Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2005

Publication Date

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare an annual report to Congress on indicators welfare dependence. The Indicators of Welfare Dependence report is prepared within the Office of Human Services Policy and delivered to Congress each spring. As mandated under the Congressional act, the report addresses the rate of welfare dependency, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence. Further, analyses of means-tested assistance in the report include benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Food Stamp Program, and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The report also includes risk factors related to economic security, employment, and non-marital births, as well an appendix with data related to the above programs.

"

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 2005 Indicators of Welfare Dependence, the eighth annual report, provides welfare dependence indicators through 2002, 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 2005 report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data to provide updated measures through 2002 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 2002, 3.2 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 3.1 percent dependency rate measured in 2001, the 2002 rate is much lower than the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996. Overall, 4.7 million fewer Americans were dependent on welfare in 2002 compared with 1996.
  • Although data are not yet available to show a clear trend in dependency rates through 2003, available data suggest that the rate may increase slightly to 3.3 percent in 2003.
  • Trends in dependency are similar to the more well-known changes in TANF and food stamp caseloads. For example, the percentage of individuals receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance fell from 4.6 percent to 1.9 percent between 1996 and 2003 (see Indicator 3). Food stamp recipiency rates fell from 9.5 percent in 1996 to 6.1 percent in 2000 and 2001. Since then, the food stamp recipiency rate has increased to 7.3 percent in 2003. This increase in food stamp recipiency may explain the modest increase in overall dependency since 2000.
  • In an average month in 2002, more than half (60 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 58 and 39 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2). Labor force participation, particularly full-time employment, increased considerably among TANF families during the last decade.
  • Spells of TANF receipt in the early 2000s were much shorter than spells of AFDC receipt in the early 1990s. Half (50 percent) of TANF spells for individuals entering the program between 2001 and 2003 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 after 1996, the poverty rate for all individuals fell also, from 13.7 percent in 1996 to 11.3 percent in 2000. Between 2000 and 2003, the poverty rate increased to 12.5 percent, but still remained 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 nonmarital 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 2005 report, the eighth 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 2005 report provides updated measures through 2002 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with one preliminary estimate for 2003. Although more recent administrative data provide some information on recipiency through 2004, the survey data needed to examine overall welfare recipiency are not available past 2002 for the CPS-based measures and are even less current for measures based on the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). However, measures based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) are now available through 2003. These newly available SIPP data allow for examination of the lengths of time people spend in poverty or receive government assistance. As in the 2004 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 ten 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. This section also includes a measure of long-term program receipt of up to 10 years, and a newly updated measure of events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells.

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 nonmarital births are important since a high proportion of long-term 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 nonmarital 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 cash assistance program serving the largest number of persons, 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 2003.
  • 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 2003.
  • 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 2003 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.

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 FY 2003, 28 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, 3.2 percent of the population would be considered “dependent” on welfare in 2002 under the above definition. This is about one-quarter of the percentage (13.2 percent) that lived in a family receiving at least some TANF, food stamp or SSI benefits during the year. Although data are not yet available to show a clear trend in dependency rates through 2003, available data suggest the rate may increase slightly between 2002 and 2003.3

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

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 2003 is preliminary.
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1997-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

While dependency and recipiency rates increased slightly to 3.2 and 13.2 percent, respectively, the 2002 dependency and recipiency rates remain significantly lower than the 1996 rates of 5.2 and 16.0, respectively. The overall drop in recipiency rates is consistent with administrative data showing declining TANF caseloads from 1996 to 2002. 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 9.03 million were dependent in 2002 – representing a decline of 4.71 million people.

Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than for non-Hispanic 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 2002 compared to 1996.

Measures of welfare dependency also vary based upon which programs are counted as “welfare programs.” Dependency would be much lower – 1.5 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). Moreover, the drop in dependency is even larger under this alternative definition of dependence than usually reported. For example, between 1995 and 2002, dependency declined from 3.6 percent to 1.5 percent under the alternative definition.

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, cross-sectional basis. Longitudinal measures of program receipt (both annual and monthly) 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 This 28 percent includes 21 percent in unsubsidized employment and 7 percent in work preparation activities (including subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, work experience, or community services). 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 2003 are not yet available, estimates from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, as well as non-adjusted estimates from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the CPS, indicate a slight increase in the level of dependence between 2002 and 2003.

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 2003 remains much lower than in 1996, the year of passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The official poverty rate for 2003 was 12.5 percent, compared to 13.7 percent in 1996. This difference in the poverty rate indicates that 668 thousand fewer people are in poverty and 1.6 million fewer children are in families with incomes below poverty than in 1996. There was an increase in the overall and child poverty rates between 2000 and 2003, but the poverty rate among adults over age 64 remained essentially unchanged (see Table ECON 1 in Chapter III).

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

  1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
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 13.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 9.9 9.7 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.8
Non-Hispanic Black 35.6 30.2 29.6 29.8 27.0 26.3 27.7
Hispanic 32.0 28.0 24.5 23.4 21.0 21.6 21.7
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 28.2 25.1 22.4 21.5 19.8 20.8 21.4
Children Ages 6-10 24.2 21.2 20.0 19.8 18.0 18.4 18.8
Children Ages 11-15 21.1 19.4 17.0 17.3 16.3 16.1 16.8
Women Ages 16-64 16.0 14.7 13.6 13.6 12.5 12.5 13.4
Men Ages 16-64 11.7 11.1 10.0 9.6 9.2 9.6 10.3
Adults Ages 65 and over 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.0 10.4 9.6 9.7
Family Categories
Individuals in:
    Married-Couple Families 9.6 8.7 8.3 7.9 7.2 7.4 7.5
    Female-Headed Families 46.0 41.6 37.5 39.9 37.1 36.4 37.7
    Male-Headed Families 25.3 24.3 19.7 19.3 21.8 21.2 21.2
Unrelated Individuals 11.5 11.9 10.9 10.0 10.1 10.0 11.5
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 3.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8
Non-Hispanic Black 13.8 11.4 10.5 9.1 7.7 8.8 8.7
Hispanic 10.9 9.1 6.6 5.4 4.5 4.5 4.9
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 11.2 9.3 7.8 6.2 6.0 5.9 6.0
Children Ages 6-10 9.5 8.4 6.7 6.1 5.1 5.4 5.1
Children Ages 11-15 8.1 7.4 5.7 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.0
Women Ages 16-64 5.2 4.6 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.3 3.4
Men Ages 16-64 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0
Adults Ages 65 and over 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.0
Family Categories
Individuals in:
    Married-Couple Families 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0
    Female-Headed Families 21.1 18.4 15.0 13.6 11.4 11.9 11.7
    Male-Headed Families 5.4 5.6 4.2 3.0 4.4 4.0 3.8
Unrelated Individuals 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.1

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. 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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1997-2003, 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: 1979-2003

Figure SUM 2. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2003

Source: Unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2004. 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 12.5 percent in 2003.

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 13.2 percent in 2003.

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 2003 would be at least two percentage points lower than the official measure, or 10.4 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 and tax credits (including refunds through the Earned Income Tax Credit) have had the net effect of reducing poverty rates.

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.

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.

This year we have updated a past indicator based on the SIPP that takes advantage of many of these strengths. Indicator 10, Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells, identifies potential trigger events that are associated with welfare spell entries and exits among single mothers. While in volumes prior to 2004 we used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) for this measure, monthly data from the SIPP (compared to annual data from the PSID) allow for greater specificity in identifying welfare spells and associations between welfare spells and a wide range of transition events. Because of the different accounting periods as well as other methodological differences in the two data sources, estimates from Indicator 10 in the current volume are not comparable to estimates found in previous reports.

For measures of receipt, dependency, and poverty at a single point in time, the report primarily uses the Annual Social and Economic 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 and a small increase in dependence between 2001 and 2002. 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: 1987-2003

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-2003

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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model, and unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.

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 four-year 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. Reductions in the frequency and detail of data collection under the PSID have made it difficult to update the reasons for entrance and exit from welfare receipt (Indicator 11 in the 2003 report). Therefore, as discussed above, a new measure of reasons for entrance and exit from AFDC/TANF based on the SIPP is included in this 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 2003. 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 ten 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 means-tested 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 whether individuals dependent on welfare in one year 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 families with no labor force participants who enter the AFDC/TANF program.

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 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells. To gain a better understanding of welfare dynamics, it is important to go beyond measures of spell duration and examine information regarding the major events in people’s lives that are correlated with the beginnings or endings of program spells. This measure focuses on receipt of TANF.

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2002

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2002

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • Only 3.2 percent of the total population in 2002 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 dramatically since 1993, with most of the decline occurring between 1996 and 2000. Since 2000, there has been a small increase in dependency, from 3.0 to 3.2 percent.
  • A little over 13 percent of the overall population received at least one dollar in means-tested assistance in 2002. However, for 59 percent of these individuals (8 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 2002.
  • 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 than individuals in married-couple or male-headed families (11.7 percent compared to 1.0 and 3.8 percent respectively).
  • In 2002, about 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: 2002

  0%
>0% and
<= 25%
>25% and
<= 50%
>50% and
<= 75%
>75% and
<= 100%
Total
> 50%
All Persons 86.8 7.8 2.3 1.0 2.1 3.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 91.2 5.6 1.3 0.5 1.3 1.8
Non-Hispanic Black 72.3 13.6 5.4 3.0 5.6 8.7
Hispanic 78.3 12.5 4.3 1.6 3.2 4.9
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 78.6 10.8 4.6 2.3 3.7 6.0
Children Ages 6-10 81.2 10.0 3.7 2.2 3.0 5.1
Children Ages 11-15 83.2 9.7 3.1 1.4 2.5 4.0
Women Ages 16-64 86.6 7.8 2.2 1.0 2.4 3.4
Men Ages 16-64 89.7 6.8 1.4 0.6 1.5 2.0
Adults Ages 65 and over 90.3 5.7 2.0 0.7 1.3 2.0
Family Categories
Individuals in Married-Couple Families 92.5 5.4 1.2 0.4 0.6 1.0
Individuals in Female-Headed Families 62.3 18.2 7.9 4.5 7.2 11.7
Individuals in Male-Headed Families 78.8 13.9 3.5 1.6 2.2 3.8
Unrelated Individuals 88.5 6.2 1.2 0.4 3.6 4.1

Note: Means-tested assistance includes 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. 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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2002

  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
2002 86.8 7.8 2.3 1.0 2.1 3.2

See above for note and source.

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2002

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2002

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • Those in families with income below the poverty level received almost half (48 percent) of their total family income from earnings and 29 percent of their total family income from means-tested assistance programs (TANF, SSI, and food stamps) in 2002. In contrast, those with family income over 200 percent of the poverty level received the majority (88 percent) of their income from earnings and less than one percent of their income from means-tested assistance (a percentage so small that 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 29 percent, compared to 48 percent for all poor individuals in 2002.
  • 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 48 percent in 1998 and has remained fairly stable since. Over the same time period, there was a decline in the percentage of income from means-tested programs among poor families from 41 percent in 1995 to 29 percent in 2002.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

  < 50% Poverty <100% of Poverty <200% of Poverty 200% + of Poverty
All
Individuals
All Persons
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 52.6 28.8 9.4 0.2 1.0
Earnings 29.1 48.2 67.2 87.7 85.9
Other Income 18.3 23.0 23.4 12.1 13.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 46.4 26.4 7.0 0.1 0.5
Earnings 30.4 42.7 61.5 86.9 85.4
Other Income 23.3 30.9 31.4 13.0 14.0
Non-Hispanic Black
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 62.6 37.3 15.8 0.5 3.4
Earnings 20.3 39.3 62.0 88.2 83.3
Other Income 17.1 23.4 22.1 11.3 13.3
Hispanic
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 50.7 24.8 9.0 0.6 2.5
Earnings 38.3 62.7 80.4 92.1 89.3
Other Income 11.0 12.4 10.6 7.4 8.1
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 59.9 32.8 11.3 0.3 1.9
Earnings 25.2 53.7 78.8 94.9 92.6
Other Income 14.9 13.5 9.9 4.8 5.5
Children Ages 6-10
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 59.0 31.2 10.8 0.2 1.6
Earnings 26.9 53.6 76.4 94.3 91.9
Other Income 14.1 15.1 12.8 5.5 6.5
Children Ages 11-15
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 55.7 29.1 9.9 0.2 1.3
Earnings 26.8 53.7 76.0 92.9 91.0
Other Income 17.5 17.2 14.0 6.9 7.7
Women Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 50.6 30.5 10.2 0.2 1.0
Earnings 29.7 47.3 70.9 90.2 88.7
Other Income 19.6 22.2 18.9 9.6 10.3
Men Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 39.8 24.3 7.7 0.2 0.7
Earnings 38.8 53.8 74.6 91.3 90.2
Other Income 21.4 21.9 17.7 8.5 9.1
Adults Ages 65 and over
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 31.0 20.2 6.3 0.4 1.1
Earnings 13.9 5.5 8.8 38.2 34.4
Other Income 55.1 74.3 84.9 61.5 64.4

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

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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, 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
1998
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.9 32.0 10.6 0.2
Earnings 27.0 47.9 67.8 85.3
Other Income 14.1 20.1 21.6 14.5
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
2002
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 52.6 28.8 9.4 0.2
Earnings 29.1 48.2 67.2 87.7
Other Income 18.3 23.0 23.4 12.1

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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: 2002

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants in that Month by Program: 2002

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • About one-third of TANF and food stamp recipients lived in families with at least one full-time worker in 2002, with an additional one fourth living in families with a labor force participant who was not full time. Thus, 60 percent of TANF recipients and 58 percent of food stamp recipients were in families with at least one person in the labor force. 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 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. There is less variation in labor force participation by age of children among households receiving food stamps.
  • 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 1999, as shown in Table IND 2b. Since 1999, this percentage has remained around 34 to 35 percent. Lower family employment rates are reported in the TANF administrative data, which is limited to employment of family members in the TANF assistance unit and employment reported to the welfare agency (see Table TANF 7 in Appendix A).

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

  No One in LF At Least One in LF, No One FT
At Least One
FT Worker

TANF

All Persons 39.8 25.8 34.3
Non-Hispanic White 38.9 27.8 33.4
Non-Hispanic Black 42.9 27.6 29.6
Hispanic 40.5 22.6 36.9
Children Ages 0-5 37.7 25.0 37.3
Children Ages 6-10 45.1 23.8 31.1
Children Ages 11-15 44.4 23.7 31.9
Women Ages 16-64 39.0 27.7 33.3
Men Ages 16-64 31.9 29.5 38.6
Adults Ages 65 and over 60.7 13.7 25.6
FOOD STAMPS All Persons 42.1 24.6 33.4
Non-Hispanic White 45.1 25.4 29.5
Non-Hispanic Black 41.5 26.5 32.0
Hispanic 37.6 19.5 42.9
Children Ages 0-5 33.4 25.6 41.0
Children Ages 6-10 32.9 26.7 40.4
Children Ages 11-15 34.7 26.4 39.0
Women Ages 16-64 43.2 25.8 30.9
Men Ages 16-64 41.1 26.2 32.7
Adults Ages 65 and over 88.2 6.1 5.8
SSI All Persons 61.2 9.7 29.0
Non-Hispanic White 65.5 8.8 25.7
Non-Hispanic Black 65.6 12.1 22.3
Hispanic 52.0 9.7 38.3
Children Ages 0-5 30.1 15.9 54.0
Children Ages 6-10 34.8 19.5 45.7
Children Ages 11-15 31.0 21.1 47.9
Women Ages 16-64 68.5 9.4 22.1
Men Ages 16-64 62.3 9.2 28.5
Adults Ages 65 and over 65.0 6.8 28.2

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.

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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants 1993-2002

  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
2002 35.3 35.3 34.3

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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2003, 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: 1970-2003

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2003

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 2002, administrative data for recipiency measures of AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI are available through 2003, 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 total population received TANF in 2003. The rate of AFDC/TANF receipt has dropped significantly since 1993, when it was at a 25-year high of over 5 percet, as shown in Table IND 3a. The 2003 rate of receipt was the lowest since the early 1960s.
  • 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 2003, AFDC/TANF receipt among children decreased by more than half (from 14 to well 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 1970-2003

Fiscal Year Total Recipients Adult Recipients Child Recipients
Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent
1970 7,188 3.5 1,863 1.4 5,325 5,325
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 2,469 1.2 6,184 8.7
1999 7,068 2.5 1,838 0.9 5,231 7.3
2000 6,218 2.2 1,687 0.8 4,531 6.3
2001 5,674 2.0 1,504 0.7 4,171 5.7
2002 5,572 1.9 1,472 0.7 4,099 5.6
2003 5,451 1.9 1,416 0.7 4,035 5.5

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. Tribal TANF recipients are also excluded. 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: 1975-2003

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2003

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2003, and earlier reports, and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).

  • The food stamp recipiency rate increased to 7.3 percent in 2003, up from a low of 6.1 percent in 2000 and 2001 – the lowest rate since the Food Stamp program became available nationwide. The 2003 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 2003, 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 stamp 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 declined from 1984 through 1988, rose in the early 1990s until reaching a peak in 1994, declined sharply through 2000 and since then have risen somewhat in 2002 and 2003.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age 1975-2003

Fiscal Year Total Recipients Adult Recipients Ages 60 and over Adult Recipients Ages 18-59 Child Recipients Ages 0-18
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 1,955 4.5 11,615 7.7 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 17,156 6.1 1,700 3.7 6,612 4.0 8,743 12.1
2001 17,280 6.1 1,658 3.6 6,778 4.1 8,819 12.1
2002 19,058 6.6 1,684 3.6 7,625 4.5 9,688 13.3
2003 21,223 7.3 1,786 3.7 8,503 5.0 10,605 14.5

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: Total recipient program data are available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fspmain.htm. Individual age groups do not sum exactly to total participants; they are drawn from USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2003, and earlier reports. The population denominators for the percents in each category are from U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2003

 
  Total Recipients Adult Recipients Ages 65 and over Adult Recipients Ages 18-64 Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Date Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent
Dec 1975 4,314 2.0 2,508 2,508 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 1.3
Dec 2003 6,902 2.4 1,990 5.5 3,953 2.2 959 1.3

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.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2004 (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

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 the 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 2002. 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.
  • After rising steadily over the past several years, the SSI participation rate dropped in 2001, with very little change between 2001 and 2002. 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(millions) Participating Families(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
2002 4.58 2.20 48.1

Note: Participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) that 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 editions prior to 2004, this table 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. Although the coverage rate estimates take into account the number of families who lost aid due to the time limit (and do not count such families in the denominator of the coverage rate estimate), they do not make any allowance for families staying off of TANF to conserve their time-limited assistance months. 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 tabulations from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • Between 2001 and 2002, there was essentially no change in the number of eligible families for the TANF program.
  • After falling every year from 1994 to 2001, both caseloads and participation rates remained fairly steady between 2001 and 2002.
  • Participating families includes families receiving 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
(millions)
Participating
Households
(millions)
Participation Rate
(percent)
September 1976 16.3 5.3 32.6
February 1978 14.0 5.3 37.8
August 1980 14.0 7.4 52.5
August 1982 14.5 7.5 51.5
August 1984 14.2 7.3 51.6
August 1986 15.3 7.1 46.5
August 1988 14.9 7.0 47.1
August 1990 14.5 8.0 54.9
August 1991 15.6 9.2 59.1
August 1992 16.7 10.2 61.6
August 1993 17.0 10.9 64.0
September 1994 (revised) 15.3 10.7 69.6
September 1995 15.0 10.4 69.2
September 1996 15.3 9.9 65.1
September 1997 14.7 8.4 57.5
September 1998 14.0 7.6 54.2
September 1999 13.7 7.3 53.0
Fiscal Year 1999 14.5 7.5 51.7
Fiscal Year 2000 14.3 7.2 50.1
Fiscal Year 2001 15.2 7.3 48.0
Fiscal Year 2002 16.6 8.0 48.3

Note: Eligible households are 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. The two estimates for 1999 are due to reweighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining food stamp eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the estimates for FY 2000 - FY 2002.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2002, September 2004.

  • Between fiscal years 1999 and 2002 there was a 14 percent increase in households eligible for the Food Stamp Program (from 14.5 to 16.6 million households). Caseloads grew at a lower rate (6 percent increase) over the same period. The net effect was a decrease in the estimated participation rate, from 52 to 48 percent.
  • Over the longer run, there was a 32 percent drop in food stamp caseloads, from a peak of nearly 11 million households in 1994 to just over 7 million in 1999. 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 increases between 1999 and 2002.
Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program, by Type
1993-2002
  All Adult Units One-Person Units Married-Couple Units
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
2002 70.4 61.9 78.3 47.9

Note: Participation rates are estimated using the TRIM3 microsimulation model that 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 figures for married-couple units are 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 tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • After a drop in the SSI participation rate among adult units between 2000 and 2001, the rate held fairly constant at about 70 percent between 2001 and 2002.
  • The decline in the participation rates among aged one-person units continued for a second year, bringing the level down to 62 percent, a cumulative decline since 2000 of 9 percentage points.
  • The rates for both disabled one-person units and married-couple units that are either aged or disabled edged upwards in 2002 after declines in the previous year.
  • In 2002, as in past years, disabled adults in one-person units had a higher participation rate (78 percent) than both aged adults in one-person units (62 percent) and adults in married-couple units (48 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: 2002

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), among Those Receiving Assistance: 2002

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • Of the almost 9 percent of the population in families receiving TANF, food stamps, or SSI benefits in an average month in 2002, about two-thirds (72 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 (16 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, 17 percent of children under six lived in families receiving any public assistance in an average month in 2002, 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- and late 1990s (from 13 percent in 1994 to 8 percent in 2000). It increased to 8.5 percent in 2002, largely due to an increase in families receiving food stamps only, 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: 2002

  Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs
TANF FS SSI TANF & FS FS & SSI
All Persons 8.5 0.3 4.5 1.3 1.4 1.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 5.4 0.1 2.9 1.0 0.7 0.7
Non-Hispanic Black 20.8 0.4 12.2 2.3 3.5 2.5
Hispanic 12.7 0.7 6.1 1.9 2.7 1.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 16.7 0.8 9.9 0.6 4.8 0.6
Children Ages 6-10 14.2 0.6 9.1 0.6 3.5 0.5
Children Ages 11-15 12.0 0.5 7.2 0.8 2.8 0.7
Women Ages 16-64 8.0 0.2 4.4 1.1 1.3 1.1
Men Ages 16-64 5.2 0.1 2.7 1.3 0.4 0.7
Adults Ages 65 and over 7.7 0.0 1.9 3.4 0.0 2.4

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt are based on the 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).

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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, SSI): 1993-2002

  Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs
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
2002 8.5 0.3 4.5 1.3 1.4 1.0

See above for note and source.

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2003 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2002, by Race/Ethnicity

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2003 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2002, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

  • Recipients of means-tested assistance were more likely to move out of dependency in the early 2000s than in the early 1990s. About three-tenths (29 percent) of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 2002 transitioned out of this dependency status in 2003. The comparable transition rate was only 20 percent between 1993 and 1994, as shown in Table IND 6b.
  • Of the recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and/or SSI in 2002, Hispanics were less likely to be dependent in 2003 than non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.
  • As shown in Table IND 6a, men between the ages of 16 and 64 who received more than half of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 2002 remained dependent in 2003 in higher percentages than women.

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 2003 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2002, by Race/Ethnicity and Age

Individuals Receiving More than 50% of Income from Assistance in 2002
Total
(thousands)
Percentage of Persons Receiving
No Aid
in 2003
Up to 50%
in 2003
Over 50%
in 2003
All Persons 6,047 2.7 26.0 71.3
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 2,161 4.3 24.8 71.0
Non-Hispanic Black 2,202 1.1 25.6 73.3
Hispanic 1,179 3.6 30.0 66.4
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 860 3.8 34.1 62.1
Children Ages 6-10 711 0.0 29.5 70.5
Children Ages 11-15 632 1.0 25.0 74.0
Women Ages 16-64 2,266 3.9 27.6 68.6
Men Ages 16-64 1,111 3.2 18.6 78.2
Adults Ages 65 and over 446 0.9 17.1 82.0

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.

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.

Individual age categories do not add to total because of a small number of people not reporting age.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 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
(thousands
Percentage of Persons Receiving
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
2001 to 2002 6,453 1.3 28.0 70.7
2002 to 2003 6,047 2.7 26.0 71.3

Note: Because full calendar year data for 1995 were not available for all SIPP respondents, some transitions between 1994 and 1995 were based on twelve-month periods that did not correspond exactly to calendar years.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.

Indicator 7. Dependence Spell Duration

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants and Entering Programs during the 1993 and 2001 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants and Entering Programs during the 1993 and 2001 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 and 2001 panels.

  • In the early 2000s, 45 percent of TANF spells for individuals in families with no one in the labor force ended within four months and over two-thirds (71 percent) ended within a year. These spells are measured for individuals living in families with no labor force participants at the start of 2001 who entered TANF between 2001 and 2003.
  • 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 15 percent of that length in the 2001 SIPP panel.
  • As shown in Table IND 7a, the percentage of TANF spells ending in four months or less were larger for non-Hispanic whites (57 percent) than for non-Hispanic blacks (47 percent) and Hispanics (47 percent).
  • Spells shown in Indicator 7 are limited to spells of recipients in families without any labor force participation at the start of each panel. Spell lengths, on average, are slightly shorter in Indicator 8, which shows spells for all recipients, including those in families with labor force participants. For example, whereas 45 percent of spells between 2001 and 2003 shown in Figure IND 7 end in four months or less, 50 percent of all TANF spells during the same time period end in four months or less, as shown in Figure IND 8.
Table IND 7a. Percentage of TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants and Entering Programs during the 2001 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 44.7 25.9 14.6 14.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 56.7 14.0 18.0 11.2
Non-Hispanic Black 47.0 21.8 11.0 20.2
Hispanic 46.8 33.6 9.3 10.3
Age Categories
Ages 0-15 Years 39.4 25.2 18.8 16.6
Ages 16-64 Years 54.4 22.8 9.5 13.3

Note: Spell length categories are 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. TANF spells are defined as those spells starting during the 2001 SIPP panel for individuals in families with no labor force participants at the start of the panel.

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: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

Table IND 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants and Entering Programs during the 1993, 1996 and 2001 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
2001 Panel All Persons 44.7 25.9 14.6 14.9

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.

Indicator 8. Program Spell Duration

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

  • Between the years 2001 and 2003, short spells lasting 4 months or less accounted for about 50 percent of TANF spells, 36 percent of food stamp spells, and 28 percent of SSI spells.
  • Approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells (73 percent) and three-fifths of food stamp spells (60 percent) lasted one year or less. In contrast, only 49 percent of SSI spells ended within one year.
  • As shown in Table IND 8a, for TANF spells, a smaller percentage of long spells (lasting more than 20 months) occurred among non-Hispanic whites compared to non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics. In contrast, these groups did not differ greatly in the percentage of long spells for food stamps.
  • Spells of welfare receipt were shorter in the early 2000s than in the early 1990s, as shown in Table IND 8b. For example, only 17 percent of TANF spells for individuals entering TANF between 2001 and 2003 lasted 20 months or longer, compared with 34 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994.
  • 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 TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity and Age

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
TANF All Recipients 49.6 23.7 10.0 16.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories   
Non-Hispanic White 51.4 23.7 13.1 11.9
Non-Hispanic Black 50.6 23.5 6.8 19.1
Hispanic 51.7 20.1 8.4 19.8
Age Categories
Ages 0-5 Years 50.0 24.0 11.9 14.1
Ages 6-10 Years 45.4 21.5 8.5 24.6
Ages 11-15 Years 43.7 25.3 12.4 18.6
Ages 16-64 Years 52.9 24.2 8.4 14.4
65 Years and Older NA NA NA NA
FOOD STAMPS All Recipients 35.9 24.4 8.9 30.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 35.9 25.8 8.0 30.3
Non-Hispanic Black 32.2 23.7 11.7 32.4
Hispanic 40.5 22.5 7.8 29.2
Age Categories
Ages 0-5 Years 27.7 25.6 12.9 33.8
Ages 6-10 Years 28.6 27.4 10.7 33.3
Ages 11-15 31.8 28.1 9.6 30.6
Ages 16-64 40.3 23.9 7.5 28.4
65 Years and Older 30.0 12.5 9.6 48.0
SSI All Recipients 27.9 21.4 7.3 43.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 31.3 19.8 7.9 41.0
Non-Hispanic Black 26.9 25.3 7.1 40.7
Hispanic 23.7 18.8 7.3 50.2
Age Categories
Ages 0-10 NA NA NA NA
Ages 11-15 31.2 18.8 3.9 46.1
Ages 16-64 29.4 20.9 7.2 42.5
65 Years and Older 22.7 23.2 8.4 45.7

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. TANF spells are defined as those starting during the 2001 SIPP Panel. For certain age categories, data are not available (NA) because of insufficient sample size.

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: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

Table IND 8b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 1992, 1993, 1996 and 2001 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
2001 Panel
TANF 49.6 23.7 10.0 16.8
Food Stamps 35.9 24.4 8.9 30.7
SSI 27.9 21.4 7.3 43.5

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1992, 1993, 1996 and 2001 Panels.

Indicator 9. Long-term Receipt

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients, by Years of Receipt between
1991 and 2000
Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients, by Years of Receipt between 1991 and 2000
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 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 (19 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 (receipt in only one or two years) 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 tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public release data files, 1992-2001.

Indicator 10. Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells

Figure IND 10a. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during 2001 SIPP Panel

Figure IND 10a. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during 2001 SIPP Panel

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

  • A decrease in earnings was the most common event associated with welfare entries. For spells beginning between 2001 and 2003, half (50 percent) were accompanied by a decrease in the recipient’s own monthly earnings of $50 or more, and an additional 20 percent were accompanied by decreases in the earnings of other household members.
  • Changes in household composition were also associated with the onset of welfare spells. The addition of a new child was associated with one-fifth (20 percent), divorce or separation was associated with 4 percent, and a decrease in the number of household adults (not through divorce or separation) was associated with 15 percent of welfare spell starts during the 2001 to 2003 period.
  • The onset of a work limitation was associated with about one in ten welfare spell starts. This percentage has gone up over time from 7 percent for spells starting between 1993 and 1995 to 12 percent for spells starting between 2001 and 2003 (see Table IND 10a).

Table IND 10a. Percentage of Single Mother AFDC/TANF Spell Entries Associated with Specific Events: Selected Periods

 
Spell Began
1993-1995
Spell Began
1996-1999
Spell Began
2001-2003
Recipients’ Earnings Decreased 57.1 52.6 50.3
Other Household Earnings Decreased 24.0 21.0 19.8
Lost SSI Benefits (own) 1.4 5.1 4.5
Lost Other Government Benefits (own) 8.1 5.1 6.1
New Child in Family 22.0 17.1 20.2
Divorced/Separated from Spouse 8.7 6.7 4.2
Decrease in Number of Adults (not divorce) 19.2 17.6 15.3
Onset of Work Limitation 7.2 10.9 11.6
Moved across State Lines 1.7 1.4 2.1
None of above in Recent Past 8.8 14.1 16.9

Note: Welfare entries are defined as moving from non-receipt to receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an event was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare entry. In general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are that “other household earnings decreased” was limited to cases when there were decreases in household earnings without a decrease in recipient earnings, and “decrease in number of adults (not divorce)” was limited to cases where the adult leaving the household was not married to the head of the household. AFDC/TANF includes General Assistance and other welfare payments. A decrease in earnings must be a decrease of at least $50 per month. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, Veteran's payments, and Worker’s Compensation. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category "None of above in Recent Past" represents the percentage of all spell beginnings during the period that were not associated with any of the events measured.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.

  • Spells of welfare receipt and associated trigger events are measured using monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in previous volumes.
  • Note that events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event. For example, if a single mother separated from an adult with earnings and subsequently entered welfare, her welfare entry would be coded as associated with both a decrease in adults in the household and a decrease in household earnings. In other words, events are generally not defined to be mutually exclusive. (However, see two exceptions in note above.)
Figure IND 10b. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during 2001 SIPP Panel
II-36 Figure IND 10b. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during 2001 SIPP Panel
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.
  • Welfare exits were most often associated with increases in recipient earnings. Close to one-half (46 percent) of spells ending between 2001 and 2003 were associated with either an increase in the recipient’s own earnings (34 percent) or an increase in household earnings without an increase in recipients’ own earnings (12 percent).
  • The percentage of all spell exits associated with an increase in recipient earnings has decreased over time (see Table IND 10b). Some of this decline may reflect the fact that a larger share of the caseload is combining welfare and work, and so some recipients with welfare exits in more recent years may have experienced increases in earnings before the 5- to 8-month time period used to observe “associated” events in Table 10b.
  • Smaller shares of welfare exits were associated with household composition changes (changes in marital status, presence of children and number of adults) compared with welfare entries (see Figure IND 10a).
  • Nearly Two-fifths (37 percent) of welfare spells ending between 2001 and 2003 were not associated with any of the events listed above within the period observed. The percentage has risen over time (see Table IND 10b).

Table IND 10b. Percentage of Single Mother AFDC/TANF Spell Exits Associated with Specific Events: Selected Periods

 
Spell Ended
1993-1995
Spell Ended
1996-1999
Spell Ended
2001-2003
Increase in Own Earnings 54.8 44.6 34.1
Increase in Other Household Earnings 10.3 11.9 12.1
Became SSI Recipient 1.6 5.9 5.2
Became Recipient of Other Government Benefits 2.2 2.6 3.0
Last Child Left or Turned 19 5.6 2.4 1.5
Married 5.4 2.1 2.2
Increase in Number of Adults (not marriage) 17.6 12.4 12.8
Ended Work Limitation 3.0 10.9 9.0
Moved across State Lines 2.4 1.4 2.8
None of above in Recent Past 24.0 31.1 37.4

Note: Welfare exits are defined as moving from receipt to non-receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an event was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare exit. In general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are that “increase in other household earnings” was limited to cases when there were increases in household earnings without an increase in recipient earnings, and “increase in number of adults (not marriage)” was limited to cases where the adult joining the household was not marrying the head of the household. AFDC/TANF includes General Assistance and other welfare payments. An increase in earnings must be an increase of at least $50 per month. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, Veteran's payments, and Worker’s Compensation. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category "None of above in Recent Past" represents the percentage of all spell endings during the period that were not associated with any of the events measured.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.

  • Spells of welfare receipt and associated trigger events are measured using monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in previous volumes.
  • Note that events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event. For example, if a single mother got a job, left welfare, and reported she no longer had a disability limiting her work status, her welfare exit would be coded as being associated with both an increase in earnings and an ending of a work limitation. In other words, events are generally not defined to be mutually exclusive. (However, see two exceptions in note above.)

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 receipt and 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 nonmarital 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).

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 eight factors related to employment and barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and 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 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 being 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 strain a family’s economic resources. The labor force participation of women with children (WORK 8) is also a predictor of dependence.

Nonmarital 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 nonmarital births (BIRTH 1), nonmarital teen births (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 becoming dependent as adults, 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 Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2003

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2003

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2003,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-226 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

  • The official poverty rate was 12.5 percent in 2003, an increase over the rate of 12.1 percent in 2002. Even so, the percentage of persons living in poverty in 2003 was below the poverty rates experienced in most of the 1980s and 1990s.
  • Children under 18 had a poverty rate of 17.6 percent in 2003, up from 16.7 percent in 2002. 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 10.2 percent in 2003, down slightly from the 2002 rate. This was a far lower poverty rate than the rate for children under 18 (17.6 percent) and similar to 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 24.4 percent, as shown in Table ECON 1; the rate for those reporting black alone or in combination with other races was 24.3 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
Ages 0-5 Ages 6-17 Total Under 18 18 to 64 65 & over
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
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 15.3 12.1 16.7 10.6 10.4 10.2 24.1 21.8
2003 19.8 15.9 12.5 17.6 10.8 10.2 10.5 24.4 22.5

Note: 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 10.5 percent shown for Whites in 2003 is for “White Alone including Hispanic.” Though not shown, the rate for “White Alone or in Combination with other races” was 10.6 percent and for “White Alone, Non-Hispanic” the rate was 8.2 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: 2003,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-226 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, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level
1975-2003
Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level 1975-2003
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2003,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-226 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 5.3 percent in 2003, compared to an overall poverty rate of 12.5 percent. Only about 4 percent of the population was “near-poor” (had incomes at or above 100 percent but below 125 percent of the federal poverty level).
  • 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 rates for 100 percent of poverty and 125 percent of poverty 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 43 percent in 2003.
  • The total number of poor people in 2003 was 35.9 million, as shown in Table ECON 2. While higher than the previous year, this number was 3.4 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

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 43,600 15.6
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
2003 287,700 15,300 5.3 24,500 8.5 35,900 12.5 48,700 16.9
 
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: 2003,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-226, 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

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 Ages 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 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. 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: 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: 1979-2003

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2003

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2004, by the Congressional Budget Office.

  • The official poverty rate – the definition of which includes means-tested cash assistance (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-tax cash income and social insurance – was 12.5 percent in 2003, as shown in the bold line with empty boxes in Figure ECON 4. Without cash welfare, the 2003 poverty rate would be 13.2 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 11.2 percent in 2003.
  • 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 10.4 percent in 2003. Federal taxes and tax credits 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 2003 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

  1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2000 2002 2003
Cash Income Plus All Social Insurance 16.0 14.5 13.8 15.6 14.9 13.5 12.0 12.8 13.2

Plus Means-Tested Cash Assistance

15.2 13.6 12.8 14.5 13.8 12.7 11.3 12.1 12.5

Plus Food and Housing Benefits

13.7 12.2 11.2 12.9 12.0 11.3 10.1 10.9 11.2

Plus EITC and Federal Taxes

14.7 13.1 11.8 13.0 11.5 10.4 9.5 10.0 10.4
Reduction in Poverty Rate 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.1 2.5 2.8 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1984-2004, by the Congressional Budget Office.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the 1993 and 2001 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the 1993 and 2001 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993 and 2001 panels.

  • About half of all poverty spells that began during the 2001 SIPP panel ended within four months, and 77 percent ended within one year. Only 15 percent of all such spells were longer than 20 months.
  • Spells of poverty that began between 1993 and 1995 were similar to those between 2001 and 2003; 47 percent ended within four months and 16 percent were longer than 20 months.
  • Poverty spells among adults ages 65 and older were more likely to last longer than 20 months (21 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 2001 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 49.2 27.7 7.7 15.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 52.3 27.1 7.1 13.5
Non-Hispanic Black 42.1 27.4 9.4 21.1
Hispanic 45.7 29.7 7.8 16.8
Age Categories
Ages 0-5 Years 48.0 29.6 8.3 14.2
Ages 6-10 Years 48.0 28.5 7.7 15.8
Ages 11-15 Years 50.3 27.8 8.5 13.4
Women Ages 16-24 49.4 28.6 7.6 14.4
Men Ages 16-64 Years 52.0 28.3 7.6 12.1
Adults Ages 65 Years and over 47.7 23.7 7.4 21.2

Note: Spell length categories are 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.

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: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 panel.

Table ECON 5b Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the 1993 1996 and 2001 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell and Panel

 
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
2001 Panel All Persons 49.2 27.7 7.7 15.5

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child SUPPORT

Figure ECON 6. Child Support Collections Received by Families, by Receipt of IV-D Services and Other Assistance (Billions of 2001 Dollars): 1993-2001

Figure ECON 6. Child Support Collections Received by Families, by Receipt of IV-D Services and Other Assistance (Billions of 2001 Dollars): 1993-2001

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Child Support Supplement, 1994-2002.

  • In 2001 families reported receiving $22.9 billion in child support payments from the non-resident parent. This amount represents current year support received for a twelve-month period and does not include amounts paid for prior periods (arrearages) or amounts retained by the federal and state government to recoup welfare costs. Total child support collections have increased by 26 percent since 1993, after adjusting for inflation.
  • The amount of payments received by families who also received AFDC/TANF cash assistance at some point in the year has declined, from $2.2 billion in 1993 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to $1.0 billion in 2001. This partly reflects the decline in the AFDC/TANF caseloads. In addition, some states no longer “pass-through” any payments to families receiving TANF. Prior to the enactment of PRWORA in 1996, states were required to pass-through the first $50 of any child support collected.
  • Child support payments to families who did not receive TANF, but received another form of public assistance (SSI, food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance) increased significantly between 1993 and 2001, from $2.3 to $4.0 billion (in 2001 dollars). This group of families includes former TANF recipients, as well as families at risk of turning to cash assistance. The increased collections for this group more than offset the decline in payments to TANF families.
  • The total amount reported received by families through the child support enforcement system (title IV-D of the Social Security Act) was $12.8 billion, or 56 percent of all child support payments received by families, as shown in Table ECON 6.
Table ECON 6. Child Support Collections Received by Families, by Receipt of IV-D Services and
Other Assistance: 1993-2001
 
Collections
(billions)
Total
(percent)
2001 Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and: Current $ Constant 01$  
TANF 1.0 1.0 4
Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 4.0 4.0 18
Child Support Services Only 7.8 7.8 34
Subtotal Families Receiving IV-D Services 12.8 12.8 56
Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 10.1 10.1 44
       
1999 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
TANF 1.3 1.4 6
Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 3.1 3.3 16
Child Support Services Only 6.2 6.6 31
Subtotal IV-D Families 10.6 11.3 53
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 9.4 10.0 47
Total Families 20.1 21.3 100
1997 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
AFDC/TANF 1.5 1.7 7
Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 3.3 3.7 16
Child Support Services Only 5.6 6.2 27
Subtotal IV-D Families 10.5 11.6 51
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 10.1 11.1 49
Total Families 20.6 22.7 100
1995 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
AFDC 1.5 1.8 8
Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 2.3 2.7 12
Child Support Services Only 7.1 8.2 37
Subtotal IV-D Families 10.9 12.7 55
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 8.9 10.4 45
Total Families 19.9 23.1 100
1993 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
AFDC 1.8 2.2 12
Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 1.9 2.3 13
Child Support Services Only 4.8 5.9 33
Subtotal IV-D Families 8.6 10.5 52
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 7.9 9.7 48
Total Families 16.5 20.2 100

Note: AFDC/TANF families are families who have reported receiving cash assistance for any month during the 12-month period. Therefore, not all the child support reported received was necessarily received while the family received cash assistance. Data limitations do not allow a month-by-month breakdown.

Families receiving SSI, food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance are limited to families not receiving AFDC/TANF.

Families receiving services through the IV-D system are estimated according to the methodology described in technical appendices to the ASPE-published report Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001 (available online at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CSE-Char04/index.htm) and previous reports.
 
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Child Support Supplement, 1994-2002.

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2003

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2003

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2003.

  • A large majority (89 percent) of American households was food secure in 2003 – 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 2003 was estimated to be 3.5 percent. During the twelve months ending in December 2003, one or more members of these households experienced reduced food intake and hunger at times during the year as a result of financial constraints. Food insecurity would be lower if measured over a monthly basis.
  • An additional 7.7 percent of households experienced food insecurity, but were without hunger, during the twelve months ending in December 2003. 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 (12.6 percent) than the 3.5 percent rate among the general population, as shown in Table ECON 7a. Only 1.2 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: 2003

  Food Secure Food Insecure Total
Food Insecure
without Hunger
Food Insecure
with Hunger
All Households 88.8 11.2 7.7 3.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 92.2 7.8 5.1 2.7
Non-Hispanic Black 77.9 22.1 15.3 6.8
Hispanic 77.7 22.3 16.9 5.4
Households, by Age
Households with Children under 6 82.5 17.5 13.9 3.6
Households with Children under 18 83.3 16.7 12.8 3.8
Households with Elderly 94.0 6.0 4.3 1.7
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.00 64.9 35.1 22.5 12.6
Under 1.30 67.5 32.5 21.2 11.3
Under 1.85 71.4 28.6 18.8 9.7
1.85 and over 95.1 4.9 3.7 1.2

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.

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. 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2003. Data are from the Current Population Survey, Food Security Supplement.

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2003

  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
2003 88.8 11.2 7.7 3.5

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2003.

Economic Security Risk Factor 8. Lack of Health Insurance

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2003

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2003

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2004.

  • Poor persons were twice as likely as all persons to be without health insurance in 2003 (31 percent compared to 16 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 2003, among both the general population and those with incomes below the poverty line.
  • While non-Hispanic black individuals in general were less likely to have insurance than non-Hispanic white individuals, poor non-Hispanic black individuals were about as likely to have insurance as poor non-Hispanic white individuals.
  • Among all persons, education levels were 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, about 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: 2003

  All Persons Poor Persons
All Persons 15.6 30.7
Men 16.8 33.3
Women 14.4 28.7
Non-Hispanic White 11.1 26.9
Non-Hispanic Black 19.4 26.8
Hispanic 32.7 39.7
No High School Diploma 29.6 38.2
High School Graduate, No College 19.5 38.6
College Graduate 8.7 34.2
Ages 17 and under 11.4 19.2
    Ages 5 and under 10.3 14.6
    Ages 6-11 11.0 19.2
    Ages 12-17 12.7 24.8
Ages 18-24 30.2 45.7
Ages 25-34 26.4 50.4
Ages 35-44 18.1 45.9
Ages 45-54 14.5 38.8
Ages 55-64 13.0 26.8
Under 65 years 17.6 33.8
Ages 65 and over 0.8 2.8

Note: "Poor persons" are defined as those with total family incomes at or below the poverty rate. Health insurance rates for the education categories include only adults age 18 and over.

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. 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. Some of the race categories presented for ECON 8 have been changed slightly from prior year reports to provide more internal consistency throughout this report; in prior reports, the race categories for “Black” and “White” included people of Hispanic origin.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2004.

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: 2003
Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race/Ethnicity: 2003
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2004.
  • In 2003, 71 percent of the total population lived in families with at least one person working on a full-time, full-year basis (FT/FY), as shown in Table WORK 1a. The percent of full-time, full-year workers was slightly lower than in 2002, 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 2003.
  • 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 2003 (9 percent compared to 15 and 17 percent, respectively).
  • Working-age women in 2003 were more likely than working-age men to live in families with no one in the labor force (8 percent compared to 6 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 (81 percent compared to 77 percent).

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2003

 
No One in LF
During Year
At Least One in LF
No One FT/FY
At Least One
FT/FY Worker
All Persons 13.8 15.0 71.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 14.6 13.9 71.5
Non-Hispanic Black 16.7 19.5 63.9
Hispanic 8.9 16.1 75.1
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 6.8 17.8 75.4
Children Ages 6-10 6.1 15.1 78.8
Children Ages 11-15 6.6 14.5 79.0
Women Ages 16-64 7.8 15.5 76.7
Men Ages 16-64 5.8 13.6 80.6
Adults Ages 65 and over 65.5 15.4 19.1

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. These figures may differ slightly from those reported in previous reports due to a slight improvement in methodology.

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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1991-2004.

Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1990-2003

 
No One in LF
During Year
At Least One in LF
No One FT/FY
At Least One
FT/FY Worker
1990 13.7 17.6 68.7
1991 14.3 18.1 67.6
1992 14.4 18.1 67.6
1993 14.1 17.9 68.0
1994 14.1 17.1 68.8
1995 13.9 16.5 69.7
1996 13.6 16.1 70.3
1997 13.4 15.7 70.9
1998 13.3 14.6 14.6
1999 12.6 14.4 73.1
2000 12.8 13.8 73.3
2001 13.3 14.4 72.4
2002 13.4 14.6 72.0
2003 13.8 15.0 71.2

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 at Any Time during Year: 1968-2003

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed at Any Time during Year: 1968-2003

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2004.

  • Employment rates for women with a high school education or less generally increased during the 1980s and 1990s, although this trend has shown some modest reversal since 2000. Employment levels have been higher among low-skilled non-Hispanic white and black women (67 and 65 percent, respectively, in 2003) than among low-skilled Hispanic women (57 percent).
  • In contrast, employment levels for men with a high school education or less have decreased over the past three decades. The decline has been steepest among non-Hispanic black men, whose employment level in 2003 (66 percent) was considerably lower than those of non-Hispanic white and Hispanic men (81 and 85 percent respectively).
  • As shown in Figure and Table WORK 2, employment levels for non-Hispanic black men with a high school education or less were 1 percentage point higher than those of similarly educated non-Hispanic black women in 2003. In contrast, there was a 14 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: 1968-2003

  Women Men
  Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1968 55.8 65.8 NA 92.8 89.9 NA
1969 56.1 64.9 NA 92.1 89.2 NA
1971 55.2 59.4 NA 90.9 86.1 NA
1972 55.6 55.6 NA 91.1 84.3 NA
1975 58.3 57.2 49.7 88.2 78.8 86.2
1977 61.4 57.6 52.2 88.3 78.1 78.1
1979 62.9 58.9 55.0 88.5 78.7 89.4
1980 64.1 57.6 53.7 88.0 75.2 86.8
1981 64.0 57.5 53.0 87.4 74.5 87.6
1982 62.7 56.6 51.1 85.6 71.1 85.3
1983 63.5 55.3 51.7 84.8 70.2 85.2
1984 65.0 58.9 54.0 86.5 71.9 83.9
1985 66.0 59.4 52.9 86.1 74.6 83.9
1986 66.8 61.0 54.0 86.4 74.3 86.5
1987 67.3 59.9 54.0 86.7 73.9 85.6
1988 68.0 61.4 54.6 86.3 74.0 87.8
1989 68.8 61.1 55.8 87.7 75.3 86.6
1990 68.5 60.7 55.0 87.7 75.6 85.4
1991 68.3 61.0 54.6 86.4 73.9 85.0
1992 67.8 57.8 53.3 85.7 71.5 83.7
1993 68.6 60.0 52.2 84.6 71.2 83.5
1994 69.0 60.9 53.3 85.0 69.1 83.2
1995 69.6 60.1 53.9 85.9 70.1 83.3
1996 70.2 64.1 55.4 85.9 70.3 84.0
1997 69.9 66.6 56.9 85.3 72.0 85.0
1998 70.4 67.1 57.1 85.3 71.8 85.5
1999 71.4 68.4 58.8 84.5 72.0 86.4
2000 70.6 67.7 61.0 84.7 72.7 86.4
2001 69.8 64.8 64.8 83.4 69.9 85.5
2002 69.5 64.4 57.5 82.5 67.3 85.1
2003 66.9 65.2 56.9 81.1 65.7 84.6

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 not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2004.

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 (2003 Dollars): Selected Years

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 (2003 Dollars): Selected Years

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1981-2004.

  • Average weekly wages of low-skilled women have been consistently lower than those of low-skilled men. For example, the average weekly wages of non-Hispanic black women without a high school education who worked full-time, full-year were 77 percent of those of men of the same race, education, and work status in 2003 ($464 compared to $605).
  • Non-Hispanic white women have had the highest average weekly wages among low-skilled women working full-time, full-year reaching $561 in 2003. This level is a 20 percent increase over their mean weekly wages in 1980. Over the same time period, non-Hispanic black women and Hispanic women’s weekly wages increased at slower rates (8 percent and 5 percent, respectively).
  • For men, the gap between mean weekly wages of non-Hispanic white and black full-time workers with low education levels has narrowed somewhat over time. Since 1980, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men working full-time has increased by 5 percent, while the mean wage for their white counterparts has declined slightly (by 1 percent). In 2003, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men was $605, or 79 percent of the $766 weekly wage for low-skilled non-Hispanic white men.
  • Over the past two decades, both Hispanic women and men’s wages have lagged behind non-Hispanic whites and blacks among low-skilled full-time workers. In 2003, Hispanic women’s wages were 25 percent lower than non-Hispanic white women and 9 percent lower than non-Hispanic black women. Hispanic men trailed non-Hispanic white men by 33 percent and non-Hispanic black men by 16 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 (2003 Dollars): Selected Years

  Women Men
  Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1980 469 428 401 775 577 585
1981 459 415 406 764 569 575
1982 466 423 407 750 555 554
1983 471 427 407 750 540 567
1984 475 442 413 765 538 570
1985 488 443 406 758 562 559
1986 494 444 429 776 564 544
1987 500 461 413 771 573 540
1988 499 443 412 765 599 543
1989 494 465 420 747 557 524
1990 493 452 395 714 551 508
1991 487 440 395 701 549 489
1992 494 442 409 707 538 500
1993 489 426 396 690 529 484
1994 496 440 398 700 541 480
1995 498 438 384 720 546 480
1996 501 462 397 738 568 476
1997 508 433 406 749 569 513
1998 528 440 409 732 574 509
1999 506 441 401 751 613 507
2000 523 445 391 770 607 516
2001 532 469 410 764 587 521
2002 541 482 413 762 592 543
2003 561 464 464 766 605 605

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

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 not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1981-2004.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over, by Level of Educational
Attainment: 1960-2003
Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2003
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2003,” Current Population Reports, P20-550, 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 15 percent in 2003.
  • 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 2003, 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 2003.
  • The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college has more than tripled from 1960 to 2003, rising steadily from 8 percent to 27 percent.

Table WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 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 24
2000 16 33 25 25
2001 16 33 26 26
2002 16 32 25 26
2003 15 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: 2003,” Current Population Reports, P20-550, 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

 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: 2001 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

  • Dropout rates for teens in grades 10 to 12 (all races) generally declined during the 1980s, from a high of 6.7 percent in the late 1970s to a low of 4.0 percent in the early 1990s. The rate then began rising in the early 1990s, reaching as high as 5.7 percent in 1995. Since then, it has fallen and remained relatively stable, at or below 5.0 percent since 1996.
  • 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 2001, the dropout rate was 8.8 percent for Hispanic teens, compared to 6.3 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
2001 5.0 4.1 6.3 8.8

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.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2001 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

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: 2003

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2003

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003.

  • In 2003, 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. For example, more than one in six (17 percent) of adults 18 to 25 reported using marijuana in the past month during 2003, compared with 8 percent of adults 26 to 34 and 3 percent of adults 35 and older.
  • 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 did not increase or decrease more than 1 percentage point between 2002 and 2003, as shown in Table WORK 6.
Table WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol
by Age: 1999 - 2003
  1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Cocaine
Ages 18-25 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.2
Ages 26-34 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.5
Ages 35 and over 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6
Marijuana
Ages 18-25 14.2 13.6 16.0 17.3 17.0
Ages 26-34 5.4 5.9 6.8 7.7 8.4
Ages 35 and over 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.0
Binge Alcohol Use
Ages 18-25 37.9 37.8 38.7 40.9 41.6
Ages 26-34 29.3 30.3 30.1 33.1 32.9
Ages 35 and over 16.0 16.4 16.2 18.6 18.1
Heavy Alcohol Use
Ages 18-25 13.3 12.8 13.6 14.9 15.1
Ages 26-34 7.5 7.6 7.8 9.0 9.4
Ages 35 and over 4.2 4.1 4.2 5.2 5.1

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, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 1999-2003.

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

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2003

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2003

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2003.

  • In 2003, non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 11.2 percent compared to 7.3 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 2003 (6.1 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 2003, 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: 2003

 
Activity
Limitation
Work
Disability
Long-Term
Care Needs
Disability
Program
Recipient
All Persons
Adults Ages 18-64 11.2 8.5 2.0 4.6
Children Ages 0-17 7.3 NA NA 6.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)
Non-Hispanic White 11.7 8.9 2.1 4.4
Non-Hispanic Black 14.1 10.9 3.0 7.8
Hispanic 7.7 5.5 1.5 3.3
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)
Non-Hispanic White 7.8 NA NA 6.6
Non-Hispanic Black 8.3 NA NA 6.9
Hispanic 5.8 NA NA 4.8

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.

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: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2003.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 8. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children Under 18

Figure WORK 8. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2003

Figure WORK 8. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2003

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1976-2004.

  • Since 1996, the labor force participation rate of never-married women has increased dramatically from 61 percent to 73 percent. Beginning in 1998 the participation rate for never-married mothers exceeded the rate for married mothers. The employment to population ratio indicates a similarly steep rise in the number of never-married employed mothers from 49 percent in 1996 to 63 percent in 2003, as shown in Table WORK 8.
  • Historically, mothers who are divorced, separated or widowed have always had the highest rates of labor force participation. The gap between them and married mothers, however, had narrowed considerably by 1994, before widening again over the next decade. In 2001, the labor force participation rate of divorced, separated or widowed mothers reached a peak of 83 percent.
  • The labor force participation rate of married women with children under 18 followed an upward trend until 1997 when it peaked at 71 percent. Since then it has edged downward slowly to 69 percent in 2003.
 
Labor Force Participation Rate
(percent of population)
Employment/Population Ratio
  Married, Spouse Present Divorced, Separated or Widowed Never-Married Married, Spouse Present Divorced, Separated or Widowed Never-Married
1975 44.9 62.8 42.2 40.5 54.9 32.1
1976 46.1 64.3 46.2 42.4 56.9 36.3
1977 48.2 66.4 43.4 44.6 58.7 29.6
1978 50.2 68.1 51.1 47.0 61.2 38.9
1979 51.9 67.8 54.4 48.6 61.4 42.6
1980 54.1 69.9 52.0 50.9 63.4 39.9
1981 55.7 70.5 52.3 52.1 63.0 38.3
1982 56.3 71.1 50.4 51.6 62.3 36.2
1983 57.2 70.1 49.8 52.4 58.5 34.5
1984 58.8 72.7 50.7 54.9 63.4 36.3
1985 60.8 72.9 51.6 56.8 64.0 39.3
1986 61.3 74.1 52.9 57.6 66.3 37.8
1987 63.8 74.0 54.1 60.4 66.5 40.2
1988 65.0 72.8 51.6 61.9 66.9 40.0
1989 65.6 72.0 54.7 63.1 66.0 43.1
1990 66.3 74.2 55.3 63.5 67.9 45.1
1991 66.8 72.7 53.6 63.2 66.1 44.0
1992 67.8 73.2 52.5 63.9 65.3 43.4
1993 67.5 72.1 54.4 64.2 65.9 44.0
1994 69.0 73.1 56.9 65.6 65.9 45.8
1995 70.2 75.3 57.5 67.1 69.1 47.9
1996 70.0 77.0 60.5 67.6 72.1 49.3
1997 71.1 79.1 68.1 68.6 72.0 56.6
1998 70.6 79.7 72.5 68.0 74.3 74.3
1999 70.1 80.4 73.4 68.0 75.4 64.8
2000 70.6 82.7 73.9 68.5 78.5 65.8
2001 70.4 83.1 73.5 68.0 78.7 64.6
2002 69.6 82.1 75.3 66.7 75.6 65.8
2003 69.2 82.0 73.1 66.3 74.7 63.2

Notes: The Labor Force Participation Rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The Employment/Population Ratio includes only those women who are employed. The population of mothers with children under age 18 includes those 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1976-2004.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1. Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by Age Group: 1940-2003

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by Age Group: 1940-2003

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Preliminary Data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53 (9), November 2004.

  • The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past six decades, from 4 percent in 1940 to 35 percent in 2003. 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. A little more than four-fifths (82 percent) of all births to teens and over half (53 percent) of all births to women ages 20-24 took place outside of marriage in 2003.
  • After reaching a peak of 33 percent in 1994, the percentage of births that are nonmarital has remained fairly steady. The growth in the percentage of nonmarital teen births also has slowed since 1994, although it is still rising (from 76 percent in 1994 to 82 percent in 2003). The steepest growth since 1994 is among the 20 to 24 year old age group, where the percentage of births that are nonmarital has increased from 45 to 53 percent.
  • Recently, the percentage of births that are nonmarital 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 nonmarital birth data by age and race).

Table BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by Age Group: Selected Years

Year Under 15 15-17 Years 18-19 Years All Teens 20-24 Years All Women
1940 64.5 NA NA 14.0 3.7 3.8
1945 70.0 NA NA 18.2 4.7 4.3
1950 63.7 22.6 9.4 13.9 3.8 4.0
1955 66.3 23.2 10.3 14.9 4.4 4.5
1960 67.9 24.0 10.7 15.4 4.8 5.3
1965 78.5 32.8 15.3 15.3 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 14.3
1980 88.7 61.5 39.8 48.3 19.4 18.4
1981 89.2 63.3 41.4 49.9 20.4 18.9
1982 89.2 65.0 43.0 51.4 21.4 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 32.9
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
2003 preliminary 97.1 89.7 77.3 81.6 53.2 34.6

Note: Trends in nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Preliminary Data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53 (9), November 2004 and unpublished NCHS data. Additional computations by ASPE staff of percentages for all teens (this age category not reported by NCHS).

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births that are Nonmarital Teen Births, by Race and Ethnicity 1940-2002

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births that are Nonmarital Teen Births, by Race and Ethnicity 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.

  • In contrast to the earlier Figure BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital teen births 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 nonmarital teen births 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 nonmarital teen births 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 nonmarital 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 that are Nonmarital Teen Births, by Race and
Ethnicity: Selected Years
Year All Races White Black Hispanic
1940 1.7 0.8 NA NA
1945 1.8 0.8 NA NA
1950 1.6 0.6 NA NA
1955 1.7 0.7 NA NA
1960 2.0 0.9 NA NA
1965 3.3 1.6 NA NA
1970 5.1 2.6 18.8 NA
1975 7.1 3.7 24.2 NA
1980 7.3 4.4 22.2 NA
1981 7.1 4.5 21.5 NA
1982 7.1 4.5 21.2 NA
1983 7.2 4.6 21.2 NA
1984 7.1 4.6 20.7 NA
1985 7.2 4.8 20.3 NA
1986 7.5 5.1 20.1 NA
1987 7.7 5.3 20.0 NA
1988 8.0 5.6 20.3 NA
1989 8.3 5.9 20.6 NA
1990 8.4 6.1 20.4 9.8
1991 8.7 6.4 20.4 20.4
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 nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital 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. Teens are defined as people ages 15 to 19.

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.

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.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 3. Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates Within Age Groups

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2002Figure 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: 1960-2002Figure 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 139 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 beetween 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

  Ages 15 to 17 Ages 18 and 19
Year All Races White Black All Races White Black
1950 9.9 3.4 NA 18.3 8.5 NA
1955 11.1 3.9 NA 23.6 10.3 NA
1960 11.1 4.4 NA 24.3 11.4 NA
1961 11.7 4.6 NA 24.6 12.1 NA
1962 10.7 4.1 NA 23.8 11.7 NA
1963 10.9 4.5 NA 25.8 13.0 NA
1964 11.6 4.9 NA 26.5 13.6 NA
1965 12.5 5.0 NA 25.8 13.9 NA
1966 13.1 5.4 NA 25.6 14.1 NA
1967 13.8 5.6 NA 27.6 15.3 NA
1968 14.7 6.2 NA 29.6 16.6 NA
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 nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital 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.

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. Birthrates for 1950 to 1965 computed by ASPE staff from NCHS birth data and Census population estimates.

 
 
 

Nonmarital 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: 1982-2004

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2004

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 and 2004.

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 just over 10 percent in 2004.
  • 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 almost 6 percent in 2004.
  • 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.

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

  Number of Children (thousands) Percentage
Year All Races White Black Hispanic All Races White Black Hispanic
1960 221 49 173 NA 0.4 0.4 2.2 NA
1970 527 110 442 NA 0.8 0.2 5.2 NA
1975 1,166 296 864 NA 1.8 0.5 9.9 NA
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
2004 7,203 3,097 3,538 1,567 10.3 5.7 34.0 12.0

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, which is 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.)

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. 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. Nonwhite data are shown for Black in 1960.

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 and 2004.

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.

Appendix A Program Data

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

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

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program — originally named the Aid to Dependent Children program — 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 that 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 also must 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), with work progressing on a similar bill (H.R. 240) in the 109th Congress. Senate versions of TANF reauthorization have been reported out of committee (S. 667 in the 109th Congress). Final enactment of TANF reauthorization is expected in 2005.

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. Table TANF 4 in this Appendix which tracks overall expenditure trends includes 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.

One source of discontinuity was removed in the 2004 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 requirements. The official TANF caseload figures do not include these families. Starting with the 2004 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) but Tribal TANF families are not included in any of the caseload counts. 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 through 6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7)2 and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 17). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a and IND 4a in Chapter II.

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Tables TANF 1 through TANF 3 and Figure TANF 1). Welfare caseloads have stabilized over the past few years after declining dramatically during the 1990s. In fiscal year 2003, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.5 million persons, down 2.4 percent from FY 2002. Moreover, this was 56 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 nearly 63 percent to 5.3 million in March 2004.3 Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the implementation of TANF (data not shown). These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs.

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 the 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 was 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 through TANF 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 2003 the average monthly benefit per recipient had declined to 61 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 increase in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 2003, 23 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1993, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was 28 percent in FY 2003 (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 14.8 percent of the caseload in FY 1992 to 40.9 percent in FY 2003. Not counting cases with a sanctioned parent, 38.0 percent of the caseload was child-only in 2003. 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 150,000 since 1996 — between 1996 and 1998 the child-only caseload decreased by 250,000 but subsequently increased by 100,000.

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 through TANF 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 2004 ranges from 95 percent (Wyoming) to 28 percent (Indiana). Five 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).

Table TANF 15 shows TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) families and recipients, by state. Tables TANF 16 and 17 use a data source available beginning in 2003, 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 those two-parent cases whose eligibility was due to unemployment and who received 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 in the period from September 1996 to 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 2004.

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 2003 Dollars

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2003 Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in current and constant 2003 dollars with the weighted average maximum benefit in current and constant 2003 dollars since 1988 indicates that the primary cause of the decline in the average monthly benefit has been due to the erosion in the real value of the maximum benefit due to inflation as the current value of maximum benefits was not increased in most states during most of the 1990s.

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 Seventh TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2005.

 
Fiscal Year Average Monthly Number (thousands) Child Recipients Children as a Percent of Total Recipients Average 1 Number of Children per Family
Total Families 1 AFDC UP 2Two-Parent Families TANF Two-Parent Families Total Recipients
1962........... 924 48 NA 3,593 2,778 77.3 3.0
1963........... 950 54 NA 3,834 2,896 75.5 3.0
1964........... 984 60 NA 4,059 3,043 75.0 3.1
1965........... 1,037 69 NA 4,323 3,242 75.0 3.1
1966........... 1,074 62 NA 4,472 3,369 75.3 3.1
1967........... 1,141 58 NA 4,718 3,560 75.5 3.1
1968........... 1,310 67 NA 5,349 4,013 75.0 3.1
1969........... 1,539 66 NA 6,146 4,591 74.7 3.0
1970........... 1,906 78 NA 7,415 5,484 74.0 2.9
1971........... 2,531 143 NA 9,557 6,963 72.9 2.8
1972........... 2,918 134 NA 10,632 7,698 72.4 2.6
1973........... 3,123 120 NA 11,038 7,967 72.2 2.6
1974........... 3,170 93 NA 10,845 7,825 72.2 2.5
1975........... 3,357 100 NA 11,067 7,952 71.9 2.4
1976........... 3,575 135 NA 11,386 8,054 70.7 2.3
1977........... 3,593 149 NA 11,130 7,846 70.5 2.2
1978........... 3,539 128 NA 10,672 7,492 70.2 2.1
1979........... 3,496 114 NA 10,318 7,197 69.8 2.1
1980........... 3,642 141 NA 10,597 7,320 69.1 2.0
1981........... 3,871 209 NA 11,160 7,615 68.2 2.0
1982........... 3,569 232 NA 10,431 6,975 66.9 2.0
1983........... 3,651 272 NA 10,659 7,051 66.1 1.9
1984........... 3,725 287 NA 10,866 7,153 65.8 1.9
1985........... 3,692 261 NA 10,813 7,165 66.3 1.9
1986........... 3,748 254 NA 10,997 7,300 66.4 1.9
1987........... 3,784 236 NA 11,065 7,381 66.7 2.0
1988........... 3,748 210 NA 10,920 7,325 67.1 2.0
1989........... 3,771 193 NA 10,934 7,370 67.4 2.0
1990........... 3,974 204 NA 11,460 7,755 67.7 2.0
1991........... 4,374 268 NA 12,592 8,513 67.6 1.9
1992........... 4,768 322 NA 13,625 9,226 67.7 1.9
1993........... 4,981 359 NA 14,143 9,560 67.6 1.9
1994........... 5,046 363 NA 14,226 9,611 67.6 1.9
1995........... 4,871 335 NA 13,660 9,280 67.9 1.9
1996........... 4,543 301 NA 12,645 8,672 68.6 1.9
1997 2......... 3,937 256 NA 10,935 7,781 3 71.2 3 2.0 3
1998........... 3,200 NA 162 8,790 6,273 71.4 2.0
1999........... 2,674 NA 125 7,188 5,319 74.0 2.0
2000........... 2,356 NA 132 6,324 4,598 72.7 2.0
2001........... 2,200 NA 119 5,761 4,225 73.3 1.9
2002........... 2,194 NA 118 5,654 4,149 73.0 1.9
2003........... 2,181 NA 116 5,517 4,073 73.8 1.9
 

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

1 Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.

2 The AFDC Unemployed Parent program was replaced when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed AFDC and set up the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program which was implemented during the period from September 1996 to July 1, 1997.

3 Based on data from the old AFDC reporting system that were available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year.

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: 1970–2003

Calendar
Year 1
Total Recipients in the States & DC(thousands) Child Recipients in the States & DC(thousands) Recipients as a Percent of Total Population 2 Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population 3 Recipients as a Percent of Pretransfer Poverty Population 4 Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population 2 Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty 3
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 4,399 2.1 19.1 29.7 6.1 38.0
2001 5,633 4,132 2.0 17.1 26.8 5.7 35.3
2002 5,529 4,050 1.9 16.0 25.4 5.6 33.4
2003 5,432 4,004 1.9 15.1 NA 5.5 31.1
 

1 Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates. 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 P60-226 (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

4 The pretransfer poverty population used as the 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, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2003," Current Population Reports, Series P60-226, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000–2003
(thousands)
 
  TANF SSP Total
Fiscal Year Families
2000 2,265 91 2,356
2001 2,117 82 2,200
2002 2,065 128 2,194
2003 2,032 149 2,181
  All Recipients
2000 5,943 380 6,324
2001 5,423 338 5,761
2002 5,149 505 5,654
2003 4,965 551 5,517
  Child Recipients
2000 4,370 228 4,598
2001 4,023 202 4,225
2002 3,841 308 4,149
2003 3,730 344 4,073

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: 1970–2003
(millions)
Fiscal Year
Federal Funds
(current dollars)
 
State Funds
(current dollars)
 
Total
(current dollars)
 
Total
(constant 2003 dollars 1)
Benefits
Administra-
tive
  Benefits
Administra-
tive
  Benefits
Administra-
tive
  Benefits
Administra-
tive
1970 $2,187 $572 2   $1,895 $309   $4,082 $881 2   $18,500 $3,993
1971 3,008 271   2,469 254   5,477 525   23,764 2,278
1972 3,612 240 3   2,942 241   6,554 481   27,461 2,015
1973 3,865 313   3,138 296   7,003 610   28,181 2,455
1974 4,071 379   3,300 362   7,371 740   27,320 2,743
1975 4,625 552   3,787 529   8,412 1,082   28,418 3,655
1976 5,258 541   4,418 527   9,676 1,069   30,599 3,381
1977 5,626 595   4,762 583   10,388 1,177   30,579 3,465
1978 5,724 631   4,898 617   10,621 1,248   29,332 3,447
1979 5,825 683   4,954 668   10,779 1,350   27,374 3,428
1980 6,448 750   5,508 729   11,956 1,479   27,296 3,377
1981 6,928 835   5,917 814   12,845 1,648   26,666 3,421
1982 6,922 878   5,934 878   12,857 1,756   24,938 3,406
1983 7,332 915   6,275 915   13,607 1,830   25,243 3,395
1984 7,707 876   6,664 822   14,371 1,698   25,572 3,021
1985 7,817 890   6,763 889   14,580 1,779   25,043 3,056
1986 8,239 993   6,996 967   15,235 1,960   25,522 3,283
1987 8,914 1,081   7,409 1,052   16,323 2,133   26,590 3,475
1988 9,125 1,194 2   7,538 1,159   16,663 2,353   26,077 3,682
1989 9,433 1,211   7,807 1,206   17,240 2,417   25,748 3,610
1990 10,149 1,358   8,390 1,303   18,539 2,661   26,375 3,786
1991 11,165 1,373   9,191 1,300   20,356 2,673   27,568 3,620
1992 12,258 1,459   9,993 1,378   22,250 2,837   29,246 3,729
1993 12,270 1,518   10,016 1,438   22,286 2,956   28,436 3,772
1994 12,512 1,680   10,285 1,621   22,797 3,301   28,337 4,103
1995 12,019 1,770   10,014 1,751   22,032 3,521   26,645 4,259

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 and systems 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 2003 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.

2 Includes expenditures for services.

3 These year-to-year changes likely reflect the fact that States now report corrections from prior years in the current year.

4 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for 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 Services.

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending Fiscal Years 1997–2003
(millions)
  Cash & Work-Based Assistance Work Activities Child Care Trans- portation Adminis- tration Systems Transitional Services Other 1 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
2003 5,520 1,937 1,698 434 1,307 285 4,772 16,254
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
2003 3,597 596 1,993 73 766 60 1,441 8,526
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
2003 801 66 -223 36 33 -.3 848 1,560
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
2003 10,219 2,599 3,468 543 2,106 345 7,060 26,340

1 Other includes accounts for: Assistance under Prior Law, Individual Development Accounts, Refundable EITC, Other Refundable Tax Credits, Non-Recurring Short-Term Benefits, Non-Assistance under Prior Law, Pregnancy Prevention, 2-Parent Formation, and Miscellaneous.

Note: Administration and Systems, shown separately here in Table TANF 5, can be combined to show total administrative costs, as in Table TANF 4. Negative numbers are possible since under TANF States now report corrections from prior years in the current year.

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: 1962–2003

 

Fiscal Year Monthly Benefit per Recipient Average Number of Persons per Family
Monthly Benefit
per Family
(not reduced by child support)
Weighted Average 1
Maximum Benefit
(per 3-person family)
Current
Dollars
2003
Dollars
Current
Dollars
2003
Dollars
Current
Dollars
2003
Dollars
1962 $31 $175 3.9 $121 $680 NA NA
1963 31 173 4.0 126 696 NA NA
1964 32 174 4.1 131 718 NA NA
1965 34 181 4.2 140 755 NA NA
1966 35 184 4.2 146 768 NA NA
1967 36 186 4.1 150 768 NA NA
1968 40 196 4.1 162 800 NA NA
1969 43 206 4.0 173 821 $186 2 $887
1970 46 208 3.9 178 808 194 2 881
1971 48 207 3.8 180 782 201 2 872
1972 51 215 3.6 187 784 205 2 860
1973 53 213 3.5 187 752 213 2 856
1974 57 210 3.4 194 718 229 2 848
1975 63 213 3.3 209 705 243 821
1976 71 224 3.2 226 713 257 812
1977 78 229 3.1 241 709 271 798
1978 83 229 3.0 250 691 284 785
1979 87 221 3.0 257 653 301 764
1980 94 215 2.9 274 625 320 731
1981 96 199 2.9 277 574 326 676
1982 103 199 2.9 300 582 331 641
1983 106 197 2.9 311 576 336 624
1984 110 196 2.9 322 572 352 626
1985 112 193 2.9 329 565 369 634
1986 115 193 2.9 339 568 383 642
1987 123 200 2.9 359 586 393 641
1988 127 199 2.9 370 580 403 631
1989 131 196 2.9 381 569 413 617
1990 135 192 2.9 389 553 420 597
1991 135 182 2.9 388 525 424 575
1992 136 179 2.9 389 511 419 550
1993 131 168 2.8 373 476 414 529
1994 134 166 2.8 376 468 416 516
1995 134 163 2.8 376 455 418 506
1996 135 158 2.8 374 441 419 493
1997 3 130 149 2.8 362 415 418 479
1998 130 147 2.7 358 404 429 484
1999 133 147 2.7 357 395 450 498
2000 133 143 2.6 349 374 446 478
2001 137 142 2.6 351 365 448 465
2002 146 149 2.5 364 372 452 463
2003 140 140 2.5 354 354 449 449

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2003 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal-year price index. See the note to Figure TANF 2 for explanation of the decline in real benefits.

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 for Needy Families (TANF) program. Beginning in 1997, average monthly benefits are calculated from case-level data rather than by dividing aggregate expenditures on cash assistance by aggregate caseloads, as in the past. This change was necessary due to uncertainty about the extent to which states may be reporting non-cash basic assistance as well as cash assistance in the expenditure data formerly used to calculate average cash benefits.

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 1969–2003

 
May
1969
May
1975
March
1979
Fiscal Year 1
1983 1988 1992 1996 2000 2002 2003
Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5
Number of Child Recipients
One 26.6 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.5 43.9 44.2 47.0 47.9
Two 23.0 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.2 29.9 28.4 28.0 27.8
Three 17.7 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.3 14.2 13.8
Four or More 32.5 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.1 8.9 8.6
Unknown NA NA NA 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.9 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 39.0 40.9
Child-Only Families 2 32.7 36.6 38.0
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 19.2 19.1
Participating in Food Stamp or
Donated Food Program
52.9 75.1 75.1 83.0 84.6 87.3 89.3 79.9 80.1 80.9
Presence of Income3
With Earnings  NA 14.6 12.8 5.7 8.4 7.4 11.1 23.6 21.8 19.5
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income  56.0 71.1 80.6 86.8 79.6 78.9 76.0 71.6 72.8 74.4
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed  14.0 5.5 6.8 6.6 11.3 26.4 25.3 22.9
Unemployed  49.2 47.2 49.0
Not in Labor Force  24.3 27.5 28.1
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 66.6 67.3
Married 12.4 11.5 10.7
Separated 13.1 13.0 12.8
Widowed 0.7 0.7 0.5
Divorced 8.5 8.2 8.7
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent of 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 table, 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 Percentages on presence of income are measured as a percentage of families through 1997 and for adult recipients 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 1978–2003
(millions)
  1978 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003
United States $10,621 $14,371 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $14,614 $11,180 $9,408 $10,219
Alabama $78 $74 $68 $62 $62 $92 $44 $36 $33 $46
Alaska 17 37 46 54 60 113 77 55 55 50
Arizona 30 67 79 103 138 266 145 107 130 175
Arkansas 51 39 48 53 57 57 26 34 26 22
California 1,813 3,207 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 4,128 3,643 2,608 3,119
Colorado 74 107 107 125 137 158 80 48 53 51
Connecticut 168 226 223 218 295 397 305 166 128 133
Delaware 28 28 25 24 29 40 24 20 19 20
Dist. of Columbia 91 75 77 76 84 126 97 72 67 68
Florida 145 251 261 318 418 806 357 234 256 251
Georgia 103 149 223 266 321 428 313 180 109 169
Guam 3 5 4 3 5 12 NA NA NA NA
Hawaii 83 83 73 77 99 163 153 141 85 91
Idaho 21 21 19 19 20 30 6 3 5 6
Illinois 699 845 886 815 839 914 771 269 146 115
Indiana 118 153 148 167 170 228 104 87 146 139
Iowa 107 159 170 155 152 169 104 79 76 81
Kansas 73 87 91 97 105 123 41 43 50 55
Kentucky 122 135 104 143 179 198 147 104 101 102
Louisiana 97 145 162 182 188 168 103 58 67 67
Maine 51 69 84 80 101 108 80 73 66 66
Maryland 166 229 250 250 296 314 192 196 227 32
Massachusetts 476 406 471 558 630 730 442 336 279 339
Michigan 780 1,214 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 589 386 326 390
Minnesota 164 287 322 338 355 379 276 193 184 193
Mississippi 33 58 74 85 86 82 60 18 37 36
Missouri 152 196 209 215 228 287 180 139 148 130
  15 27 37 41 40 49 30 21 31 31
Nebraska 38 56 62 56 59 62 41 41 52 59
Nevada 8 10 16 20 27 48 39 28 48 48
New Hampshire 21 16 20 21 32 62 39 32 29 39
New Jersey 489 485 509 459 451 531 372 222 194 222
New Mexico 32 49 51 56 61 144 104 113 82 78
New York 1,689 1,916 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,149 1,554 1,465 1,605
North Carolina 138 149 138 206 247 353 211 140 139 133
North Dakota 14 16 20 22 24 26 22 12 10 18
Ohio 441 725 804 805 877 1,016 546 368 336 304
Oklahoma 74 85 100 119 132 165 72 78 45 58
Oregon 148 101 120 128 145 197 141 34 69 82
Pennsylvania 726 724 389 747 798 935 523 573 338 324
Puerto Rico 25 38 33 67 72 74 NA NA NA NA
Rhode Island 59 71 79 82 99 136 117 105 89 83
South Carolina 52 75 103 91 96 115 52 91 35 49
South Dakota 18 17 15 21 22 25 14 10 11 11
Tennessee 77 83 100 125 168 215 108 146 132 138
Texas 122 229 281 344 416 544 315 248 203 323
Utah 41 52 55 61 64 77 50 40 41 44
Vermont 21 40 40 40 48 65 47 39 38 34
Virgin Islands 2 2 2 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA
Virginia 136 165 179 169 177 253 123 186 101 129
Washington 175 294 375 401 438 610 450 312 295 269
West Virginia 53 75 109 107 110 126 52 49 71 68
Wisconsin 260 519 444 506 440 425 145 7 126 109
Wyoming 6 13 16 19 19 21 7 9 2 15

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance payments. NA denotes data not available. See footnote 3 of Table TANF 4 for an explanation of the recent changes in benefit expenditures.

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 2003 Family Assistance Grants Awarded under PRWORA
(millions)
State FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1 FY 2003 Family Assistance Grants & Supplemental 2 FY 2003 Bonus Awards 3 FY 2003 Total Awards
Increase of FY 2003 over
FY 1996 Level
Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States $15,067 $16,685 $511 $17,196 $2,129 14
Alabama $79.0 $104.4 0.5 $104.9 $25.9 33
Alaska 60.7 60.3 6.3 66.6 6.0 10
Arizona 200.6 226.1 1.2 227.3 26.7 13
Arkansas 54.3 63.0 5.7 68.6 14.3 26
California 3,545.6 3,687.7 21.0 3,708.7 163.1 5
Colorado 138.9 149.6 19.8 169.4 30.5 22
Connecticut 221.1 266.8 11.7 278.5 57.5 26
Delaware 30.2 32.3 1.2 33.5 3.3 11
Dist. of Columbia 77.1 92.6 24.6 117.2 40.1 52
Florida 504.7 622.7 38.1 660.8 156.1 31
Georgia 301.2 368.0 4.4 372.4 71.2 24
Hawaii 98.4 98.9 0.9 99.8 1.4 1
Idaho 31.3 33.9 2.1 36.0 4.7 15
Illinois 593.8 585.1 0.0 585.1 -8.8 -1
Indiana 121.4 206.8 19.4 226.2 104.9 86
Iowa 129.3 131.5 7.2 138.7 9.4 7
Kansas 86.9 101.9 10.2 112.1 25.2 29
Kentucky 171.6 181.3 14.5 195.8 24.1 14
Louisiana 122.4 181.0 3.8 184.8 62.4 51
Maine 73.2 78.1 4.3 82.4 9.2 13
Maryland 207.6 229.1 21.4 250.5 42.9 21
Massachusetts 372.0 459.4 2.2 461.6 89.5 24
Michigan 581.5 775.4 22.0 797.3 215.8 37
Minnesota 239.3 267.2 13.4 280.6 41.2 17
Mississippi 68.6 95.8 0.8 96.6 28.0 41
Missouri 207.9 217.1 21.7 238.8 30.9 15
Montana 39.2 43.7 4.4 48.0 8.9 23
Nebraska 56.2 57.7 5.8 63.6 7.4 13
Nevada 41.2 47.7 2.0 49.7 8.5 21
New Hampshire 36.0 38.5 2.7 41.2 5.2 14
New Jersey 353.4 404.0 4.3 408.3 54.9 16
New Mexico 129.9 117.2 5.4 122.5 -7.4 -6
New York 2,332.7 2,442.9 23.1 2,466.0 133.3 6
North Carolina 311.9 338.3 3.5 341.8 29.9 10
North Dakota 24.5 26.4 1.3 27.7 3.2 13
Ohio 564.5 728.0 21.4 749.4 184.9 33
Oklahoma 125.1 147.6 6.5 154.1 29.0 23
Oregon 146.4 166.8 6.0 172.9 26.4 18
Pennsylvania 780.1 719.5 31.7 751.2 -29.0 -4
Rhode Island 82.9 95.0 2.9 97.9 15.0 18
South Carolina 99.4 100.0 1.6 101.5 2.1 2
South Dakota 19.7 21.3 1.6 22.9 3.1 16
Tennessee 178.9 213.1 11.2 224.3 45.3 25
Texas 437.1 539.0 27.6 566.5 129.4 30
Utah 68.0 84.3 6.0 90.3 22.3 33
Vermont 42.4 47.4 1.3 48.6 6.3 15
Virginia 134.6 158.3 15.8 174.1 39.5 29
Washington 393.2 388.7 12.6 401.3 8.1 2
West Virginia 95.1 110.2 2.8 113.0 17.9 19
Wisconsin 241.6 315.1 11.5 326.5 85.0 35
Wyoming 14.4 18.5 20.2 38.7 24.3 169

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 2003 Family Assistance Grants and Supplemental is net of the Tribal Grants amounts.

3 The FY 2003 Bonus Awards include Out of Wedlock Bonus and High Performance Bonus.

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

Table TANF 10. Peak AFDC/TANF Caseload, by State: October 1989 to March 2004
(thousands)
State
Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to
Mar ’04
Date Peak Occurred
Oct ’89 to Mar ’04
Sept ’96AFDC Caseload
Mar ’04 TANF
& SSP Caseload
Percent Decline 1 Sept ’96 to Mar ’04 Percent Decline Peak to Mar ’04
United States 5,098 Mar-94 4,346 2,157 50 58
Alabama 52.3 Mar-93 40.7 19.2 53 63
Alaska 13.4 Apr-94 12.3 5.2 57 61
Arizona 72.8 Dec-93 61.8 50.0 19 31
Arkansas 27.1 Mar-92 22.1 10.1 54 63
California 933.1 Mar-95 870.3 503.8 42 46
Colorado 43.7 Dec-93 33.6 14.8 56 66
Connecticut 61.9 Mar-95 57.1 25.1 56 60
Delaware 11.8 Apr-94 10.5 5.7 46 52
Dist. of Columbia 27.5 Apr-94 25.1 17.5 30 36
Florida 259.9 Nov-92 200.3 57.5 71 78
Georgia 142.8 Nov-93 120.9 54.2 55 62
Hawaii 23.4 Jun-97 21.9 12.2 44 48
Idaho 9.5 Mar-95 8.4 2.0 77 79
Illinois 243.1 Aug-94 217.8 36.2 83 85
Indiana 76.1 Sep-93 49.7 54.5 -10 28
Iowa 40.7 Apr-94 31.1 23.0 26 43
Kansas 30.8 Aug-93 23.4 16.7 28 46
Kentucky 84.0 Mar-93 70.4 35.8 49 57
Louisiana 94.7 May-90 66.5 18.1 73 81
Maine 24.4 Aug-93 19.7 11.1 44 54
Maryland 81.8 May-95 68.9 28.3 59 65
Massachusetts 115.7 Aug-93 84.3 49.1 42 58
Michigan 233.6 Apr-91 167.5 80.3 52 66
Minnesota 66.2 Jun-92 57.2 39.5 31 40
Mississippi 61.8 Nov-91 45.2 18.6 59 70
Missouri 93.7 Mar-94 79.1 41.5 48 56
Montana 12.3 Mar-94 9.8 5.4 45 56
Nebraska 17.2 Mar-93 14.4 11.4 21 34
Nevada 16.3 Mar-95 13.2 9.6 28 41
New Hampshire 11.8 Apr-94 8.9 6.3 29 46
New Jersey 132.6 Nov-92 100.8 46.4 54 65
New Mexico 34.9 Nov-94 33.0 17.6 47 49
New York 463.7 Dec-94 412.7 200.1 52 57
North Carolina 134.1 Mar-94 107.5 37.3 65 72
North Dakota 6.6 Apr-93 4.7 3.1 35 54
Ohio 269.8 Mar-92 201.9 84.9 58 69
Oklahoma 51.3 Mar-93 35.3 13.9 61 73
Oregon 43.8 Apr-93 28.5 18.4 36 58
Pennsylvania 212.5 Sep-94 180.1 87.1 52 59
Puerto Rico 61.7 Jan-92 49.5 17.6 64 71
Rhode Island 22.9 Apr-94 20.5 14.5 29 37
South Carolina 54.6 Jan-93 42.9 17.3 60 68
South Dakota 7.4 Apr-93 5.7 2.7 52 63
Tennessee 112.6 Nov-93 96.2 73.6 24 35
Texas 287.5 Dec-93 238.8 107.4 55 63
Utah 18.7 Mar-93 14.0 9.2 34 51
Vermont 10.3 Apr-92 8.7 5.3 39 48
Virgin Islands 1.4 Dec-95 1.3 0.6 59 61
Virginia 76.0 Apr-94 60.5 35.3 42 54
Washington 104.8 Feb-95 96.8 59.0 39 44
West Virginia 41.9 Apr-93 37.6 16.6 56 60
Wisconsin 82.9 Jan-92 49.9 23.1 54 72
Wyoming 7.1 Aug-92 4.3 0.4 92 95

1Negative values denote percent increase.

Note: these data do not include Tribal TANF families (about 8,000 in number). This makes little difference nationally, but in States like Wyoming, New Mexico and Arizona, their exclusion under TANF overstates the real decline from AFDC years.

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
(thousands)
  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2003 PercentChange
1990-96 1996-03
United States 4,323 7,415 10,597 11,460 14,226 12,645 6,324 5,517 10 -56
Alabama 78 123 180 130 132 105 46 46 -19 -57
Alaska 5 8 15 20 38 36 22 15 79 -58
Arizona 40 51 51 124 201 172 87 113 38 -34
Arkansas 30 45 85 71 69 58 29 25 -19 -56
California 528 1,148 1,387 1,902 2,639 2,626 1,574 1,303 38 -50
Colorado 42 66 77 102 119 99 29 35 -4 -64
Connecticut 59 83 139 120 166 162 73 56 35 -65
Delaware 12 20 32 21 27 23 13 13 10 -43
Dist. of Columbia 20 40 85 49 74 70 47 43 44 -38
Florida 106 204 256 370 669 561 158 128 52 -77
Georgia 71 198 221 293 393 353 129 136 20 -61
Guam 1 2 5 4 7 8 10 11 91 37
Hawaii 14 25 60 44 62 67 75 41 52 -38
Idaho 10 16 21 17 23 23 2 3 38 -86
Illinois 262 368 672 636 712 655 256 99 3 -85
Indiana 48 73 157 154 216 148 103 155 -4 5
Iowa 44 64 104 98 110 89 54 54 -9 -39
Kansas 36 53 68 77 87 68 32 40 -11 -42
Kentucky 81 129 167 175 208 175 89 77 -0 -56
Louisiana 104 202 213 282 248 236 75 58 -16 -75
Maine 19 36 60 56 64 56 32 32 -0 -42
Maryland 80 131 212 186 222 204 77 71 10 -65
Massachusetts 94 208 350 263 307 237 102 109 -10 -54
Michigan 162 253 685 655 666 527 207 201 -20 -62
Minnesota 51 76 135 171 187 171 116 117 0 -32
Mississippi 83 115 173 179 159 129 34 46 -28 -65
Missouri 107 140 199 211 263 232 131 121 10 -48
Montana 7 13 19 29 35 31 13 17 8 -45
Nebraska 16 30 35 43 45 40 28 31 -7 -21
Nevada 5 12 12 23 38 38 16 28 66 -25
New Hampshire 4 9 22 16 30 24 14 15 48 -39
New Jersey 104 286 459 309 335 288 138 110 -7 -62
New Mexico 30 51 53 57 102 101 72 44 77 -56
New York 517 1,052 1,100 981 1,255 1,184 724 501 21 -58
North Carolina 111 124 198 223 333 278 100 84 24 -70
North Dakota 8 11 13 16 16 13 8 9 -14 -35
Ohio 183 266 513 632 685 546 245 188 -14 -66
Oklahoma 73 95 89 112 131 105 36 37 -6 -65
Oregon 31 75 102 89 114 87 39 43 -2 -51
Pennsylvania 303 426 629 521 620 544 250 210 4 -61
Puerto Rico 202 223 168 190 183 155 92 54 -18 -65
Rhode Island 24 38 52 46 63 58 50 41 27 -30
South Carolina 30 52 153 111 140 119 41 51 7 -58
South Dakota 11 16 20 19 19 16 7 6 -14 -61
Tennessee 76 129 162 211 300 260 147 186 23 -29
Texas 91 214 308 611 788 684 342 363 12 -47
Utah 22 33 37 45 50 40 23 22 -11 -46
Vermont 5 12 23 22 28 25 16 14 15 -46
Virgin Islands 1 2 3 3 4 5 3 1 55 -71
Virginia 46 87 166 151 195 162 75 75 7 -54
Washington 71 109 154 228 292 274 168 149 20 -46
West Virginia 116 93 77 111 114 95 32 41 -14 -57
Wisconsin 45 79 213 237 226 170 40 50 -28 -70
Wyoming 4 5 7 14 16 13 1 1 -9 -94

Note: Recipients in 2000 and beyond include both TANF and SSP recipients but do not include Tribal TANF 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
(percent)
 
  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2003 PercentChange
1990-96 1996-03
United States 2.1 3.5 4.6 4.5 5.3 4.6 2.2 1.9 3 -60
Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.6 3.2 3.1 2.4 1.0 1.0 -24 -58
Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.7 3.7 6.3 5.9 3.6 2.3 63 -61
Arizona 2.6 2.9 1.9 3.4 4.7 3.7 1.7 2.0 11 -46
Arkansas 1.5 2.3 3.7 3.0 2.8 2.3 1.1 0.9 -25 -59
California 2.9 5.7 5.8 6.3 8.4 8.2 4.6 3.7 29 -55
Colorado 2.2 3.0 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.5 0.7 0.8 -19 -69
Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.5 3.6 5.0 4.8 2.1 1.6 33 -67
Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 3.2 3.8 3.2 1.7 1.6 -0 -48
Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 13.3 8.1 12.6 12.3 8.2 7.7 52 -37
Florida 1.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 4.7 3.8 1.0 0.8 33 -80
Georgia 1.6 4.3 4.0 4.5 5.5 4.7 1.6 1.6 4 -67
Hawaii 1.9 3.2 6.2 3.9 5.2 5.5 6.1 3.3 40 -41
Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9 0.2 0.2 16 -88
Illinois 2.5 3.3 5.9 5.6 6.0 5.4 2.1 0.8 -2 -86
Indiana 1.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.7 2.5 1.7 2.5 -9 -0
Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.1 1.9 1.8 -12 -40
Kansas 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.4 2.6 1.2 1.5 -16 -44
Kentucky 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.7 5.4 4.5 2.2 1.9 -6 -58
Louisiana 2.9 5.6 5.0 6.7 5.7 5.4 1.7 1.3 -20 -76
Maine 1.9 3.6 5.4 4.5 5.2 4.5 2.5 2.5 -2 -45
Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.9 4.4 4.0 1.5 1.3 3 -68
Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.1 4.4 5.0 3.8 1.6 1.7 -12 -56
Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.4 7.0 6.9 5.4 2.1 2.0 -23 -63
Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.9 4.1 3.6 2.3 2.3 -7 -36
Mississippi 3.6 5.2 6.9 6.9 5.9 4.7 1.2 1.6 -32 -66
Missouri 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.9 4.3 2.3 2.1 4 -50
Montana 1.0 1.9 2.4 3.6 4.0 3.5 1.4 1.9 -3 -46
Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.4 1.6 1.8 -12 -24
Nevada 1.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.3 0.8 1.3 22 -44
New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.7 2.1 1.1 1.2 40 -44
New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.2 4.0 4.2 3.5 1.6 1.3 -11 -64
New Mexico 3.0 5.0 4.1 3.8 6.1 5.8 4.0 2.4 53 -59
New York 2.9 5.8 6.3 5.4 6.8 6.4 3.8 2.6 17 -59
North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.6 3.7 1.2 1.0 10 -73
North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.2 1.4 -15 -34
Ohio 1.8 2.5 4.8 5.8 6.1 4.9 2.2 1.6 -17 -66
Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 2.9 3.6 4.0 3.1 1.0 1.0 -12 -67
Oregon 1.6 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.7 2.7 1.1 1.2 -14 -55
Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 4.4 5.1 4.4 2.0 1.7 2 -62
Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 4.6 6.2 5.7 4.7 3.8 25 -34
South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.9 3.2 3.8 3.1 1.0 1.2 -1 -61
South Dakota 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.2 0.9 0.8 -19 -63
Tennessee 2.0 3.3 3.5 4.3 5.7 4.8 2.6 3.2 11 -34
Texas 0.9 1.9 2.1 3.6 4.2 3.5 1.6 1.6 -1 -54
Utah 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.9 -25 -52
Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 3.9 4.8 4.3 2.7 2.2 10 -48
Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.1 2.4 3.0 2.4 1.1 1.0 -1 -58
Washington 2.4 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.4 4.9 2.8 2.4 6 -51
West Virginia 6.4 5.3 4.0 6.2 6.3 5.2 1.8 2.2 -16 -57
Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 4.5 4.8 4.4 3.3 0.8 0.9 -33 -72
Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.4 2.6 0.2 0.1 -16 -94

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
(thousands)
 
  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2003 PercentChange
1990-96 1996-03
United States 3,242 5,483 7,320 7,755 9,611 8,672 4,598 4,073 12 -53
Alabama 62 96 129 93 96 79 37 36 -14 -55
Alaska 4 6 10 13 24 23 15 10 76 -56
Arizona 31 39 38 87 136 118 66 83 36 -30
Arkansas 23 34 62 51 49 42 22 19 -18 -55
California 391 816 932 1,294 1,804 1,805 1,163 1,010 39 -44
Colorado 33 50 53 69 80 68 22 26 -2 -62
Connecticut 43 62 97 81 111 108 50 39 33 -64
Delaware 9 15 22 14 19 16 9 10 9 -37
Dist. of Columbia 16 31 59 34 51 48 34 32 40 -33
Florida 85 160 184 264 463 395 124 101 49 -74
Georgia 54 150 161 206 274 251 101 104 22 -58
Guam 1 1 4 3 5 6 0 0 87 -100
Hawaii 10 18 40 29 41 44 50 27 51 -39
Idaho 7 11 14 11 16 16 2 2 41 -84
Illinois 202 283 473 436 486 456 193 81 5 -82
Indiana 36 55 111 105 145 104 74 114 -1 10
Iowa 32 46 69 64 72 59 36 35 -7 -41
Kansas 28 41 49 52 59 48 23 28 -8 -42
Kentucky 58 93 118 117 137 120 64 57 3 -53
Louisiana 79 157 156 199 180 162 59 46 -19 -71
Maine 14 26 40 35 40 35 22 21 0 -42
Maryland 61 100 145 124 151 140 56 52 13 -63
Massachusetts 71 153 228 168 197 153 73 77 -9 -50
Michigan 119 190 460 427 439 354 153 148 -17 -58
Minnesota 39 58 91 110 124 116 81 80 5 -31
Mississippi 66 93 128 129 116 96 27 34 -25 -65
Missouri 82 106 135 139 176 162 94 85 16 -48
Montana 6 10 13 19 23 21 9 11 10 -44
Nebraska 12 23 25 29 31 28 20 22 -5 -21
Nevada 4 9 8 16 27 27 12 21 71 -24
New Hampshire 3 7 15 11 19 16 10 10 48 -36
New Jersey 79 209 318 213 228 195 102 81 -8 -59
New Mexico 23 39 35 37 66 65 51 31 75 -52
New York 380 759 759 658 813 771 491 353 17 -54
North Carolina 83 94 141 152 223 191 76 65 26 -66
North Dakota 6 8 9 10 11 9 5 6 -12 -33
Ohio 136 198 348 414 455 382 180 139 -8 -64
Oklahoma 55 71 65 77 90 74 28 28 -4 -62
Oregon 23 52 65 60 76 60 29 32 0 -47
Pennsylvania 217 307 432 345 417 368 184 154 7 -58
Puerto Rico 161 166 118 130 124 105 64 37 -19 -65
Rhode Island 18 27 36 30 41 39 34 28 29 -28
South Carolina 24 40 109 80 102 89 32 37 12 -59
South Dakota 8 12 15 13 14 12 5 5 -11 -57
Tennessee 58 99 115 144 203 181 107 132 26 -27
Texas 68 162 225 428 549 484 252 275 13 -43
Utah 16 23 24 31 33 27 16 16 -11 -42
Vermont 4 8 14 14 17 16 10 9 15 -44
Virgin Islands 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 1 52 -71
Virginia 35 66 116 104 134 114 55 53 10 -53
Washington 50 76 97 148 187 177 115 103 20 -42
West Virginia 80 65 58 68 72 62 22 28 -10 -55
Wisconsin 34 60 142 158 153 123 34 40 -22 -67
Wyoming 3 4 5 9 11 9 1 1 -4 -93

Note: From FY 2000 onward, TANF child recipients include TANF and SSP child recipients but not Tribal TANF 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 1965–2003
(percent)
 
  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2003 PercentChange
1990-96 1996-03
United States 4.4 7.6 11.3 11.9 14.0 12.4 6.3 5.5 4 -55
Alabama 4.6 7.7 11.1 8.8 8.9 7.3 3.3 3.2 -17 -56
Alaska 3.1 5.0 8.0 7.4 12.8 12.4 7.9 5.3 67 -57
Arizona 4.8 6.0 4.8 8.6 12.1 9.7 4.7 5.5 12 -44
Arkansas 3.1 5.2 9.3 8.2 7.7 6.4 3.2 2.8 -23 -56
California 6.0 12.3 14.6 16.2 20.8 20.3 12.5 10.7 25 -47
Colorado 4.4 6.4 6.5 7.8 8.3 6.8 1.9 2.2 -13 -67
Connecticut 4.4 6.1 11.8 10.8 14.2 13.7 5.9 4.6 27 -66
Delaware 4.7 7.5 13.4 8.7 10.5 8.9 4.9 5.0 2 -44
Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 40.9 30.7 44.5 44.1 31.4 29.9 44 -32
Flori a 4.3 7.6 7.8 8.8 14.1 11.6 3.3 2.6 31 -78
Georgia 3.2 9.1 9.8 11.8 14.6 12.8 4.6 4.5 9 -64
Hawaii 3.6 6.5 14.5 10.5 13.6 14.5 17.2 9.0 39 -38
Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.6 4.6 4.6 0.5 0.7 27 -85
Illinois 5.3 7.5 14.6 14.8 15.7 14.4 6.0 2.5 -3 -83
Indiana 2.0 3.0 6.9 7.3 9.8 7.0 4.7 7.1 -5 2
Iowa 3.2 4.7 8.4 8.8 9.9 8.2 5.0 5.0 -8 -38
Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.5 7.9 8.5 7.0 3.2 4.0 -12 -43
Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.9 12.4 14.1 12.4 6.7 5.7 -0 -54
Louisiana 5.5 11.3 11.8 16.5 14.6 13.3 4.9 3.9 -20 -70
Maine 3.9 7.7 12.5 11.5 13.1 11.8 7.5 7.2 3 -39
Maryland 4.6 7.3 12.4 10.6 12.0 11.1 4.1 3.7 5 -66
Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 15.3 12.4 13.9 10.6 4.9 5.2 -15 -51
Michigan 3.7 5.8 16.7 17.4 17.4 13.9 5.9 5.8 -20 -58
Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.7 9.4 10.1 9.3 6.4 6.4 -0 -31
Mississippi 7.0 11.1 15.7 17.6 15.3 12.7 3.5 4.4 -28 -65
Missouri 5.2 6.9 9.9 10.6 12.9 11.6 6.6 6.1 10 -48
Montana 2.0 4.0 5.7 8.4 9.7 8.9 3.8 5.3 6 -41
Nebraska 2.3 4.4 5.5 6.8 7.0 6.1 4.4 4.9 -10 -19
Nevada 2.5 5.2 3.8 5.0 7.1 6.5 2.2 3.6 29 -45
New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 5.8 3.9 6.6 5.4 3.1 3.3 40 -39
New Jersey 3.4 8.8 16.0 11.7 11.7 9.9 4.9 3.8 -16 -61
New Mexico 5.2 9.5 8.5 8.3 13.5 13.1 10.1 6.2 59 -53
New York 6.3 13.0 16.2 15.4 18.0 17.0 10.6 7.8 11 -54
North Carolina 4.4 5.3 8.5 9.3 12.6 10.4 3.8 3.1 12 -70
North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.7 6.0 6.3 5.4 3.6 4.1 -10 -24
Ohio 3.6 5.3 11.2 14.9 16.0 13.4 6.3 4.9 -10 -63
Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 7.6 9.1 10.4 8.5 3.1 3.2 -7 -62
Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.0 8.1 9.7 7.4 3.4 3.7 -8 -50
Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 13.8 12.3 14.4 12.8 6.3 5.4 4 -58
Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 14.7 13.4 17.5 16.5 13.8 11.5 23 -30
South Carolina 2.3 4.2 11.6 8.7 10.8 9.4 3.2 3.6 8 -62
South Dakota 3.1 5.0 7.1 6.7 6.6 5.9 2.7 2.6 -12 -55
Tennessee 4.2 7.5 8.9 11.8 15.7 13.7 7.7 9.5 16 -31
Texas 1.7 4.1 5.2 8.7 10.4 8.8 4.2 4.4 1 -50
Utah 3.7 5.4 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.0 2.3 2.1 -19 -47
Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.9 9.5 11.7 10.8 7.2 6.3 13 -41
Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 6.8 8.4 7.0 3.1 3.0 3 -58
Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 11.3 13.3 12.4 7.6 6.9 9 -44
West Virginia 12.2 11.2 10.4 15.7 16.8 14.6 5.5 7.1 -7 -52
Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 10.5 12.1 11.4 9.1 2.5 3.0 -25 -67
Wyoming 2.1 3.2 3.4 7.0 8.1 6.8 0.8 0.5 -2 -92

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: 2003
(thousands)
  Families All Recipients Child Recipients
TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total
U.S. Total 2,032 149 2,181 4,965 551 5,517 3,730 344 4,073
Alabama 18.8 0.3 19.1 44.7 1.0 45.7 35.2 0.5 35.8
Alaska 5.3 5.3 15.2 15.2 10.1 10.1
Arizona 47.8 47.8 113.0 113.0 82.8 82.8
Arkansas 11.2 11.2 25.4 25.4 18.9 18.9
California 449.7 45.7 495.4 1,111.6 191.1 1,302.7 891.3 119.1 1,010.5
Colorado 13.5 13.5 35.4 35.4 25.8 25.8
Connecticut 21.0 3.5 24.5 45.0 11.0 56.0 32.1 6.6 38.7
Delaware 5.6 0.1 5.7 12.7 0.6 13.3 9.7 0.3 10.0
District of Columbia 16.6 0.4 17.0 42.3 1.0 43.4 31.8 0.7 32.5
Florida 58.1 1.9 60.0 120.0 7.7 127.7 96.9 3.9 100.8
Georgia 55.9 0.7 56.6 133.8 2.7 136.5 103.1 1.4 104.5
Guam 3.1 3.1 10.8 10.8 0.0
Hawaii 9.8 3.9 13.6 25.7 15.2 40.9 18.0 8.8 26.8
Idaho 1.7 1.7 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.5
Illinois 37.9 0.5 38.4 98.0 0.9 98.9 80.3 0.3 80.6
Indiana 52.7 3.3 56.0 140.3 14.6 154.9 105.8 8.2 114.0
Iowa 20.0 2.1 22.1 52.2 2.1 54.3 34.9 0.0 34.9
Kansas 15.3 15.3 39.7 39.7 27.6 27.6
Kentucky 34.9 34.9 77.0 77.0 57.0 57.0
Louisiana 22.8 22.8 57.8 57.8 46.3 46.3
Maine 9.8 1.5 11.3 27.1 5.2 32.3 17.4 3.1 20.5
Maryland 26.1 2.8 29.0 61.8 8.9 70.7 46.0 5.6 51.6
Massachusetts 49.4 0.1 49.5 109.1 0.3 109.4 76.6 0.2 76.7
Michigan 75.1 75.1 200.6 200.6 147.8 147.8
Minnesota 36.5 5.1 41.6 94.6 22.5 117.2 67.9 12.4 80.3
Mississippi 19.8 19.8 45.7 45.7 33.6 33.6
Missouri 40.8 6.1 46.9 101.9 18.7 120.6 73.0 12.2 85.2
Montana 6.2 6.2 17.3 17.3 11.4 11.4
Nebraska 10.9 1.1 12.0 26.9 4.5 31.4 19.4 2.4 21.8
Nevada 10.6 0.8 11.4 25.3 2.9 28.2 19.2 1.6 20.8
New Hampshire 6.1 0.2 6.2 14.2 0.7 14.8 9.7 0.4 10.1
New Jersey 42.4 1.6 44.1 102.6 7.1 109.7 77.2 3.8 81.0
New Mexico 16.6 16.6 44.1 44.1 31.2 31.2
New York 148.8 47.3 196.1 338.7 162.4 501.1 243.4 109.2 352.6
North Carolina 40.4 40.4 84.2 84.2 65.4 65.4
North Dakota 3.4 3.4 8.7 8.7 6.1 6.1
Ohio 84.3 84.3 187.6 187.6 139.2 139.2
Oklahoma 15.0 15.0 36.8 36.8 28.1 28.1
Oregon 18.7 18.7 42.7 42.7 31.5 31.5
Pennsylvania 80.9 80.9 210.4 210.4 153.8 153.8
Puerto Rico 18.9 18.9 53.5 53.5 37.2 37.2
Rhode Island 13.3 1.5 14.9 35.5 5.3 40.8 24.8 3.2 28.0
South Carolina 20.7 20.7 50.6 50.6 36.7 36.7
South Dakota 2.8 2.8 6.3 6.3 5.2 5.2
Tennessee 68.7 1.3 69.9 180.9 4.6 185.6 129.7 2.8 132.5
Texas 133.2 6.6 139.8 334.4 28.3 362.7 259.4 15.3 274.7
Utah 8.5 0.0 8.6 21.8 0.2 22.0 15.6 0.1 15.7
Vermont 4.9 0.4 5.3 12.7 1.0 13.7 8.1 0.6 8.7
Virgin Islands 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1
Virginia 25.2 7.0 32.2 58.2 16.6 74.8 41.7 11.6 53.2
Washington 54.7 3.0 57.7 135.9 12.9 148.8 94.9 8.2 103.1
West Virginia 15.8 15.8 40.7 40.7 27.6 27.6
Wisconsin 20.5 0.4 20.8 49.0 1.4 50.4 39.2 0.9 40.1
Wyoming 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6

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 2002

State Adult TANF Recipients (thousands) Percentage with Earnings Percentage without Earnings
Total With Earnings inFollowing Quarter Total With Earnings inFollowing Quarter
All Reporting States 1,387 39 76 61 18
Alabama 10.9 38 73 62 21
Alaska 6.8 45 80 55 20
Arizona 30.1 35 70 65 19
Arkansas 9.0 42 76 58 25
California 273.4 39 82 61 13
Colorado 10.3 37 71 63 22
Connecticut 18.0 41 78 59 19
Delaware 3.6 44 74 56 22
Dist. of Columbia 12.1 35 73 65 15
Florida 37.1 38 76 62 23
Georgia 35.0 34 72 66 16
Hawaii 10.7 39 86 61 13
Idaho 0.7 43 78 57 29
Illinois 32.0 39 81 61 17
Indiana 45.6 48 80 52 21
Iowa 21.7 47 77 53 23
Kansas 13.5 47 75 53 24
Kentucky 24.4 37 72 63 20
Louisiana 15.4 32 65 68 24
Maine 9.9 43 80 57 18
Maryland 19.8 34 72 66 19
Massachusetts 38.3 26 65 74 14
Michigan 64.9 36 70 64 18
Minnesota 31.7 42 72 58 21
Mississippi 12.6 32 69 68 19
Missouri 40.2 48 78 52 24
Montana 7.1 40 74 60 22
Nebraska 9.1 49 76 51 23
Nevada 8.6 43 77 57 22
New Hampshire 5.5 38 75 62 18
New Jersey 31.0 31 72 69 17
New Mexico 17.6 41 75 59 23
New York NA NA NA NA NA
North Carolina 27.3 39 73 61 23
North Dakota 3.0 46 77 54 20
Ohio 63.0 39 75 61 21
Oklahoma 11.1 44 71 56 23
Oregon 13.3 25 71 75 15
Pennsylvania 67.6 34 71 66 18
Rhode Island 13.3 37 77 63 15
South Carolina 18.4 43 79 57 20
South Dakota 1.6 30 73 70 20
Tennessee 52.6 45 77 55 20
Texas 94.5 40 77 60 20
Utah 7.0 38 72 62 21
Vermont 5.8 42 76 58 19
Virginia 21.8 45 77 55 23
Washington 52.3 39 74 61 19
West Virginia 16.6 36 75 64 17
Wisconsin 10.9 33 72 67 19
Wyoming 0.2 43 71 57 28

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 2002

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)
All Reporting States 1,387 78 62 52 46
Alabama 10.9 74 54 44 39
Alaska 6.8 77 60 50 43
Arizona 30.1 76 59 51 47
Arkansas 9.0 71 50 37 29
California 273.4 83 70 62 56
Colorado 10.3 73 54 43 37
Connecticut 18.0 79 62 49 40
Delaware 3.6 77 59 49 43
Dist. of Columbia 12.1 86 75 67 62
Florida 37.1 57 38 30 25
Georgia 35.0 78 60 49 42
Hawaii 10.7 80 66 56 49
Idaho 0.7 47 21 14 11
Illinois 32.0 78 60 47 38
Indiana 45.6 82 67 55 44
Iowa 21.7 75 57 48 42
Kansas 13.5 73 55 47 42
Kentucky 24.4 77 59 48 41
Louisiana 15.4 72 52 41 33
Maine 9.9 79 64 56 51
Maryland 19.8 78 62 51 45
Massachusetts 38.3 79 66 58 52
Michigan 64.9 75 59 50 46
Minnesota 31.7 82 68 59 53
Mississippi 12.6 76 59 50 43
Missouri 40.2 79 64 53 45
Montana 7.1 76 61 54 49
Nebraska 9.1 74 60 53 48
Nevada 8.6 76 54 39 29
New Hampshire 5.5 77 60 51 44
New Jersey 31.0 79 64 55 50
New Mexico 17.6 69 50 42 36
New York NA NA NA NA NA
North Carolina 27.3 69 48 37 30
North Dakota 3.0 76 61 53 48
Ohio 63.0 72 52 42 36
Oklahoma 11.1 72 52 42 35
Oregon 13.3 76 60 50 43
Pennsylvania 67.6 79 64 56 51
Rhode Island 13.3 86 76 68 62
South Carolina 18.4 73 52 41 33
South Dakota 1.6 67 47 39 34
Tennessee 52.6 85 74 67 63
Texas 94.5 78 60 48 41
Utah 7.0 72 52 42 35
Vermont 5.8 78 63 54 48
Virginia 21.8 79 62 52 39
Washington 52.3 74 57 49 44
West Virginia 16.6 74 56 47 41
Wisconsin 10.9 77 59 49 44
Wyoming 0.2 48 21 14 10

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 careand 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, jobsearch, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

2 Family characteristics in Table TANF 7 may differ from those reported in Chapter II because the administrative data focus on the assistance unit, whereas the survey-based data in Chapter II often use a broader family unitdefinition. For example, grandparents, adult siblings, aunts, uncles, and other adult relatives living in the same household as the recipient children may be excluded from the assistance unit and thus the administrative data, yet be included in survey data on the family in which the TANF recipient resides.

3 Note that 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 supplement the food purchasing power of eligible low-income households so 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 is available 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, General Assistance, elderly or disabled 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 assets comprised of 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 without 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, are refugees or asylees, or have at least 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) made major changes 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 was 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. Regulations that went into effect in 2001 expanded categorical eligibility to those receiving noncash TANF benefits, excluded vehicles with little equity from the assets test, and eliminated the equity test for most vehicles. 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 that 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 at least five years and to legal immigrants receiving disability benefits, regardless of entry date. Children of legal immigrants also are 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 was eliminated. Each provision became effective at a different time, 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 and FSP 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 demographic characteristics of the food stamp caseload; and
  • Tables FSP 4 through FSP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the FSP through fiscal year 2003.

Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Table FSP 1). Average monthly food stamp participation was 21.3 million persons in fiscal year 2003, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.2 million participants. It is, however, well 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 2003 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 noncash TANF benefits and services and to 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 2003 than 2002, reflecting the increase in participation during that period as well as an increase in average benefits. Total federal program costs were $23.9 billion in 2003; the comparable 2002 cost was $21.1 billion (after adjusting for inflation). Average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table FSP 2, were $83.90 per person in fiscal year 2003, up from $81.60 in 2002. This constitutes a 3 percent increase in average monthly benefits over the last year adjusted to 2003 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 2003. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 43 percent in 1990 to 17 percent in 2003, 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 55 percent in 2003. The vast majority (88 percent in 2003) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2003

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2003

Note: Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank.

Table FSP 1. Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2003

Fiscal
Year
Food Stamp Participants Participants as a Percent of:
Child Participants
as a Percent of:
Including Territories 1 (thousands) Excluding Territories (thousands) Children Excld. Terr. (thousands) Total Population 2 All Poor Persons 2 Pretransfer Poverty Population 3 Total Child Population 2 Children in Poverty 2
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 25,543 25,495 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 19,791 19,748 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 17,194 17,156 8,743 6.1 55.1 51.8 12.1 75.5
2001 17,316 17,280 8,819 6.1 52.5 49.2 12.1 75.2
2002 19,095 19,058 9,688 6.6 55.1 52.1 13.3 79.8
2003 21,260 21,223 10,605 7.3 59.0 NA 14.5 82.4

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.

3 The pre-transfer 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 relevant 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.
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank, the 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2003," Current Population Reports, Series P60-226.
 
Table FSP 2. Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2003
Fiscal Year
Total Federal Cost
(Benefits + Administration)
Benefits
(Federal)
(millions)
Administration1
Total Program Cost
(millions)
Average Monthly Benefit per Person
Current Dollars (millions) 2003 Dollars(millions]
Federal
(millions)
State & Local
(millions)
Current Dollars 2003 Dollars2
1975 $4,619 $15,603 $4,386 $233 $175 $4,794 $21.30 $72.00
1976 5,685 17,980 5,326 359 270 5,955 23.90 75.60
1977 5,461 16,076 5,067 394 295 5,756 24.80 73.00
1978 5,520 15,244 5,139 381 285 5,805 26.60 73.50
19793 6,940 17,624 6,480 460 388 7,328 30.50 77.50
1980 9,206 21,019 8,721 486 375 9,581 34.50 78.80
1981 11,225 23,303 10,630 595 504 11,729 39.50 82.00
1982 10,837 21,019 10,208 628 557 11,394 39.20 74.90
1983 11,847 21,978 11,152 695 612 12,459 43.00 79.80
19844 11,579 20,603 10,696 8835 805 12,384 42.70 76.00
1985 11,703 20,102 10,744 960 871 12,574 45.00 77.30
1986 11,638 19,497 10,605 1,033 935 12,573 45.50 76.20
1987 11,604 18,903 10,500 1,104 996 12,600 45.80 74.60
1988 12,317 19,275 11,149 1,168 1,080 13,397 49.80 77.90
1989 12,932 19,314 11,701 1,232 1,101 14,033 51.80 77.40
1990 15,490 22,038 14,186 1,305 1,174 16,664 59.00 83.90
1991 18,771 25,421 17,339 1,432 1,247 20,018 63.90 86.50
1992 22,462 29,525 20,906 1,557 1,375 23,837 68.60 90.20
1993 23,653 30,180 22,006 1,647 1,572 25,225 68.00 86.80
1994 24,493 30,445 22,749 1,744 1,643 26,136 69.00 85.80
1995 24,620 29,774 22,764 1,856 1,748 26,368 71.30 86.20
1996 24,331 28,631 22,440 1,891 1,842 26,173 73.20 86.10
1997 21,485 24,618 19,549 1,937 1,904 23,389 71.30 81.70
1998 18,888 21,296 16,891 1,998 1,988 20,876 71.10 80.20
1999 17,710 19,594 15,769 1,941 1,874 19,584 72.30 80.00
2000 17,054 18,282 14,983 2,070 2,086 19,140 72.60 77.80
2001 17,790 18,476 15,547 2,242 2,233 20,023 74.80 77.70
2002 20,644 21,128 18,256 2,388 2,397 23,041 79.70 81.60
2003 23,872 23,872 21,404 2,468 2,480 26,352 83.90 83.90

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 versions published in earlier 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data from the National Data Bank; and the 2004 Green Book.

Table FSP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: 1980–2003
(percents)
  Year 1
1980 1984 1988 1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2003
With Gross Monthly Income:
Below the Federal Poverty Levels.…... 87 93 92 92 90 91 90 89 88 88
Between the Poverty Levels and 130 Percent of the Poverty Levels.........….. 10 6 8 8 9 8 9 10 11 10
Above 130 Percent of Poverty........….. 2 1 * * 1 1 1 1 1 2
With Earnings................................……. 19 19 20 19 21 23 26 27 28 28
With Public Assistance Income 2.....….. 65 71 72 73 69 67 65 63 56 52
With AFDC/TANF Income...........…... NA 42 42 43 38 37 31 26 21 17
With SSI Income...........................…... 18 18 20 19 23 24 28 32 29 28
With Children...................................….. 60 61 61 61 61 60 58 54 54 55
And Female Heads of Household..…... NA 47 50 51 51 50 47 44 44 44
With No Spouse Present .......…… NA NA 39 37 43 43 41 38 37 37
With Elderly Members 3..........……...... 23 22 19 18 16 16 18 21 19 18
Average Household Size...............…..... 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 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 2003 and earlier years.

Table FSP 4. Value of Food Stamps Issued, by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2003
(millions)
  1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002 2003
United States $4,386 $8,721 $10,744 $14,186 $22,764 $14,983 $18,256 $21,412
Alabama $103 $246 $318 $328 $441 $344 $417 $466
Alaska 6 27 25 25 50 46 59 66
Arizona 41 97 12 239 414 240 386 498
Arkansas 78 122 126 155 212 206 265 304
California 361 530 639 968 2,473 1,639 1,706 1,813
Colorado 44 71 94 156 217 127 165 203
Connecticut 36 59 62 72 169 138 146 165
Delaware 6 21 22 25 47 31 39 48
Dist. of Columbia 31 41 40 43 92 77 76 90
Florida 207 421 368 609 1,307 771 878 988
Georgia 129 264 290 382 700 489 621 782
Guam 2 15 18 15 24 36 52 53
Hawaii 23 60 93 81 177 166 152 156
Idaho 11 29 36 40 59 46 62 77
Illinois 238 394 713 835 1,056 777 923 1,053
Indiana 58 154 242 226 382 268 408 484
Iowa 28 54 107 109 142 100 129 149
Kansas 12 38 64 96 144 83 113 140
Kentucky 135 211 332 334 413 337 410 486
Louisiana 148 243 365 549 629 448 587 685
Maine 31 60 62 63 112 81 97 124
Maryland 76 140 171 203 365 199 215 257
Massachusetts 75 171 173 207 315 182 209 254
Michigan 124 263 541 663 806 457 645 783
Minnesota 40 62 105 165 240 165 201 227
Mississippi 110 199 264 352 383 226 298 335
Missouri 82 142 212 312 488 358 477 568
Montana 11 18 31 41 57 51 58 69
Nebraska 11 25 44 59 77 61 74 89
Nevada 10 15 22 41 91 57 96 113
New Hampshire 11 22 15 20 44 28 35 40
New Jersey 125 226 260 289 506 304 314 339
New Mexico 48 81 88 117 196 140 154 184
New York 209 726 938 1,086 2,065 1,361 1,479 1,677
North Carolina 122 234 237 282 495 403 536 645
North Dakota 5 9 16 25 32 25 31 37
Ohio 253 382 697 861 1,017 520 726 879
Oklahoma 38 73 134 186 315 208 288 362
Oregon 56 80 142 168 254 198 319 381
Pennsylvania 175 373 547 661 1,006 656 700 785
Rhode Island 18 31 35 42 82 59 64 69
South Carolina 121 181 194 240 297 249 352 443
South Dakota 8 18 26 35 40 37 45 51
Tennessee 115 282 280 372 554 415 552 722
Texas 314 514 701 1,429 2,246 1,215 1,522 1,881
Utah 12 22 40 71 90 68 80 102
Vermont 9 18 20 22 46 32 34 38
Virgin Islands 6 19 23 18 28 263 305 366
Virginia 63 158 189 247 450 21 17 18
Washington 70 90 140 229 417 241 318 394
West Virginia 56 87 159 192 253 185 198 216
Wisconsin 29 68 148 180 220 129 197 233
Wyoming 3 6 15 21 28 19 22 24

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
(thousands)
  1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 2000 2002 2003 Percent Change
90-96 96-03
United States 17,192 21,082 19,899 20,067 25,542 17,194 19,095 21,260 27 -17
Alabama 365 583 588 454 509 396 444 472 12 -7
Alaska 15 29 22 25 46 38 46 51 84 10
Arizona 143 196 206 317 427 259 379 466 35 9
Arkansas 267 301 253 235 274 247 284 310 17 13
California 1,455 1,493 1,615 1,955 3,143 1,830 1,710 1,708 61 -46
Colorado 150 163 170 221 244 156 178 208 10 -15
Connecticut 155 170 145 133 223 165 169 181 67 -19
Delaware 26 52 40 33 58 32 40 46 74 -20
Dist. of Columbia 122 103 72 62 93 81 74 82 49 -12
Florida 647 912 630 781 1,371 882 985 1,041 75 -24
Georgia 498 627 567 536 793 559 646 750 48 -5
Guam 6 22 20 12 18 22 24 24 50 36
Hawaii 75 102 99 77 130 118 105 100 69 -23
Idaho 39 61 59 59 80 58 70 82 36 2
Illinois 926 903 1,110 1,013 1,105 817 886 954 9 -14
Indiana 392 353 406 311 390 300 411 470 25 21
Iowa 115 141 203 170 177 123 141 154 4 -13
Kansas 58 90 119 142 172 117 140 161 21 -6
Kentucky 472 468 560 458 486 403 450 503 6 4
Louisiana 510 569 644 727 670 500 588 655 -8 -2
Maine 126 139 114 94 131 102 111 133 39 1
Maryland 261 324 287 255 375 219 228 252 47 -33
Massachusetts 365 453 337 347 374 232 243 292 8 -22
Michigan 619 813 985 917 935 603 750 838 2 -10
Minnesota 167 171 228 263 295 196 217 235 12 -20
Mississippi 376 496 495 499 457 276 325 356 -8 -22
Missouri 300 335 362 431 554 423 515 592 28 7
Montana 38 43 58 57 71 59 63 71 25 1
Nebraska 49 66 94 95 102 82 88 99 7 -2
Nevada 32 32 32 50 97 61 97 111 94 15
New Hampshire 44 50 28 31 53 36 41 45 73 -15
New Jersey 490 605 464 382 540 345 320 339 42 -37
New Mexico 157 185 157 157 235 169 170 195 49 -17
New York 1,291 1,759 1,834 1,548 2,099 1,439 1,349 1,436 36 -32
North Carolina 466 582 474 419 631 488 574 649 51 3
North Dakota 19 25 33 39 40 32 37 40 2 -0
Ohio 854 865 1,133 1,089 1,045 610 735 855 -4 -18
Oklahoma 171 209 263 267 354 253 317 380 33 7
Oregon 201 197 228 216 288 234 359 398 33 39
Pennsylvania 848 980 1,032 952 1,124 777 767 823 18 -27
Rhode Island 86 87 69 64 91 74 72 74 42 -18
South Carolina 410 426 373 299 358 295 379 451 20 26
South Dakota 33 43 48 50 49 43 48 51 -3 5
Tennessee 397 624 518 527 638 496 598 728 21 14
Texas 1,133 1,167 1,263 1,880 2,372 1,333 1,554 1,872 26 -21
Utah 46 54 75 99 110 82 90 106 11 -4
Vermont 44 46 44 38 56 41 40 41 47 -27
Virgin Islands 16 34 32 18 31 336 352 394 75 1185
Virginia 257 384 360 346 538 16 12 13 55 -98
Washington 253 248 281 340 478 295 350 404 41 -16
West Virginia 242 209 278 262 300 227 236 247 14 -18
Wisconsin 148 215 363 286 283 193 262 297 -1 5
Wyoming 10 14 27 28 33 22 24 25 17 -23

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
(percent)
 
  1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 2000 2002 2003 Percent Change
90-96 96-03
United States 7.6 8.5 8.3 8.0 9.5 6.1 6.6 7.3 18 -23
Alabama 9.9 14.9 14.8 11.2 11.8 8.9 9.9 10.5 5 -11
Alaska 4.0 7.1 4.1 4.5 7.6 6.0 7.2 7.8 67 3
Arizona 6.3 7.1 6.5 8.6 9.3 5.0 7.0 8.4 8 -10
Arkansas 12.4 13.1 10.9 10.0 10.6 9.2 10.5 11.4 7 7
California 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.5 9.8 5.4 4.9 4.8 50 -51
Colorado 5.8 5.6 5.3 6.7 6.2 3.6 4.0 4.6 -7 -26
Connecticut 5.0 5.5 4.5 4.0 6.7 4.8 4.9 5.2 65 -22
Delaware 4.5 8.7 6.5 5.0 7.8 4.1 4.9 5.6 57 -28
Dist. of Columbia 17.2 16.1 11.4 10.3 16.2 14.1 13.0 14.5 58 -10
Florida 7.6 9.3 5.5 6.0 9.2 5.5 5.9 6.1 54 -34
Georgia 9.8 11.4 9.5 8.2 10.6 6.8 7.6 8.6 28 -18
Hawaii 8.4 10.6 9.5 6.9 10.8 9.7 8.5 8.0 57 -26
Idaho 4.6 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.6 4.5 5.2 6.0 15 -10
Illinois 8.2 7.9 9.7 8.8 9.1 6.6 7.0 7.5 3 -17
Indiana 7.3 6.4 7.4 5.6 6.6 4.9 6.7 7.6 18 15
Iowa 4.0 4.8 7.2 6.1 6.2 4.2 4.8 5.2 0 -15
Kansas 2.5 3.8 4.9 5.7 6.6 4.3 5.2 5.9 15 -10
Kentucky 13.6 12.8 15.2 12.4 12.4 10.0 11.0 12.2 -0 -1
Louisiana 13.1 13.5 14.6 17.2 15.2 11.2 13.1 14.6 -12 -4
Maine 11.8 12.3 9.8 7.6 10.5 8.0 8.6 10.2 38 -3
Maryland 6.3 7.7 6.5 5.3 7.3 4.1 4.2 4.6 38 -37
Massachusetts 6.3 7.9 5.7 5.8 6.0 3.6 3.8 4.5 5 -25
Michigan 6.8 8.8 10.8 9.8 9.6 6.1 7.5 8.3 -3 -13
Minnesota 4.2 4.2 5.5 6.0 6.3 4.0 4.3 4.6 4 -26
Mississippi 15.7 19.6 19.1 19.4 16.6 9.7 11.3 12.3 -14 -26
Missouri 6.2 6.8 7.2 8.4 10.2 7.6 9.1 10.4 21 2
Montana 5.1 5.5 7.1 7.1 8.0 6.6 7.0 7.8 13 -3
Nebraska 3.2 4.2 5.9 6.0 6.1 4.8 5.1 5.7 2 -6
Nevada 5.2 4.0 3.4 4.1 5.8 3.0 4.5 5.0 42 -14
New Hampshire 5.3 5.4 2.8 2.7 4.5 2.9 3.2 3.5 64 -23
New Jersey 6.7 8.2 6.1 4.9 6.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 35 -41
New Mexico 13.5 14.1 10.9 10.3 13.4 9.3 9.2 10.4 30 -23
New York 7.2 10.0 10.3 8.6 11.3 7.6 7.0 7.5 31 -34
North Carolina 8.4 9.9 7.6 6.3 8.4 6.0 6.9 7.7 34 -8
North Dakota 2.9 3.9 4.9 6.1 6.1 5.0 5.8 6.3 -0 2
Ohio 7.9 8.0 10.6 10.0 9.3 5.4 6.4 7.5 -7 -20
Oklahoma 6.2 6.9 8.0 8.5 10.6 7.3 9.1 10.8 25 2
Oregon 8.6 7.5 8.5 7.6 8.9 6.8 10.2 11.2 17 26
Pennsylvania 7.1 8.3 8.8 8.0 9.2 6.3 6.2 6.7 15 -28
Rhode Island 9.2 9.1 7.2 6.4 8.9 7.1 6.7 6.9 40 -23
South Carolina 14.1 13.6 11.3 8.5 9.4 7.3 9.2 10.9 10 15
South Dakota 4.8 6.2 6.9 7.2 6.6 5.7 6.3 6.7 -9 2
Tennessee 9.3 13.6 11.0 10.8 11.8 8.7 10.3 12.5 9 6
Texas 9.0 8.1 7.8 11.0 12.3 6.4 7.2 8.5 11 -31
Utah 3.7 3.7 4.6 5.7 5.3 3.7 3.9 4.5 -7 -16
Vermont 9.1 8.9 8.2 6.8 9.5 6.7 6.5 6.7 40 -30
Virginia 5.1 7.2 6.3 5.6 8.0 4.7 4.8 5.3 43 -33
Washington 7.0 6.0 6.4 6.9 8.6 5.0 5.8 6.6 24 -23
West Virginia 13.1 10.7 14.6 14.6 16.4 12.6 13.1 13.6 13 -17
Wisconsin 3.2 4.6 7.6 5.8 5.4 3.6 4.8 5.4 -7 0
Wyoming 2.7 3.0 5.4 6.2 6.8 4.5 4.7 5.0 8 -25

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 $564 for an individual and $846 for a married couple in fiscal year 2004. 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 results 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 in Sullivan v Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990).1 Third, 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. Additionally, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-203), enacted March 2, 2004, introduced program and beneficiary protections covering the use of representative payees and required documentation of changes in beneficiary status.

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 through SSI 9 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2003.

SSI Caseload Trends (Tables SSI 1 and SSI 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 2003, there were 6.9 million beneficiaries. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2003, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adults ages 18-64, and adults ages 65 or older). See also Tables IND 3c and 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 1. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to a low of 1.2 million persons in December 2003. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 5.7 million in December 2003. 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 began to rise again in 2001, reaching 959,000 in 2003.

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 Government Accountability 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 the Zebley case, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.2

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). While administrative costs increased by about 1 percent, the total amount paid out in SSI benefits increased from $33.1 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2001 to $35.6 billion in 2003, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly benefits per person were $421 in 2003, down slightly from 2002 inflation adjusted benefit level of $424. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics (Table SSI 6). 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 2003.

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients, by Age: 1974–2003

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients, by Age: 1974–2003

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2004 (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974–2003
(thousands)
Date Total Eligibility Category Type of Recipient
Aged Blind and Disabled Children Adults
Total Blind Disabled
Ages
18-64
65 or
Older
Dec1974 3,996 2,286 1,710 75 1,636 71 1 1,503 2,422
Dec1975 4,314 2,307 2,007 74 1,933 107 1,699 2,508
Dec1976 4,236 2,148 2,088 76 2,012 125 1,714 2,397
Dec1977 4,238 2,051 2,187 77 2,109 147 1,738 2,353
Dec1978 4,217 1,968 2,249 77 2,172 166 1,747 2,304
Dec1979 4,150 1,872 2,278 77 2,201 177 1,727 2,246
Dec1980 4,142 1,808 2,334 78 2,256 190 1,731 2,221
Dec1981 4,019 1,678 2,341 79 2,262 195 1,703 2,121
Dec1982 3,858 1,549 2,309 77 2,231 192 1,655 2,011
Dec1983 3,901 1,515 2,386 79 2,307 198 1,700 2,003
Dec1984 4,029 1,530 2,499 81 2,419 212 1,780 2,037
Dec1985 4,138 1,504 2,634 82 2,551 227 1,879 2,031
Dec1986 4,269 1,473 2,796 83 2,713 241 2,010 2,018
Dec1987 4,385 1,455 2,930 83 2,846 251 2,119 2,015
Dec1988 4,464 1,433 3,030 83 2,948 255 2,203 2,006
Dec1989 4,593 1,439 3,154 83 3,071 265 2,302 2,026
Dec1990 4,817 1,454 3,363 84 3,279 309 2,450 2,059
Dec1991 5,118 1,465 3,654 85 3,569 397 2,642 2,080
Dec1992 5,566 1,471 4,095 85 4,010 556 2,910 2,100
Dec1993 5,984 1,475 4,509 85 4,424 723 3,148 2,113
Dec1994 6,296 1,466 4,830 85 4,745 841 3,335 2,119
Dec1995 6,514 1,446 5,068 84 4,984 917 3,482 2,115
Dec1996 6,614 1,413 5,201 82 5,119 955 3,568 2,090
Dec1997 6,495 1,362 5,133 81 5,052 880 3,562 2,054
Dec1998 6,566 1,332 5,234 80 5,154 887 3,646 2,033
Dec1999 6,557 1,308 5,249 79 5,169 847 3,691 2,019
Dec2000 6,602 1,289 5,312 79 5,234 847 3,744 2,011
Dec2001 6,688 1,264 5,424 78 5,346 882 3,811 1,995
Dec2002 6,788 1,252 5,537 78 5,459 915 3,878 1,995
Dec2003 6,902 1,233 5,670 77 5,593 959 3,878 1,990

1 Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2004 (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates: 1974–2003
(percent)
Date
All Recipients
as a Percent
of Total
Population 1
Adults 18-64
as a Percent
of 18-64
Population 1
Child
Recipients
as a Percent
of All Children 1
Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older)
as a Percent of
All Persons
65 & Older 1
All Elderly
Poor 2
Pretransfer
Elderly Poor 3
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 1.3 5.6 55.8 64.5
Dec 2003 2.4 2.2 1.3 5.5 56.0 xxx

1 Population 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 at http://www.census.gov).

2 For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-226.

3 The 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 Book and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2003," Current Population Reports, Series P60-226, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Total, Federal and State SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974–2003 1
(millions)
Calendar
Year
Total Benefits
Federal
Payments
State Supplementation AdministrativeCosts (fiscal year)
20032
Dollars
Current
Dollars
Total
Federally
Administered
State
Administered
1974 $18,598 $5,246 $3,833 $1,413 $1,264 $149 $285
1975 19,245 5,878 4,314 1,565 1,403 162 399
1976 18,790 6,066 4,512 1,554 1,388 166 500
1977 18,359 6,306 4,703 1,603 1,431 172 526
1978 17,860 6,552 4,881 1,671 1,491 180 539
1979 17,592 7,075 5,279 1,797 1,590 207 611
1980 17,753 7,941 5,866 2,074 1,848 226 668
1981 17,548 8,593 6,518 2,076 1,839 237 717
1982 17,286 8,981 6,907 2,074 1,798 276 780
1983 17,373 9,404 7,423 1,982 1,711 270 846
1984 18,368 10,372 8,281 2,091 1,792 299 864
1985 18,914 11,060 8,777 2,283 1,973 311 956
1986 20,282 12,081 9,498 2,583 2,243 340 1,023
1987 20,977 12,951 10,029 2,922 2,563 359 977
1988 21,443 13,786 10,734 3,052 2,671 381 976
1989 22,228 14,980 11,606 3,374 2,955 419 1,052
1990 23,368 16,599 12,894 3,705 3,239 466 1,075
1991 25,025 18,524 14,765 3,759 3,231 529 1,230
1992 29,157 22,233 18,247 3,986 3,435 550 1,426
1993 31,270 24,557 20,722 3,835 3,270 566 1,468
1994 32,127 25,877 22,175 3,701 3,116 585 1,780
1995 33,356 27,628 23,919 3,708 3,118 590 1,978
1996 33,765 28,792 25,265 3,527 2,988 539 1,953
1997 33,306 29,052 25,457 3,595 2,913 682 2,055
1998 34,109 30,216 26,405 3,812 3,003 808 2,304
1999 34,153 30,923 26,805 4,154 3,301 853 2,493
2000 33,727 31,564 27,290 4,274 3,381 893 2,321
2001 34,349 33,061 28,706 4,355 3,460 895 2,397
2002 35,355 34,567 29,899 4,668 3,820 848 2,522
2003 35,605 35,605 30,688 4,917 4,005 912 2,656

1 Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year

2 Data 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, 2004, (Data available online at http://wwwssagov/statistics).

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly SSI Benefit Payments: 1974–2003

Calendar
Year
Total 1
Federal
Payments
State Supplementation
2003 Dollars
Current
Dollars
Total
Federally
Administered
State
Administered
1974 $477 $135 $108 $64 $71 $35
1975 368 112 92 66 69 45
1976 365 118 99 68 71 50
1977 357 123 104 69 72 53
1978 349 128 108 72 74 56
1979 349 140 119 77 79 67
1980 353 158 133 89 91 76
1981 360 176 151 92 94 79
1982 369 191 166 96 97 93
1983 366 198 172 91 92 89
1984 374 211 187 93 93 93
1985 375 219 193 99 99 102
1986 389 232 202 107 108 101
1987 392 242 208 117 118 110
1988 393 253 219 118 118 118
1989 396 267 230 126 126 127
1990 398 283 244 132 131 136
1991 401 297 260 125 122 143
1992 430 328 292 124 121 147
1993 430 337 306 112 107 150
1994 420 338 310 105 99 152
1995 423 350 322 110 103 164
1996 421 359 333 108 103 145
1997 423 369 342 99 102 86
1998 428 379 350 103 104 102
1999 429 388 356 111 113 105
2000 420 393 360 113 114 109
2001 423 407 373 113 114 108
2002 424 415 383 129 129 128
2003 421 421 387 136 135 138

1 Total 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, 2004.

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving SSI Payments, by Type of Payment: 1974–2003
(thousands)
  Total Federal State Supplementation
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
Dec 2003.................................... 7,052 6,614 3,019 2,467 551

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2004.

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients, by Age, Sex, Earnings/Income
and Citizenship: Selected Years 1980-2003
 
  1980 1985 1990 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003
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 13.4 13.5 12.8 13.5 13.9
18-64 40.9 45.4 50.9 53.0 55.5 56.7 57.2 57.3
65 or Older 53.6 49.1 42.7 33.7 31.0 30.5 29.3 28.8
Sex
Male 34.4 35.2 37.2 41.3 41.3 41.5 42.0 42.4
Female 65.5 64.8 62.8 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.0 57.6
Selected Sources of Income
Earnings 3.2 3.8 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.1 3.5
Social Security 51.0 49.4 45.9 39.1 36.5 36.1 35.5 35.1
No Other Income 34.8 34.5 36.4 43.6 47.3 54.4 55.1 55.4
Noncitizens NA 5.1 9.0 11.7 10.2 10.5 10.4 10.1
Eligibility Category
Aged 43.6 36.4 30.2 23.3 20.3 19.5 18.4 17.9
Blind 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1
Disabled 54.5 61.7 68.1 75.4 78.5 79.3 80.4 81.0
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 20.5 17.6 17.6 15.3 15.2
70-79 51.5 45.6 41.3 44.3 48.4 48.4 49.1 48.2
80 or older 34.5 39.5 39.2 35.1 34.0 34.0 35.7 36.6
Sex
Male 27.3 25.5 25.1 26.8 27.8 27.8 29.9 30.3
Female 72.6 74.5 74.9 73.2 72.2 72.2 70.1 69.7
Noncitizens NA 9.7 19.4 30.0 27.0 27.0 29.2 28.9
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 83.4 83.6 83.6 83.8 83.9
65 or older 19.8 22.3 20.0 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.1 16.1
Sex1
Male 39.8 40.8 42.4 41.8 41.1 41.1 44.8 45.0
Female 60.2 59.2 57.6 58.2 58.9 58.9 55.2 55.0
Noncitizens NA 2.4 4.6 6.2 5.5 5.5 7.2 6.0
Children
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under 5 11.7 NA NA 15.8 15.8 15.8 16.1 16.2
5-9 20.9 NA NA 28.5 30.2 30.2 26.8 26.7
10-14 28.8 NA NA 32.7 34.6 34.6 36.9 36.7
15-17 21.7 NA NA 17.3 19.4 19.4 20.2 20.4
18-212 16.8 14.3 9.3 5.7
Sex
Male NA NA NA 63.0 62.9 62.9 64.3 64.7
Female NA NA NA 37.0 37.1 37.1 35.7 35.3

1 For 1980-1992 male-female classification reflects all blind and disabled, both children and adults; thereafter, it is based on adults only.

2 In 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, 2004 and prior years.

Table SSI 7. Total SSI Payments, Federal SSI Payments and State Supplementary Payments Calendar Year 2003 (thousands)
State Total
Total
Federal
Federal
SSI
State Supplementation
Federally
Administered
State
Administered
Total $35,604,829 $34,693,278 $30,688,029 $4,005,249 $911,551
Alabama 738,282 737,864 737,864 418
Alaska 102,312 46,650 46,650 55,662
Arizona 429,640 429,266 429,266 374
Arkansas 361,449 361,449 361,445 4
California 7,573,189 7,573,189 4,594,264 2,978,925
Colorado 333,924 245,610 245,610 88,314
Connecticut 332,186 244,249 244,249 87,937
Delaware 58,853 58,853 57,842 1,011
District of Columbia 104,754 104,754 101,398 3,356
Florida 1,927,484 1,907,671 1,907,671 19,813
Georgia 887,534 887,534 887,521 13
Hawaii 112,546 112,546 100,327 12,219
Idaho 98,187 90,651 90,651 7,536
Illinois 1,296,419 1,266,722 1,266,722 29,697
Indiana 444,294 440,514 440,514 3,780
Iowa 192,737 176,138 172,993 3,145 16,599
Kansas 169,930 169,930 169,930
Kentucky 837,776 819,136 819,136 18,640
Louisiana 769,164 768,662 768,662 502
Maine 154,958 135,931 135,931 19,027
Maryland 450,002 441,479 441,463 16 8,523
Massachusetts 854,601 854,601 689,082 165,519
Michigan 1,164,793 1,086,326 1,061,722 24,604 78,467
Minnesota 407,273 316,268 316,268 91,005
Mississippi 550,133 550,133 550,119 14
Missouri 554,337 528,033 528,033 26,304
Montana 63,633 63,633 62,783 850
Nebraska 101,570 95,263 95,263 6,307
Nevada 144,194 144,194 138,933 5,261
New Hampshire 69,594 57,997 57,997 11,597
New Jersey 731,586 731,586 650,405 81,181
New Mexico 223,135 222,902 222,902 233
New York 3,400,463 3,400,463 2,848,138 552,325
North Carolina 965,057 824,976 824,976 140,081
North Dakota 33,788 31,856 31,856 1,932
Ohio 1,203,950 1,203,950 1,203,941 9
Oklahoma 376,375 338,925 338,925 37,450
Oregon 291,441 271,165 271,165 20,276
Pennsylvania 1,599,027 1,599,027 1,453,656 145,371
Rhode Island 149,950 149,950 126,866 23,084
South Carolina 483,611 461,421 461,421 22,190
South Dakota 54,182 51,674 51,671 3 2,508
Tennessee 718,938 718,938 718,938
Texas 1,903,087 1,901,120 1,901,120 1,967
Utah 99,124 99,123 99,067 56
Vermont 57,441 57,441 49,013 8,428
Virginia 606,200 586,507 586,507 19,693
Washington 545,912 545,684 545,680 4 228
West Virginia 357,405 357,405 357,405
Wisconsin 524,654 397,850 397,850 126,804
Wyoming 25,537 24,850 24,850 687
Other: N. Mariana Islands 3,549 3,549 3,549

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2004.

Table SSI 8. SSI Recipiency Rates, by State and Program Type: 1979 and 2003
(percent)
  Total Recipiency Rate Rate for Adults 18-64 Rate for Adults 65 & over
1979 2003
Percent
Change
1979-03
1979 2003
Percent
Change
1979-03
1979 2003
Percent
Change
1979-03
Total 1.9 2.4 30 1.3 2.2 75 9.0 5.5 -39
Alabama 3.6 3.6 1 1.8 3.5 91 21.0 6.5 -69
Alaska 0.8 1.6 108 0.5 1.6 196 14.0 7.5 -47
Arizona 1.1 1.6 44 0.9 1.6 80 5.0 3.2 -36
Arkansas 3.5 3.2 -9 1.9 3.0 60 17.1 5.5 -68
California 3.0 3.3 9 2.1 2.5 22 16.4 13.3 -19
Colorado 1.1 1.2 9 0.8 1.1 43 6.7 3.1 -54
Connecticut 0.8 1.5 100 0.6 1.5 138 2.7 2.6 -4
Delaware 1.2 1.6 34 0.9 1.5 60 5.4 2.3 -58
District of Columbia 2.3 3.6 58 1.9 3.1 61 8.6 6.5 -24
Florida 1.8 2.4 35 1.1 1.9 67 6.2 4.7 -24
Georgia 2.9 2.3 -20 1.9 2.1 11 17.7 6.5 -63
Hawaii 1.1 1.7 62 0.7 1.5 117 7.6 5.0 -34
Idaho 0.8 1.5 90 0.6 1.6 150 3.8 1.9 -50
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 1.5 138 3.5 1.9 -45
Kentucky 2.5 4.3 69 1.8 4.5 151 12.5 6.9 -45
Louisiana 3.4 3.7 10 2.0 3.5 72 20.1 7.5 -63
Maine 2.0 2.4 23 1.4 2.7 94 8.6 3.0 -65
Maryland 1.2 1.7 48 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 2.2 75 1.1 2.3 115 5.9 2.9 -50
Minnesota 0.8 1.4 73 0.6 1.4 155 3.7 2.6 -30
Mississippi 4.5 4.4 -2 2.4 4.0 65 26.0 9.6 -63
Missouri 1.8 2.0 14 1.1 2.1 91 7.9 2.8 -65
Montana 0.9 1.6 80 0.7 1.7 136 3.8 2.0 -47
Nebraska 0.9 1.3 48 0.6 1.4 119 3.4 1.7 -50
Nevada 0.8 1.4 67 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 1.5 74 4.7 4.5 -4
New Mexico 2.0 2.7 37 1.4 2.5 82 12.4 6.9 -44
New York 2.1 3.3 56 1.6 2.7 70 8.3 9.0 9
North Carolina 2.4 2.3 -4 1.6 2.1 33 13.6 5.1 -63
North Dakota 1.0 1.3 31 0.6 1.3 128 5.1 2.1 -58
Ohio 1.1 2.1 89 1.0 2.3 132 4.2 2.4 -42
Oklahoma 2.3 2.1 -9 1.3 2.2 65 11.6 3.6 -69
Oregon 0.9 1.6 86 0.7 1.7 143 3.3 2.7 -18
Pennsylvania 1.4 2.5 79 1.1 2.6 132 5.0 3.4 -31
Rhode Island 1.6 2.7 70 1.1 2.7 150 6.4 4.9 -24
South Carolina 2.7 2.5 -7 1.8 2.3 29 17.0 5.2 -69
South Dakota 1.1 1.6 40 0.7 1.6 122 5.0 2.9 -42
Tennessee 2.9 2.8 -2 1.9 2.7 44 14.8 5.3 -64
Texas 1.9 2.1 11 1.0 1.7 79 12.7 7.4 -42
Utah 0.6 0.9 64 0.5 1.0 96 3.0 1.8 -41
Vermont 1.8 2.1 19 1.3 2.2 68 8.1 3.4 -58
Virginia 1.5 1.8 20 1.0 1.6 57 8.5 4.4 -48
Washington 1.2 1.8 55 1.0 1.8 84 4.8 3.6 -25
West Virginia 2.1 4.2 97 1.9 4.8 158 8.0 4.5 -43
Wisconsin 1.4 1.6 11 1.0 1.7 77 6.5 2.3 -65
Wyoming 0.4 1.1 162 0.3 1.2 314 2.7 1.5 -45

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. The total recipiency rate includes both children and adults.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2003 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates, by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2003
(percent)
  1975 1980 1985 1990 1994 2 1998 2 20022 20032
Total 1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Alabama 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6
Alaska 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6
Arizona 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6
Arkansas 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.2
California 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3
Colorado 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2
Connecticut 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5
Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
District of Columbia 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.6
Florida 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
Georgia 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3
Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7
Idaho 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5
Illinois 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0
Indiana 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Iowa 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Kansas 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Kentucky 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.3
Louisiana 3.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.7
Maine 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4
Maryland 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7
Massachusetts 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6
Michigan 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2
Minnesota 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4
Mississippi 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 5.2 4.9 4.4 4.4
Missouri 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0
Montana 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Nebraska 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Nevada 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4
New Hampshire 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0
New Jersey 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7
New Mexico 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7
New York 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3
North Carolina 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.3
North Dakota 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3
Ohio 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1
Oklahoma 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1
Oregon 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5
Rhode Island 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7
South Carolina 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.5
South Dakota 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6
Tennessee 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.8
Texas 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1
Utah 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
Vermont 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.8
Washington 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8
West Virginia 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.5 3.9 4.1 4.2
Wisconsin 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.6
Wyoming 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1

1 The 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.

2 For 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 1994-2003 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2004, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Appendix B 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:

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.

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 much lower – only 1.5 percent – in 2002 if based on income from TANF and food stamps, as opposed to 3.2 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, food stamps, and SSI).

There also is significant variation across age groups in the programs upon which individuals are dependent. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and food stamps; whereas 2.0 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.

Dependency from AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt has declined since 1995, while dependency from SSI receipt alone has remained stable, as shown in Table B-2. As a result, the difference between the standard definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based on TANF and food stamps only) has grown. In 1995, over two-thirds (68 percent) of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition also were dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 2002, the proportion had dropped to less than half (47 percent). If this report had focused on the alternative definition of dependence, it would have shown an even larger decline in dependence than usually reported. For example, between 1995 and 2002, dependency declined by 58 percent (3.6 percent to 1.5 percent) under the alternative definition, compared to a decline of 40 percent (5.3 percent to 3.2 percent) under the standard definition.

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: 2002

  TANF, SSI & Food Stamps TANF & Food Stamps SSI Only
All Persons 3.2 1.5 1.3
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 1.8 0.7 0.9
Non-Hispanic Black 8.7 4.3 3.3
Hispanic 4.9 2.6 1.6
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 6.0 4.0 1.2
Children Ages 6-10 5.1 3.2 1.2
Children Ages 11-15 4.0 2.2 1.1
Women Ages 16-64 3.4 1.5 1.5
Men Ages 16-64 2.0 0.7 1.1
Adults Ages 65 and over 2.0 0.1 1.6

Note: Income is measured as total family income.

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. 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table B-2. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1998-2002

  TANF, SSI & Food Stamps TANF & Food Stamps SSI Only
1995 5.3 3.6 1.1
1998 3.8 2.1 1.3
1999 3.3 1.7 1.2
2000 3.0 1.5 1.2
2001 3.1 1.4 1.3
2002 3.2 1.5 1.3

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2003, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Appendix C Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital within Age Groups, by Race and Ethnicity
1940-2002
  WhiteAges
18 - 19
Black1 Hispanic2
Total
Teens3
Ages
15 - 17
Ages
18 - 19
Total
Women
Total
Teens
Ages
15 - 17
Ages
18 - 19
Total
Women
Total
Teens
Ages
15 - 17
Ages
18 - 19
Total
Women
1940 7 2 36 17
1945 10 2 41 18
1950 6 10 5 2 37 48 28 18
1955 7 10 5 2 42 52 33 20
1960 7 12 5 2 43 54 34 22
1965 12 17 9 4 51 63 39 26
1970 17 25 14 6 64 76 52 38
1975 23 33 17 7 78 87 68 49
1980 34 45 27 11 86 93 80 56 42 51 36 24
1985 45 58 38 15 91 96 86 61 61 46 30
1990 57 68 51 20 92 96 89 67 62 68 54 37
1991 59 70 53 22 93 96 90 68 64 69 56 38
1992 61 71 55 23 93 96 90 68 65 69 57 39
1993 63 72 57 24 93 96 91 69 66 69 58 40
1994 68 78 62 25 95 98 93 70 73 77 65 43
1995 68 77 62 25 95 98 93 70 71 75 62 41
1996 69 79 63 26 96 98 94 70 71 75 63 41
1997 71 82 65 26 96 98 94 69 76 80 66 41
1998 72 83 67 26 96 98 94 69 77 82 67 42
1999 73 83 67 27 96 98 94 69 76 82 67 42
2000 73 83 68 27 96 99 94 68 76 82 67 43
2001 73 83 68 28 96 99 94 68 75 81 67 42
2002 75 85 70 28 96 99 94 68 77 83 69 44

Note: Trends in nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. In particular, the increases from 1993 to 1994 to a great extent reflect improvements in the completeness of reporting of nonmarital births in two states, Michigan and Texas.

1 From 1940 to 1965, percentages of births to unmarried Black women (shown in italics) include all unmarried Non-white.

2 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for Hispanics have been available only since 1980, with 22 states reporting in 1980, representing 90 percent of the Hispanic population. Hispanic birth data were reported by 23 states and the District of Columbia in 1985; 48 states and the District of Columbia in 1990; 49 states and the District of Columbia in 1991 and 1992; and all 50 states and the District of Columbia since 1993.

3 Births to teens under 15 are included in the percentages for Total Teens but are not shown separately.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1980,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 32, No. 6 Supplement; “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1985,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 11 Supplement; “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16); “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), and earlier reports. Additional calculations by ASPE staff.

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by State: Selected Years
1960-2002
  1960 1970 1980 1990 1992 1994 1996 2000 2002
United States 5 11 18 28 30 33 32 33 34
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

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-3. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by Race/Ethnicity and State
1994 and 2002
State All Races White Black Hispanic
Total Non-Hispanic
1994 2002 1994 2002 1994 2002 1994 2002 1994 2002
United States 33 34 25 29 21 23 70 68 43 44
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

§ Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision; based on fewer than 20 births in the numerator.

Note: 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
United States 89 68 56 53 51 60 56 48 43
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

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-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, by Race, Ethnicity and State: Selected Years 1990-2002
(births per 1,000 women in specified group)
State All Races Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1990 1996 2002 1990 1996 2002 1990 1996 2002 1990 1996 2002
United States  60  54  43 43   38 29 116   92 68 100   95 83
Alabama   71  67 55 55  53  45 106   95 70 34   76 145
Alaska    65 51 40 53  38  27 §   61 40 §   86 99
Arizona  76 72   61 51   45 32 124   81 58 123   120 109
Arkansas    80 74 60 66   63 51 132   107 82 §   106 116
California   71  61 41 43   32 19 109  81  44 112  99  71
Colorado   55  51 47 39  34  26 112   82 57 111  106  119
Connecticut    39 37 26 20  19  12 108   80 51 122   101 84
Delaware    55 54 46 35   33 27 121  109  84 §  106  143
Dist. of Columbia   93 79  69 11  7  6 123   115 106 89   78 110
Florida   69  57 45 51   43 32 138   96 69 60   60 56
Georgia   76 67  56 56   51 39 117   93 71 73  104  153
Hawaii    61 49 38 38   25 12 §   45 33 133   99 85
Idaho    51 47 39 46   41 33 §   § § 119   103 88
Illinois    63 55 42 37  31  22 146   115 83 95  98  85
Indiana    59 55 45 52   49 38 124  107  83 65   81 98
Iowa    41 37 33 38  34  28 119   101 84 80  101  111
Kansas    56 49 43 49   41 34 135  106  76 86   101 100
Kentucky    68 61 51 64   58 49 116   98 70 §   70 92
Louisiana   74 67  58 53   48 42 113  97  83 21  44  35
Maine    43 32 25 43   32 25 §   §  § §   §  §
Maryland    53 46 35 36   30 21 97  78  59 46   54 74
Massachusetts    35 31 23 24   21 14 94  68  47 121  101  81
Michigan    59 46 35 41   35 26 132   95 68 94  84  72
Minnesota    36 32 28 30  25  18 156  112  82 79  107  118
Mississippi   81 74  65 56   51 49 113  101  82 §  28  80
Missouri    63 53 44 50   45 37 145  107  81 46  70  100
Montana    48 39 36 39   32 29 §  § § §  85  §
Nebraska    42 39 37 35   31 26 137  102  95 82   110 135
Nevada    73 70 54 61   52 32 133   107 81 108  115  98
New Hampshire    33 28 20 NA   27 19 NA   §  § NA   66 §
New Jersey    41 35 27 19   15 10 105  82  56 80   71 67
New Mexico    78 71 62 51   45 32 100  65  44 97   90 84
New York    44 40 30 25   23 17 86   69 48 82   73 58
North Carolina    68 62 52 51   47 37 107   90 68 106  127  164
North Dakota   35  32 27 29   26 20 §  § § §  §  §
Ohio   58 50  40 47  42  32 130  101  80 74   79 79
Oklahoma   67  63 58 NA   56 50 NA  91  72 NA  88  110
Oregon   55  51 37 51   44 29 112   89 48 114  116  98
Pennsylvania    45 38 32 32  27  22 128  98  78 126  109  95
Rhode Island    44 39 36 32   26 21 137  87  66 130   104 107
South Carolina    71 60 53 54   46 41 101  83  67 67  64  133
South Dakota   47 40  38 35  30  26 §  §  § §  § §
Tennessee   72  65 54 61   55 45 122  100  79 41   81 153
Texas    75 73 64 49   46 36 117  93  72 104   105 100
Utah    49 41 37 44   36 29 §   67 32 115  107  109
Vermont    34 30 24 35   30 24 § § § §   § §
Virginia    53 45 38 40   35 27 100   77 63 56   62 76
Washington    53 46 33 47   38 25 98  72  42 113  105  90
West Virginia    57 51 46 57   50 46 74  77  49 §  §  §
Wisconsin    43 37 32 30   25 21 177   132 104 90  97  107
Wyoming    56 45 40 51   40 35 §   § § 94   77 68

§ Rates not deemed to be reliable due to small number of births or number of women in the group.

Note: Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Trends in Characteristics of Births by State: United States, 1990, 1995, 2000-2002,”National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (19), May 2004.

Appendix D. 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.

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 (and more recent) CPS data are affected by a change in the CPS questionnaire that allows individuals to report one or more races. 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.

Family Structure Categories

For the primary measure of dependency in this 2005 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.

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 The introductory chapter of this report, for example, shows 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.

Product Type
Report to Congress
Populations
Children