit 1.7
Characteristics of the Counties, States, and United States

Footnotes

1.  For example, adults may be ineligible if they have a drug felony conviction.

2.  Kaplan, J. (1999). The Use of Sanctions Under TANF.  Welfare Information Network. Washington, DC.

3.  Kramer, F. (1997). Welfare Reform and Immigrants:  Recent Developments and a Review of Key State Decisions.  Welfare Information Network. Washington, DC.

4.  States can choose not to provide assistance to qualified aliens who entered the country before August 1996.

5.  These alternative state programs, which are discussed for three states below, may also be considered alternatives to foster care for relative caregivers.  Foster care often requires licensing, home studies, and supervision by child welfare agencies, although payments may be higher.

6.  Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 69. April 12, 1999.

7.  Department of Health and Human Services (1999).  Second Annual Report to Congress.  Washington, DC.

8.  TANF cases with an adult in the assistance unit will be referred in this report as "regular TANF cases."

9.  The time limit applies to sanctioned cases in many states.

10.  A range was constructed for the five missing states, assuming for the upper-bound estimate that the child-only caseload was equal to the 1997 child-only caseload in the state and for the lower-bound estimate that the child-only caseload declined by the same percentage reduction as the total TANF caseload for the state.  An analysis of the states and regions that reported reliable data found that about half of the states experienced reductions in the child-only caseload and the percent reduction was less than the percent reduction in the total TANF caseload.

11.  Note that the "other parental" cases are cases headed by parents who in most cases were not receiving benefits, but the reasons could not be determined from state-submitted data.  They may have been ineligible because they were felons, had committed fraud, or other state-specific reasons.  Some probably should have been classified as an SSI recipient, an alien, or a sanctioned adult, but the exact reason was unknown.  Finally, some administrative data systems classify cases headed by minor parents who are receiving benefits as child-only cases.

12.  A description of the state waivers approved between January 1993 and August 1996 can be found on:  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/waiver2/waivers.htm.

13.  Stapleton, D. C., M. E. Fishman, G. A. Livermore, D. Wittenburg, A. Tucker, & S. Scrivner (1999).  Policy Evaluation of the Overall Effects of Welfare Reform on SSA Programs:  Final Report.  Report by The Lewin Group prepared for the Social Security Administration. Washington, DC.

14.  Fix, M. and J. Passel (1994).  Immigration and Immigrants Setting the Record Straight.  Urban Institute. Washington, DC.

15.  Harden, A. W., and R. L. Clark (1997). Informal and Formal Kinship Care.  Report prepared for HHS, ASPE, Washington, DC.

16.  Some states remove some of the foster care licensing requirements for relative caregivers.

Where to?

Main Page

Table of Contents:
Executive Summary
National Overview
TANF Child-Only Policies and Practices in Three States
Characteristics of the TANF Child-Only Caseload in Three Counties
Summary Findings and Implications for Future Research

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Last modified 02/03/04