Indicators of Welfare Dependence, 2001

Appendix A. Program Data

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), the Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act. This chapter includes information on these three programs, derived primarily from administrative data reported by state and federal agencies instead of the national survey data presented in previous chapters. National caseloads and expenditure trend information on each of the three programs is included, as well as state-by-state trend tables on each program and information on the characteristics of participants in each program.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother is absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates which were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.

During the 1990s, the federal government increasingly used its authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to waive portions of the federal requirements under AFDC. This allowed states to test such changes as expanded earned income disregards, increased work requirements and stronger sanctions for failure to comply with them, time limits on benefits, and expanded access to transitional benefits such as child care and medical assistance. As a condition of receiving waivers, states were required to conduct rigorous evaluations of the impacts of these changes on the welfare receipt, employment, and earnings of participants.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) replaced AFDC, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a cash welfare block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months) on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with federal funds, increasing work participation rate requirements which states must meet, and broad state flexibility on program design. Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.4 billion per year, slightly above fiscal year 1995 federal expenditures for the four component programs. States must also meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail work participation rate requirements).

TANF gives states wide latitude in spending both Federal TANF funds and state MOE funds. Subject to a few restrictions, TANF funds may be used in any way that supports one of the four statutory purposes of TANF: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at home; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Data Issues Relating to the AFDC-TANF Transition

States had the option of beginning their TANF programs as soon as PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, and a few states began TANF programs as early as September 1996. All states were required to implement TANF by July 1, 1997. Because states implemented TANF at different times, the FY 1997 data reflects a combination of the AFDC and TANF programs. In some states, limited data are available for FY 1997 because states were given a transition period of six months after they implemented TANF before they were required to report data on the characteristics and work activities of TANF participants.

Because of the greatly expanded range of activities allowed under TANF, a substantial portion of TANF funds will be spent on activities other than cash payments to families. When tracking overall expenditure trends, the tables in this Appendix (e.g., Table TANF 3) include only those TANF funds spent on “cash and work-based assistance” and “administrative costs,” not on work activities, supportive services, or other allowable uses of funds. Spending on these other activities is detailed in Table TANF 5. Note that TANF administrative costs include funds spent administering all activities, not just cash and work-based assistance. (Administrative costs under AFDC had included a small amount of funds for administering AFDC child care programs; such programs, and the costs of administering them, have now been transferred to the Child Care and Development Fund as part of PRWORA).

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. One program change is that there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” program under TANF. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. Moreover, it is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. At present, the vast majority of families receiving “assistance”^[1] are, in fact, receiving cash payments; however, this may change over time.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figure TANF 1 and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1-6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7) and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8-13). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 4a and IND 5a in Chapter II.

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Figure TANF 1, Tables TANF 1-2). Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically during the past several years. Welfare caseloads peaked at record highs in 1994, when 14.2 million recipients in over 5 million families received AFDC benefits each month. Since then, the welfare caseload has fallen by 8.3 million recipients to 5.8 million recipients in June 2000, a drop of 59 percent. This is the largest welfare caseload decline in history and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1968, and the lowest percentage of the population on welfare since 1965.

As shown in Figure TANF 1, AFDC caseloads generally tended to increase in times of economic recession and decline in times of economic growth. The recent decline, however, has far outstripped that experienced in any previous period.

Several studies have attempted to explain the unprecedented decline in caseloads, and specifically, to disentangle the effects of PRWORA and welfare reform from the simultaneous growth in the U.S. economy. Separating these effects is difficult, because PRWORA was enacted at a time when the economy was expanding dramatically, offering a uniquely conducive environment within which to move many welfare recipients off the rolls and into the labor market. Other policy changes, most notably expansions in the Earned Income Tax credit, add further complexity.

In general, studies have found that both economic conditions and welfare reform policies have played important roles in the recent caseload decline. A review of a dozen studies concluded that roughly 15 to 30 percent of the caseload decline prior to 1996 was attributed by most studies to welfare policies under waivers to the AFDC rules with approximately 30 to 45 percent of the decline explained by economic conditions (Schoeni and Blank, 2000). A study by the Council of Economic Advisors (1999) of the post-PRWORA period finds that just over one-third of caseload decline can be explained by welfare reform policy, while 8 to 10 percent is due to the economy. In addition to general labor market conditions, the effects of economic policy post-1996 (namely increases in the minimum wage) explain another 10 to 16 percent of the caseload drop. In both periods, a large portion of the welfare decline is not explained by the examined variables. Possible factors that could account for this additional decline include the expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and changing cultural perceptions of welfare receipt.

Recent studies using different modeling techniques and a wider range of outcomes find that the economy may be even more important in the post-1996 period than previously thought. For example, one study finds that while TANF does have a very strong effect on post-1996 caseload decreases, the economy has a stronger effect than does TANF on trends in work, hours and earnings during the same period.

The full effect of a robust economy is difficult to capture, partly because most econometric models cannot measure the true interaction between welfare reform and concurrent economic conditions. The existing models also do not measure precisely the separate effects of additional policy enhancements to make work pay -- such as expansions in EITC, SCHIP/Medicaid, child care, transportation and housing subsidies -- which have occurred over the same period.

AFDC/TANF Expenditures (Tables TANF 3-6 and Figure TANF 2). Tables TANF 3, 4 and 5 show trends in expenditures on AFDC and TANF. Table TANF 3 tracks both programs, breaking out the costs of benefits and administrative expenses. It also shows the division between federal and state spending. Table TANF 4 breaks out the benefits paid under the single parent or “basic” program and the Unemployed Parent (UP) program, and also nets out the value of child support collected on behalf of recipient children, but retained by the state to reimburse welfare expenditures. This table presents data through 1996 only, because the TANF data reporting requirements do not require that caseload data be separated into “basic” and “UP” components. Table TANF 5 shows the variety of activities funded under the TANF program.

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 shows that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, the average monthly benefit per recipient in 1998 was only 65 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s. The benefit per person increased in 1999, however, reaching $156 per month. This level was $20 higher than in 1998, but still below the real value of benefits in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

AFDC/TANF Recipient Characteristics (Table TANF 7). With the dramatic declines in the welfare rolls since the implementation of TANF, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding how the composition of the caseload has changed. Two striking trends are the increases in the proportion of child-only cases and in employment among adult recipients.

One of the most dramatic trends is the recent jump in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 1999, 28 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1990. Similar trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect positive effects of welfare-to-work programs, the strong economy, and the fact that, with larger earnings disregards, families with earnings do not exit welfare as rapidly. In addition, the increased employment of welfare recipients is consistent with broader trends in labor force participation among mothers with young children. Among single mothers with children under six and family income below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, for example, the employment rate increased from 35 percent in 1992 to 55 percent in 1999. In addition, employment rates for white, black, and Hispanic women ages 18 to 65 with no more than a high school education were at all-time highs in 1999 (as shown in WORK 2 in Chapter III).

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of child-only cases. Child only cases have climbed from 11.6 percent of the caseload in FY 1990 to 29.1 percent in FY 1999. This dramatic growth has been due to both the overall decline in the number of adult-present cases as well as an increase in the number of child-only cases. Child-only cases are generally not subject to the work requirements or time limits under TANF.

In other areas, the administrative data show fewer changes in composition than might have been expected. There has been widespread anecdotal evidence that the most job ready recipients -- those with the fewest barriers to employment -- have already exited the welfare caseload and have stopped coming onto the welfare rolls, leaving a more disadvantaged population remaining. However, as the expectations for welfare recipients have increased, and fewer recipients are totally exempted from work requirements, others have speculated that the most disadvantaged recipients may also have been sanctioned off the rolls or terminated for failure to comply with administrative requirements. In fact, analyses of program data have not found much evidence of an increase or decline in readily observed barriers to employment in the current caseload.

The question of whether the caseload has become more disadvantaged cannot be answered simply through administrative data provided by the states, which do not contain detailed information on such barriers to employment as lack of basic skills, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and disabilities. A few recent studies have found very high levels of these barriers among the TANF population. These studies have also found that the effects of these barriers are interactive; while any one barrier to employment can often be overcome, the more barriers a recipient faces, the less likely she is to find a job and maintain consistent employment over a period of time.

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8-14). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since 1993, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and June 2000 ranges from 92 percent (Wyoming) to 29 percent (Rhode Island). Seven states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as May 1995 (Maryland).

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic families” are single-parent families and “UP families” are two-parent cases receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate periods of recession from peak to trough as designated by the National Bureau for Economic Research. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. Last data point plotted is June 2000.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993, and unpublished data.

Table TANF 1.
Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads, 1962 – 1999
Fiscal Year	Total Families¹	Total Recipients	Unemployed Parent Families	Unemployed Parent Recipients	Total Children	Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average Number of Children per Family
Fiscal Year	Average Monthly Number (In thousands)					Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average Number of Children per Family
1962...........	924	3,593	49	224	2,778	77.3	3.0
1963...........	950	3,834	54	291	2,896	75.5	3.0
1964...........	984	4,059	60	343	3,043	75.0	3.1
1965...........	1,037	4,323	69	400	3,242	75.0	3.1
1966...........	1,074	4,472	62	361	3,369	75.3	3.1
1967...........	1,141	4,718	58	340	3,561	75.5	3.1
1968...........	1,307	5,348	67	377	4,011	75.0	3.1
1969...........	1,538	6,147	66	361	4,591	74.7	3.0
1970...........	1,909	7,429	78	420	5,494	74.0	2.9
1971...........	2,532	9,556	143	726	6,963	72.9	2.8
1972...........	2,918	10,632	134	639	7,698	72.4	2.6
1973...........	3,124	11,038	120	557	7,965	72.2	2.5
1974...........	3,170	10,845	95	434	7,824	72.1	2.5
1975...........	3,357	11,067	101	451	7,928	71.6	2.4
1976...........	3,575	11,339	135	593	8,156	71.9	2.3
1977...........	3,593	11,108	149	659	7,818	70.4	2.2
1978...........	3,539	10,663	128	567	7,475	70.1	2.1
1979...........	3,496	10,311	114	506	7,193	69.8	2.1
1980...........	3,642	10,597	141	612	7,320	69.1	2.0
1981...........	3,871	11,160	209	881	7,615	68.2	2.0
1982...........	3,569	10,431	232	976	6,975	66.9	2.0
1983...........	3,651	10,659	272	1,144	7,051	66.1	1.9
1984...........	3,725	10,866	287	1,222	7,153	65.8	1.9
1985...........	3,692	10,813	261	1,131	7,165	66.3	1.9
1986...........	3,748	10,995	254	1,102	7,300	66.4	1.9
1987...........	3,784	11,065	236	1,035	7,381	66.7	2.0
1988...........	3,748	10,920	210	929	7,325	67.1	2.0
1989...........	3,771	10,935	193	856	7,370	67.4	2.0
1990...........	3,974	11,460	204	899	7,755	67.7	2.0
1991...........	4,374	12,592	268	1,148	8,513	67.6	1.9
1992...........	4,768	13,625	322	1,348	9,226	67.7	1.9
1993...........	4,981	14,143	359	1,489	9,560	67.6	1.9
1994...........	5,046	14,226	363	1,510	9,611	67.6	1.9
1995...........	4,879	13,659	335	1,384	9,280	67.9	1.9
1996...........	4,552	12,644	301	1,241	8,671	68.6	1.9
1997².........	3,947	10,954	275³	1,158³	7,781³	71.0 ³	2.0 ³
1998...........	3,179	8,770	179	753⁴	6,273	71.5	2.0
1999...........	2,643	7,188	NA	NA	5,319	74.0	2.0
¹ Includes unemployed parent families. ² The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. ³ Based on data from the old AFDC reporting system which was available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year. ⁴ Estimated based on the ratio of Unemployed Parent recipients to Unemployed Parent families in 1997. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, (Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/).

Table TANF 2.
Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various population Groups,
1970 – 1999
Calendar¹ Year	Total Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands)	Child Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands)	Recipients as a Percent of Total Population²	Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population³	Recipients as a Percent of Pretransfer Poverty population⁴	Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child population²	Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in poverty³
1970...........	8,303	6,104	4.1	32.7	NA	8.8	58.5
1971...........	10,043	7,303	4.9	39.3	NA	10.5	69.2
1972...........	10,736	7,766	5.1	43.9	NA	11.2	75.5
1973...........	10,738	7,763	5.1	46.7	NA	11.3	80.5
1974...........	10,621	7,637	5.0	45.4	NA	11.3	75.2
1975...........	11,131	7,928	5.2	43.0	NA	11.8	71.4
1976...........	11,098	7,850	5.1	44.4	NA	11.8	76.4
1977...........	10,856	7,632	4.9	43.9	NA	11.7	74.2
1978...........	10,387	7,270	4.7	42.4	NA	11.2	73.2
1979...........	10,140	7,057	4.5	38.9	53.1	11.0	68.0
1980...........	10,599	7,295	4.7	36.2	49.2	11.4	63.2
1981...........	10,893	7,397	4.7	34.2	47.1	11.7	59.2
1982...........	10,161	6,767	4.4	29.5	40.6	10.8	49.6
1983...........	10,569	6,967	4.5	29.9	41.9	11.1	50.1
1984...........	10,644	7,017	4.5	31.6	43.6	11.2	52.3
1985...........	10,672	7,073	4.5	32.3	45.0	11.3	54.4
1986...........	10,851	7,206	4.5	33.5	46.6	11.5	56.0
1987...........	10,842	7,240	4.5	33.6	46.7	11.5	55.9
1988...........	10,728	7,201	4.4	33.8	47.7	11.4	57.8
1989...........	10,799	7,286	4.4	34.3	47.6	11.5	57.9
1990...........	11,497	7,781	4.6	34.2	47.1	12.1	57.9
1991...........	12,728	8,601	5.0	35.6	49.1	13.2	60.0
1992...........	13,571	9,189	5.3	35.7	50.8	13.9	60.1
1993...........	14,007	9,460	5.4	35.7	48.5	14.1	60.2
1994...........	13,970	9,448	5.4	36.7	50.0	13.9	61.8
1995...........	13,241	9,013	5.0	36.4	50.1	13.1	61.5
1996...........	12,156	8,355	4.6	33.3	46.4	12.1	57.8
1997...........	10,235	7,340⁵	3.8	28.8	40.7	10.5	52.0
1998...........	8,250	5,791	3.1	23.9	34.6	8.3	43.0
1999...........	8,250	4,850	2.5	20.9	31.1	6.9	40.1
¹ Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates.
² Population numbers used as denominators are resident population. See Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106.
³ For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-210 and Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex, April 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000, Internet release date January 2, 2001.
⁴ The pretransfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families with related children under 18 years of age whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book;data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.
⁵ Average for January through June of 1997.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Poverty in the United States: 1999," Current Population reports, Series P60-210 and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3.
Total, Federal, and State AFDC/TANF Expenditures, 1970 – 1999
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal Year	Benefits	Administra- tive	Benefits	Administra- tive	Benefits	Administra- tive	Benefits	Administra- tive
Fiscal Year	Federal Funds (Current Dollars)		State Funds (Current Dollars)		Total (Current Dollars)		Total (Constant ‘99 Dollars ¹)
1970	$2,187	$572 ²	$1,895	$309	$4,082	$881 ²	$16,722	$3,609
1971	3,008	271	2,469	254	5,477	525	21,480	2,059
1972	3,612	240 ³	2,942	241	6,554	481 ³	24,821	NA
1973	3,865	313	3,138	296	7,003	610	25,473	2,219
1974	4,071	379	3,300	362	7,371	740	24,694	2,479
1975	4,625	552	3,787	529	8,412	1,082	25,686	3,304
1976	5,258	541	4,418	527	9,676	1,069	27,658	3,056
1977	5,626	595	4,762	583	10,388	1,177	27,640	3,132
1978	5,724	631	4,898	617	10,621	1,248	26,513	3,115
1979	5,825	683	4,954	668	10,779	1,350	24,742	3,099
1980	6,448	750	5,508	729	11,956	1,479	24,672	3,052
1981	6,928	835	5,917	814	12,845	1,648	24,103	3,092
1982	6,922	878	5,934	878	12,857	1,756	22,541	3,079
1983	7,332	915	6,275	915	13,607	1,830	22,816	3,069
1984	7,707	876	6,664	822	14,371	1,698	23,114	2,731
1985	7,817	890	6,763	889	14,580	1,779	22,636	2,762
1986	8,239	993	6,996	967	15,235	1,960	23,069	2,968
1987	8,914	1,081	7,409	1,052	16,323	2,133	24,034	3,141
1988	9,125	1,194	7,538	1,159	16,663	2,353	23,570	3,328
1989	9,433	1,211	7,807	1,206	17,240	2,417	23,273	3,263
1990	10,149	1,358	8,390	1,303	18,539	2,661	23,840	3,422
1991	11,165	1,373	9,191	1,300	20,356	2,673	24,918	3,272
1992	12,258	1,459	9,993	1,378	22,250	2,837	26,435	3,371
1993	12,270	1,518	10,016	1,438	22,286	2,956	25,703	3,409
1994	12,512	1,680	10,285	1,621	22,797	3,301	25,614	3,709
1995	12,019	1,770	10,014	1,751	22,032	3,521	24,083	3,849
1996	11,065	1,633	9,346	1,633	20,411	3,266	21,709	3,474
1997⁴	9,746	1,271	7,902	1,128	17,648	2,399	18,278	2,484
1998	7,168	1,125	7,096	1,028	14,264	2,154	14,536	2,195
1999	6,475	1,407	6,975	884	13,449	2,291	13,449	2,291
Note: Benefits do not include emergency assistance payments and have not been reduced by child support collections. Foster care payments are included from 1971 to 1980. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of certifying AFDC households for food stamps is shown in the food stamp program’s appropriation under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Administrative costs include: Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, Child Care administration (through 1996), SAVE and other State and local administrative expenditures.
¹ Constant dollar adjustments to 1999 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.
² Includes expenditures for services.
³ Administrative expenditures only.
⁴ The Personal Responsibility and Work opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)program. Under PRWORA, spending categories are not entirely equivalent to those under AFDC: for example administrative expenses under TANF do not include IV-A child care administration (which accounted for 4 percent of1996 administrative expense).
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Systems.

Table TANF 4.
Federal and State AFDC Benefit Payments Under the single Parent and Unemployed Parent Programs,
Fiscal Years 1970 to1996
[In millions of current and 1996 dollars]
Fiscal Year	Single Parent¹	Unemployed Parent	Child Support Collections²	Net Benefits³ (1) + (2) minus (3)	Net Benefits (1996 dollars)⁴
Fiscal Year	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
1970	3,851	231	0	4,082	15,722
1971	4,993	412	0	5,405	19,882
1972	5,972	422	0	6,394	22,715
1973	6,459	414	0	6,873	22,504
1974	6,881	324	0	7,205	22,740
1975	7,791	362	0	8,153	23,363
1976	8,825	525	245	9,105	24,469
1977	9,420	617	395	9,642	24,121
1978	9,624	565	459	9,730	22,870
1979	9,865	522	584	9,803	21,156
1980	10,847	693	593	10,947	21,186
1981	11,769	1,075	659	12,185	21,472
1982	11,601	1,256	771	12,086	19,879
1983	12,136	1,471	865	12,742	20,128
1984	12,759	1,612	983	13,388	20,264
1985	13,024	1,556	901	13,679	19,967
1986	13,672	1,563	951	14,284	20,335
1987	14,807	1,516	1,070	15,252	21,115
1988	15,243	1,420	1,196	15,466	20,569
1989	15,889	1,350	1,286	15,952	20,246
1990	17,059	1,480	1,416	17,123	20,702
1991	18,529	1,827	1,603	18,753	21,583
1992	20,130	2,121	1,824	20,426	22,816
1993	19,988	2,298	1,971	20,315	22,028
1994	20,393	2,404	2,093	20,704	21,871
1995	19,820	2,212	2,215	19,817	20,367
1996	18,438	1,973	2,374	18,037	18,037
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 AFDC families. ³ Net AFDC benefits -- Gross benefits less those reimbursed by child support collections. ⁴ Constant dollar adjustments to 1996 level were made using a CPI-U-XI fiscal year price index. Note: Data are not available after 1996 because the TANF data reporting requirements do not require that caseload data be separated into single parent and unemployed parent components. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for children and Families, Office of Financial Management.

Table TANF 5.
Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related spending Fiscal Years 1997 to 1999
(millions)
Year	Federal TANF Grants
	Cash & Work Based Assistance	Work Activities	Child Care	Adminis- tration	Systems	Transitional Services	Other Expenditures	Total Expenditures
1997	7,708	467	14	872	109	0	862	10,032
1998	7,168	763	252	938	224	6	1,136	10,487
1999	6,475	1,225	604	1,070	337	17	1,595	11,323
	State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF Program
1997	5,955	311	752	704	101	9	926	8,758
1998	6,879	520	890	883	138	11	1,301	10,623
1999	6,541	503	1,135	743	118	23	1,334	10,397
	State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in Separate State Programs
1997	69	12	111	0	0	–	18	210
1998	216	3	137	6	1	–	28	391
1999	434	26	257	22	0	0	126	865
	Total Expenditures
1997	13,731	790	877	1,577	211	9	1,805	19,000
1998	14,264	1,286	1,280	1,828	362	17	2,465	21,502
1999	13,449	1,754	1,995	1,835	456	40	3,055	22,585
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial services.

Table TANF 6.
Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments, 1962 – 1999

Fiscal Year	Current Dollars	1999 Dollars	Average Number of Persons per Family	Current Dollars	1999 Dollars	Current Dollars	1999 Dollars
Fiscal Year	Monthly Benefit per Recipient		Average Number of Persons per Family	Monthly Benefit per Family (not reduced by Child Support)		Weighted Average¹ Maximum Benefit (per 3-person Family)
1962...........	$31	$158	3.9	$121	$614	NA	NA
1963...........	31	156	4.0	126	630	NA	NA
1964...........	32	157	4.1	131	649	NA	NA
1965...........	34	164	4.2	140	683	NA	NA
1966...........	35	167	4.2	146	694	NA	NA
1967...........	36	168	4.1	150	694	NA	NA
1968...........	40	177	4.1	162	723	NA	NA
1969...........	43	186	4.0	173	742	186 ²	802
1970...........	46	188	3.9	178	730	194 ²	796
1971...........	48	187	3.8	180	707	201 ²	788
1972...........	51	195	3.6	187	709	205 ²	778
1973...........	53	192	3.5	187	680	213 ²	774
1974...........	57	190	3.4	194	649	229 ²	766
1975...........	63	193	3.3	209	638	243	742
1976...........	71	202	3.2	226	645	257	734
1977...........	78	207	3.1	241	641	271	721
1978...........	83	207	3.0	249	624	284	710
1979...........	87	200	2.9	257	590	301	690
1980...........	94	194	2.9	274	564	320	660
1981...........	96	180	2.9	277	519	326	611
1982...........	103	180	2.9	300	526	331	579
1983...........	106	178	2.9	311	521	336	564
1984...........	110	177	2.9	321	517	352	565
1985...........	112	174	2.9	329	511	369	573
1986...........	116	175	2.9	339	513	383	580
1987...........	123	181	2.9	359	529	393	579
1988...........	127	180	2.9	370	524	404	572
1989...........	131	177	2.9	381	514	412	557
1990...........	135	173	2.9	389	500	421	541
1991...........	135	165	2.9	388	475	425	520
1992...........	136	162	2.9	389	462	419	498
1993...........	131	151	2.8	373	430	414	478
1994...........	134	150	2.8	376	423	420	467
1995...........	134	147	2.8	377	411	418	457
1996...........	135	143	2.8	374	397	422	449
1997³….....	134	139	2.8	373	386	420	435
1998...........	136	138	2.8	374	381	431	439
1999...........	156	156	2.7	424	424	450	450
¹ The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC families.
² Estimated based on the weighted average benefit for a 4-person family.
³ The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy families (TANF) program.
Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 1999 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance,Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 and earlier years along with unpublished data.

Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families, Selected Years 1969 – 1999
	May	May	March	Fiscal year ¹
	1969	1975	1979	1983	1988	1990	1992	1996	1998	1999
Avg. Family Size (persons)	4.0	3.2	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.9	2.9	2.8	2.8	2.8
Number of Child Recipients
One	26.6	37.9	42.3	43.4	42.5	42.2	42.5	43.9	42.4	42.3
Two	23.0	26.0	28.1	29.8	30.2	30.3	30.2	29.9	29.6	29.0
Three	17.7	16.1	15.6	15.2	15.8	15.8	15.5	15.0	15.7	15.9
Four or More	32.5	20.0	13.9	10.1	9.9	9.9	10.1	9.2	10.6	11.0
Unknown	NA	NA	NA	1.5	1.7	1.4	0.7	1.3	1.8	1.9
Child-Only Families	10.1	12.5	14.6	8.3	9.6	11.6	14.8	21.5	23.4	29.1
Families with Non-Recipients	33.1	34.8	NA	36.9	36.8	37.7	38.9	49.9	–	–
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
Since Most Recent Opening	23.0	31.0	29.0	26.0	26.3	23.0	22.5	23.6	–	–
Presence of Assistance
Living in Public Housing	12.8	14.6	NA	10.0	9.6	9.6	9.2	8.8	NA	12.6
Participating in Food Stamp
Or Donated Food Program	52.9	75.1	75.1	83.0	84.6	85.6	87.3	89.3	83.5	80.7
Presence of Income
With Earnings	NA	14.6	12.8	5.7	8.4	8.2	7.4	11.1	20.6 ⁴	25.2 ⁴
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income	56.0	71.1	80.6	86.8	79.6	80.1	78.9	76.0	73.0 ⁴	69.9 ⁴
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed	–	–	–	–	–	7.0	6.6	11.3	22.8	27.6
Unemployed	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	45.0	43.9
Not in Labor Force	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	28.3	25.5
Unknown	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	4.0	3.0
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):³
Full-time job	8.2	10.4	8.7	1.5	2.2	2.5	2.2	4.7	–	–
Part-time job	6.3	5.7	5.4	3.4	4.2	4.2	4.2	5.4	–	–
Marital Status (percent of adults)
Single	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	52.5	58.1
Married	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	16.4	18.4
Separated	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	11.7	12.3
Widowed	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.7	0.8
Divorced	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	8.8	8.3
Unknown	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	9.9	2.0
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
Incapacitated	11.7 ²	7.7	5.3	3.4	3.7	3.6	4.1	4.3	–	–
Unemployed	4.6 ²	3.7	4.1	8.7	6.5	6.4	8.2	8.3	–	–
Death	5.5 ²	3.7	2.2	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.6	1.6	–	–
Divorce or Separation	43.3 ²	48.3	44.7	38.5	34.6	32.9	30.0	24.3	–	–
Absent, No Marriage tie	27.9 ²	31.0	37.8	44.3	51.9	54.0	53.1	58.6	–	–
Absent, Other Reason	3.5 ²	4.0	5.9	1.4	1.6	1.9	2.0	2.4	–	–
Unknown	–	–	–	1.7	–	–	0.9	0.6	–	–
Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise. ¹ Percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii. ² Calculated on the basis of total number of families. ³ For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only. ⁴ Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients,not families, in 1998 and subsequent years. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: Fiscal year 1999 and earlier years, (Current data available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/characteristics/fy98/sum.htm).

Table TANF 8.
AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 1999
[Millions of dollars]
	1978	1982	1984	1986	1988	1990	1992	1994	1996	1999
Alabama	$78	$72	$74	$68	$62	$62	$85	$92	$75	$35
Alaska	17	32	37	46	54	60	96	113	107	64
Arizona	30	49	67	79	103	138	243	266	228	122
Arkansas	51	34	39	48	53	57	61	57	52	24
California	1,813	2,734	3,207	3,574	4,091	4,955	5,828	6,088	5,908	4,290
Colorado	74	87	107	107	125	137	163	158	129	55
Connecticut	168	210	226	223	218	295	377	397	323	187
Delaware	28	28	28	25	24	29	37	40	35	23
Dist. of Columbia	91	86	75	77	76	84	102	126	121	80
Florida	145	207	251	261	318	418	733	806	680	285
Georgia	103	172	149	223	266	321	420	428	385	207
Guam	3	4	5	4	3	5	8	12	14	NA
Hawaii	83	88	83	73	77	99	125	163	173	100
Idaho	21	20	21	19	19	20	24	30	30	4
Illinois	699	802	845	886	815	839	883	914	833	540
Indiana	118	139	153	148	167	170	218	228	153	85
Iowa	107	127	159	170	155	152	164	169	131	92
Kansas	73	81	87	91	97	105	119	123	98	46
Kentucky	122	123	135	104	143	179	213	198	191	120
Louisiana	97	127	145	162	182	188	182	168	130	67
Maine	51	59	69	84	80	101	118	108	99	61
Maryland	166	213	229	250	250	296	333	314	285	156
Massachusetts	476	468	406	471	558	630	751	730	560	331
Michigan	780	1,064	1,214	1,248	1,231	1,211	1,162	1,132	779	435
Minnesota	164	235	287	322	338	355	387	379	333	234
Mississippi	33	55	58	74	85	86	89	82	68	27
Missouri	152	175	196	209	215	228	274	287	254	165
Montana	15	19	27	37	41	40	46	49	45	25
Nebraska	38	49	56	62	56	59	65	62	54	68
Nevada	8	12	10	16	20	27	41	48	48	28
New Hampshire	21	25	16	20	21	32	54	62	50	36
New Jersey	489	513	485	509	459	451	527	531	462	301
New Mexico	32	45	49	51	56	61	106	144	153	108
New York	1,689	1,641	1,916	2,099	2,140	2,259	2,944	2,913	2,929	2,105
North Carolina	138	143	149	138	206	247	335	353	300	176
North Dakota	14	14	16	20	22	24	28	26	21	22
Ohio	441	606	725	804	805	877	984	1,016	763	380
Oklahoma	74	74	85	100	119	132	169	165	122	58
Oregon	148	100	101	120	128	145	200	197	155	177
Pennsylvania	726	740	724	389	747	798	906	935	822	530
Puerto Rico	25	65	38	33	67	72	75	74	63	NA
Rhode Island	59	70	71	79	82	99	128	136	125	110
South Carolina	52	76	75	103	91	96	119	115	101	39
South Dakota	18	17	17	15	21	22	25	25	22	11
Tennessee	77	74	83	100	125	168	206	215	190	110
Texas	122	118	229	281	344	416	517	544	496	233
Utah	41	47	52	55	61	64	76	77	64	40
Vermont	21	38	40	40	40	48	67	65	56	52
Virgin Islands	2	3	2	2	2	3	4	4	4	NA
Virginia	136	166	165	179	169	177	225	253	199	117
Washington	175	240	294	375	401	438	606	610	585	317
West Virginia	53	56	75	109	107	110	120	126	101	33
Wisconsin	260	406	519	444	506	440	453	425	291	91
Wyoming	6	9	13	16	19	19	27	21	17	10
United States	$10,621	$12,857	$14,371	$15,236	$16,663	$18,543	$22,250	$22,798	$20,411	$13,016
Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid (see Table TANF 3) but does not include emergency assistance payments. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management services, data from the ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line report.

Table TANF 9.
Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs and 1999 Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA
[In millions]
State	FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS¹	FY 1999 State Family Assistance Grant ²	Increase from FY 1996 Level	Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
Alabama	$75.9	$118.7	$42.8	56
Alaska	58.7	64.5	5.9	10
Arizona	197.8	230.6	32.9	17
Arkansas	51.9	59.8	7.9	15
California	3,622.8	3,751.1	128.4	4
Colorado	158.3	142.7	-15.6	-10
Connecticut	215.3	266.8	51.5	24
Delaware	35.2	32.3	-2.9	-8
Dist of Columbia	70.8	92.6	21.8	31
Florida	497.5	591.8	94.3	19
Georgia	288.4	348.9	60.5	21
Hawaii	97.9	98.9	1.0	1
Idaho	31.3	33.1	1.8	6
Illinois	601.1	585.1	-16.0	-3
Indiana	133.1	206.8	73.7	55
Iowa	128.9	131.5	2.7	2
Kansas	89.8	101.9	12.2	14
Kentucky	157.2	181.3	24.0	15
Louisiana	114.3	172.3	58.0	51
Maine	74.8	78.1	3.3	4
Maryland	214.3	229.1	14.8	7
Massachusetts	353.1	479.4	126.3	36
Michigan	632.2	795.4	163.1	26
Minnesota	220.8	267.4	46.5	21
Mississippi	70.3	91.2	20.8	30
Missouri	195.4	217.1	21.7	11
Montana	40.4	45.5	5.1	13
Nebraska	56.0	58.0	2.0	4
Nevada	41.4	45.8	4.4	11
New Hampshire	34.7	38.5	3.8	11
New Jersey	383.2	404.0	20.9	5
New Mexico	132.1	132.7	0.5	0
New York	2,160.7	2,442.9	282.3	13
North Carolina	312.6	319.8	7.2	2
North Dakota	25.7	26.4	0.7	3
Ohio	543.7	728.0	184.3	34
Oklahoma	118.2	147.6	29.4	25
Oregon	142.0	166.8	24.8	17
Pennsylvania	770.1	719.5	-50.6	-7
Rhode Island	89.5	95.0	5.5	6
South Carolina	94.4	100.0	5.6	6
South Dakota	20.2	21.3	1.1	5
Tennessee	137.4	202.0	64.6	47
Texas	419.0	512.0	92.9	22
Utah	64.7	81.1	16.4	25
Vermont	42.4	47.4	5.0	12
Virginia	121.4	158.3	36.9	30
Washington	415.4	403.3	-12.1	-3
West Virginia	87.7	110.2	22.5	26
Wisconsin	276.4	317.5	41.1	15
Wyoming	15.0	20.8	5.8	39
United States	$14,931	$16,713	$1,782	12
¹ Excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant; 1996 expenditures as reported through February 25, 1997. ² The awards include State Family Assistance Grants (SFAG) and supplemental Grants for Population Increases. AZ, CA, OK, OR, SD WI, and WY cumulative totals have been adjusted for Tribes operating TANF within the State. Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services.

Table TANF 10.
AFDC/TANF Caseload by State, October 1989 to June2000Peak
[In thousands]
State	Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to June 2000	Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to June 2000	August ‘96 Caseload	June 2000 Caseload	Percent Decline¹August ’96 to June 2000	Percent Decline Peak to June 2000
Alabama	52.3	Mar-93	41.0	18.7	54	64
Alaska	13.4	Apr-94	12.2	7.5	38	44
Arizona	72.8	Dec-93	62.4	31.9	49	56
Arkansas	27.1	Mar-92	22.1	12.0	45	56
California	933.1	Mar-95	880.4	489.1	44	48
Colorado	43.7	Dec-93	34.5	10.8	69	75
Connecticut	61.9	Mar-95	57.3	27.1	53	56
Delaware	11.8	Apr-94	10.6	5.8	45	51
Dist. of Columbia	27.5	Apr-94	25.4	22.4	12	18
Florida	259.9	Nov-92	200.9	62.8	69	76
Georgia	142.8	Nov-93	123.3	51.2	58	64
Guam	2.8	Sep-99	2.2	2.8	-23	1
Hawaii	23.4	Jun-97	21.9	14.9	32	36
Idaho	9.5	Mar-95	8.6	1.4	84	85
Illinois	243.1	Aug-94	220.3	85.8	61	65
Indiana	76.1	Sep-93	51.4	35.1	32	54
Iowa	40.7	Apr-94	31.6	20.1	36	51
Kansas	30.8	Aug-93	23.8	12.4	48	60
Kentucky	84.0	Mar-93	71.3	37.5	47	55
Louisiana	94.7	May-90	67.5	25.5	62	73
Maine	24.4	Aug-93	20.0	10.7	47	56
Maryland	81.8	May-95	70.7	28.9	59	65
Massachusetts	115.7	Aug-93	84.7	41.7	51	64
Michigan	233.6	Apr-91	170.0	70.9	58	70
Minnesota	66.2	Jun-92	57.7	39.3	32	41
Mississippi	61.8	Nov-91	46.4	15.0	68	76
Missouri	93.7	Mar-94	80.1	45.9	43	51
Montana	12.3	Mar-94	10.1	4.5	56	64
Nebraska	17.2	Mar-93	14.4	10.1	30	41
Nevada	16.3	Mar-95	13.7	6.9	50	58
New Hampshire	11.8	Apr-94	9.1	5.8	36	51
New Jersey	132.6	Nov-92	101.7	50.1	51	62
New Mexico	34.9	Nov-94	33.4	22.7	32	35
New York	463.7	Dec-94	418.3	248.1	41	46
North Carolina	134.1	Mar-94	110.1	44.7	59	67
North Dakota	6.6	Apr-93	4.8	2.9	40	57
Ohio	269.8	Mar-92	204.2	95.8	53	64
Oklahoma	51.3	Mar-93	36.0	7.3	80	86
Oregon	43.8	Apr-93	29.9	17.1	43	61
Pennsylvania	212.5	Sep-94	186.3	88.0	53	59
Puerto Rico	61.7	Jan-92	49.9	31.3	37	49
Rhode Island	22.9	Apr-94	20.7	16.3	21	29
South Carolina	54.6	Jan-93	44.1	15.5	65	72
South Dakota	7.4	Apr-93	5.8	2.8	52	62
Tennessee	112.6	Nov-93	97.2	55.5	43	51
Texas	287.5	Dec-93	243.5	128.3	47	55
Utah	18.7	Mar-93	14.2	8.2	43	56
Vermont	10.3	Apr-92	8.8	5.9	33	43
Virgin Islands	1.4	Dec-95	1.4	0.8	43	46
Virginia	76.0	Apr-94	61.9	30.1	51	60
Washington	104.8	Feb-95	97.5	54.8	44	48
West Virginia	41.9	Apr-93	37.0	10.7	71	75
Wisconsin	82.9	Jan-92	51.9	16.4	68	80
Wyoming	7.1	Aug-92	4.3	0.6	87	92
United States	5,098	Mar-94	4,409	2,208	50	57
¹ Negative values denote percent increase. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Division of Data Collection and Analysis.

Table TANF 11.
Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State,
Selected Fiscal Years 1965 –1999
[In thousands]
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1999	1989-94	1994-99
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1999	Percent Change
Alabama	78	123	160	180	151	129	132	48	2	-64
Alaska	5	8	12	15	16	19	38	26	96	-32
Arizona	40	51	71	51	72	105	201	90	91	-55
Arkansas	30	45	101	85	64	70	69	29	-0	-58
California	528	1,148	1,362	1,387	1,619	1,763	2,639	1,791	50	-32
Colorado	42	66	96	77	79	97	119	38	22	-68
Connecticut	59	83	125	139	122	106	166	84	56	-50
Delaware	12	20	31	32	24	19	27	15	43	-44
Dist. of Columbia	20	40	103	85	58	48	74	51	55	-31
Florida	106	204	265	256	271	327	669	198	105	-70
Georgia	71	198	354	221	239	266	393	156	48	-60
Guam	1	2	3	5	6	4	7	9	67	27
Hawaii	14	25	47	60	51	43	62	45	45	-28
Idaho	10	16	19	21	17	17	23	3	38	-88
Illinois	262	368	777	672	735	632	712	368	13	-48
Indiana	48	73	162	157	165	147	216	108	47	-50
Iowa	44	64	85	104	123	98	110	59	13	-46
Kansas	36	53	67	68	67	74	87	33	17	-62
Kentucky	81	129	159	167	160	156	208	99	34	-52
Louisiana	104	202	235	213	230	277	248	109	-10	-56
Maine	19	36	80	60	57	51	64	35	27	-45
Maryland	80	131	216	212	195	176	222	88	26	-60
Massachusetts	94	208	347	350	235	242	307	133	27	-57
Michigan	162	253	641	685	691	640	666	261	4	-61
Minnesota	51	76	124	135	152	164	187	123	14	-34
Mississippi	83	115	186	173	155	179	159	39	-11	-76
Missouri	107	140	260	199	197	203	263	132	30	-50
Montana	7	13	22	19	22	28	35	14	26	-60
Nebraska	16	30	38	35	44	41	45	33	10	-26
Nevada	5	12	14	12	14	20	38	20	89	-47
New Hampshire	4	9	26	22	14	13	30	15	139	-49
New Jersey	104	286	440	459	367	298	335	165	13	-51
New Mexico	30	51	61	53	51	59	102	79	74	-22
New York	517	1,052	1,210	1,100	1,112	979	1,255	812	28	-35
North Carolina	111	124	170	198	166	200	333	135	66	-59
North Dakota	8	11	14	13	12	15	16	8	8	-50
Ohio	183	266	535	513	673	629	685	276	9	-60
Oklahoma	73	95	97	89	82	103	131	56	27	-57
Oregon	31	75	99	102	74	87	114	44	31	-61
Pennsylvania	303	426	627	629	561	523	620	298	19	-52
Puerto Rico	202	223	232	168	173	185	183	107	-2	-41
Rhode Island	24	38	52	52	44	42	63	50	50	-21
South Carolina	30	52	135	153	120	107	140	44	30	-69
South Dakota	11	16	25	20	16	19	19	8	1	-57
Tennessee	76	129	201	162	155	195	300	150	53	-50
Texas	91	214	394	308	363	540	788	309	46	-61
Utah	22	33	34	37	38	44	50	29	14	-41
Vermont	5	12	21	23	22	20	28	18	41	-35
Virgin Islands	1	2	4	3	4	3	4	3	11	-11
Virginia	46	87	174	166	154	146	195	89	34	-54
Washington	71	109	143	154	178	219	292	172	33	-41
West Virginia	116	93	69	77	106	109	114	32	5	-72
Wisconsin	45	79	161	213	288	245	226	47	-8	-79
Wyoming	4	5	7	7	10	14	16	2	19	-90
United States	4,323	7,415	11,094	10,597	10,813	10,934	14,226	7,188	30	-49
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Program, Third Annual Report to Congress, August 2000.

Table TANF 12.
AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population
by State Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 1999
[In percent]
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1999	1989-94	1994-99
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1999	Percent Change
Alabama	2.2	3.6	4.3	4.6	3.8	3.2	3.1	1.1	-3	-65
Alaska	1.8	2.6	3.1	3.7	3.0	3.5	6.3	4.2	78	-34
Arizona	2.6	2.9	3.1	1.9	2.3	2.9	4.8	1.9	66	-61
Arkansas	1.5	2.3	4.7	3.7	2.8	3.0	2.8	1.1	-5	-60
California	2.9	5.7	6.3	5.8	6.1	6.0	8.4	5.4	40	-36
Colorado	2.2	3.0	3.7	2.6	2.5	3.0	3.3	0.9	10	-71
Connecticut	2.1	2.7	4.1	4.5	3.8	3.2	5.1	2.5	57	-50
Delaware	2.4	3.6	5.4	5.4	3.9	2.9	3.9	2.1	33	-47
Dist. of Columbia	2.5	5.3	14.6	13.3	9.2	7.7	13.1	9.9	71	-25
Florida	1.8	3.0	3.1	2.6	2.4	2.6	4.8	1.3	85	-73
Georgia	1.6	4.3	7.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	5.6	2.0	35	-64
Hawaii	1.9	3.2	5.4	6.2	4.9	3.9	5.3	3.8	35	-28
Idaho	1.4	2.2	2.3	2.2	1.7	1.7	2.0	0.2	21	-89
Illinois	2.5	3.3	6.9	5.9	6.4	5.5	6.0	3.0	9	-50
Indiana	1.0	1.4	3.0	2.9	3.0	2.7	3.8	1.8	41	-52
Iowa	1.6	2.3	3.0	3.6	4.3	3.5	3.9	2.1	11	-47
Kansas	1.6	2.4	2.9	2.9	2.8	3.0	3.4	1.2	13	-64
Kentucky	2.5	4.0	4.6	4.6	4.3	4.2	5.4	2.5	28	-54
Louisiana	2.9	5.6	6.1	5.0	5.2	6.5	5.8	2.5	-11	-57
Maine	1.9	3.6	7.5	5.4	4.9	4.2	5.2	2.8	25	-46
Maryland	2.2	3.3	5.2	5.0	4.4	3.7	4.4	1.7	19	-62
Massachusetts	1.8	3.7	6.0	6.1	4.0	4.0	5.1	2.2	27	-58
Michigan	2.0	2.9	7.0	7.4	7.6	6.9	6.9	2.6	0	-62
Minnesota	1.4	2.0	3.2	3.3	3.6	3.8	4.1	2.6	9	-37
Mississippi	3.6	5.2	7.8	6.9	6.0	6.9	6.0	1.4	-14	-77
Missouri	2.4	3.0	5.4	4.0	3.9	4.0	5.0	2.4	25	-52
Montana	1.0	1.9	2.9	2.4	2.7	3.5	4.1	1.6	18	-61
Nebraska	1.1	2.0	2.5	2.2	2.8	2.6	2.8	2.0	7	-28
Nevada	1.2	2.4	2.3	1.5	1.4	1.8	2.6	1.1	48	-57
New Hampshire	0.7	1.2	3.1	2.4	1.4	1.2	2.7	1.3	133	-52
New Jersey	1.5	4.0	6.0	6.2	4.9	3.9	4.2	2.0	10	-52
New Mexico	3.0	5.0	5.3	4.1	3.5	3.9	6.2	4.6	59	-26
New York	2.9	5.8	6.7	6.3	6.2	5.4	6.9	4.5	27	-35
North Carolina	2.2	2.4	3.1	3.4	2.6	3.1	4.7	1.8	54	-63
North Dakota	1.2	1.7	2.1	2.0	1.8	2.4	2.6	1.3	9	-49
Ohio	1.8	2.5	5.0	4.8	6.3	5.8	6.2	2.4	6	-60
Oklahoma	3.0	3.7	3.5	2.9	2.5	3.3	4.0	1.7	24	-59
Oregon	1.6	3.6	4.3	3.9	2.8	3.1	3.7	1.3	18	-64
Pennsylvania	2.6	3.6	5.3	5.3	4.8	4.4	5.1	2.5	17	-52
Rhode Island	2.7	4.0	5.5	5.5	4.5	4.2	6.3	5.0	51	-20
South Carolina	1.2	2.0	4.6	4.9	3.6	3.1	3.8	1.1	23	-70
South Dakota	1.6	2.4	3.6	2.9	2.3	2.7	2.6	1.1	-3	-58
Tennessee	2.0	3.3	4.7	3.5	3.3	4.0	5.8	2.7	44	-53
Texas	0.9	1.9	3.1	2.1	2.2	3.2	4.3	1.5	34	-64
Utah	2.2	3.1	2.8	2.5	2.3	2.6	2.6	1.4	1	-47
Vermont	1.4	2.6	4.4	4.4	4.2	3.5	4.8	3.0	36	-37
Virginia	1.0	1.9	3.4	3.1	2.7	2.4	3.0	1.3	25	-56
Washington	2.4	3.2	4.0	3.7	4.0	4.6	5.5	3.0	18	-45
West Virginia	6.4	5.3	3.7	4.0	5.5	6.0	6.3	1.8	4	-72
Wisconsin	1.1	1.8	3.5	4.5	6.1	5.0	4.4	0.9	-12	-80
Wyoming	1.1	1.5	1.8	1.4	2.0	3.0	3.4	0.4	15	-90
United States	2.1	3.5	5.0	4.6	4.5	4.4	5.4	2.6	24	-52
Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC recipients in each State during the given fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerators are from Table TANF 11. Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available on line at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients By State, Selected Fiscal Years1965 – 1999 [In thousands]
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1999	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1999	1989-94	1994-99
Alabama	62	96	119	129	105	92	96	38	4	-60
Alaska	4	6	9	10	10	13	24	17	90	-28
Arizona	31	39	54	38	50	74	136	43	85	-69
Arkansas	23	34	75	62	45	50	49	22	-0	-57
California	391	816	943	932	1,070	1,186	1,804	1,381	52	-23
Colorado	33	50	68	53	53	66	80	30	22	-63
Connecticut	43	62	92	97	82	71	111	60	56	-46
Delaware	9	15	23	22	16	13	19	13	41	-32
Dist. of Columbia	16	31	75	59	43	38	51	40	33	-21
Florida	85	160	200	184	191	235	463	155	97	-66
Georgia	54	150	261	161	166	187	274	116	47	-58
Guam	1	1	2	4	4	3	5	7	63	39
Hawaii	10	18	33	40	33	28	41	31	45	-23
Idaho	7	11	14	14	11	11	16	2	36	-86
Illinois	202	283	562	473	493	432	486	277	12	-43
Indiana	36	55	119	111	111	100	145	78	45	-47
Iowa	32	46	59	69	77	63	72	40	13	-44
Kansas	28	41	50	49	45	50	59	24	17	-59
Kentucky	58	93	113	118	107	105	137	72	31	-47
Louisiana	79	157	177	156	163	195	180	105	-8	-42
Maine	14	26	56	40	36	32	40	24	25	-39
Maryland	61	100	157	145	126	117	151	64	28	-57
Massachusetts	71	153	242	228	152	154	197	96	28	-51
Michigan	119	190	454	460	441	414	439	201	6	-54
Minnesota	39	58	89	91	95	105	124	89	18	-28
Mississippi	66	93	144	128	112	129	116	33	-10	-71
Missouri	82	106	193	135	129	134	176	102	31	-42
Montana	6	10	16	13	15	18	23	9	28	-60
Nebraska	12	23	28	25	29	28	31	23	10	-25
Nevada	4	9	10	8	9	14	27	15	89	-43
New Hampshire	3	7	18	15	9	8	19	11	130	-45
New Jersey	79	209	316	318	247	205	228	125	11	-45
New Mexico	23	39	45	35	34	41	66	53	64	-20
New York	380	759	862	759	729	648	813	568	26	-30
North Carolina	83	94	125	141	113	136	223	102	63	-54
North Dakota	6	8	10	9	8	10	11	6	6	-43
Ohio	136	198	373	348	424	411	455	210	11	-54
Oklahoma	55	71	74	65	57	71	90	37	27	-59
Oregon	23	52	67	65	49	58	76	31	30	-60
Pennsylvania	217	307	430	432	369	348	417	212	20	-49
Puerto Rico	161	166	170	118	116	126	124	78	-2	-37
Rhode Island	18	27	37	36	28	28	41	29	50	-31
South Carolina	24	40	100	109	84	77	102	34	33	-67
South Dakota	8	12	18	15	11	13	14	6	3	-54
Tennessee	58	99	150	115	105	133	203	111	53	-45
Texas	68	162	292	225	256	378	549	220	45	-60
Utah	16	23	23	24	24	28	33	19	17	-44
Vermont	4	8	14	14	14	12	17	12	39	-32
Virgin Islands	1	2	3	2	3	3	3	3	9	-2
Virginia	35	66	125	116	103	100	134	64	34	-52
Washington	50	76	95	97	113	141	187	121	32	-35
West Virginia	80	65	47	58	64	67	72	21	7	-71
Wisconsin	34	60	116	142	181	161	153	36	-5	-77
Wyoming	3	4	5	5	7	9	11	1	22	-88
United States	3,242	5,483	7,952	7,320	7,165	7,370	9,611	5,319	30	-45
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and evaluation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Program, Third annual Report to Congress, August 2000.

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965– 1999 [In percent]
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1989	1994	1989-94	1994-99
Alabama	4.6	7.7	9.9	11.1	9.7	8.6	8.9	4	-60
Alaska	3.1	5.0	6.2	8.0	5.9	7.3	12.8	76	-31
Arizona	4.8	6.0	7.2	4.8	5.9	7.6	12.1	60	-74
Arkansas	3.1	5.2	10.9	9.3	7.1	7.9	7.7	-3	-58
California	6.0	12.3	14.6	14.6	15.6	15.6	20.8	33	-26
Colorado	4.4	6.4	8.4	6.5	6.1	7.6	8.3	10	-66
Connecticut	4.4	6.1	9.8	11.8	10.8	9.5	14.2	49	-49
Delaware	4.7	7.5	12.3	13.4	10.2	8.1	10.5	30	-34
Dist. of Columbia	6.0	13.8	41.1	40.9	33.9	30.7	44.5	45	-5
Florida	4.3	7.6	8.4	7.8	7.6	8.4	14.1	68	-69
Georgia	3.2	9.1	15.5	9.8	10.1	10.8	14.6	35	-61
Hawaii	3.6	6.5	11.7	14.5	11.6	10.1	13.6	35	-20
Idaho	2.7	4.2	4.8	4.7	3.6	3.7	4.6	22	-87
Illinois	5.3	7.5	16.0	14.6	16.1	14.5	15.7	8	-45
Indiana	2.0	3.0	6.9	6.9	7.5	6.9	9.8	43	-48
Iowa	3.2	4.7	6.6	8.4	10.2	8.8	9.9	12	-44
Kansas	3.5	5.4	7.3	7.5	6.9	7.6	8.5	12	-60
Kentucky	4.9	8.3	10.2	10.9	10.5	10.9	14.1	29	-47
Louisiana	5.5	11.3	13.2	11.8	12.2	15.5	14.6	-6	-40
Maine	3.9	7.7	16.4	12.5	11.7	10.4	13.1	26	-36
Maryland	4.6	7.3	11.9	12.4	11.4	10.2	12.0	18	-59
Massachusetts	3.8	8.1	14.2	15.3	11.2	11.4	13.9	22	-53
Michigan	3.7	5.8	15.0	16.7	17.7	16.9	17.4	3	-55
Minnesota	2.9	4.2	7.0	7.7	8.5	9.2	10.1	10	-30
Mississippi	7.0	11.1	17.3	15.7	14.0	17.1	15.3	-10	-71
Missouri	5.2	6.9	13.2	9.9	9.8	10.2	12.9	26	-43
Montana	2.0	4.0	6.6	5.7	6.1	7.9	9.7	22	-58
Nebraska	2.3	4.4	5.8	5.5	6.8	6.5	7.0	8	-26
Nevada	2.5	5.2	5.4	3.8	3.9	5.0	7.1	40	-56
New Hampshire	1.4	2.6	6.9	5.8	3.7	3.1	6.6	118	-47
New Jersey	3.4	8.8	14.1	16.0	13.5	11.3	11.7	3	-47
New Mexico	5.2	9.5	10.9	8.5	7.8	9.0	13.5	50	-21
New York	6.3	13.0	16.3	16.2	16.7	15.1	18.0	19	-29
North Carolina	4.4	5.3	7.2	8.5	7.1	8.5	12.6	49	-58
North Dakota	2.3	3.6	4.9	4.7	4.3	5.7	6.3	12	-39
Ohio	3.6	5.3	10.9	11.2	14.7	14.6	16.0	9	-54
Oklahoma	6.4	8.5	8.7	7.6	6.3	8.3	10.4	24	-60
Oregon	3.3	7.4	9.6	9.0	6.9	8.2	9.7	18	-62
Pennsylvania	5.5	8.0	12.3	13.8	12.9	12.4	14.4	16	-48
Rhode Island	5.9	9.1	13.3	14.7	12.6	12.1	17.5	44	-32
South Carolina	2.3	4.2	10.4	11.6	9.1	8.3	10.8	30	-67
South Dakota	3.1	5.0	8.2	7.1	5.7	6.7	6.6	-1	-52
Tennessee	4.2	7.5	11.3	8.9	8.6	10.9	15.7	44	-47
Texas	1.7	4.1	7.1	5.2	5.4	7.9	10.4	32	-63
Utah	3.7	5.4	5.0	4.4	4.0	4.5	4.9	9	-47
Vermont	2.7	5.4	9.3	9.9	9.9	8.8	11.7	33	-28
Virginia	2.2	4.1	7.9	7.9	7.1	6.7	8.4	26	-54
Washington	4.7	6.5	8.5	8.5	9.7	11.5	13.3	16	-39
West Virginia	12.2	11.2	8.4	10.4	12.6	14.8	16.8	13	-70
Wisconsin	2.2	3.8	7.8	10.5	14.2	12.6	11.4	-9	-77
Wyoming	2.1	3.2	4.1	3.4	4.1	6.6	8.1	24	-87
United States	4.4	7.6	11.6	11.3	11.2	11.4	14.0	22	-47
Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC child recipients in each State during the given fiscal year as a percent of the resident population under 18 years of age as of july 1 of that year. The numerators are from Table TANF 13. Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available on line at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Endnotes

[1] States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, and child care, transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, should generally not be counted as recipients of TANF ‘assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” includes primarily payments directed at ongoing basic needs. It includes payments when individuals are participating in community service and work experience (or other work activities) as a condition of receiving payments (e.g., workfare). In addition to cash assistance, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits (provided the families are not employed). It excludes, however, such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

Where to?

Top of Page
Table of Contents of Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
Indicators of Dependence
Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt
Appendix A: Program Data
Appendix B: Alternative Definition of Dependence
Appendix C: Additional Non-Marital Birth Data
Appendix D: Sources of Data

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

Last updated December 7, 2001