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

Chapter 4:
Summary Findings and
Implications for Future Research

Contents

1. Summary Findings
   1. National and State Level Findings
   2. TANF Child-only Caseload in Three Counties
      1. Characteristics of Child-Only Cases and Caregivers on the Case
      2. Transitions into Child-Only Status
      3. Earnings and Income
   3. TANF Child-Only Policies and Practices in Three States
2. Implications for Future Research

I. Summary Findings

The preceding chapters revealed a number of interesting findings regarding the policies, composition, and characteristics of child-only cases.  It is important to note that this study represents the information that was available during the summer of 1999; states are creating new programs and modifying their TANF policies in ways that could affect child-only caseloads in the future.  In addition, this study was limited to information that was available from state administrative systems and TANF case files.  This chapter summarizes the findings and concludes with ideas for future research on this important topic.

A.  National and State Level Findings

After significant growth in the early 1990s, the child-only caseload has leveled off nationally; however, due to continued reductions in the regular TANF caseload, the proportion of child-only cases continues to grow.  While all states have experienced growth in the numbers and relative proportion of their child-only caseloads since the early 1990s, recent changes vary significantly among states.

Nationally, the composition of child-only cases has changed since 1988; parent-headed cases due to sanction, SSI receipt, and alien status have grown more rapidly than non-parental caregiver cases.

State TANF policies affect the number and composition of child-only cases in each state.  The main policies are as follows:

• Time limits.  Application of time limits to the entire family is less likely to lead directly to child-only cases than when applied only to the case head; however, over time whole family time limits may create child-only cases under the auspices of either protective payees or non-parental caregivers.
• Sanctions.  Sanctions that remove the adult from the assistance unit create child-only cases; sanctions that reduce the grant, but keep the adult in the assistance unit do not.  Whole family sanctions may create child-only cases if protective payees are utilized to provide resources for the child(ren).
• Alien status.  State policies on qualified aliens who entered the country before or after August 1996 determine whether adults in those families may be included in the TANF case; children born in the United States to ineligible aliens will be child-only cases.
• Referral to SSI.  Policies to actively refer TANF case heads with disabilities to SSI may increase the number of child-only cases.  On the other hand, the few states that include SSI benefits in the TANF grant determination, should see a reduction in the number of child-only cases.
• Non-parental caregivers.  States have the flexibility to develop their own definition of family; some states allow non-relatives who have guardianship or legal custody to apply for TANF benefits and others limit benefits to relative caregivers or parents.  A state's definition of "family" and the requirements imposed on non-parental caregiver cases should affect the number of child-only cases.
• Alternate state programs.  Creation of alternate relative caregiver programs 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.

B.  TANF Child-only Caseload in Three Counties

The case file data collection effort revealed the following key findings regarding the characteristics of the child-only cases and the caregivers on these cases, the pathways by which the cases became child-only, and the household income of these cases.

1.  Characteristics of Child-Only Cases and Caregivers on the Case

• Non-parental caregiver cases comprise two-thirds of child-only cases in Jackson and Duval Counties while most of the remaining cases are due to parental receipt of SSI; the Alameda County caseload is more evenly divided among non-parental caregiver, SSI, alien, and sanctioned cases.
• The typical child-only case has two children in the assistance unit; there are somewhat fewer children in non-parental caregiver units than in parental caregiver units.  Nearly all of the focal children are of the same ethnic background as their caregiver, including non-parental caregiver cases.
• Caregivers in child-only cases are older than those in regular TANF cases; within the child-only caseload, non-parental caregivers are substantially older than parental caregivers.
  • 56 to 63 percent of non-parental caregivers are over 50 years old;
  • 21 to 34 percent are over age 60; and
  • 6 to 9 percent are over age 70.
• Two-thirds of non-parental caregivers are grandparents.  Over 20 percent are aunts or uncles.  It is not uncommon for great-grandparents to be caregivers.  Non-parental caregivers are almost always relatives tot he children.
• While most child-only caregivers are not currently married, non-parental caregivers are more likely to be married than parental caregivers.  Non-parental caregivers, despite being older, are more likely to report employment than parental caregivers.
• The length of time on TANF is related to the age of the focal child.  Thus, it is evident that children residing with non-parental caregivers in Alameda and Duval have older children and have received child-only TANF on the current case longer than those children residing with parents in these counties.  In Jackson, however, children residing with parents have older children, on average, and have been receiving child-only TANF for a longer period of time than their counterparts residing with non-parental caregivers.  Most absent parents were under age 40, single, and unemployed when on TANF.

2.  Transitions into Child-Only Status

• The reasons why a child comes to reside with a non-parental caregiver vary widely; major reasons include desertion, substance abuse, incarceration, child abuse, and neglect on the part of the parent.
• Most focal children have resided with one caregiver while receiving TANF; however, a substantial proportion residing with a non-parental caregiver (from 35 to 43 percent) have resided with multiple caregivers, usually their parents, while receiving TANF.  A significant proportion of parental child-only cases had once been regular TANF cases (21 to 53 percent).

3.  Earnings and Income

• Non-parental caregivers report higher incomes than parental caregivers and are less likely to receive SSI, food stamps, and Medicaid than parental caregivers.  However, TANF grant amounts are similar, on average, for the two groups.

C.  TANF Child-Only Policies and Practices in Three States

This study examined the child-only policies and practices in California, Florida, and Missouri and found a range of policies that could influence the size and composition of child-only cases, including the following:

• With the exception of sanctioned cases in some states, child-only cases are not subject to time limits, nor are child-only caregivers required to work or participate in employment-related activities.  The caregivers generally do not have access to employment-related services.
• Non-parental caregivers are subject to fewer requirements and receive less money and support services than foster care parents.  There is very little interaction between the TANF workers and the CPS or foster care staffs in the three counties visited.
• Newly created relative care programs in all three states offer higher payments than TANF, require legal guardianship or court supervision of the child, and some level of background review, licensing, and/or training for the caregiver.  States are using some combination of TANF, MOE, and state and local funding to support these programs.
• At the time of this study, no special plans were being made to serve the child-only cases in the counties visited, within the scope of the regular TANF program.  While they make up an increasing proportion of the TANF caseload (68 percent in Duval County), child-only cases are perceived as easier to work than regular cases.

II.  Implications For Future Research

Future research is still needed to answer the following questions:

• How are states implementing alternative programs for relatives?
  All three states visited had either recently initiated or were planning implementation of alternative programs.  Future studies could document the extent to which such programs are either in place or in process around the country and collect information on their structures and characteristics.  Case studies could examine practices as well as the characteristics of the children and the caregivers.
• How will time-limited cash assistance affect the child-only caseloads?
  Full-family time limits have the potential to lead to the creation of either protective payee child-only cases or to non-parental caregiver cases.  Future research can examine more carefully what happens to the children in families that use up their TANF benefits.  Do they stay with their natural family?  Do their families receive benefits through protective payees?  Do the children move in with relatives and return to TANF as child-only cases?  How are these children faring?
• Do children on child-only cases move from caregiver to caregiver or tend to stay on one case until they age out of the program (i.e., turn 18 years old)?
  Since most child-only cases are not subject to time limits (with the exception of sanctioned cases in some states), future research could track a group of focal children over time to document whether they reside with the same caregivers and whether they continue to receive TANF until they age out of the program.  One could examine these questions for children in both parental and non-parental cases.
• What proportion of child-only cases is comprised of recent immigrants due to PRWORA restrictions?
  The child-only cases examined in Alameda, Duval, and Jackson did not include any qualified aliens who entered the country after August 1996 who were ineligible for TANF benefits (California is providing benefits to these individuals using state money; the Duval and Jackson TANF caseloads have relatively few immigrants).  Further studies could examine this group of immigrants to assess what services they are receiving and how they are managing compared to qualified aliens who entered the country prior to the enactment of PRWORA.
• How is child support enforcement handled for non-parental child-only cases?
  Non-parental caregivers are required to supply information to help the state locate the children's parents, unless the non-parental caregiver has good cause for not cooperating.  Then states can seek child support from both or either parent in non-parental child-only cases.  Additional research is needed to assess the extent to which non-parental caregivers are supplying information regarding the absent parents, are unable to supply this information (i.e., they have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the parents), or have good cause for not cooperating.

  Also of interest is understanding whether state child support agencies are vigorously pursuing these cases.  When the caregiver assigns child support payments as a condition of eligibility, the federal and state governments retain all or nearly all child support payments from current TANF cases.  As the child-only caseload continues to increase as a proportion of the overall TANF caseload, and if collections lag for child-only cases, both the federal and state governments may experience a drop in retained TANF collections.

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 on 3/27/00