Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2004

Appendix A:
Program Data:
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

[ Main Page of Report | Appendix A ]

Contents

Endnotes

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 107th 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 — those with the fewest barriers to employment — have already exited the welfare caseload and have stopped coming onto the welfare rolls, leaving a more disadvantaged population remaining. However, as the expectations for welfare recipients have increased, and fewer recipients are totally exempted from work requirements, others have speculated that the most disadvantaged recipients may also have been sanctioned off the rolls or terminated for failure to comply with administrative requirements. In fact, analyses of program data have not found much evidence of an increase or decline in readily observed barriers to employment in the current caseload.

The question of whether the caseload has become more disadvantaged cannot be answered simply through administrative data provided by the states, which do not contain detailed information on such barriers to employment as lack of basic skills, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and disabilities. A few recent studies have found very high levels of these barriers among the TANF population. These studies 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

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
Total
Families1		 Total Recipients Unemployed Parent
Families		 Unemployed
Parent Recipients		 Total
Children
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
1997 2 3,937 10,935 275 3 1,158 3 7,781 3 71.2 3 2.0 3
1998 3,200 8,790 179 754 4 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.
1 Includes 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
Year1		 Total
Recipients in
the States & DC
(in thousands)		 Child
Recipients in
the States & DC
(in thousands)		 Recipients
as a Percent
of Total
Population2		 Recipients
as a Percent
of Poverty
Population3		 Recipients as
a Percent of
Pretransfer
Poverty
Population4		 Child
Recipients
as a Percent
of Total Child
Population2		 Child
Recipients
as a
Percent of
Children
in Poverty3
1970 8,303 6,104 4.1 32.7 NA 8.8 58.5
1971 10,043 7,303 4.9 39.3 NA 10.5 69.2
1972 10,736 7,766 5.1 43.9 NA 11.2 75.5
1973 10,738 7,763 5.1 46.7 NA 11.3 80.5
1974 10,621 7,637 5.0 45.4 NA 11.3 75.2
1975 11,131 7,928 5.2 43.0 NA 11.8 71.4
1976 11,098 7,850 5.1 44.4 NA 11.8 76.4
1977 10,856 7,632 4.9 43.9 NA 11.7 74.2
1978 10,387 7,270 4.7 42.4 NA 11.2 73.2
1979 10,140 7,057 4.5 38.9 53.1 11.0 68.0
1980 10,599 7,295 4.7 36.2 49.2 11.4 63.2
1981 10,893 7,397 4.7 34.2 47.1 11.7 59.2
1982 10,161 6,767 4.4 29.5 40.6 10.8 49.6
1983 10,569 6,967 4.5 29.9 41.9 11.1 50.1
1984 10,643 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 Dollars 1)
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
1997 4 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)
Fiscal
Year		 Cash & Work-
Based Assistance		 Work Activities Child Care Trans-
portation		 Adminis-
tration		 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)
Current Dollars 2002 Dollars 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
1997 3 130 146 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
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
  May May March Fiscal year1
1969 1975 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
Child-Only Families 10.1 12.5 14.6 8.3 9.6 14.8 21.5 34.5 37.1 39.0
  Excluding Sanctioned-Parent Cases2 – – – – – – – 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 11.7 5 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3 – – –
  Unemployed 4.6 5 3.7 4.1 8.7 6.5 8.2 8.3 – – –
  Death 5.5 5 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 – – –
  Divorce or Separation 43.3 5 48.3 44.7 38.5 34.6 30.0 24.3 – – –
  Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 5 31.0 37.8 44.3 51.9 53.1 58.6 – – –
  Absent, Other Reason 3.5 5 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 & JOBS 1		 FY 2002 State Family
Assistance Grant 2		 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
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
Kouisiana 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
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
Kouisiana 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.
Source: 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
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
Kouisiana 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
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
Kouisiana 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.
Source: 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 Columbia 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
Kouisiana 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
Total With Earnings in
Following Quarter		 Total With Earnings in
Following 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
Iowa 21.6 51 78 49 24
Kansas 12.2 52 77 48 27
Kentucky 25.7 26 69 74 25
Kouisiana 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
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
Iowa 21.6 75 58 50 43
Kansas 12.2 72 53 44 39
Kentucky 25.7 78 61 50 42
Kouisiana 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.

[ Go to Contents ]

Endnotes

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: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

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.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

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