Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2004

Publication Date

Apr 26, 2005

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Contributors to this report include Gil Crouse, Sarah Douglas, Susan Hauan, Julia Isaacs, and Kendall Swenson of the Office of Human Services Policy under the direction of Don Winstead, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

For on-line versions of this report (and previous annual reports) see the Office of Human Services Policy's web page on the Indicators Reports:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators-rtc/index.shtml

Executive Summary

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare annual reports to Congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence. The 2004 Indicators of Welfare Dependence, the seventh annual report, provides welfare dependence indicators through 2001, reflecting changes that have taken place since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996. As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act, the report focuses on benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which families depend on welfare might also be considered in assessing their degree of dependence. Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in defining and measuring dependence, a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed the following definition, as one measure to examine in concert with other key indicators of dependence and well-being:

A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. Welfare dependence is the proportion of all families who are dependent on welfare.

This 2004 report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data to provide updated measures through 2001 for several dependence indicators. Other measures are based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and other data sources. Drawing on these various data sources, this report provides a number of key indicators of welfare recipiency, dependence, and labor force attachment. Selected highlights from the report include the following:

In 2001, 3.1 percent of the total population was dependent in that they received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). While marginally higher than the 3.0 percent dependency rate measured in 2000, the 2001 rate is much lower than the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996. Overall, 4.9 million fewer Americans were dependent on welfare in 2001 compared with 1996.
Although the 2002 dependency rate cannot yet be calculated, preliminary data suggest it may increase slightly to 3.2 percent.
The overall drop in dependence since 1996 parallels the more well-known drop in AFDC/TANF and food stamp caseloads. For example, the percentage of individuals receiving AFDC/TANF fell from 4.6 percent to 1.9 percent between 1996 and 2002 (see Indicator 3). Food stamp recipiency rates dropped from 9.5 percent to 6.6 percent over the same time period.
In an average month in 2001, more than half (61 percent) of TANF recipients lived in families with at least one family member in the labor force. Comparable figures for food stamp and SSI recipients were 56 and 37 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2). Labor force participation, particularly full-time employment, increased considerably among TANF families in the last several years.
Spells of AFDC/TANF receipt in the second half of the 1990s were shorter than spells of AFDC receipt in the early 1990s. Nearly half (47 percent) of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals entering the program between 1996 and 1999 lasted 4 months or less, compared to 30 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994 (See Indicator 8).
Longer-term welfare receipt was much less common during the 1990s compared to earlier decades. Less than 4 percent of those with some AFDC/TANF assistance between 1991 and 2000 received assistance in nine or ten years of the period, compared to 12 percent and 13 percent of AFDC recipients in the earlier two time periods (See Indicator 9).

Since the causes of welfare receipt and dependence are not clearly known, the report also includes a larger set of risk factors associated with welfare receipt. The risk factors are loosely organized into three categories: economic security measures, measures related to employment and barriers to employment, and measures of nonmarital childbearing. The economic security risk factors include measures of poverty and well-being that are important not only as potential predictors of dependence, but also as a supplement to the dependence indicators, ensuring that dependence measures are not assessed in isolation. As such, the report includes data on the official poverty rate, one of the most common measures of economic well-being:

As the dependency rate fell between 1996 and 2001, the poverty rate for all individuals fell also, from 13.7 percent in 1996 to 11.7 percent in 2001. In 2002, the poverty rate was slightly higher than in 2001 (12.1 percent), but was still lower than any year between 1980 and 1998 (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1, Figure ECON 1a).

Finally, the report has four appendices that provide additional data on major welfare programs, alternative measures of dependence and non-marital births, as well as background information on several data and technical issues.

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. This 2004 report, the seventh annual indicators report, gives updated data on the measures of welfare recipiency, dependency, and predictors of welfare dependence developed for previous reports. It reflects changes that have taken place since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996.

The purpose of this report is to address questions concerning the extent to which American families depend on income from welfare programs. Under the Welfare Indicators Act, HHS was directed to address the rate of welfare dependency, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence. The Act further specified that analyses of means-tested assistance should include benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

This 2004 report provides updated measures through 2001 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), with one preliminary estimate for 2002. Although more recent administrative data provide some information on recipiency through 2003, the survey data needed to examine overall welfare recipiency are not available past 2001 for the CPS-based measures, and are even less current for measures based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). This report presents analysis of PSID data through 2000 (IND 9 in Chapter II), an improvement over data through 1996 published in the previous two annual reports. These newly available PSID data allow for the examination of long-term recipiency since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996. As in the 2003 report, measures updated annually are presented at the front of each chapter, followed by the figures that are derived from data sources that are updated less frequently.

Organization of Report

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the specific summary measure of welfare dependence proposed by a bipartisan Advisory Board¹ and adopted for use in this annual report series. It also discusses summary measures of poverty, following the Advisory Board’s recommendation that dependence measures not be assessed in isolation from other measures of economic well-being. The introduction concludes with a discussion of data sources used for the report.

Chapter II of the report, Indicators of Dependence, presents nine indicators of welfare dependence and recipiency. These indicators include dependence measures based on total income from all three programs – AFDC/TANF, SSI, and food stamps – as well as measures of recipiency for each of the three programs considered separately. Labor force participation among families receiving welfare and benefit receipt across multiple programs are also shown. The second half of the chapter includes longitudinal data on transitions on and off welfare programs and spells of dependence and recipiency. Newly updated for the current report, this section includes a measure of long-term program receipt of up to 10 years.

Chapter III, Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt, focuses on predictors of welfare dependence – risk factors believed to be associated with welfare receipt. These predictors are shown in three different groups:

(1) Economic security – including various measures of poverty, receipt of child support, food insecurity, and health insurance coverage – is important in predicting dependence because families with fewer economic resources are more likely to rely on welfare programs for their support.

(2) Measures of the work status and potential barriers to employment of adult family members also are critical, because families must generally receive an adequate income from employment in order to avoid dependence without severe deprivation.

(3) Finally, data on non-marital births are important since a high proportion of longterm welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage, frequently as teenagers.

Additional data and technical notes are presented in four appendices. Appendix A provides basic program data on each of the main welfare programs and their recipients; Appendix B shows how dependence is affected by the inclusion of benefits from the SSI program; Appendix C includes additional data on non-marital childbearing; and Appendix D provides background information on several data and technical issues. The main welfare programs included in Appendix A are:

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the largest cash assistance program, provided monthly cash benefits to families with children, until its replacement by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is run directly by the states. Data on the AFDC and TANF programs are provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1977 through June 1997, and TANF data from July 1997 through 2002.
The Food Stamp Program provides monthly food stamp benefits to individuals living in families or alone, provided their income and assets are below limits set in Federal law. It reaches more poor people over the course of a year than any other means-tested public assistance program. Appendix A provides historical data from 1970 to 2002.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides monthly cash payments to elderly, blind, or disabled individuals or couples whose income and assets are below levels set in Federal law. Though the majority of recipients are adults, disabled children also are eligible. Historical data from 1974 through 2002 are provided in Appendix A.

¹ The first annual report was produced under the oversight of a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators, which assisted the Secretary in defining welfare dependence, developing indicators of welfare dependence, and choosing appropriate data. Under the terms of the original authorizing legislation, the Advisory Board was terminated in October 1997, prior to the submission of the first annual report.

Measuring Welfare Dependence

As suggested by its title, this report focuses on welfare “dependence” as well as welfare “recipiency.” While recipiency can be defined fairly easily, based on the presence of benefits from AFDC/TANF, SSI or food stamps, dependence is a more complex concept.

Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. The definition of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board for this purpose is as follows:

A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC, food stamps and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. Welfare dependence is the proportion of all families who are dependent on welfare.

This measure is not without its limitations. The Advisory Board recognized that no single measure could capture fully all aspects of dependence and that the proposed measure should be examined in concert with other indicators of well-being. In addition, while the proposed definition would count unsubsidized and subsidized employment and work required to obtain benefits as work activities, existing data sources do not permit distinguishing between welfare income associated with work activities and non-work-related welfare benefits. As a result, the data shown in this report overstate the incidence of dependence (as defined above) because welfare income associated with work required to obtain benefits is classified as welfare and not as income from work. This issue may be growing in importance under the increased work requirements of the TANF program. In 2002, over 33 percent of welfare recipients were working (including employment, work experience, and community service), compared to only 7 percent in 1992.²

This proposed definition also represents an essentially arbitrary choice of a percentage (50 percent) of income from welfare beyond which families will be considered dependent. However, it is relatively easy to measure and to track over time, and is likely to be associated with any very large changes in total dependence, however defined. For example, dependence under this definition declined as policy changes under welfare reform moved more recipients into employment.

As shown in Figure SUM 1, 3.1 percent of the population would be considered “dependent” on welfare in 2001 under the above definition. This is about one-quarter of the percentage (12.6 percent) that lived in a family receiving at least some TANF, food stamp or SSI benefits during the year. Preliminary data from 2002 suggest that the dependency rate may increase slightly between 2001 and 2002.³

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-2002

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI, or food stamps during year. Dependency is defined as having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or food stamps. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. The estimate for 2002 is preliminary

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

While dependency and recipiency rates increased slightly to 3.1 and 12.6 percent, respectively, the 2001 dependency and recipiency rates remain significantly lower than the 1996 rates of 5.2 and 16.0, respectively. The drop in recipiency rates is consistent with administrative data showing declining TANF caseloads from 1996 to 2001. What is not apparent from administrative records, but is shown in these national survey data, is that the dependency rate also declined sharply after 1996. While 13.74 million individuals were dependent in 1996, only 8.86 million were dependent in 2001 – representing a decline of 4.88 million people.

Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than for nonHispanic whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence also are higher for young children than for adults, and for individuals in female-headed families than for those in married-couple families. However, both recipiency and dependency rates are much lower for non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, children and individuals in female-headed families in 2001 compared to 1996.

Measures of welfare dependency also vary based upon which programs are counted as “welfare programs.” Dependency would be much lower – 1.4 percent – if only AFDC/TANF and food stamp benefits were counted (as shown in Appendix B and as is done in some measures in this report). Whereas the inclusion or exclusion of individuals receiving only SSI benefits had a relatively small effect on dependence indicators several years ago, in 2001 over two-fifths of dependent individuals are dependent on SSI income only.

Another factor affecting dependence is the time period observed. The summary measures shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 focus on recipiency and dependency rates measured on an annual basis. Note that this report no longer provides ten-year measures of long-term dependency (as distinct from long-term recipiency) due to a cutback in PSID data collection that precludes further update of these measures. Longitudinal measures of program receipt, however, show that program spells are typically short and long-term recipiency is more rare (see Chapter II). Indicator 9, for example, shows that among individuals receiving AFDC/TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2000, 18 percent received some welfare during six or more years. Another 31 percent were recipients in three to five years, and more than half (51 percent) received welfare in only one or two years.

² The earnings of those in unsubsidized employment would be correctly captured as income from work in national surveys. Any welfare benefits associated with work experience, community service programs or other work activities, however, would be counted as income from welfare in most national surveys, a classification incompatible with the proposed definition.

³ While TRIM-adjusted CPS data for 2002 are not yet available, non-adjusted estimates from the Annual March Demographic Supplement to the CPS indicate a slight increase in the level of dependence between 2001 and 2002.

Measuring Economic Well-Being

To assess the social impacts of any change in dependence, changes in the level of poverty should be considered. This chapter focuses on the official poverty rate, the most common poverty measure; additional measures of poverty and need are also included under the Economic Risk Factors found in Chapter III.

Poverty in 2002 remains much lower than in 1996, the year of passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The official poverty rate for 2002 was 12.1 percent, compared to 13.7 percent in 1996. This difference in the poverty rate indicates that 1.96 million fewer people are in poverty and 2.33 million fewer children are in families with incomes below poverty than in 1996. There was a small increase in the overall poverty rate between 2001 and 2002, but the poverty rate for children was essentially unchanged (see Table ECON 1 in Chapter III).

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-2001

	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, or SSI)
All Persons	16.0	14.8	13.5	13.3	12.5	12.6
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	9.9	9.7	8.6	8.4	8.2	8.2
Non-Hispanic Black	35.6	30.2	29.6	29.8	27.0	26.3
Hispanic	32.0	28.0	24.5	23.4	21.0	21.6
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-15	24.7	22.1	20.0	19.7	18.1	20.8
Women Ages 16-64	16.0	14.7	13.6	13.6	12.5	12.5
Men Ages 16-64	11.7	11.1	10.0	9.6	9.2	9.6
Adults Age 65 and over	10.3	10.2	9.9	10.0	10.4	9.6
Family Categories
Individuals in Married Couple Families	9.6	8.7	8.3	7.9	7.2	7.4
Individuals in Female-Headed Families	46.0	41.6	37.5	39.9	37.1	36.4
Individuals in Male-Headed Families	25.3	24.3	19.7	19.3	21.8	21.2
Unrelated Individuals	11.5	11.9	10.9	10.0	10.1	10.0
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI)
All Persons	5.2	4.5	3.8	3.3	3.0	3.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	2.6	2.5	2.1	1.8	1.9	1.8
Non-Hispanic Black	13.8	11.4	10.5	9.1	7.7	8.8
Hispanic	10.9	9.1	6.6	5.4	4.5	4.5
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-15	9.7	8.4	6.8	5.6	5.1	5.9
Women Ages 16-64	5.2	4.6	3.9	3.5	3.0	3.3
Men Ages 16-64	2.7	2.5	2.1	1.9	1.9	2.0
Adults Age 65 and over	2.4	2.1	2.1	2.0	2.1	1.9
Family Categories
Individuals in Married Couple Families	1.7	1.4	1.1	1.0	0.9	1.0
Individuals in Female-Headed Families	21.1	18.4	15.0	13.6	11.4	11.9
Individuals in Male-Headed Families	5.4	5.6	4.2	3.0	4.4	4.0
Unrelated Individuals	4.2	4.2	4.2	3.4	3.8	3.8

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI, or food stamps during the year. Dependency is defined as having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or food stamps. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. Spouses are not present in the Male-Headed and Female-Headed family categories. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Figure SUM 2. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2002

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by DHHS. See ECON 4 in Chapter III for underlying table and further notes.

Figure SUM 2 shows poverty estimates under both the official poverty rate and two other measures that adjust income to take into account cash benefits, non-cash benefits and taxes. The three measures in the graph are based on analyzing three different concepts of income against the poverty threshold:

The solid line with filled squares shows the official poverty rate, based on total cash income, including earned and unearned income. The official poverty rate was 12.1 percent in 2002.

The dotted line shows what poverty would be if means-tested cash assistance (primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI) were excluded from cash income. Income in this measure includes earnings and other private cash income, plus social security, workers’ compensation, and other social insurance programs, as income. Poverty under this measure would be higher than the official measure, or 12.8 percent in 2002.

The lowest line shows that poverty would be lower if the cash value of selected non-cash benefits (food and housing) and taxes, including refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), were counted as income.⁴ Under this definition, poverty rates in 2002 would be at least two percentage points lower than the official measure, or 10.0 percent.

⁴ The effects of selected non-cash benefits (food and housing) are shown separately from the effect of taxes in Figure ECON 4 in Chapter III. Prior to 1993, taxes increased poverty. Since 1993, taxes, including the refunds through the Earned Income Tax Credit, have caused reductions in poverty.

Data Sources

The primary data sources for this report are the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI programs. Beginning with the 2001 report, there was a shift to using CPS rather than SIPP data for several indicators and predictors of welfare recipiency and dependence. This change was necessary because CPS data are updated annually, while SIPP updates are available much less frequently.

If it were not for the lags in data availability, the SIPP would be considered the most useful national survey for measuring welfare dependency. It was used most extensively in the first three annual dependence reports. Its longitudinal design, system of monthly accounting, and detail concerning employment, income and participation in federal income-support and related programs, make the SIPP particularly effective for capturing the complexities of program dynamics. It continues to be an important source of data in this report, particularly for measures related to AFDC/TANF spell duration and transitions in and out of AFDC/TANF recipiency, dependency, and poverty.

For measures of receipt, dependency, and poverty at a single point in time, however, the report primarily uses the Annual March Demographic Supplement to the CPS, which measures income and poverty over an annual accounting period. As stated above, the CPS data are available on a timelier basis than the SIPP, and have been widely used to measure trends since the welfare reform legislation of 1996. However, because the CPS does not collect income in the same detail as the SIPP, it has been subject to criticism for underreporting of income, particularly welfare income. To address this concern, some of the indicators in this report are based on CPS data that have been analyzed by the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3), a microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Although its primary purpose is to simulate program eligibility and the impact of policy proposals, the TRIM model has also been used to correct for underreporting of welfare receipt and benefits. Welfare caseloads in TRIM3 are based on CPS data, adjusted upward to ensure that total estimates of recipients equal the total counts from administrative data.

As shown in Figure SUM 3, the overall measures of dependency and recipiency have not been greatly affected by the change in data sources. Both data sources show a decline in dependence between 1996 and 1999, from 4.7 to 2.8 percent under the SIPP data, and from 5.2 to 3.3 percent under the TRIM-adjusted CPS data. Still, readers are cautioned against comparing measures for 1987-1995 from the SIPP data in the first three annual reports with the measures for 1996-2001 from the TRIM-adjusted CPS data.

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-2001

Note: Recipiency is defined as receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI, or food stamps during year. Dependency is defined as having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or food stamps. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is another source of data used in this report. Like the SIPP it provides longitudinal data, but over a much longer time period than the three- to fouryear time period of the SIPP. With annual data on program receipt since 1968, the PSID provides vital data for measuring longer-term welfare use over periods of up to 10 years. Because the PSID indicators cover time spans as long as a decade, they are updated less frequently than the CPS-based and SIPP-based measures. This 2004 report provides the first updated analysis of PSID data beyond 1996, allowing examination of longer-term welfare receipt under the TANF program. However, the updated analysis of PSID data is only provided for Indicator 9 (Indicator 10 in last year’s report). Reductions in the frequency and detail of data collection under the PSID have made it difficult to update indicators of long-term dependence (Indicator 9 in last year’s report) and of reasons for entrance and exit from first spells of AFDC receipt (Indicator 11 in last year’s report). Therefore, these indicators have been dropped from the report. A new measure of reasons for entrance and exit from AFDC/TANF is under development and will hopefully be published in next year’s report.

Finally, the report also draws upon administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI programs. These data are largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data are generally available with little time lags; these data are generally available through fiscal year 2002. To the extent possible, TANF administrative data are reported in a consistent manner with data from the earlier AFDC program, as noted in the footnotes to the tables in Appendix A. The fact remains that assistance under locally designed TANF programs encompasses a diverse set of cash and non-cash benefits designed to support families in making a transition to work, and so direct comparisons between AFDC receipt and TANF receipt must be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on TANF receipt in national data sets such as the CPS and SIPP.

For further technical information about the data presented in the report, specifically for information on race and ethnicity, unit of analysis, and annual versus monthly measures, please see Appendix D.

Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence

Following the format of the previous annual reports to Congress, Chapter II presents summary data related to indicators of dependence. These indicators differ from other welfare statistics because of their emphasis on welfare dependence, rather than simple welfare receipt. As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested measuring dependence as the proportion of families with more than 50 percent of their total income in a one-year period coming from cash assistance through the AFDC (now TANF) program, food stamps and SSI benefits. Furthermore, this welfare income was not to be associated with work activities.

The indicators in Chapter II were selected to provide information about the range and depth of dependence as defined by the Advisory Board. Existing data from administrative records and national surveys, however, do not generally distinguish welfare benefits received in conjunction with work from benefits received without work. Thus, it was not possible to construct one single indicator of dependence; that is, one indicator that measures both percentage of income from means-tested assistance and presence of work activities.

This chapter focuses on recipients of three major means-tested cash and nutritional assistance programs: cash assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, benefits under the Food Stamp Program, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for elderly and disabled recipients. For some indicators, summary data and characteristics are provided for all recipients, not just those defined as welfare dependent. While a number of indicators focus on the percentage of recipients’ income from means-tested assistance, other indicators focus on presence of work activities at the same time as welfare receipt.

Here is a brief summary of each of the nine indicators:

Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence. This indicator focuses most closely on those individuals who meet the Advisory Board’s proposed definition of “dependence.” In addition to examining individuals with more than 50 percent of their annual family income from AFDC/TANF cash assistance, food stamps and/or SSI benefits, it shows various levels of dependence by examining those with more than 0 percent, 25 percent, and 75 percent of their income from these sources (Indicators 1a and 1b). This indicator also shows the average percentage of income from meanstested assistance and earnings received by families with various levels of income relative to the poverty level (Indicators 1c and 1d).

Indicator 2: Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment. This indicator looks further at the relationship between receipt of means-tested assistance and participation in the labor force. This is an important issue because of the significant number of low-income individuals that use a combination of means-tested assistance and earnings from the labor force.

Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance. This indicator paints yet another picture of dependence by measuring recipiency rates, that is, the percentage of the population that receives AFDC/TANF, food stamps, or SSI in an average month. Program administrative data make these figures readily available over time, allowing a better sense of historical trends than is available from the more specialized indicators of dependence.

Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs. While means-tested public assistance programs are open to all that meet their requirements, not all eligible households participate in the programs. This indicator uses administrative data and microsimulation models to reflect “take up rates” – the number of families that actually participate in the programs as a percentage of those who are legally eligible.

Indicator 5: Multiple Program Receipt. Depending on their circumstances, individuals may choose a variety of different means-tested assistance “packages.” This indicator looks at the percentage of individuals receiving AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI in a month, examining how many rely on just one of these programs, and how many rely on a combination of two programs.

Indicator 6: Dependence Transitions. This indicator uses data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to look at the ability of individuals who are dependent on welfare in one year to make the transition out of dependence in the following year.

Indicator 7: Dependence Spell Duration. Like Indicator 6, this indicator is concerned with dynamics of welfare receipt and welfare dependence. It shows the proportion of individuals with short, medium, and long spells, or episodes, of AFDC or TANF receipt. The focus is on individuals in AFDC/TANF families with no labor force participants.

Indicator 8: Program Spell Duration. One critical aspect of dependence is how long individuals receive means-tested assistance. Like Indicator 7, this indicator provides information on short, medium, and long spells of welfare receipt. It differs from Indicator 7 in looking at all recipients, regardless of attachment to the labor force, and in analyzing recipients of each of the three major means-tested programs – AFDC/TANF, the Food Stamp Program, and SSI.

Indicator 9: Long-Term Receipt. Many individuals who leave welfare programs cycle back on after an absence of several months. Thus it is important to look beyond individual program spells, measured in Indicator 8, to examine the cumulative amount of time individuals receive assistance over a period of several years.

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2001

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Only 3.1 percent of the total population in 2001 received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and SSI. As shown in Table IND 1b, the percentage of families dependent on public assistance has dropped by almost 50 percent since 1993, with most of the decline occurring since 1996. As noted in Chapter I, preliminary data suggest dependency may increase slightly but will still be near 3 percent in 2002.
Under 13 percent of the overall population received at least one dollar in means-tested assistance in 2001. However, for over half of these individuals (7 percent of the total population), such assistance represented 25 percent or less of annual family income. The vast majority (87 percent) of the population received no means-tested assistance in 2001.
As shown in Table IND 1a, individuals living in female-headed families were much more likely to be dependent on assistance from means-tested programs compared to individuals in married-couple or male-headed families (11.9 percent compared to 1.0 and 4.0 percent respectively).
In 2001, one in four individuals receiving some public assistance reported that TANF, food stamps, and SSI accounted for more than half of their total family income. This number reflected a decline in dependence since 1996, when nearly one in three individuals receiving public assistance were dependent on it.

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2001

	0%	0% and <= 25%	25% and <= 50%	50% and <= 75%	75% and <= 100%	Total 50%
All Persons	87.4	7.3	2.2	1.0	2.1	3.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	91.8	5.1	1.3	0.5	1.3	1.8
Non-Hispanic Black	73.7	12.2	5.3	3.0	5.8	8.8
Hispanic	78.4	13.0	4.1	1.5	3.0	4.5
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-15	81.9	9.5	3.5	1.9	3.2	5.1
Women Ages 16-64	87.5	7.2	2.1	1.0	2.3	3.3
Men Ages 16-64	90.4	6.2	1.4	0.5	1.5	2.0
Adults Age 65 and over	90.4	5.8	1.9	0.6	1.3	1.9
Family Categories
Individuals in Married-Couple Families	92.6	5.4	1.0	0.4	0.6	1.0
Individuals in Female-Headed Families	63.6	16.4	8.0	4.4	7.5	11.9
Individuals in Male-Headed Families	78.8	13.3	3.9	1.4	2.6	4.0
Unrelated Individuals	90.0	5.0	1.2	0.4	3.4	3.8

Note: Means-tested assistance includes AFDC/TANF, SSI, and food stamps. Total 50% includes all persons with more than 50 percent of their total annual family income from these means-tested programs. Income includes cash income and the value of food stamps. Spouses are not present in the Female-Headed and Male-Headed family categories.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2001

	0%	>0% and <= 25%	25% and <= 50%	50% and <= 75%	75% and <= 100%	Total 50%
1993	83.4	7.8	3.0	1.8	4.1	5.9
1994	82.8	8.4	3.1	1.8	4.0	5.8
1995	83.2	8.5	3.1	1.8	3.5	5.3
1996	84.0	7.8	3.1	1.9	3.3	5.2
1997	85.3	7.7	2.5	1.5	3.1	4.5
1998	86.5	7.3	2.5	1.3	2.5	3.8
1999	86.7	7.7	2.3	1.1	2.2	3.3
2000	87.5	7.3	2.2	1.0	2.0	3.0
2001	87.4	7.3	2.2	1.0	2.1	3.1

See above for note and source.

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2001

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Those in families with income below the poverty level received half (50 percent) of their total family income from earnings and 29 percent of their total family income from meanstested assistance programs (TANF, SSI, and food stamps) in 2001. In contrast, those with family income over 200 percent of the poverty level received the majority (87 percent) of their income from earnings and less than one percent of their income from means-tested assistance (a percentage so small, it is not visible in Figure IND 1b).
The percentage of family income received from earnings is inversely proportional to overall family income relative to the poverty line. For example, the percentage of income received from earnings for those living in deep poverty (below 50 percent of poverty) was only 32 percent, compared to 50 percent for all poor individuals in 2001.
On average, children were more likely than the elderly to live in families receiving a higher percentage of their income from means-tested assistance programs, as shown by Table IND 1c. The elderly received more income from other income sources, such as Social Security benefits and private pensions.
The percentage of income received from earnings for families with incomes below the poverty level has increased over time, as shown in Table IND 1d. In 1995, poor families received 40 percent of their income from earnings; this percentage rose to 50 percent in 2001. Over the same time period, there was a decline in the percentage of income from means-tested programs among poor families from 41 percent to 29 percent.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Age: 2001

	< 50% Poverty	<100% of Poverty	<200% of Poverty	200% + of Poverty	All Individuals
All Persons
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	53.0	28.6	9.1	0.2	1.0
Earnings	31.6	49.9	69.3	87.1	85.5
Other Income	15.4	21.5	21.6	12.7	13.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	51.8	25.8	6.8	0.1	0.5
Earnings	28.1	45.3	64.2	86.2	84.9
Other Income	20.0	28.8	29.0	13.7	14.6
Non-Hispanic Black
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	61.1	38.9	15.6	0.5	3.3
Earnings	23.5	40.6	65.0	88.9	84.4
Other Income	15.3	20.6	19.4	10.6	12.3
Hispanic
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	42.9	23.1	8.7	0.6	2.6
Earnings	46.7	64.2	81.3	92.3	89.6
Other Income	10.4	12.7	10.0	7.1	7.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	60.1	32.1	11.0	0.2	1.8
Earnings	28.8	57.4	80.7	94.6	92.5
Other Income	11.1	10.6	8.3	5.2	5.6
Children Ages 6-10
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	59.5	32.4	10.9	0.1	1.6
Earnings	27.1	53.7	78.6	93.7	91.6
Other Income	13.4	13.9	10.5	6.2	6.8
Children Ages 11-15
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	58.2	30.7	9.9	0.1	1.3
Earnings	29.3	53.2	77.7	92.5	90.7
Other Income	12.5	16.1	12.5	7.4	8.0
Women Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	49.9	30.1	9.8	0.2	0.9
Earnings	32.6	49.1	73.3	89.7	88.4
Other Income	17.6	20.8	16.8	10.1	10.7
Men Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	40.6	23.3	7.6	0.2	0.6
Earnings	43.2	55.9	77.0	90.9	90.1
Other Income	16.2	20.7	15.4	8.9	9.3
Adults Age 65 and over
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	20.0	18.9	5.7	0.3	1.0
Earnings	10.2	5.9	9.4	36.1	32.6
Other Income	69.8	75.1	84.9	63.6	66.4

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of food stamps. Other income is non means-tested, nonearnings income such as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest, and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1d. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources: Selected Years

	< 50% Poverty	<100% of Poverty	<200% of Poverty	200%+ of Poverty
1995
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	65.9	41.3	14.2	0.3
Earnings	22.5	40.4	64.8	85.4
Other Income	11.6	18.3	21.0	14.3
1999
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	53.1	29.8	9.7	0.2
Earnings	30.2	49.3	69.1	85.0
Other Income	16.6	20.8	21.2	14.7
2000
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	54.3	30.3	9.8	0.2
Earnings	30.5	49.5	68.7	86.7
Other Income	15.2	20.3	21.5	13.0
2001
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps	53.0	28.6	9.1	0.2
Earnings	31.6	49.9	69.3	87.1
Other Income	15.4	21.5	21.6	12.7

See above for note and source.

Indicator 2. Receipt of Means-tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants in that Month, by Program: 2001

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

In 2001, 61 percent of individuals who received TANF, 56 percent of individuals who received food stamps, and 37 percent of individuals who received SSI were in families with at least one person in the labor force, either part-time or full-time.
About one-third of TANF and food stamp recipients lived in families with at least one fulltime worker in 2001, while approximately one-quarter had only a part-time labor force participant. In contrast, SSI recipients were more likely to live in families with no labor force participant.
As shown in Table IND 2a, young children (under age six) in households receiving TANF, food stamps, and SSI were more likely to live with at least one full-time worker than were older children (ages 11-15) in such recipient households.
The percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with at least one full-time worker increased from 19 percent in 1993 to 35 percent in 2001, as shown in Table IND 2b.

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program, Race/Ethnicity, and Age: 2001

		No One in LF	At Least One in LF, No One FT	At Least One FT Worker
TANF	All Persons	38.7	26.0	35.3
	Non-Hispanic White	35.9	25.8	38.3
	Non-Hispanic Black	44.1	27.3	28.6
	Hispanic	37.7	24.0	38.3
	Children Ages 0-5	38.1	23.2	38.7
	Children Ages 6-10	41.0	26.4	32.6
	Children Ages 11-15	39.6	27.5	32.9
	Women Ages 16-64	40.1	26.1	33.8
	Men Ages 16-64	30.1	30.4	39.5
	Adults Age 65 and over	66.3	16.5	17.2
FOOD STAMPS	All Persons
		44.0	23.2	32.8
	Non-Hispanic White	46.7	23.5	29.8
	Non-Hispanic Black	43.7	24.0	32.3
	Hispanic	39.1	20.8	40.1
	Children Ages 0-5	34.4	24.1	41.5
	Children Ages 6-10	34.8	25.0	40.2
	Children Ages 11-15	38.4	25.7	35.9
	Women Ages 16-64	45.7	24.2	30.2
	Men Ages 16-64	43.6	24.4	32.0
	Adults Age 65 and over	88.9	6.4	4.7
SSI	All Persons	63.5	8.7	27.8
	Non-Hispanic White	69.7	8.1	22.3
	Non-Hispanic Black	62.7	10.3	27.0
	Hispanic	52.2	8.8	39.0
	Children Ages 0-5	32.1	14.0	53.9
	Children Ages 6-10	31.9	17.5	50.5
	Children Ages 11-15	35.5	14.1	50.4
	Women Ages 16-64	72.8	8.9	18.2
	Men Ages 16-64	64.1	8.0	27.9
	Adults Age 65 and over	65.9	6.6	27.5

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes part-time workers and those who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family member in the same month.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants 1993-2001

	No one in LF	At least one in LF, No one FT	At least one FT worker
1993	57.0	24.2	18.8
1994	54.8	24.8	20.4
1995	50.6	24.3	25.1
1996	50.1	25.6	24.3
1997	47.6	28.0	24.4
1998	44.3	25.8	29.9
1999	40.8	24.1	35.1
2000	41.2	24.1	34.7
2001	38.7	26.0	35.3

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes those who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family member in the same month.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Indicator 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-tested Assistance

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2002

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 (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Although the survey data needed to examine overall welfare receipt and dependency are not yet available past 2001, administrative data for recipiency measures of AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI are available through 2002, as shown in Figures IND 3a, IND 3b, and IND 3c. Additional administrative data are shown in Appendix A.
Just under 2 percent of the population received TANF in 2002. This is the lowest rate of AFDC/TANF receipt in the past 30 years, as shown in Table IND 3a. The percentage of the total population receiving AFDC/TANF has dropped significantly since 1994, when it was at a 25-year high of over 5 percent.
AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been much higher over time for children than for adults, with the child recipiency rates also showing more pronounced changes over time. Between 1993 and 2002, AFDC/TANF receipt among children was cut by more than half (from 14 to under 6 percent), the most rapid decline in a generation.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age 1970-2002

Fiscal Year	Total Recipients		Adult Recipients		Child Recipients
Fiscal Year	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
1970	7,188	3.5	1,863	1.4	5,325	7.6
1971	9,281	4.5	2,516	1.8	6,765	9.7
1972	10,345	4.9	2,848	2.0	7,497	10.8
1973	10,760	5.1	2,984	2.1	7,776	11.3
1974	10,591	5.0	2,935	2.0	7,656	11.3
1975	10,854	5.0	3,078	2.1	7,776	11.6
1976	11,171	5.1	3,271	2.2	7,900	11.9
1977	10,933	5.0	3,230	2.1	7,703	11.8
1978	10,485	4.7	3,128	2.0	7,357	11.4
1979	10,146	4.5	3,071	1.9	7,075	11.0
1980	10,422	4.6	3,226	2.0	7,196	11.3
1981	10,979	4.8	3,491	2.1	7,488	11.8
1982	10,233	4.4	3,395	2.0	6,838	10.9
1983	10,467	4.5	3,548	2.1	6,919	11.1
1984	10,677	4.5	3,652	2.1	7,025	11.2
1985	10,630	4.5	3,589	2.0	7,041	11.2
1986	10,810	4.5	3,637	2.1	7,173	11.4
1987	10,878	4.5	3,624	2.0	7,254	11.5
1988	10,734	4.4	3,536	2.0	7,198	11.4
1989	10,741	4.4	3,503	1.9	7,238	11.4
1990	11,263	4.5	3,643	2.0	7,620	11.9
1991	12,391	4.9	4,016	2.1	8,375	12.8
1992	13,423	5.2	4,336	2.3	9,087	13.7
1993	13,943	5.4	4,519	2.3	9,424	13.9
1994	14,033	5.3	4,554	2.3	9,479	13.8
1995	13,479	5.1	4,322	2.2	9,157	13.2
1996	12,477	4.6	3,921	2.0	8,556	12.2
1997	10,779	4.0	3,106	1.5	7,673	10.8
1998	8,653	3.1	2,581	1.3	6,078	8.5
1999	7,068	2.5	1,973	1.0	5,096	7.1
2000	6,218	2.2	1,640	0.8	4,579	6.3
2001	5,674	2.0	1,460	0.7	4,215	5.8
2002	5,572	1.9	1,419	0.7	4,152	5.7

Notes: See Appendix A, Tables TANF 2, TANF 12, and TANF 14, for more detailed data on recipiency rates, including recipiency rates by calendar year. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories. Child recipients include a small number of dependents ages 18 and older who are students. The average number of adult and child recipients in 1998 and 1999 are estimated using data from the National Emergency TANF Data Files and thereafter using the National TANF Data Files.

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 (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2002

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2001, and earlier reports, and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).

The food stamp recipiency rate increased to 6.6 percent in 2002, above the two previous years’ rate of 6.1 percent – the lowest rate since the Food Stamp program became available nationwide. The 2002 recipiency rate is still significantly below the peak of 10.4 percent experienced in 1993 and 1994.
As with AFDC/TANF, food stamp recipiency rates have been much higher over time for children than for adults. Between 1980 and 2002, the percentage of all children who received food stamps was between two and one-half to three times that for all adults ages 18 to 59.
Similar trends in food stamps recipiency – largely reflecting changes in the rate of unemployment and programmatic changes – existed across all age groups over time, as shown in Table IND 3b. The percentages of individuals receiving food stamps within all age groups declined from 1984 through 1988, rose in the early 1990s until reaching a peak in 1994, and then declined through 2000 followed by a slight increase in 2002.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age 1975-2002

Fiscal Year	Total Recipients		Adult Recipients Age 60 and over		Adult Recipients Ages 18-59		Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Fiscal Year	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
1975	16,320	7.6	–	–	–	–	–	–
1976	17,033	7.8	–	–	–	–	9,126	13.8
1977	15,604	7.1	–	–	–	–	–	–
1978	14,405	6.5	–	–	–	–	–	–
1979	15,942	7.1	–	–	–	–	–	–
1980	19,253	8.5	1,741	4.9	7,186	5.6	9,876	15.5
1981	20,654	9.0	1,845	5.0	7,811	6.0	9,803	15.5
1982	21,754	9.4	1,641	4.4	7,838	6.0	9,591	15.3
1983	21,668	9.3	1,654	4.4	8,960	6.7	10,910	17.4
1984	20,796	8.8	1,758	4.5	8,521	6.3	10,492	16.8
1985	19,847	8.3	1,783	4.5	8,258	6.1	9,906	15.8
1986	19,381	8.1	1,631	4.1	7,895	5.7	9,844	15.7
1987	19,072	7.9	1,589	3.9	7,684	5.5	9,771	15.5
1988	18,613	7.6	1,500	3.7	7,506	5.3	9,351	14.8
1989	18,778	7.6	1,582	3.8	7,560	5.3	9,429	14.9
1990	20,020	8.0	1,511	3.6	8,084	5.6	10,127	15.8
1991	22,599	8.9	1,593	3.8	9,190	6.3	11,952	18.3
1992	25,369	9.9	1,687	3.9	10,550	7.2	13,349	20.1
1993	26,952	10.4	1,876	4.3	11,214	7.5	14,196	21.0
1994	27,433	10.4	2,367	5.4	13,384	8.9	14,391	21.0
1995	26,579	10.0	1,920	4.4	11,105	7.3	13,860	20.0
1996	25,494	9.5	1,891	4.3	10,769	7.0	13,189	18.8
1997	22,820	8.4	1,831	4.1	9,373	6.0	11,847	16.7
1998	19,745	7.2	1,635	3.6	7,760	4.9	10,524	14.7
1999	18,146	6.5	1,696	3.7	7,079	4.4	9,332	13.0
2000	17,120	6.1	1,700	3.7	6,612	4.0	8,743	12.1
2001	17,262	6.1	1,658	3.6	6,778	4.1	8,819	12.1
2002	19,003	6.6	1,684	3.6	7,625	4.5	9,688	13.3

Note: See Appendix A, Tables FSP 1 and FSP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories. From 1975 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp program in 1975. From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2001, and earlier reports and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2002

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement 2003 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics) and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and food stamps, which have been influenced by outside factors such as the economy and welfare reform, overall recipiency rates for SSI show less variation over time. After trending downward slightly from 1975 to the early 1980s, the proportion of the total population that receives SSI has risen from 1.7 percent in 1985 to 2.5 percent in 1996 and subsequently declined slightly to 2.3 percent. As shown in Table IND 3c, the total number of recipients has grown by 66 percent over the same period, from 4.1 million in 1985 to 6.8 million people in 2002.
Elderly adults (aged 65 and older) have much higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap has narrowed, however, as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has been cut nearly in half, declining from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.6 percent in 2002.
The proportion of children receiving SSI increased gradually between 1975 and 1990, and grew more rapidly in the early-to-mid 1990s, reaching a high of 1.4 percent in 1996. The rate has since fallen, with 1.2 percent of children receiving SSI in 2002.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2002

Total Recipients	Total Recipients		Adult Recipients Age 65 & over		Adult Recipients Ages 18-64		Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Total Recipients	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
Dec 1975	4,314	2.0	2,508	10.9	1,699	1.3	107	0.2
Dec 1976	4,236	1.9	2,397	10.2	1,714	1.3	125	0.2
Dec 1977	4,238	1.9	2,353	9.7	1,738	1.3	147	0.2
Dec 1978	4,217	1.9	2,304	9.3	1,747	1.3	166	0.3
Dec 1979	4,150	1.8	2,246	8.8	1,727	1.3	177	0.3
Dec 1980	4,142	1.8	2,221	8.6	1,731	1.2	190	0.3
Dec 1981	4,019	1.7	2,121	8.0	1,703	1.2	195	0.3
Dec 1982	3,858	1.7	2,011	7.4	1,655	1.2	192	0.3
Dec 1983	3,901	1.7	2,003	7.3	1,700	1.2	198	0.3
Dec 1984	4,029	1.7	2,037	7.2	1,780	1.2	212	0.3
Dec 1985	4,138	1.7	2,031	7.1	1,879	1.3	227	0.4
Dec 1986	4,269	1.8	2,018	6.9	2,010	1.3	241	0.4
Dec 1987	4,385	1.8	2,015	6.7	2,119	1.4	251	0.4
Dec 1988	4,464	1.8	2,006	6.6	2,203	1.5	255	0.4
Dec 1989	4,593	1.9	2,026	6.5	2,302	1.5	265	0.4
Dec 1990	4,817	1.9	2,059	6.5	2,450	1.6	309	0.5
Dec 1991	5,118	2.0	2,080	6.5	2,642	1.7	397	0.6
Dec 1992	5,566	2.2	2,100	6.5	2,910	1.9	556	0.8
Dec 1993	5,984	2.3	2,113	6.4	3,148	2.0	723	1.1
Dec 1994	6,296	2.4	2,119	6.3	3,335	2.1	841	1.2
Dec 1995	6,514	2.5	2,115	6.3	3,482	2.2	917	1.3
Dec 1996	6,630	2.5	2,110	6.2	3,568	2.2	955	1.4
Dec 1997	6,495	2.4	2,054	6.0	3,562	2.2	880	1.3
Dec 1998	6,566	2.4	2,033	5.9	3,646	2.2	887	1.3
Dec 1999	6,557	2.4	2,019	5.8	3,691	2.2	847	1.2
Dec 2000	6,602	2.3	2,011	5.7	3,744	2.1	847	1.2
Dec 2001	6,688	2.3	1,995	5.6	3,811	2.1	882	1.2
Dec 2002	6,788	2.3	1,995	5.6	3,878	2.1	915	1.2

Note: December population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the Census Bureau's July 1 population estimates for the current and the following year. See Appendix A, Tables SSI 2, SSI 8, and SSI 9 for more detailed data on SSI recipiency rates. In this report the categories of children under 18 and adults 18-64 differ from those in previous editions where the category of children included a small number of dependents 18 and older who were students.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement 2003 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics), and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Indicator 4. Rates of Participation in Means-tested Assistance Programs

Figure IND 4. Participation Rates in the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Programs Selected Years

Source: AFDC and SSI participation rates are tabulated using TRIM3 microsimulation model, while food stamp participation rates are from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model. See Tables IND 4a, IND 4b, and IND 4c for details.

Whereas Indicator 3 examined participants as a percentage of the total population (recipiency rates), this indicator examines participating families or households as a percentage of the estimated eligible population (participation rates, also known as “take up” rates).
Only 48 percent of the families estimated as eligible for TANF cash assistance actually enrolled and received benefits in an average month in 2001. This is significantly lower than AFDC participation rates, which ranged from 77 percent to 86 percent between 1981 and 1996. See Table IND 4a for further information.
The food stamp participation rate edged up slightly between 2000 and 2001, from 53 to 54 percent. The participation rate is still much lower than the 1994 rate of 70 percent. See Table IND 4b for further discussion.
After rising steadily over the past several years, the SSI participation rate appears to have dropped nearly 6 percentage points between 2000 and 2001. At 70 percent it still is much higher than recent TANF and Food Stamp participation rates. See Table IND 4c for details by age and disability status.

Table IND 4a. Number and Percentage of Eligible Families Participating in AFDC/TANF Selected Years

Calendar Year	Eligible Families(in millions)	Participating Families(in millions)	Participation Rate(percent)
1981	4.78	3.84	80.2
1983	4.75	3.69	77.7
1985	4.67	3.70	79.3
1987	4.92	3.78	76.7
1988	4.78	3.75	78.4
1989	4.54	3.80	83.6
1990	4.93	4.06	82.2
1992	5.64	4.83	85.7
1993	6.14	5.01	81.7
1994 (revised)	6.13	5.03	82.1
1995	5.69	4.80	84.3
1996	5.62	4.43	78.9
1997 (adjusted)	5.41	3.74	69.2
1998 (adjusted)	5.47	3.05	55.8
1999	5.07	2.65	52.3
2000	4.44	2.30	51.8
2001	4.56	2.19	48.0

Notes: Participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) which uses CPS data to simulate AFDC/TANF eligibility and participation for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Most notably, since 1994, the model has been revised to more accurately estimate SSI participation among children, and in 1997 and 1998 the model was adjusted to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. In contrast to past editions, this table now includes families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs. Note that families subject to full-family sanctions are counted as nonparticipating eligible families due to modeling limitations. Also, the numbers of eligible and participating families include the territories and pregnant women without children, even though these two small groups are excluded from the TRIM model. The numbers shown here implicitly assume that participation rates for the territories and for pregnant women with no other children are the same as for all other eligibles.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, caseload tabulations and unpublished data from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Between 2000 and 2001, eligibility for the TANF program increased slightly from 4.44 to 4.56 million families. This eligibility increase is primarily due to changes in the economy and/or population rather than changes in TANF eligibility rules.
Despite the small increase in TANF eligibility in 2001, caseloads continued to fall, resulting in a drop in the participation rate for the sixth consecutive year.
Participating families includes families receiving TANF cash assistance only. Families who receive services and benefits other than cash assistance are not included in the participation rate.

Table IND 4b. Number and Percentage of Eligible Households Participating in the Food Stamp Program: Selected Years

Date	Eligible Households (in millions)	Participating Households (in millions)	Participation Rate (percent)
September 76	16.3	5.3	32.6
February 78	14.0	5.3	37.8
August 80	14.0	7.4	52.5
August 82	14.5	7.5	51.5
August 84	14.2	7.3	51.6
August 86	15.3	7.1	46.5
August 88	14.9	7.0	47.1
August 90	14.5	8.0	54.9
August 91	15.6	9.2	59.1
August 92	16.7	10.2	61.6
August 93	17.0	10.9	64.0
September 94 (revised)	15.3	10.7	69.6
September 95	15.0	10.4	69.2
September 96	15.3	9.9	65.1
September 97	14.7	8.4	57.5
September 98	14.0	7.6	54.2
September 99	13.6	7.3	53.7
September 00	13.5	7.1	52.9
September 01	13.9	7.5	54.0

Note: Eligible households estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Food Stamp Program. Caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Most notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate (and lower) estimates of eligible households. The original 1994 estimate and estimates for previous years show higher estimates of eligibles and lower participation rates relative to the revised estimate for 1994 and estimates for subsequent years.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2001, July 2003.

Between September 2000 and September 2001, there was a small increase in households eligible for the Food Stamp Program (from 13.5 to 13.9 million households). Caseloads grew at a slightly higher rate over the same year. The net effect was a small increase in the measured participation rate, from 53 to 54 percent.
Over the longer run, there has been a significant drop in food stamp caseloads, from over 10 million in 1992 through 1995, to 7.5 million in 2001. This decline in caseloads occurred during a time when both the eligible population and the program participation rates were generally decreasing. These longer-term decreases are considerably larger than the small increases experienced in 2001.

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program, by Type 1993-2001

	All Adult Units	One-Person Units		Married-Couple Units
		Aged	Disabled
		Aged	Disabled		1993	62.0	57.0	71.0	37.0
1994	65.0	58.4	73.0	43.9
1995	69.1	64.9	74.0	52.2
1996	66.6	60.4	73.5	46.7
1997	71.1	62.7	79.4	49.1
1998	70.7	63.6	77.9	48.1
1999	74.3	65.8	83.3	47.8
2000	75.8	70.9	82.3	49.9
2001	69.7	64.4	75.9	45.7

Notes: Participation rates estimated using the TRIM3 microsimulation model, which uses CPS data to simulate SSI eligibility for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. In particular, the model was revised in 1997 to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. Thus the increased participation rate in 1997 is partly due to a revision in estimating methodology. Also note that the figure for married-couple units is based on very small sample sizes–for example, married-couple units were only about 7.5 percent of the eligible adults units and 5.1 percent of the units receiving SSI in the average month of 1998.

Source: Unpublished data from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

There was an apparent drop in the SSI participation rate among adult units between 2000 and 2001, from 76 to 70 percent. This decline occurred across aged one-person units, disabled one-person units, and married-couple units that are either aged or disabled and it is due to a significant increase in the estimated eligible population of these groups. There have not been similar increases in the participating populations, perhaps due to lags between application and enrollment.
The increase in the eligible population reflects a rise in the number of aged individuals, an increase in disabilities as reported on labor-market surveys (which may partially reflect tougher economic times), and a higher percentage of aged and disabled persons falling below the SSI eligibility limits. Some of the increase in the eligible population may be due to changes in the Current Population Survey (i.e., reweighting to reflect 2000 Census-based weights).
In 2001, as in past years, disabled adults in one-person units had a higher participation rate (76 percent) than both aged adults in one-person units (64 percent) and adults in married-couple units (46 percent).

Indicator 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), Among Those Receiving Assistance: 2001

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Of the 8 percent of the population in families receiving TANF, food stamps, or SSI benefits in an average month in 2001, about two-thirds (68 percent) received assistance from only one program. Most of these families received food stamps or SSI benefits only. However, other common patterns include food stamp and TANF receipt (19 percent) and food stamp and SSI receipt (12 percent).
Children are more likely than other age groups to live in families receiving TANF and/or food stamps. For example, 16 percent of children under six lived in families receiving any public assistance in an average month in 2001, and 5 percent of children under six, lived in families receiving both TANF and food stamps, as shown in Table IND 5a.
The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from at least one program among AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI in an average month decreased during the mid-to-late 1990s (from 13 percent in 1994 to 8 percent in 2001), as shown in Table IND 5b.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2001

	Any Receipt	One Program Only			Two Programs
	Any Receipt	TANF	FS	SSI	TANF & FS	FS & SSI
All Persons	8.1	0.3	3.9	1.4	1.5	1.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	5.2	0.1	2.4	1.0	1.0	0.7
Non-Hispanic Black	19.4	0.3	10.7	2.5	3.6	2.3
Hispanic	12.4	0.9	5.7	2.2	2.6	1.0
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5	15.7	0.8	8.7	0.7	5.1	0.5
Children Ages 6-10	13.8	0.6	8.0	0.7	3.8	0.6
Children Ages 11-15	11.3	0.6	6.3	0.8	3.0	0.7
Women Ages 16-64	7.5	0.2	3.6	1.1	1.5	1.1
Men Ages 16-64	5.0	0.1	2.4	1.4	0.5	0.7
Adults Age 65 and over	7.7	0.0	1.8	3.7	0.0	2.1

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt based on full recipient unit. In practice, individuals do not tend to receive both AFDC/TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs. The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from any one program in an average month (shown here) is lower than the percentage residing in families receiving assistance over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II).

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, SSI): 1993-2001

	Any Receipt	One Program Only			Two Programs
	Any Receipt	AFDC/ TANF	FS	SSI	AFDC/TANF & FS	FS & SSI
1993	12.6	0.6	5.2	1.1	4.8	1.0
1994	12.8	0.5	5.3	1.2	4.6	1.1
1995	12.3	0.4	5.0	1.2	4.5	1.1
1996	12.0	0.3	5.3	1.2	4.0	1.1
1997	10.2	0.4	4.3	1.3	3.1	1.0
1998	9.0	0.4	3.9	1.4	2.4	0.9
1999	8.5	0.4	3.8	1.3	2.0	1.0
2000	8.1	0.2	3.8	1.4	1.7	1.0
2001	8.1	0.3	3.9	1.4	1.5	1.0

See above for note and source.

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 1999 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 1998, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.

Recipients of means-tested assistance were more likely to move out of dependency in the late 1990s than in the early 1990s. Three-tenths (30 percent) of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 1998 transitioned out of this dependency status in 1999. The comparable transition rate was only 20 percent between 1993 and 1994, as shown in Table IND 6b.
Of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and/or SSI in 1998, there was little difference among racial and ethnic categories in dependency transitions between 1998 and 1999. Past SIPP panels (data not shown) had found more movement among non-Hispanic whites than among non-Hispanic blacks.
As shown in Table IND 6a, a slightly larger percentage of women who received more than half of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 1998 remained “dependent” in 1999 compared to the same group of men (71 percent compared to 66 percent).

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 1999 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means Tested Assistance in 1998, by Race/Ethnicity and Age

Individuals Receiving more than 50% of Income from Assistance in 1998	Total (000's)	Percentage of Persons Receiving
	Total (000's)	No Aid in 1999	Up to 50% in 1999	Over 50% in 1999
All Persons	8,163	2.9	27.1	70.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	2,657	4.3	25.8	70.0
Non-Hispanic Black	2,925	2.0	27.8	70.1
Hispanic	1,895	2.0	26.3	71.7
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5	1,271	3.6	29.7	66.6
Children Ages 6-10	1,056	2.1	27.4	70.6
Children Ages 11-15	998	2.9	29.0	68.1
Women Ages 16-64	2,847	3.7	25.5	70.8
Men Ages 16-64	1,337	2.7	31.6	65.7
Adults Age 65 and over	654	0.0	16.4	83.6

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI. While only affecting a small number of cases, general assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in families with more than 50 percent of total annual family income from these means-tested programs. Because full calendar year data for 1997-1998 were not available for all SIPP respondents, some transitions were based on twelve-month periods that did not correspond exactly to calendar years.

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.

Table IND 6b. Dependency Status of All Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means Tested Assistance in Previous Year

	Total (000’s)	Percentage of Persons Receiving
	Total (000’s)	No Aid in Second Year	Up to 50% in Second Year	Over 50% in Second Year
Transitions from:
1993 to 1994	14,810	1.6	18.6	79.8
1994 to 1995	13,986	2.7	18.8	78.5
1997 to 1998	9,672	3.1	28.8	68.1
1998 to 1999	8,163	2.9	27.1	70.0

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

Indicator 7. Dependence Spell Duration

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

In the late 1990s over two-fifths (41 percent) of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals in families with no one in the labor force ended within four months and over two-thirds (68 percent) ended within a year. These spells are measured for individuals entering AFDC/TANF between 1996 and 1999, during early implementation of the TANF program.
Spells were much longer for families entering AFDC between 1993 and 1995, as shown in Figure IND 7 and Table IND 7b. Half (50 percent) of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals in families where no one participated in the labor force lasted more than 20 months in the 1993 SIPP panel, compared with only 19 percent of that length in the 1996 SIPP panel.
As shown in Table IND 7a, the percentage of AFDC/TANF spells ending in four months or less was similar across racial/ethnic categories, ranging from 38 percent among non-Hispanic whites to 44 percent among non-Hispanic blacks.
Spells shown in Figure IND 7 are limited to spells of recipients in families without any labor force participation. Spell lengths are slightly shorter in Figure IND 8, which shows spells for all recipients, including those in families with labor force participants. For example, whereas 81 percent of spells between 1996 and 1999 shown in Figure IND 7 end in 20 months or less, 87 percent of all AFDC/TANF spells during this same time period last 20 months or less, as shown in Figure IND 8.

Table IND 7a. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
All Persons	40.5	27.5	13.3	18.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	38.4	35.8	NA	NA
Non-Hispanic Black	44.1	22.4	11.5	21.9
Hispanic	39.6	23.2	NA	NA
Age Categories
Ages 0-15 Years	38.9	25.0	12.9	23.2
Ages 16-64 Years	42.2	31.4	NA	NA

Note: Spell length categories are not mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. AFDC spells are defined as those spells starting during the 1996 SIPP panel for individuals in families with no labor force participants. For certain racial/ethnic and age categories, data are not available (N/A) due to insufficient sample size.

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.

Table Ind 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 Panel All Persons	27.2	16.2	6.9	49.7
1996 Panel All Persons	40.5	27.5	13.3	18.7

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

Indicator 8. Program Spell Duration

Figure IND 8. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 Panel.

Between the years 1996 and 1999, short spells lasting 4 months or less accounted for about 47 percent of AFDC/TANF spells, 43 percent of food stamp spells, and 34 percent of SSI spells.
Approximately three-fourths of all AFDC/TANF and food stamp spells lasted one year or less (76 percent and 71 percent, respectively). In contrast, only 53 percent of SSI spells ended within one year.
As shown in Table IND 8a, for TANF/AFDC spells, a smaller percentage of long spells (lasting more than 20 months) occurred among non-Hispanic whites compared to non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics.
Spells of welfare receipt were shorter in the second half of the 1990s than in the early 1990s, as shown in Table IND 8b. For example, only 13 percent of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals entering AFDC/TANF between 1996 and 1999 lasted 20 months or longer, compared with 34 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994.
Short spells are less common among recipients in families without labor force participants, as shown previously in Figure and Table IND 7.
Length of TANF receipt varies across states, as shown in Appendix Table TANF 17, which shows an alternative measure of length of TANF receipt, using state administrative data.

Table IND 8a. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

		Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
AFDC/TANF	All Recipients	46.6	29.2	11.5	12.7
	Racial/Ethnic Categories
	Non-Hispanic White	47.4	33.0	10.7	8.9
	Non-Hispanic Black	45.2	28.3	13.6	12.9
	Hispanic	46.3	25.4	10.5	17.9
	Age Categories
	Ages 0-5 Years	41.8	33.2	10.8	14.2
	Ages 6 to 10 Years	49.4	24.6	9.0	17.0
	Ages 11 to 15 Years	42.5	25.6	N/A	N/A
	Ages 16 to 64 Years	48.6	30.7	12.0	8.7
	65 Years and Older	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
FOOD STAMPS	All Recipients	43.1	27.7	9.3	19.8
	Racial/Ethnic Categories
	Non-Hispanic White	46.5	27.5	9.4	16.7
	Non-Hispanic Black	38.6	28.5	9.1	23.9
	Hispanic	41.7	28.5	8.1	21.8
	Age Categories
	Ages 0 to 5 years	36.5	31.4	8.6	23.5
	Ages 6 to 10 years	40.6	27.3	9.1	22.9
	Ages 11-15	40.4	30.3	10.0	19.3
	Ages 16-64	46.2	26.7	9.6	17.6
	65 Years and Older	31.7	26.8	6.9	34.7
SSI	All Recipients	34.1	19.2	9.1	37.6
	Racial/Ethnic Categories
	Non-Hispanic White	36.8	18.7	7.8	36.7
	Non-Hispanic Black	34.8	19.7	9.5	36.0
	Hispanic	27.1	22.4	9.8	40.7
	Age Categories
	Ages 0-10	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Ages 11-15	30.9	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Ages 16-64	37.1	20.1	8.6	34.2
	65 Years and Older	22.1	16.7	11.9	49.3

Note: Spell length categories are not mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. AFDC/TANF spells are defined as those starting during the 1996 SIPP Panel. For certain age categories, data are not available (N/A) because of insufficient sample size.

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 Panel.

Table IND 8b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1992, 1993, and 1996 SIPP Panels

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1992 Panel
AFDC	30.4	24.7	10.5	34.4
Food Stamps	33.4	24.9	10.2	31.5
SSI	25.7	8.9	4.8	60.6
1993 Panel
AFDC	30.7	25.4	12.5	31.4
Food Stamps	33.1	26.8	10.1	30.0
SSI	24.0	7.9	4.7	63.4
1996 Panel
AFDC/TANF	46.6	29.2	11.5	12.7
Food Stamps	43.1	27.7	9.3	19.8
SSI	34.1	19.2	9.1	37.6

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1992, 1993, and 1996 Panels.

Indicator 9. Long-term Receipt

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients, by Years of Receipt Between 1991 and 2000

Source: Unpublished data from the PSID public release data files, 1992-2001.

Among all persons receiving AFDC/TANF at some point in the ten-year period ending in 2000, about half (51 percent) received assistance in only one or two of these years. Less than one third (31 percent) received AFDC/TANF in three to five years, and less than one fifth (18 percent) received AFDC/TANF during more than five of the ten years.
A larger percentage of child recipients experienced long-term receipt (some receipt in at least six of the ten years) and a smaller percentage experienced short-term receipt in all three time periods relative to the percentages for all recipients, as shown in Table IND 9.
Longer-term welfare receipt was much less common during the 1990s compared to earlier decades. Less than 4 percent of those with some AFDC/TANF assistance between 1991 and 2000 received at least one assistance payment in nine or ten years of the period, compared to 12 percent and 13 percent of AFDC recipients in the earlier two time periods.
In the two ten-year time periods between 1971-1990, there was a large percentage difference in short-term AFDC receipt between all black and non-black recipients. In the ten-year period ending in 2000, this percentage difference was much smaller, with 49 percent of blacks and 53 percent of non-blacks receiving AFDC/TANF in only one or two years.

Table IND 9: Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients Across Three Ten-Year Time Periods by Years of Receipt, Race, and Age

All Races:
	All Recipients			Child Recipients 0-5
	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000
Years received AFDC/TANF:
1-2 Years	44.0	44.8	50.9	36.3	36.1	37.9
3-5 Years	30.1	26.5	30.9	28.1	24.1	33.9
6-8 Years	12.5	16.4	14.5	17.9	20.5	23.3
9-10 Years	13.3	12.2	3.8	17.7	19.4	4.9
Black:
	All Recipients			Child Recipients 0-5
	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000
Years received AFDC/TANF:
1-2 Years	30.8	35.8	48.6	24.2	26.9	37.7
3-5 Years	31.9	28.4	24.2	28.4	25.7	28.2
6-8 Years	18.6	17.5	NA	24.7	18.7	NA
9-10 Years	18.7	18.4	NA	22.8	28.7	NA
Non-Black:
	All Recipients			Child Recipients 0-5
	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000	1971-1980	1981-1990	1991-2000
Years received AFDC/TANF:
1-2 Years	51.0	51.3	52.6	45.0	43.0	38.2
3-5 Years	29.2	25.2	36.0	27.8	22.9	38.7
6-8 Years	9.4	15.7	NA	13.1	21.8	NA
9-10 Years	10.5	7.9	NA	14.1	12.3	NA

Note: The base for the percentages consists of individuals receiving at least $1 of AFDC/TANF in any year in the ten-year period. Child recipients are defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This indicator measures years of recipiency over the specified ten-year time periods and does not take into account years of recipiency that may have occurred before or after each ten-year period.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the estimates for non-black persons but are not shown separately. Data are not available (NA) separately by race for longer periods of cumulative receipt (6 or more years) in the most recent 10-year period.

Source: Unpublished data from the PSID public release data files, 1992-2001.

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

The Welfare Indicators Act challenges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to identify and set forth not only indicators of welfare dependence and welfare duration but also predictors and causes of welfare receipt. However, welfare research has not established clear and definitive causes of welfare dependence. Instead, it has identified a number of risk factors associated with welfare use. For the purposes of this report, the terms “predictors” and “risk factors” are used somewhat interchangeably.

Following the recommendation of the Advisory Board, this chapter includes a wide range of possible predictors and risk factors. As research advances, some of the “predictors” included in this chapter may turn out to be simply correlates of welfare receipt, some may have a causal relationship, some may be consequences, and some may have predictive value.

The predictors/risk factors included in this chapter are grouped into three categories: economic security risk factors, employment-related risk factors, and risk factors associated with non-marital childbearing.

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON). The first group includes eight measures associated with economic security. This group encompasses five measures of poverty, as well as measures of child support receipt, food insecurity, and lack of health insurance. The tables and figures illustrating measures of economic security are labeled with the prefix ECON throughout this chapter.

Poverty measures are important predictors of dependence, because families with fewer economic resources are more likely to be dependent on means-tested assistance. In addition, poverty and other measures of deprivation, such as food insecurity, are important to assess in conjunction with the measures of dependence outlined in Chapter II.

Reductions in caseloads and dependence can reduce poverty, to the extent that such reductions are associated with greater work activity and higher economic resources for former welfare families. However, reductions in welfare caseloads can increase poverty and other deprivation measures, to the extent that former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources.

Several aspects of poverty are examined in this chapter. Those that can be updated annually using the Current Population Survey include: overall poverty rates (ECON 1); the percentage of individuals in deep poverty (ECON 2), and poverty rates using alternative definitions of income (ECON 3 and 4). The chapter also includes data on the length of poverty episodes or spells (ECON 5). A ten-year measure of poverty (ECON 6 in last year’s report) has been dropped due to reductions in the frequency and detail of data collection under the PSID.

This chapter also includes data on child support collections (ECON 6), which can play an important role in reducing dependence on government assistance and thus serve as a predictor of dependence. Household food insecurity (ECON 7) is an important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over time. Finally, health insurance (ECON 8) is tied to the income level of the family, and may be a precursor to future health problems among adults and children.

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK). The second grouping, labeled with the WORK prefix, includes seven factors related to employment and barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and the employment and earnings for low-skilled workers, as well as data on barriers to work. The latter category includes incidence of adult and child disabilities, adult substance abuse, and levels of educational attainment and school drop-out rates.

Employment and earnings provide many families with an escape from dependence. It is important, therefore, to look both at overall labor force attachment (WORK 1), and at employment and earnings levels for those with low education levels (WORK 2 and WORK 3). The economic condition of the low-skill labor market is a key predictor of the ability of young adult men and women to support families without receiving means-tested assistance.

The next two measures in this group (WORK 4 and WORK 5) focus on educational attainment. Individuals with less than a high school education have the lowest amount of human capital and are at the greatest risk of becoming poor, despite their work effort.

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be predictors of greater dependence. Substance abuse (WORK 6) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 7) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work. In addition, debilitating health conditions and high medical expenditures can place a strain on a family’s economic resources.

Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH). The final group of risk factors addresses out-of-wedlock childbearing. The tables and figures in this subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix. This category includes long-term time trends in births to unmarried women (BIRTH 1), births to unmarried teens (BIRTH 2 and BIRTH 3), and children living in families with never-married parents (BIRTH 4). Children living in families with never-married mothers are at high risk of dependence, and it is therefore important to track changes in the size of this vulnerable population.

As noted above, the predictors/risk factors included in this chapter do not represent an exhaustive list of measures. They are merely a sampling of available data that address in some way the question of how a family is faring on the scale of deprivation and well-being. Such questions are a necessary part of the dependence discussion as researchers assess the effects of welfare reform.

Economic Security Risk Factors

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

The official poverty rate was 12.1 percent in 2002, an increase over the rate of 11.7 percent in 2001. Even so, the percentage of persons living in poverty in 2002 was below the poverty rates experienced in most of the 1980s and 1990s.
Children under 18 had a poverty rate of 16.7 percent in 2002, statistically unchanged from 2001. As in past years, the child poverty rate is considerably higher than the overall poverty rate.
The poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 10.4 percent in 2002, an increase over the 2001 rate. This was a lower poverty rate than the rate for children under 18 (16.7 percent) and statistically indistinguishable from that of adults ages 18-64.
Poverty rates by race are affected by a change in the questionnaire that allows individuals to report one or more races. The poverty rate for individuals reporting black race alone was 24.1 percent, as shown in Table ECON 1; the rate for those reporting black alone or in combination with other races was 23.9 percent (data not shown). Under either measurement, the gap between black and white poverty rates was close to 14 percentage points, slightly higher than the historic low of 13 percentage points in 2000 and 2001; but significantly lower than the early 1990s, when it exceeded 21 percentage points.

Table ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: Selected Years

Calendar Year	Related Children		All Persons				White	Black	Hispanic Origin
Calendar Year	Ages 0-5	Ages 6-17	Total	Under 18	18 to 64	65 & over	White	Black	Hispanic Origin
1959	NA	NA	22.4	27.3	17.0	35.2	18.1	55.1	NA
1963	NA	NA	19.5	23.1	NA	NA	15.3	NA	NA
1966	NA	NA	14.7	17.6	10.5	28.5	11.3	41.8	NA
1969	15.3	13.1	12.1	14.0	8.7	25.3	9.5	32.2	NA
1973	15.7	13.6	11.1	14.4	8.3	16.3	8.4	31.4	21.9
1976	17.7	15.1	11.8	16.0	9.0	15.0	9.1	31.1	24.7
1979	17.9	15.1	11.7	16.4	8.9	15.2	9.0	31.0	21.8
1980	20.3	16.8	13.0	18.3	10.1	15.7	10.2	32.5	25.7
1981	22.0	18.4	14.0	20.0	11.1	15.3	11.1	34.2	26.5
1982	23.3	20.4	15.0	21.9	12.0	14.6	12.0	35.6	29.9
1983	24.6	20.4	15.2	22.3	12.4	13.8	12.1	35.7	28.0
1984	23.4	19.7	14.4	21.5	11.7	12.4	11.5	33.8	28.4
1985	22.6	18.8	14.0	20.7	11.3	12.6	11.4	31.3	29.0
1986	21.6	18.8	13.6	20.5	10.8	12.4	11.0	31.1	27.3
1987	22.3	18.3	13.4	20.3	10.6	12.5	10.4	32.4	28.0
1988	21.8	17.5	13.0	19.5	10.5	12.0	10.1	31.3	26.7
1989	21.9	17.4	12.8	19.6	10.2	11.4	10.0	30.7	26.2
1990	23.0	18.2	13.5	20.6	10.7	12.2	10.7	31.9	28.1
1991	24.0	19.5	14.2	21.8	11.4	12.4	11.3	32.7	28.7
1992	25.7	19.4	14.8	22.3	11.9	12.9	11.9	33.4	29.6
1993	25.6	20.0	15.1	22.7	12.4	12.2	12.2	33.1	30.6
1994	24.5	19.5	14.5	21.8	11.9	11.7	11.7	30.6	30.7
1995	23.7	18.3	13.8	20.8	11.4	10.5	11.2	29.3	30.3
1996	22.7	18.3	13.7	20.5	11.4	10.8	11.2	28.4	29.4
1997	21.6	18.0	13.3	19.9	10.9	10.5	11.0	26.5	27.1
1998	20.6	17.1	12.7	18.9	10.5	10.5	10.5	26.1	25.6
1999	18.0	15.5	11.9	17.1	10.1	9.7	9.8	23.6	22.7
2000	17.8	14.7	11.3	16.2	9.6	9.9	9.5	22.5	21.5
2001	18.2	14.6	11.7	16.3	10.1	10.1	9.9	22.7	21.4
2002	18.5	15.2	12.1	16.7	10.6	10.4	10.2	24.1	21.8

Notes: All persons under 18 include related children (own children, including stepchildren and adopted children, plus all other children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), unrelated individuals under 18 (persons who are not living with any relatives), and householders or spouses under age 18.

In this table, race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. For example, the poverty rate of 10.2 percent shown for Whites in 2002 is for “White Alone including Hispanic.” Though not shown, the rate for “White Alone or in Combination with other races” was 10.3 percent and for “White Alone, Non-Hispanic” the rate was 8 percent. American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately, due to small sample size.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

Economic Security Risk Factor 2. Deep Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population Below 50 and 100 Percent of Poverty Level 1975-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 4.9 percent in 2002, compared to an overall poverty rate of 12.1 percent.
In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty threshold has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate, as shown in Figure ECON 2. The percentage of people below 50 percent of poverty rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but then, after falling slightly, rose to a second peak in 1993. The overall poverty rate followed a somewhat similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
Over the past two decades, there has been an overall increase in the proportion of the poverty population in deep poverty. From a low of 28 percent of the poverty population in 1976, this population rose to nearly 41 percent in 2002.
The total number of poor people in 2002 was 34.6 million, as shown in Table ECON 2. While higher than the previous year, this number was 4.7 million lower than the peak of 39.3 million in 1993.

Table ECON 2. Number and Percentage of Total Population Below 50, 75, 100, and 125 Percent of Poverty Level: Selected Years

Year	Total Population (thousands)	Below 50 percent		Below 75 percent		Below 100 percent		Below 125 percent
Year	Total Population (thousands)	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
1959	176,600	NA	NA	NA	NA	39,500	22.4	54,900	31.1
1961	181,300	NA	NA	NA	NA	39,600	21.9	54,300	30.0
1963	187,300	NA	NA	NA	NA	36,400	19.5	50,800	27.1
1965	191,400	NA	NA	NA	NA	33,200	17.3	46,200	24.1
1967	195,700	NA	NA	NA	NA	27,800	14.2	39,200	20.0
1969	199,500	9,600	4.8	16,400	8.2	24,100	12.1	34,700	17.4
1971	204,600	NA	NA	NA	NA	25,600	12.5	36,500	17.8
1973	208,500	NA	NA	NA	NA	23,000	11.1	32,800	15.8
1975	210,900	7,700	3.7	15,400	7.3	25,900	12.3	37,100	17.6
1976	212,300	7,000	3.3	14,900	7.0	25,000	11.8	35,500	16.7
1977	213,900	7,500	3.5	15,000	7.0	24,700	11.6	35,700	16.7
1978	215,700	7,700	3.6	14,900	6.9	24,500	11.4	34,100	15.8
1979	222,900	8,600	3.8	16,300	7.3	26,100	11.7	36,600	16.4
1980	225,000	9,800	4.4	18,700	8.3	29,300	13.0	40,700	18.1
1981	227,200	11,200	4.9	20,700	9.1	31,800	14.0	43,800	19.3
1982	229,400	12,800	5.6	23,200	10.1	34,400	15.0	46,600	20.3
1983	231,700	13,600	5.9	23,600	10.2	35,300	15.2	47,000	20.3
1984	233,800	12,800	5.5	22,700	9.7	33,700	14.4	45,400	19.4
1985	236,600	12,400	5.2	22,200	9.4	33,100	13.6	44,200	18.7
1986	238,600	12,700	5.3	22,400	9.4	32,400	14.0	44,600	18.7
1987	241,000	12,500	5.2	21,700	9.0	32,200	13.4	43,100	17.9
1988	243,500	12,700	5.2	21,400	8.8	31,700	13.0	42,600	17.5
1989	246,000	12,000	4.9	20,700	8.4	31,500	12.8	42,600	17.3
1990	248,600	12,900	5.2	22,600	9.1	33,600	13.5	44,800	18.0
1991	251,200	14,100	5.6	24,400	9.7	35,700	14.2	47,500	18.9
1992	256,500	15,500	6.1	26,200	10.2	38,000	14.8	50,500	19.7
1993	259,300	16,000	6.2	27,200	10.5	39,300	15.1	51,900	20.0
1994	261,600	15,400	5.9	26,400	10.1	38,100	14.5	50,500	19.3
1995	263,700	13,900	5.3	24,500	9.3	36,400	13.8	48,800	18.5
1996	266,200	14,400	5.4	24,800	9.3	36,500	13.7	49,300	18.5
1997	268,500	14,600	5.4	24,200	9.0	35,600	13.3	47,800	17.8
1998	271,100	13,900	5.1	23,000	8.5	34,500	12.7	46,000	17.0
1999	276,200	12,900	4.7	21,800	7.9	32,800	11.9	45,000	16.3
2000	278,900	12,600	4.5	20,500	7.4	31,100	11.3	43,500	15.8
2001	281,500	13,400	4.8	22,000	7.8	32,900	11.7	45,300	16.1
2002	285,300	14,100	4.9	23,100	8.1	34,600	12.1	47,100	16.5

Note: The number of persons below 50 percent and 75 percent of poverty for 1969 are estimated based on the distribution of persons below 50 percent and 75 percent for 1969 taken from the 1970 decennial census.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html, and 1970 Census of Population, Volume 1, Social and Economic Characteristics, Table 259.

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Experimental Poverty Measures

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Age: 2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Three experimental measures of poverty (developed by the Census Bureau in response to the recommendation of a 1995 panel of the National Academy of Sciences) yield poverty rates that are similar to the official poverty measure overall, but differ by age and other characteristics.
Experimental measures generally show lower poverty rates among children than the official measure, partly because they take into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, experimental measures show higher rates of poverty among the elderly than the official measure, in part due to the inclusion of certain out-of-pocket health costs in these measures.
All three alternative measures shown in Figure Econ 3 take into account geographic adjustments (GA) in housing costs; the measures can also be calculated with no geographic adjustment (NGA), as shown in Tables ECON 3a and 3b. See note to Table ECON 3a.

Table ECON 3a. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

	Official	Alt1 MSI-NGA	Alt2 MIT-NGA	Alt3 CMB-NGA	Alt1 MSI-GA	Alt2 MIT-GA	Alt3 CMB-GA
All Persons	12.1	12.4	13.0	13.0	12.3	12.8	12.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	8.0	8.9	9.2	9.4	8.4	8.5	8.8
Non-Hispanic Black	24.1	21.2	22.2	22.3	20.6	21.1	21.3
Hispanic	21.8	21.09	22.7	22.2	23.3	25.4	24.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-17	16.7	13.8	15.3	14.7	13.9	15.2	14.6
Adults Ages 18-64	10.6	10.8	11.6	11.3	10.8	11.5	11.3
Adults Age 65 and over	10.4	16.7	14.4	17.6	16.0	13.4	16.9

Note: These experimental poverty measures implement changes recommended by a 1995 NAS panel, including: counting non-cash income as benefits; subtracting from income certain work-related, health, and child care expenses; and adjusting poverty thresholds for family size and geographic differences in housing costs. The three alternative measures are similar, except that each account for out-of-pocket medical expenses differently. For the first alternative (“MOOP subtracted from income” or MSI), medical out-of-pocket expenses (MOOP) are subtracted from income. The second alternative, (“MOOP in the threshold” or MIT) increases the poverty thresholds to take MOOP expenses into account. The third measure, CMB for combined methods, combines attributes of the previous two measures. Each of the three measures is calculated with and without accounting for geographic adjustments (GA and NGA). These experimental measures are different from those reported in last year’s report because the Census Bureau changed its methodology based on research conducted to refine the NAS panel’s experimental methods.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Non-Hispanic Whites and Non-Hispanic Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race, such as “White and Asian,” are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders also are included in the total for all persons but are

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Table ECON 3b. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures 1999-2002

	1999	2000	2001	2002
Official Measure	11.9	11.3	11.7	12.1
No Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds
Medical costs alternative 1 (MSI-NGA)	12.2	12.1	12.4	12.4
Medical costs alternative 2 (MIT-NGA)	12.8	12.7	12.8	13.0
Medical costs alternative 3 (CMB-NGA)	12.9	12.8	13.0	13.0
Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds
Medical costs alternative 1 (MSI-GA)	12.1	12.0	12.3	12.3
Medical costs alternative 2 (MIT-GA)	12.7	12.5	12.7	12.8
Medical costs alternative 3 (CMB-GA)	12.8	12.6	12.9	12.9

See above for note and source.

Economic Security Risk Factor 4. Poverty Rates with Various Means-tested Benefits Included

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2002

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The official definition of poverty – which includes means-tested cash assistance (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-tax cash income and social insurance – was 12.1 percent in 2002, as shown in the bold line with empty boxes in Figure ECON 4. Without cash welfare, the 2002 poverty rate would be 12.8 percent, as shown by the top line in the figure above.
Adding other non-cash, public assistance benefits to this definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people who have incomes below the official poverty rate. Adding in the value of food and housing benefits reduces the poverty rate to 10.9 percent in 2002.
When income is defined as including benefits from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and federal taxes, the percentage of the total population in poverty decreases to 10.0 percent in 2002. Taxes have had a net effect of reducing poverty rates since the significant increases in the size of the EITC in 1993 and 1995.
The combined effect of means-tested cash assistance, food and housing benefits, EITC and taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2002 by 2.8 percentage points, as shown in Table ECON 4. Net reductions in poverty rates were somewhat lower during the recession of the early 1980s, and somewhat higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

Table ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: Selected Years

	1979	1983	1986	1989	1992	1995	1998	2000	2002
Cash Income Plus All Social Insurance	12.8	16.0	14.5	13.8	15.6	14.9	13.5	12.0	12.8
Plus Means-Tested Cash Assistance	11.6	15.2	13.6	12.8	14.5	13.8	12.7	11.3	12.1
Plus Food and Housing Benefits	9.7	13.7	12.2	11.2	12.9	12.0	11.3	10.1	10.9
Plus EITC and Federal Taxes	10.0	14.7	13.1	11.8	13.0	11.5	10.4	9.5	10.0
Reduction in Poverty Rate	2.8	1.3	1.4	2.0	2.6	3.4	3.1	2.5	2.8

Note: The four measures of income are as follows: 1) “Cash Income plus All Social Insurance” is earnings and other private cash income, plus social security, workers’ compensation, and other social insurance programs. It does not include means-tested cash transfers; (2) “Plus Means-Tested Assistance” shows the official poverty rate, which takes into account means-tested assistance, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI; (3) “Plus Food and Housing Benefits” shows how poverty would be lower if the cash value of food and housing benefits were counted as income; and (4); “Plus EITC and Federal Taxes” is the most comprehensive poverty rate shown. EITC refers to the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, which is always a positive adjustment to income whereas Federal payroll and income taxes are a negative adjustment. The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included.

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

About half of all poverty spells that began during the 1996 SIPP panel ended within four months, and 80 percent ended within one year. Only 11 percent of all such spells were longer than 20 months.
Spells of poverty that began between 1993 and 1995 were slightly longer; 47 percent ended within four months and 16 percent were longer than 20 months.
Poverty spells among adults age 65 and older were more likely to last longer than 20 months (17 percent) than spells among other age groups, as shown in Table ECON 5a.

Table ECON 5a. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
All Persons	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
Non-Hispanic White	54.6	28.1	7.6	9.7
Non-Hispanic Black	45.5	27.7	10.1	16.7
Hispanic	46.8	32.9	8.6	11.7
Age Categories
Ages 0 to 5 Years	46.8	29.6	10.8	12.9
Ages 6 to 10 Years	47.1	29.7	9.2	14.0
Ages 11 to 15 Years	49.5	30.9	7.9	11.7
Women Ages 16-64 years	50.7	29.3	8.5	11.5
Men Ages 16-64 Years	55.7	28.9	7.0	8.4
Adults Age 65 Years and Older	51.1	23.8	7.7	17.4

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.

Table ECON 5b Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell and Year

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 Panel All Persons	47.3	28.1	8.9	15.7
1996 Panel All Persons	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child SUPPORT

Figure ECON 6. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Collections: 2003 TANF Report to Congress (and earlier years), Washington, DC.

Collections paid through the Child Support Enforcement system (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) totaled $20.1 billion in 2002, over $1 billion more than in 2001. Since 1990, child support collections grew rapidly, at an average rate of almost $1.1 billion a year.
In recent years, non-TANF collections have generally increased as a percentage of overall collections by the IV-D program. (Non-TANF collections include collections paid to former TANF families and families with no contact with the welfare system.) However, between 2001 and 2002, the $878 million growth in non-TANF collections was smaller in percentage terms than $302 million growth in TANF collections (5 percent compared to over 11 percent).
A number of states have opted to pass through some or all of collections to the custodial TANF family, even though the 1996 welfare reform repealed the former requirement for a $50 “pass-through” to families. In recent years, the amount of TANF collections paid to TANF families has been difficult to track because of changes in data reporting forms. Available data suggest these payments declined in fiscal years 1997-2000, with a 100 percent increase shown in fiscal year 2001 and a 122 percent increase in 2002, as shown in Table ECON 6.
Almost 75 percent of TANF collections (collections on behalf of TANF recipients and for past due support assigned to the state by former TANF recipients) were retained in 2002 to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost of welfare benefits.

Table ECON 6. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002

Fiscal Year	Total Collections (in millions)						Total IV-D Administrative Expenditures
	Total		AFDC/TANF Collections			Non-AFDC/TANF Collections
	Current Dollars	Constant '02 Dollars	Total	Payments to AFDC/TANF Families	Federal & State Share of Collections	Non-AFDC/TANF Collections
1978	$1,047	$2,829	$472	$13	$459	$575	$312
1979	1,333	3,307	597	12	584	736	383
1980	1,478	3,288	603	10	593	874	466
1981	1,629	3,300	671	12	659	958	526
1982	1,771	3,349	786	15	771	985	612
1983	2,024	3,676	880	15	865	1,144	691
1984	2,378	4,138	1,000	17	983	1,378	723
1985	2,694	4,520	1,090	189	901	1,604	814
1986	3,249	5,311	1,225	275	955	2,019	941
1987	3,917	6,235	1,349	278	1,070	2,569	1,066
1988	4,605	7,054	1,486	289	1,188	3,128	1,171
1989	5,241	7,647	1,593	307	1,286	3,648	1,363
1990	6,010	8,354	1,750	334	1,416	4,260	1,606
1991	6,886	9,111	1,984	381	1,603	4,902	1,804
1992	7,964	10,228	2,259	435	1,824	5,705	1,995
1993	8,907	11,104	2,416	446	1,971	6,491	2,241
1994	9,850	11,963	2,550	457	2,093	7,300	2,556
1995	10,827	12,794	2,689	474	2,215	8,138	3,012
1996	12,020	13,820	2,855	480	2,375	9,165	3,049
1997	13,364	14,961	2,843	157	2,685	10,521	3,428
1998	14,348	15,805	2,650	152	2,498	11,698	3,585
1999	15,901	17,189	2,482	113	2,368	13,421	4,039
2000	17,854	18,701	2,593	165	2,428	15,261	4,526
2001	18,958	19,237	2,592	332	2,259	16,366	4,835
2002	20,137	20,137	2,893	737	2,156	17,244	5,183

Note: Not all states report current child support collections in all years. Constant dollar adjustments to the 2000 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index. Due to changes in data reporting forms, data for fiscal years 1999 and thereafter relating to the Federal and State Share of TANF collections include assistance reimbursement for former TANF families and may not be exactly comparable to that of previous years. The total collection of payments to AFDC/TANF families can also include payments made to Medicaid only recipients.

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2002

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002.

A large majority (89 percent) of American households was food secure in 2002 – that is, showed little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake.
The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger in 2002 was estimated to be 3.5 percent. During the twelve months ending in December 2002, one or more members of these households experienced reduced food intake and hunger as a result of financial constraints. Food insecurity would be lower measured over a monthly basis.
An additional 7.6 percent of households experienced food insecurity, but were without hunger, during the twelve months ending in December 2002. Although these households showed signs of food insecurity in their concerns and in adjustments to household food management, little or no reduction in food intake was reported.
Poor households have a higher rate of food insecurity with hunger (14.3 percent) than the 3.5 percent rate among the general population, as shown in Table ECON 7a. Only 1.5 percent of families with incomes at or above 185 percent of the poverty level showed evidence of food insecurity with hunger.

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2002

	Food Secure	Food Insecure Total	Food Insecure Without Hunger	Food Insecure With Hunger
All Households	88.9	11.1	7.6	3.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	92.0	8.0	5.3	2.6
Non-Hispanic Black	78.0	22.0	14.8	7.2
Hispanic	78.3	21.7	16.0	5.7
Households, by Age
Households with Children Under 6	82.2	17.8	14.4	3.4
Households with Children Under 18	83.5	16.5	12.7	3.8
Households with Elderly	93.7	6.3	4.4	1.9
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.00	61.9	38.1	23.8	14.3
Under 1.30	66.3	33.7	21.6	12.1
Under 1.85	70.8	29.2	19.5	9.7
1.85 and over	94.9	5.1	3.6	1.5

Note: Food secure households show little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake. Households classified as food insecure without hunger report food-related concerns, adjustments to household food management, and reduced variety and desirability of diet, but report little or no reduction in food intake. Households classified as food insecure with hunger report recurring reductions in food intake or hunger by one or more persons in the household

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002.

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2002

	Food Secure	Food Insecure Total	Food Insecure Without Hunger	Food Insecure With Hunger
1998	88.2	11.8	8.1	3.7
1999	89.9	10.1	7.1	3.0
2000	89.5	10.5	7.3	3.1
2001	89.3	10.7	7.4	3.3
2002	88.9	11.1	7.6	3.5

See above for note and source.

Economic Security Risk Factor 8. Lack of Health Insurance

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-223 (March 2003 Current Population Survey). Online: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-223.pdf

Poor persons were twice as likely as all persons to be without health insurance in 2002 (30 percent compared to 15 percent). While the ratio varied across categories, persons with family income at or below the poverty line were more likely to be without health insurance regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, or age.
Hispanics were the ethnic group least likely to have health insurance in 2002, among both the general population and those with incomes below the poverty line. While white individuals in general were more likely to have insurance than black individuals, poor black individuals were more likely to have insurance than poor white individuals.
Among all persons, the amount of education was inversely related to health insurance coverage. However, among poor persons, educational attainment made little difference as to whether individuals had health insurance.
As shown in Table ECON 8, nearly half of poor people ages 25 to 34 are without health insurance. Among the general population, individuals ages 18 to 24 are the most likely to be without health insurance.

Table ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income and Selected Characteristics: 2002

	All Persons	Poor Persons
All Persons	15.2	30.4
Male	16.7	33.3
Female	13.9	28.1
White	14.2	31.4
Black	20.2	26.4
Hispanic	32.4	42.8
No High School Diploma	28.0	37.9
High School Graduate, No College	18.8	36.4
College Graduate	8.4	32.3
Age 18 and under	11.6	20.1
Ages 18-24	29.6	43.9
Ages 25-34	24.9	48.6
Ages 35-44	17.7	46.0
Ages 45-64	13.5	33.1
Age 65 and over	0.8	1.9

Note: "Poor persons" are defined as those with total family incomes at or below the poverty rate.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race, such as “White and Asian,” are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 1. Labor Force Attachment

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity: 2002

Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

In 2002, 71 percent of the total population lived in families with at least one person working on a full-time, full-year basis, as shown in Table WORK 1a. The percent of full-time full-year workers was slightly lower than in 2001, although still higher than during most of the 1990s, as shown in Table WORK 1b.
Overall, 14 percent of the population lived in families with no labor force participants and 15 percent lived in families with part-time and/or part-year labor force participants in 2002.
Persons of Hispanic origin were less likely than non-Hispanic whites or non-Hispanic blacks to live in families with no one in the labor force in 2002 (10 percent compared to 15 and 17 percent, respectively).
Working-age women in 2002 were more likely than working-age men to live in families with no one in the labor force (9 percent compared to 7 percent), as shown in Table Work 1a. Men were more likely than women to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year worker (80 percent compared to 76 percent).

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

	No One in LF During Year	At Least One in LF No One FT/FY	At Least One FT/FY Worker
All Persons	14.2	14.7	71.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	15.0	13.9	71.1
Non-Hispanic Black	17.3	18.0	64.7
Hispanic	9.7	15.4	74.9
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5	5.5	16.2	78.3
Children Ages 6-10	5.9	14.8	79.3
Children Ages 11-15	5.9	13.6	80.5
Women Ages 16-64	8.8	15.5	75.7
Men Ages 16-64	6.8	13.7	79.5
Adults Age 65 and over	65.5	14.3	20.2

Note: Full-time, full-year workers are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given year. Part-time and part-year labor force participation includes part-time workers and individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race, such as “White and Asian,” are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1990-2002

	No One in LF During Year	At Least One in LF No One FT/FY	At Least One FT/FY Worker
1990	13.7	18.1	68.3
1991	14.3	18.7	67.0
1992	14.3	18.6	67.1
1993	14.2	18.6	67.3
1994	14.0	17.7	68.3
1995	13.8	17.0	69.2
1996	13.6	16.7	69.7
1997	13.5	16.3	70.2
1998	13.3	15.3	71.4
1999	13.1	14.6	72.3
2000	13.1	13.9	73.0
2001	13.9	14.3	71.7
2002	14.2	14.7	71.1

See above for note and source.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 2. Employment Among the Low-skilled

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2002

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

Employment rates for women with a high school education or less continued to drop in 2002, following several years of rising employment, particularly among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women. Low-skilled non-Hispanic white women continued to have the highest employment level (70 percent in 2002) among the three racial/ethnic groups.
Employment levels for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic men with no more than a high school education have remained close to 85 percent for nearly to two decades. In contrast, employment levels for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men have varied over the same period. Between 1968 and 1983, employment rates for non-Hispanic black men with no more than high school education fell by 20 percentage points. Since 2000, these rates have fallen by more than 5 percentage points.
As shown in Figure and Table WORK 2, employment levels for non-Hispanic black men with a high school education or less were 3 percentage points higher than those of similarly educated non-Hispanic black women in 2002. In contrast, there was a 13 percentage point difference in employment levels of non-Hispanic white men and women with a high school education or less, and a 28 percentage point difference between similarly educated Hispanic men and women.

Table WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2002

	Men			Women
	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1968	92.8	89.9	N/A	55.8	65.8	N/A
1969	92.1	89.2	N/A	56.1	64.9	N/A
1971	90.9	86.1	N/A	55.2	59.4	N/A
1972	91.1	84.3	N/A	55.6	58.1	N/A
1975	88.2	78.8	86.2	58.3	57.2	49.7
1977	88.3	78.1	89.2	61.4	57.6	52.2
1979	88.5	78.7	89.4	62.9	58.9	55.0
1980	88.0	75.2	86.8	64.1	57.6	53.7
1981	87.4	74.5	87.6	64.0	57.5	53.0
1982	85.6	71.1	85.3	62.7	56.6	51.1
1983	84.8	70.2	85.2	63.5	55.3	51.7
1984	86.5	71.9	83.9	65.0	58.9	54.0
1985	86.1	74.6	83.9	66.0	59.4	52.9
1986	86.4	74.3	86.5	66.8	61.0	54.0
1987	86.7	73.9	85.6	67.3	59.9	54.0
1988	86.3	74.0	87.8	68.0	61.4	54.6
1989	87.7	75.3	86.6	68.8	61.1	55.8
1990	87.7	75.6	85.4	68.5	60.7	55.0
1991	86.4	73.9	85.0	68.3	61.0	54.6
1992	85.7	71.5	83.7	67.8	57.8	53.3
1993	84.6	71.2	83.5	68.6	60.0	52.2
1994	85.0	69.1	83.2	69.0	60.9	53.3
1995	85.9	70.1	83.3	69.6	60.1	53.9
1996	85.9	70.3	84.0	70.2	64.1	55.4
1997	85.3	72.0	85.0	69.9	66.6	56.9
1998	85.3	71.8	85.5	70.4	67.1	57.1
1999	84.5	72.0	86.4	71.4	68.4	58.8
2000	84.7	72.7	86.4	70.6	67.7	61.0
2001	83.4	69.9	85.5	69.8	64.8	59.2
2002	82.5	67.3	85.1	69.5	64.4	57.5

Note: All data include both full and partial year employment for the given calendar year.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975.

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 3. Earnings of Low-skilled Workers

Figure WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2002 Dollars): Selected Years

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

Women’s average weekly wages were lower than those of low-skilled men, across all race groups. In 2002, non-Hispanic white women had the highest average weekly wages among low-skilled women working full-time, full-year ($529). This level is a 15 percent increase over non-Hispanic white women’s 1980 average weekly wages ($459 inflation adjusted). Non-Hispanic black women and Hispanic women’s weekly wages increased at slower rate than non-Hispanic white women since 1980 (12 percent and 3 percent, respectively).
For men, the gap between mean weekly wages for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black men with low education levels has narrowed over time. In 1980, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men working full-time was $564 (in 2002 dollars), or 74 percent of the $758 average for non-Hispanic white men. However, full-time working non-Hispanic black men with no more than a high school education received 78 percent of the mean weekly wages of non-Hispanic white men in 2002 ($578 compared to $745).
Over the past fifteen years, both Hispanic women and men’s wages have lagged behind non-Hispanic whites and blacks among low-skilled full-time workers. In 2002, Hispanic women’s wages were 24 percent lower than non-Hispanic white women and 14 percent lower than non-Hispanic black women. Hispanic men had higher weekly wages than women but still trailed non-Hispanic white men by 29 percent and non-Hispanic black men by 8 percent.

Table WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2002 Dollars): Selected Years

	Women			Men
	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1980	459	419	392	758	564	572
1981	448	405	397	747	556	562
1982	455	414	397	734	542	542
1983	461	418	398	733	528	554
1984	464	433	404	748	526	558
1985	477	433	397	741	549	547
1986	483	434	419	759	551	532
1987	489	451	404	754	560	528
1988	488	434	402	748	586	531
1989	483	454	411	730	545	512
1990	482	442	387	698	539	497
1991	476	430	386	685	537	478
1992	483	432	400	691	526	489
1993	478	417	387	675	517	474
1994	485	430	389	684	529	469
1995	487	428	376	704	534	469
1996	490	451	388	721	555	466
1997	497	424	397	732	556	502
1998	516	430	400	716	561	498
1999	494	431	392	734	599	495
2000	511	435	382	753	593	505
2001	520	458	400	747	574	509
2002	529	471	404	745	578	531

Note: Full-time, full-year workers work at least 48 weeks per year and 35 hours per week.

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-169, March 2003, and earlier reports.

There has been a marked decline over the past 40 years in the percentage of the population that has not received a high school education. This percentage fell from 59 percent in 1960 to 16 percent in 2002.
The percentage of the population receiving a high school education only (with no subsequent college) was 25 percent in 1960 and rose to 39 percent in 1988. Since then this figure has fallen to 32 percent in 2002, although some of this decline is a result of a change in the survey methodology in 1992 (see note to Table WORK 4).
Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of the population with some college (one to three years) doubled, from 9 percent to 18 percent. The apparent jump in 1992 is a result of a change in the survey methodology (see note to Table WORK 4), but the trend continued upward, reaching 25 percent in 2002.
The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college has more than tripled from 1960 to 2002, rising steadily from 8 percent to 27 percent.

Table WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment Selected Years

	Not a High School Graduate	Finished High School, No College	One to Three Years of College	Four or More Years of College
1940	76	14	5	5
1950	67	20	7	6
1960	59	25	9	8
1965	51	31	9	9
1970	45	34	10	11
1975	37	36	12	14
1980	31	37	15	17
1981	30	38	15	17
1982	29	38	15	18
1983	28	38	16	19
1984	27	38	16	19
1985	26	38	16	19
1986	25	38	17	19
1987	24	39	17	20
1988	24	39	17	20
1989	23	38	17	21
1990	22	38	18	21
1991	22	39	18	21
1992	21	36	22	21
1993	20	35	23	22
1994	19	34	24	22
1995	18	34	25	23
1996	18	34	25	24
1997	18	34	24	24
1998	17	34	25	24
1999	17	33	25	25
2000	16	33	25	26
2001	16	33	26	26
2002	16	32	25	27

Note: Completing the GED is not considered completing high school for this table. Beginning with data for 1992, a new survey question results in different categories than for prior years. Data shown as Finished High School, No College were previously from the category “High School, 4 Years” and are now from the category “High School Graduate.” Data shown as One to Three Years of College were previously from the category “College 1 to 3 Years” and are now the sum of the categories: “Some College” and two separate “Associate Degree” categories. Data shown as Four or More Years of College were previously from the category “College 4 Years or More,” and are now the sum of the categories: “Bachelor's Degree,” “Master's Degree,” “Doctorate Degree,” and “Professional Degree.”

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-169, March 2003, and earlier reports.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 5. High-school Dropout Rates

Figure WORK 5. Percentage of Students Enrolled in Grades 10 to 12 in the Previous Year Who Were Not Enrolled and Had Not Graduated in the Survey Year, by Race/Ethnicity: Selected Years

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

With the exception of a small upward movement in 1988, the dropout rates for teens in grades 10 to 12 declined steadily from 1979 to 1991. From a low of 4.0 percent, the rate began rising to a peak of 5.7 percent in 1995. Following this upturn, the overall rate again declined to 4.6 percent in 1997; since then it has fluctuated, moving up to 5.0 percent in 1999 and then back down again to 4.8 percent in 2000.
Dropout rates among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black teens have fluctuated considerably over this period. Still, dropout rates are generally highest for Hispanic teens and lowest for non-Hispanic white teens. In 2000, the dropout rate was 7.4 percent for Hispanic teens, compared to 6.1 percent for non-Hispanic black teens and 4.1 percent for non-Hispanic white teens.

Table WORK 5. Percentage of Students Enrolled in Grades 10 to 12 in the Previous Year Who Were Not Enrolled and Had Not Graduated in the Survey Year, by Race/Ethnicity: Selected Years

	Total	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1972	6.1	5.3	9.5	11.2
1973	6.3	5.5	9.9	10.0
1974	6.7	5.8	11.6	9.9
1975	5.8	5.0	8.7	10.9
1976	5.9	5.6	7.4	7.3
1977	6.5	6.1	8.6	7.8
1978	6.7	5.8	10.2	12.3
1979	6.7	6.0	9.9	9.8
1980	6.1	5.2	8.2	11.7
1981	5.9	4.8	9.7	10.7
1982	5.5	4.7	7.8	9.2
1983	5.2	4.4	7.0	10.1
1984	5.1	4.4	5.7	11.1
1985	5.2	4.3	7.8	9.8
1986	4.7	3.7	5.4	11.9
1987	4.1	3.5	6.4	5.4
1988	4.8	4.2	5.9	10.4
1989	4.5	3.5	7.8	7.8
1990	4.0	3.3	5.0	7.9
1991	4.0	3.2	6.0	7.3
1992	4.4	3.7	5.0	8.2
1993	4.5	3.9	5.8	6.7
1994	5.3	4.2	6.6	10.0
1995	5.7	4.5	6.4	12.3
1996	5.0	4.1	6.7	9.0
1997	4.6	3.6	5.0	9.5
1998	4.8	3.9	5.2	9.4
1999	5.0	4.0	6.5	7.8
2000	4.8	4.1	6.1	7.4

Note: Beginning in 1987, the Bureau of the Census instituted new editing procedures for cases with missing data on school enrollment. Beginning in 1992, the data reflect new wording of the educational attainment item in the CPS.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the total but are not shown separately.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 6. Adult Alcohol and Substance Abuse

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2002

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

In 2002, young adults (ages 18 to 25) were more likely than older adults to report alcohol abuse, marijuana use, or cocaine use in the past month. More than one in six (17 percent) of adults 18 to 25 reported using marijuana in the past month during 2002, compared with 8 percent of adults 26 to 34 and 3 percent of adults 35 and older. Young adults were also significantly more likely to abuse alcohol than older adults.
The percentage of persons reporting binge alcohol use was significantly larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups, as shown in Table WORK 6.
Among all adult age categories, the use of cocaine, marijuana and alcohol abuse increased in 2002 to the highest level in 4 years, as shown in Table Work 6.

Table WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 1999 - 2002

	1999	2000	2001	2002
Cocaine
Ages 18-25	1.7	1.4	1.9	2.0
Ages 26-34	1.2	0.8	1.1	1.2
Age 35 and Over	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.6
Marijuana
Ages 18-25	14.2	13.6	16.0	17.3
Ages 26-34	5.4	5.9	6.8	7.7
Age 35 and Over	2.2	2.3	2.4	3.1
Binge Alcohol Use
Ages 18-25	37.9	37.8	38.7	40.9
Ages 26-34	29.3	30.3	30.1	33.1
Age 35 and Over	16.0	16.4	16.2	18.6
Heavy Alcohol Use
Ages 18-25	13.3	12.8	13.6	14.9
Ages 26-34	7.5	7.6	7.8	9.0
Age 35 and Over	4.2	4.1	4.2	5.2

Note: Cocaine and marijuana use is defined as use during the past month. “Binge Alcohol Use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days. "Occasion" means at the same time or within a couple hours of each other. “Heavy Alcohol Use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of five or more days in the past 30 days; all Heavy Alcohol Users are also Binge Alcohol Users.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 7. Adult and Child Disability

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Age and Race/Ethnicity: 2002

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey.

In 2002, non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 11.4 percent compared to 7.5 percent.
While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children than adults were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2002 (6.2 percent compared to 4.6 percent), as shown in Table WORK 7.
Among both non-elderly adults and children, rates of activity limitation were somewhat similar for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks in 2002, but lower for Hispanics, as shown in Table WORK 7.

Table WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

	Activity Limitation	Work Disability	Long-Term Care Needs	Disability Program Recipient
All Persons
Adults Ages 18-64	11.4	8.5	2.1	4.6
Children Ages 0-17	7.5	NA	NA	6.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)
Non-Hispanic White	11.9	8.9	2.1	4.4
Non-Hispanic Black	13.7	10.2	2.9	7.7
Hispanic	7.9	5.8	1.6	3.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)
Non-Hispanic White	7.7	NA	NA	6.4
Non-Hispanic Black	9.4	NA	NA	7.9
Hispanic	5.9	NA	NA	5.0

Note: Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition below); (2) long-term care needs (see definition below); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental, or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental, or emotional problems. Work disability is defined as limitations in or the inability to work as a result of a physical, mental or emotional health condition. Individuals are identified as having long-term care needs if they need the help of others in handling either personal care needs (eating, bathing, dressing, getting around the home) or routine needs (household chores, shopping, getting around for business or other purposes). Disability program recipients include persons covered by Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Special Education Services, Early Intervention Services, and/or disability pensions.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey.

Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 1. Births to Unmarried Women

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: 1940-2002

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past six decades, from 3.8 percent in 1940 to 34.0 percent in 2002. This increase reflects changes in several factors: the rate at which unmarried women have children, the rate at which married women have children, and the rate at which women marry.
The percentage of children born outside of marriage is especially high among teen women and women ages 20-24. Four-fifths (80 percent) of all births to teens and a little over half (52 percent) to women ages 20-24 took place outside of marriage in 2002.
Since 1994, the upward growth in percentage of unmarried births to all women has begun to level off. The growth in percentage of unmarried births to teen mothers also has slowed since 1994, although it is still rising (from 76 percent in 1994 to 80 percent in 2002). The steepest growth since 1994 is among the 20 to 24 year old age group, where the percentage of births to unmarried women has increased from 45 to 52 percent.
Recently, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has leveled off among black teens and all black women. Among white teens and all white women, the trend continues upward (see Table C-1 in Appendix C for non-marital birth data by age and race).

Table BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: Selected Years

Year	Under 15	15-17 Years	18-19 Years	All Teens	20-24 Years	All Women
1940	64.5	N/A	N/A	14.0	3.4	3.8
1945	70.0	N/A	N/A	18.2	4.7	4.3
1950	63.7	22.6	9.4	13.9	3.7	4.0
1955	66.3	23.2	10.3	14.9	4.3	4.5
1960	67.8	24.0	10.7	15.4	4.8	5.3
1965	78.5	32.8	15.3	21.6	6.8	7.7
1970	80.8	43.0	22.4	30.5	8.9	10.7
1975	87.0	51.4	29.8	39.3	12.3	14.2
1980	88.7	61.5	39.8	48.3	19.3	18.4
1981	89.2	63.3	41.4	49.9	20.4	18.9
1982	89.2	65.0	43.0	51.4	21.3	19.4
1983	90.4	67.5	45.7	54.1	22.9	20.3
1984	91.1	69.2	48.1	56.3	24.5	21.0
1985	91.8	70.9	50.7	58.7	26.3	22.0
1986	92.5	73.3	53.6	61.5	28.7	23.4
1987	92.9	76.2	55.8	64.0	30.8	24.5
1988	93.6	77.1	58.5	65.9	32.9	25.7
1989	92.4	77.7	60.4	67.2	35.1	27.1
1990	91.6	77.7	61.3	67.6	36.9	28.0
1991	91.3	78.7	63.2	69.3	39.4	29.5
1992	91.3	79.2	64.6	70.5	40.7	30.1
1993	91.3	79.9	66.1	71.8	42.2	31.0
1994	94.5	84.1	70.0	75.9	44.9	32.6
1995	93.5	83.7	69.8	75.6	44.7	32.2
1996	93.8	84.4	70.8	76.3	45.6	32.4
1997	95.7	86.7	72.5	78.2	46.6	32.4
1998	96.6	87.5	73.6	78.9	47.7	32.8
1999	96.5	87.7	74.0	79.0	48.5	33.0
2000	96.5	87.7	74.3	79.1	49.5	33.2
2001	96.3	87.8	74.6	79.2	50.4	33.5
2002	97.0	88.5	75.8	80.2	51.6	34.0

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 2. Births to Unmarried Teens

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19, by Race and Ethnicity 1940-2002

In contrast to the earlier Figure BIRTH 1, which showed births to unmarried teens as a percentage of all teen births, Figure BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage fell in the last four years, from 9.7 to 8.5 percent, reversing a long upward trend since 1940. This rate may be affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens, and the birth rate among all other women.
The percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens has also dropped among white women over the past four years, declining to 7.2 percent in 2002. This drop is in contrast to the long upward trend, from less than 1 percent in 1960 to nearly 8 percent in 1998.
Among black women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens fell to 16.7 percent in 2002, the lowest percentage since 1969. This rate has varied greatly since 1940, rising sharply to a peak of 24 percent in 1975, and showing a gradual decline in most years since then. The sharp increase in the late 1960s and early 1970s reflects a 30 percent rise in non-marital teen births among black women concurrent with a 6 percent decline in total black births from 1969 to 1975.

Table BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19, by Race and Ethnicity: Selected Years

Year	All Races	White	Black	Hispanic
1940	1.7	0.8	N/A	N/A
1945	1.8	0.8	N/A	N/A
1950	1.6	0.6	N/A	N/A
1955	1.7	0.7	N/A	N/A
1960	2.0	0.9	N/A	N/A
1965	3.3	1.6	N/A	N/A
1970	5.1	2.6	18.8	N/A
1975	7.1	3.7	24.2	N/A
1980	7.3	4.4	22.2	N/A
1981	7.1	4.5	21.5	N/A
1982	7.1	4.5	21.2	N/A
1983	7.2	4.6	21.2	N/A
1984	7.1	4.6	20.7	N/A
1985	7.2	4.8	20.3	N/A
1986	7.5	5.1	20.1	N/A
1987	7.7	5.3	20.0	N/A
1988	8.0	5.6	20.3	N/A
1989	8.3	5.9	20.6	N/A
1990	8.4	6.1	20.4	9.8
1991	8.7	6.4	20.4	10.3
1992	8.7	6.5	20.2	10.3
1993	8.9	6.8	20.2	10.6
1994	9.7	7.5	21.1	12.1
1995	9.6	7.6	21.1	11.7
1996	9.6	7.7	20.9	11.5
1997	9.7	7.8	20.5	11.9
1998	9.7	7.9	19.9	12.1
1999	9.5	7.8	19.1	11.9
2000	9.1	7.6	18.3	11.6
2001	8.7	7.3	17.5	11.0
2002	8.5	7.2	16.7	10.8

Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 3. Unmarried Teen Birth Rates Within Age Groups

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2002

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2002

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

The birth rate per 1,000 unmarried teens fell again in 2002 for both black and white teens and for both younger (15 to 17 years) and older age groups (18 and 19 years). The rate for black teens ages 18 and 19, for example, fell from 140 per thousand in 1994 to 104 per thousand in 2002. Declines were larger among black teens than among white teens.
Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried white teens in both age groups rose steadily for nearly three decades (from 4 to 24 percent among 15 to 17 year-olds and from 11 to 56 percent among 18 and 19 year-olds).
The birth rate among unmarried black teens in both age groups was lower in 2002 than it has been in over four decades. While birth rates among unmarried black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried white teens, the gap been black and white teens narrowed considerably during the 1990s.

Table BIRTH 3. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teen Women within Age Groups, by Race: 1950-2002

Year	Ages 15 to17			Ages 18 and 19
Year	All Races	White	Black	All Races	White	Black
1950	9.9	3.4	N/A	18.3	8.5	N/A
1955	11.1	3.9	N/A	23.6	10.3	N/A
1960	11.1	4.4	N/A	24.3	11.4	N/A
1961	11.7	4.6	N/A	24.6	12.1	N/A
1962	10.7	4.1	N/A	23.8	11.7	N/A
1963	10.9	4.5	N/A	25.8	13.0	N/A
1964	11.6	4.9	N/A	26.5	13.6	N/A
1965	12.5	5.0	N/A	25.8	13.9	N/A
1966	13.1	5.4	N/A	25.6	14.1	N/A
1967	13.8	5.6	N/A	27.6	15.3	N/A
1968	14.7	6.2	N/A	29.6	16.6	N/A
1969	15.2	6.6	72.0	30.8	16.6	128.4
1970	17.1	7.5	77.9	32.9	17.6	136.4
1971	17.5	7.4	80.7	31.7	15.8	135.2
1972	18.5	8.0	82.8	30.9	15.1	128.2
1973	18.7	8.4	81.2	30.4	14.9	120.5
1974	18.8	8.8	78.6	31.2	15.3	122.2
1975	19.3	9.6	76.8	32.5	16.5	123.8
1976	19.0	9.7	73.5	32.1	16.9	117.9
1977	19.8	10.5	73.0	34.6	18.7	121.7
1978	19.1	10.3	68.8	35.1	19.3	119.6
1979	19.9	10.8	71.0	37.2	21.0	123.3
1980	20.6	12.0	68.8	39.0	24.1	118.2
1981	20.9	12.6	65.9	39.0	24.6	114.2
1982	21.5	13.1	66.3	39.6	25.3	112.7
1983	22.0	13.6	66.8	40.7	26.4	111.9
1984	21.9	13.7	66.5	42.5	27.9	113.6
1985	22.4	14.5	66.8	45.9	31.2	117.9
1986	22.8	14.9	67.0	48.0	33.5	121.1
1987	24.5	16.2	69.9	48.9	34.5	123.0
1988	26.4	17.6	73.5	51.5	36.8	130.5
1989	28.7	19.3	78.9	56.0	40.2	140.9
1990	29.6	20.4	78.8	60.7	44.9	143.7
1991	30.8	21.7	79.9	65.4	49.4	147.6
1992	30.2	21.5	77.3	66.7	51.1	146.2
1993	30.3	21.9	76.0	66.1	51.9	139.7
1994	31.7	23.9	74.0	69.1	55.7	139.2
1995	30.1	23.3	67.5	66.5	54.6	128.7
1996	28.5	22.3	62.8	64.9	53.4	126.8
1997	27.7	22.0	59.2	63.9	52.8	124.5
1998	26.5	21.5	55.2	63.7	53.0	121.0
1999	25.0	20.7	50.1	62.4	52.8	115.3
2000	23.9	19.7	48.3	62.2	53.1	115.0
2001	22.0	18.1	43.8	60.6	52.1	110.2
2002	20.8	17.5	39.9	58.6	51.0	104.1

Note: Rates are per 1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child. Rates for 1990-1999 have been revised on the basis of intercensal population estimates benchmarked to the 2000 decennial census and differ from earlier editions of this report.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 4. Never-married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head, by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2003

Source of CPS data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514, 537 various years, and ASPE tabulations of the CPS for 2003.

Source of 1960 data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960 Census of Population, PC(2)-4B, “Persons by Family Characteristics,” Tables 1 and 19.

The percentage of children living in families with never-married female heads increased from under 5 percent in 1982 to 10 percent in 2003.
The percentage of white children living in families headed by never-married women has continued to rise over the past twenty years, from less than 2 percent in 1982 to 5.6 percent in 2003.
Among Hispanics, the percentage of children living with never-married female heads more than doubled over the past twenty years, going from less than 6 percent in 1982 to 12 percent in 1996. Since then it has fluctuated up and down by about one-half a percentage point.
The percentage of black children living in families headed by never-married women was much higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period. However, at 33 percent in 2003 it is two percentage points below its peak in 1999.

Table BIRTH 4. Number and Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head, by Race/Ethnicity: Selected Years

Year	Number of Children (in thousands)				Percentage
Year	All Races	White	Black	Hispanic	All Races	White	Black	Hispanic
1960	221	49	173	–	0.4	0.1	2.2	–
1970	527	110	442	–	0.8	0.2	5.2	–
1975	1,166	296	864	–	1.8	0.5	9.9	–
1980	1,745	501	1,193	210	2.9	1.0	14.5	4.0
1982	2,768	793	1,947	291	4.6	1.6	22.7	5.7
1984	3,131	959	2,109	357	5.2	1.9	23.9	6.5
1986	3,606	1,174	2,375	451	5.9	2.3	26.6	7.2
1987	3,985	1,385	2,524	587	6.5	2.8	28.2	9.2
1988	4,302	1,482	2,736	600	7.0	3.0	30.4	9.2
1989	4,290	1,483	2,695	592	6.9	2.9	29.6	8.7
1990	4,365	1,527	2,738	605	7.0	3.0	29.6	8.7
1991	5,040	1,725	3,176	644	8.0	3.4	33.3	9.0
1992	5,410	2,016	3,192	757	8.4	3.9	33.1	10.3
1993	5,511	2,015	3,317	848	8.5	3.9	33.6	11.3
1994	6,000	2,412	3,321	1,083	9.0	4.5	32.9	12.0
1995	5,862	2,317	3,255	1,017	8.7	4.3	32.3	10.8
1996	6,365	2,563	3,567	1,161	9.4	4.8	34.4	12.0
1997	6,598	2,788	3,575	1,242	9.7	5.1	34.3	12.4
1998	6,700	2,850	3,644	1,254	9.8	5.2	35.1	12.2
1999	6,736	2,826	3,643	1,297	9.8	5.2	35.3	12.2
2000	6,591	2,881	3,413	1,256	9.5	5.3	32.9	11.4
2001	6,636	3,014	3,382	1,340	9.6	5.5	32.4	11.9
2002	6,872	3,048	3,573	1,400	9.9	5.6	33.4	11.5
2003	7,008	3,028	3,454	1,497	10.0	5.6	33.3	11.9

Note: Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons, and their spouses). Also excludes inmates of institutions; children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator. Based on Current Population Survey (CPS) except 1960, 1970, and 1980, which are based on decennial census data. In 1982, improved data collection and processing procedures helped to identify parent-child subfamilies. (See Current Population Reports, P-20, 399, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1984.)

Source of CPS data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514, 537, various years, and ASPE tabulations of the CPS for 2003.

Source of 1960 data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960 Census of Population, PC(2)-4B, “Persons by Family Characteristics,” Tables 1 and 19.

Appendices

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 and information on the characteristics of program participants.

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 was 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 that 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, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a 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 $16.5 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.

Recent Legislative Action

Legislative authority for the TANF block grant program expired September 2002. Since then, the program has been operated under a series of short-term extensions.

In February 2002, President Bush proposed a plan, Working Toward Independence, to strengthen welfare reform, in order to help families remaining on welfare and other low-income families move toward self-sufficiency. The House of Representatives passed bills incorporating the key elements of the President’s plan in both the 107^th Congress (H.R. 4737) and the 108th Congress (H.R. 4). As of the end of 2003, a Senate version of TANF reauthorization was reported out of committee, but not yet taken up on the floor of the Senate. Final enactment of TANF reauthorization is expected in 2004.

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 reflect 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 are being spent on activities other than cash payments to families. When tracking overall expenditure trends, the tables in this Appendix (e.g., Table TANF 4) 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, were 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. For example, under TANF there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” (UP) program, as there was under AFDC. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. It is also 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.

Once source of discontinuity has been removed in this edition of the Indicators report. Under TANF some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded out of MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. This allows the states additional flexibility with regard to the time limits and work requirement. The official TANF caseload figures do not include these families. Starting with this edition, we have added recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state). Expenditures for Separate State Programs are shown in Table TANF 5.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and 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 1-3). Welfare caseloads have stabilized over the past few years after declining dramatically during the 1990s. In fiscal year 2002, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.65 million persons, down 1.9 percent from FY 2001. Moreover, this was 55 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in fiscal year 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1968. From the peak of 14.4 million in March 1994, the number of AFDC/TANF recipients dropped by 61.6 percent to 5.5 million in March 2003.² Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the implementation of TANF. These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs. 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, however, because PRWORA was enacted at a time when the economy was expanding dramatically, offering a uniquely conducive environment within which to move many recipients off the welfare 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 Advisers (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. A more recent study estimates that over half the decline in caseloads after enactment of PRWORA were attributable to welfare reform (O’Neill and Hill, 2001). The relative stability of the caseload during the recent recession further supports the argument that the economy was only one of several factors driving caseloads down.

AFDC/TANF Expenditures (Tables TANF 4-6 and Figure TANF 2). Tables TANF 4 and 5 show trends in expenditures on AFDC and TANF. Table TANF 4 tracks both programs, breaking out the costs of benefits and administrative expenses. It also shows the division between federal and state spending. Table TANF 5 shows the variety of activities funded under the TANF program.

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 show that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, by 2001 the average monthly benefit per recipient had declined to 64 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.

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 families with no adult in the assistance unit 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 2002, 25 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1992, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was at an all-time high of over 33 percent in FY 2002 (data not shown). Similar upward 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. (For example, see Table Work 2 in Chapter III for trends in employment rates for women with no more than a high school education).

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of cases without an adult recipient. Such cases occur when the adults are ineligible (because they are a caretaker relative, SSI parent, immigrant parent, or sanctioned parent). Families with no adults in the assistance unit have climbed from 11.6 percent of the caseload in FY 1990 to 39.0 percent in FY 2002. Not counting cases with a sanctioned parent, 36.6 percent of the caseload was child-only in 2002. This dramatic growth has been due to an increase in the number of child-only cases during the early 1990s, followed by a decline in the number of adult-present cases. Even though child-only cases are generally not subject to the work requirements or time limits under TANF, the number of cases without an adult in the assistance unit has fallen by about 180,000 since 1996.

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 B those with the fewest barriers to employment B 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 also have 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 8-17). 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 March 2003 ranges from 94 percent (Wyoming) to 26 percent (Indiana). Six 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 June 1997 (Hawaii).

Three new tables have been added to the state-by-state trends in this edition. Table TANF 15 shows TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) families and recipients, by state. Tables TANF 16 and 17 use a newly available data source, the High Performance Bonus data, which links TANF administrative records with quarterly earnings records, and allows examination of patterns of TANF receipt and employment. For example, Table TANF 16 shows the range across states in employment rates among TANF recipients (where employment is measured by presence of quarterly earnings in the same calendar quarter as one or more months of TANF recipient or in the immediately subsequent quarter). Table 17 complements the data on program spell duration provided in Table IND 8 in Chapter II, by examining state-by-state variation in the percentage of TANF recipients that receive benefits over the course of one year (four quarters) after a selected calendar quarter.

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 NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough. 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. Beginning in 2000, Total families includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is March 2003.

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

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 plus unpublished data and Sixth TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2004.

Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads, 1962 – 2002

Fiscal Year	Average Monthly Number (In thousands)					Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average¹ Number of Children per Family
Fiscal Year	Total Familie¹	Total Recipients	Unemployed Parent Families	Unemployed Parent Recipients	Total Children	Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average¹ Number of Children per Family
1962.......….	924	3,593	48	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	3,560	75.5	3.1
1968...........	1,310	5,349	67	377	4,013	75.0	3.1
1969...........	1,539	6,146	66	360	4,591	74.7	3.0
1970...........	1,906	7,415	78	420	5,484	74.0	2.9
1971...........	2,531	9,557	143	726	6,963	72.9	2.8
1972...........	2,918	10,632	134	639	7,698	72.4	2.6
1973...........	3,123	11,038	120	557	7,967	72.2	2.6
1974...........	3,170	10,845	93	434	7,825	72.2	2.5
1975...........	3,357	11,067	100	451	7,952	71.9	2.4
1976...........	3,575	11,386	135	593	8,054	70.7	2.3
1977...........	3,593	11,130	149	659	7,846	70.5	2.2
1978...........	3,539	10,672	128	567	7,492	70.2	2.1
1979...........	3,496	10,318	114	507	7,197	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	10,997	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	10,934	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...........	4,871	13,660	335	1,384	9,280	67.9	1.9
1996...........	4,543	12,645	293	1,241	8,672	68.6	1.9
1997².........	3,937	10,935	275³	1,158³	7,781³	71.2³	2.0³
1998...........	3,200	8,790	179	754⁴	6,273	71.4	2.0
1999...........	2,674	7,188	NA	NA	5,319	74.0	2.0
2000...........	2,356	6,324	NA	NA	4,598	72.7	2.0
2001...........	2,200	5,761	NA	NA	4,227	73.3	1.9
2002...........	2,194	5,654	NA	NA	4,149	73.0	1.9

Note: Beginning in 2000, all caseload numbers include SSP families.

¹Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.

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 Family Assistance, (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 – 2002

Calendar Year ¹	Total Recipients in the States & DC(in thousands)	Child Recipients in the States & DC(in thousands)	Recipients as a Percent of Total Populatio²	Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Populatio³	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	10,643	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	10,850	7,206	4.5	33.5	46.6	11.5	56.0
1987	10,841	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	10,798	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	13.8	60.1
1993	14,007	9,460	5.4	35.7	48.5	14.0	60.2
1994	13,970	9,448	5.3	36.7	50.0	13.8	61.8
1995	13,242	9,013	5.0	36.4	50.1	13.0	61.5
1996	12,156	8,355	4.5	33.3	46.4	11.9	57.8
1997	10,224	7,077 ⁵	3.7	28.7	40.7	10.0	50.1
1998	8,215	5,781	3.0	23.8	34.7	8.1	42.9
1999	6,709	4,836	2.4	20.5	30.9	6.7	39.4
2000	6,043	4,406	2.1	19.1	29.7	6.1	38.0
2001	5,633	4,138	2.0	17.1	26.8	5.7	35.3
2002	5,529	4,048	1.9	16.0	25.4	5.6	33.4

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. From 2000 onward, total recipients includes SSP recipients as well as TANF recipients. 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 P60-222 (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

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 Estimated based on the ratio of children recipients to total recipients 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: 2002," Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients, 2000 – 2002

(In thousands)

Fiscal Year	TANF	SSP	Total
	Families
2000	2,265	91	2,355
2001	2,117	82	2,200
2002	2,065	128	2,194
	All Recipients
2000	5,943	380	6,324
2001	5,423	338	5,761
2002	5,149	505	5,654
	Child Recipients
2000	4,370	228	4,598
2001	4,025	202	4,227
2002	3,841	308	4,149

Note: Some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs (SSPs) which are funded out of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars rather than federal TANF funds. See Table TANF 15 for SSPs by state.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, (available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/)

Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration, 1970 – 2002

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal Year	Federal Funds (Current Dollars)		State Funds (Current Dollars)		Total (Current Dollars)		Total (Constant 2002 Dollars¹)
Fiscal Year	Benefits	Administrative	Benefits	Administrative	Benefits	Administrative	Benefits	Administrative
1970	$2,187	$572 ²	$1,895	$309	$4,082	$881 ²	18,076	3,901
1971	3,008	271	2,469	254	5,477	525	23,219	2,226
1972	3,612	240 ³	2,942	241	6,554	481 ³	26,831	NA
1973	3,865	313	3,138	296	7,003	610	27,535	2,398
1974	4,071	379	3,300	362	7,371	740	26,694	2,680
1975	4,625	552	3,787	529	8,412	1,082	27,766	3,571
1976	5,258	541	4,418	527	9,676	1,069	29,897	3,303
1977	5,626	595	4,762	583	10,388	1,177	29,878	3,385
1978	5,724	631	4,898	617	10,621	1,248	28,659	3,368
1979	5,825	683	4,954	668	10,779	1,350	26,746	3,350
1980	6,448	750	5,508	729	11,956	1,479	26,670	3,299
1981	6,928	835	5,917	814	12,845	1,648	26,054	3,343
1982	6,922	878	5,934	878	12,857	1,756	24,366	3,328
1983	7,332	915	6,275	915	13,607	1,830	24,664	3,317
1984	7,707	876	6,664	822	14,371	1,698	24,985	2,952
1985	7,817	890	6,763	889	14,580	1,779	24,469	2,986
1986	8,239	993	6,996	967	15,235	1,960	24,936	3,208
1987	8,914	1,081	7,409	1,052	16,323	2,133	25,980	3,395
1988	9,125	1,194	7,538	1,159	16,663	2,353	25,479	3,598
1989	9,433	1,211	7,807	1,206	17,240	2,417	25,157	3,527
1990	10,149	1,358	8,390	1,303	18,539	2,661	25,770	3,699
1991	11,165	1,373	9,191	1,300	20,356	2,673	26,936	3,537
1992	12,258	1,459	9,993	1,378	22,250	2,837	28,575	3,644
1993	12,270	1,518	10,016	1,438	22,286	2,956	27,784	3,685
1994	12,512	1,680	10,285	1,621	22,797	3,301	27,687	4,009
1995	12,019	1,770	10,014	1,751	22,032	3,521	26,033	4,161
1996	11,065	1,633	9,346	1,633	20,411	3,266	23,467	3,755
1997⁴	9,748	1,273	7,799	1,098	17,547	2,371	19,644	2,654
1998	7,518	1,231	7,096	1,028	14,614	2,259	16,098	2,489
1999	6,475	1,407	6,975	884	13,449	2,291	14,538	2,476
2000	5,444	1,570	5,736	1,032	11,180	2,302	11,711	2,726
2001	4,772	1,598	5,390	1,042	10,163	2,639	10,313	2,678
2002	4,554	1,633	4,854	983	9,408	2,617	9,408	2,617

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. State funds for benefits include benefits under Separate State Programs. 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 2002 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 July 1, 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 of 1996 administrative expense).

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Systems.

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending Fiscal Years 1997 to 2002

(Millions)

	Cash & Work-Based Assistance	Work Activities	Child Care	Transportation	Administration	Systems	Transitional Services	Other Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
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
2000	5,444	1,606	1,553	496	1,328	242	–	2,715	13,384
2001	4,772	1,983	1,583	522	1,375	223	–	4,325	14,782
2002	4,554	2,121 1,572 339			1,339	294	–	4,368	14,588
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
2000	5,432	884	1,893	150	921	92	–	1,170	10,541
2001	4,887	685	1,730	113	920	83	–	1,195	9,613
2002	3,994	582	1,860	221	877	66	–	1,554	9,154
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
2000	305	11	73	17	19	0	–	431	856
2001	503	28	34	20	38	1	–	499	1,125
2002	860	24	72	24	41	-.5	–	652	1,673
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
2000	11,180	2,501	3,519	663	2,267	335	–	4,316	24,781
2001	10,163	2,696	3,347	655	2,333	306	–	6,019	25,520
2002	9,408	2,727	3,504	584	2,258	359	–	6,574	25,414

Note: Administration and Systems, shown separately here in Table TANF 5, can be combined to show total administrative costs, as in Table TANF 3.

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 – 2002

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)
Fiscal Year	Current Dollars	2002 Dollars	Average Number of Persons per Family	Current Dollars	2002 Dollars	Current Dollars	2002 Dollars
1962	$31	$171	3.9	$121	$664	NA	NA
1963	31	169	4.0	126	681	NA	NA
1964	32	170	4.1	131	701	NA	NA
1965	34	177	4.2	140	738	NA	NA
1966	35	180	4.2	146	750	NA	NA
1967	36	181	4.1	150	750	NA	NA
1968	40	191	4.1	162	782	NA	NA
1969	43	201	4.0	173	803	$186 ²	$867
1970	46	203	3.9	178	789	194 ²	861
1971	48	202	3.8	180	764	201 ²	852
1972	51	210	3.6	187	766	205 ²	841
1973	53	208	3.5	187	735	213 ²	837
1974	57	205	3.4	194	702	229 ²	828
1975	63	209	3.3	209	689	243	802
1976	71	219	3.2	226	697	257	793
1977	78	224	3.1	241	693	271	780
1978	83	224	3.0	249	675	284	767
1979	87	216	2.9	257	638	301	746
1980	94	210	2.9	274	610	320	714
1981	96	195	2.9	277	561	326	661
1982	103	195	2.9	300	569	331	626
1983	106	193	2.9	311	563	336	609
1984	110	192	2.9	321	559	352	611
1985	112	189	2.9	329	552	369	619
1986	115	189	2.9	339	555	383	627
1987	123	196	2.9	359	572	393	626
1988	127	194	2.9	370	567	404	618
1989	131	192	2.9	381	556	412	602
1990	135	187	2.9	389	540	421	585
1991	135	178	2.9	388	513	425	562
1992	136	175	2.9	389	499	419	538
1993	131	164	2.8	373	465	414	517
1994	134	162	2.8	376	457	420	505
1995	134	159	2.8	376	445	418	494
1996	135	155	2.8	374	430	422	485
1997³	130	146	2.8	362	405	420	470
1998	130	144	2.7	358	394	432	476
1999	133	144	2.7	357	386	452	489
2000	133	140	2.6	349	366	453	475
2001	137	139	2.6	351	356	456	463
2002	143	143	2.5	355	355	454	454

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2002 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal-year price index.

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.

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 – 2002

	May1969	May 1975	March 1979	Fiscal year¹
	May1969	May 1975	March 1979	1983	1988	1992	1996	2000	2001	2002
Avg. Family Size (persons)	4.0	3.2	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.9	2.8	2.6	2.6	2.5
Number of Child Recipients
One	26.6	37.9	42.3	43.4	42.5	42.5	43.9	44.2	44.8	47.0
Two	23.0	26.0	28.1	29.8	30.2	30.2	29.9	28.4	28.5	28.0
Three	17.7	16.1	15.6	15.2	15.8	15.5	15.0	15.3	14.8	14.2
Four or More	32.5	20.0	13.9	10.1	9.9	10.1	9.2	10.1	9.9	8.9
Unknown	NA	NA	NA	1.5	1.7	0.7	1.3	2.0	2.0	1.9
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit	10.1	12.5	14.6	8.3	9.6	14.8	21.5	34.5	37.1	39.0
Child-Only Families²	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	32.7	35.3	36.6
Families with Non-Recipients	33.1	34.8	NA	36.9	36.8	38.9	49.9	–	–	–
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
Since Most Recent Opening	23.0	31.0	29.0	26.0	26.3	22.5	23.6	–	–	–
Presence of Assistance
Living in Public Housing	12.8	14.6	NA	10.0	9.6	9.2	8.8	17.7	20.0	19.2
Participating in Food Stamp or Donated Food Program	52.9	75.1	75.1	83.0	84.6	87.3	89.3	79.9	80.9	80.1
Presence of Income
With Earnings	NA	14.6	12.8	5.7	8.4	7.4	11.1	23.6³	24.3³	21.8³
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income	56.0	71.1	80.6	86.8	79.6	78.9	76.0	71.6³	70.3³	72.8³
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed	–	–	–	–	–	6.6	11.3	26.4	26.7	25.3
Unemployed	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	49.2	47.5	47.2
Not in Labor Force	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	24.3	25.8	27.5
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):⁴
Full-time job	8.2	10.4	8.7	1.5	2.2	2.2	4.7	–	–	–
Part-time job	6.3	5.7	5.4	3.4	4.2	4.2	5.4	–	–	–
Marital Status (percent of adults)
Single	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	65.3	66.9	66.6
Married	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	12.4	11.7	11.5
Separated	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	13.1	12.5	13.0
Widowed	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.7	0.8	0.7
Divorced	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	8.5	8.2	8.2
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
Incapacitated	11.7⁵	7.7	5.3	3.4	3.7	4.1	4.3	–	–	–
Unemployed	4.6⁵	3.7	4.1	8.7	6.5	8.2	8.3	–	–	–
Death	5.5⁵	3.7	2.2	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.6	–	–	–
Divorce or Separation	43.3⁵	48.3	44.7	38.5	34.6	30.0	24.3	–	–	–
Absent, No Marriage Tie	27.9⁵	31.0	37.8	44.3	51.9	53.1	58.6	–	–	–
Absent, Other Reason	3.5⁵	4.0	5.9	1.4	1.6	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 in 1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii.

² In this report, child-only families are those families with no adult in the assistance unit excluding those where there is no adult in the assistance unit as a result of the parent being sanctioned for non-compliance.

³ Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients, not families, in 1998 and subsequent years.

⁴ For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only.

⁵ Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: 2003 TANF Annual Report to Congress and earlier years.

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2002

[Millions of dollars]

	1978	1984	1986	1988	1990	1994	1996	1998	2000	2002
Alabama	$78	$74	$68	$62	$62	$92	$75	$44	$36	$33
Alaska	17	37	46	54	60	113	107	77	55	55
Arizona	30	67	79	103	138	266	228	145	107	130
Arkansas	51	39	48	53	57	57	52	26	34	26
California	1,813	3,207	3,574	4,091	4,955	6,088	5,908	4,128	3,643	2,608
Colorado	74	107	107	125	137	158	129	80	48	53
Connecticut	168	226	223	218	295	397	323	305	166	128
Delaware	28	28	25	24	29	40	35	24	20	19
Dist. of Columbia	91	75	77	76	84	126	121	97	72	67
Florida	145	251	261	318	418	806	680	357	234	256
Georgia	103	149	223	266	321	428	385	313	180	109
Guam	3	5	4	3	5	12	14	NA	NA	NA
Hawaii	83	83	73	77	99	163	173	153	141	85
Idaho	21	21	19	19	20	30	30	6	3	5
Illinois	699	845	886	815	839	914	833	771	269	146
Indiana	118	153	148	167	170	228	153	104	87	146
Iowa	107	159	170	155	152	169	131	104	79	76
Kansas	73	87	91	97	105	123	98	41	43	50
Kentucky	122	135	104	143	179	198	191	147	104	101
Louisiana	97	145	162	182	188	168	130	103	58	67
Maine	51	69	84	80	101	108	99	80	73	66
Maryland	166	229	250	250	296	314	285	192	196	227
Massachusetts	476	406	471	558	630	730	560	442	336	279
Michigan	780	1,214	1,248	1,231	1,211	1,132	779	589	386	326
Minnesota	164	287	322	338	355	379	333	276	193	184
Mississippi	33	58	74	85	86	82	68	60	18	37
Missouri	152	196	209	215	228	287	254	180	139	148
Montana	15	27	37	41	40	49	45	30	21	31
Nebraska	38	56	62	56	59	62	54	41	41	52
Nevada	8	10	16	20	27	48	48	39	28	48
New Hampshire	21	16	20	21	32	62	50	39	32	29
New Jersey	489	485	509	459	451	531	462	372	222	194
New Mexico	32	49	51	56	61	144	153	104	113	82
New York	1,689	1,916	2,099	2,140	2,259	2,913	2,929	2,149	1,554	1,465
North Carolina	138	149	138	206	247	353	300	211	140	139
North Dakota	14	16	20	22	24	26	21	22	12	10
Ohio	441	725	804	805	877	1,016	763	546	368	336
Oklahoma	74	85	100	119	132	165	122	72	78	45
Oregon	148	101	120	128	145	197	155	141	34	69
Pennsylvania	726	724	389	747	798	935	822	523	573	338
Puerto Rico	25	38	33	67	72	74	63	NA	NA	NA
Rhode Island	59	71	79	82	99	136	125	117	105	89
South Carolina	52	75	103	91	96	115	101	52	91	35
South Dakota	18	17	15	21	22	25	22	14	10	11
Tennessee	77	83	100	125	168	215	190	108	146	132
Texas	122	229	281	344	416	544	496	315	248	203
Utah	41	52	55	61	64	77	64	50	40	41
Vermont	21	40	40	40	48	65	56	47	39	38
Virgin Islands	2	2	2	2	3	4	4	NA	NA	NA
Virginia	136	165	179	169	177	253	199	123	186	101
Washington	175	294	375	401	438	610	585	450	312	295
West Virginia	53	75	109	107	110	126	101	52	49	71
Wisconsin	260	519	444	506	440	425	291	145	7	126
Wyoming	6	13	16	19	19	21	17	7	9	2
United States	$10,621	$14,371	$15,236	$16,663	$18,543	$22,798	$20,411	$14,614	$11,180	$9,408

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance payments. NA denotes data not available.

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 2002 Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA

[In millions]

State	FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS¹	FY 2002 State Family Assistance Grant²	Increase from FY 1996 Level	Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
Alabama	$79.0	$124.2	$45.2	57
Alaska	60.7	60.3	-0.4	-1
Arizona	200.6	228.7	28.0	14
Arkansas	54.3	62.9	8.6	16
California	3,545.6	3,739.8	194.3	5
Colorado	138.9	169.4	30.5	22
Connecticut	221.1	280.1	59.1	27
Delaware	30.2	32.3	2.1	7
Dist of Columbia	77.1	117.1	39.9	52
Florida	504.7	622.7	118.0	23
Georgia	301.2	368.0	66.8	22
Hawaii	98.4	103.9	5.5	6
Idaho	31.3	35.0	3.7	12
Illinois	593.8	585.1	-8.8	-1
Indiana	121.4	217.1	95.8	79
Iowa	129.3	138.1	8.8	7
Kansas	86.9	101.9	15.0	17
Kentucky	171.6	190.4	18.7	11
Louisiana	122.4	189.2	66.8	55
Maine	73.2	78.1	4.9	7
Maryland	207.6	229.1	21.5	10
Massachusetts	372.0	459.4	87.3	23
Michigan	581.5	795.2	213.7	37
Minnesota	239.3	270.2	30.8	13
Mississippi	68.6	95.8	27.2	40
Missouri	207.9	227.9	20.0	10
Montana	39.2	46.4	7.2	18
Nebraska	56.2	58.4	2.2	4
Nevada	41.2	49.9	8.7	21
New Hampshire	36.0	39.0	2.9	8
New Jersey	353.4	404.0	50.7	14
New Mexico	129.9	121.9	-8.0	-6
New York	2,332.7	2,442.9	110.2	5
North Carolina	311.9	338.3	26.5	8
North Dakota	24.5	27.7	3.2	13
Ohio	564.5	728.0	163.5	29
Oklahoma	125.1	147.6	22.5	18
Oregon	146.4	166.8	20.4	14
Pennsylvania	780.1	719.5	-60.6	-8
Rhode Island	82.9	99.8	16.9	20
South Carolina	99.4	100.0	0.5	1
South Dakota	19.7	22.0	2.3	12
Tennessee	178.9	213.1	34.2	19
Texas	437.1	583.1	146.0	33
Utah	68.0	88.2	20.2	30
Vermont	42.4	49.7	7.4	17
Virginia	134.6	158.3	23.6	18
Washington	393.2	411.4	18.3	5
West Virginia	95.1	115.7	20.5	22
Wisconsin	241.6	331.0	89.4	37
Wyoming	14.4	19.6	5.2	36
United States	$15,067	$17,004	$1,937	13

¹ Includes Administration and FAMIS but excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant. The 1996 figures have been revised since earlier versions of this report, to reflect upward revisions in states' reports of expenditures on the JOBS program.

² The FY 2002 awards include State Family Assistance Grants, Supplemental Grants for Population Increases, Out of Wedlock Bonus and High Performance Bonus.

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 March 2003 Peak

[In thousands]

State	Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to Mar ’03	Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to Mar ’03	Sept ’96 Caseload	Mar ’03 TANF & SSP Caseload	Percent Decline¹ Sept ’96 to Mar ’03	Percent Decline Peak to Mar ’03
Alabama	52.3	Mar-93	40.7	19.5	52	63
Alaska	13.4	Apr-94	12.3	5.6	55	58
Arizona	72.8	Dec-93	61.8	48.3	22	34
Arkansas	27.1	Mar-92	22.1	10.9	51	60
California	933.1	Mar-95	870.3	496.6	43	47
Colorado	43.7	Dec-93	33.6	14.2	58	67
Connecticut	61.9	Mar-95	57.1	24.7	57	60
Delaware	11.8	Apr-94	10.5	5.7	45	51
Dist. of Columbia	27.5	Apr-94	25.1	16.8	33	39
Florida	259.9	Nov-92	200.3	58.5	71	77
Georgia	142.8	Nov-93	120.9	56.0	54	61
Guam	3.1	Oct-01	2.3	3.1	-36	0
Hawaii	23.4	Jun-97	21.9	13.5	39	42
Idaho	9.5	Mar-95	8.4	1.8	79	81
Illinois	243.1	Aug-94	217.8	37.4	83	85
Indiana	76.1	Sep-93	49.7	56.3	-13	26
Iowa	40.7	Apr-94	31.1	22.7	27	44
Kansas	30.8	Aug-93	23.4	15.4	34	50
Kentucky	84.0	Mar-93	70.4	34.8	51	59
Louisiana	94.7	May-90	66.5	22.2	67	77
Maine	24.4	Aug-93	19.7	10.3	48	58
Maryland	81.8	May-95	68.9	28.9	58	65
Massachusetts	115.7	Aug-93	84.3	49.1	42	58
Michigan	233.6	Apr-91	167.5	76.5	54	67
Minnesota	66.2	Jun-92	57.2	42.1	26	36
Mississippi	61.8	Nov-91	45.2	19.5	57	68
Missouri	93.7	Mar-94	79.1	44.4	44	53
Montana	12.3	Mar-94	9.8	6.4	34	48
Nebraska	17.2	Mar-93	14.4	11.9	17	31
Nevada	16.3	Mar-95	13.2	11.3	14	31
New Hampshire	11.8	Apr-94	8.9	6.2	31	48
New Jersey	132.6	Nov-92	100.8	44.2	56	67
New Mexico	34.9	Nov-94	33.0	16.3	51	53
New York	463.7	Dec-94	412.7	196.2	52	58
North Carolina	134.1	Mar-94	107.5	40.3	62	70
North Dakota	6.6	Apr-93	4.7	3.4	27	48
Ohio	269.8	Mar-92	201.9	84.0	58	69
Oklahoma	51.3	Mar-93	35.3	14.7	58	71
Oregon	43.8	Apr-93	28.5	19.1	33	56
Pennsylvania	212.5	Sep-94	180.1	80.3	55	62
Puerto Rico	61.7	Jan-92	49.5	19.0	62	69
Rhode Island	22.9	Apr-94	20.5	14.7	28	36
South Carolina	54.6	Jan-93	42.9	19.4	55	64
South Dakota	7.4	Apr-93	5.7	2.8	51	62
Tennessee	112.6	Nov-93	96.2	70.4	27	38
Texas	287.5	Dec-93	238.8	140.3	41	51
Utah	18.7	Mar-93	14.0	8.7	38	53
Vermont	10.3	Apr-92	8.7	5.3	39	48
Virgin Islands	1.4	Dec-95	1.3	0.5	66	68
Virginia	76.0	Apr-94	60.5	32.3	47	57
Washington	104.8	Feb-95	96.8	61.2	37	42
West Virginia	41.9	Apr-93	37.6	15.9	58	62
Wisconsin	82.9	Jan-92	49.9	21.0	58	75
Wyoming	7.1	Aug-92	4.3	0.4	91	94
United States	5,098	Mar-94	4,346	2,181	50	57

¹Negative values denote percent increase.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Division of Data Collection and Analysis.

Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years

[In thousands]

	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	1990-96	1996-02
Alabama	78	123	180	151	130	132	105	44	-19	-59
Alaska	5	8	15	16	20	38	36	18	79	-51
Arizona	40	51	51	72	124	201	172	94	38	-45
Arkansas	30	45	85	64	71	69	58	28	-19	-52
California	528	1,148	1,387	1,619	1,902	2,639	2,626	1,382	38	-47
Colorado	42	66	77	79	102	119	99	31	-4	-68
Connecticut	59	83	139	122	120	166	162	57	35	-65
Delaware	12	20	32	24	21	27	23	13	10	-45
Dist. of Columbia	20	40	85	58	49	74	70	43	44	-39
Florida	106	204	256	271	370	669	561	132	52	-77
Georgia	71	198	221	239	293	393	353	131	20	-63
Guam	1	2	5	6	4	7	8	11	91	37
Hawaii	14	25	60	51	44	62	67	50	52	-25
Idaho	10	16	21	17	17	23	23	2	38	-90
Illinois	262	368	672	735	636	712	655	135	3	-79
Indiana	48	73	157	165	154	216	148	150	-4	1
Iowa	44	64	104	123	98	110	89	55	-9	-38
Kansas	36	53	68	67	77	87	68	36	-11	-48
Kentucky	81	129	167	160	175	208	175	78	-0	-56
Louisiana	104	202	213	230	282	248	236	61	-16	-74
Maine	19	36	60	57	56	64	56	31	-0	-45
Maryland	80	131	212	195	186	222	204	71	10	-65
Massachusetts	94	208	350	235	263	307	237	108	-10	-54
Michigan	162	253	685	691	655	666	527	202	-20	-62
Minnesota	51	76	135	152	171	187	171	113	0	-34
Mississippi	83	115	173	155	179	159	129	40	-28	-69
Missouri	107	140	199	197	211	263	232	130	10	-44
Montana	7	13	19	22	29	35	31	16	8	-47
Nebraska	16	30	35	44	43	45	40	30	-7	-24
Nevada	5	12	12	14	23	38	38	32	66	-15
New Hampshire	4	9	22	14	16	30	24	14	48	-40
New Jersey	104	286	459	367	309	335	288	110	-7	-62
New Mexico	30	51	53	51	57	102	101	47	77	-53
New York	517	1,052	1,100	1,112	981	1,255	1,184	530	21	-55
North Carolina	111	124	198	166	223	333	278	91	24	-67
North Dakota	8	11	13	12	16	16	13	8	-14	-38
Ohio	183	266	513	673	632	685	546	191	-14	-65
Oklahoma	73	95	89	82	112	131	105	37	-6	-65
Oregon	31	75	102	74	89	114	87	41	-2	-53
Pennsylvania	303	426	629	561	521	620	544	211	4	-61
Puerto Rico	202	223	168	173	190	183	155	67	-18	-56
Rhode Island	24	38	52	44	46	63	58	44	27	-25
South Carolina	30	52	153	120	111	140	119	53	7	-55
South Dakota	11	16	20	16	19	19	16	7	-14	-59
Tennessee	76	129	162	155	211	300	260	168	23	-35
Texas	91	214	308	363	611	788	684	360	12	-47
Utah	22	33	37	38	45	50	40	20	-11	-50
Vermont	5	12	23	22	22	28	25	14	15	-44
Virgin Islands	1	2	3	4	3	4	5	2	55	-53
Virginia	46	87	166	154	151	195	162	71	7	-56
Washington	71	109	154	178	228	292	274	156	20	-43
West Virginia	116	93	77	106	111	114	95	42	-14	-56
Wisconsin	45	79	213	288	237	226	170	47	-28	-73
Wyoming	4	5	7	10	14	16	13	1	-9	-93
United States	4,323	7,415	10,597	10,813	11,460	14,226	12,645	5,654	10	-55

Note: Recipients in 2002 include SSP recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 2003 TANF Report to Congress.

Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In percent]

	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	1990-96	1996-02
Alabama	2.2	3.6	4.6	3.8	3.2	3.1	2.4	1.0	-24	-60
Alaska	1.8	2.6	3.7	3.0	3.7	6.3	5.9	2.7	63	-54
Arizona	2.6	2.9	1.9	2.3	3.4	4.7	3.7	1.7	11	-54
Arkansas	1.5	2.3	3.7	2.8	3.0	2.8	2.3	1.0	-25	-55
California	2.9	5.7	5.8	6.1	6.3	8.4	8.2	3.9	29	-52
Colorado	2.2	3.0	2.6	2.5	3.1	3.2	2.5	0.7	-19	-72
Connecticut	2.1	2.7	4.5	3.8	3.6	5.0	4.8	1.6	33	-66
Delaware	2.4	3.6	5.4	3.9	3.2	3.8	3.2	1.6	-0	-49
Dist. of Columbia	2.5	5.3	13.3	9.2	8.1	12.6	12.3	7.6	52	-38
Florida	1.8	3.0	2.6	2.4	2.8	4.7	3.8	0.8	33	-79
Georgia	1.6	4.3	4.0	4.0	4.5	5.5	4.7	1.5	4	-68
Hawaii	1.9	3.2	6.2	4.9	3.9	5.2	5.5	4.0	40	-27
Idaho	1.4	2.2	2.2	1.7	1.6	2.0	1.9	0.2	16	-91
Illinois	2.5	3.3	5.9	6.4	5.6	6.0	5.4	1.1	-2	-80
Indiana	1.0	1.4	2.9	3.0	2.8	3.7	2.5	2.4	-9	-3
Iowa	1.6	2.3	3.6	4.3	3.5	3.9	3.1	1.9	-12	-40
Kansas	1.6	2.4	2.9	2.8	3.1	3.4	2.6	1.3	-16	-50
Kentucky	2.5	4.0	4.6	4.3	4.7	5.4	4.5	1.9	-6	-57
Louisiana	2.9	5.6	5.0	5.2	6.7	5.7	5.4	1.4	-20	-75
Maine	1.9	3.6	5.4	4.9	4.5	5.2	4.5	2.4	-2	-47
Maryland	2.2	3.3	5.0	4.4	3.9	4.4	4.0	1.3	3	-67
Massachusetts	1.8	3.7	6.1	4.0	4.4	5.0	3.8	1.7	-12	-56
Michigan	2.0	2.9	7.4	7.6	7.0	6.9	5.4	2.0	-23	-63
Minnesota	1.4	2.0	3.3	3.6	3.9	4.1	3.6	2.2	-7	-38
Mississippi	3.6	5.2	6.9	6.0	6.9	5.9	4.7	1.4	-32	-70
Missouri	2.4	3.0	4.0	3.9	4.1	4.9	4.3	2.3	4	-46
Montana	1.0	1.9	2.4	2.7	3.6	4.0	3.5	1.8	-3	-49
Nebraska	1.1	2.0	2.2	2.8	2.7	2.8	2.4	1.7	-12	-27
Nevada	1.2	2.4	1.5	1.4	1.9	2.5	2.3	1.5	22	-34
New Hampshire	0.7	1.2	2.4	1.4	1.5	2.7	2.1	1.1	40	-45
New Jersey	1.5	4.0	6.2	4.9	4.0	4.2	3.5	1.3	-11	-64
New Mexico	3.0	5.0	4.1	3.5	3.8	6.1	5.8	2.6	53	-56
New York	2.9	5.8	6.3	6.2	5.4	6.8	6.4	2.8	17	-57
North Carolina	2.2	2.4	3.4	2.6	3.4	4.6	3.7	1.1	10	-70
North Dakota	1.2	1.7	2.0	1.8	2.4	2.6	2.1	1.3	-15	-36
Ohio	1.8	2.5	4.8	6.3	5.8	6.1	4.9	1.7	-17	-66
Oklahoma	3.0	3.7	2.9	2.5	3.6	4.0	3.1	1.1	-12	-66
Oregon	1.6	3.6	3.9	2.8	3.1	3.7	2.7	1.2	-14	-57
Pennsylvania	2.6	3.6	5.3	4.8	4.4	5.1	4.4	1.7	2	-62
Rhode Island	2.7	4.0	5.5	4.5	4.6	6.2	5.7	4.1	25	-29
South Carolina	1.2	2.0	4.9	3.6	3.2	3.8	3.1	1.2	-1	-61
South Dakota	1.6	2.4	2.9	2.3	2.7	2.6	2.2	0.9	-19	-60
Tennessee	2.0	3.3	3.5	3.3	4.3	5.7	4.8	2.9	11	-39
Texas	0.9	1.9	2.1	2.2	3.6	4.2	3.5	1.7	-1	-53
Utah	2.2	3.1	2.5	2.3	2.6	2.5	2.0	0.9	-25	-55
Vermont	1.4	2.6	4.4	4.2	3.9	4.8	4.3	2.3	10	-46
Virginia	1.0	1.9	3.1	2.7	2.4	3.0	2.4	1.0	-1	-60
Washington	2.4	3.2	3.7	4.0	4.7	5.4	4.9	2.6	6	-48
West Virginia	6.4	5.3	4.0	5.5	6.2	6.3	5.2	2.3	-16	-56
Wisconsin	1.1	1.8	4.5	6.1	4.8	4.4	3.3	0.9	-33	-74
Wyoming	1.1	1.5	1.4	2.0	3.1	3.4	2.6	0.2	-16	-94
United States	2.1	3.5	4.6	4.5	4.5	5.3	4.6	1.9	3	-58

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 Years

[In thousands]

	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	1990-96	1996-02
Alabama	62	96	129	105	93	96	79	34	-14	-57
Alaska	4	6	10	10	13	24	23	12	76	-49
Arizona	31	39	38	50	87	136	118	70	36	-40
Arkansas	23	34	62	45	51	49	42	21	-18	-51
California	391	816	932	1,070	1,294	1,804	1,805	1,043	39	-42
Colorado	33	50	53	53	69	80	68	23	-2	-66
Connecticut	43	62	97	82	81	111	108	42	33	-62
Delaware	9	15	22	16	14	19	16	10	9	-38
Dist. of Columbia	16	31	59	43	34	51	48	32	40	-34
Florida	85	160	184	191	264	463	395	104	49	-74
Georgia	54	150	161	166	206	274	251	101	22	-60
Guam	1	1	4	4	3	5	6	0	87	-100
Hawaii	10	18	40	33	29	41	44	33	51	-26
Idaho	7	11	14	11	11	16	16	2	41	-88
Illinois	202	283	473	493	436	486	456	107	5	-76
Indiana	36	55	111	111	105	145	104	105	-1	1
Iowa	32	46	69	77	64	72	59	36	-7	-39
Kansas	28	41	49	45	52	59	48	25	-8	-47
Kentucky	58	93	118	107	117	137	120	57	3	-52
Louisiana	79	157	156	163	199	180	162	48	-19	-70
Maine	14	26	40	36	35	40	35	21	0	-41
Maryland	61	100	145	126	124	151	140	52	13	-63
Massachusetts	71	153	228	152	168	197	153	77	-9	-50
Michigan	119	190	460	441	427	439	354	149	-17	-58
Minnesota	39	58	91	95	110	124	116	78	5	-32
Mississippi	66	93	128	112	129	116	96	30	-25	-68
Missouri	82	106	135	129	139	176	162	92	16	-43
Montana	6	10	13	15	19	23	21	11	10	-47
Nebraska	12	23	25	29	29	31	28	21	-5	-24
Nevada	4	9	8	9	16	27	27	23	71	-16
New Hampshire	3	7	15	9	11	19	16	10	48	-37
New Jersey	79	209	318	247	213	228	195	82	-8	-58
New Mexico	23	39	35	34	37	66	65	34	75	-48
New York	380	759	759	729	658	813	771	371	17	-52
North Carolina	83	94	141	113	152	223	191	70	26	-63
North Dakota	6	8	9	8	10	11	9	6	-12	-34
Ohio	136	198	348	424	414	455	382	142	-8	-63
Oklahoma	55	71	65	57	77	90	74	28	-4	-62
Oregon	23	52	65	49	60	76	60	30	0	-50
Pennsylvania	217	307	432	369	345	417	368	155	7	-58
Puerto Rico	161	166	118	116	130	124	105	47	-19	-55
Rhode Island	18	27	36	28	30	41	39	30	29	-24
South Carolina	24	40	109	84	80	102	89	39	12	-57
South Dakota	8	12	15	11	13	14	12	5	-11	-55
Tennessee	58	99	115	105	144	203	181	121	26	-33
Texas	68	162	225	256	428	549	484	269	13	-44
Utah	16	23	24	24	31	33	27	14	-11	-47
Vermont	4	8	14	14	14	17	16	9	15	-42
Virgin Islands	1	2	2	3	2	3	4	2	52	-52
Virginia	35	66	116	103	104	134	114	51	10	-55
Washington	50	76	97	113	148	187	177	108	20	-39
West Virginia	80	65	58	64	68	72	62	28	-10	-54
Wisconsin	34	60	142	181	158	153	123	38	-22	-69
Wyoming	3	4	5	7	9	11	9	1	-4	-92
United States	3,242	5,483	7,320	7,165	7,755	9,611	8,672	4,149	12	-52

Note: From FY 2000 onward, TANF child recipients include SSP child recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 2003 TANF Report to Congress.

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2002

[In percent]

	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1985	1990	1994	1996	2002	1990-96	1996-02
Alabama	4.6	7.7	11.1	9.7	8.8	8.9	7.3	3.3	-17	-55
Alaska	3.1	5.0	8.0	5.9	7.4	12.8	12.4	6.2	67	-50
Arizona	4.8	6.0	4.8	5.9	8.6	12.1	9.7	4.7	12	-51
Arkansas	3.1	5.2	9.3	7.1	8.2	7.7	6.4	3.0	-23	-53
California	6.0	12.3	14.6	15.6	16.2	20.8	20.3	11.0	25	-46
Colorado	4.4	6.4	6.5	6.1	7.8	8.3	6.8	2.0	-13	-70
Connecticut	4.4	6.1	11.8	10.8	10.8	14.2	13.7	4.8	27	-65
Delaware	4.7	7.5	13.4	10.2	8.7	10.5	8.9	5.1	2	-43
Dist. of Columbia	6.0	13.8	40.9	33.9	30.7	44.5	44.1	28.1	44	-36
Florida	4.3	7.6	7.8	7.6	8.8	14.1	11.6	2.6	31	-77
Georgia	3.2	9.1	9.8	10.1	11.8	14.6	12.8	4.4	9	-66
Hawaii	3.6	6.5	14.5	11.6	10.5	13.6	14.5	11.0	39	-24
Idaho	2.7	4.2	4.7	3.6	3.6	4.6	4.6	0.5	27	-88
Illinois	5.3	7.5	14.6	16.1	14.8	15.7	14.4	3.3	-3	-77
Indiana	2.0	3.0	6.9	7.5	7.3	9.8	7.0	6.5	-5	-6
Iowa	3.2	4.7	8.4	10.2	8.8	9.9	8.2	5.1	-8	-37
Kansas	3.5	5.4	7.5	6.9	7.9	8.5	7.0	3.6	-12	-48
Kentucky	4.9	8.3	10.9	10.5	12.4	14.1	12.4	6.1	-0	-51
Louisiana	5.5	11.3	11.8	12.2	16.5	14.6	13.3	4.0	-20	-70
Maine	3.9	7.7	12.5	11.7	11.5	13.1	11.8	7.4	3	-37
Maryland	4.6	7.3	12.4	11.4	10.6	12.0	11.1	3.8	5	-66
Massachusetts	3.8	8.1	15.3	11.2	12.4	13.9	10.6	5.2	-15	-51
Michigan	3.7	5.8	16.7	17.7	17.4	17.4	13.9	5.8	-20	-59
Minnesota	2.9	4.2	7.7	8.5	9.4	10.1	9.3	6.1	-0	-35
Mississippi	7.0	11.1	15.7	14.0	17.6	15.3	12.7	4.0	-28	-68
Missouri	5.2	6.9	9.9	9.8	10.6	12.9	11.6	6.4	10	-45
Montana	2.0	4.0	5.7	6.1	8.4	9.7	8.9	5.0	6	-44
Nebraska	2.3	4.4	5.5	6.8	6.8	7.0	6.1	4.7	-10	-23
Nevada	2.5	5.2	3.8	3.9	5.0	7.1	6.5	3.9	29	-40
New Hampshire	1.4	2.6	5.8	3.7	3.9	6.6	5.4	3.2	40	-41
New Jersey	3.4	8.8	16.0	13.5	11.7	11.7	9.9	3.8	-16	-61
New Mexico	5.2	9.5	8.5	7.8	8.3	13.5	13.1	6.7	59	-49
New York	6.3	13.0	16.2	16.7	15.4	18.0	17.0	8.0	11	-53
North Carolina	4.4	5.3	8.5	7.1	9.3	12.6	10.4	3.4	12	-68
North Dakota	2.3	3.6	4.7	4.3	6.0	6.3	5.4	4.0	-10	-25
Ohio	3.6	5.3	11.2	14.7	14.9	16.0	13.4	4.9	-10	-63
Oklahoma	6.4	8.5	7.6	6.3	9.1	10.4	8.5	3.1	-7	-63
Oregon	3.3	7.4	9.0	6.9	8.1	9.7	7.4	3.5	-8	-53
Pennsylvania	5.5	8.0	13.8	12.9	12.3	14.4	12.8	5.4	4	-58
Rhode Island	5.9	9.1	14.7	12.6	13.4	17.5	16.5	12.5	23	-24
South Carolina	2.3	4.2	11.6	9.1	8.7	10.8	9.4	3.8	8	-59
South Dakota	3.1	5.0	7.1	5.7	6.7	6.6	5.9	2.8	-12	-53
Tennessee	4.2	7.5	8.9	8.6	11.8	15.7	13.7	8.7	16	-37
Texas	1.7	4.1	5.2	5.4	8.7	10.4	8.8	4.4	1	-51
Utah	3.7	5.4	4.4	4.0	4.9	4.9	4.0	2.0	-19	-49
Vermont	2.7	5.4	9.9	9.9	9.5	11.7	10.8	6.5	13	-40
Virginia	2.2	4.1	7.9	7.1	6.8	8.4	7.0	2.9	3	-59
Washington	4.7	6.5	8.5	9.7	11.3	13.3	12.4	7.1	9	-43
West Virginia	12.2	11.2	10.4	12.6	15.7	16.8	14.6	7.2	-7	-51
Wisconsin	2.2	3.8	10.5	14.2	12.1	11.4	9.1	2.8	-25	-69
Wyoming	2.1	3.2	3.4	4.1	7.0	8.1	6.8	0.6	-2	-92
United States	4.4	7.6	11.3	11.2	11.9	14.0	12.4	5.6	4	-55

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/).

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients, 2002

(In thousands)

	Families			All Recipients			Child Recipients
	TANF	SSP	Total	TANF	SSP	Total	TANF	SSP	Total
Alabama	18.0	0.2	18.2	42.8	0.9	43.6	34.0	0.5	34.5
Alaska	6.0	—	6.0	17.6	—	17.6	11.9	—	11.9
Arizona	40.1	—	40.1	94.3	—	94.3	70.3	—	70.3
Arkansas	12.0	—	12.0	27.7	—	27.7	20.6	—	20.6
California	462.3	50.6	512.9	1,160.9	220.6	1,381.5	911.5	131.0	1,042.5
Colorado	12.1	—	12.1	31.5	—	31.5	23.3	—	23.3
Connecticut	23.7	0.9	24.7	53.2	3.4	56.6	37.8	3.7	41.5
Delaware	5.5	0.1	5.6	12.4	0.5	12.9	9.4	0.3	9.7
Dist. of	16.2	0.3	16.5	42.2	0.9	43.0	31.4	0.6	32.0
Florida	59.0	2.1	61.1	123.2	8.4	131.7	99.5	4.3	103.8
Georgia	53.7	0.6	54.2	128.2	2.3	130.5	99.5	1.2	100.8
Guam	3.1	—	3.1	10.8	—	10.8	—	—	0.0
Hawaii	11.1	4.7	15.9	30.5	19.4	49.9	21.3	11.2	32.5
Idaho	1.4	—	1.4	2.4	—	2.4	2.0	—	2.0
Illinois	48.1	0.7	48.8	133.7	1.3	135.0	106.9	0.5	107.3
Indiana	49.3	2.5	51.8	138.9	11.2	150.1	99.1	6.4	105.4
Iowa	20.2	1.5	21.7	53.4	1.5	55.0	35.9	—	35.9
Kansas	14.0	—	14.0	35.8	—	35.8	25.3	—	25.3
Kentucky	34.9	—	34.9	77.7	—	77.7	57.4	—	57.4
Louisiana	23.7	—	23.7	60.7	—	60.7	48.5	—	48.5
Maine	9.7	1.7	11.4	26.0	4.5	30.5	17.8	3.0	20.8
Maryland	27.1	2.1	29.3	64.9	6.5	71.4	48.1	4.2	52.3
Massachusetts	47.3	0.1	47.4	108.1	0.3	108.4	76.5	0.2	76.7
Michigan	74.3	—	74.3	201.7	—	201.7	148.8	—	148.8
Minnesota	35.9	3.9	39.7	94.6	18.0	112.6	68.1	10.3	78.4
Mississippi	17.6	—	17.6	40.4	—	40.4	30.5	—	30.5
Missouri	45.0	4.1	49.1	118.8	11.0	129.7	84.4	8.1	92.5
Montana	5.8	—	5.8	16.4	—	16.4	10.8	—	10.8
Nebraska	10.3	1.0	11.3	25.5	4.4	29.9	18.5	2.4	20.9
Nevada	11.0	1.0	12.0	27.6	4.4	32.1	20.5	2.5	23.0
New Hampshire	6.0	—	6.0	14.5	—	14.5	9.9	—	9.9
New Jersey	42.0	1.7	43.7	103.1	7.2	110.3	77.6	4.0	81.6
New Mexico	17.0	—	17.0	47.3	—	47.3	33.7	—	33.7
New York	170.4	33.9	204.4	412.5	117.0	529.5	292.8	77.9	370.7
North Carolina	42.9	0.0	42.9	91.1	0.1	91.2	70.2	0.1	70.3
North Dakota	3.2	—	3.2	8.3	—	8.3	6.0	—	6.0
Ohio	84.0	—	84.0	191.0	—	191.0	142.0	—	142.0
Oklahoma	14.8	—	14.8	36.9	—	36.9	28.3	—	28.3
Oregon	17.9	—	17.9	40.9	—	40.9	30.2	—	30.2
Pennsylvania	80.6	—	80.6	210.5	—	210.5	155.0	—	155.0
Puerto Rico	23.4	—	23.4	67.4	—	67.4	47.4	—	47.4
Rhode Island	14.4	1.2	15.6	39.0	4.6	43.5	27.1	2.6	29.7
South Carolina	21.5	—	21.5	53.3	—	53.3	38.5	—	38.5
South Dakota	2.9	—	2.9	6.6	—	6.6	5.4	—	5.4
Tennessee	63.0	1.0	64.0	164.6	3.7	168.3	118.8	2.2	121.0
Texas	129.9	6.6	136.5	331.4	28.5	359.9	253.1	15.5	268.6
Utah	7.8	0.1	7.8	19.9	0.2	20.1	14.3	0.1	14.4
Vermont	5.1	0.3	5.4	13.4	0.8	14.2	8.6	0.5	9.1
Virgin Islands	0.6	—	0.6	2.3	—	2.3	1.7	—	1.7
Virginia	30.1	0.9	30.9	67.3	3.5	70.8	49.1	1.9	50.9
Washington	54.2	4.2	58.4	137.8	18.4	156.1	95.7	11.8	107.6
West Virginia	15.9	—	15.9	41.6	—	41.6	28.2	—	28.2
Wisconsin	19.0	0.4	19.4	45.2	1.5	46.8	36.7	1.0	37.7
Wyoming	0.5	0.0	0.5	0.8	0.0	0.8	0.7	0.0	0.7
U.S. Total	2,065	128	2,194	5,149	505	5,654	3,841	308	4,149

Note: Some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs (SSPs) funded out of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars rather than federal TANF funds.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, (available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/)

Table TANF 16. Recipients with Earnings in Current and Following Quarters, Fiscal Year 2001

State	Adult TANF Recipients (Thousands)	Percentage with Earnings		Percentage without Earnings
State	Adult TANF Recipients (Thousands)	Total	With Earnings inFollowing Quarter	Total	With Earnings inFollowing Quarter
Alabama	10.7	39	74	61	22
Alaska	6.7	36	59	64	27
Arizona	24.5	40	73	60	20
Arkansas	8.8	45	76	55	27
California	287.9	43	83	57	14
Colorado	8.4	38	69	62	23
Connecticut	19.9	46	78	54	21
Delaware	3.6	46	74	54	24
Dist. of Columbia	12.6	37	73	63	17
Florida	36.0	42	79	58	23
Georgia	31.3	33	62	67	19
Hawaii	12.6	43	85	57	13
Idaho	0.6	47	79	53	30
Illinois	46.4	44	81	56	19
Indiana	37.5	50	80	50	22
	21.6	51	78	49	24
Kansas	12.2	52	77	48	27
Kentucky	25.7	26	69	74	25
Louisiana	17.1	36	63	64	23
Maine	9.8	46	79	54	20
Maryland	20.8	37	71	63	20
Massachusetts	34.6	28	68	72	16
Michigan	61.2	36	68	64	19
Minnesota	41.0	48	77	52	21
Mississippi	10.2	36	70	64	21
Missouri	40.0	51	79	49	25
Montana	6.0	40	71	60	23
Nebraska	8.3	53	78	47	26
Nevada	6.2	48	76	52	21
New Hampshire	5.1	40	75	60	20
New Jersey	34.0	32	76	68	19
New Mexico	20.8	44	76	56	21
New York	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
North Carolina	28.0	43	72	57	25
North Dakota	2.8	46	80	54	21
Ohio	65.5	44	76	56	22
Oklahoma	9.9	48	75	52	26
Oregon	11.7	30	71	70	16
Pennsylvania	69.7	29	71	71	19
Rhode Island	14.2	39	79	61	16
South Carolina	14.5	47	74	53	24
South Dakota	1.6	30	74	70	19
Tennessee	48.9	49	77	51	21
Texas	109.0	41	77	59	20
Utah	6.6	41	75	59	21
Vermont	6.2	42	77	58	19
Virginia	20.7	47	79	53	24
Washington	54.2	41	75	59	20
West Virginia	15.3	35	74	65	17
Wisconsin	8.3	39	72	61	23
Wyoming	0.3	39	65	61	27
All Reporting States	1,410	41	77	59	19

Note: “TANF adult recipients" is unduplicated roster of adults who received TANF benefits at any time during a quarter, averaged over four quarters in fiscal year. Data are not available for New York, which did not participate in the High Performance Bonus. Note also that TANF receipt and the presence of earnings may occur at different months within the quarter.

Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.

Table TANF 17. Patterns of TANF Receipt, Fiscal Year 2001

State	Adult TANF Recipients in Qtr(t) (Thousands)	Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients Also Receiving Benefits in Following Quarters
State	Adult TANF Recipients in Qtr(t) (Thousands)	Qtr(t+1)	Qtr(t+2)	Qtr(t+3)	Qtr(t+4)
Alabama	10.7	75	55	43	37
Alaska	6.7	76	62	54	48
Arizona	24.5	74	55	47	43
Arkansas	8.8	71	50	39	32
California	287.9	83	72	64	58
Colorado	8.4	72	53	43	37
Connecticut	19.9	82	67	55	46
Delaware	3.6	76	58	48	42
Dist. of Columbia	12.6	89	79	70	63
Florida	36.0	56	37	29	25
Georgia	31.3	75	57	47	41
Hawaii	12.6	84	71	62	54
Idaho	0.6	46	19	11	8
Illinois	46.4	80	65	53	43
Indiana	37.5	85	74	67	62
	21.6	75	58	50	43
Kansas	12.2	72	53	44	39
Kentucky	25.7	78	61	50	42
Louisiana	17.1	72	53	41	33
Maine	9.8	78	63	55	49
Maryland	20.8	81	66	56	48
Massachusetts	34.6	79	66	58	54
Michigan	61.2	76	62	54	48
Minnesota	41.0	76	60	50	43
Mississippi	10.2	74	56	46	40
Missouri	40.0	82	69	60	54
Montana	6.0	74	59	52	48
Nebraska	8.3	72	57	50	46
Nevada	6.2	70	49	36	30
New Hampshire	5.1	77	62	52	46
New Jersey	34.0	80	66	56	50
New Mexico	20.8	69	51	43	37
New York	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
North Carolina	28.0	70	51	40	33
North Dakota	2.8	76	61	54	49
Ohio	65.5	70	51	41	35
Oklahoma	9.9	70	50	40	35
Oregon	11.7	75	58	48	43
Pennsylvania	69.7	79	65	56	51
Rhode Island	14.2	87	77	70	65
South Carolina	14.5	73	52	42	35
South Dakota	1.6	67	48	40	36
Tennessee	48.9	84	72	65	60
Texas	109.0	76	58	47	40
Utah	6.6	71	51	40	33
Vermont	6.2	79	64	55	49
Virginia	20.7	77	61	51	44
Washington	54.2	75	59	50	44
West Virginia	15.3	78	61	52	45
Wisconsin	8.3	73	55	46	41
Wyoming	0.3	51	23	14	11
All Reporting States	1,410	78	63	54	47

Note: “Adult TANF Recipients in Qtr(t)" is unduplicated roster of adults who received TANF benefits at any time during a quarter, averaged over four quarters in fiscal year. Data are not available for New York, which did not participate in the High Performance Bonus. This table examines length of receipt for all recipients receiving TANF in the selected quarter, in contrast to Table IND 8 in Chapter II, which looked at new entrants to AFDC/TANF. Another difference is that in this table, a recipient is counted as a recipient each quarter in which there is at least one month of receipt, even if the recipient has a gap of non-receipt for several months.

Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.

¹ States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, child care, transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, generally should not be counted as recipients of TANF “assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” primarily includes 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: nonrecurrent, 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.

² These values are slightly smaller than the usually cited figures on caseload decline, because these figures include recipients in SSPs, who are usually omitted from TANF caseload statistics.

Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program (FSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service, is the largest food assistance program in the country, reaching more poor individuals over the course of a year than any other public assistance program. Unlike many other public assistance programs, FSP has few categorical requirements for eligibility, such as the presence of children, elderly, or disabled individuals in a household. As a result, the program offers assistance to a large and diverse population of needy persons, many of whom are not eligible for other forms of assistance.

The Food Stamp Program was designed primarily to increase the food purchasing power of eligible low-income households to the point where they can buy a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet. Participating households are expected to be able to devote 30 percent of their counted monthly cash income (after adjusting for various deductions) to food purchases. Food stamp benefits then make up the difference between the household’s expected contribution to its food costs and an amount judged to be sufficient to buy an adequate low-cost diet. This amount, the maximum food stamp benefit level, is derived from USDA’s lowest-cost food plan, the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP).

The federal government is responsible for virtually all of the rules that govern the program, and, with limited variations, these rules are nationally uniform, as are the benefit levels. Nonetheless, states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, through their local welfare offices, have primary responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the program. They determine eligibility, calculate benefits, and issue food stamp allotments. The Food Stamp Act provides 100 percent federal funding of food stamp benefits. States and other jurisdictions have responsibility for about half the cost of state and local food stamp agency administration.

In addition to the regular Food Stamp Program, the Food Stamp Act authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, was funded under a federal block grant of over $1.3 billion in 2002. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to the Food Stamp Program, to be consistent with FSP data published by the USDA.)

The Food Stamp Program offers assistance to nearly all financially needy households. To be eligible for food stamps, a household must meet eligibility criteria for gross and net income, asset holdings, work requirements, and citizenship or immigration status. The FSP benefit unit is the household. Generally, individuals living together constitute a household if they customarily purchase and prepare meals together. The income, expenses and assets of the household members are combined to determine program eligibility and benefit allotment.

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for households composed entirely of TANF, SSI, or General Assistance recipients, gross income cannot exceed 130 percent of poverty. After certain amounts are deducted for living expenses, working expenses, dependent care expenses, excess shelter expenses, child support payment, and - for elderly/disabled households - medical expenses, net income cannot exceed 100 percent of poverty. Households also must not have more than $2,000 in cash, savings, stocks and bonds, and certain vehicles (households with an elderly or disabled member can have up to $3,000 in countable assets).

All nonexempt adult applicants for food stamps must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the FSP office. Nondisabled adults living in households with children can receive benefits for three months only, unless they work or participate in work-related activities. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, or have five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

Food stamp benefits are a function of a household’s size, its net monthly income, its assets, and maximum monthly benefit levels. Allotments are not taxable and food stamp purchases may not be charged sales taxes. Receipt of food stamps does not affect eligibility for or benefits provided by other welfare programs, although some programs use food stamp participation as a “trigger” for eligibility and others take into account the general availability of food stamps in deciding what level of benefits to provide.

Recent Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Title IV and subtitle A of title VIII of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) contain major and extensive revisions to the Food Stamp Program, including strong work requirements on able-bodied adults without dependent children, restricted eligibility of legal immigrants, and a reduction in maximum benefits. These three provisions, and subsequent amendments, are discussed below; their impact on program participation and expenditures begins to appear in food stamp administrative data for 1997, with the fuller impact shown in data for 1998 and beyond.

First, a work requirement was added for able-bodied adult food stamp recipients without dependents (ABAWDs). Unless exempt, ABAWDs between the ages of 18 and 59 are not eligible for benefits for more than 3 months in every 36-month period unless they are (1) working at least 20 hours a week; (2) participating in and complying with a work program for at least 20 hours a week; or (3) participating in and complying with a workfare program. Under the original legislation, the Department of Agriculture was authorized to waive application of the work requirement to any group of individuals at the request of the state agency, if a determination is made that the area where they reside has an unemployment rate over 10 percent or does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide them employment. The provision was further moderated under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which allowed states to exempt up to 15 percent of the ABAWD caseload (beyond those subject to waivers) and which increased funds for the food stamp employment and training program for the creation of job slots for able-bodied adults subject to time limits.

Separately, title IV of PRWORA made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for food stamp benefits. As first enacted, most qualified aliens, including legal immigrants (illegal aliens were already ineligible) were barred from receiving food stamps until citizenship. Subsequently, the Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-185) restored food stamp eligibility to certain groups of qualified aliens who were legally residing in the United States before passage of PRWORA on August 22, 1996 and were over 65 years of age on that date or were under age 18 or disabled.

Finally, the 1996 legislation restrained growth in future program expenditures by making changes in the benefit structure for eligible participants, including a reduction in the maximum food stamp allotment. Other provisions of the 1996 act disqualified from eligibility those convicted of drug-related felonies and gave states the option to disqualify individuals, both custodial and noncustodial parents, from food stamps when they do not cooperate with child support agencies or are in arrears in their child support.

Recent regulatory and legislative changes have been made to increase access to food stamps among working poor families. Regulatory changes announced in July 1999 and expanded in November 2000 allow states to reduce reporting requirements and make it easier for working families to report income changes on a semiannual basis. Under the November 2000 regulations, states also have the option of providing a three-month transitional food stamp benefit to most families leaving TANF. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2001 (P.L. 106-387) provides states with the option of liberalizing the treatment of vehicle assets to align with the states’ TANF rules on vehicle eligibility. These changes were intended to address concerns that some of the decline in food stamp caseloads may be leaving poor families without nutritional assistance as they make the transition from welfare dependence to full self-sufficiency.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 - also known as the Farm Bill - reauthorized the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007. This law brought a number of significant changes to the program, including some which supercede earlier changes made through PRWORA and subsequent FSP legislation and regulations. Specifically, the Farm Bill restores food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants who have lived in the country five years and to legal immigrants receiving disability benefits, regardless of entry date. Children of legal immigrants are also eligible for food stamps regardless of entry date. Effective in fiscal year 2004, the requirement that income and resources of an immigrant’s sponsor be counted in determining the eligibility and benefit amounts for immigrant children is eliminated. Each provision became effective at different times, but all restorations were in effect by October 1, 2003.

The Farm Bill also increased the asset limit from $2,000 to $3,000 for households with a disabled member, making it consistent with the limit for households with elderly, and replaced the fixed standard deduction with a deduction that varies according to household size and is indexed to cost-of-living increases, in recognition of the higher expenses larger households incur. For households in the 48 contiguous states and DC, Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands, the deduction is set at 8.31 percent of the applicable net income limit based on household size. (Households in Guam will receive a slightly higher deduction.) No household receives an amount less than the previous fixed standard deduction or more than the standard deduction for a household of six.

Other Farm Bill changes include the authorization of $5 million per year for education and outreach grants to help inform the low-income public of their eligibility for food stamps, and increased flexibility for states in spending Employment and Training program funds to promote work. States also are now allowed to extend from three months to up to five months the period of time households may receive transitional food stamp benefits when they lose TANF cash assistance. Benefits are equal to the amount the household received prior to termination of TANF with adjustments in income for the loss of TANF. This change helps individuals moving off cash assistance to make the transition from welfare to work.

The Farm Bill also implemented a number of administrative reforms and program simplifications, including:

changing the quality control system so that only those states with persistently high error rates will face liabilities;
awarding bonuses to states that improve the quality and accuracy of their service;
allowing states to exclude certain types of income and resources not counted under TANF or Medicaid, such as educational assistance, when determining food stamp eligibility;
allowing states to deem child support payments as income exclusions rather than deductions as an incentive for parents to pay child support;
allowing states to simplify the standard utility allowance (SUA) if the state elects to use the SUA rather than actual utility costs for all households, thus reducing administrative burden, costs and errors;
permitting states to use a standard deduction from income of $143 per month for homeless households with some shelter expenses;
allowing states to extend simplified reporting procedures to all households, not just households with earnings;
eliminating the requirement that the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system be cost-neutral to the federal government to help support the EBT conversion process;
allowing USDA to use alternative methods for issuing food stamp benefits during times of disaster when use of EBT is impractical;
requiring food stamp applications be made available through the Internet; and
combining Puerto Rico and American Samoa’s block grants into one grant and indexing both with inflation.

Food Stamp Program Data

The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Food Stamp Program:

Tables FSP 1-2 and Figure FSP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the Food Stamp Program as discussed below;
Table FSP 3 presents some demogaphic characteristics of the food stamp caseload; and
Tables FSP 4-6 present some state-by-state trend data for the FSP through fiscal year 2002.

Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Table FSP 1). Average monthly food stamp participation was 19.1 million persons in fiscal year 2002, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.1 million participants. It is, however, far below the peak of 27.5 million recipients in fiscal year 1994. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population, food stamp recipiency in 2000 was lower than at any point in the previous twenty years. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data trends in food stamp caseload, specifically, food stamp recipiency and participation rates.

Considerable research has demonstrated that the Food Stamp Program is responsive to economic changes, with participation increasing in times of economic downturns and decreasing in times of economic growth (see Figure FSP 1). Economic conditions alone did not explain the caseload growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however. Studies suggest that a variety of factors contributed to this caseload growth, including a weak economy and higher rates of unemployment, expansions in Medicaid eligibility, the legalization of 3 million undocumented immigrants, and longer participation spells (McConnell, 1991; Gleason, 1998).

The decline in participation from 1994 to 2000 was caused by several factors, according to studies of this period. Part of the decline is associated with the strong economy in the second half of the 1990s. However, participation fell more sharply than expected during this period of sustained economic growth. Some of the decline reflected restrictions on the eligibility of noncitizens and time limits for unemployed nondisabled childless adults. The three groups where participation fell most rapidly included noncitizens and their US-born children, unemployed nondisabled childless adults, and persons receiving cash welfare benefits. As people left the welfare rolls, many also stopped participating in food stamps, even while remaining eligible (Genser, 1999; Wilde et al., 2000; Gleason et al., 2001; Kornfeld, 2002).

The increase in FSP participation from 2000 to 2002 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to six percent, states took advantage of opportunities to expand categorical eligibility to those receiving in-kind TANF benefits and liberalize the treatment of vehicles, and the Food and Nutrition Service was encouraging states to conduct outreach efforts.

Food Stamp Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table FSP 2, were considerably higher in 2002 than 2001, reflecting the increase in participation during that period as well as an increase in average benefits. Total federal program costs were $20.7 billion in 2002; the comparable 2001 cost was $18.1 billion (after adjusting for inflation). Average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table FSP 2, were $79.60 per person in fiscal year 2002, up from $74.80 in 2001. This increase in benefits reverses a six-year decline in average monthly benefits adjusted to 2002 dollars.

Food Stamp Household Characteristics. As shown in Table FSP 3, the proportion of food stamp households with earnings has increased, from about 20 percent for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, to 28 percent in 2002. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 43 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2002, following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. Over half of all food stamp households have children, although the proportion has declined somewhat from over 60 percent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s to 54 percent in 2002. The vast majority (88 percent) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962 – 2002

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962 – 2002

Note: Shaded areas are periods of recession as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank.

Table FSP 1. Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads, Selected Years: 1962 – 2002

Fiscal Year	Food Stamp Participants			Participants as a Percent of:			Child Participants as a Percent of:
Fiscal Year	Including Territories¹ (in thousands)	Excluding Territories (in thousands)	Children Excld. Terr. (in thousands)	Total Population²	All Poor Persons²	Pre-transfer Poverty Population³	Total Child Population²	Children in Poverty²
1962	6,554	6,554	NA	3.5	17.0	NA	NA	NA
1965	5,167	5,167	NA	2.7	15.6	NA	NA	NA
1970	8,317	8,317	NA	4.1	32.7	NA	NA	NA
1971	13,010	13,010	NA	6.3	50.9	NA	NA	NA
1972	14,111	14,111	NA	6.7	57.7	NA	NA	NA
1973	14,607	14,607	NA	6.9	63.6	NA	NA	NA
1974	14,288	14,288	NA	6.7	61.1	NA	NA	NA
1975 ⁴	17,152	16,320	NA	7.6	63.1	NA	NA	NA
1976	18,628	17,033	9,126	7.8	68.2	NA	13.8	88.8
1977	17,161	15,604	NA	7.1	63.1	NA	NA	NA
1978	16,077	14,405	NA	6.5	58.8	NA	NA	NA
1979 ⁵	17,758	15,942	NA	7.1	61.1	57.1	NA	NA
1980	21,173	19,253	9,876	8.5	65.8	60.7	15.5	85.6
1981	22,518	20,655	9,803	9.0	64.6	60.8	15.5	78.4
1982	21,808	20,392	9,591	8.8	59.3	56.3	15.3	70.3
1983	21,727	20,095	10,910	8.6	61.4	58.5	17.4	78.4
1984	20,854	20,796	10,492	8.8	61.7	58.5	16.8	78.2
1985	19,899	19,847	9,906	8.3	60.0	56.6	15.7	75.3
1986	19,429	19,381	9,844	8.1	59.9	56.2	15.7	76.5
1987	19,113	19,072	9,771	7.9	59.2	55.6	15.5	76.1
1988	18,645	18,613	9,351	7.6	58.6	55.2	14.8	75.1
1989	18,806	18,778	9,429	7.6	59.6	55.6	14.9	74.9
1990	20,049	20,020	10,127	8.0	59.6	55.7	15.8	75.4
1991	22,625	22,599	11,952	8.9	63.3	59.3	18.3	83.3
1992	25,406	25,370	13,349	9.9	66.7	64.0	20.1	87.3
1993	26,982	26,952	14,196	10.4	68.6	63.8	21.0	90.3
1994	27,468	27,433	14,391	10.4	72.1	66.8	21.0	94.1
1995	26,619	26,579	13,860	10.0	73.0	67.6	20.0	94.5
1996	25,542	25,494	13,189	9.5	69.8	64.6	18.8	91.2
1997	22,858	22,820	11,847	8.4	64.1	59.9	16.7	83.9
1998	19,788	19,745	10,524	7.2	57.3	53.8	14.7	78.1
1999	18,183	18,146	9,332	6.5	56.3	52.5	13.0	76.0
2000	17,139	17,101	8,743	6.1	55.0	51.6	12.1	75.5
2001	17,313	17,277	8,819	6.1	52.6	49.2	12.1	75.2
2002	19,094	19,057	9,688	6.6	55.0	52.1	13.3	79.8

¹ Total participants includes all participating states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 —a separate Nutrition Assistance Grant for Puerto Rico was begun in July 1982). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the FSP in 1975. The FFAP participants (as of December) for the seven years shown during the period from 1962 to 1974 were respectively: 6,411; 4,742; 3,977; 3,642; 3,002; 2,441; and 1,406 (all in thousands). From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.
² Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only — the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population numbers used as denominators are the resident population — see Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106. For the persons living in poverty used as denominators, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-210.
³ The pretransfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families or living alone 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.
⁴ The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.
⁵ The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased- in basis.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank, the 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and earlier years.

Table FSP 2. Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures, Selected Years: 1975 – 2002

Fiscal Year	Total Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration)		Benefitsh (Federal) [In millions]	Administration¹		Total Program Cost [In millions]	Average Monthly Benefit per Person
Fiscal Year	Current Dollars [In millions]	2002 Dollars² [In millions]	Benefitsh (Federal) [In millions]	Federal [In millions]	State & Local [In millions]	Total Program Cost [In millions]	Current Dollars	2002 Dollars²
1975	$4,619	$15,245	$4,386	$233	$175	$4,794	$21.30	$70.30
1976	5,685	17,567	5,326	359	270	5,955	23.90	73.80
1977	5,461	15,707	5,067	394	295	5,756	24.80	71.30
1978	5,520	14,894	5,139	381	285	5,805	26.60	71.80
1979³	6,940	17,219	6,480	460	388	7,328	30.50	75.70
1980	9,206	20,537	8,721	486	375	9,581	34.50	77.00
1981	11,225	22,769	10,630	595	504	11,729	39.50	80.10
1982	10,837	20,537	10,208	628	557	11,394	39.20	74.30
1983	11,847	21,474	11,152	695	612	12,459	43.00	77.90
1984⁴	11,579	20,131	10,696	883⁵	805	12,384	42.70	74.20
1985	11,703	19,641	10,744	960	871	12,574	45.00	75.50
1986	11,638	19,049	10,605	1,033	935	12,573	45.50	74.50
1987	11,604	18,470	10,500	1,104	996	12,600	45.90	73.10
1988	12,316	18,832	11,149	1,168	1,080	13,396	49.80	76.10
1989	12,932	18,871	11,701	1,232	1,101	14,033	51.80	75.60
1990	15,491	21,534	14,187	1,305	1,174	16,665	58.90	81.90
1991	18,769	24,836	17,339	1,430	1,247	20,016	63.90	84.60
1992	22,462	28,848	20,906	1,557	1,375	23,837	68.60	88.10
1993	23,653	29,488	22,006	1,647	1,572	25,225	68.00	84.80
1994	24,490	29,744	22,746	1,744	1,643	26,133	69.00	83.80
1995	24,620	29,091	22,764	1,856	1,748	26,368	71.30	84.30
1996	24,327	27,970	22,441	1,886	1,842	26,169	73.20	84.20
1997	21,487	24,055	19,550	1,937	1,904	23,391	71.30	79.80
1998	18,893	20,812	16,889	2,004	1,988	20,881	71.10	78.30
1999	17,698	19,131	15,755	1,943	1,874	19,572	72.20	78.00
2000	17,029	17,837	14,952	2,077	2,000	19,029	72.60	76.00
2001	17,800	18,063	15,547	2,253	2,170	19,970	74.80	75.90
2002	20,686	20,686	18,257	2,429	2,340	23,026	79.60	79.60

¹ Amounts include the federal share of state administrative and employment and training costs and certain direct federal administrative costs. They do not generally include approximately $60 million in food stamp- related federal administrative costs budgeted under a separate appropriation account (although estimates prior to 1989 do include estimates of food stamp related federal administrative expenses paid out of other Agriculture Department accounts). State and local costs are estimated based on the known federal shares and represent an estimate of all administrative expenses of participating states.
² Constant dollar adjustments to 2002 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index.
³ The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased - in basis.
⁴ Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps.
Note: Total federal cost includes food stamps in Puerto Rico (1975-1982). This table differs from the versions published in previous years in that it does not include the costs of the Family Food Assistance Program in the period from 1975 to 1983. The cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but (for consistency with the reporting of the Food and Nutrition Service) the total expenditures for benefits does not include the funding for the Puerto Rico nutrition assistance grant from the last quarter of FY 1982 when it replaced Puerto Rico’s food stamp program to the present (Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance grant was $778 million in 1983 and rose to over $1.3 billion in 2002. )
Source:USDA, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data from the National Data Bank; and the 2000 Green Book.

Table FSP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, 1980 – 2002
[In percent]

	Year¹
	1980	1984	1988	1990	1992	1994	1996	1998	2000	2002
With Gross Monthly Income:
Below the Federal Poverty Levels	87	93	92	92	92	90	91	90	89	88
Between the Poverty Levels and 130 Percent of the Poverty Levels	10	6	8	8	8	9	8	9	10	11
Above 130 Percent of Poverty	2	1	*	*	*	1	1	1	1	1

With Earnings	19	19	20	19	21	21	23	26	27	28

With Public Assistance Income²	65	71	72	73	66	69	67	65	63	56
With AFDC/TANF Income	NA	42	42	43	40	38	37	31	26	21
With SSI Income	18	18	20	19	19	23	24	28	32	29

With Children	60	61	61	61	62	61	60	58	54	54
And Female Heads of Household	NA	47	50	51	51	51	50	47	44	44
With No Spouse Present	NA	NA	39	37	44	43	43	41	38	37

With Elderly Members³	23	22	19	18	15	16	16	18	21	19
With Elderly Female Heads of Household³	NA	16	14	11	9	11	NA	NA	NA	NA

Average Household Size	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.3

¹ Data were gathered in August in the years 1980-84 and during the summer in the years from 1986 to 1994. Reports from 1995 to the present are based on fiscal year averages.
² Public assistance income includes AFDC/TANF, SSI, and general assistance.
³ Elderly members and heads of household include those of age 60 or older.
* Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2002 and earlier years.

Table FSP 4. Value of Food Stamps Issued by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1975 – 2002
[Millions of dollars]

State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	1998	2000	2002
Alabama	$103	$246	$318	$328	$441	$357	$344	$417
Alaska	6	27	25	25	50	50	46	59
Arizona	41	97	121	239	414	253	240	386
Arkansas	78	122	126	155	212	206	206	265
California	361	530	639	968	2,473	2,020	1,639	1,707
Colorado	44	71	94	156	217	157	127	165
Connecticut	36	59	62	72	169	161	138	146
Delaware	6	21	22	25	47	34	31	39
Dist. of Columbia	31	41	40	43	92	85	77	76
Florida	207	421	368	609	1,307	845	771	878
Georgia	129	264	290	382	700	538	489	621
Guam	2	15	18	15	24	34	36	52
Hawaii	23	60	93	81	177	178	166	152
Idaho	11	29	36	40	59	47	46	62
Illinois	238	394	713	835	1,056	844	746	923
Indiana	58	154	242	226	382	263	268	408
Iowa	28	54	107	109	142	109	100	129
Kansas	12	38	64	96	144	83	83	113
Kentucky	135	211	332	334	413	345	337	410
Louisiana	148	243	365	549	629	467	448	587
Maine	31	60	62	63	112	100	81	97
Maryland	76	140	171	203	365	282	199	215
Massachusetts	75	171	173	207	315	222	182	209
Michigan	124	263	541	663	806	588	457	645
Minnesota	40	62	105	165	240	181	165	201
Mississippi	110	199	264	352	383	254	226	298
Missouri	82	142	212	312	488	345	358	477
Montana	11	18	31	41	57	52	51	58
Nebraska	11	25	44	59	77	68	61	74
Nevada	10	15	22	41	91	63	57	96
New Hampshire	11	22	15	20	44	30	28	35
New Jersey	125	226	260	289	506	384	304	314
New Mexico	48	81	88	117	196	144	140	154
New York	209	726	938	1,086	2,065	1,505	1,361	1,479
North Carolina	122	234	237	282	495	421	403	536
North Dakota	5	9	16	25	32	25	25	31
Ohio	253	382	697	861	1,017	613	520	726
Oklahoma	38	73	134	186	315	231	208	288
Oregon	56	80	142	168	254	198	198	319
Pennsylvania	175	373	547	661	1,006	764	656	700
Rhode Island	18	31	35	42	82	57	59	64
South Carolina	121	181	194	240	297	264	249	352
South Dakota	8	18	26	35	40	37	37	45
Tennessee	115	282	280	372	554	437	415	552
Texas	314	514	701	1,429	2,246	1,425	1,215	1,522
Utah	12	22	40	71	90	75	68	80
Vermont	9	18	20	22	46	34	32	34
Virgin Islands	6	19	23	18	28	22	21	17
Virginia	63	158	189	247	450	307	263	305
Washington	70	90	140	229	417	308	241	318
West Virginia	56	87	159	192	253	224	185	198
Wisconsin	29	68	148	180	220	130	129	197
Wyoming	3	6	15	21	28	21	19	22
United States	$4,386	$8,721	$10,744	$14,186	$22,764	$16,889	$14,952	$18,257

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include amounts for Puerto Rico of $366 and $828 million respectively.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

Table FSP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years
[In thousands]

State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2001	2002	Percent Change
State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2001	2002	90-96	96-02
Alabama	365	583	588	454	509	396	411	444	12	-13
Alaska	15	29	22	25	46	38	38	46	84	-0
Arizona	143	196	206	317	427	259	291	379	35	-11
Arkansas	267	301	253	235	274	247	256	284	17	4
California	1,455	1,493	1,615	1,955	3,143	1,832	1,668	1,710	61	-46
Colorado	150	163	170	221	244	156	154	178	10	-27
Connecticut	155	170	145	133	223	165	157	169	67	-24
Delaware	26	52	40	33	58	32	32	40	74	-31
Dist. of Columbia	122	103	72	62	93	81	73	74	49	-20
Florida	647	912	630	781	1,371	882	887	985	75	-28
Georgia	498	627	567	536	793	559	574	646	48	-19
Guam	6	22	20	12	18	22	23	24	50	39
Hawaii	75	102	99	77	130	118	108	106	69	-18
Idaho	39	61	59	59	80	58	60	70	36	-12
Illinois	926	903	1,110	1,013	1,105	760	825	886	9	-20
Indiana	392	353	406	311	390	300	347	411	25	5
Iowa	115	141	203	170	177	123	126	141	4	-21
Kansas	58	90	119	142	172	117	124	140	21	-18
Kentucky	472	468	560	458	486	403	413	450	6	-7
Louisiana	510	569	644	727	670	500	518	588	-8	-12
Maine	126	139	114	94	131	102	104	111	39	-15
Maryland	261	324	287	255	375	219	208	228	47	-39
Massachusetts	365	453	337	347	374	232	219	243	8	-35
Michigan	619	813	985	917	935	603	641	750	2	-20
Minnesota	167	171	228	263	295	196	198	217	12	-26
Mississippi	376	496	495	499	457	276	298	325	-8	-29
Missouri	300	335	362	431	554	423	454	515	28	-7
Montana	38	43	58	57	71	59	62	63	25	-10
Nebraska	49	66	94	95	102	82	81	88	7	-13
Nevada	32	32	32	50	97	61	69	97	94	0
New Hampshire	44	50	28	31	53	36	36	41	73	-22
New Jersey	490	605	464	382	540	345	318	320	42	-41
New Mexico	157	185	157	157	235	169	163	170	49	-27
New York	1,291	1,759	1,834	1,548	2,099	1,439	1,354	1,347	36	-36
North Carolina	466	582	474	419	631	488	494	574	51	-9
North Dakota	19	25	33	39	40	32	38	37	2	-8
Ohio	854	865	1,133	1,089	1,045	610	641	735	-4	-30
Oklahoma	171	209	263	267	354	253	271	317	33	-10
Oregon	201	197	228	216	288	234	284	359	33	25
Pennsylvania	848	980	1,032	952	1,124	777	748	767	18	-32
Rhode Island	86	87	69	64	91	74	71	72	42	-21
South Carolina	410	426	373	299	358	295	316	379	20	6
South Dakota	33	43	48	50	49	43	45	48	-3	-2
Tennessee	397	624	518	527	638	496	522	598	21	-6
Texas	1,133	1,167	1,263	1,880	2,372	1,333	1,361	1,554	26	-34
Utah	46	54	75	99	110	82	80	90	11	-18
Vermont	44	46	44	38	56	41	39	40	47	-29
Virgin Islands	16	34	32	18	31	16	13	12	75	-59
Virginia	257	384	360	346	538	336	332	352	55	-34
Washington	253	248	281	340	478	295	309	350	41	-27
West Virginia	242	209	278	262	300	227	221	236	14	-21
Wisconsin	148	215	363	286	283	193	216	262	-1	-7
Wyoming	10	14	27	28	33	22	23	24	17	-29
United States	17,192	21,082	19,899	20,067	25,542	17,139	17,313	19,094	27	-25

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include recipients in Puerto Rico of 810 thousand and 1.86 million respectively.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table FSP 6. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years
[In percent]

State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2001	2002	Percent Change
State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2001	2002	90-96	96-02
Alabama	9.9	14.9	14.8	11.2	11.8	8.9	9.2	9.9	5	-16
Alaska	4.0	7.1	4.1	4.5	7.6	6.0	6.0	7.2	67	-6
Arizona	6.3	7.1	6.5	8.6	9.3	5.0	5.5	6.9	8	-26
Arkansas	12.4	13.1	10.9	10.0	10.6	9.2	9.5	10.5	7	-2
California	6.8	6.3	6.1	6.5	9.8	5.4	4.8	4.9	50	-50
Colorado	5.8	5.6	5.3	6.7	6.2	3.6	3.5	4.0	-7	-36
Connecticut	5.0	5.5	4.5	4.0	6.7	4.8	4.6	4.9	65	-27
Delaware	4.5	8.7	6.5	5.0	7.8	4.1	4.0	4.9	57	-37
Dist. of Columbia	17.2	16.1	11.4	10.3	16.2	14.1	12.8	13.0	58	-20
Florida	7.6	9.3	5.5	6.0	9.2	5.5	5.4	5.9	54	-36
Georgia	9.8	11.4	9.5	8.2	10.6	6.8	6.8	7.5	28	-29
Hawaii	8.4	10.6	9.5	6.9	10.8	9.7	8.8	8.5	57	-21
Idaho	4.6	6.4	5.9	5.8	6.6	4.5	4.5	5.2	15	-21
Illinois	8.2	7.9	9.7	8.8	9.1	6.1	6.6	7.0	3	-23
Indiana	7.3	6.4	7.4	5.6	6.6	4.9	5.7	6.7	18	1
Iowa	4.0	4.8	7.2	6.1	6.2	4.2	4.3	4.8	0	-22
Kansas	2.5	3.8	4.9	5.7	6.6	4.3	4.6	5.2	15	-21
Kentucky	13.6	12.8	15.2	12.4	12.4	10.0	10.1	11.0	-0	-11
Louisiana	13.1	13.5	14.6	17.2	15.2	11.2	11.6	13.1	-12	-14
Maine	11.8	12.3	9.8	7.6	10.5	8.0	8.1	8.6	38	-18
Maryland	6.3	7.7	6.5	5.3	7.3	4.1	3.9	4.2	38	-43
Massachusetts	6.3	7.9	5.7	5.8	6.0	3.6	3.4	3.8	5	-38
Michigan	6.8	8.8	10.8	9.8	9.6	6.1	6.4	7.5	-3	-22
Minnesota	4.2	4.2	5.5	6.0	6.3	4.0	4.0	4.3	4	-31
Mississippi	15.7	19.6	19.1	19.4	16.6	9.7	10.4	11.3	-14	-32
Missouri	6.2	6.8	7.2	8.4	10.2	7.6	8.1	9.1	21	-11
Montana	5.1	5.5	7.1	7.1	8.0	6.6	6.8	7.0	13	-13
Nebraska	3.2	4.2	5.9	6.0	6.1	4.8	4.7	5.1	2	-16
Nevada	5.2	4.0	3.4	4.1	5.8	3.0	3.3	4.5	42	-23
New Hampshire	5.3	5.4	2.8	2.7	4.5	2.9	2.8	3.2	64	-28
New Jersey	6.7	8.2	6.1	4.9	6.6	4.1	3.7	3.7	35	-44
New Mexico	13.5	14.1	10.9	10.3	13.4	9.3	8.9	9.2	30	-31
New York	7.2	10.0	10.3	8.6	11.3	7.6	7.1	7.0	31	-38
North Carolina	8.4	9.9	7.6	6.3	8.4	6.0	6.0	6.9	34	-18
North Dakota	2.9	3.9	4.9	6.1	6.1	5.0	5.9	5.8	-0	-5
Ohio	7.9	8.0	10.6	10.0	9.3	5.4	5.6	6.4	-7	-31
Oklahoma	6.2	6.9	8.0	8.5	10.6	7.3	7.8	9.1	25	-14
Oregon	8.6	7.5	8.5	7.6	8.9	6.8	8.2	10.2	17	15
Pennsylvania	7.1	8.3	8.8	8.0	9.2	6.3	6.1	6.2	15	-32
Rhode Island	9.2	9.1	7.2	6.4	8.9	7.1	6.7	6.7	40	-24
South Carolina	14.1	13.6	11.3	8.5	9.4	7.3	7.8	9.2	10	-2
South Dakota	4.8	6.2	6.9	7.2	6.6	5.7	5.9	6.3	-9	-5
Tennessee	9.3	13.6	11.0	10.8	11.8	8.7	9.1	10.3	9	-12
Texas	9.0	8.1	7.8	11.0	12.3	6.4	6.4	7.1	11	-42
Utah	3.7	3.7	4.6	5.7	5.3	3.7	3.5	3.9	-7	-27
Vermont	9.1	8.9	8.2	6.8	9.5	6.7	6.3	6.5	40	-32
Virginia	5.1	7.2	6.3	5.6	8.0	4.7	4.6	4.8	43	-39
Washington	7.0	6.0	6.4	6.9	8.6	5.0	5.1	5.8	24	-33
West Virginia	13.1	10.7	14.6	14.6	16.4	12.6	12.3	13.1	13	-20
Wisconsin	3.2	4.6	7.6	5.8	5.4	3.6	4.0	4.8	-7	-11
Wyoming	2.7	3.0	5.4	6.2	6.8	4.5	4.6	4.7	8	-30
United States	7.6	8.5	8.3	8.0	9.5	6.1	6.1	6.6	18	*-30*

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of food stamp recipients in each state during the particular fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerator is from Table FSP 5.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness or disability. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18 and meet the applicable SSI disability or blindness, income and resource requirements. Individuals and married couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the Federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels of $552 for an individual and $829 for a married couple in fiscal year 2003. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the SSI program. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed as the “program of last resort.” Therefore, SSA helps recipients obtain any other public assistance that they are eligible to receive before providing SSI benefits. After evaluating all other income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.” As of December 2001, 36 percent of all SSI recipients also received Social Security retirement or survivor benefits, which are the single greatest source of income for SSI recipients.

Prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), no individual could receive both SSI payments and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. If eligible for both, the individual had to choose which benefit to receive. Generally, the AFDC agency encouraged individuals to file for SSI and, once the SSI payments had started, the individual was removed from the AFDC filing unit. Since states have the authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels under PRWORA, individuals are not prohibited from receiving both TANF benefits and SSI.

With the exception of California, which converted food stamp benefits to cash payments that are included in the State supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive food stamps. If all household members receive SSI, the household is categorically eligible for food stamps and does not need to meet the Food Stamp Program’s financial eligibility standards. If SSI beneficiaries live in households in which other household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility standard of the Food Stamp Program to be eligible for food stamp benefits.

Legislative Changes

Several legislative changes made in the 104th Congress affected SSI participation and expenditures. Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, prohibited SSI eligibility to individuals whose drug addiction and/or alcoholism (DAA) is a contributing factor material to the finding of disability. This provision applied to individuals who filed for benefits on or after the date of enactment (March 29, 1996) and to individuals whose claims were finally adjudicated on or after the date of enactment. It applied to current beneficiaries on January 1, 1997.

PRWORA made several changes designed to maintain the SSI program’s goal of limiting benefits to severely disabled children. First, the act replaced the former “comparable severity” test with a new definition of disability specifically for children, based on a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that result in “marked and severe functional limitations.” Second, SSA discontinued use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) which it had implemented in 1991 following the Supreme Court’s decision inSullivanv.Zebley, 493 U.S. 521(1990)(3).¹Third references to “maladaptive behaviors” in certain sections of the Listing of Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function) were eliminated. The latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Beneficiaries who were receiving benefits due to an IFA or under the Listings because of limitations resulting from maladaptive behaviors received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might end when their case was redetermined. Additional provisions of the PRWORA with impact on enrollment are the requirement that eligibility be redetermined when beneficiaries reach age 18, using the adult disability standard; that “continuing disability reviews” be done for children; and that children who were eligible due to low birth weight have their eligibility redetermined at age one.

Title IV of PRWORA also made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for SSI benefits. Some of the restrictions were subsequently moderated, most notably by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which “grandfathered” immigrants who were receiving SSI at the time of enactment of the PRWORA. Those immigrants who entered the U.S. after August 22, 1996, may be eligible to receive SSI after having been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

Several provisions aimed at reducing SSI fraud and improving recovery of overpayments were enacted in 1999 as part of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P. L. 106-169). Other legislation enacted in 1999 provides additional work incentives for disabled beneficiaries of SSI.

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program.
Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload.
Tables SSI 7 and SSI 8 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2002.

SSI Caseload Trends(Tables SSI 1-2 and Figure SSI 1). From 1990 to 1995, the number of SSI beneficiaries increased from 4.8 million to 6.5 million, an average growth rate of over 6 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. In December 2002, there were 6.8 million beneficiaries. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2002, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adult age 18-64, and adult age 65 or older). See also Table IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation rates.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 2. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to less than 1.3 million persons in December 2002. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 5.5 million in December 2002. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased dramatically, particularly during the 1990s, when the number of disabled children receiving SSI increased from 309,000 in December 1990 to 955,000 in December 1996. The number of disabled children fell in the next three years, stabilized at 847,000 in 1999 and 2000, and rose to 915,000 in 2002.

Several factors have contributed to the growth of the Supplemental Security Income program. Expansions in disability eligibility (particularly for mentally impaired adults and for children), increased outreach, overall growth in immigration, and transfers from state programs were among the key factors identified in a 1995 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups— adults with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens— accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in theZebleycase, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.²

SSI Expenditures.While administrative costs increased by about 1 percent, the total amount paid out in SSI benefits increased from $33.6 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2001 to $34.6 billion in 2002, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly benefits per person were $415 in 2002, up slightly from 2001 inflation adjusted benefit level of $413. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics.Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI recipients aged 65 or older has decreased dramatically, from 54 percent in 1980 to 29 percent in 2002.

Figure SSI 1.SSI Recipients by Age, 1974– 2002

Source:Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003(Data available online athttp://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments 1974– 2002
[In thousands]

Date		Total	Eligibility Category				Type of Recipient
			Aged	Blind and Disabled			Children	Adults
			Aged	Total	Blind	Disabled	Children	Age 18-64	65 or Older
Dec	1974	3,996	2,286	1,710	75	1,636	71¹	1,503	2,422
Dec	1975	4,314	2,307	2,007	74	1,933	107	1,699	2,508
Dec	1976	4,236	2,148	2,088	76	2,012	125	1,714	2,397
Dec	1977	4,238	2,051	2,187	77	2,109	147	1,738	2,353
Dec	1978	4,217	1,968	2,249	77	2,172	166	1,747	2,304
Dec	1979	4,150	1,872	2,278	77	2,201	177	1,727	2,246
Dec	1980	4,142	1,808	2,334	78	2,256	190	1,731	2,221
Dec	1981	4,019	1,678	2,341	79	2,262	195	1,703	2,121
Dec	1982	3,858	1,549	2,309	77	2,231	192	1,655	2,011
Dec	1983	3,901	1,515	2,386	79	2,307	198	1,700	2,003
Dec	1984	4,029	1,530	2,499	81	2,419	212	1,780	2,037
Dec	1985	4,138	1,504	2,634	82	2,551	227	1,879	2,031
Dec	1986	4,269	1,473	2,796	83	2,713	241	2,010	2,018
Dec	1987	4,385	1,455	2,930	83	2,846	251	2,119	2,015
Dec	1988	4,464	1,433	3,030	83	2,948	255	2,203	2,006
Dec	1989	4,593	1,439	3,154	83	3,071	265	2,302	2,026
Dec	1990	4,817	1,454	3,363	84	3,279	309	2,450	2,059
Dec	1991	5,118	1,465	3,654	85	3,569	397	2,642	2,080
Dec	1992	5,566	1,471	4,095	85	4,010	556	2,910	2,100
Dec	1993	5,984	1,475	4,509	85	4,424	723	3,148	2,113
Dec	1994	6,296	1,466	4,830	85	4,745	841	3,335	2,119
Dec	1995	6,514	1,446	5,068	84	4,984	917	3,482	2,115
Dec	1996	6,614	1,413	5,201	82	5,119	955	3,568	2,090
Dec	1997	6,495	1,362	5,133	81	5,052	880	3,562	2,054
Dec	1998	6,566	1,332	5,234	80	5,154	887	3,646	2,033
Dec	1999	6,557	1,308	5,249	79	5,169	847	3,691	2,019
Dec	2000	6,602	1,289	5,312	79	5,234	847	3,744	2,011
Dec	2001	6,688	1,264	5,424	78	5,346	882	3,811	1,995
Dec	2002	6,788	1,252	5,537	78	5,537	915	3,878	1,995

¹Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.
Source:Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003(Data available online athttp://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates, 1974– 2002
[In percent]

Date	All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population¹	Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population¹	Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children¹	Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
Date	All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population¹	Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population¹	Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children¹	All Persons 65 & Older¹	All Elderly Poor²	Pretransfer Elderly Poor³
Dec 1974	1.9	1.2	0.1	10.8	78.5	NA
Dec 1975	2.0	1.3	0.2	10.9	75.6	NA
Dec 1976	1.9	1.3	0.2	10.2	72.4	NA
Dec 1977	1.9	1.3	0.2	9.7	74.1	NA
Dec 1978	1.9	1.3	0.3	9.3	71.5	NA
Dec 1979	1.8	1.3	0.3	8.8	61.3	66.8
Dec 1980	1.8	1.2	0.3	8.6	57.5	64.7
Dec 1981	1.7	1.2	0.3	8.0	55.0	63.3
Dec 1982	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.4	53.6	62.3
Dec 1983	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.3	55.2	61.9
Dec 1984	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.2	61.2	66.3
Dec 1985	1.7	1.3	0.4	7.1	58.7	64.5
Dec 1986	1.8	1.3	0.4	6.9	57.9	63.4
Dec 1987	1.8	1.4	0.4	6.7	56.5	64.7
Dec 1988	1.8	1.5	0.4	6.6	57.6	64.3
Dec 1989	1.9	1.5	0.4	6.5	60.3	64.6
Dec 1990	1.9	1.6	0.5	6.5	56.3	63.3
Dec 1991	2.0	1.7	0.6	6.5	55.0	61.1
Dec 1992	2.2	1.9	0.8	6.4	53.5	59.8
Dec 1993	2.3	2.0	1.1	6.4	56.3	63.3
Dec 1994	2.4	2.1	1.2	6.3	57.9	65.6
Dec 1995	2.4	2.2	1.3	6.2	63.7	71.4
Dec 1996	2.4	2.2	1.4	6.1	61.0	69.3
Dec 1997	2.4	2.2	1.2	6.0	60.8	69.1
Dec 1998	2.4	2.2	1.2	5.9	60.0	69.1
Dec 1999	2.3	2.2	1.2	5.8	62.6	72.4
Dec 2000	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.7	60.5	66.9
Dec 2001	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.6	58.4	67.6
Dec 2002	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.6	55.8	64.5

¹Population numbers used for the denominators are Census Bureau resident population estimates adjusted to the December date by averaging the July 1 population of the current year with the July 1 population of the following year (resident population estimates by age are available online athttp://www.census.gov).
²For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, seeCurrent Population Reports, Series P60-222.
³The pretransfer poverty population used as the denominator is the number of all elderly persons living in elderly-only units 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.
Notes:Numerators for these ratios are from Table SSI 1. Rates computed by DHHS.
Source:1994 Green Bookand U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002”Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and earlier years, (Available online athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Total, Federal, and State SSI Benefits and Administration, 1974– 2002¹
[In millions of dollars]

Calendar Year	Total Benefits		Federal Payments	State Supplementation			Administrative Costs (fiscal year)
Calendar Year	2002 ² Dollars	Current Dollars	Federal Payments	Total	Federally Administered	State Administered	Administrative Costs (fiscal year)
1974	$8,183	$5,246	$3,833	$1,413	$1,264	$149	$285
1975	18,817	5,878	4,314	1,565	1,403	162	399
1976	18,372	6,066	4,512	1,554	1,388	166	500
1977	17,950	6,306	4,703	1,603	1,431	172	526
1978	17,462	6,552	4,881	1,671	1,491	180	539
1979	17,200	7,075	5,279	1,797	1,590	207	610
1980	17,358	7,941	5,866	2,074	1,848	226	668
1981	17,157	8,593	6,518	2,076	1,839	237	718
1982	16,900	8,981	6,907	2,074	1,798	276	779
1983	16,986	9,404	7,423	1,982	1,711	270	830
1984	17,958	10,372	8,281	2,091	1,792	299	864
1985	18,492	11,060	8,777	2,283	1,973	311	953
1986	19,830	12,081	9,498	2,583	2,243	340	1,022
1987	20,510	12,951	10,029	2,922	2,563	359	976
1988	20,965	13,786	10,734	3,052	2,671	381	975
1989	21,733	14,980	11,606	3,374	2,955	419	1,051
1990	22,847	16,599	12,894	3,705	3,239	466	1,075
1991	24,468	18,524	14,765	3,759	3,231	529	1,257
1992	28,508	22,233	18,247	3,986	3,435	550	1,538
1993	30,573	24,557	20,722	3,835	3,270	566	1,467
1994	31,412	25,877	22,175	3,701	3,116	585	1,775
1995	32,613	27,628	23,919	3,708	3,118	590	1,973
1996	33,013	28,792	25,265	3,527	2,988	539	1,949
1997	32,564	29,052	25,457	3,595	2,913	682	2,055
1998	33,349	30,216	26,405	3,812	3,003	808	2,304
1999	33,392	30,923	26,805	4,154	3,301	853	2,493
2000	32,976	31,564	27,290	4,274	3,381	893	2,401
2001	33,584	33,061	28,706	4,355	3,460	895	2,498
2002	34,567	34,567	29,899	4,668	3,820	848	2,522

¹Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year
²Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-X1 for calendar years
Source:Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003, (Data available online at http://wwwssagov/statistics).

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly SSI Benefit Payments, 1974– 2002

Calendar Year	Total¹		Federal Payments	State Supplementation
Calendar Year	2002 Dollars	Current Dollars	Federal Payments	Total	Federally Administered	State Administered
1974	$466	$135	$108	$64	$71	$35
1975	360	112	92	66	69	45
1976	357	118	99	68	71	50
1977	349	123	104	69	72	53
1978	341	128	108	72	74	56
1979	341	140	119	77	79	67
1980	345	158	133	89	91	76
1981	352	176	151	92	94	79
1982	360	191	166	96	97	93
1983	358	198	172	91	92	89
1984	366	211	187	93	93	93
1985	367	219	193	99	99	102
1986	380	232	202	107	108	101
1987	383	242	208	117	118	110
1988	385	253	219	118	118	118
1989	388	267	230	126	126	127
1990	389	283	244	132	131	136
1991	392	297	260	125	122	143
1992	421	328	292	124	121	147
1993	420	337	306	112	107	150
1994	411	338	310	105	99	152
1995	413	350	322	110	103	164
1996	412	359	333	108	103	145
1997	413	369	342	99	102	86
1998	418	379	350	103	104	102
1999	419	388	356	111	113	105
2000	411	393	360	113	114	109
2001	413	407	373	113	114	108
2002	415	415	383	129	129	128

¹Total is a weighted average of the Federal plus State average benefit, the Federal-only average benefit, and State-only average benefit.
Note:The numerators for these averages are given in Table SSI 3 and the denominators are given in Table SSI 5. Averages were computed by DHHS. Data adjusted for inflation using a calendar-year average CPI-U-X1 index.
Source:Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003.

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving SSI Payments by Type of Payment, 1974– 2002
(In thousands)

Date	Total	Federal	State Supplementation
Date	Total	Federal	Total	Federally Administered	State Administered
Jan 1974	3,249	2,956	1,839	1,480	358
Dec 1975	4,360	3,893	1,987	1,684	303
Dec 1980	4,194	3,682	1,934	1,685	249
Dec 1984	4,094	3,699	1,875	1,607	268
Dec 1985	4,200	3,799	1,916	1,661	255
Dec 1986	4,347	3,922	2,003	1,723	279
Dec 1987	4,458	4,019	2,079	1,807	272
Dec 1988	4,541	4,089	2,155	1,885	270
Dec 1989	4,673	4,206	2,224	1,950	275
Dec 1990	4,888	4,412	2,344	2,058	286
Dec 1991	5,200	4,730	2,512	2,204	308
Dec 1992	5,647	5,202	2,684	2,372	313
Dec 1993	6,065	5,636	2,850	2,536	314
Dec 1994	6,377	5,965	2,950	2,628	322
Dec 1995	6,576	6,194	2,817	2,518	300
Dec 1996	6,677	6,326	2,732	2,421	310
Dec 1997	6,565	6,212	3,029	2,372	657
Dec 1998	6,649	6,289	3,072	2,412	661
Dec 1999	6,641	6,275	3,116	2,441	675
Dec 2000	6,685	6,320	3,164	2,481	683
Dec 2001	6,776	6,410	3,209	2,520	689
Dec 2002	6,940	6,505	3,014	2,462	553

Source:Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003.

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients, by Age, Sex, Earnings/Income,and Citizenship: Selected Years, 1980-2002

	1980	1985	1990	1992	1994	1997	2000	2002
	Total
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
under 18	5.5	5.5	6.4	10.0	13.4	13.5	12.8	13.5
18-64	40.9	45.4	50.9	52.3	53.0	54.8	56.7	57.2
65 or older	53.6	49.1	42.7	37.7	33.7	31.6	30.5	29.3
Sex
Male	34.4	35.2	37.2	39.0	41.3	41.3	41.5	42.0
Female	65.5	64.8	62.8	61.0	58.7	58.7	58.5	58.0
Selected Sources of Income
Earnings	3.2	3.8	4.7	4.4	4.2	4.5	4.4	4.1
Social Security	51.0	49.4	45.9	42.1	39.1	37.1	36.1	35.5
No other income	34.8	34.5	36.4	38.7	43.6	46.5	54.4	55.1
Noncitizens	NA	5.1	9.0	10.8	11.7	10.0	10.5	10.4
Eligibility Category
Aged	43.6	36.4	30.2	26.4	23.3	21.0	19.5	18.4
Blind	1.9	2.0	1.7	1.5	1.4	1.2	1.2	1.1
Disabled	54.5	61.7	68.1	72.0	75.4	77.8	79.3	80.4
	Aged
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
65-69	14.0	14.9	19.4	20.7	20.5	17.6	15.6	15.3
70-79	51.5	45.6	41.3	42.5	44.3	48.4	50.0	49.1
80 or older	34.5	39.5	39.2	36.8	35.1	34.0	34.5	35.7
Sex
Male	27.3	25.5	25.1	25.6	26.8	27.8	29.0	29.9
Female	72.6	74.5	74.9	74.4	73.2	72.2	71.0	70.1
Noncitizens	NA	9.7	19.4	25.4	30.0	27.0	28.5	29.2
	Blind and Disabled
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
18-64	80.2	77.7	80.0	82.0	83.4	83.6	83.8	83.8
65 or older	19.8	22.3	20.0	18.0	16.6	16.4	16.2	16.1
Sex¹
Male	39.8	40.8	42.4	43.9	41.8	41.1	44.5	44.8
Female	60.2	59.2	57.6	56.1	58.2	58.9	55.5	55.2
Noncitizens	NA	2.4	4.6	5.6	6.2	5.5	6.1	7.2
	Children
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Under 5	11.7	NA	NA	16.0	15.8	15.8	15.5	16.1
5-9	20.9	NA	NA	26.9	28.5	30.2	28.5	26.8
10-14	28.8	NA	NA	30.6	32.7	34.6	36.2	36.9
15-17	21.7	NA	NA	15.7	17.3	19.4	19.8	20.2
18-21²	16.8	14.3	9.3	10.8	5.7	–	–	–
Sex
Male	NA	NA	NA	62.0	63.0	62.9	63.8	64.3
Female	NA	NA	NA	38.0	37.0	37.1	36.2	35.7

¹For 1980-1992 male-female classification reflects all blind and disabled, both children and adults; thereafter, it is based on adults only.
²In this table, students 18-21 are classified as children prior to 1998.
Note:Data are for December of the year.
Source:Social Security Administration,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003and prior years.

Table SSI 7. Total SSI Payments, Federal SSI Payments and State Supplementary Payments,Calendar Year 2002
(In thousands)

State	Total	Total Federal	Federal SSI	State Supplementation
State	Total	Total Federal	Federal SSI	Federally Administered	State Administered
Total	$34,566,844	$33,720,491	$29,898,765	$3,820,234	$847,845
Alabama	730,105	729,691	729,691	–	414
Alaska	99,520	43,872	43,872	–	55,648
Arizona	406,848	406,474	406,474	–	374
Arkansas	354,418	354,418	354,412	6	–
California	7,230,494	7,230,494	4,460,666	2,769,828	–
Colorado	331,543	243,234	243,234	–	88,309
Connecticut	319,446	236,055	236,055	–	83,391
Delaware	56,374	56,374	55,350	1,024	–
District of Columbia	102,083	102,082	98,518	3,564	–
Florida	1,824,115	1,814,407	1,814,392	15	9,707
Georgia	854,414	854,414	854,411	3	–
Hawaii	110,657	110,658	98,495	12,163	–
Idaho	94,024	86,514	86,514	–	7,510
Illinois	1,275,885	1,246,787	1,246,787	–	29,098
Indiana	427,283	423,503	423,503	–	3,780
Iowa	191,069	175,290	172,391	2,899	15,779
Kansas	164,412	164,412	164,412	–	–
Kentucky	821,504	802,898	802,898	–	18,606
Louisiana	761,420	760,944	760,944	–	476
Maine	138,104	130,762	130,762	–	7,342
Maryland	442,285	434,761	434,752	9	7,524
Massachusetts	849,101	849,101	683,294	165,807	–
Michigan	1,097,109	1,065,066	1,039,390	25,676	32,043
Minnesota	389,321	303,434	303,424	10	85,888
Mississippi	542,847	542,847	542,845	2	–
Missouri	541,328	515,040	515,040	–	26,288
Montana	62,959	62,959	62,136	823	–
Nebraska	99,177	92,870	92,870	–	6,307
Nevada	132,907	132,908	127,780	5,128	–
New Hampshire	67,382	55,785	55,785	–	11,597
New Jersey	721,272	721,272	640,486	80,786	–
New Mexico	217,053	216,882	216,882	–	171
New York	3,407,767	3,407,767	2,849,925	557,842	–
North Carolina	937,938	797,987	797,987	–	139,951
North Dakota	33,716	31,784	31,784	–	1,932
Ohio	1,189,946	1,189,946	1,189,936	10	–
Oklahoma	365,295	327,859	327,859	–	37,436
Oregon	282,957	262,681	262,681	–	20,276
Pennsylvania	1,550,661	1,550,660	1,406,743	143,917	–
Rhode Island	146,253	146,253	121,290	24,963	–
South Carolina	465,841	454,062	454,062	–	11,779
South Dakota	54,751	52,251	52,246	5	2,501
Tennessee	705,106	705,106	705,106	0.286	–
Texas	1,799,263	1,797,304	1,797,304	–	1,959
Utah	97,817	97,816	97,756	60	–
Vermont	55,462	55,462	46,161	9,301	–
Virginia	593,731	574,659	574,659	–	19,072
Washington	539,989	539,761	523,340	16,421	228
West Virginia	348,553	348,553	348,553	–	–
Wisconsin	508,120	386,334	386,334	–	121,786
Wyoming	25,353	24,680	24,680	–	673
Other: N. Mariana Islands	3,358	3,358	3,358	–	–

Table SSI 8. SSI Recipiency Rates by State And Program Type for 1979 and 2002
[In percent]

State	Total Recipiency Rate			Rate for Adults 18-64			Rate for Adults 65 & Over
State	1979	2002	Percent Change 1979-02	1979	2002	Percent Change 1979-02	1979	2002	Percent Change 1979-02
Alabama	3.6	3.6	1	1.8	3.5	91	21.0	6.9	-67
Alaska	0.8	1.5	95	0.5	1.5	178	14.0	6.0	-57
Arizona	1.1	1.6	44	0.9	1.6	80	5.0	3.2	-36
Arkansas	3.5	3.1	-11	1.9	3.0	60	17.1	5.8	-66
California	3.0	3.2	6	2.1	2.5	22	16.4	13.3	-19
Colorado	1.1	1.2	9	0.8	1.1	43	6.7	3.2	-52
Connecticut	0.8	1.5	100	0.6	1.5	138	2.7	2.6	-4
Delaware	1.2	1.6	34	0.9	1.4	49	5.4	2.3	-58
District of Columbia	2.3	3.5	54	1.9	3.1	61	8.6	6.7	-22
Florida	1.8	2.4	35	1.1	1.9	67	6.2	4.8	-23
Georgia	2.9	2.3	-20	1.9	2.1	11	17.7	6.8	-62
Hawaii	1.1	1.7	62	0.7	1.5	117	7.6	5.1	-33
Idaho	0.8	1.4	77	0.6	1.6	150	3.8	2.0	-47
Illinois	1.1	2.0	85	1.0	2.0	111	4.3	3.8	-11
Indiana	0.8	1.5	100	0.6	1.6	162	3.3	1.7	-49
Iowa	0.9	1.4	57	0.6	1.6	158	3.5	1.7	-51
Kansas	0.9	1.4	57	0.6	1.4	122	3.5	1.9	-45
Kentucky	2.5	4.3	69	1.8	4.4	146	12.5	7.0	-44
Louisiana	3.4	3.7	10	2.0	3.5	72	20.1	7.8	-61
Maine	2.0	2.4	23	1.4	2.7	94	8.6	3.1	-64
Maryland	1.2	1.6	39	0.9	1.5	60	5.4	4.0	-26
Massachusetts	2.2	2.6	16	1.3	2.5	95	10.8	5.6	-48
Michigan	1.3	2.1	67	1.1	2.3	115	5.9	3.0	-49
Minnesota	0.8	1.3	60	0.6	1.3	136	3.7	2.6	-30
Mississippi	4.5	4.4	-2	2.4	4.0	65	26.0	10.3	-60
Missouri	1.8	2.0	14	1.1	2.1	91	7.9	2.9	-63
Montana	0.9	1.6	80	0.7	1.7	136	3.8	2.0	-47
Nebraska	0.9	1.3	48	0.6	1.3	103	3.4	1.7	-50
Nevada	0.8	1.3	55	0.5	1.2	126	5.9	3.3	-44
New Hampshire	0.6	1.0	72	0.4	1.1	150	2.5	1.2	-53
New Jersey	1.1	1.7	49	0.9	1.4	63	4.7	4.5	-4
New Mexico	2.0	2.6	32	1.4	2.4	75	12.4	6.9	-44
New York	2.1	3.3	56	1.6	2.8	76	8.3	9.0	9
North Carolina	2.4	2.3	-4	1.6	2.0	27	13.6	5.4	-60
North Dakota	1.0	1.3	31	0.6	1.3	128	5.1	2.2	-56
Ohio	1.1	2.1	89	1.0	2.3	132	4.2	2.4	-42
Oklahoma	2.3	2.1	-9	1.3	2.1	58	11.6	3.8	-67
Oregon	0.9	1.6	86	0.7	1.7	143	3.3	2.8	-15
Pennsylvania	1.4	2.4	71	1.1	2.5	123	5.0	3.4	-31
Rhode Island	1.6	2.7	70	1.1	2.6	141	6.4	4.9	-24
South Carolina	2.7	2.6	-3	1.8	2.3	29	17.0	5.6	-67
South Dakota	1.1	1.7	49	0.7	1.6	122	5.0	3.0	-40
Tennessee	2.9	2.8	-2	1.9	2.7	44	14.8	5.5	-63
Texas	1.9	2.0	6	1.0	1.6	68	12.7	7.5	-41
Utah	0.6	0.9	64	0.5	1.0	96	3.0	1.9	-37
Vermont	1.8	2.1	19	1.3	2.1	60	8.1	3.6	-55
Virginia	1.5	1.8	20	1.0	1.6	57	8.5	4.6	-46
Washington	1.2	1.7	47	1.0	1.8	84	4.8	3.6	-25
West Virginia	2.1	4.1	92	1.9	4.7	153	8.0	4.6	-42
Wisconsin	1.4	1.6	11	1.0	1.6	67	6.5	2.3	-65
Wyoming	0.4	1.1	162	0.3	1.2	314	2.7	1.6	-42
Total	1.9	2.4	30	1.3	2.2	75	9.0	5.6	-38

Note:Recipiency rates for 2002 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS. The 1979 rates are based on the average number of recipients during the year.
Source:Social Security Administration,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online athttp://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years, 1975– 2002
[In percent]

State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1992	1994²	1996²	2002²
Alabama	4.0	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.8	3.9	3.6
Alaska	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.2	1.5
Arizona	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.7	1.7	1.6
Arkansas	4.1	3.4	3.1	3.2	3.5	3.8	3.8	3.1
California	3.1	3.0	2.6	2.9	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.2
Colorado	1.4	1.0	0.9	1.1	1.3	1.5	1.5	1.2
Connecticut	0.8	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.3	1.4	1.5
Delaware	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.6
District of Columbia	2.2	2.4	2.5	2.7	3.0	3.5	3.7	3.5
Florida	1.9	1.8	1.6	1.7	1.9	2.3	2.4	2.4
Georgia	3.3	2.8	2.6	2.5	2.6	2.8	2.7	2.3
Hawaii	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.7
Idaho	1.1	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.5	1.4
Illinois	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.6	1.8	2.2	2.3	2.0
Indiana	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.5
Iowa	1.0	0.9	1.0	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.4
Kansas	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.1	1.4	1.5	1.4
Kentucky	2.8	2.6	2.7	3.1	3.4	4.1	4.4	4.3
Louisiana	3.9	3.2	2.9	3.2	3.5	4.1	4.2	3.7
Maine	2.3	1.9	1.9	1.9	2.0	2.4	2.2	2.4
Maryland	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.6	1.7	1.6
Massachusetts	2.3	2.2	1.9	2.0	2.2	2.6	2.7	2.6
Michigan	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.5	1.7	2.2	2.2	2.1
Minnesota	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.3	1.4	1.3
Mississippi	5.2	4.4	4.3	4.4	4.7	5.2	5.2	4.4
Missouri	2.1	1.7	1.6	1.7	1.8	2.1	2.2	2.0
Montana	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.3	1.4	1.6	1.6	1.6
Nebraska	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.1	1.3	1.3	1.3
Nevada	1.0	0.8	0.9	1.0	1.0	1.3	1.4	1.3
New Hampshire	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9	1.0
New Jersey	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.4	1.5	1.8	1.8	1.7
New Mexico	2.3	1.9	1.8	2.1	2.3	2.6	2.7	2.6
New York	2.2	2.1	2.0	2.3	2.6	3.1	3.3	3.3
North Carolina	2.7	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.4	2.6	2.7	2.3
North Dakota	1.3	1.0	1.0	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.3
Ohio	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.4	1.6	2.1	2.3	2.1
Oklahoma	3.0	2.2	1.8	1.9	2.0	2.2	2.3	2.1
Oregon	1.1	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.5	1.5	1.6
Pennsylvania	1.2	1.4	1.4	1.6	1.8	2.1	2.2	2.4
Rhode Island	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.9	2.3	2.6	2.7
South Carolina	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.6	2.7	3.0	3.0	2.6
South Dakota	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.6	1.8	1.9	1.7
Tennessee	3.2	2.8	2.7	2.9	3.1	3.4	3.4	2.8
Texas	2.2	1.8	1.6	1.7	1.9	2.1	2.2	2.0
Utah	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.8	1.0	1.1	0.9
Vermont	1.9	1.7	1.8	1.8	2.0	2.2	2.2	2.1
Virginia	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.7	1.9	2.0	1.8
Washington	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.4	1.6	1.7	1.7
West Virginia	2.4	2.1	2.2	2.6	2.9	3.5	3.8	4.1
Wisconsin	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.8	1.9	2.2	1.8	1.6
Wyoming	0.7	0.4	0.5	0.8	0.9	1.2	1.2	1.1
Total¹	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.9	2.1	2.4	2.5	2.4

¹The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively.
²For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that year. For 1994-2002 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.
Source:Social Security Administration,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003, and Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online athttp://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/)

¹In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the IFA (or a residual functional capacity assessment) that applied to adults whose condition did not meet or equal a listing of medical impairments to determine eligibility should also be applied to children whose condition did not meet or equal the medical listing of impairments.

²The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the IFA for children was initiated.

Alternative Definition of Dependence Based on Income from TANF and Food Stamps

As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432), this annual report on Indicators of Welfare Dependence focuses on dependence on three programs: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The summary measure of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board includes income from all three programs in its definition:

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and food stamps alone, excluding SSI. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been only 1.4 percent in 2001 if based on income from TANF and food stamps, as opposed to 3.1 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, food stamps, and SSI). In other words, less than half of individuals who are dependent under the standard definition also are dependent under the alternative definition that considers TANF and food stamps alone.¹There is significant variation across the age groups, however. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and food stamps; whereas 1.9 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, very few, 0.1 percent, are dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and food stamps. In contrast, children are primarily dependent on TANF and food stamps.

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs, by Race and Age: 2001

	TANF, SSI, & Food Stamps	TANF & Food Stamps	SSI Only
All Persons	3.1	1.4	1.3
Non-Hispanic White	1.8	0.8	0.8
Non-Hispanic Black	8.8	4.3	3.3
Hispanic	4.5	2.1	1.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5	5.9	4.1	1.2
Children Ages 6-10	5.4	3.2	1.2
Children Ages 11-15	4.4	2.3	1.2
Women Ages 16-64	3.3	1.4	1.5
Men Ages 16-64	2.0	0.7	1.1
Adults Age 65 and Over	1.9	0.1	1.6

Note: Income is measures as total family income. Hispanic may be of any race.
Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

¹In the early- to mid-1990s, 70 to 75 percent of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition were also dependent under the alternative definition.

Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women Within Age Groups by Race, 1940-2002

Year	White					Black
Year	Under Age 15	Age 15 - 17	Age 18 - 19	All Teens	All Women	Under Age 15	Age 15 - 17	Age 18 - 19	All Teens	All Women
1940	44.4	NA	NA	7.2	1.9	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1941	44.9	NA	NA	7.0	1.9	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1942	40.5	NA	NA	6.4	1.7	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1943	45.2	NA	NA	6.5	1.6	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1944	41.3	NA	NA	8.4	2.0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1945	50.7	NA	NA	10.0	2.4	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1946	52.4	NA	NA	8.4	2.1	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1947	45.1	NA	NA	6.6	1.8	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1948	39.9	10.3	4.6	6.3	1.8	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1949	40.4	10.0	4.5	6.1	1.7	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1950	41.9	10.2	4.8	6.4	1.7	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1951	34.9	9.7	4.4	5.9	1.6	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1952	40.4	9.6	4.4	6.0	1.6	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1953	43.1	9.6	4.5	6.1	1.7	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1954	36.8	10.2	4.9	6.5	1.8	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1955	42.1	10.2	4.9	6.6	1.9	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1956	42.6	10.2	4.8	6.5	1.9	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1957	41.5	10.4	4.7	6.5	2.0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1958	45.3	10.8	4.9	6.8	2.1	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1959	46.7	11.4	5.2	7.2	2.2	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1960	47.5	11.7	5.4	7.4	2.3	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1961	49.9	12.4	6.0	7.9	2.5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1962	48.3	13.4	6.1	8.2	2.8	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1963	50.3	15.1	7.0	9.4	3.1	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1964	52.3	16.0	7.6	10.4	3.4	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1965	57.3	17.3	9.1	11.7	4.0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1966	52.5	19.5	9.9	12.6	4.4	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1967	61.6	21.0	11.2	14.2	4.9	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1968	61.0	23.4	12.7	16.1	5.3	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
1969	57.0	24.0	12.9	16.6	5.5	91.7	72.1	48.3	60.0	34.9
1970	57.9	25.2	13.5	17.5	5.7	93.5	76.0	52.1	64.0	37.6
1971	60.5	25.2	13.2	17.4	5.6	95.0	79.6	56.0	68.1	40.5
1972	59.0	26.4	13.7	18.5	6.0	96.4	81.0	59.0	70.7	43.9
1973	65.2	27.6	14.3	19.6	6.4	96.4	82.6	60.4	72.1	45.7
1974	65.3	29.4	15.0	20.8	6.5	97.4	84.8	63.8	74.7	47.1
1975	71.0	33.0	17.2	23.5	7.3	98.4	87.4	67.6	77.8	48.8
1976	69.3	35.7	18.8	25.4	7.7	99.1	89.7	70.9	80.5	50.3
1977	72.8	38.9	21.0	27.8	8.2	98.8	90.6	74.6	82.6	51.7
1978	73.1	40.1	22.5	29.1	8.7	97.2	90.9	76.5	83.5	53.2
1979	75.0	42.4	24.3	30.8	9.4	99.4	92.9	78.9	85.7	54.7
1980	75.4	45.4	27.1	33.6	11.2	98.6	93.1	79.9	86.2	56.1
1981	76.5	48.0	28.7	35.5	11.8	98.9	93.9	81.3	87.2	56.9
1982	77.7	50.1	30.3	37.2	12.3	98.4	94.2	82.4	87.9	57.7
1983	79.9	53.1	32.7	39.8	12.9	98.5	95.1	84.4	89.4	59.2
1984	80.8	55.4	35.1	42.2	13.6	98.6	95.3	85.4	90.0	60.3
1985	82.4	58.0	38.2	45.3	14.7	98.8	95.6	86.2	90.6	61.2
1986	83.6	61.3	41.7	48.8	15.9	99.0	95.7	86.9	91.1	62.4
1987	84.6	64.6	44.4	51.8	16.9	99.1	96.1	87.6	91.7	63.4
1988	86.5	66.2	47.3	54.1	18.0	98.9	96.4	88.5	92.3	64.7
1989	84.7	67.2	49.5	55.7	19.2	98.4	96.1	89.0	92.3	59.2
1990	83.6	67.9	50.8	56.8	20.4	98.5	95.6	89.4	92.2	59.8
1991	75.5	69.7	53.2	59.0	21.8	98.1	95.7	89.8	92.5	60.3
1992	76.2	70.6	54.9	60.6	22.6	97.6	95.6	90.4	92.8	68.1
1993	83.2	71.7	57.2	62.7	23.6	98.1	95.7	90.8	93.1	68.7
1994	90.4	77.5	61.9	68.0	25.4	99.1	97.8	93.4	95.5	70.4
1995	88.8	77.4	62.1	68.0	25.3	99.1	97.7	93.2	95.3	69.9
1996	90.1	78.8	63.3	69.2	25.7	99.1	97.9	93.6	95.6	69.8
1997	92.2	81.6	65.3	71.4	25.8	99.4	98.3	93.8	95.8	69.2
1998	94.0	82.7	66.5	72.4	26.3	99.6	98.3	93.9	95.7	69.1
1999	93.9	83.2	67.3	72.9	26.7	99.5	98.3	93.7	95.6	68.8
2000	94.0	83.4	67.8	73.1	27.1	99.4	98.2	94.0	95.7	68.5
2001	94.0	83.4	68.5	73.4	27.7	99.6	98.5	94.0	95.8	68.4
2002	94.8	84.5	70.1	74.9	28.5	99.6	98.6	94.1	95.9	68.2

Note:> Births to unmarried women in the United States for 1940 - 1979 are estimated from data for registration areas in which marital status of the mother was reported; see sources below. Beginning in 1980, births to unmarried women in the United States are based on data from states reporting marital status directly and data from non-reporting states for which marital status was inferred from other information on the birth certificate; see sources below.
Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, "Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999," National Vital Health Statistics Reports>, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports>, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2002

State	1960	1970	1980	1990	1992	1994	1996	2000	2002
Alabama	11	14	22	30	33	34	34	34	35
Alaska	5	9	16	26	27	29	31	33	34
Arizona	NA	9	19	33	36	38	39	39	40
Arkansas	NA	13	20	29	31	33	34	36	37
California	NA	NA	21	32	34	36	31	33	33
Colorado	NA	9	13	21	24	25	25	25	27
Connecticut	NA	NA	18	27	29	30	31	29	29
Delaware	9	15	24	29	33	35	35	38	41
Dist of Columbia	20	38	56	65	67	69	66	60	57
Florida	9	14	23	32	34	36	36	38	39
Georgia	NA	NA	23	33	35	36	35	37	38
Hawaii	5	10	18	25	26	28	30	32	34
Idaho	NA	NA	8	17	18	19	21	22	22
Illinois	6	13	23	32	33	34	34	35	35
Indiana	4	8	16	26	29	32	32	35	36
Iowa	2	7	10	21	24	25	26	28	29
Kansas	3	7	12	22	24	26	27	29	31
Kentucky	5	8	15	24	26	28	30	31	33
Louisiana	9	15	23	37	40	43	43	46	47
Maine	3	7	14	23	25	28	29	31	33
Maryland	NA	NA	25	30	30	34	34	35	35
Massachusetts	NA	NA	16	25	26	27	25	27	27
Michigan	4	11	16	26	27	35	34	33	34
Minnesota	3	8	11	21	23	24	25	26	27
Mississippi	14	17	28	40	43	45	45	46	47
Missouri	6	11	18	29	32	33	33	35	35
Montana	NA	NA	13	24	26	26	28	31	33
Nebraska	NA	8	12	21	23	25	25	27	29
Nevada	4	11	13	25	33	35	43	36	37
New Hampshire	NA	6	11	17	19	22	23	25	25
New Jersey	4	10	21	24	26	28	28	29	29
New Mexico	NA	NA	16	35	39	42	42	46	47
New York	NA	NA	24	33	35	38	40	37	36
North Carolina	9	12	19	29	31	32	32	33	35
North Dakota	3	7	9	18	23	23	25	28	29
Ohio	4	NA	18	29	32	33	33	35	35
Oklahoma	NA	8	14	25	28	30	31	34	36
Oregon	3	7	15	26	27	29	30	30	31
Pennsylvania	4	10	18	29	32	33	32	33	33
Rhode Island	3	7	16	26	30	32	33	35	36
South Carolina	12	15	23	33	35	37	37	40	40
South Dakota	3	7	13	23	27	28	30	33	35
Tennessee	9	12	20	30	33	33	33	35	36
Texas	5	9	13	18	17	29	30	31	32
Utah	2	4	6	14	15	16	16	17	17
Vermont	NA	NA	14	20	23	25	26	28	32
Virginia	8	11	19	26	28	29	29	30	30
Washington	3	9	14	24	25	26	27	28	29
West Virginia	6	6	13	25	28	30	31	32	33
Wisconsin	3	8	14	24	26	27	27	29	30
Wyoming	2	7	8	20	24	27	27	29	30
United States	5	11	18	28	30	33	32	33	34

Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports>, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/p ubd/vsus/1963/1963.htm>).

Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race/Ethnicity and State, 1994 – 2002

State	All races		White				Black		Hispanic
	All races		Total		Non-Hispanic		Black		Hispanic
	1994	2002	1994	2002	1994	2002	1994	2002	1994	2002
Alabama	35	35	16	20	16	19	71	68	19	25
Alaska	29	34	21	24	21	23	39	43	29	41
Arizona	38	40	35	38	25	25	65	62	51	52
Arkansas	33	37	20	28	20	27	74	76	31	37
California	36	33	36	34	23	20	63	63	46	42
Colorado	25	27	23	26	18	18	57	54	44	41
Connecticut	31	29	24	25	18	16	70	66	65	61
Delaware	35	41	23	32	22	28	74	70	50	56
Dist. of Columbia	69	57	15	26	10	8	80	77	59	58
Florida	36	39	26	32	24	28	69	67	34	40
Georgia	36	38	18	25	18	21	68	66	23	43
Hawaii	28	34	16	17	15	17	20	19	44	44
Idaho	19	22	18	21	17	19	40	33	25	36
Illinois	34	35	23	27	18	21	79	77	38	43
Indiana	32	36	26	32	26	30	78	76	42	50
Iowa	25	29	23	28	23	27	75	74	37	41
Kansas	26	31	22	28	21	26	66	68	39	43
Kentucky	28	33	23	29	23	29	73	73	25	44
Louisiana	43	47	21	27	21	27	72	75	30	33
Maine	28	33	28	33	28	33	47	34	23	36
Maryland	34	35	19	24	18	21	64	59	39	45
Massachusetts	27	27	23	24	19	19	63	59	62	62
Michigan	35	34	24	26	23	25	79	74	42	42
Minnesota	24	27	21	24	20	21	73	58	46	51
Mississippi	45	47	18	24	18	24	75	76	21	42
Missouri	33	35	24	29	24	28	79	76	34	45
Montana	26	33	20	28	20	27	28	§	30	41
Nebraska	25	29	21	26	20	23	74	66	39	42
Nevada	35	37	31	35	27	28	70	70	44	44
New Hampshire	22	25	22	25	21	24	34	43	37	36
New Jersey	28	29	19	24	13	14	67	64	48	53
New Mexico	42	47	37	44	23	27	61	57	49	54
New York	38	36	29	30	19	18	70	66	61	60
North Carolina	32	35	18	25	17	20	68	66	29	48
North Dakota	23	29	19	24	19	23	24	36	26	40
Ohio	33	35	25	29	25	28	78	75	50	50
Oklahoma	30	36	23	31	23	29	70	70	31	42
Oregon	29	31	28	31	27	28	71	61	35	42
Pennsylvania	33	33	25	27	23	24	79	75	63	61
Rhode Island	32	36	28	32	24	26	69	63	58	59
South Carolina	37	40	19	25	19	23	67	72	28	43
South Dakota	28	35	20	26	20	26	21	38	33	49
Tennessee	33	36	21	27	21	25	75	73	26	46
Texas	29	32	24	30	18	22	63	62	31	36
Utah	16	17	15	16	13	13	45	47	37	38
Vermont	25	32	25	32	25	32	33	59	34	§
Virginia	29	30	19	22	18	20	64	62	38	40
Washington	26	29	24	28	23	25	55	53	35	42
West Virginia	30	33	29	32	29	32	76	72	22	35
Wisconsin	27	30	21	24	20	22	82	82	46	46
Wyoming	28	30	26	29	25	27	46	52	45	43
United States	33	34	25	29	21	23	70	68	43	44

§> Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision; based on fewer than 20 births in the numerator. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.
Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2002, ” National Vital Statistics Reports>, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/vsus/1963/1963.htm.>).

Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, By State: Selected Years 1960-2002
[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State	1960	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2002
Alabama	104	90	78	68	64	71	69	61	55
Alaska	128	103	60	64	56	65	55	49	40
Arizona	112	79	67	65	67	76	74	68	61
Arkansas	116	93	84	75	73	80	72	66	60
California	103	69	52	53	53	71	67	47	41
Colorado	97	67	51	50	48	55	52	51	47
Connecticut	54	44	32	31	31	39	39	31	26
Delaware	100	73	49	51	51	55	55	48	46
Dist. of Columbia	132	116	73	62	72	93	85	53	69
Florida	117	86	64	59	58	69	60	51	45
Georgia	117	101	78	72	68	76	70	63	56
Hawaii	77	66	52	51	48	61	49	46	38
Idaho	102	66	59	59	47	51	49	43	39
Illinois	63	63	56	56	51	63	58	48	42
Indiana	100	75	64	57	52	59	57	49	45
Iowa	73	53	46	43	35	41	38	34	33
Kansas	94	65	57	57	52	56	52	46	43
Kentucky	108	86	78	72	63	68	62	55	51
Louisiana	113	84	79	76	72	74	70	62	58
Maine	93	65	55	47	42	43	34	29	25
Maryland	100	69	46	43	46	53	47	41	35
Massachusetts	51	40	31	28	29	35	33	26	23
Michigan	80	69	52	45	43	59	49	40	35
Minnesota	64	44	36	35	31	36	33	30	28
Mississippi	121	103	92	84	76	81	79	70	65
Missouri	99	72	59	58	54	63	55	49	44
Montana	97	62	54	48	44	48	42	37	36
Nebraska	82	54	45	45	40	42	38	38	37
Nevada	118	94	60	59	55	73	73	63	54
New Hampshire	76	55	41	34	32	33	30	23	20
New Jersey	58	50	37	35	34	41	38	32	27
New Mexico	127	79	67	72	73	78	74	66	62
New York	57	51	38	35	36	44	42	33	30
North Carolina	104	88	72	58	57	68	63	59	52
North Dakota	68	44	43	42	36	35	33	27	27
Ohio	84	65	56	52	50	58	53	46	40
Oklahoma	112	83	76	75	69	67	64	60	58
Oregon	88	58	48	51	43	55	50	43	37
Pennsylvania	67	53	44	41	40	45	41	34	32
Rhode Island	56	43	35	33	36	44	40	34	36
South Carolina	109	89	73	65	63	71	63	58	53
South Dakota	83	49	51	53	46	47	41	38	38
Tennessee	103	88	74	64	61	72	67	60	54
Texas	115	85	74	74	72	75	76	69	64
Utah	86	56	54	65	50	49	41	38	37
Vermont	74	54	43	39	36	34	28	23	24
Virginia	103	76	53	48	46	53	48	41	38
Washington	88	60	46	47	45	53	48	39	33
West Virginia	87	72	73	68	54	57	53	47	46
Wisconsin	64	46	41	40	39	43	38	35	32
Wyoming	112	71	68	79	59	56	48	42	40
United States	89	68	56	53	51	60	56	48	43

Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003 >and earlierreports >available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/vsus/1963/1963.htm>.)

Table C-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, By Race, Ethnicity, and State: Selected Years 1994-1999
[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State	All races		White				Black		Hispanic
	All races		Total		Non-Hispanic		Black		Hispanic
	1994	1999	1994	1999	1994	1999	1994	1999	1994	1999
Alabama	72.2	62.8	55.1	52.5	54.8	50.8	108.1	83.2	71.8	136.2
Alaska	55.2	41.8	44.5	29.8	43.4	29.0	79.3	66.7	§	57.6
Arizona	78.7	69.6	77.3	69.7	49.2	39.6	99.7	74.9	136.3	125.4
Arkansas	76.3	68.1	64.1	59.9	63.1	57.4	120.2	96.5	118.4	121.2
California	71.3	50.7	76.6	55.2	38.1	25.2	89.2	58.4	118.4	83.4
Colorado	54.3	48.4	52.0	47.6	38.2	29.9	96.6	67.4	109.3	116.3
Connecticut	40.3	33.3	33.0	29.1	20.1	16.1	93.6	67.1	125.0	114.4
Delaware	60.2	54.3	43.0	40.4	38.4	35.7	115.4	99.8	§	116.6
Dist. of Columbia	114.7	83.5	16.9	23.2	15.3	§	138.5	127.8	96.7	§
Florida	64.4	53.5	51.5	45.3	46.9	39.5	113.1	83.5	68.2	62.5
Georgia	71.7	65.1	54.1	55.8	51.5	49.3	106.9	84.4	133.8	154.5
Hawaii	53.5	43.8	33.0	16.9	29.8	14.7	§	31.0	107.7	98.2
Idaho	46.6	43.7	46.2	43.4	40.6	38.2	§	§	117.8	91.9
Illinois	62.8	51.1	46.2	40.3	34.3	27.5	139.1	105.2	112.6	102.2
Indiana	57.9	51.6	51.8	46.7	50.8	44.6	115.3	97.2	82.2	99.6
Iowa	39.7	35.8	37.5	33.9	36.2	31.8	117.4	95.5	96.9	106.6
Kansas	53.5	47.4	48.7	44.0	44.9	38.3	116.4	97.6	106.9	108.3
Kentucky	64.5	56.4	60.4	53.8	60.3	53.2	113.5	85.3	§	112.1
Louisiana	74.7	62.8	49.2	45.3	49.6	45.6	115.3	89.7	49.3	33.8
Maine	35.5	29.8	35.0	29.5	35.0	29.4	§	§	§	§
Maryland	49.7	42.6	32.4	29.0	31.5	26.6	89.3	73.0	62.0	59.2
Massachusetts	37.2	28.7	32.6	25.4	23.5	17.9	90.5	68.0	132.9	101.9
Michigan	52.1	40.5	39.7	32.9	37.8	30.4	110.2	79.8	85.3	88.2
Minnesota	34.4	30.0	28.6	24.0	26.9	21.0	132.3	109.9	98.9	137.5
Mississippi	83.0	72.5	56.6	53.3	56.7	53.0	114.4	95.0	§	61.8
Missouri	59.0	49.6	49.1	43.1	48.7	42.0	123.1	92.0	65.4	87.7
Montana	41.2	35.1	34.7	29.7	34.0	28.8	§	§	§	§
Nebraska	42.8	37.0	37.9	32.9	34.5	28.6	119.3	97.5	110.6	97.2
Nevada	73.6	64.1	71.1	63.9	55.4	45.3	111.3	81.6	138.3	112.7
New Hampshire	30.1	24.0	30.1	24.3	29.6	23.5	§	§	§	§
New Jersey	39.3	32.8	27.2	25.3	16.5	13.5	99.7	72.6	81.1	76.6
New Mexico	77.4	67.4	76.2	68.6	43.7	37.7	66.4	50.4	102.4	91.8
New York	45.8	37.0	39.8	32.5	26.4	20.5	73.0	59.3	81.1	73.7
North Carolina	66.3	59.5	52.3	50.5	50.0	43.0	98.5	80.2	159.6	219.0
North Dakota	34.6	27.7	29.2	22.9	28.7	22.5	§	§	§	§
Ohio	55.0	46.0	46.1	39.6	45.2	38.6	116.1	88.6	83.6	76.0
Oklahoma	65.9	60.5	59.0	55.9	57.1	52.0	105.5	82.9	87.1	107.6
Oregon	50.7	46.5	49.8	46.2	43.8	38.7	101.6	64.5	136.8	119.3
Pennsylvania	43.8	36.2	34.0	29.2	30.5	25.5	118.1	93.6	129.3	114.0
Rhode Island	47.7	38.2	41.3	34.2	31.7	25.7	120.4	66.2	136.8	115.4
South Carolina	66.5	60.8	50.3	49.2	49.9	46.9	92.1	80.5	68.4	128.8
South Dakota	42.8	37.6	33.0	27.5	32.3	27.0	§	§	§	§
Tennessee	71.0	62.7	58.8	55.4	58.5	53.7	119.8	90.6	79.5	136.1
Texas	77.6	70.1	75.7	71.3	47.7	41.9	100.4	76.0	113.6	107.4
Utah	42.7	40.2	42.0	39.6	38.6	33.0	§	§	96.9	118.8
Vermont	33.0	25.7	33.2	25.9	33.4	26.1	§	§	§	§
Virginia	50.7	42.7	40.7	33.7	38.8	31.1	87.9	73.8	79.4	73.6
Washington	48.2	40.1	47.2	39.3	40.5	32.6	80.9	60.7	125.8	98.0
West Virginia	54.3	47.9	53.7	47.2	53.8	47.1	80.7	71.7	§	§
Wisconsin	38.8	35.7	28.8	27.3	26.5	24.2	142.3	122.9	92.6	110.7
Wyoming	48.2	40.4	47.6	39.6	45.4	37.4	§	§	74.9	65.0
United States	58.9	49.6	51.1	44.6	40.4	34.0	104.5	81.0	107.7	93.4

§> Rates not calculated for states with less than 20 births to women in a given age and racial/ethnic group or if there were less than 1,000 women in the age and racial/ethnic group. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.
Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports,> Vol. 49 (10), September 2001.

Technical Notes

Age Categories

Most of the indicators are shown by age categories, generally children ages 0-15, adults 16-64, and adults 65 and older. Youth 17 and 18 years of age are often classified with adults because they are considered potential members of the labor force in many labor force statistics. Many of the risk factors, however, use published data that define “children” to include all individuals less than 18 years of age.

Annual and Monthly Measures

There are differences between monthly and annual observation of benefit receipt. The measures of annual recipiency (that is, any receipt over the course of a year) shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 are higher than the more traditional measures of recipiency in an average month, as shown in several other indicators.

Note that annual measures are for calendar years except where explicitly noted as fiscal years.

Family Structure Categories

For the primary measure of dependency in this 2004 report, estimates are provided for individual persons by family structure (see SUM1 and IND1). For these measures, the entire population is subdivided into the following four groups:

individuals in married-couple families
individuals in female-headed families, no spouse present
individuals in male-headed families, no spouse present
unrelated individuals.

Race and Ethnicity

Most of the data sources allow analysis of the indicators and predictors of welfare dependence across several age and racial/ethnic categories. Where the data are available, statistics are shown for three racial/ethnic groups – Non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the totals for all persons but are not shown under separate race categories. In some instances, however, data are shown for “Whites” and “Blacks,” rather than for “Non-Hispanic Whites” and “Non-Hispanic Blacks;” in such cases these racial categories include individuals of Hispanic Origin. Footnotes to the tables provide further documentation of issues related to race and ethnicity.

Estimates based on 2002 CPS data are affected by a change in the CPS questionnaire that allows individuals to report one or more races (see ECON 1, ECON 9, WORK 1, WORK 2, and WORK 3). This change was implemented to comply with the 1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. In 2000, the Office of Management and Budget published guidelines for implementing these new standards. To accommodate the race categories under the new standards, CPS estimates for racial/ethnic categories beginning in 2002 are for persons who are non-Hispanic white (and no other race), non-Hispanic black (and no other race) and Hispanic (of any race). Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category.

Spells

Spells of dependency (Indicator 7) and recipiency (Indicator 8) are limited to those spells that begin during the SIPP panel of observation. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. If an individual has 2 or more spells of dependency or receipt, each is counted separately in the analysis.

Unit of Analysis

The individual, rather than the family or household, is the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report. The individual’s dependency status, however, is generally based on total family income, taking into account means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family.¹ This chapter, for example, has reported the percentage of individuals that are dependent (in SUM 1) or poor (in SUM 2) according to annual total family income. Recipiency status is also based on total annual family income in some instances; in SUM 1, for example, recipients are individuals in families receiving assistance at some point in the year. In most other indicators, recipiency is measured as the direct receipt of a benefit by an individual in a month. The difference between an individual and a family measure of recipiency is largest in the SSI program, which provides benefits to individuals and couples, not to families.

¹ Family is generally defined as following the broad Census Bureau definition of family – all persons residing together that are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Files

ch2.pdf (pdf, 1.6 MB)

Topics

Key Indicators | Welfare, Welfare Reform, & TANF | Poverty & Income Dynamics

Product Type

Report to Congress

Populations

Children

Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2004

Executive Summary

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

Organization of Report

Measuring Welfare Dependence

Measuring Economic Well-Being

Data Sources

Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Indicator 2. Receipt of Means-tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment

Indicator 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-tested Assistance

Indicator 4. Rates of Participation in Means-tested Assistance Programs

Indicator 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

Indicator 7. Dependence Spell Duration

Indicator 8. Program Spell Duration

Indicator 9. Long-term Receipt

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

Economic Security Risk Factors

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Economic Security Risk Factor 2. Deep Poverty Rates

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Experimental Poverty Measures

Economic Security Risk Factor 4. Poverty Rates with Various Means-tested Benefits Included

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child SUPPORT

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Economic Security Risk Factor 8. Lack of Health Insurance

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 1. Labor Force Attachment

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 2. Employment Among the Low-skilled

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 3. Earnings of Low-skilled Workers

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 5. High-school Dropout Rates

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 6. Adult Alcohol and Substance Abuse

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 7. Adult and Child Disability

Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 1. Births to Unmarried Women

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 2. Births to Unmarried Teens

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 3. Unmarried Teen Birth Rates Within Age Groups

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 4. Never-married Family Status

Appendices

Program Data

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

Food Stamp Program

Supplemental Security Income

Alternative Definition of Dependence Based on Income from TANF and Food Stamps

Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Technical Notes

Connect with Us