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.

Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors: Thirteenth Report to Congress

Publication Date

Thirteenth Report to Congress

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services


This report was written and compiled by Gilbert Crouse and Annette Waters of the Office of Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, with assistance from Susan Hauan, Suzanne Macartney and Kendall Swenson.


 
Office of Human Services Policy
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 404E
200 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
 
The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare an annual report to Congress on indicators of welfare dependence.  The Indicators of Welfare Dependence report is prepared by ASPE’s Office of Human Services Policy.  As mandated under the Congressional act, the report addresses the rate of welfare dependence, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence.  Analyses of meant-tested assistance in the report include benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.  The report also includes risk factors related to economic security, employment, and nonmarital births, as well as an appendix with data related to the above programs.  Data for most indicators are updated through 2011.

"

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 thirteenth report on Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors provides indicators and risk factors through 2011 for most indicators, reflecting changes that have taken place since the 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 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps); and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Use of welfare programs, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less reliant if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which families receive benefits from welfare programs 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 that: A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP (formerly food stamps) and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. Given data limitations, we are not able to identify which program benefits may be associated with recipient work activities. Thus, the definition of welfare dependence used in this report may characterize more individuals as welfare dependant than the Board had intended. We follow the Board’s proposal as closely as possible by adopting the following definition of possible welfare dependence among individuals in families1 for use in this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI.

This report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data for the TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) and SSI programs to provide updated measures through 2011 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. Based on these data, this report provides a number of key indicators of welfare recipiency, dependence and labor force attachment. Highlights from the thirteenth report include the following:

  • In 2011, 5.2 percent of the total population received more than half of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). While falling steadily between 1993 – 2000, the dependency rate began to increase after 2000, and increased more rapidly since 2007 with the beginning of the “Great Recession.” The rate peaked at 5.3 percent in 2010 in the immediate aftermath of the “Great Recession” and has declined slightly since. SNAP receipt constitutes a larger share of income among the welfare dependent population than does TANF or SSI.
  • In 2011, 23.1 percent of the total population received or lived with a family member who received a benefit of any amount from TANF, SNAP, or SSI at some point during the year (see Table SUM 1). While falling steadily between 1993 – 2000, this annual recipiency rate began to increase after 2000, and increased more rapidly during and in the immediate aftermath of the “Great Recession.” The 2011 rate is slightly higher than the 2010 rate, reflecting increased participation in the SNAP and SSI programs.
  • To a significant extent, these trends correlated with worsening economic conditions. The increase in SNAP recipiency between 2005 and 2011 reflects its intended responsiveness to economic changes, expanding to meet increased need when the economy is in recession. SNAP is an important support for working families – 63 percent of SNAP recipients are in families with labor force participants. Furthermore, SNAP receipt does not necessarily imply long term dependency, as over 60 percent of SNAP entrants remain on the program for a year or less. As the economy continues to improve, SNAP is projected to respond as designed, with fewer people needing the program. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections show that once the economy fully recovers, SNAP is expected to return to pre-recession levels as a share of the gross domestic product.2
  • Trends in the annual recipiency rate across all three programs presented in this report are similar to the more well-known changes in TANF, SNAP, and SSI caseloads. For example, the percentage of individuals receiving TANF cash assistance fell dramatically and consistently over time from 5.4 percent to 1.5 percent between 1993 and 2011 (see Indicator 3). SNAP recipiency rates fell in the latter half of the 1990s from 10.4 percent in 1994 to 6.0 percent in 2000. By 2011, the SNAP recipiency rate had increased to 14.1 percent. Conversely, SSI recipiency rates were relatively flat between 1993 and 2011, fluctuating between 2.3 and 2.6 percent.
  • Longitudinal measures show that program spells typically are short and long-term recipiency is rare. For example, approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells and over half of all SNAP spells lasted one year or less (see Indicator 7). Among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2008, over 70 percent received assistance in only one or two years during this period (see Indicator 9).

The report also includes data on a larger set of traditional risk factors associated with welfare receipt. They are organized into three categories: economic security measures, measures related to employment and barriers to employment, and measures of nonmarital childbearing.

The key economic security risk factors include and supplement measures of poverty and well-being that are useful to ensure that predictors of receipt 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:

  • Since 2000 the poverty rate has increased to 15.0 percent of all individuals (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1).

The measures related to employment and barriers to employment may be useful since families must generally receive an adequate income from employment in order to avoid welfare programs without severe deprivation.

  • The majority of mothers in the U.S. are in the labor force. Of particular note is the sharp increase in labor force participation rates for never-married mothers, rising from 52.5 percent in 1992 to a peak of 75.3 percent in 2002, and then gradually falling to 70.0 percent in 2011 (see Employment and Work-Related Risk Factor 8).
  • In an average month in 2011, 59.0 percent of TANF recipients lived in families with at least one family member in the labor force. Comparable figures for SNAP and SSI recipients were 63.1 and 39.2 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2). Between 2005 and 20113 there has been an increase in the percentage of recipients in families having at least one person in the labor force. Between 2005 and 2011, the percentage of recipients in families with at least one person in the labor force increased from 52.3 to 59.0 percent for TANF recipients, from 55.4 to 63.1 percent for SNAP recipients, and from 38.9 to 39.2 percent for SSI recipients.

Data on nonmarital births is provided since the lower family incomes of single parent families affects the need for and use of welfare programs. Historically a high percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients first became parents outside of marriage.

  • In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women. Beginning in 1960, this percentage began to increase, reaching 32.6 percent by 1992. It remained steady for a few years, before rising to 40.7 percent in 2011 (see Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1).

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.


1 Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report.

2 See Congressional Budget Office Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – May 2013 Baseline, May14, 2013.

3 See the 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Report online at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml for the 2005 numbers.

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. This 2014 report provides data on measures of welfare recipiency, dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence.

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 dependence, 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 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program),4 the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food Stamp Program).5 In this report we include information on cash assistance under the TANF and SSI programs and the cash value of food assistance benefits under SNAP. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 included provisions that would change (in most cases temporarily) some aspects of these three programs; these changes are discussed below.

This 2014 report, the thirteenth in the series, provides updated measures through 2011 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Data are available through 2011 for the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) measures, and through 2008 for several of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) measures.


4 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) repealed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and created a block grant program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in its place. The mandatory start date for TANF was July 1, 1997, but most states made the transition from AFDC before that date. Throughout the report we use AFDC/TANF to refer to cash assistance benefits received under these two programs.

5 The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) re-named the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of October 1, 2008. The name change had no effect on the type of benefits or how they are made available to eligible households.

Organization of Report

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the specific summary measure of welfare dependence proposed by a bipartisan Advisory Board6 and how this measure was adopted for use in this 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 this 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, SNAP, and SSI – 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 also are shown. The second half of the chapter includes longitudinal data on transitions on and off welfare programs and spells of program recipiency, including spells of TANF receipt among persons in families that have no attachment to the labor market. Also, this section includes a measure of long-term program receipt of up to 10 years, and a 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, the effect of receipt of child support on poverty rates, and food insecurity – 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 historically a high proportion of welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage.

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

  • The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides monthly cash benefits and services to eligible families with children and is run directly by the states. Prior to 1996 welfare cash benefits were provided through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Data on cash benefits under the TANF and AFDC programs are provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1962 through June 1997, and TANF data from July 1997 through 2011.
  • The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly 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. Prior to October 1, 2008, these food assistance benefits were provided through the Food Stamp Program. Appendix A provides historical data on food stamp benefits from 1962 to 2011.
  • 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 2011 are provided in Appendix A.

6 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 based on the presence of benefits from AFDC/TANF, SNAP, or SSI during a given time period, dependence is a more complex concept. Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. The definition of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board for this purpose is as follows: A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC (which was replace by TANF), the Food Stamp Program (now SNAP), and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. In following the Board’s proposal, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals in families7 for use in this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI.

No definition of welfare dependence is without its limitations. The Advisory Board recognized that no single measure could capture fully all aspects of dependence and that their proposed measure should be examined in concert with other indicators of well-being. While the Board’s proposal 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 may overstate the incidence of dependence as conceptualized by the Advisory Board. In fiscal year 2011, work participation was mandatory for three of every five TANF adult recipients. Overall, 43.6 percent of all TANF adult recipients in 2011 participated in some type of work activity during the reporting month compared with 7 percent in 1992.8

Also, any definition of dependence represents an arbitrary choice of a percentage of income from welfare beyond which families will be considered dependent. But using a single point – in this case 50 percent – yields a relatively straightforward measure that can be tracked easily over time, and is likely to be associated with any large changes in total dependence, however defined.

Figure SUM 1 and Table SUM 1 show the trend for the welfare dependency rate adopted for this report. Also, for comparison purposes, we include an annual “recipiency” measure that shows the proportion of all individuals in families that receive any benefits at any point during the year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI. Note that this measure of annual recipiency differs from average monthly recipiency rates presented elsewhere in this report (for example in Indicator 3 and Appendix A), where annual rates tend to be higher given the broader time period for observing benefit receipt than rates for one particular month or for an “average” month. See Appendix D for further discussion of annual and monthly measures in this report.

Annual dependency and recipiency rates follow fairly similar trends and even before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was passed, welfare recipiency and dependency were both in decline. The overall drop in the recipiency rates during the 1990s is consistent with low unemployment and lower poverty rates. The subsequent rise in the welfare program recipiency rate after 2000 however is associated more with increases in SSI and SNAP receipt than TANF, where caseloads continue a downward trend (see Indicator 3 for further information on trends in average monthly recipiency rates for each of the three programs).

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1993-2011

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year.

Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. 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, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


The “Great Recession,” that officially began in late 2007 and lasted through mid 2009, reversed declines in welfare recipiency experienced in the late 1990s and it exacerbated an upward trend in recipiency rates that began in 2001. As shown in Figure SUM 1, the dependency rate fell to a low of 3.0 percent in 2000 and the recipiency rate declined to 12.5 percent. Yet by 2011, these rates had risen to 5.2 percent for dependence and 23.1 percent for recipiency.

In 2011, as in previous years, general patterns in welfare receipt are apparent. Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics of any race than they are for Non-Hispanic Whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence are also higher for young children than they are for adults, and they are higher for individuals in female-headed families than they are for those in married-couple families. However of note are the rising annual recipiency rates for the three programs combined across all demographic categories over a relatively short period of time, 2007 – 2011, and the magnitude of the increase. For example, for those living in married-couple families, welfare recipiency rates increased from 8.8 percent in 2007 to 14.6 percent in 2011, a 5.8 percentage point increase. And Hispanics of any race show an 11.8 percentage point increase in recipiency between 2007 and 2011. Adults 65 and older experienced smaller increases in welfare recipiency than did other demographic groups. Their welfare recipiency rate increased from 10.6 percent to 12.9 percent over the 2007 and 2011 period.

Another factor affecting dependence is the time period observed. The summary measures shown in Figure SUM 1 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 rare, see Chapter II. Indicator 9, for example, shows that among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2008, 8.0 percent received some TANF benefits during six or more years. Another fifth (20.5 percent) were recipients in three to five years, and more than two-thirds (71.5 percent) received TANF in only one or two years during this period.

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years (part 1)

  1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002
Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, SNAP or SSI)
All Persons 16.6 16.0 14.8 13.5 13.3 12.5 13.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
   Non-Hispanic White 10.3 9.9 9.7 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.8
   Non-Hispanic Black 38.0 35.6 30.2 29.6 29.8 27.0 27.7
   Hispanic 34.6 32.0 28.0 24.5 23.4 21.0 21.7
Age Categories
   Children ages 0-5 30.5 28.2 25.1 22.4 21.5 19.8 21.4
   Children ages 6-10 24.9 24.2 21.2 20.0 19.8 18.0 18.8
   Children ages 11-15 22.1 21.1 19.4 17.0 17.3 16.3 16.8
   Women ages 16-64 16.4 16.0 14.7 13.6 13.6 12.5 13.4
   Men ages 16-64 11.5 11.7 11.1 10.0 9.6 9.2 10.3
   Adults ages 65 and over 11.2 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.0 10.4 9.7
Family Categories
Persons in:
   Married-couple families 10.5 9.6 8.7 8.3 7.9 7.2 7.5
   Female-headed families 47.8 46.0 41.6 37.5 39.9 37.1 37.7
   Male-headed families 27.6 25.3 24.3 19.7 19.3 21.8 21.2
   Unrelated persons 9.7 11.5 11.9 10.9 10.0 10.1 11.5
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, SNAP and/or SSI)
All Persons 5.9 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.3 3.0 3.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
   Non-Hispanic White 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.8
   Non-Hispanic Black 17.8 13.8 11.4 10.5 9.1 7.7 8.7
   Hispanic 11.8 10.9 9.1 6.6 5.4 4.5 4.9
Age Categories
   Children ages 0-5 13.9 11.2 9.3 7.8 6.2 6.0 6.0
   Children ages 6-10 11.2 9.5 8.4 6.7 6.1 5.1 5.1
   Children ages 11-15 9.3 8.1 7.4 5.7 4.5 4.0 4.0
   Women ages 16-64 5.9 5.2 4.6 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.4
   Men ages 16-64 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.0
   Adults ages 65 and over 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0
Family Categories
Persons in:
   Married-couple families 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
   Female-headed families 25.7 21.1 18.4 15.0 13.6 11.4 11.7
   Male-headed families 6.8 5.4 5.6 4.2 3.0 4.4 3.8
   Unrelated persons 3.8 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.5

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years (part 2)

  2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, SNAP or SSI)
All Persons 15.0 15.6 15.8 17.1 19.9 22.7 23.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
   Non-Hispanic White 10.1 10.6 10.4 11.4 13.3 15.7 16.3
   Non-Hispanic Black 32.4 32.0 33.4 34.1 37.6 40.7 39.7
   Hispanic 22.6 23.8 24.6 27.6 32.9 36.9 36.4
Age Categories
   Children ages 0-5 24.6 25.7 27.0 28.9 34.3 38.1 38.0
   Children ages 6-10 22.2 23.2 23.9 26.2 30.4 34.7 34.8
   Children ages 11-15 20.5 21.5 22.5 23.1 27.4 31.3 32.0
   Women ages 16-64 15.0 15.7 15.6 16.9 19.8 22.6 23.3
   Men ages 16-64 11.6 12.0 12.1 13.5 16.0 18.6 19.2
   Adults ages 65 and over 10.0 10.6 10.6 11.4 11.3 12.3 12.9
Family Categories
Persons in:
   Married-couple families 8.6 8.9 8.8 9.9 12.5 15.0 14.6
   Female-headed families 42.6 44.3 45.0 47.3 50.4 54.2 55.0
   Male-headed families 21.9 25.8 26.4 27.3 33.1 34.3 34.9
   Unrelated persons 12.7 12.6 12.4 14.1 15.5 18.0 20.0
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, SNAP and/or SSI)
All Persons 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 4.6 5.3 5.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
   Non-Hispanic White 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.2 3.3
   Non-Hispanic Black 10.0 9.5 9.4 10.2 11.1 12.5 12.3
   Hispanic 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.7 7.1 8.0 7.7
Age Categories
   Children ages 0-5 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.6 9.1 9.5 10.2
   Children ages 6-10 6.0 5.7 5.3 6.3 7.5 8.4 8.4
   Children ages 11-15 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3 6.3 7.1 7.1
   Women ages 16-64 3.7 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.8 5.5 5.7
   Men ages 16-64 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.8 3.2 4.0 3.7
   Adults ages 65 and over 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.3
Family Categories
Persons in:
   Married-couple families 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9
   Female-headed families 13.8 13.2 12.6 13.4 14.6 16.4 16.2
   Male-headed families 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.7 6.4 6.5 5.9
   Unrelated persons 4.5 4.7 4.3 5.2 5.8 6.8 6.8

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year. Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. 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, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


7 The unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report is “individuals” rather than families or households. Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals as the unit of analysis.

8 Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2011. This 43.6 percent includes subsidized employment and 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 Advisory Board’s proposed definition.

Measuring Economic Well-Being

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

Figure SUM 2a. Number Poor under 18 Years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959–2011

Rate (percent)
Number (millions)

Figure SUM 2a. Number Poor under 18 Years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959–2011

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-239 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/pov/toc.htm.


As shown in Figure Sum 2a, the child poverty rate for all persons under 18 is 21.9 percent (see Table ECON 1 for further details).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Welfare Benefits

On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA (Public Law 111-5) in response to the economic crisis, often referred to “the Great Recession”. The Recovery Act had three immediate goals: create new jobs and save existing ones, spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth, and foster levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. The Recovery Act intended to achieve these goals by providing $787 billion in: tax cuts and benefits for working families and businesses, funding for federal contracts, grants and loans9 and funding for entitlement programs. The SNAP, TANF, and SSI entitlements all were impacted by the ARRA legislation.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Households were eligible to receive SNAP benefits based on household income, assets, and certain basic expenses. ARRA increased benefits for all households and expanded program eligibility for jobless adults10. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the agency that administers SNAP at the Federal level, reported that in fiscal year 2008, the year prior to ARRA, an estimated 39 million people were eligible for SNAP benefits in a typical month but only 27 million (71 percent) actually took-up the program. By 2011, the participation rate had increased to 79 percent. According to SNAP administrative data, the SNAP caseload increased from 28.2 million participants in 2008 to 44.7 million in 2011, an increase of 59 percent. In an average month in fiscal year 2011 (ending September 30, 2011), SNAP provided benefits to 14.4 percent of the population. The average benefit was about $133.85 per person per month and the total Federal expenditure for the program was $75.7 billion.

ARRA increased SNAP benefit levels based on the number of qualifying people in the household. Maximum benefits increased by 13.6 percent, or $80 per month for a family of four11. Because SNAP benefit amounts are based on household net income, the ARRA benefit increase was effectively a constant dollar increase for each household size. Therefore, the percentage increase was greater for households that had some net income and were therefore eligible for less than the maximum benefit. For example, prior to ARRA, a household of four with a monthly net income of $980 qualified for $294 in SNAP benefits—half the maximum benefit for a household of that size. Under ARRA, that household received $374 in SNAP benefits—an increase of 27.2 percent. Households with no income net of allowable deductions received the maximum SNAP benefit, $588 before ARRA, and $668 after ARRA for a household of four.

Figure SUM 2b. Number & Percent of Children Receiving SNAP (Food Stamps), 1980–2011

Rate (percent)
Number (millions)

Figure SUM 2b. Number & Percent of Children Receiving SNAP (Food Stamps), 1980–2011

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011 and earlier reports, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/SNAPPartHH.htm ; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html; calculations by ASPE.


Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

The Recovery Act provided up to $5 billion in supplemental funding to the Emergency Contingency Fund (Emergency Fund), which is administered by the TANF Bureau12. The funds were intended to provide additional revenue to States, territories, and tribes that had an increase in caseloads and basic assistance expenditures, or had an increase in expenditures related to short-term benefits or subsidized employment. The funds were awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, and were used in the same way that the annual Federal TANF block grants funds were spent, except a jurisdiction could not transfer the funds to other ACF block grant programs. States, tribes, and territories were eligible to receive the funds through September 30, 2010. Emergency Funds were reimbursed to these jurisdictions for 80 percent of the cost of increased spending in three areas: basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment for low-income parents and youth.

Subsidized employment could have been in the private sector, in non-profit organizations or in the public sector. Jurisdictions could have chosen to subsidize all or part of the wages of a subsidized employee, and determine the length of the subsidy period. The expenditures could have been for a newly-created job or to prevent a layoff in an existing job, so long as the jurisdiction ensured that it complied with requirements against the displacement of other workers, and ensured that the expenditures would provide a job opportunity that would not have otherwise existed to a needy parent or youth. A jurisdiction could have included employer costs for supervision and training in its costs for purposes of qualifying for 80 percent federal reimbursement per hour. This meant for example, that if a jurisdiction fully subsidized a $10 per hour wage, an employer share of $2.50 for supervision and training could be counted toward the jurisdiction’s costs without additional documentation, resulting in a total cost of $12.50, of which $10 (i.e. 80 percent) would be federally reimbursable. Fourteen states placed over 5,000 people each in subsidized jobs. Four of those states — California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Texas — each placed more than 25,000 people, accounting for over half of the national total. Nationwide, about half the placements were summer jobs for youth13.

Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI)

The ARRA provided a one-time payment of $250 to adult Social Security beneficiaries and SSI recipients, except those receiving Medicaid in care facilities. To receive the payment, the person had to be eligible for Social Security or SSI during the months of November 2008, December 2008 or January 2009.

The Recovery Act also provided a one-time payment to Veterans Affairs (VA) and Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) beneficiaries. The VA and RRB were responsible for paying individuals under their respective programs. However, if someone received Social Security and SSI, VA or RRB benefits, he or she would receive only one $250 payment.


9 http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

10 USDA, Economic Research Service, Report Number 116, “Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err116... and FNS Key Data, Nation Data Bank, Table 2, 2008 and 20011.

11 http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/June11/features/foodsecuritysnap.htm

12 Catalogue for Domestic Assistance, ARRA – Emergency Contingency Fund for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Program. https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=82b17b73ae63...

13 Subsidizing Employment Opportunities for Low-Income Families A Review of State Employment Programs Created Through the TANF Emergency Fund. OPRE Report 2011-38, December 2011.

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, SNAP, and SSI programs. Wherever possible, the current report includes updated estimates for indicators and risk factors through 2011.

For our key 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. The release of CPS data is timely and CPS data have the added benefit that they may be analyzed with the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3) to correct for the underreporting of welfare program receipt and benefits that is often present in survey data. TRIM3 is a microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 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. To maintain consistency in data trends in this report, we present estimates based on CPS data analyzed by TRIM3 beginning in 1993, the first year the TRIM3 microsimulation model became available.

For indicators and risk factors that capture the monthly dynamics of welfare receipt over time, we use the SIPP. The SIPP collects monthly survey data on income and program participation among individuals and families across the country in panels that last roughly three to four years. While the CPS collects data on the incidence of welfare program receipt and poverty in a given year, the SIPP allows us to present monthly data on how long individuals and families receive welfare assistance and how long they remain poor over a time span of several years. The current report includes updated estimates for most of the SIPP measures based on newly available data from the 2008 SIPP panel, spanning from 2008 to 2011.

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 each SIPP panel. 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.

The report also draws upon administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs. These data are largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data are available with minimal time lags; for the current report, administrative data are generally available through fiscal year (FY) 2011. 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. 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 should be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on AFDC and TANF receipt in national data sets such as the CPS, SIPP, and PSID.

For further technical information about the data presented in the report 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 simply welfare receipt.

As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested that families be considered dependent if more than 50 percent of their total income in a one-year period comes from cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Furthermore, this welfare income was not to be associated with work activities. 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 captured fully the Advisory Board’s recommendation; that is, one indicator based on the percentage of income from means-tested assistance only if this income is not associated with work activities. As discussed in Chapter I, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals in families14 for use in this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI.

The ten indicators in Chapter II were selected to provide information about the range and depth of dependence as proposed by the Advisory Board, including indicators that measure the presence of employment activities. This chapter focuses on recipients of three major means-tested cash and nutritional assistance programs: cash assistance through the AFDC and TANF programs, benefits under the Food Stamp Program and the SNAP, and 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.


14 Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report.

Indicator Summary

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/SNAP, and/or SSI benefits, it shows various levels of dependence by examining those with more than zero percent, 25 percent and 75 percent of their family 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 receive 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/SNAP or SSI in an average month. Administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, SNAP and SSI programs 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 can serve those that meet each program’s requirements, not all eligible individuals and households participate in the programs. This indicator uses AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP and SSI 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 estimated to be 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/SNAP and SSI in a month, examining how many rely on just one of these programs, and how many rely on a combination of two or more 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: Program Spell Duration. One critical aspect of dependence is how long individuals receive means-tested assistance. This indicator provides information on short, medium and long spells of welfare receipt for each of the three major means-tested programs – AFDC/TANF, the SNAP, and SSI.

Indicator 8: Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment. This indicator is concerned with dynamics of welfare receipt among persons in families with no attachment to the labor market. It differs from Indicator 7 in that it provides information on spells of TANF receipt during months where no one in the family worked or was officially unemployed.

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 7, 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: 2011

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2011

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP benefits. 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 SNAP benefits.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Figure IND 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with varying degrees of total income that derived from means-tested assistance programs in 2011.
  • The majority of persons (76.9 percent) lived in families that received no income from means-tested assistance programs in 2011.
  • Twenty-three (23.1) percent of all persons lived in families that received means-tested assistance. Five (5.2) percent of persons lived in families that received more than half of their income from means-tested assistance programs. These persons would be considered welfare dependent under the definition of dependence used in this report.15
  • Table IND 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with varying degrees of reliance on income from means-tested assistance programs by selected demographic characteristics. Among racial and ethnic groups, Non-Hispanic Blacks were more likely to be welfare dependent (12.3 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (3.3 percent) or Hispanics of any race (7.7 percent).
  • Among age categories, children, particularly from birth to 5 years of age, were more likely to live in families that were welfare dependent than were persons age 16 and older.
  • Among family types, persons living in female-headed families were more likely to be welfare dependent than those in other family categories.
  • Table IND 1b shows trends in welfare dependence between 1993 and 2011. Welfare dependence was highest in 1993 at 5.9 percent. Welfare dependence declined between 1993 and 2000. After 2000, the downward trend in welfare dependence reversed, with dependence increasing from 3.0 percent in 2000 to 5.2 percent in 2011.

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2011

  0%
> 0% and <= 25%
> 25% and<= 50%
> 50% and<= 75%
> 75% and<= 100%
Total > 50%
All Persons 76.9 13.8 4.1 1.7 3.5 5.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
    Non-Hispanic White 83.7 10.6 2.5 1.0 2.3 3.3
    Non-Hispanic Black 60.3 19.3 8.1 3.9 8.3 12.3
    Hispanic 63.6 21.7 7.1 2.6 5.1 7.7
Age Categories
    Children ages 0-5 62.0 19.9 7.9 3.8 6.4 10.2
    Children ages 6-10 65.2 18.8 7.6 3.1 5.2 8.4
    Children ages 11-15 68.0 18.4 6.5 2.7 4.4 7.1
    Women ages 16-64 76.7 13.7 3.9 1.7 4.1 5.7
    Men ages 16-64 80.8 12.6 2.9 1.1 2.6 3.7
    Adults ages 65 and over 87.1 8.5 2.1 0.8 1.5 2.3
Family Categories
    Persons in married-couple families 85.4 10.4 2.4 0.8 1.1 1.9
    Persons in female-headed families 45.0 26.7 12.2 5.8 10.5 16.2
    Persons in male-headed families 65.1 22.9 6.1 2.1 3.8 5.9
    Unrelated persons 80.0 11.1 2.0 0.9 5.9 6.8

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP. 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 SNAP benefits. 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, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2011

  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
2003 85.9 8.2 2.4 1.1 2.4 3.6
2004 85.0 8.8 2.5 1.1 2.5 3.7
2005 84.7 8.9 2.6 1.1 2.7 3.8
2006 84.4 9.3 2.6 1.1 2.6 3.7
2007 84.1 9.7 2.8 1.1 2.3 3.4
2008 82.9 10.3 2.8 1.1 2.8 4.0
2009 80.1 11.4 3.9 1.5 3.1 4.6
2010 77.3 13.2 4.2 1.7 3.6 5.3
2011 76.9 13.8 4.1 1.7 3.5 5.2

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP. 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 SNAP benefits.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status: 2011

(In percent)

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status: 2011

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. 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.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Figure IND 1b shows sources of income by poverty status in 2011. There is a clear association between poverty status and receiving income from means-tested assistance programs.
  • Persons in families with incomes below the poverty line received 42.4 percent of their income from earnings and 37.8 percent from means-tested assistance programs. Persons in families with incomes at 200 percent or more of the poverty line received 85.7 percent of their income from earnings and 0.2 percent of their income from means-tested assistance programs.
  • The percentage of family income that comes from earnings is inversely proportional to overall family income relative to the poverty line. For example, the percentage of income received from earnings for persons in families living in deep poverty (below 50 percent of the poverty line) was 21.2 percent compared to 42.4 percent for all poor persons in 2011.
  • Table IND 1c shows sources of income by poverty status for various demographic groups. On average, persons in married-couple families and male heads of household receive higher proportions of their family income from earnings than do female heads of households.
  • Table IND 1d shows the percentage of income from various sources across selected years. The percentage of income received from earnings for persons in families with incomes below the poverty line increased from 40.4 percent in 1995 to 49.5 percent in 2000. In 2011, the rate was 42.4 percent.
  • Over the same time period, the percentage of income from means-tested programs among persons in poor families decreased from 41.3 percent in 1995 to 30.3 percent in 2000. In 2011, the rate was 37.8 percent.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status and Selected Characteristics: 2011

  <50% Poverty <100% of Poverty <200% of Poverty 200%+ of Poverty
All
Persons
All Persons
    TANF, SSI and SNAP 65.4 37.8 14.5 0.2 1.8
    Earnings 21.2 42.4 62.5 85.7 83.2
    Other income 13.5 19.8 23.0 14.1 15.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
    Non-Hispanic White
        TANF, SSI and SNAP  63.8 36.1 12.0 0.1 0.9
        Earnings 19.7 37.9 56.6 84.6 82.7
        Other income 16.4 26.0 31.5 15.3 16.4
    Non-Hispanic Black
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 69.9 45.4 21.9 0.5 5.0
        Earnings 16.8 33.0 54.2 85.0 78.4
        Other income 13.3 21.6 23.9 14.6 16.6
    Hispanic
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 63.5 34.7 14.2 0.5 4.2
        Earnings 27.3 53.4 74.3 90.8 86.3
        Other income 9.2 11.9 11.5 8.7 9.5
Age Categories
    Children ages 0-5
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 69.7 41.6 18.7 0.2 3.7
        Earnings 19.7 45.8 70.2 94.8 90.2
        Other income 10.6 12.6 11.1 5.0 6.1
    Children ages 6-10
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 68.1 40.4 17.7 0.2 3.2
        Earnings 20.0 46.2 70.1 94.0 90.0
        Other income 11.9 13.4 12.2 5.8 6.9
    Children ages 11-15
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 68.2 38.6 16.1 0.2 2.6
        Earnings 19.2 46.5 69.7 92.6 89.1
        Other income 12.6 14.8 14.2 7.2 8.3
    Women ages 16-64
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 64.7 38.5 15.1 0.2 1.7
        Earnings 21.0 41.9 65.6 89.1 86.8
        Other income 14.3 19.6 19.2 10.7 11.6
    Men ages 16-64
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 58.1 34.0 12.2 0.2 1.2
        Earnings 26.5 45.0 68.3 90.3 88.5
        Other income 15.4 21.0 19.5 9.5 10.4
Family Categories
    Persons in married-couple families
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 57.1 30.4 10.1 0.1 0.9
        Earnings 30.1 54.8 71.5 86.6 85.5
        Other income 12.8 14.8 18.3 13.2 13.6
    Persons in female-headed families
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 72.7 46.9 24.6 1.0 8.8
        Earnings 14.8 34.8 53.8 81.3 72.2
        Other income 12.5 18.3 21.6 17.7 19.0
    Persons in male-headed families
        TANF, SSI and SNAP 64.9 39.2 15.4 0.7 3.2
        Earnings 23.3 40.8 64.2 85.8 82.1
        Other income 11.8 20.0 20.5 13.5 14.7

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. 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. 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, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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

  < 50% Poverty
<100% ofPoverty
<200% of Poverty 200%+ of Poverty
1995
    AFDC, 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
    AFDC, 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
2004
    TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.4 31.1 10.4 0.2
    Earnings 25.7 48.2 67.2 86.8
    Other income 15.9 20.7 22.4 13.0
2005
    TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.5 32.5 10.4 0.2
    Earnings 25.3 46.6 68.2 86.6
    Other income 16.2 20.8 21.4 13.2
2006
    TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.2 31.4 10.4 0.2
    Earnings 27.7 48.3 68.6 86.5
    Other income 14.1 20.3 21.0 13.3
2009
    TANF, SSI and SNAP 62.0 35.8 13.6 0.2
    Earnings 25.2 44.2 62.8 85.8
    Other income 12.8 20.0 23.6 14.0
2010
    TANF, SSI and SNAP 64.6 38.1 14.9 0.2
    Earnings 21.7 41.7 61.7 85.6
    Other income 13.6 20.3 23.4 14.2
2011
    TANF, SSI and SNAP 65.4 37.8 14.5 0.2
    Earnings 21.2 42.4 62.5 85.7
    Other income 13.5 19.8 23.0 14.1

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. 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, 1996-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


15 For a discussion on defining welfare dependence, please see “Measuring Welfare Dependence” in Chapter I.

INDICATOR 2. Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment

 

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program: 2011

(In percent)

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program: 2011

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 usually worked less than 35 hours per week. “Looking for work” includes individuals 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. Also note that lower family employment rates are reported in TANF administrative data, which are limited to the employment of family members in the TANF assistance unit and employment reported to welfare agencies (see Table TANF 7 in Appendix A).

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Figure IND 2 shows the percentage of recipients in families with labor force participants by program. In 2011, SSI recipients were more likely to live in families with no labor force participants (60.8 percent) than were TANF recipients (41.0 percent) or SNAP recipients (36.9 percent). Sixty-three (63.1) percent of SNAP recipients lived in families with someone in the labor force, including 34.3 percent in families with at least one full-time worker.
  • Table IND 2a shows the percentage of recipients in families with labor force participants by program and demographic characteristics. Among all three programs, Hispanics were more likely to live in families with at least one full-time worker (31.7 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Blacks (13.9 percent) or Non-Hispanics Whites (22.7 percent).
  • Among SNAP recipients, 46.3 percent of persons in married-couple families lived with at least one full-time worker compared to 27.6 percent of persons in female-headed families, and 40.8 percent of persons in male-headed families.
  • Table IND 2b shows the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with labor force participants by year. The percentage of recipients living in families with at least one labor force participant increased from 43.0 percent in 1993 to 61.3 in 2001 and was 59.0 percent in 2011.

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program and Selected Characteristics: 2011

  At least one in labor force, no one full time
No one in labor force At least one looking, no one working At least one part-time, no one full- time Total with at least one in labor force, no one full-time At least one full-time worker
TANF All Persons 41.0 17.6 17.6 35.2 23.8
Non-Hispanic White 44.4 17.1 15.8 32.9 22.7
Non-Hispanic Black 46.2 22.6 17.3 39.9 13.9
Hispanic 34.2 13.7 20.4 34.2 31.7
Children ages 0-5 40.6 17.2 17.6 34.9 24.5
Children ages 6-10 45.8 16.3 15.6 31.9 22.3
Children ages 11-15 38.8 16.8 18.8 35.6 25.7
Women ages 16-64 41.3 18.6 17.1 35.7 22.9
Men ages 16-64 35.1 20.3 20.4 40.7 24.2
Adults ages 65 and over 15.5 0.0 84.5 84.5 0.0
Persons in married-couple families 22.0 16.1 19.6 35.7 42.3
Persons in female-headed families 47.7 17.9 17.4 35.3 17.1
Persons in male-headed families 35.4 19.6 14.0 33.5 31.1
Unrelated persons 75.9 22.2 0.9 23.1 1.0
SNAP All Persons 36.9 12.7 16.1 28.8 34.3
Non-Hispanic White 40.4 12.9 16.1 29.0 30.6
Non-Hispanic Black 39.9 15.2 16.2 31.4 28.6
Hispanic 28.1 9.6 16.8 26.4 45.5
Children ages 0-5 25.7 11.2 18.1 29.3 45.0
Children ages 6-10 25.4 11.9 18.4 30.3 44.3
Children ages 11-15 26.6 10.7 17.8 28.5 44.9
Women ages 16-64 39.0 13.2 17.6 30.9 30.1
Men ages 16-64 38.8 16.5 14.2 30.7 30.5
Adults ages 65 and over 84.2 4.2 4.0 8.2 7.6
Persons in married-couple families 22.6 10.9 15.8 26.7 50.7
Persons in female-headed families 35.6 12.9 19.9 32.8 31.6
Persons in male-headed families 28.9 16.1 14.1 30.2 40.9
Unrelated persons 71.0 14.0 8.5 22.5 6.5
SSI All Persons 60.8 5.6 8.6 14.2 25.0
Non-Hispanic White 64.5 4.4 8.4 12.8 22.8
Non-Hispanic Black 66.1 7.0 8.6 15.5 18.4
Hispanic 52.7 5.5 9.0 14.5 32.8
Children ages 0-5 33.8 11.0 11.6 22.6 43.6
Children ages 6-10 41.7 10.8 13.5 24.3 34.0
Children ages 11-15 44.1 10.4 10.2 20.7 35.2
Women ages 16-64 66.1 5.7 8.3 14.0 19.9
Men ages 16-64 64.1 4.8 9.3 14.1 21.9
Adults ages 65 and over 62.0 3.2 6.4 9.6 28.4
Persons in married-couple families 36.9 5.8 11.0 16.8 46.3
Persons in female-headed families 51.3 9.2 11.9 21.1 27.6
Persons in male-headed families 42.2 6.5 10.5 17.0 40.8
Unrelated persons 94.0 1.8 3.1 5.0 1.1

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 usually worked less than 35 hours per week. “Looking for work” includes individuals 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. 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, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1993-2011

  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 39.8 25.8 34.3
2003 47.4 24.1 28.5
2004 48.0 23.8 28.1
2005 47.7 25.4 26.9
2006 46.6 21.2 32.2
2007 46.4 23.4 30.2
2008 45.6 27.2 27.2
2009 43.3 30.7 26.0
2010 43.5 31.4 25.1
2011 41.0 35.2 23.8

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994 - 2011, 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: 1975-2011

(In percent)

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF: 1975-2011

Note: 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 also are 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. Beginning in 2000, the data include both TANF and SSP (Separate State Program) recipients who have comprised as much as 11 percent of total recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Population denominators for the percents in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • Figure IND 3a shows the percentage of the population who received income from the AFDC program or the TANF program by age group from 1975 to 2011.
  • Table IND 3a shows the number and percentage of the population receiving AFDC/TANF by age between 1975 and 2011. In 1993, 5.4 percent of the population received income from AFDC. In 2011 the TANF recipiency rate was 1.5 percent, a sharp decline from pre-welfare reform levels.
  • AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been higher and have had more pronounced changes over time for children than for adults.
  • Between 1993 and 2011, AFDC/TANF receipt among children decreased from 13.9 percent to 4.6 percent, a recent increase from 4.1 percent in 2008.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF by Age: 1970-2011

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 7.6
1971 9,281 4.5 2,516 1.8 6,765 9.7
1972 10,345 4.9 2,848 2.0 7,497 10.8
1973 10,760 5.1 2,984 2.1 7,776 11.3
1974 10,591 5.0 2,935 2.0 7,656 11.3
1975 10,854 5.0 3,102 2.1 7,753 11.5
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 3,068 1.9 7,071 11.0
1980 10,422 4.6 3,225 2.0 7,197 11.3
1981 10,979 4.8 3,491 2.1 7,488 11.8
1982 10,233 4.4 3,396 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 3,625 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 4,335 2.3 9,087 13.7
1993 13,943 5.4 4,520 2.3 9,424 13.9
1994 14,033 5.3 4,554 2.3 9,479 13.8
1995 13,480 5.1 4,323 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 5,673 2.0 1,503 0.7 4,171 5.7
2002 5,576 1.9 1,477 0.7 4,099 5.6
2003 5,452 1.9 1,415 0.7 4,037 5.5
2004 5,316 1.8 1,358 0.6 3,957 5.4
2005 5,064 1.7 1,276 0.6 3,788 5.2
2006 4,699 1.6 1,164 0.5 3,535 4.8
2007 4,099 1.4 962 0.4 3,138 4.2
2008 3,949 1.3 927 0.4 3,022 4.1
2009 4,217 1.4 1,021 0.4 3,197 4.3
2010 4,531 1.5 1,138 0.5 3,393 4.6
2011 4,554 1.5 1,150 0.5 3,405 4.6

Note: 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 also are 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. Beginning in 2000, the data include both TANF and SSP (Separate State Program) recipients who have comprised as much as 11 percent of total recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Population denominators for the percents in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by Age 1975-2011

(In percent)

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by Age 1975-2011

Note: See Appendix A, Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient totals exclude the territories and are the fiscal year averages of monthly caseloads from administrative data. 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: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2009, No. SNAP-09-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/200...), and unpublished data from the National Data Bank. Population denominators for the percents in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • Figure IND 3b shows the percentage of the population who received food stamps/SNAP by age category from 1975 to 2011.
  • In 1993, 10.4 percent of all persons received SNAP benefits, which declined steadily through 2000 and since then has risen to 14.1 percent in 2011.
  • Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for adults ages 60 and over has always been lower than the rates of receipt for children and adults ages 18 – 59.
  • The percentage of older adults receiving SNAP benefits remained close to or below 5.0 percent until 2010 and 2011 when it increased to 5.4 and 6.4 percent respectively.
  • As with AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency rates have been higher over time for children than for adults. Between 1980 and 2011, the percentage of all children who received SNAP benefits was at least double that of the adult recipiency rate. Among adults ages 18- 59 years old, 11.4 percent received SNAP benefits compared to 26.9 percent of children under 18 in 2011.
  • Table IND 3b shows the number and percentage of the population receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by age group from 1975 to 2011. While the levels are different, the trend in Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for children and adults 18 – 59 years of age are similar over the time period.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP benefits: 1975-2011 (part 1)

Fiscal Year Total Recipients Adult Recipients Ages 60 and over
Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent
1975 16,320 7.6
1976 17,033 7.8
1977 15,604 7.1
1978 14,405 6.5
1979 15,942 7.1
1980 19,253 8.5 1,741 4.9
1981 20,655 9.0 1,845 5.0
1982 20,391 8.8 1,641 4.4
1983 21,668 9.3 1,654 4.4
1984 20,796 8.8 1,758 4.5
1985 19,847 8.3 1,783 4.5
1986 19,381 8.1 1,631 4.1
1987 19,072 7.9 1,589 3.9
1988 18,613 7.6 1,500 3.7
1989 18,777 7.6 1,582 3.8
1990 20,020 8.0 1,511 3.6
1991 22,599 8.9 1,593 3.8
1992 25,371 9.9 1,687 3.9
1993 26,957 10.4 1,876 4.3
1994 27,439 10.4 1,955 4.5
1995 26,579 10.0 1,920 4.4
1996 25,495 9.5 1,891 4.3
1997 22,820 8.4 1,831 4.1
1998 19,748 7.2 1,635 3.6
1999 18,114 6.5 1,696 3.7
2000 17,054 6.0 1,700 3.7
2001 17,262 6.1 1,658 3.6
2002 19,003 6.6 1,684 3.6
2003 20,898 7.2 1,786 3.7
2004 23,447 8.0 1,917 3.9
2005 24,841 8.4 2,044 4.1
2006 25,555 8.6 2,226 4.4
2007 25,887 8.6 2,263  4.3 
2008 27,751 9.1 2,517 4.7
2009 32,842 10.7 2,724 4.9
2010 39,703 12.8 3,117 5.4 
2011 44,086  14.1 3,765 6.4

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP benefits: 1975-2011 (part 2)

Fiscal Year Adult Recipients Ages 18-59 Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent
1975
1976 9,126 13.8
1977
1978
1979
1980 7,186 5.6 9,876 15.5
1981 7,811 6.0 9,803 15.5
1982 7,838 6.0 9,591 15.3
1983 8,960 6.7 10,910 17.4
1984 8,521 6.3 10,492 16.8
1985 8,258 6.1 9,801 15.8
1986 7,895 5.7 9,844 15.7
1987 7,684 5.5 9,771 15.5
1988 7,506 5.3 9,351 14.8
1989 7,560 5.3 9,429 14.9
1990 8,084 5.6 10,127 15.8
1991 9,190 6.3 11,952 18.3
1992 10,550 7.2 13,349 20.1
1993 11,214 7.5 14,196 21.0
1994 11,615 7.7 14,391 21.0
1995 11,105 7.3 13,860 20.0
1996 10,769 7.0 13,189 18.8
1997 9,373 6.0 11,847 16.7
1998 7,760 4.9 10,520 14.7
1999 7,079 4.4 9,332 13.0
2000 6,612 4.0 8,743 12.1
2001 6,778 4.1 8,820 12.1
2002 7,625 4.5 9,688 13.3
2003 8,503 5.0 10,605 14.5
2004 9,753 5.7 11,771 16.0
2005 10,390 6.0 12,404 16.8
2006 12,758 7.3 12,579 17.0
2007 13,030 7.5 12,695 17.1
2008 14,145 8.0 13,472 18.1
2009 16,181 9.1 15,589 21.0
2010 18,102 10.2 18,484 24.9
2011 20,430 11.4 19,892 26.9

Note: See Appendix A, Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient totals exclude the territories and are the fiscal year averages of monthly caseloads from administrative data. 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: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2009, No. SNAP-09-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/200...), and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank. Individual age groups do not sum exactly to total recipients. The population denominators for the percentage in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011

(In percent)

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011

Note: Population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the U.S. 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, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy). Population denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • Figure IND 3c shows the percentage of the population who received income assistance from the SSI program by age category from 1975 through 2011.
  • Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP, overall recipiency rates for SSI show less variation over time. After decreasing from 1975 to the early 1980s, the proportion of the total population that received SSI increased from 1.7 percent in 1985 to 2.4 percent in 1994. The rate has stayed consistent since then increasing to 2.6 percent in 2011.
  • Overall the SSI recipiency rate has increased from 2.0 percent in 1975 to 2.6 in 2011, and stayed consistently between 2.3 percent and 2.6 percent between 1993 and 2011.
  • Table IND 3c shows the percentage of the population and number of persons receiving SSI by age group between 1975 and 2011.
  • Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap, however, has narrowed as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has declined from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.0 percent in 2011.
  • Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap, however, has narrowed as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has declined from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.0 percent in 2011.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011 (part 1)

Date Total Recipients Adult Recipients Ages 60 and over
Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent
Dec 1975 4,314 2.0 2,508 10.9
Dec 1976 4,236 1.9 2,397 10.2
Dec 1977 4,239 1.9 2,353 9.7
Dec 1978 4,217 1.9 2,304 9.3
Dec 1979 4,150 1.8 2,246 8.8
Dec 1980 4,142 1.8 2,221 8.6
Dec 1981 4,019 1.7 2,121 8.0
Dec 1982 3,858 1.7 2,011 7.4
Dec 1983 3,901 1.7 2,003 7.3
Dec 1984 4,029 1.7 2,037 7.2
Dec 1985 4,138 1.7 2,031 7.1
Dec 1986 4,269 1.8 2,018 6.9
Dec 1987 4,385 1.8 2,015 6.8
Dec 1988 4,464 1.8 2,006 6.6
Dec 1989 4,593 1.9 2,026 6.5
Dec 1990 4,817 1.9 2,059 6.5
Dec 1991 5,118 2.0 2,080 6.5
Dec 1992 5,566 2.2 2,100 6.4
Dec 1993 5,984 2.3 2,113 6.4
Dec 1994 6,296 2.4 2,119 6.3
Dec 1995 6,514 2.4 2,115 6.2
Dec 1996 6,634 2.4 2,110 6.2
Dec 1997 6,495 2.4 2,054 6.0
Dec 1998 6,566 2.4 2,033 5.9
Dec 1999 6,557 2.3 2,019 5.8
Dec 2000 6,602 2.3 2,011 5.7
Dec 2001 6,688 2.3 1,995 5.6
Dec 2002 6,788 2.3 1,995 5.6
Dec 2003 6,902 2.4 1,990 5.5
Dec 2004 6,988 2.4 1,978 5.4
Dec 2005 7,114 2.4 1,995 5.4
Dec 2006 7,236 2.4 2,004 5.3
Dec 2007 7,360 2.4 2,017 5.3
Dec 2008 7,521 2.5 2,034 5.2
Dec 2009 7,677 2.5 2,026 5.1
Dec 2010 7,912 2.5 2,041 5.0
Dec 2011 8,113 2.6 2,059 5.0

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011 (part 2)

Date Adult Recipients Ages 18-64 Child Recipients Ages 0-17
Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent
Dec 1975 1,699 1.3 107 0.2
Dec 1976 1,714 1.3 125 0.2
Dec 1977 1,738 1.3 147 0.2
Dec 1978 1,747 1.3 166 0.3
Dec 1979 1,727 1.3 177 0.3
Dec 1980 1,731 1.3 190 0.3
Dec 1981 1,703 1.2 195 0.3
Dec 1982 1,655 1.2 192 0.3
Dec 1983 1,700 1.2 198 0.3
Dec 1984 1,780 1.2 212 0.3
Dec 1985 1,879 1.3 227 0.4
Dec 1986 2,010 1.4 241 0.4
Dec 1987 2,119 1.4 251 0.4
Dec 1988 2,203 1.5 255 0.4
Dec 1989 2,302 1.5 265 0.4
Dec 1990 2,450 1.6 309 0.5
Dec 1991 2,642 1.7 397 0.6
Dec 1992 2,910 1.8 556 0.8
Dec 1993 3,148 2.0 723 1.1
Dec 1994 3,335 2.1 841 1.2
Dec 1995 3,482 2.1 917 1.3
Dec 1996 3,568 2.2 955 1.4
Dec 1997 3,562 2.1 880 1.2
Dec 1998 3,646 2.1 887 1.2
Dec 1999 3,691 2.1 847 1.2
Dec 2000 3,744 2.1 847 1.2
Dec 2001 3,811 2.1 882 1.2
Dec 2002 3,878 2.2 915 1.3
Dec 2003 3,953 2.2 959 1.3
Dec 2004 4,017 2.2 993 1.4
Dec 2005 4,083 2.2 1,036 1.4 
Dec 2006 4,152 2.2 1,079 1.5
Dec 2007 4,222 2.2 1,121 1.5
Dec 2008 4,333 2.3 1,154 1.6
Dec 2009 4,451 2.3 1,200 1.6
Dec 2010 4,632 2.4 1,239 1.7
Dec 2011 4,777 2.4 1,277 1.7

Note: December population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the U.S. 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, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy). Population denominators for the percents in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (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/TANF1, SNAP and SSI Programs: Selected Years

(In percent)

Figure IND 4. Participation Rates in the AFDC/TANF1, SNAP and SSI Programs: Selected Years

1 Unlike the SNAP and SSI programs, TANF is a block grant program for which there is no individual entitlement. One of the main goals of TANF is to move people from cash assistance to self-sufficiency.

Note: AFDC/TANF and SSI participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) that uses CPS data to simulate program 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. For TANF, in contrast to editions prior to 2004, this table includes families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs). 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 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. In 2004 the methods for identifying potential child-only units capture the fact that non-parent caretakers generally have a choice of whether or not to be included in the TANF unit. TRIM now excludes those caretakers whose income would make the unit ineligible, increasing the number of potential child-only units.

SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate program eligibility. SNAP caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in the methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. The 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 re-weighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining SNAP 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 2009.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-partic..., and unpublished tabulations from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Figure IND 4 shows the participation rates in the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs for selected years. This indicator examines the average monthly number of participating families, households, or adults as a percentage of the estimated eligible population. It is a contrast to Indicator 3, which examines participants as an average monthly (December for SSI) percentage of the total population (recipiency rates).
  • In 2011, 33.9 percent of families estimated as eligible for TANF assistance, 67.3 percent of households estimated as eligible for SSI are estimated to have received benefits in an average month. In 2011, 83.3 percent of households estimated as eligible for SNAP are estimated to have enrolled and received benefits in an average month.

Table IND 4a. Number and Percentage of Eligible Families Participating in the AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance Program: Selected Years

Calendar Year Eligible Families (millions) Participating Families (millions) Participation Rate (percent)
1981 4.8 3.8 80.2
1983 4.7 3.7 77.7
1985 4.7 3.7 79.3
1987 4.9 3.8 76.7
1988 4.8 3.7 78.4
1989 4.5 3.8 83.6
1990 4.9 4.1 82.2
1992 5.6 4.8 85.7
1993 6.1 5.0 81.7
1994 (revised) 6.1 5.0 82.1
1995 5.7 4.8 84.3
1996 5.6 4.4 78.9
1997 (adjusted) 5.4 3.7 69.2
1998 (adjusted) 5.5 3.1 55.8
1999 5.1 2.6 52.3
2000 4.4 2.3 51.8
2001 4.6 2.2 48.0
2002 4.5 2.2 48.1
2003 4.8 2.2 45.7
2004 5.1 2.2 42.0
2005 5.1 2.1 40.4
2006 4.9 2.1 39.0
2007 4.8 1.9 36.0
2008 5.2 1.7 33.0
2009 5.7 1.8 32.3
2010 5.7 1.9 33.7
2011 5.6 1.9 33.9

Note: AFDC/TANF 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. In contrast to editions prior to 2004, this table includes families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs). 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 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. In 2004 the methods for identifying potential child-only units capture the fact that non-parent caretakers generally have a choice of whether or not to be included in the TANF unit. TRIM now excludes those caretakers whose income would make the unit ineligible, increasing the number of potential child-only units.

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 1981 and 1996, participation rates in the AFDC program ranged from 76.7 percent (in 1987) to 85.7 percent (in 1992). From 1996 to 2011, participation rates in TANF have steadily declined.
  • In 1996, 78.9 percent of eligible families participated in the AFDC/TANF program. By 2011, 33.9 percent of eligible families participated in the TANF program. 16,
  • Since welfare reform there has been a sharp decline in the number of eligible families participating in the TANF program.17

Table IND 4b. Number and Percentage of Eligible Households Participating in SNAP: Selected Years

Date
Eligible Households
(millions)
Participating Households
(millions)
Participation Rate
(percent)
September 1976c 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 16.6 10.2 61.6
August 1993 17.0 10.9 64.0
August 1994 17.0 11.0 64.6
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 1999c 14.5 7.5 51.6
Fiscal Year 2000 14.2 7.1 50.2
Fiscal Year 2001 15.1 7.3 48.0
Fiscal Year 2002(a) 16.7 8.0 47.6
Fiscal Year 2002(b) 16.0 8.0 49.7
Fiscal Year 2003 17.1 8.9 52.1
Fiscal Year 2004 17.5 10.0 57.1
Fiscal Year 2005 17.7 10.7 60.6
Fiscal Year 2006 17.1 11.2 65.3
Fiscal Year 2007 17.5 11.4 65.5
Fiscal Year 2008 18.0 12.3 68.4
Fiscal Year 2009 20.3 14.7 72.2
Fiscal Year 2010(a) 22.7 17.7 78.0
Fiscal Year 2010(b) 22.6 17.4 77.0
Fiscal Year 2011 23.1 19.3 83.3

Note: SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility. SNAP caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in the methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. The 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 re-weighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining SNAP 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 2006. The FY 2010(b) and 2011 estimates are not based upon a revised methodologically consistent with prior estimates.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-partic...,.


  • Table IND 4b shows the average monthly number and percentage of eligible households participating in FSP/SNAP for selected years. Since fiscal year 2002, the participation rate for SNAP has increased from 47.6 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 83.3 percent in fiscal year 2011.
  • Between fiscal years 1999 and 2011 households eligible for the Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program increased from 14.5 to 23.1 million households (a 59.3 percent increase).
  • Over the same period caseloads grew from 7.5 to 19.3 million households (by 157.3 rcent increase), with notable increases occurring since Fiscal Year 2008.
  • During the mid to late 1990s, there was a 34.5 percent drop in SNAP caseloads, from a peak of 11 million households in 1994 to 7.2 million households in 2000. This decline in caseloads occurred during a time when both the eligible population and the program participation rates were generally decreasing. Beginning in 2002 these were both generally increasing.

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program by Selected Characteristics: 1993-2011

  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 74.01999 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
2003 68.2 62.3 73.8 47.6
2004 65.7 63.3 69.2 46.0
2005 67.7 63.4 73.5 41.1
2006 68.8 69.1 72.5 39.9
2007 66.8 61.6 72.3 43.0
2008 65.6 67.3 68.0 39.8
2009 64.6 64.8 67.4 40.0
2010 65.1 65.8 67.4 41.5
2011 67.3 67.3 70.3 40.1

Note: SSI 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 and 1998 to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. Thus the increased participation rate in 1997 is partly due to a revision in estimating methodology. In 2004 the TRIM methods for identifying individuals eligible for SSI due to disability were improved resulting in more eligibles for this category. Still it is important to note that the TRIM model utilizes the limited information on disability status available from the Current Population Survey and thus may be underestimating the eligible non-elderly adult population resulting in participation rates that are too high. For example unpublished tabulations from the Social Security Administration based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation suggest that the rate of SSI participation among eligible non-elderly adults may be somewhere between a low estimate of around 40 percent and a high estimate of 80 percent – a fairly wide range. 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 adult 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, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Table IND 4c shows the average monthly number and percentage of eligible adult units participating in the SSI program by select demographic categories. After rising to 75.8 percent of adults estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2000, the SSI participation rate has decreased to 67.3 percent of those estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2011. This rate is substantially higher than recent TANF rates but is lower than the SNAP participation rate in 2011 (see Tables IND 4a and IND 4b).
  • For aged adults in one-person units, the estimated SSI participation rate increased from 57.0 percent in 1993 to a high of 70.9 percent in 2000. The estimated SSI participation rate among aged one-person units was 67.3 percent in 2011.

16 Note that TANF is a flexible program with a flexible funding stream. As such, states provide substantial “non assistance” services and benefits that would not be included in the cash assistance caseload counts used to derive these participation rate estimates. Over the years families also may have received cash benefits or other services through general assistance and other solely state-funded programs that are separate from the TANF program and are not shown here.

17 As discussed in the note to Table IND 4a above, the model for estimating participation in the TANF cash assistance program does take into account benefits from separate state programs (SSPs) that are used to meet Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements.

INDICATOR 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, SNAP and SSI: 2011

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, SNAP and SSI: 2011

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; TANF and SNAP receipt are based on the full recipient unit. Recipients are defined as those individuals who receive SSI or live in a family that receives either TANF or SNAP benefits. In practice, individuals typically do not receive both TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Figure IND 5 shows the percentage of those receiving benefits from TANF, SNAP, or SSI or a combination of benefits from these programs in 2011. Eighty-three (83.2) percent of all individuals received no benefits from means tested programs, while 16.8 percent did. Of those who received any benefits from the three programs, three-quarters (75.7 percent) of recipients received only SNAP benefits, 7.8 percent of recipients received both TANF and SNAP benefits, and 9.3 percent of recipients received SSI and SNAP.
  • Table IND 5a shows the percentage of the population receiving assistance from TANF, SNAP, and SSI by demographic characteristics. About five (4.9) percent of children from birth to 5 years lived in families that received both TANF and SNAP.
  • Among family categories, persons in female-headed families were more likely than those living in other types of families to receive support from multiple means-tested assistance programs. Among persons in female-headed families, 43.3 percent received support from any of the three programs, compared to 9.3 percent of those in married-couple families, and 23.8 percent of those in male-headed families.
  • Table IND 5b shows the percentage of the population receiving assistance from multiple means-tested assistance programs between 1993 and 2011. Reliance on both TANF and SNAP has decreased over time. In 1993, 4.8 percent of the population received AFDC and food stamps. In 2011, the percent that received both TANF and SNAP decreased to 1.3 percent. In contrast reliance on SSI and SNAP has increased somewhat from 1.0 percent in 1993 to 1.6 percent of the population in 2011.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2011

  Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs
TANF SNAP SSI TANF & SNAP SNAP& SSI
All Persons 16.8 0.2 12.7 1.0 1.3 1.6
    Racial/Ethnic Categories
        Non-Hispanic White 11.9 0.1 9.3 0.7 0.6 1.2
        Non-Hispanic Black 32.6 0.2 23.9 1.5 3.2 3.7
        Hispanic 24.4 0.4 18.3 1.5 2.7 1.5
    Age Categories
        Children ages 0-5 32.4 0.6 25.6 0.5 4.9 0.8
        Children ages 6-10 29.2 0.5 22.9 0.7 3.8 1.3
        Children ages 11-15 25.8 0.6 19.9 0.8 3.2 1.3
        Women ages 16-64 16.0 0.1 12.3 0.8 1.1 1.7
        Men ages 16-64 12.3 0.1 9.6 0.9 0.3 1.4
        Adults ages 65 and over 9.9 0.0 5.2 2.3 0.0 2.4
    Family Categories
        Persons in married-couple families 9.3 0.1 7.6 0.6 0.4 0.6
        Persons in female-headed families 43.3 0.5 31.8 1.8 6.0 3.1
        Persons in male-headed families 23.8 0.3 18.1 1.9 1.6 1.8
        Unrelated persons 16.7 0.0 11.7 1.3 0.0 3.6

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP 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 at some point over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II). 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, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2011

  Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs
AFDC/TANF TANF FS/SNAP SSI AFDC/ TANF & SNAP SNAP & 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
2003 9.7 0.2 5.5 1.3 1.6 1.0
2004 10.3 0.2 6.1 1.2 1.6 1.1
2005 10.2 0.2 6.2 1.3 1.5 1.2
2006 10.4 0.2 6.5 1.3 1.3 1.2
2007 10.6 0.2 6.8 1.3 1.2 1.2
2008 11.4 0.2 7.7 1.2 1.2 1.2
2009 13.5 0.2 9.6 1.1 1.3 1.4
2010 16.3 0.2 12.2 1.0 1.3 1.5
2011 16.8 0.2 12.7 1.0 1.3 1.6

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP 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 at some point over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II).

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

INDICATOR 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2010 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2009 by Race and Ethnicity

(In percent)

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2010 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2009 by Race and Ethnicity

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, 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.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.


  • Figure IND 6 shows the 2010 dependency status of persons who were welfare dependent in 2009 by race and ethnicity. Welfare dependence is defined as receiving more than half of one’s total family income in the year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI. For further discussion of defining welfare dependency, see Chapter I.
  • Of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI in 2010, approximately three-quarters across three racial and ethnic groups (73.4 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites, 76.9 percent of Non-Hispanic Blacks, and 77.0 percent of Hispanics) also were welfare dependent in 2009.
  • Table IND 6a shows the 2010 dependency status of persons who were welfare dependent in 2009 by demographic groups. Substantial majorities within all groups who were dependent on welfare programs in 2009 remained so in 2010. Women and men ages 16 – 64 had comparable dependence rates.
  • Table IND 6b shows the dependency status of all persons who received more than 50 percent of their family income from means-tested assistance programs in the previous year. Most recipients of means-tested assistance programs who derived more than half of their family income from welfare programs have been likely to do so from one year to the next.

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 2010 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2009 by Selected Characteristics

Persons Receiving More than 50 Percent of Income from Assistance in 2010
Total
(thousands)
Percentage of Persons Receiving
No aid
in 2010
Up to 50%
in 2010
Over 50%
in 2010
All Persons 8,344 1.7 22.4 75.9
    Racial/Ethnic Categories
        Non-Hispanic White 3,190 2.5 24.2 73.4
        Non-Hispanic Black 2,717 2 22.9 76.9
        Hispanic 1,894 1.7 21.3 77.0
    Age Categories
        Children ages 0-5 1031 2.9 24.5 72.6
        Children ages 6-10 1109 1.4 24.7 73.9
        Children ages 11-15 772 0.6 16.3 83.1
        Women ages 16-64 3155 1.1 23.7 75.2
        Men ages 16-64 1717 2.8 21.5 75.7
        Adults ages 65 and over 542 1.7 17.6 80.7

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, 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, 2008 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 6,258 1.5 29.2 69.3
2002 to 2003 6,023 2.6 25.8 71.6
2004 to 2005 7,682 4.1 31.7 64.2
2005 to 2006 7,339 2.4 24.2 73.5
2006 to 2007 6,969 2.4 20.9 76.7
2009 to 2010 8,344 1.7 22.4 75.9

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI. 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. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income in all years and veterans’ pension benefits are included in means-tested assistance income for receipt and dependence estimates prior to 2001. 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 do not correspond exactly to calendar years.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

INDICATOR 7. Program Spell Duration

Figure IND 7. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

(In percent)

Figure IND 7. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

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. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011). For certain age categories, data are not available (NA) because of insufficient sample size. The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) re-named the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of October 1, 2008. The name change had no effect on the type of benefits or how they are made available to eligible households.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.


  • Figure IND 7 shows the percentage of TANF, SNAP, and SSI spells by spell length categories for persons entering programs in the late 2000s. Between 2008 and 2011, very brief spells lasting four months or less accounted for 49.3 percent of TANF spells, 27.8 percent of SNAP spells, and 31.6 percent of SSI spells.
  • Approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells (78.4 percent) and over half of SNAP and SSI spells (52.2 51.1 percent respectively) lasted one year or less.
  • Table IND 7a shows the percentage of program spells for persons entering programs during the 2008 – 2011 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics. Among child recipients of TANF, most children experienced shorter spells of receipt rather than longer spells of receipt.
  • For SNAP and SSI, the highest percentage of program spells longer than 20 months (44.1 and 52.7 percent respectively) were experienced by adults ages 65 and older.
  • Table IND 7b shows how the percentage of program spells of varying lengths for persons entering programs during selected periods has changed. Spells of welfare receipt were shorter in the early 2000s than in the early 1990s. For instance, 12.6 percent of TANF spells for persons entering TANF between 2008 and 2011 lasted 20 months or longer as compared to 34.4 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994.

Table IND 7a. Percentage of TANF, SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

Program   Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
TANF All Recipients 49.3 29.1 8.9 12.6
Non-Hispanic White 51.5 29.5 7.4 11.7
Non-Hispanic Black 48.6 25.8 11.1 14.5
Hispanic 45.6 33.7 8.6 12.2
Children ages 0-5 39.9 33.7 11.8 14.7
Children ages 6-10 43.1 31.5 12.6 12.8
Children ages 11-15 41.8 24.2 8.5 25.6
Adults ages 16-64 56.4 28.6 7.2 7.8
Adults ages 65 and over 64.1 17.3 0.0 18.6
SNAP All Recipients 27.8 24.4 11.0 36.8
Non-Hispanic White 25.7 27.2 10.8 36.4
Non-Hispanic Black 27.8 20.3 10.5 41.3
Hispanic 30.0 24.2 12.2 33.5
Children ages 0-5 19.9 26.3 10.5 43.4
Children ages 6-10 20.5 27.3 10.4 41.8
Children ages 11-15 25.9 23.8 10.1 40.3
Adults ages 16-64 29.7 24.5 11.8 34.0
Adults ages 65 and over 36.1 14.0 5.8 44.1
SSI All Recipients 31.6 19.5 8.5 40.4
Non-Hispanic White 30.4 18.0 6.2 45.3
Non-Hispanic Black 32.0 21.9 13.8 32.4
Hispanic 35.0 19.0 6.2 39.8
Children ages 0-5 51.4 25.0 6.2 17.4
Children ages 6-10 46.1 25.4 13.2 15.3
Children ages 11-15 41.7 22.2 9.5 26.7
Adults ages 16-64 27.3 19.2 7.4 46.0
Adults ages 65 and over 23.6 12.5 11.2 52.7

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011). 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, 2008 panel.

Table IND 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during Selected SIPP Panels by Length of Spell

Period Program
Spells <=4
Months
Spells 5-12
Months
Spells 13-20
Months
Spells >20
Months
1992 – 1994 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 – 1995 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 – 1999 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 – 2003 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
2004 – 2007 TANF 43.8 29.9 12.2 14.1
Food Stamps 33.1 29.0 9.1 28.8
SSI 24.2 19.8 9.1 47.0
2008 – 2011 TANF 49.3 29.1 8.9 12.6
Food Stamps 27.8 24.4 11.0 36.8
SSI 31.6 19.5 8.5 40.4

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. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2004 SIPP panel (2004 – 2007).

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

INDICATOR 8. Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

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 with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each month.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.


  • Figure IND 8 shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment for persons entering the TANF program between 2008 and 2011 by length of spell.18
  • Welfare spells with no family labor force attachment are measured as consecutive months that a person received TANF benefits and lived in a family with no labor force participants. Welfare spells with no family labor force attachment may end when a person leaves the TANF program or when a person remains on TANF but at least one person in the family enters the labor market.
  • Fifty-four (53.5) percent of welfare spells with no family labor force attachment lasted four months or less as measured in the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
  • Table IND 8a shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment by spell length for different demographic groups. The percentage of spells ending in four months or less was smaller for Non-Hispanic Whites (46.5 percent) than it was for Non-Hispanic Blacks (57.7 percent) and Hispanics (53.2 percent).

Table IND 8a. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
All Persons 53.5 31.2 7.5 7.9
    Racial/Ethnic Categories
        Non-Hispanic White 46.5 35.9 10.8 6.8
        Non-Hispanic Black 57.7 28.2 6.0 8.1
        Hispanic 53.2 32.6 7.1 7.2
    Age Categories
        Children ages 0-15 47.9 34.3 9.0 8.7
        Adults ages 16-64 60.0 28.1 5.9 6.1

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011) for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each month.

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, 2008 panel.

Table IND 8b. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Selected Years

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
1993 – 1995 42.6 26.4 8.5 22.5
1996 – 1999 54.2 28.3 9.3 8.3
2001 – 2003 56.1 23.0 10.6 10.2
2004 – 2007 51.6 25.0 9.4 14.0
2008—2011 53.5 31.2 7.5 7.9

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011) for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each month.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.


  • Table IND 8b shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment for persons entering the program during selected periods by spell length. In the late 2000s, 53.5 percent of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment ended within four months and 84.7 percent ended within a year.
  • The percentage of spells with no family labor force attachment lasting more than 20 months was higher in the early 1990s than in the late 2000s (22.5 percent compared to 7.9 percent, respectively).

18 Indicators 7 and 8 provide similar information; however, the percentages of spell lengths differ because the two Indicators are computed differently. Indicator 7 shows spells for all recipients while Indicator 8 restricts welfare spells to recipients in families without any labor force participants. This difference results in a higher percentage of spells longer than 20 months in Indicator 7, where TANF employment may be combined, and compared to Indicator 8 where no one in the family may be in the labor force.

INDICATOR 9. Long Term Receipt

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients by Years of Receipt in the 1999 – 2008 Period

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients by Years of Receipt in the 1999 – 2008 Period

Note: The base for the percentages consists of mothers who received 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.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public release data files, 1999-2008.


  • Figure IND 9 shows the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients by years of receipt between 1999 and 2008. Among all persons receiving AFDC/TANF at some point within the ten-year period, 71.5 percent received assistance in only one or two of these years. In contrast, 1.1 percent received assistance in 9 or 10 of the years.
  • Table IND 9 shows the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients with varying years of receipt across three ten-year time periods by demographic characteristics. Long spells of welfare receipt were more common in earlier time periods than they were in later time periods. For example, for the 1969 – 1978 time period, 12.8 percent of AFDC recipients received benefits in at least 9 of the 10 years as compared to 1.1 percent of TANF recipients for the 1999 - 2008 time period.
  • Among child recipients, for the 1969 – 1978 time period, 17.3 percent of children birth to age 5 lived in families that received AFDC/TANF in 9 – 10 years as compared to 2.4 percent for the 1999 - 2008 time period.
  • Short spells of TANF receipt were more prevalent in the 1999 - 2008 period compared to earlier periods. Between 1999 - 2008, 71.5 percent of TANF recipients received benefits in only one or two years compared to 47.9 percent in the 1989 to 1998 period, 44.6 percent in the 1979 – 1988 period, and 43.6 percent in the 1969 – 1978 period.
  • Among racial groups, the percentage of Non-Hispanic Black recipients receiving TANF benefits for 9 – 10 years has decreased from a high of 18.4 percent in the 1979 – 1988 period to a low of 2.9 percent in the 1999 – 2008 period. For the 1999 – 2008 period, the data show that there were no Non-Hispanic White recipients receiving TANF for 9 – 10 years as compared to 10.2 percent in the 1969-1978 period.

Table IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients across Three Ten-Year Time Periods by Years of Receipt and Selected Characteristics

  All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5
1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008 1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008
All Persons
Years received AFDC/TANF
1-2 years 43.6 44.6 47.9 71.5 33.3 36.8 40.4 73.0
3-5 years 23.1 25.0 31.5 20.5 28.3 25.0 27.1 18.4
6-8 years 20.5 17.3 12.4 6.9 21.1 18.4 17.3 6.2
9-10 years 12.8 13.1 8.2 1.1 17.3 19.8 15.2 2.4
Non-Hispanic Whites
Years received AFDC/TANF
1-2 years 51.0 54.0 51.3 76.4 41.4 47.4 50.9 78.2
3-5 years 21.1 21.2 36.8 18.0 29.1 23.3 31.3 15.2
6-8 years 17.7 15.1 7.4 5.6 16.8 15.5 8.7 5.2
9-10 years 10.2 9.7 4.5 0.0 12.7 13.8 9.1 1.4
Non-Hispanic Blacks
Years received AFDC/TANF
1-2 years 30.2 31.2 44.1 62.6 19.4 20.8 33.0 60.0
3-5 years 26.1 29.1 25.4 25.5 28.8 27.7 23.3 25.1
6-8 years 26.2 21.3 18.0 9.0 28.3 28.3 24.4 9.1
9-10 years 17.5 18.4 12.5 2.9 23.5 28.5 19.3 5.8

Note: The base for the percentages consists of mothers who received 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.

Due to small sample size, Hispanics, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the estimates for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and public release data files for the 1969-2008,

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

Figure IND 10a. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2004 – 2006 Period

Figure IND 10a. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2004 – 2006 Period

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 Adults (not marriage)” was limited to cases where the adult joining the household was not marrying the head of the household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans’ payments and Workers Compensation. An increase in earnings must be an increase of at least $50 per month. 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 spells ending during the period that were not associated with any of the events measured.

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the 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 volumes prior to 2008.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or exit.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2004 panel.


  • Figure IND 10a shows events associated with single mother TANF exits during the 2004 SIPP panel, 2004 - 2006. Welfare exits were most often associated with an increase in recipient earnings. Thirty (30.3) percent of welfare spells that ended during the 2004 to 2006 time period were associated with an increase in the recipient’s earnings. Almost thirteen (12.5) percent of welfare exits were associated with an increase in the earnings of other household members.
  • Forty-six percent of welfare exits during the 2004 – 2006 time period were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed.
  • Table IND 10a shows the events associated with welfare exits among single mother recipients for selected years. Increases in recipient earnings have always been the most common event associated with welfare exits, but exits associated with recipient earnings increases have decreased over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 54.8 percent of exits were associated with an increase in recipient earnings, yet for the 2004 - 2006 time period 30.3 percent were associated with increases in recipient earnings.

Table IND 10a. 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 Spell Ended 2004-2006
Increase in own earnings 54.8 44.6 34.3 30.3
Increase in other household earnings 10.3 11.9 12.4 12.5
Became SSI recipient 1.6 5.9 5.1 4.4
Became recipient of other government benefits 2.2 2.6 2.9 0.4
Last child left or turned 19 5.6 2.4 1.6 3.1
Married 5.4 2.1 2.3 2.7
Increase in number of adults (not marriage) 17.6 12.4 12.8 13.4
Ended work limitation 3.0 10.9 8.8 5.2
Moved across state lines 2.4 1.4 2.8 4.3
None of above in recent past 24.0 31.1 37.3 46.0

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 Adults (not marriage)” was limited to cases where the adult joining the household was not marrying the head of the household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans payments and Workers Compensation. An increase in earnings must be an increase of at least $50 per month. 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 spells ending during the period that were not associated with any of the events measured.

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the 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 volumes prior to 2008.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or exit.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, and 2004 panels.


  • Welfare exits associated with changes in household composition have also decreased over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 5.6 percent of welfare exits were related to the last child in a household leaving home or turning 19 years old as compared to 3.1 percent for the 2004 – 2006 time period.
  • Welfare exits associated with marriage also declined over the two time periods. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 5.4 percent of exits were related to marriage, for the 2004 – 2006 time period, the rate was 2.7 percent.
  • Forty-six percent of welfare exits were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed, which is nearly twice the level observed in the 1993-1995 period.

Figure IND 10b. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2004-2006 Period

Figure IND 10b. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2004-2006 Period

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. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans payments and Workers Compensation. A decrease in earnings must be a decrease of at least $50 per month. 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.

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the 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 volumes prior to 2008.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or exit.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2004 panel.


  • Figure IND 10b shows the events associated with the beginning of TANF spells among single mother recipients in the 2004 – 2006 time period. A decrease in earnings was the most common event associated with welfare entries. For spells beginning between 2004 and 2006, 48.6 percent were associated with a decrease in the recipient’s earnings and 23.8 percent were associated with a decrease in the earnings of other household members.
  • Changes in household composition also were associated with the beginning of welfare spells. Almost 23 (22.9) percent of welfare entries were associated with a new child joining the family while 18.1 percent of TANF entries were the result of a decrease in the number of adults in a household not due to divorce. Almost six (5.9) percent of TANF entries were associated with divorce or separation.
  • Sixteen (15.9) percent of welfare entries were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed.

Table IND 10b. 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 Spell Began 2004-2006
Recipients’ earnings decreased 57.1 52.6 50.3 48.6
Other household earnings decreased 24.0 21.0 20.1 23.8
Lost SSI benefits (own) 1.4 5.1 4.4 5.1
Lost other government benefits (own) 8.1 5.1 6.1 3.2
New child in family 22.0 17.1 20.5 22.9
Divorced/separated from spouse 8.7 6.7 4.3 5.9
Decrease in number of adults (not divorce) 19.2 17.6 15.4 18.1
Onset of work limitation 7.2 10.9 11.5 10.6
Moved across state lines 1.7 1.4 2.2 5.5
None of above in recent past 8.8 14.1 16.7 15.9

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. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans’ payments and Workers Compensation. A decrease in earnings must be a decrease of at least $50 per month. 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.

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the 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 volumes prior to 2008.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or exit.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, and 2004 panels.


  • Table IND 10b shows the events associated with the beginning of welfare spells among single mother recipients by selected time periods.
  • Decreases in a recipient’s earnings has been the most common event associated with welfare entries over time.
  • For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 57.1 percent of AFDC spell entries were associated with a decrease in recipient earnings. The percentage was 48.6 percent for the 2004 – 2006 time period.
  • A decrease in other household members’ earnings also was related to the beginning of welfare spells. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 24.0 percent of welfare entries were associated with a decrease in other household members’ earnings. For the 2004 – 2006 time period, 23.8 percent of welfare entries were associated with a decrease in other household members’ earnings.
  • A new child in the family was the third consistently common reason for welfare spells entries. Adding a child to the family was associated with 22.9 percent of spells beginning during 2004-2006 and 22.0 percent of spells beginning in the 1993-1995 period.

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, if former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources, reductions in welfare caseloads may not lead to decreases in poverty.

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 poverty rates for custodial parents (ECON 6). Receipt of child support reduces poverty rates among custodial parents. 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.

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

The second grouping, labeled with the WORK prefix, includes seven factors related to employment and barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and 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 men and women to support families without receiving means-tested assistance.

Indicator WORK 4 focuses 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 5) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 6) 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 7) is also a predictor of dependence.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH)

The final group of risk factors addresses nonmarital 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 discussion on dependence 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: 1959-2012

(In percent)

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age: 1959-2012

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.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/pov/toc.htm.


  • Figure ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age from 1959 to 2012. The official poverty rate was 15.0 percent in 2012, an increase of 3.7 percentage points over the 2000 rate of 11.3 percent.
  • All persons under 18 had a poverty rate of 21.8 percent in 2012. In all years after 1959, the child poverty rate was much higher than the overall poverty rate.
  • Table ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age and family type for selected years. In 2012, the poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 9.1 percent and the poverty rate for other adults (persons ages 18 to 64) was 13.7 percent.
  • Related children from birth to age five have had the highest poverty rate among all age groups throughout the last four decades. In 2012, 24.4 percent of related children from birth to age 5 lived below the poverty line.
  • The poverty rates for persons in both married-couple families and female-headed families have decreased since the 1960s. In 1959, 18.2 percent of persons in married-couple families and 49.4 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor. By 2012, 7.5 percent of persons in married-couple families and 33.9 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor.

Table ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age and Family Type: Selected Years

Calendar Year Related Children All Persons
Ages 0-5 Ages 6-17 Total Under 18 18 to 64 65 & over In married-couple families In female- headed families
1959 NA NA 22.4 27.3 17.0 35.2 18.2 49.4
1963 NA NA 19.5 23.1 NA NA 14.9 47.7
1966 NA NA 14.7 17.6 10.5 28.5 10.3 39.8
1969 15.3 13.1 12.1 14.0 8.7 25.3 7.4 38.2
1973 15.7 13.6 11.1 14.4 8.3 16.3 6.0 37.5
1976 17.7 15.1 11.8 16.0 9.0 15.0 6.4 37.3
1979 17.9 15.1 11.7 16.4 8.9 15.2 6.3 34.9
1980 20.3 16.8 13.0 18.3 10.1 15.7 7.4 36.7
1981 22.0 18.4 14.0 20.0 11.1 15.3 8.1 38.7
1982 23.3 20.4 15.0 21.9 12.0 14.6 9.1 40.6
1983 24.6 20.4 15.2 22.3 12.4 13.8 9.3 40.2
1984 23.4 19.7 14.4 21.5 11.7 12.4 8.5 38.4
1985 22.6 18.8 14.0 20.7 11.3 12.6 8.2 37.6
1986 21.6 18.8 13.6 20.5 10.8 12.4 7.3 38.3
1987 22.3 18.3 13.4 20.3 10.6 12.5 7.2 38.1
1988 21.8 17.5 13.0 19.5 10.5 12.0 6.6 37.2
1989 21.9 17.4 12.8 19.6 10.2 11.4 6.7 35.9
1990 23.0 18.2 13.5 20.6 10.7 12.2 6.9 37.2
1991 24.0 19.5 14.2 21.8 11.4 12.4 7.2 39.7
1992 25.7 19.4 14.8 22.3 11.9 12.9 7.7 38.5
1993 25.6 20.0 15.1 22.7 12.4 12.2 8.0 38.7
1994 24.5 19.5 14.5 21.8 11.9 11.7 7.4 38.6
1995 23.7 18.3 13.8 20.8 11.4 10.5 6.8 36.5
1996 22.7 18.3 13.7 20.5 11.4 10.8 6.9 35.8
1997 21.6 18.0 13.3 19.9 10.9 10.5 6.4 35.1
1998 20.6 17.1 12.7 18.9 10.5 10.5 6.2 33.1
1999 18.4 15.7 11.9 17.1 10.1 9.7 5.9 30.5
2000 17.8 14.7 11.3 16.2 9.6 9.9 5.5 27.9
2001 18.2 14.6 11.7 16.3 10.1 10.1 5.7 28.6
2002 18.5 15.3 12.1 16.7 10.6 10.4 6.1 28.8
2003 19.8 15.9 12.5 17.6 10.8 10.2 6.2 30.0
2004 20.0 16.0 12.7 17.8 11.3 9.8 6.4 30.5
2005 20.0 15.7 12.6 17.6 11.1 10.1 5.9 31.1
2006 20.0 15.4 12.3 17.4 10.8 9.4 5.7 30.5
2007 20.8 16.0 12.5 18.0 10.9 9.7 5.8 30.7
2008 21.3 17.1 13.2 19.0 11.7 9.7 6.7 31.4
2009 23.8 18.2 14.3 20.7 12.9 8.9 7.2 32.5
2010 25.3 19.6 15.1 22.0 13.8 8.9 7.7 34.3
2011 24.5 19.9 15.0 21.9 13.7 8.7 7.4 34.2
2012 24.4 19.8 15.0 21.8 13.7 9.1 7.5 33.9

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 1959-1987, persons in married-couple families include a small number of persons in male-headed families with no spouse present. In 1988, the first year for which we have separate data for these families, poor persons in male-headed families with no spouse present comprised just over 8 percent of the combined total of all persons below the poverty level.

Spouses are not present in the female-headed family category.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, 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 - 2012

(In percent)

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level: 1975 - 2012

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.


  • Figure ECON 2 shows the percentage of the population below 50, 100, and 125 percent of the poverty level over time. The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 6.6 percent in 2012, compared to an overall poverty rate of 15.0 percent.
  • Less than five (4.8) percent of the population was “near-poor;” they had incomes at or above 100 percent but below 125 percent of the federal poverty level in 2012.
  • Table ECON 2 shows the number and percentage of the population below 50, 75, and 125 percent of the poverty level for selected years. In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate.
  • The percentage of people below 50 percent of the poverty level rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s to 5.9 percent, and then after falling, has risen past its 1993 peak of 6.2 percent. The rates for 100 percent and 125 percent of the poverty level followed a somewhat similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
  • Over the past three decades, the proportion of the poverty population in “deep poverty” has increased substantially. The percentage of the poverty population in deep poverty went from a low of 29.9 percent in 1975 to 43.9 percent in 2012.

 src=

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 NA NA 14,600 7.3 24,100 12.1 34,700 17.4
1971 204,600 NA NA NA NA 25,600 12.5 36,500 17.8
1973 207,600 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 37,200 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 34,200 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 43,700 19.3
1982 229,400 12,800 5.6 23,200 10.1 34,400 15.0 46,500 20.3
1983 231,700 13,600 5.9 23,600 10.2 35,300 15.2 47,200 20.3
1984 233,800 12,800 5.5 22,700 9.7 33,700 14.4 45,300 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 43,500 18.7
1987 241,000 12,500 5.2 21,700 9.0 32,200 13.4 43,000 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 42,700 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 50,600 19.7
1993 259,300 16,000 6.2 27,200 10.5 39,300 15.1 51,800 20.0
1994 261,600 15,400 5.9 26,400 10.1 38,100 14.5 50,400 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 47,900 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 20,900 7.5 31,600 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
2004 290,600 15,700 5.4 25,000 8.6 37,000 12.7 49,700 17.1
2005 293,100 15,900 5.4 25,200 8.6 37,000 12.6 49,300 16.8
2006 296,500 15,400 5.2 25,200 8.5
36,500
12.3 49,700 16.8
2007 298,700 15,600 5.2 25,100 8.4 37,300 12.5 50,900 17.0
2008 301,000 17,100 5.7 27,400 9.1 39,800 13.2 53,800 17.9
2009 303,800 19,000 6.3 30,100 9.9 43,600 14.3 56,800 18.7
2010 306,100 20,500 6.7 32,100 10.5 46,300 15.1 60,700 19.8
2011 308,500 20,400 6.6 31,800 10.3 46,200 15.0 60,900 19.8
2012 310,600 20,400 6.6 32,200 10.3 46,500 15.0 61,200 19.8

Note: In previous editions of this report, the number of persons below 50 percent and 75 percent of poverty for 1969 were calculated based on data from the 1970 decennial census. In this report the estimate of the number of persons below 75 percent of poverty for 1969 comes from Current Population Survey data published in Current Population Reports, Series P60-76.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Research Supplemental Poverty Measure

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures by Demographic Characteristics: 2011

(In percent)

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures by Demographic Characteristics: 2011

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012.

Notes: Compared to the official poverty measure, the Research Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) makes changes to how income is measured by: counting the value of federal in-kind benefits available to satisfy basic food, clothing, shelter, and utility needs; subtracting income and payroll taxes; adding refundable tax credits received; and subtracting other necessary expenses such as the cost of child care, other work expenses, child support payments, and out-of pocket medical expenditures. The SPM also makes changes to the poverty thresholds by: using the 33rd percentile of out-of-pocked expenditures on basic needs; varying thresholds based on home ownership/rental status; adjusting the thresholds for geographic differences in the cost of living; and using a five-year moving average of expenditures on basic needs to account for inflation and changes in expenditure patterns. The Census Bureau provides adjusted official poverty estimates (that include unrelated children under age 15) for the exclusive purpose of comparison with the Supplemental Poverty Measure. Therefore the official poverty estimates may not match the SPM estimates.

Estimates for Black persons 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 all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011" Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-244.


  • Figure ECON 3 shows a comparison of the percentage of persons in poverty using the official poverty measure and the Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure by selected demographic characteristics.19
  • The supplemental poverty measure yields poverty rates that are fairly similar to the official poverty measure overall. In 2011, 16.1 percent of all persons were poor under the supplemental poverty measure and 15.1 percent of all persons were poor under the official poverty measure.
  • The supplemental and official poverty rates show some differences by age and other characteristics. In 2011, the supplemental poverty rate among children was 4.2 percentage points lower than the official rate, partly because it takes into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, the supplemental poverty rate among the elderly in 2011 was 6.4 percentage points higher than the official rate, in part due to out-of-pocket health costs for these persons.
  • Table ECON 3 provides greater detail on the supplemental and official poverty measure.

Table ECON 3. Percent of People in Poverty by Different Poverty Measures: 2010 and 2011

  Official SPM
2010 2011 Change 2010 2011 Change
Demographic characteristics:
    All individuals 15.1 15.1 0.0 16.0 16.1 0.1
    Children under age 18 22.0 22.3 0.3 18.0 18.1 0.1
    Individuals ages 18 — 64 13.6 13.7 0.1 15.2 15.5 0.3
    Individuals age 65 and older 8.9 8.7 -0.2 15.8 15.1 -0.7
    Hispanic 26.5 25.4 -1.1 27.7 28.0 0.3
    Black 27.4 27.8 0.4 25.4 25.7 0.3
    Asian 12.2 12.3 0.1 16.6 16.9 0.3
    White, non-Hispanic 9.9 9.9 0.0 11.0 11.0 0.0
    Foreign-born 19.9 19.0 -0.9 25.1 25.8 0.7
    In married-couple units 7.6 7.4 -0.2 9.8 10.0 0.2
    In female-householder units 28.7 29.6 0.9 29.0 30.0 1.0
Employment and insurance:
    All workers 7.3 7.2 -0.1 9.1 9.4 0.3
    Full-time/year-round workers 2.7 2.8 0.1 4.8 5.1 0.3
    With private health insurance 4.8 5.0 0.2 7.5 7.6 0.1
    With public health insurance, no private 37.6 36.7 -0.9 31.5 31.3 -0.2
    Not insured 29.2 28.3 -0.9 30.5 30.9 0.4
Geographic areas:
    Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) 14.9 14.7 -0.2 16.6 16.6 0.0
    Non-metropolitan Areas 16.5 17.1 0.6 12.8 13.5 0.7
    West 15.3 15.9 0.6 19.3 20.0 0.7
    South 16.8 16.1 -0.7 16.3 16.0 -0.3
    Northeast 12.9 13.2 0.3 14.5 15.0 0.5
    Midwest 14.0 14.1 0.1 13.1 12.8 -0.3
Poverty by threshold:
    0 — 50 % of the poverty threshold 6.8 6.7 -0.1 5.4 5.2 -0.2
    50 — 100 % of the poverty threshold 8.4 8.4 0.0 10.7 10.9 0.2
    100 — 200 % of the poverty threshold 18.8 19.4 0.6 31.8 32.0 0.2

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012.

Notes: Compared to the official poverty measure, the Research Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) makes changes to how income is measured by: counting the value of federal in-kind benefits available to satisfy basic food, clothing, shelter, and utility needs; subtracting income and payroll taxes; adding refundable tax credits received; and subtracting other necessary expenses such as the cost of child care, other work expenses, child support payments, and out-of pocket medical expenditures. The SPM also makes changes to the poverty thresholds by: using the 33rd percentile of out-of-pocked expenditures on basic needs; varying thresholds based on home ownership/rental status; adjusting the thresholds for geographic differences in the cost of living; and using a five-year moving average of expenditures on basic needs to account for inflation and changes in expenditure patterns. The Census Bureau provides adjusted official poverty estimates (that include unrelated children under age 15) for the exclusive purpose of comparison with the Supplemental Poverty Measure. Therefore the official poverty estimates may not match the SPM estimates.

Estimates for Black persons 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 all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011" Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-244 and “The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2010”, Table 1, Current Population Reports, Series P60-241.


19 The U.S. Census Bureau developed the supplemental poverty measure based on the 2010 recommendations of an Interagency Technical Working Group, which drew on the earlier recommendations of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance.

Economic Security Risk Factor 4. Poverty Rates with Various Means-tested Transfers Counted as Income

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979-2011

(In percent)

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979-2011

Note: The four measures of income are as follows: (1) “Cash income plus all social insurance” is earnings and cash income, plus social security, workers compensation, disability, unemployment, public and private pensions, veterans benefits and other social insurance cash transfers. It does not include means-tested cash transfers; (2) “Plus means-tested cash transfers” is the official Census Bureau income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI; (3) “Plus food and housing benefits” counts the cash value of means-tested food and housing benefits as income; and (4) “Plus EITC and federal taxes” is the most comprehensive income measure used. It adds the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to income, while subtracting federal payroll and income taxes. The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included in any of the income measures.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2011, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.


  • Figure ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population below the official poverty line with various means-tested transfers counted as income for the years 1979 to 2011. The official poverty rate – using the official income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-transfer cash income and social insurance cash transfers – was 15.0 percent in 2011. Without cash welfare, the 2011 poverty rate would be 15.8 percent.
  • Adding non-cash, means-tested transfers to the official income definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people with incomes below the official poverty line. Including the value of food and housing benefits in total income would reduce the poverty rate to 12.9 percent in 2011.
  • When income is defined to include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the effect of federal taxes, the percentage of people below the official poverty line would decrease to 11.2 percent in 2011. Federal taxes and the EITC have had the net effect of reducing poverty rates following the EITC expansions in 1993 and 1995.
  • Table ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population below the official poverty line with various means-tested transfers counted as income for selected years. The combined effect of means-tested cash transfers, food and housing benefits, the EITC, and federal taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2011 by 4.6 percentage points. Net reductions in poverty rates were smaller during the 1981 - 1982 recession, and higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

Table ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: Selected Years

  Cash income plus all social insurance Plus means-tested cash transfers (official poverty measure) Plus food and housing benefits Plus EITC and federal taxes Reduction in poverty rate
1979 12.8 11.6 9.7 10 2.8
1983 16.0 15.2 13.7 14.7 1.3
1986 14.5 13.6 12.2 13.1 1.4
1989 13.8 12.8 11.2 11.8 2.0
1992 15.6 14.5 12.9 13.0 2.6
1995 14.9 13.8 12.0 11.5 3.4
1998 13.5 12.7 11.3 10.4 3.1
2000 12.0 11.3 10.1 9.5 2.5
2002 12.8 12.1 10.9 10.0 2.8
2005 13.3 12.6 11.2 10.3 3.0
2007 13.2 12.5 11.1 10.1 3.1
2008 13.9 13.2 11.7 10.1 3.8
2009 15.1 14.3 12.4 10.5 4.6
2010 15.8 15.1 13.0 11.3 5.0
2011 15.8 15.0 12.9 11.2 4.6

Note: The four measures of income are as follows: (1) “Cash income plus all social insurance” is earnings and cash income, plus social security, workers compensation, disability, unemployment, public and private pensions, veterans benefits and other social insurance cash transfers. It does not include means-tested cash transfers; (2) “Plus means-tested cash transfers” is the official Census Bureau income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI; (3) “Plus food and housing benefits” counts the `cash value of means-tested food and housing benefits as income; and (4) “Plus EITC and federal taxes” is the most comprehensive income measure used. It adds the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to income, while subtracting federal payroll and income taxes. The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included in any of the income measures.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2011, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2011).


  • Figure ECON 5 shows the percentage of poverty spells that are of various lengths for persons who became poor during the 2008 - 2011 period. Forty-three (43.2) percent of poverty spells that began between 2008 and 2011 ended within 4 months. Almost three-quarters (71.5 percent) of poverty spells during this period ended within one year while 18.4 percent of spells lasted more than 20 months.
  • Table ECON 5a shows the percentage of poverty spells for persons entering poverty during the 2008 - 2011 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics.
  • Among racial and ethnic groups, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites had short spells of poverty (45.6 percent) than Non-Hispanic Blacks (36.5 percent) or Hispanics of any race (42.1 percent). For poverty spells greater than 20 months, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks had long poverty spells (25.4 percent) compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (15.4 percent) and Hispanics of any race (20.1 percent).
  • When examining long spells of poverty, greater than 20 months, by age group, children 0 - 5 years of age had the highest rate (23.6 percent) and men 16-64 years of age had the lowest rate (14.8 percent).

Table ECON 5a. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

  Spells<=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
All Persons 43.2 28.3 10.1 18.4
    Racial/Ethnic Categories
        Non-Hispanic White 45.6 29.6 9.4 15.4
        Non-Hispanic Black 36.5 26.5 11.6 25.4
        Hispanic 42.1 27.2 10.6 20.1
    Age Categories
        Children ages 0-5 years 40.2 26.2 10.0 23.6
        Children ages 6-10 years 41.2 27.3 9.6 21.9
        Children ages 11-15 years 43.6 29.5 9.9 16.9
        Women ages 16-64 years 42.8 28.3 10.2 18.8
        Men ages 16-64 years 45.3 29.5 10.4 14.8
        Adults ages 65 years and over 40.5 24.6 7.0 27.8

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells.

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, 2008 panel (2008 – 2011).

Table ECON 5b. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during Selected SIPP Panels by Length of Spell

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
1993 – 1995 47.3 28.1 8.9 15.7
1996 – 1999 51.3 29.0 8.3 11.4
2001 – 2003 49.2 27.7 7.7 15.5
2004 – 2007 47.8 26.7 12.2 13.4
2008 – 2011 43.2 28.3 10.1 18.4

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child Support

Figure ECON 6. Poverty Rates for Custodial Mothers by Marital Status and Receipt of Child Support: 2011

(Percent)

Figure ECON 6. Poverty Rates for Custodial Mothers by Marital Status and Receipt of Child Support: 2011

Note: Data are for mothers with custody.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, 2012.


  • Figure ECON 6 shows poverty rates for custodial mothers by marital status and receipt of child support. The poverty rates of custodial mothers are correlated with their marital status.
  • The poverty rate for all custodial mothers was 31.9 percent in 2011. When factoring in current marital status, currently married custodial mothers had a poverty rate of 17.9 percent. Previously married custodial mothers had a poverty rate of 27.8 percent, and never married mothers had a poverty rate of 43.6 percent.
  • Receipt of child support is correlated to the poverty status of custodial mothers. For all custodial mothers who did not receive child support, their poverty rate was 33.9 percent. Custodial mothers who received child support had a poverty rate was 28.2 percent or 5.7 percentage points lower than custodial mothers who did not receive child support.
  • Not only is child support non-receipt correlated to the poverty status of custodial mothers, it also is correlated to the poverty status of custodial fathers.
  • Table ECON 6 shows the poverty rates of families by sex, marital status and receipt of child support in 2011.
  • There are four times as many custodial mothers as there are custodial fathers, and in general custodial fathers have a lower poverty rate than custodial mothers. Yet regardless of gender, receipt of child support lowers the poverty rate. Custodial fathers who received child support had a lower poverty rate in 2011 than did those custodial fathers who did not receive child support, 13.4 percent and 16.7 percent respectively.

Table ECON 6. Poverty Rates of Families by Sex, Marital Status, and Receipt of Child Support: 2011

Parents with legal custody Mothers Fathers
  Percent of Total
Total 81.8 18.2
  Percentage in poverty
All parents with legal custody 31.9 16.2
    Married 17.9 10.5
    Previously married 27.8 12.6
    Never married 43.6 28.0
    Received child support last year 28.2 13.4
    Received no child support last year 33.9 16.7

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, 2012.

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2011

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2011

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011.


  • Figure ECON 7 shows the percentage of households that were food secure, had low food security, and had very low food security in 2011. The majority of U.S. households (85.1 percent) were food secure in 2011; that is, they had consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.
  • Fifteen (14.9) percent of U.S. households experienced low food security, including 5.7 percent who were classified as having very low food security. Very low food security is defined as having reduced food intake and having normal eating patterns disrupted due to a lack of resources. After increasing significantly from 2007 to 2008, the percentage of households reporting low and very low food security has remained virtually unchanged from 2008 to 2011.
  • Table ECON 7a shows the percentage of households classified by food security status and by selected demographic characteristics. Households with elderly were more food secure (91.6 percent) than were households with children under six (78.1 percent) or households with children under 18 (79.4 percent).
  • There is a relationship between poverty and food security. Fifty-nine (58.9) percent of poor households were food secure compared to 62.4 percent of households below 130 percent of the poverty level, 65.5 percent of households below 185 percent of the poverty level, and 93.0 percent of households above 185 percent of the poverty level.
  • Married-couple households with children were much less likely to experience food insecurity than female-headed households with children. Almost 14 percent (13.9) percent of married-couple households with children were food insecure in 2011 compared to 36.8 percent of female-headed households with children.
  • Table ECON 7b shows the percentage of households classified by food security status between 1998 and 2011. The percentage of households with food insecurity (both low and very low food insecurity) has ranged from a low of 10.1 percent in 1999 to a high of 14.9 percent in 2011.

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2011

  Food Secure Food Insecurity
All Low Very Low
All Households 85.1 14.9 9.2 5.7
    Racial/Ethnic Categories
        Non-Hispanic White 88.6 11.4 6.8 4.6
        Non-Hispanic Black 74.9 25.1 14.6 10.5
        Hispanic 73.8 26.2 17.9 8.3
    Age Categories
        Households with children under 6 78.1 21.9 16.7 5.2
        Households with children under 18 79.4 20.6 14.8 5.8
        Households with elderly 91.6 8.4 5.3 3.1
    Family Categories
        Married-couple households with children 86.1 13.9 10.5 3.4
        Female-headed households with children 63.2 36.8 25.3 11.5
        Male-headed households with children 75.1 24.9 17.4 7.5
    Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
        Under 1.00 58.9 41.1 23.2 17.9
        Under 1.30 62.4 37.6 21.5 16.1
        Under 1.85 65.5 34.5 20.3 14.2
        1.85 and over 93.0 7.0 4.7 2.3

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources. Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed household categories.

Race and ethnicity categories for households are determined by the race and ethnicity of the reference person for 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 households 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 households but are not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err108.... Data are from the Current Population Survey, Food Security Supplement.

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2011

  Food Secure Food Insecurity
All Low Very Low
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 7.4
2002 88.9 11.1 7.6 3.5
2003 88.8 11.2 7.7 3.5
2004 88.1 11.9 8.0 3.9
2005 89.0 11.0 7.1 3.9
2006 89.1 10.9 6.9 4.0
2007 88.9 11.1 7.0 4.1
2008 85.4 14.6 8.9 5.7
2009 85.3 14.7 9.0 5.7
2010 85.5 14.5 9.1 5.4
2011 85.1 14.9 9.2 5.7

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011.

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

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race and Ethnicity: 2012

(In percent)

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race and Ethnicity: 2012

Note: Full-time, full-year workers (FT/FY) 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 labor force participation includes those working for some portion of the year but less than full-time, full-year. Looking for work includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race 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, 2013.
 
  • Figure WORK 1 shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants by race and ethnicity. In 2012, Hispanics were more likely to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant (70.5 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (68.1 percent) or Non-Hispanic Blacks (59.6 percent).
  • In 2012, 4.3 percent of Non-Hispanic Blacks lived in families with at least one person actively looking for work but no one working, compared to 1.3 percent for Non-Hispanic Whites and 1.9 percent for Hispanics.
  • Table WORK 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants by demographic characteristics. Among family types, persons living in married-couple families were more likely than persons living in other family types to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant.
  • Table WORK 1b shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants for select years between 1990 and 2012. The percentage of persons living in families with a full-time, full-year labor force participant increased from 67.6 percent in 1992 to 73.3 percent in 2000. In 2012, 67.9 percent of persons lived in families with a full-time, full-year worker.

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Selected Characteristics: 2012

  At least one full-time worker At least one person part-time, no full-time participants At least one person looking, no part-time or full-time participants No one in labor force
All Persons 67.9 15.8 1.9 14.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 68.1 14.6 1.3 16.0
Non-Hispanic Black 59.6 19.8 4.3 16.3
Hispanic 70.5 18.2 1.9 9.5
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5 73.8 17.5 2.5 6.1
Children ages 6-10 74.8 16.6 2.2 6.4
Children ages 11-15 76.2 15.8 2.1 5.9
Women ages 16-64 73.4 16.1 1.9 8.6
Men ages 16-64 76.9 14.6 1.7 6.7
Adults ages 65 and over 23.7 16.7 1.5 58.1
Family Categories
Persons in married families 77.2 11.9 0.8 10.1
Persons in female-headed families 56.1 24.6 4.8 14.6
Persons in male-headed families 55.8 26.1 4.5 13.6
Unrelated persons 48.8 18.7 2.3 30.3

Note: Full-time, full-year (FT/FY) 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 labor force participation includes those working for some portion of the year but less than full-time, full-year. Looking for work includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race 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, 2013.
 
Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants: Selected Years
 
 
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
1992 14.4 18.1 67.6
1994 14.1 17.1 68.8
1996 13.6 16.1 70.3
1998 13.3 14.6 72.1
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
2004 13.9 14.4 71.7
2005 13.7 14.1 72.2
2006 13.6 13.7 72.8
2007 13.5 14.1 72.5
2008 13.7 16.0 70.4
2009 14.0 18.2 67.8
2010 14.4 18.2 67.4
2011 14.9 17.2 67.9
2012 14.4 17.7 67.9
 
Note: Full-time, full-year workers (FT/FY) 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.
 
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1991-2013.

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

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed at Any Time during Year by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

(In percent)

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed at Any Time during Year by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

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, 1969-2013.


  • Figure WORK 2 shows the employment rate of workers ages 18 to 65 with a high school education or less by gender and race and ethnicity between 1968 and 2012. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take into account other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials.
  • Employment rates for women with a high school education or less increased during the 1980s and 1990s. By the 2000s, however, the employment rate for women with no more than a high school education started to decline for all three groups shown. In 2012, the rate was 61.4 percent for Non-Hispanic White women, 55.0 percent for Non-Hispanic Black women, and 54.3 percent for Hispanic women of any race.
  • Beginning in the 1970s, the employment rates for men with a high school education or less declined and the employment rates for Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic Black men with a high school education or less began to diverge. In 2012 74.6 percent of Non-Hispanic White men as compared to 57.8 percent of Non-Hispanic Black men with a high school education or less were employed.
  • Over the time period, Hispanic men with a high school education or less have had employment rates similar to Non-Hispanic White men. In 2012, 79.7 percent of Hispanic men with a high school education or less were employed compared to 74.6 percent of Non-Hispanic White men.

Table WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

  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 58.1 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 89.2
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 59.2 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
2004 66.3 62.9 56.1 80.8 66.7 84.9
2005 66.3 63.3 56.1 80.7 66.3 85.6
2006 66.5 63.2 56.8 80.6 65.6 86.4
2007 66.1 62.4 56.0 80.3 65.8 85.6
2008 65.6 61.3 57.2 79.0 64.5 83.6
2009 63.4 57.1 55.6 76.7 60.0 80.1
2010 61.2 55.6 53.7 74.4 57.8 78.3
2011 61.0 55.9 54.7 74.4 57.3 78.4
2012 61.4 55.0 54.3 74.6 57.8 79.7

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, 1969-2013.

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

Figure WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1980-2011

(In 2011 $)

Figure WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1980-2011

Note: Data are adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Full-time workers usually work at least work 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: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


  • Figure WORK 3a shows the trend in median weekly wages in 2011 dollars of low-skilled women and men (those with less than four years of high school education) working full-time by race and ethnicity. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials into account.
  • In 2011, White women with less than four years of high school education working full-time had median weekly earnings of $394 compared to $385 for similar Black women and $377 for similar Hispanic women of any race.
  • Among men working full-time with less than four years of high school education, White men had median weekly earnings of $494, compared to $450 for Black men and $447 for Hispanic men of any race in 2011. There has been a narrowing of the median weekly earnings gap between White men and both Black men and Hispanic men over time.
  • Table WORK 3a shows the detailed estimates of medium wages for low-skilled women and men working full time by race and ethnicity.
  • Men who were working full-time and had less than four years of high school education have had consistently higher median weekly earnings than similar women, though men have experienced greater declines in median weekly earnings over time between 1980 and 2011.

Table WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1979-2011

  Women Men
White Black Hispanic2 White Black Hispanic2
1979 $445 $413 $404 $759 $603 $603
1980 431 405 385 722 564 582
1981 422 399 396 700 562 551
1982 418 389 389 680 537 537
1983 423 403 373 670 537 530
1984 419 392 375 656 520 518
1985 409 387 361 648 522 516
1986 413 390 360 656 535 517
1987 409 394 383 638 542 515
1988 407 391 375 628 526 490
1989 413 377 373 632 510 499
1990 404 387 367 604 510 485
1991 406 387 361 578 491 465
19921 404 396 567 493
1993 405 402 561 492
1994 390 372 348 527 480 438
1995 387 377 341 526 462 429
1996 383 385 350 518 462 437
1997 386 379 358 523 460 436
1998 391 380 360 539 473 442
1999 391 387 358 539 499 459
2000 398 396 377 534 525 469
2001 403 389 386 536 504 485
2002 406 393 380 534 501 489
2003 405 396 384 528 515 481
2004 399 388 371 537 495 479
2005 392 391 372 535 465 477
2006 396 400 363 532 467 469
2007 399 406 372 527 487 464
2008 395 399 376 524 469 493
2009 396 410 372 528 475 492
2010 394 415 375 503 481 457
2011 394 394 377 377 447 450

Note: Full-time workers usually work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

1 Beginning in 1992, data on educational attainment have been based on the "highest diploma or degree received," rather than the "number of years of school completed." Data for 1994 forward are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years due to a redesign of the Current Population Survey. Data for 2000-2002 have been revised to incorporate population controls from Census 2000 and new industry and occupational classification systems. The earnings data presented in this table may differ slightly from other published estimates due to methodological differences in calculating medians.

2 For 1992 and 1993, earnings data by educational attainment are not available for persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity age 25 and over. Beginning in 2003, data refer to persons who selected this race group only; previously, persons identified a group as their main race. In addition, persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as by race.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1980-2011

(In 2011 $)

Figure WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1980-2011

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. 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: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


  • Figure WORK 3b shows the trend in median weekly wages in 2011 dollars for women and men with four years of high school education but no college who are working full-time by race and ethnicity. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials into account.
  • In 2011, White women with four years of high school education and no college who were working full-time had median weekly earnings of $572 compared to $493 for similar Black women and $501 for similar Hispanic women of any race. There has been relatively little change in these median weekly wages over time.
  • Among men working full-time with four years of high school education and no college, median weekly earnings of White men were $745 compared to $598 for Black men and $606 for Hispanic men of any race. Median weekly earnings among men in all three racial and ethnic groups shown have declined over time since 1980.
  • Throughout the 1980 – 2011 time period, there is a substantial and persistent gap between women and men’s wages. Men consistently earn higher median weekly wages than women, though the gap has narrowed over time.
  • There also is a racial and ethnic gap in median weekly wages among full time workers who have four years of high school education but no college, where White persons earn more than Black persons and Hispanic persons of any race. Among women, this racial and ethnic wage gap has increased somewhat over time.

Table WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1979-2011

  Women Men
White Black Hispanic2 White Black Hispanic2
1979 $537 $502 $508 $907 $725 $800
1980 525 491 502 871 709 756
1981 520 489 501 866 688 757
1982 535 490 512 855 665 745
1983 537 485 513 848 670 723
1984 540 495 524 839 656 718
1985 540 492 506 833 630 696
1986 548 503 507 836 636 689
1987 551 504 498 830 642 678
1988 552 497 510 826 638 674
1989 539 499 506 816 620 651
1990 532 480 509 794 594 647
1991 539 486 499 781 586 635
19921 540 481 771 572
1993 544 474 766 581
1994 542 456 489 767 575 609
1995 535 459 466 766 586 613
1996 535 461 464 769 571 594
1997 542 460 468 787 591 616
1998 557 491 495 802 606 639
1999 557 487 491 807 618 641
2000 564 502 494 794 641 636
2001 577 504 513 795 647 633
2002 588 510 505 799 631 634
2003 592 531 507 797 635 638
2004 591 544 517 798 619 620
2005 581 502 501 780 608 611
2006 569 508 477 785 606 635
2007 567 510 509 779 596 633
2008 559 501 500 771 607 630
2009 583 521 519 776 617 623
2010 576 505 505 759 612 609
2011 572 493 501 745 598 606

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

1 Beginning in 1992, data on educational attainment have been based on the "highest diploma or degree received," rather than the "number of years of school completed." Data for 1994 forward are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years due to a redesign of the Current Population Survey. Data for 2000-2002 have been revised to incorporate population controls from Census 2000 and new industry and occupational classification systems. The earnings data presented in this table may differ slightly from other published estimates due to methodological differences in calculating medians.

2 For 1992 and 1993, earnings data by educational attainment are not available for persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity age 25 and over. Beginning in 2003, data refer to persons who selected this race group only; previously, persons identified a group as their main race. In addition, persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as by race.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2011

(In percent)

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2011

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 “High school graduate, 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. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2011,” Current Population Reports and earlier reports.


  • Figure WORK 4 shows educational attainment for adults 25 years and older between 1960 and 2011. Table WORK 4 shows the corresponding point estimates for select years.
  • The percentage of the population 25 years and older completing four or more years of college has increased greatly between 1960 and 2011 rising from 7.7 percent to 30.4 percent.
  • The percentage of the population 25 years and older with some college but less than four years increased from 8.8 percent in 1960 to 26.4 percent in 2011.
  • The percentage of the population 25 years and older without at least a high school education has declined over the past 50 years, from 59.0 percent in 1960 to 12.4 percent in 2011.
  • The percentage of the population 25 years and older receiving a high school education (but no post secondary education) was 24.6 percent in 1960 and rose to 38.9 percent in 1988. Since 1988, this figure has fallen to 30.7 percent in 2011. Altogether 43.1 percent of adults 25 years and older had educational attainment of no more than a high school education in 2011.

Table WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: Selected Years

Year Not a High School Graduate High School Graduate, No College One to Three Years of College Four or More Years of College
1940 75.9 14.1 5.4 4.6
1950 66.7 20.1 7.1 6.0
1960 59.0 24.6 8.8 7.7
1965 51.0 30.7 8.9 9.4
1970 44.8 34.0 10.2 11.0
1975 37.5 36.2 12.4 13.9
1980 31.4 36.8 14.9 17.0
1981 30.3 37.6 15.1 17.1
1982 29.0 37.9 15.3 17.7
1983 27.9 37.7 15.6 18.8
1984 26.7 38.4 15.8 19.1
1985 26.1 38.2 16.3 19.4
1986 25.3 38.4 16.9 19.4
1987 24.4 38.7 17.1 19.9
1988 23.8 38.9 17.0 20.3
1989 23.1 38.5 17.3 21.1
1990 22.4 38.4 17.9 21.3
1991 21.6 38.6 18.4 21.4
1992 20.6 36.0 22.1 21.4
1993 19.8 35.4 23.0 21.9
1994 19.1 34.4 24.3 22.2
1995 18.3 33.9 24.8 23.0
1996 18.3 33.6 24.6 23.6
1997 17.9 33.8 24.5 23.9
1998 17.2 33.8 24.7 24.4
1999 16.6 33.3 24.8 25.2
2000 15.9 33.1 25.4 25.6
2001 15.9 32.3 25.7 26.2
2002 15.9 32.1 25.3 26.7
2003 15.4 32.0 25.3 27.2
2004 14.8 32.0 25.5 27.7
2005 14.8 32.2 25.4 27.7
2006 14.5 31.7 25.7 28.0
2007 14.3 31.6 25.3 28.7
2008 13.4 31.2 26.0 29.4
2009 13.3 31.1 26.1 29.5
2010 12.9 31.2 26.0 29.9
2011 12.4 30.7 26.4 30.4

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 “High school graduate, 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. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html and earlier reports.

Employment and Work Risk Factor 5. Adult Alcohol and Substance Abuse

Figure WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 2011

(In percent)

Figure WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 2011

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. “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, 2011.


  • Figure WORK 5 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine, the percentage who used marijuana, and the percentage who abused alcohol by age group in 2011.
  • Adults 18 to 25 years of age were more likely than older adults to report cocaine, marijuana, binge alcohol or heavy alcohol use in the prior month. For example, 19.0 percent reported using marijuana in the past month during 2011, compared with 10.2 percent of adults 26 to 34 years of age and 3.6 percent of adults 35 years and over.
  • The percentage of adults reporting binge alcohol use was larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups shown.
  • Table WORK 5 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine or marijuana or abused alcohol from 1999 through 2011.
  • Marijuana use has been trending upward across all age groups since 1999. Levels of cocaine use have remained fairly stable across all age groups over time. Since 1999, heavy alcohol use has decreased for adults ages 18 to 25 years, but increased for adults ages 26 to 34 years.

Table WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 1999-2011

  Cocaine Marijuana Binge Alcohol Use Heavy Alcohol Use
Ages
18-25
Ages
26-34

Ages 35 & over

Ages
18-25
Ages
26-34

Ages 35 & over

Ages
18-25
Ages
26-34

Ages 35 & over

Ages
18-25
Ages Ages 35 & over
1999 1.7 1.2 0.4 14.2 5.4 2.2 37.9 29.3 16.0 13.3 7.5 4.2
2000 1.4 0.8 0.3 13.6 5.9 2.3 37.8 30.3 16.4 12.8 7.6 4.1
2001 1.9 1.1 0.5 16.0 6.8 2.4 38.7 30.1 16.2 13.6 7.8 4.2
2002 2.0 1.2 0.6 17.3 7.7 3.1 40.9 33.1 18.6 14.9 9.0 5.2
2003 2.2 1.5 0.6 17.0 8.4 3.0 41.6 32.9 18.1 15.1 9.4 5.1
2004 2.1 1.4 0.5 16.1 8.3 3.1 41.2 32.2 18.5 15.1 9.4 5.3
2005 2.6 1.3 0.6 16.6 8.6 3.0 41.9 32.9 18.3 15.3 9.6 4.7
2006 2.2 1.7 0.6 16.3 8.5 3.2 42.2 34.2 18.4 15.6 10.0 5.1
2007 1.7 1.4 0.6 16.4 7.9 3.0 41.8 35.1 18.9 14.7 9.7 5.3
2008 1.5 1.5 0.4 16.5 8.8 3.2 41.0 36.4 18.8 14.5 10.6 5.3
2009 1.4 1.0 0.5 18.1 9.6 3.4 41.7 36.3 19.2 13.7 10.1 5.3
2010 1.5 1.1 0.3 18.5 10.5 3.4 40.6 36.5 18.6 13.6 10.3 5.1
2011 1.4 0.8 0.3 19.0 10.2 3.6 39.8 35.7 18.4 12.1 10.5 4.6

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. “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, 2000-2011.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 6. Adult and Child Disability

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Selected Characteristics: 2011

(In percent)

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Selected Characteristics: 2011

Note: 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 in or out of bed, getting around the home, or driving) 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.

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition above; (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (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.

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, 2011.


  • Figure WORK 6 shows the percentage of non-elderly adults and children reporting an activity limitation by race and ethnicity in 2011. Non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 12.4 percent compared to 8.5 percent.
  • Table WORK 6 shows the percentage of the non-elderly population reporting a disability by selected demographic characteristics. While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children (7.4 percent) than adults (6.0 percent) were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2011.
  • For both non-elderly adults and children, the percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks with an activity limitation was higher than the percentages for Non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics.
  • Among adults ages 18 – 64, rates of work disability were lower for Hispanics (6.1 percent) than they were for Non-Hispanic Whites (10.0 percent) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (12.7 percent).

Table WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Selected Characteristics: 2011

  Activity Limitation Work Disability Long-Term Care Needs Disability Program Recipient
All Persons
    Adults ages 18-64 12.4 9.5 2.7 6.0
    Children ages 0-17 8.5 NA NA 7.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)
    Non-Hispanic White 12.9 10.0 2.8 5.9
    Non-Hispanic Black 16.8 12.7 3.8 9.8
    Hispanic 8.5 6.1 1.7 4.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)
    Non-Hispanic White 9.1 NA NA 8.1
    Non-Hispanic Black 10.2 NA NA 8.8
    Hispanic 6.9 NA NA 6.0

Note: 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 in or out of bed, getting around the home, or driving) 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.

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition above); (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (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.

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, 2011.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children Under 18

Figure WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2011

(In percent)

Figure WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2011

Note: The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate 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, March 2011 and earlier reports.


  • Figure WORK 7 shows the labor force participation rates for mothers with children under 18 years of age by marital status between 1975 and 2011. In 2011, regardless of marital status, the majority of mothers in the U.S. were engaged in the labor force.
  • Between 1975 and 2011, labor force participation rates for never-married mothers with children under 18 markedly increased—rising from 42.2 percent in 1975 to 70.0 percent in 2011.
  • Historically, divorced, widowed and separated mothers have had the highest rates of labor force participation among mothers. In 1975, 62.8 percent of divorced, widowed or separated mothers were in the labor force, rising to 79.8 percent in 2011.
  • The labor force participation rate of married mothers with children under 18 also has followed an upward trend increasing from 44.9 percent in 1975 to 69.1 percent in 2011.
  • Table WORK 7 shows both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of mothers with children under 18 years of age between 1975 and 2011.
  • The employment rate for all mothers increased over the time period up until 2000 and has since reached a plateau. In 2011, the employment rate for married mothers with a spouse present was 65.0 percent, the employment rate for divorced, widowed and separated mothers was 70.3 percent, and the employment rate for never- married mothers was 56.8 percent.

Table WORK 7. Employment Status of Women with Children under 18 Years of Age: 1975-2011

  Labor Force Participation Rate
(percent of population)
Employment Rate (percent of population)
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 61.5
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
2004 68.2 80.7 72.6 65.4 75.0 63.1
2005 68.1 79.8 72.9 66.0 74.4 62.0
2006 68.4 80.4 71.5 66.2 75.4 62.5
2007 69.3 80.0 71.4 67.4 75.2 63.7
2008 69.4 79.3 71.0 67.1 74.6 62.9
2009 69.8 79.2 72.0 66.0 70.3 60.9
2010 69.7 79.2 70.1 65.3 70.4 57.4
2011 69.1 79.8 70.0 65.0 70.3 56.8

Notes: The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate 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, March 2011 and earlier reports.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1. Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2011

(In percent)

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2011

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

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.


  • Figure BIRTH 1 shows the percentage of births that were nonmarital by age group from 1940 to 2011 and Table BIRTH 1 shows corresponding estimates for selected years. Changes in nonmarital births reflect changes in 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 to women of all ages has increased over the past 70 years. In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women. In 2011, the percentage increased to 40.7 percent.
  • Teen births, as shown in Figure BIRTH 1 and Table BIRTH 1, show nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births. In 1940, 14.0 percent of births to teens were nonmarital. While the percentage of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased since the mid-1960s, growth in the percentage slowed in the mid- to late- 1990s before rising to 88.6 percent in 2011.
  • Over the past 15 years, the percentage of nonmarital births among all births to women 20 to 24 years of age increased by 40 percent from 45.6 percent in 1996 to 64.0 percent in 2011 This compares to an increase of 16.1 percent in the percentage of nonmarital births among teen births over the same period.
  • Since 1994, the percentage of births that are nonmarital remains steady 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: 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 21.6 6.8 7.7
1970 80.8 43.0 22.4 30.5 8.9 10.7
1975 87.0 51.4 29.8 39.3 12.3 14.3
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 25.7
1989 92.4 77.7 60.4 67.2 35.1 27.1
1990 91.6 77.7 61.3 67.6 36.9 28.0
1991 91.3 78.7 63.2 69.3 39.4 29.5
1992 91.3 79.2 64.6 70.5 40.7 30.1
1993 91.3 79.9 66.1 71.8 42.2 31.0
1994 94.5 84.1 70.0 75.9 44.9 32.6
1995 93.5 83.7 69.8 75.6 44.7 32.2
1996 93.8 84.4 70.8 76.3 45.6 32.4
1997 95.7 86.7 72.5 78.2 46.6 32.4
1998 96.6 87.5 73.6 78.9 47.7 32.8
1999 96.5 87.7 74.0 79.0 48.5 33.0
2000 96.5 87.7 74.3 79.1 49.5 33.2
2001 96.3 87.8 74.6 79.2 50.4 33.5
2002 97.0 88.5 75.8 80.2 51.6 34.0
2003 97.1 89.7 77.3 81.6 53.2 34.6
2004 97.4 90.3 78.7 82.6 54.8 35.8
2005 98.0 90.9 79.7 83.5 56.2 36.9
2006 98.3 91.9 80.6 84.4 57.9 38.5
2007 98.8 93.3 82.2 85.7 59.6 39.7
2008 99.1 93.7 83.5 86.8 60.9 40.6
2009 99.0 94.2 84.2 87.4 62.1 41.0
2010 99.3 95.0 85.1 88.2 63.1 40.8
2011 99.1 95.3 85.7 88.6 64.0 40.7

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

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity:
1940-2011

(In percent)

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity: 1940-2011

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.

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.

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.


  • Figure BIRTH 2 shows the percentage of all births to unmarried teens 15 to 19 years of age by race and ethnicity, and Table BIRTH 2 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1940 and 2011. Unlike BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births, BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage is affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens and the birth rate among all other women.
  • The percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens declined over the last five years, from 8.2 in 2003 to 7.4 percent in 2011.
  • Among Black women, the percentage of all births that were nonmarital teen births decreased to 13.1 percent in 2011. This was the lowest percentage since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
  • Among White women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens decreased to 6.6 percent in 2011.
  • Among Hispanic women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens increased from a low of 9.8 percent in 1990 to a high of 12.1 percent in 1998; since 2008 the rate has been decreasing. The rate in 2011 was 10.4.

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

Year All Races White Black Hispanic
1940 1.7 0.8 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 10.3
1992 8.7 6.5 20.2 10.3
1993 8.9 6.8 20.2 10.6
1994 9.7 7.5 21.1 12.1
1995 9.6 7.6 21.1 11.7
1996 9.6 7.7 20.9 11.5
1997 9.7 7.8 20.5 11.9
1998 9.7 7.9 19.9 12.1
1999 9.5 7.8 19.1 11.9
2000 9.1 7.6 18.3 11.5
2001 8.7 7.3 17.5 11.0
2002 8.5 7.2 16.7 10.8
2003 8.2 7.1 16.2 10.7
2004 8.3 7.2 16.0 10.9
2005 8.3 7.2 15.8 11.0
2006 8.6 7.4 16.1 11.3
2007 8.8 7.7 16.3 11.5
2008 8.9 7.8 16.2 11.7
2009 8.7 7.6 15.6 11.6
2010 8.1 7.2 14.5 11.1
2011 7.4 6.6 13.1 10.4

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.

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. Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 3. Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried
Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2011

(Rate per 1,000)

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2011

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried
Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2011

(Rate per 1,000)

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2011

Note: Rates are per 1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child.

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.

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.


  • Figures BIRTH 3a and 3b show births per thousand unmarried teens between the ages of 15 to 17 and 18 to 19 from 1960 to 2011. Table BIRTH 3 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1950 and 2011.
  • The birth rate per thousand unmarried teens ages 15 to 17 decreased in 2011 for both Black and White teens. The rate for Black teens ages 15 to 17 has been cut by more than two-thirds from 79.9 per thousand in 1991 to 24.7 per thousand in 2011. The 2011 rate is lower than in any other year since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
  • The birth rates of unmarried teens in the older age group (18 and 19 years) showed a decrease in 2011. For Black teens ages 18 and 19, the birth rate fell from a high of 147.7 per thousand in 1991 to a low of 100.4 per thousand in 2003 before again decreasing to 77.4 births per thousand in 2011.
  • Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried White teens in both age groups rose steadily for over four decades. For White teens 15 to 17 years of age, the birth rate increased from 4.4 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 23.9 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. Subsequently their rate has generally followed a downward trend to 13.4 per thousand. In 2011, for 18 to 19 year olds, the rate increased from 8.5 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 55.8 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. Until 2008 their rate fluctuated between 50 and 54 but by 2011 had declined to 43 per thousand.
  • While birth rates among unmarried Black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried White teens, the gap between Black and White teens narrowed during the 1990s and 2000s.

Table BIRTH 3. Births per Thousand Unmarried Teen Women by Age and Race: 1950-2011

Year Ages 15 to 17 Ages 18 and 19
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 25.0 11.4 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 49.4 147.7
1992 30.2 21.5 77.2 66.7 51.2 146.4
1993 30.3 21.9 75.9 66.2 52.0 140.0
1994 31.7 23.9 73.9 69.1 55.8 139.6
1995 30.1 23.3 67.4 66.5 54.7 129.2
1996 28.5 22.3 62.6 64.9 53.5 127.2
1997 27.7 22.0 59.0 63.9 52.9 124.8
1998 26.5 21.5 55.0 63.6 53.1 121.5
1999 25.0 20.7 50.0 62.3 52.9 115.8
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
2003 20.3 17.2 38.1 57.6 50.4 100.4
2004 20.1 17.1 37.0 57.7 50.4 100.9
2005 19.7 16.8 35.4 58.4 50.9 101.6
2006 20.4 17.4 36.6 61.8 53.9 107.8
2007 20.8 18.0 36.3 63.9 55.9 109.1
2008 20.6 18.0 35.5 61.9 54.2 104.4
2009 19.3 16.9 32.6 58.2 51.1 96.8
2010 16.8 15.1 27.6 52.0 46.9 83.6
2011 14.9 13.4 24.7 48.2 43.4 77.4

Note: Rates are per 1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child.

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

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 and Ethnicity: 1982-2011

(In percent)

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race and Ethnicity: 1982-2011

Note: Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons and their spouses). Inmates of institutions also are excluded. Children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator. Based on Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be 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. 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, “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 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, http://www.census.gov/hhesfamilies/data/cps2011.html..


  • Figure BIRTH 4 shows the percentage of all children living in families with a never-married female head of household by race and ethnicity from 1982 to 2011. Table BIRTH 4 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1960 and 2011. The percentage of children living in families with never-married female heads increased from 4.6 percent in 1982 to 11.3 percent in 2011.
  • The percentage of White children living in families headed by never-married women has increased more than fourfold over the past 25 years, from 1.6 percent in 1982 to 6.8 percent in 2011.
  • Among Hispanics of all races, the percentage of children living with a never-married female head of household more than doubled over the past 25 years, from 5.7 percent in 1982 to 13.3 percent in 2011.
  • The percentage of Black children living in families with a never-married female head of household has been higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period. In 2011, 36.2 percent of Black children lived in families with a never-married female head of household compared to 6.8 percent for White children and 13.3 percent for Hispanic children.

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

Year Number of Children (thousands) Percentage
All Races White Black Hispanic3 All Races White Black Hispanic
1960 221 49 173 NA 0.4 0.1 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
1981 1,807 527 1,245 202 3.0 1.0 15.0 4.0
1982 1 2,768 793 1,947 291 4.6 1.6 22.7 5.7
1983 3,212 958 2,203 357 5.3 1.9 24.9 6.7
1984 3,131 959 2,109 357 5.2 1.9 23.9 6.5
1985 3,496 1,086 2,355 391 5.8 2.2 26.6 6.7
1986 3,606 1,174 2,375 451 5.9 2.4 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 1,255 9.5 5.3 32.9 11.4
2001 6,736 3,002 3,481 1,397 9.8 5.5 33.2 11.9
2002 2 6,872 3,048 3,573 1,400 9.9 5.6 33.4 11.5
2003 7,006 3,029 3,451 1,495 10.0 5.6 33.3 11.9
2004 7,218 3,113 3,541 1,577 10.3 5.8 34.1 12.0
2005 7,413 3,284 3,617 1,627 10.6 6.0 35.5 12.0
2006 7,443 3,263 3,557 1,677 10.6 6.0 35.0 12.0
2007 6,945 2,928 3,501 1,569 9.8 5.4 33.2 10.8
2008 7,236 2,994 3,707 1,649 10.2 5.5 35.6 11.0
2009 7,450 3,254 3,642 1,918 10.5 6.0 35.3 12.2
2010 7,543 3,440 3,548 1,987 10.5 6.3 34.0 12.2
2011 8,080 3,706 3,732 2,233 11.3 6.8 36.2 13.3

Note: Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons and their spouses). Inmates of institutions also are excluded.

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.

1 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). Some of the increase between 1981 and 1982 is a result of these changes.

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.

2 Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.

Source of CPS data: U.S. Census Bureau, “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 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, http://www.census.gov/hhesfamilies/data/cps2011.html..

Source of 1960 data: U.S. Census Bureau, 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 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in 1996);
  • The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended (which was renamed from the Food Stamp Program by Section 4001(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (P.L. 110-234) in October 2008;
  • 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.

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

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 fathers or mothers were 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, family caps, education and adult oversight requirements for underage single mothers, 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.

Public Law 104-193, 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)20 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 FY 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.


20 Many states limit TANF assistance to less than the 60-month federal maximum.

Data Issues Relating to the TANF Program and 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 also is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. The vast majority of families receiving “assistance”21 are, in fact, receiving cash payments.

Another data issue concerns the treatment of families who receive cash and other forms of assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded by MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. Under TANF, some states use SSP programs to serve specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families, families who have exhausted their time limits). From 1996-2005, such families were not subject to federal time limits. States did not have to include them in calculating of their work participation rates. As of October 2006, such families are included in the work participation rate calculation, but may still be excluded from the application of the federal time limits on receipt of assistance. Starting with the 2004 edition, this Indicators report adds recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals22 (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state). Native Americans served through state TANF and SSP programs are included in these caseload counts, but families served through TANF programs operated by Tribal governments are excluded. Expenditures for SSPs are shown in Table TANF 5.


21 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, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits when families are not employed. It excludes, however, such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

22 States began submitting caseload data on SSPs in FY 2000.

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 Figures TANF 1 and TANF 2, 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)23 and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 15). 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.

More information about the TANF program, including caseload data, expenditure data, work participation rate data and TANF Reports to Congress, can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf.

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

(In millions)

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and “UP Families” are two-parent cases receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough; NBER has established December 2007 as the beginning month of the current recession. 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 December 2011.

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

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2011 Dollars

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2011 Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in constant 2011 dollars with the weighted average maximum benefit in constant 2011 dollars since 1988 indicates that the primary cause of the decline in the average monthly benefit has been the erosion of the real value of the maximum benefit due to inflation. This is due to the fact that the current value of the maximum benefits has increased less than the cost of living in most states since the late1980s.

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 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads: 1962-2011

Fiscal Year Average Monthly Number
(thousands)
Children as a Percent of Total Recipients Average1 Number of Children per Family
Total Families 1 AFDC UP2 Two-Parent Families TANF Two-Parent Families Total Recipients Child Recipients
1962 924 48 NA 3,593 2,778 77.3 3.0
1964 984 60 NA 4,059 3,043 75.0 3.1
1966 1,074 62 NA 4,472 3,369 75.3 3.1
1968 1,310 67 NA 5,349 4,013 75.0 3.1
1970 1,906 78 NA 7,415 5,484 74.0 2.9
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 8,671 68.6 1.9
1997 2 3,937 256 NA 10,935 7,7813 71.23 2.03
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 4,233 73.5 1.9
2002 2,195 NA 118 5,656 4,149 73.3 1.9
2003 2,181 NA 116 5,518 4,075 73.9 1.9
2004 2,161 NA 114 5,377 3,993 74.3 1.8
2005 2,090 NA 108 5,118 3,818 74.6 1.8
2006 1,960 NA 98 4,741 3,565 75.2 1.8
2007 1,754 NA 62 4,138 3,165 76.5 1.8
2008 1,693 NA 63 3,982 3,044 76.5 1.8
2009 1,796 NA 86 4,254 3,222 75.7 1.8
2010 1,911 NA 101 4,573 3,421 74.8 1.8
2011 1,921 NA 104 4,600 3,435 74.7 1.8

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 beginning July 1, 1997.

3 Based on data from the 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.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports).

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups: 1970-2011

Calendar
Year1
Total Recipients in the States & DC
(thousands)
Child Recipients in the States & DC (thousands) Recipients as a Percent of Total Population2 Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population3 Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population2 Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty3
1970 8,303 6,104 4.0 32.7 8.7 58.5
1971 10,043 7,303 4.8 39.3 10.5 69.2
1972 10,736 7,766 5.1 43.9 11.2 75.5
1973 10,738 7,763 5.1 46.7 11.3 80.5
1974 10,621 7,637 5.0 45.4 11.2 75.2
1975 11,131 7,928 5.2 43.0 11.8 71.4
1976 11,098 7,850 5.1 44.4 11.8 76.4
1977 10,856 7,632 4.9 43.9 11.7 74.2
1978 10,387 7,270 4.7 42.4 11.2 73.2
1979 10,140 7,057 4.5 38.9 11.0 68.0
1980 10,599 7,295 4.7 36.2 11.5 63.2
1981 10,893 7,397 4.7 34.2 11.7 59.2
1982 10,161 6,767 4.4 29.5 10.8 49.6
1983 10,569 6,967 4.5 29.9 11.1 50.1
1984 10,643 7,017 4.5 31.6 11.2 52.3
1985 10,672 7,073 4.5 32.3 11.3 54.4
1986 10,850 7,206 4.5 33.5 11.5 56.0
1987 10,841 7,240 4.5 33.6 11.5 56.4
1988 10,728 7,201 4.4 33.8 11.4 57.8
1989 10,798 7,286 4.4 34.3 11.5 57.9
1990 11,497 7,781 4.6 34.2 12.1 57.9
1991 12,728 8,601 5.0 35.6 13.2 60.0
1992 13,571 9,189 5.3 35.7 13.8 60.1
1993 14,007 9,460 5.4 35.7 14.0 60.2
1994 13,970 9,448 5.3 36.7 13.8 61.8
1995 13,242 9,013 5.0 36.4 13.0 61.5
1996 12,156 8,355 4.5 33.3 11.9 57.8
1997 10,224 7,0774 3.7 28.7 10.0 50.1
1998 8,215 5,781 3.0 23.8 8.1 42.9
1999 6,709 4,836 2.4 20.5 6.7 39.4
2000 6,043 4,415 2.1 19.1 6.1 38.1
2001 5,631 4,140 2.0 17.1 5.7 35.3
2002 5,534 4,073 1.9 16.0 5.6 33.6
2003 5,424 4,024 1.9 15.1 5.5 31.3
2004 5,283 3,935 1.8 14.3 5.4 30.2
2005 4,975 3,726 1.7 13.5 5.1 28.9
2006 4,537 3,428 1.5 12.4 4.6 26.7
2007 4,038 3,093 1.3 10.8 4.2 23.2
2008 3,972 3,036 1.3 10.0 4.1 21.6
2009 4,331 3,268 1.4 9.9 4.4 21.2
2010 4,553 3,405 1.5 9.8 4.6 20.9
2011 4,512 3,378 1.4 9.8 4.6 20.9

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 and likewise for child 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 P60-231 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

4 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. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2011 [In thousands]

Fiscal Year TANF SSP Total
Families
2000 2,265 91 2,356
2001 2,117 82 2,200
2002 2,065 129 2,195
2003 2,032 149 2,181
2004 1,987 174 2,161
2005 1,920 170 2,090
2006 1,805 155 1,960
2007 1,699 55 1,754
2008 1,628 65 1,693
2009 1,727 70 1,796
2010 1,848 69 1,917
2011 1,864 58 1,922
All Recipients
2000 5,943 380 6,324
2001 5,423 338 5,761
2002 5,149 508 5,656
2003 4,967 551 5,518
2004 4,784 593 5,377
2005 4,549 569 5,118
2006 4,222 520 4,742
2007 3,961 177 4,138
2008 3,782 199 3,982
2009 4,041 213 4,254
2010 4,371 222 4,593
2011 4,417 186 4,603
Child Recipients
2000 4,370 228 4,598
2001 4,025 202 4,227
2002 3,841 308 4,149
2003 3,731 344 4,075
2004 3,617 376 3,993
2005 3,459 360 3,818
2006 3,237 328 3,565
2007 3,050 115 3,165
2008 2,914 130 3,044
2009 3,084 139 3,223
2010 3,289 146 3,435
2011 3,316 122 3,437

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://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_c...).

Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970 - 2011 [In millions of dollars]

Fiscal Year Federal Funds
(Current Dollars)
State Funds
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Constant 2011 Dollars1)
Benefits Admin Benefits Admin Benefits Admin Benefits Admin
1970 $2,187 $5722 $1,895 $309 $4,082 $8812 $21,410 $4,621
1971 3,008 271 2,469 254 5,477 525 27,501 2,636
1972 3,612 240 3 2,942 241 6,554 481 3 31,780 2,332
1973 3,865 313 3,138 296 7,003 610 32,613 2,841
1974 4,071 379 3,300 362 7,371 740 31,617 3,174
1975 4,625 552 3,787 529 8,412 1,082 32,887 4,230
1976 5,258 541 541 527 9,676 1,069 35,411 3,912
1977 5,626 595 4,762 583 10,388 1,177 35,389 4,010
1978 5,724 631 4,898 617 10,621 1,248 33,945 3,989
1979 5,825 683 4,954 668 10,779 1,350 31,673 3,967
1980 6,448 750 5,508 729 11,956 1,479 31,626 3,912
1981 6,928 835 5,917 814 12,845 1,648 30,875 3,961
1982 6,922 878 5,934 878 12,857 1,756 28,922 3,950
1983 7,332 915 6,275 915 13,607 1,830 29,252 3,934
1984 7,707 876 6,664 822 14,371 1,698 29,674 3,506
1985 7,817 890 6,763 889 14,580 1,779 29,070 3,547
1986 8,239 993 6,996 967 15,235 1,960 29,681 3,819
1987 8,914 1,081 7,409 1,052 16,323 2,133 30,977 4,048
1988 9,125 1,194 7,538 1,159 16,663 2,353 30,487 4,305
1989 9,433 1,211 7,807 1,206 17,240 2,417 30,257 4,242
1990 10,149 1,358 8,390 1,303 18,539 2,661 31,124 4,467
1991 11,165 1,373 9,191 1,300 20,356 2,673 32,706 4,295
1992 12,258 1,459 9,993 1,378 22,250 2,837 34,892 4,449
1993 12,270 1,518 10,016 1,438 22,286 2,956 34,076 4,520
1994 12,512 1,680 10,285 1,621 22,797 3,301 34,127 4,942
1995 12,019 1,770 10,014 1,751 22,032 3,521 32,219 5,150
1996 11,065 1,633 9,346 1,633 20,411 3,266 29,114 4,658
1997 4 9,748 1,273 7,799 1,098 17,547 2,371 24,427 3,300
1998 7,518 1,231 7,096 1,028 14,614 2,259 20,048 3,100
1999 6,475 1,407 6,975 884 13,449 2,291 18,126 3,087
2000 5,444 1,570 5,736 1,032 11,180 2,302 14,607 3,400
2001 4,772 1,598 5,390 1,042 10,163 2,639 12,867 3,342
2002 4,554 1,633 4,854 983 9,408 2,617 11,737 3,265
2003 5,820 1,592 4,398 859 10,219 2,451 12,453 2,987
2004 4,717 1,471 5,652 828 10,368 2,300 12,350 2,739
2005 5,193 1,507 5,546 870 10,739 2,377 12,385 2,741
2006 4,926 1,525 4,980 886 9,906 2,411 11,018 2,681
2007 4,533 1,553 4,583 955 9,116 2,508 9,906 2,726
2008 4,755 1,523 3,894 1,054 8,649 2,577 8,999 2,682
2009 4,504 1,572 4,820 911 9,324 2,483 9,733 2,592
2010 6,889 1,602 3,810 885 10,699 2,487 10,983 2,553
2011 5,255 1,475 4,350 829 9,604 2,304 9,604 2,304

Note: Benefits do not include emergency assistance payments and have not been reduced by child support collections. Foster care payments are included from 1971 to 1980. State funds for benefits include benefits under Separate State Programs. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of certifying AFDC households for food stamps is shown in the food stamp program’s appropriation under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Administrative costs include: Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, Child Care administration (through 1996), SAVE and other State and local administrative expenditures.

1 Constant dollar adjustments to 2011 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year price index.

2 Includes expenditures for services.

3 Administrative expenditures only.

4 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Under PRWORA, spending categories are not entirely equivalent to those under AFDC: e.g., administrative expenses under TANF do not include IV-A child care administration (which accounted for 4 percent of 1996 administrative expense).

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

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending: 2000 – 2011 [In millions of dollars]

Fiscal Year Cash & Work-Based Assistance Work Activities Child Care Transportation Administration Systems Other Expenditures Total Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
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 5,820 5,820 1,698 434 1,307 285 4,772 16,254
2004 4,717 1,613 1,427 354 1,220 251 4,811 14,393
2005 5,193 1,702 1,279 393 1,277 230 4,089 14,164
2006 4,926 1,681 1,238 341 1,294 231 3,859 13,570
2007 4,532 1,678 1,168 354 1,317 236 4,352 13,637
2008 4,755 1,696 1,622 399 1,305 219 4,478 14,474
2009 4,504 1,778 1,787 420 1,365 207 5,118 15,179
2010 6,889 2,578 1,426 445 1,396 206 5,125 18,065
2011 5,255 1,928 1,352 412 1,313 162 4,761 15,183
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF AND Separate State Programs
2000 5,736 895 1,966 166 939 93 1,601 11,398
2001 5,390 713 1,765 133 958 84 1,694 10,737
2002 4,854 606 1,932 245 918 65 2,206 10,827
2003 4,398 662 1,770 109 799 60 2,288 10,086
2004 5,652 540 1,924 138 772 56 2,346 11,429
2005 5,546 465 1,918 130 822 48 2,488 11,416
2006 4,980 683 2,304 131 844 42 3,039 12,024
2007 4,583 661 2,549 119 904 51 4,418 13,285
2008 3,894 574 2,614 110 999 55 5,410 13,656
2009 4,820 581 2,347 127 837 74 6,614 15,399
2010 3,810 723 2,644 108 835 50 7,020 15,191
2011 4,350 720 2,606 82 781 48 6,855 15,441
Total Expenditures
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
2004 10,368 2,154 3,350 492 1,992 307 7,157 25,821
2005 10,739 2,167 3,197 523 2,099 278 6,577 25,580
2006 9,906 2,364 3,542 472 2,138 273 6,898 25,594
2007 9,115 2,338 3,717 474 2,221 287 8,770 26,922
2008 8,649 2,270 4,236 510 2,304 274 9,888 28,130
2009 9,324 2,359 4,134 547 2,202 281 11,732 30,578
2010 10,699 3,302 4,069 554 2,230 256 12,145 33,255
2011 9,604 2,648 3,958 494 2,094 210 11,616 30,624

Note: Administration and Systems, shown separately here in Table TANF 5, can be combined to show total administrative costs, as in Table TANF 4.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services (available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2011).

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962 – 2011

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
2011
Dollars
Current
Dollars
2011
Dollars
Current
Dollars
2011
Dollars
1962 $31 $202 3.9 $121 $785 NA NA
1964 32 201 4.1 131 830 NA NA
1966 35 213 4.2 146 888 NA NA
1967 36 215 4.1 150 889 NA NA
1968 40 226 4.1 162 926 NA NA
1969 43 238 4.0 173 951 $186 2 $1,026
1970 46 241 3.9 178 935 194 2 1,019
1971 48 240 3.8 180 905 201 2 1,009
1972 51 249 3.6 187 908 205 2 996
1973 53 246 3.5 187 187 213 2 991
1974 57 243 3.4 194 831 229 2 981
1975 63 247 3.3 209 816 243 950
1976 71 259 3.2 226 825 257 939
1977 78 265 3.1 241 821 271 923
1978 83 265 3.0 250 799 284 909
1979 87 256 3.0 257 755 301 884
1980 94 249 2.9 274 724 320 847
1981 96 231 2.9 277 665 326 783
1982 103 231 2.9 300 675 331 744
1983 106 229 2.9 311 668 336 723
1984 110 228 2.9 322 664 352 726
1985 112 224 2.9 329 656 369 736
1986 115 225 2.9 339 660 383 746
1987 123 233 2.9 359 682 393 747
1988 127 233 2.9 370 678 403 738
1989 131 231 2.9 381 669 413 724
1990 135 226 2.9 389 653 420 705
1991 135 216 2.9 388 623 424 682
1992 136 213 2.9 389 610 419 657
1993 131 201 2.8 373 570 414 633
1994 134 200 2.8 376 564 416 622
1995 134 197 2.8 377 551 418 612
1996 135 135 2.8 374 534 419 598
1997 3 130 181 2.8 362 504 418 582
1998 130 179 2.7 358 491 429 588
1999 133 179 2.7 357 481 450 606
2000 130 170 2.7 349 456 446 583
2001 134 170 2.6 351 445 448 567
2002 141 176 2.6 364 454 452 564
2003 140 170 2.5 354 431 455 554
2004 145 173 2.5 360 429 462 551
2005 151 174 2.4 370 426 468 540
2006 154 171 2.4 372 414 489 544
2007 160 173 2.4 377 409 499 542
2008 163 169 2.4 383 398 510 531
2009 164 171 2.4 389 406 507 530
2010 164 168 2.4 392 402 572 587
2011 162 162 2.4 387 387 559 559

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2011 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal-year price index.

1 The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC/TANF 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 – 2011

  May 1969 March 1979 Fiscal year 1
1983 1988 1992 1996 2000 2005 2010 2011
Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4
Number of Child Recipients
    One 26.6 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.5 43.9 44.2 49.2 50.4 50.7
    Two 23.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.2 29.9 28.4 27.2 27.6 27.4
    Three 17.7 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.3 13.6 12.8 12.8
    Four or More 32.5 13.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.1 8.0 7.4 7.7
    Unknown NA NA 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit 10.1 14.6 8.3 9.6 14.8 21.5 34.4 45.5 46.3 46.3
    Child-Only Families 2 32.7 42.6 44.0 43.2
Families with Non-Recipients 33.1 NA 36.9 36.8 38.9 49.9
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
    Since Most Recent Opening 23.0 29.0 26.0 26.3 22.5 23.6
Presence of Assistance
    Living in Public Housing 12.8 NA 10.0 9.6 9.2 8.8 17.7 18.4 13.1 11.9
    Participating in Food Stamp or Donated Food Program 52.9 75.1 83.0 84.6 87.3 89.3 79.9 81.5 82.4 82.6
Presence of Income
    With Earnings NA 12.8 5.7 8.4 7.4 11.1 23.6 3 19.5 3 20.5 3 19.8 3
    No Non-AFDC/TANF Income 56.0 80.6 86.8 79.6 78.9 76.0 71.6 3 75.3 3 75.1 3 76.1 3
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
    Employed 6.6 11.3 26.4 23.2 22.3 22.3
    Unemployed 49.2 50.4 46.8 47.8
    Not in Labor Force 24.3 26.4 30.9 29.9
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):4
    Full-time job 8.2 8.7 1.5 2.2 2.2 4.7
    Part-time job 6.3 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 5.4
Marital Status (percent of adults)
    Single 65.3 68.8 70.0 71.4
    Married 12.4 10.7 14.4 14.1
    Separated 13.1 11.8 9.6 8.8
    Widowed 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
    Divorced 8.5 8.1 5.5 5.2
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
    Incapacitated 11.7 5 5.3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3
    Unemployed 4.6 5 4.1 8.7 6.5 8.2 8.3
    Death 5.5 5 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6
    Divorce or Separation 43.3 5 44.7 38.5 34.6 30.0 24.3
    Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 5 37.8 44.3 51.9 53.1 58.6
    Absent, Other Reason 3.5 5 5.9 5.9 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 TANF caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii. Unlike most of the figures in this report, this table does not include families from Separate State Programs (SSP).

2 Adults that live in TANF families with children are sometimes excluded from the assistance unit because they have been sanctioned, receive disability income from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), have been time-limited, do not qualify based on citizenship requirements, or are non-parental caretakers such as relatives or other adults taking responsibility for the children.

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

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

5 Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

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

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2011 [In millions of dollars]

  1978 1986 1988 1990 1994 1998 2000 2005 2010 2011
United States $10,621 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $14,614 $11,180 $10,739 $10,785 $9,673
Alabama $78 $68 $62 $62 $92 $44 $36 $47 $49 $54
Alaska 17 46 54 60 113 77 55 41 40 41
Arizona 30 79 103 138 266 145 107 160 105 87
Arkansas 51 48 53 57 57 26 34 18 16 16
California 1,813 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 4,128 3,643 3,504 3,971 3,741
Colorado 74 107 125 137 158 80 48 75 71 78
Connecticut 168 223 218 295 397 305 166 126 93 90
Delaware 28 25 24 29 40 24 20 19 13 27
Dist. of Columbia 91 77 76 84 126 97 72 66 53 67
Florida 145 261 318 418 806 357 234 184 187 172
Georgia 103 223 266 321 428 313 180 117 48 51
Hawaii 83 73 77 99 163 153 141 82 73 74
Idaho 21 19 19 20 30 6 3 7 6 5
Illinois 699 886 815 839 914 771 269 122 72 106
Indiana 118 148 167 170 228 104 87 113 92 72
Iowa 107 170 155 152 169 104 79 76 70 69
Kansas 73 91 97 105 123 41 43 65 50 56
Kentucky 122 104 143 179 198 147 104 105 130 105
Louisiana 97 162 182 188 168 103 58 51 41 83
Maine 51 84 80 101 108 80 73 90 98 102
Maryland 166 250 250 296 314 192 196 124 124 89
Massachusetts 476 471 558 630 730 442 336 332 337 337
Michigan 780 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 589 386 412 546 186
Minnesota 164 322 338 355 379 276 193 137 96 95
Mississippi 33 74 85 86 82 60 18 27 20 20
Missouri 152 209 215 228 287 180 139 125 113 98
Montana 15 37 41 40 49 30 21 20 18 17
Nebraska 38 62 56 59 62 41 41 54 35 31
Nevada 8 16 20 27 48 39 28 33 42 45
New Hampshire 21 20 21 32 62 39 32 35 44 43
New Jersey 489 509 459 451 531 372 222 441 266 235
New Mexico 32 51 56 61 144 104 113 75 96 81
New York 1,689 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,149 1,554 1,762 1,668 1,444
North Carolina 138 138 206 247 353 211 140 108 75 58
North Dakota 14 20 22 24 26 22 12 11 8 7
Ohio 441 804 805 877 1,016 546 368 316 506 440
Oklahoma 74 100 119 132 165 72 78 33 24 22
Oregon 148 120 128 145 197 141 34 105 208 168
Pennsylvania 726 389 747 798 935 523 573 407 202 189
Rhode Island 59 79 82 99 136 117 105 72 40 36
South Carolina 52 103 91 96 115 52 91 73 46 37
South Dakota 18 15 21 22 25 14 10 12 16 15
Tennessee 77 100 125 168 215 108 146 121 134 131
Texas 122 281 344 416 544 315 248 181 107 104
Utah 41 55 61 64 77 50 40 45 37 31
Vermont 21 40 40 48 65 47 39 36 17 17
Virginia 136 179 169 177 253 123 186 143 123 120
Washington 175 375 401 438 610 450 312 262 373 307
West Virginia 53 109 107 110 126 52 49 43 43 34
Wisconsin 260 444 506 440 425 145 7 115 130 128
Wyoming 6 16 19 19 21 7 9 7 11 14

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance or contingency fund payments.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management Services, ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report; www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2011.

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs And 2011 Total Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA. [In millions of dollars]

State FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1 FY 2011 Family Assistance Grants & Supplemental 2 FY 2011 Contingency Fund Awards 3 FY 2011 Total Awards Change from FY 1996 Level
To FY 2011
Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States $15,067 $16,518 $332 $16,850 $1,783 12
Alabama $79.0 $100.7 $100.7 $21.7 27
Alaska 60.7 49.8 49.8 -10.9 -18
Arizona 200.6 216.0 10.0 226.0 25.3 13
Arkansas 54.3 60.8 2.8 63.7 9.4 17
California 3,545.6 3,659.4 3,659.4 113.8 3
Colorado 138.9 145.0 6.8 151.8 12.9 9
Connecticut 221.1 266.8 266.8 45.7 21
Delaware 30.2 32.3 1.6 33.9 3.7 12
Dist. of Columbia 77.1 92.6 4.6 97.2 20.1 26
Florida 504.7 602.3 602.3 97.6 19
Georgia 301.2 355.4 355.4 54.2 18
Hawaii 98.4 98.9 4.9 103.9 5.5 6
Idaho 31.3 32.7 32.7 1.4 5
Illinois 593.8 585.1 585.1 -8.8 -1
Indiana 121.4 206.8 206.8 85.4 70 
Iowa 129.3 131.0 131.0 1.7 1
Kansas 86.9 101.9 5.1 107.0 20.1 23
Kentucky 171.6 181.3 181.3 9.6 6
Louisiana 122.4 175.2 175.2 52.9 43
Maine 73.2 78.1 78.1 4.9 7
Maryland 207.6 229.1 11.5 240.6 32.9 16
Massachusetts 372.0 459.4 23.0 482.3 110.3 30
Michigan 581.5 775.4 38.8 814.1 232.6 40
Minnesota 239.3 263.4 263.4 24.1 10
Mississippi 68.6 92.7 92.7 24.1 35
Missouri 207.9 217.1 217.1 9.2 4
Montana 39.2 38.8 38.8 -0.4 -1
Nebraska 56.2 57.5 57.5 1.3 2
Nevada 41.2 46.4 2.2 48.6 7.3 18
New Hampshire 36.0 38.5 38.5 2.5 7
New Jersey 353.4 404.0 20.2 424.2 70.9 20
New Mexico 129.9 114.9 5.5 120.4 -9.5 -7
New York 2,332.7 2,442.9 122.1 2,565.1 232.4 10
North Carolina 311.9 326.1 15.1 341.2 29.3 9
North Dakota 24.5 26.4 26.4 1.9 8
Ohio 564.5 728.0 728.0 163.5 29
Oklahoma 125.1 145.3 145.3 20.2 16
Oregon 146.4 166.8 8.3 175.1 28.7 20
Pennsylvania 780.1 719.5 719.5 -60.6 -8
Rhode Island 82.9 95.0 95.0 12.2 15
South Carolina 99.4 100.0 5.0 105.0 5.5 6
South Dakota 19.7 21.3 21.3 1.5 8
Tennessee 178.9 205.8 9.6 215.4 36.4 20
Texas 437.1 521.1 521.1 84.0 19
Utah 68.0 81.4 81.4 13.4 20
Vermont 42.4 47.4 47.4 5.0 12
Virginia 134.6 158.3 158.3 23.6 18
Washington 393.2 380.5 19.0 399.6 6.4 2
West Virginia 95.1 110.2 110.2 15.0 16
Wisconsin 241.6 314.5 15.7 330.2 88.7 37
Wyoming 14.4 18.5 18.5 4.1 28

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 2011 Family Assistance Grants and Supplemental differs from the previous edition and does not include the Tribal Family Assistance Grants.

3 Includes Contingency Fund Grants but not penalties assessed nor does it include Emergency Contingency Funds.

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

Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State: October 1989 to December 2011 Peak [In thousands]

State Peak Caseload Oct‘89 to Dec‘11 Date Peak Occurred
Oct’89 to Dec‘11
Sept’96 AFDC Caseload Dec ‘11 TANF
& SSP Caseload
Percent Decline f from Sept’96 to Dec‘11 Percent Decline from the Peak to Dec‘11
United States 5,098 Mar-94 4,346 1,904 56 63
Alabama 52.3 Mar-93 40.7 23.2 43 56
Alaska 13.4 Apr-94 12.3 3.7 70 72
Arizona 72.8 Dec-93 61.8 18.3 70 75
Arkansas 27.1 Mar-92 22.1 8.1 63 70
California 933.1 Mar-95 870.3 602.0 31 35
Colorado 43.7 Dec-93 33.6 11.9 64 73
Connecticut 61.9 Mar-95 57.1 16.5 71 73
Delaware 11.8 Apr-94 10.5 5.5 47 53
Dist. of Columbia 27.5 Apr-94 25.1 8.8 65 68
Florida 259.9 Nov-92 200.3 55.1 72 79
Georgia 142.8 Nov-93 120.9 19.9 84 86
Hawaii 23.4 Jun-97 21.9 10.0 54 57
Idaho 9.5 Mar-95 8.4 1.9 78 80
Illinois 243.1 Aug-94 217.8 28.5 87 88
Indiana 76.1 Sep-93 49.7 27.9 44 63
Iowa 40.7 Apr-94 31.1 20.9 33 49
Kansas 30.8 Aug-93 23.4 14.9 36 52
Kentucky 84.0 Mar-93 70.4 30.9 56 63
Louisiana 94.7 May-90 66.5 10.5 84 89
Maine 24.4 Aug-93 19.7 15.5 22 36
Maryland 81.8 May-95 68.9 25.3 63 69
Massachusetts 115.7 Aug-93 84.3 50.5 40 56
Michigan 233.6 Apr-91 167.5 66.2 60 72
Minnesota 66.2 Jun-92 57.2 24.8 57 63
Mississippi 61.8 Nov-91 45.2 11.8 74 81
Missouri 93.7 Mar-94 79.1 39.2 50 58
Montana 12.3 Mar-94 9.8 3.5 64 72
Nebraska 17.2 Mar-93 14.4 8.1 44 53
Nevada 16.3 Mar-95 13.2 10.8 18 34
New Hampshire 11.8 Apr-94 8.9 6.0 32 49
New Jersey 132.6 Nov-92 100.8 34.9 65 74
New Mexico 34.9 Nov-94 33.0 20.4 38 42
New York 463.7 Dec-94 412.7 157.6 62 66
North Carolina 134.1 Mar-94 107.5 22.9 79 83
North Dakota 6.6 Apr-93 4.7 1.8 61 72
Ohio 269.8 Mar-92 201.9 99.5 51 63
Oklahoma 51.3 Mar-93 35.3 9.0 75 83
Oregon 43.8 Apr-93 28.5 33.6 -18 23
Pennsylvania 212.5 Sep-94 180.1 59.9 67 72
Rhode Island 22.9 Apr-94 20.5 6.5 68 71
South Carolina 54.6 Jan-93 42.9 17.8 58 67
South Dakota 7.4 Apr-93 5.7 3.3 43 56
Tennessee 112.6 Nov-93 96.2 62.2 35 45
Texas 287.5 Dec-93 238.8 49.6 79 83
Utah 18.7 Mar-93 14.0 6.2 56 67
Vermont 10.3 Apr-92 8.7 3.3 62 68
Virginia 76.0 Apr-94 60.5 36.0 40 53
Washington 104.8 Feb-95 96.8 62.9 35 40
West Virginia 41.9 Apr-93 37.6 10.4 72 75
Wisconsin 82.9 Jan-92 49.9 26.2 48 68
Wyoming 7.1 Aug-92 4.3 0.3 93 96

Note: these data do not include Tribal TANF families (about 15,000 in number in FY 2011). 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; http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_c....

Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years [In thousands]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 Percent Change
1995-05 2005-11
United States 4,323 7,415 10,597 11,460 13,659 6,324 5,118 4,573 4,600 -60 -10
Alabama 78 123 180 130 118 46 48 51 56 -54 17
Alaska 5 8 15 20 37 22 12 9 10 -67 -17
Arizona 40 51 51 124 190 87 99 70 41 -42 -58
Arkansas 30 45 85 71 63 29 19 19 18 -68 -2
California 528 1,148 1,387 1,902 2,680 1,574 1,256 1,416 1,475 -52 17
Colorado 42 66 77 102 109 29 38 29 31 -61 -20
Connecticut 59 83 139 120 171 73 53 34 32 -67 -39
Delaware 12 20 32 21 25 13 13 15 16 -44 20
Dist. of Columbia 20 40 85 49 73 47 43 20 24 -39 -43
Florida 106 204 256 370 622 158 112 107 99 -80 -12
Georgia 71 198 221 293 383 129 91 38 37 -74 -59
Guam 1 2 5 4 8 10 11 3 3 37 -71
Hawaii 14 25 60 44 66 75 31 28 30 -53 -5
Idaho 10 16 21 17 24 2 3 3 3 -86 -14
Illinois 26 368 672 636 696 256 98 62 83 -85 -16
Indiana 48 73 157 154 189 103 136 89 66 -8 -51
Iowa 44 64 104 98 101 54 52 56 54 -41 3
Kansas 36 53 68 77 80 32 46 38 38 -33 -16
Kentucky 81 129 167 175 189 89 75 61 63 -57 -16
Louisiana 104 202 213 282 251 75 37 24 24 -84 -36
Maine 19 36 60 56 60 32 32 38 40 -42 23
Maryland 80 131 212 186 223 77 64 59 62 -68 -4
Massachusetts 94 208 350 263 274 102 104 111 99 -56 -5
Michigan 162 253 685 655 598 207 215 179 173 -59 -19
Minnesota 51 76 135 171 180 116 87 52 54 -49 -38
Mississippi 83 115 173 179 144 34 35 26 25 -73 -28
Missouri 107 140 199 211 254 131 118 94 94 -49 -20
Montana 7 13 19 29 34 13 12 10 9 -61 -29
Nebraska 16 30 35 43 41 28 33 21 20 -16 -41
Nevada 5 12 12 23 41 16 19 26 28 -49 46
New Hampshire 4 9 22 16 28 14 15 13 13 -39 -13
New Jersey 104 286 459 309 316 138 114 79 84 -61 -26
New Mexico 30 51 53 57 104 72 45 52 52 -55 16
New York 517 1,052 1,100 981 1,256 724 490 388 395 -59 -19
North Carolina 111 124 198 223 313 100 68 47 44 -76 -35
North Dakota 8 11 13 16 14 8 7 5 5 -45 -37
Ohio 183 266 513 632 612 245 179 237 225 -67 26
Oklahoma 73 95 89 112 124 36 28 21 20 -73 -27
Oregon 31 75 102 89 104 39 44 78 89 -49 100
Pennsylvania 303 426 629 521 596 250 253 126 146 -53 -42
Puerto Rico 202 223 168 190 168 92 42 36 41 -73 -1
Rhode Island 24 38 52 46 61 50 35 17 15 -41 -55
South Carolina 30 52 153 111 129 41 43 43 42 -64 -3
South Dakota 11 16 20 19 17 7 6 7 7 -63 12
Tennessee 76 129 162 211 276 147 191 161 159 -27 -17
Texas 91 214 308 611 743 342 214 115 113 -69 -47
Utah 22 33 37 45 46 23 23 19 16 -43 -30
Vermont 5 12 23 22 27 16 13 7 8 -50 -39
Virgin Islands 1 2 3 3 5 3 1 1 1 -72 -5
Virginia 46 87 166 151 184 75 87 84 79 -46 -9
Washington 71 109 154 228 286 168 144 170 149 -47 3
West Virginia 116 93 77 111 105 32 31 22 24 -68 -23
Wisconsin 45 79 213 237 209 40 49 51 63 -71 29
Wyoming 4 5 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 -96 9

Note: Recipients in 2000 and beyond include both TANF and SSP recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports).

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

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011 Percent Change
1996-05 2005-11
United States 2.1 3.5 4.6 4.5 5.1 2.2 1.7 1.5 -63 -15
Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.6 3.2 2.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 -56 11
Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.7 3.7 6.1 3.6 1.8 1.4 -70 -23
Arizona 2.6 2.9 1.9 3.4 4.3 1.7 1.7 0.6 -55 -62
Arkansas 1.5 2.3 3.7 3.0 2.5 1.1 0.7 0.6 -70 -7
California 2.9 5.7 5.8 6.3 8.5 4.6 3.5 3.9 -57 12
Colorado 2.2 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 -67 -28
Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.5 3.6 5.1 2.1 1.5 0.9 -69 -40
Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 3.2 3.4 1.7 1.6 1.7 -51 12
Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 13.3 8.1 12.6 8.2 7.4 3.9 -40 -47
Florida 1.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 4.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 -83 -18
Georgia 1.6 4.3 4.0 4.5 5.2 1.6 1.0 0.4 -78 -63
Hawaii 1.9 3.2 6.2 3.9 5.5 6.1 2.5 2.2 -56 -11
Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 -88 -22
Illinois 2.5 3.3 5.9 5.6 5.8 2.1 0.8 0.6 -86 -17
Indiana 1.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.2 1.7 2.2 1.0 -14 -53
Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.6 3.5 3.5 1.9 1.8 1.8 -43 -1
Kansas 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.7 1.3 -36 -20
Kentucky 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.7 4.9 2.2 1.8 1.4 -60 -19
Louisiana 2.9 5.6 5.0 6.7 5.7 1.7 0.8 0.5 -85 -36
Maine 1.9 3.6 5.4 4.5 4.8 2.5 2.5 3.0 -45 22
Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.9 4.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 -71 -8
Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.1 4.4 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 -58 -8
Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.4 7.0 6.2 2.1 2.1 1.8 -60 -18
Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.9 3.9 2.3 1.7 1.0 -53 -40
Mississippi 3.6 5.2 6.9 6.9 5.3 1.2 1.2 0.8 -75 -30
Missouri 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.7 2.3 2.0 1.6 -52 -23
Montana 1.0 1.9 2.4 3.6 3.9 1.4 1.3 0.9 -63 -33
Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.1 -20 -43
Nevada 1.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 -65 30
New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 -45 -14
New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.2 4.0 3.9 1.6 1.3 0.9 -63 -28
New Mexico 3.0 5.0 4.1 3.8 6.0 4.0 2.4 2.5 -59 7
New York 2.9 5.8 6.3 5.4 6.8 3.8 2.5 2.0 -60 -21
North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 -79 -41
North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 -45 -40
Ohio 1.8 2.5 4.8 5.8 5.5 2.2 1.6 2.0 -68 25
Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 2.9 3.6 3.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 -75 -32
Oregon 1.6 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.3 1.1 1.2 2.3 -54 87
Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 4.4 4.9 2.0 2.1 1.1 -54 -44
Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 4.6 6.0 4.7 3.2 1.5 -43 -54
South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.9 3.2 3.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 -68 -11
South Dakota 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 -64 6
Tennessee 2.0 3.3 3.5 4.3 5.2 2.6 3.2 2.5 -34 -22
Texas 0.9 1.9 2.1 3.6 3.9 1.6 0.9 0.4 -73 -53
Utah 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.6 -52 -39
Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 3.9 4.6 2.7 2.0 1.2 -53 -39
Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.1 2.4 2.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 -52 -15
Washington 2.4 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.2 2.8 2.3 2.2 -53 -5
West Virginia 6.4 5.3 4.0 6.2 5.7 1.8 1.7 1.3 -67 -25
Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 4.5 4.8 4.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 -73 25
Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 -96 -1

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. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html.

Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years [In thousands]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 Percent Change
1995-00 2000-11
United States 3,242 5,483 7,320 7,755 9,280 4,598 3,818 3,421 3,435 -56 -10
Alabama 62 96 129 93 87 37 37 38 42 -53 11
Alaska 4 6 10 13 24 15 8 6 7 -65 -17
Arizona 31 39 38 87 130 66 73 53 30 -38 -59
Arkansas 23 34 62 51 45 22 14 14 13 -66 -9
California 391 816 932 1,294 1,833 1,163 1,002 1,104 1,145 -44 14
Colorado 33 50 53 69 74 22 28 22 23 -59 -18
Connecticut 43 62 97 81 114 50 37 24 23 -66 -37
Delaware 9 15 22 14 17 9 10 9 10 -38 -1
Dist. of Columbia  16  31  59  34  51  34  32  14  18  -33 -43
Florida 85 160 184 264 432 124 91 86 80 -77 -11
Georgia 54 150 161 206 269 101 74 34 33 -70 -55
Guam 1 1 4 3 5 1 2 3 2 -67 27
Hawaii 10 18 40 29 43 50 21 19 20 -53 -5
Idaho 7 11 14 11 16 2 3 2 3 -83 -4
Illinois 202 283 473 436 478 193 78 55 69 -83 -12
Indiana 36 55 111 105 129 74 102 66 50 -2 -51
Iowa 32 46 69 64 66 36 34 38 37 -43 8
Kansas 28 41 49 52 55 23 31 25 26 -35 -18
Kentucky 58 93 118 117 128 64 56 48 50 -53 -12
Louisiana 79 157 156 199 173 59 31 20 20 -81 -36
Maine 14 26 40 35 38 22 22 25 26 -38 20
Maryland 61 100 145 124 152 56 47 43 44 -66 -5
Massachusetts 71 153 228 168 176 73 72 75 66 -53 -9
Michigan 119 190 460 427 398 153 157 129 124 -56 -21
Minnesota 39 58 91 110 121 81 61 39 41 -47 -34
Mississippi 66 93 128 129 106 27 26 19 18 -73 -30
Missouri 82 106 135 139 175 94 81 64 64 -50 -20
Montana 6 10 13 19 22 9 8 7 6 -59 -26
Nebraska 12 23 25 29 29 20 23 17 16 -18 -31
Nevada 4 9 8 16 29 12 14 20 21 -47 42
New Hampshire 3 7 15 11 18 10 10 9 9 -36 -9
New Jersey 79 209 318 213 213 102 81 56 58 -58 -28
New Mexico 23 39 35 37 67 51 32 37 37 -50 16
New York 380 759 759 658 811 491 343 282 286 -56 -17
North Carolina 83 94 141 152 211 76 54 40 37 -72 -31
North Dakota 6 8 9 10 10 5 5 4 4 -43 -32
Ohio 136 198 348 414 415 180 136 171 164 -64 20
Oklahoma 55 71 65 77 86 28 22 17 16 -70 -26
Oregon 23 52 65 60 71 29 33 54 60 -45 82
Pennsylvania 217 307 432 345 403 184 179 94 108 -51 -40
Puerto Rico 161 166 118 130 114 64 29 24 27 -72 -6
Rhode Island 18 27 36 30 41 34 24 12 11 -38 -56
South Carolina 24 40 109 80 96 32 32 33 32 -64 -2
South Dakota 8 12 15 13 12 5 5 6 6 -57 13
Tennessee 58 99 115 144 190 107 136 116 114 -25 -16
Texas 68 162 225 428 522 252 172 99 97 -65 -44
Utah  16  23 24  31 31  16  17  12  11  -39 -32
Vermont 4 8 14 14 17 10 8 5 5 -49 -34
Virgin Islands 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 -71 -9
Virginia 35 66 116 104 128 55 61 59 57 -47 -7
Washington 50 76 97 148 184 115 101 118 104 -43 3
West Virginia 80 65 58 68 67 22 22 16 17 -65 -23
Wisconsin 34 60 142 158 146 34 39 40 48 -68 22
Wyoming 3 4 5 9 10 1 0 1 1 -95 5

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports).

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2011 [In percent]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011 Percent Change
1996-05 2005-11
United States 4.4 7.6 11.3 11.9 13.4 6.3 5.2 4.6 -58 -11
Alabama 4.6 7.7 11.1 8.8 8.0 3.3 3.4 3.7 -55 11
Alaska 3.1 5.0 8.0 7.4 12.6 7.9 4.4 3.6 -64 -18
Arizona 4.8 6.0 4.8 8.6 11.0 4.8 4.7 1.8 -50 -62
Arkansas 3.1 5.2 9.3 8.2 7.0 3.2 2.1 1.8 -67 -11
California 6.0 12.3 14.6 16.2 20.9 12.6 10.6 12.4 -47 16
Colorado 4.4 6.4 6.5 7.8 7.6 2.0 2.4 1.8 -65 -23
Connecticut 4.4 6.1 11.8 10.8 14.4 6.0 4.4 2.8 -68 -34
Delaware 4.7 7.5 13.4 8.7 9.6 4.8 4.9 4.7 -46 -2
Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 40.9 30.7 44.6 30.1 28.4 17.5 -31 -42
Florida 4.3 7.6 7.8 8.8 12.9 3.4 2.3 2.0 -80 -12
Georgia 3.2 9.1 9.8 11.8 14.0 4.6 3.1 1.3 -75 -58
Hawaii 3.6 6.5 14.5 10.5 14.2 17.1 7.2 6.5 -52 -7
Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.6 4.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 -85 -12
Illinois 5.3 7.5 14.6 14.8 15.3 6.0 2.4 2.2 -83 -9
Indiana 2.0 3.0 6.9 7.3 8.7 4.7 6.5 3.2 -8 -51
Iowa 3.2 4.7 8.4 8.8 9.1 4.9 4.8 5.1 -42 7
Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.5 7.9 8.0 3.2 4.5 3.6 -36 -20
Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.9 12.4 13.1 6.5 5.6 4.9 -55 -13
Louisiana 5.5 11.3 11.8 16.5 14.1 4.8 2.7 1.8 -80 -32
Maine 3.9 7.7 12.5 11.5 12.4 7.3 7.6 9.7 -36 30
Maryland 4.6 7.3 12.4 10.6 12.0 4.1 3.4 3.3 -69 -3
Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 15.3 12.4 12.3 4.8 4.9 4.7 -53 -5
Michigan 3.7 5.8 16.7 17.4 15.7 5.9 6.3 5.4 -55 -13
Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.7 9.4 9.8 6.3 4.9 3.2 -49 -34
Mississippi 7.0 11.1 15.7 17.6 14.0 3.5 3.4 2.4 -73 -29
Missouri 5.2 6.9 9.9 10.6 12.7 6.6 5.7 4.6 -51 -20
Montana 2.0 4.0 5.7 8.4 9.5 3.7 3.8 2.8 -58 -27
Nebraska 2.3 4.4 5.5 6.8 6.5 4.3 5.1 3.4 -17 -33
Nevada 2.5 5.2 3.8 5.0 7.3 2.3 2.3 3.1 -63 31
New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 5.8 3.9 6.2 3.1 3.3 3.3 -39 -0
New Jersey 3.4 8.8 16.0 11.7 10.8 4.9 3.9 2.9 -61 -25
New Mexico 5.2 9.5 8.5 8.3 13.5 10.0 6.5 7.2 -51 12
New York 6.3 13.0 16.2 15.4 17.9 10.5 7.5 6.7 -55 -12
North Carolina 4.4 5.3 8.5 9.3 11.7 3.9 2.5 1.6 -76 -36
North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.7 6.0 5.7 3.4 3.6 2.3 -35 -34
Ohio 3.6 5.3 11.2 14.9 14.6 6.2 4.9 6.1 -64 26
Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 7.6 9.1 9.8 3.1 2.5 1.8 -70 -30
Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.0 8.1 8.8 3.4 3.9 6.9 -48 79
Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 13.8 12.3 13.9 6.3 6.3 3.9 -51 -38
Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 14.7 13.4 17.1 13.5 10.1 4.9 -39 -52
South Carolina 2.3 4.2 11.6 8.7 10.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 -67 -6
South Dakota 3.1 5.0 7.1 6.7 6.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 -56 9
Tennessee 4.2 7.5 8.9 11.8 14.5 7.7 9.5 7.6 -31 -19
Texas 1.7 4.1 5.2 8.7 9.7 4.3 2.7 1.4 -69 -49
Utah 3.7 5.4 4.4 4.9 4.5 2.3 2.1 1.3 -46 -41
Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.9 9.5 11.5 7.0 5.9 4.2 -46 -27
Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 6.8 7.9 3.1 3.4 3.0 -52 -9
Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 11.3 13.0 7.6 6.7 6.6 -46 -1
West Virginia 12.2 11.2 10.4 15.7 15.7 5.5 5.6 4.4 -62 -21
Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 10.5 12.1 10.8 2.5 2.9 3.6 -68 24
Wyoming 2.1 3.2 3.4 7.0 7.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 -94 -3

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. Census Bureau (resident population by state and age available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html.

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2011 [In thousands]

  Families All Recipients Child Recipients
TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total
U.S. Total 1,864 58 1,922 4,417 64 4,481 3,316 122 3,437
Alabama 23.2 23.2 56.5 56.5 41.6 41.6
Alaska 3.7 3.7 10.0 10.0 6.8 6.8
Arizona 18.3 18.3 41.4 41.4 29.8 29.8
Arkansas 8.1 8.1 18.4 18.4 13.1 13.1
California 602.0 602.0 1,474.9 1,474.9 1,145.3 1,145.3
Colorado 11.9 11.9 30.7 30.7 22.6 22.6
Connecticut 16.5 16.5 32.4 32.4 22.8 22.8
Delaware 5.5 5.5 15.7 15.7 9.7 9.7
D.C. 8.8 8.8 24.4 24.4 18.5 18.5
Florida 55.1 55.1 98.9 98.9 80.4 80.4
Georgia 19.9 19.9 37.2 37.2 33.4 33.4
Guam 1.3 1.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.3
Hawaii 9.3 0.6 10.0 27.0 0.9 27.9 18.1 1.8 19.9
Idaho 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6
Illinois 28.5 28.5 83.0 83.0 69.1 69.1
Indiana 27.9 27.9 66.3 66.3 50.5 50.5
Iowa 17.5 3.3 20.9 44.6 3.3 47.9 30.7 5.8 36.6
Kansas 14.9 14.9 38.5 38.5 25.9 25.9
Kentucky 30.9 30.9 63.1 63.1 49.5 49.5
Louisiana 10.5 10.5 24.0 24.0 20.2 20.2
Maine 11.2 4.3 15.5 26.3 5.2 31.5 17.5 8.6 26.1
Maryland 25.3 0.0 25.3 61.6 0.0 61.6 44.5 0.0 44.5
Massachusetts 50.5 50.5 99.3 99.3 66.1 66.1
Michigan 66.2 66.2 173.0 173.0 124.0 124.0
Minnesota 23.1 1.7 24.8 49.2 1.7 50.9 37.3 3.3 40.6
Mississippi 11.8 11.8 24.9 24.9 18.1 18.1
Missouri 36.1 3.1 39.2 86.7 3.0 89.8 59.6 4.6 64.3
Montana 3.5 3.5 8.7 8.7 6.2 6.2
Nebraska 6.6 1.5 8.1 15.6 1.3 16.9 12.7 2.9 15.6
Nevada 10.8 0.0 10.8 27.7 0.0 27.7 20.5 0.0 20.6
New Hampshire 5.2 0.9 6.0 10.6 0.9 11.5 7.8 1.4 9.2
New Jersey 34.9 34.9 83.8 83.8 58.4 58.4
New Mexico 20.4 20.4 52.4 52.4 37.5 37.5
New York 123.2 34.4 157.6 278.1 38.5 316.6 207.0 78.6 285.6
North Carolina 22.9 22.9 43.9 43.9 37.1 37.1
North Dakota 1.8 1.8 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5
Ohio 99.5 99.5 225.5 225.5 163.7 163.7
Oklahoma 9.0 9.0 20.2 20.2 16.5 16.5
Oregon 30.6 3.0 33.6 80.3 3.2 83.5 54.6 5.4 59.9
Pennsylvania 59.9 59.9 146.0 146.0 107.6 107.6
Puerto Rico 15.2 15.2 41.3 41.3 27.4 27.4
Rhode Island 6.5 6.5 15.5 15.5 10.7 10.7
South Carolina 17.8 17.8 42.0 42.0 31.5 31.5
South Dakota 3.3 3.3 6.8 6.8 5.7 5.7
Tennessee 61.3 0.9 62.2 155.3 1.3 156.6 112.2 1.9 114.1
Texas 49.6 49.6 112.8 112.8 96.9 96.9
Utah 5.9 0.3 6.2 15.2 0.3 15.5 10.7 0.5 11.2
Vermont 2.9 0.4 3.3 6.3 0.6 6.9 4.5 0.8 5.3
Virgin Islands 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0
Virginia 33.8 2.1 36.0 75.1 1.8 76.8 53.9 2.6 56.5
Washington 62.7 1.2 63.9 148.8 1.3 150.0 103.5 2.5 106.1
West Virginia 10.4 10.4 23.6 23.6 16.9 16.9
Wisconsin 25.8 0.4 26.2 61.7 0.5 62.2 46.8 0.9 47.6
Wyoming 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

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://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_c...).

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), 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, SNAP 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.

SNAP 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. SNAP 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 SNAP 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 some 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 SNAP allotments. The authorizing legislation provides 100 percent federal funding of SNAP benefits. States and other jurisdictions have responsibility for about half the cost of state and local SNAP agency administration.

In addition to the regular SNAP program, the legislation 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 $2.0 billion in 2011. Unless noted otherwise, SNAP caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior to 2004, editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to SNAP, to be consistent with data published by the USDA.)

SNAP is available to nearly all financially needy households. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, a household must meet eligibility criteria for gross and net income, asset holdings, work requirements, and citizenship or immigration status. The SNAP 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.

Certain households are categorically eligible for SNAP and therefore not subject to income or asset limits. Households are categorically eligible if all of their members receive SSI, cash or in-kind TANF benefits, or General Assistance. States have options on which in-kind TANF programs confer categorical eligibility.

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for categorically-eligible households, or households containing elderly or disabled members, 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. Non categorically-eligible households also must not have more than $2,000 in assets comprised of cash, savings, stocks and bonds, and in some states some vehicles. Households with an elderly or disabled member can have up to $3,250 in countable assets. (The resource limits are indexed to inflation and rounded to the nearest $250 increment each fiscal year.)

All nonexempt adult applicants for SNAP 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 SNAP office. Nondisabled adults living in households without children can receive benefits for three months only, unless they work or participate in work-related activities. This time limit can be waived for participants living in States or parts of States with high unemployment who apply for a waiver. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, were admitted as refugees or asylees, or have at least five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

SNAP 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 SNAP purchases may not be charged sales tax. Receipt of SNAP benefits does not affect eligibility for benefits provided by other welfare programs, although some programs use SNAP participation as a “trigger” for eligibility and others take into account the general availability of SNAP in deciding what level of benefits to provide.

SNAP Program Data

The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:

  • Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 2 and Figure SNAP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on SNAP as discussed below;
  • Table SNAP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the SNAP caseload; and
  • Tables SNAP 4 through SNAP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the SNAP through fiscal year 2011.

SNAP Caseload Trends (Table SNAP 1). Average monthly SNAP participation was 44.7 million persons in fiscal year 2011, 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 and exceeds the previous peak of 27.5 million recipients in fiscal year 1994. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data trends in SNAP caseload, specifically, SNAP recipiency and participation rates.

Considerable research has demonstrated that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is responsive to economic changes, with participation increasing in times of economic downturns and decreasing in times of economic growth (see Figure SNAP 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. Participation fell most rapidly among the following three groups: 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 SNAP, even while remaining eligible (Genser, 1999; Wilde et al., 2000; Gleason et al., 2001; Kornfeld, 2002).

The increase in SNAP participation from 2000 to 2005 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to five percent, eligibility was restored to many legal immigrants, 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 efforts were made to streamline program administration and improve access for vulnerable populations. In response to these changes and the 2007-2009 recession, by 2011 the SNAP participation rate (the percent of eligible households) is estimated to be 83.3 percent. Between 2000 and 2011, SNAP participation increased by 12.1 million households (see Table IND 4b). Part of this increase was associated with an increase in the number of eligible households and part was associated with an increased participation rate among those households that were eligible.

SNAP Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table SNAP 2, were more than $7 billion higher in 2011 than they were in 2010, reflecting the increase in participation during that period. The total federal program costs were $75.7 billion in 2011, $70.1 billion in 2010, $56.0 billion in 2009, $39.2 billion in 2008, and $36.1 billion in 2007 (after adjusting for inflation). The average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table SNAP 2, were $133.85 per person in 2011, $137.40 per person in 2010, $130.80 per person in 2009, $106.30 in 2008 and $104.50 in 2007 (after adjusting for inflation).

SNAP Household Characteristics. As shown in Table SNAP 3, the proportion of SNAP households with earnings has increased, from about 20 percent for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, to 31 percent in 2011. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 42 percent in 1990 to 8 percent in 2011, following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. A large percentage of all SNAP households have children, although the proportion has declined from over 60 percent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s to 47 percent in 2011. The majority (83 percent in 2011) of households have gross incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

More information about SNAP, including program data can be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2011

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2011

(In millions)

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2011

Note: Total persons includes participants receiving assistance in Guam and the Virgin Islands. 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, published online at www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2011Characteristics.pdf and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank.

Table SNAP 1. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2011

Fiscal
Year
Food Stamp Participants/SNAP Participants as a Percent of: Ratio of Child Participants to:
Including Territories 1 (thousands) Excluding Territories (thousands) Children Excld. Terr. (thousands) Total Population 2 All Poor Persons 2 Total Child Population 2 (percent) Children in Poverty 2 (percent)
1962 6,554 6,554 NA 3.5 17.0 NA NA
1965 5,167 5,167 NA 2.7 15.6 NA NA
1970 8,340 8,317 NA 4.1 32.7 NA NA
1975 3 17,064 16,320 NA 7.6 63.1 NA NA
1976 18,549 17,033 9,126 7.8 68.2 13.8 88.8
1977 17,064 15,604 NA 7.1 63.1 NA NA
1978 16,001 14,405 NA 6.5 58.8 NA NA
1979 4 17,653 15,942 NA 7.1 61.1 NA NA
1980 21,082 19,253 9,876 8.5 65.8 15.5 85.6
1981 22,430 20,655 9,803 9.0 64.9 15.5 78.4
1982 21,717 20,391 9,591 8.8 59.3 15.3 70.3
1983 21,625 20,095 10,910 8.6 56.9 17.4 78.4
1984 20,854 20,796 10,492 8.8 61.7 16.8 78.2
1985 19,899 19,847 9,801 8.3 60.0 15.7 75.3
1986 19,429 19,381 9,844 8.1 59.9 15.7 76.5
1987 19,113 19,072 9,771 7.9 59.2 15.5 76.1
1988 18,645 18,613 9,351 7.6 58.6 14.8 75.1
1989 18,806 18,778 9,429 7.6 59.6 14.9 74.9
1990 20,049 20,020 10,127 8.0 59.6 15.8 75.4
1991 22,625 22,599 11,952 8.9 63.3 18.3 83.3
1992 25,407 25,371 13,349 9.9 66.7 20.1 87.3
1993 26,987 26,957 14,196 10.4 68.7 21.0 90.3
1994 27,474 27,439 14,391 10.4 72.1 21.0 94.1
1995 26,619 26,579 13,856 10.0 73.0 20.0 94.5
1996 25,543 25,495 13,195 9.5 69.8 18.8 91.2
1997 22,858 22,820 11,848 8.4 64.1 16.7 83.9
1998 19,791 19,748 10,520 7.2 57.3 14.7 78.1
1999 18,183 18,114 9,331 6.5 55.2 13.0 76.0
2000 17,194 17,054 8,741 6.0 54.0 12.1 75.5
2001 17,318 17,262 8,820 6.1 52.5 12.1 75.2
2002 19,096 19,003 9,686 6.6 55.0 13.3 79.8
2003 21,250 20,898 10,605 7.2 58.3 14.5 82.4
2004 23,811 23,447 11,778 8.0 63.3 16.1 90.3
2005 25,628 24,841 12,403 8.4 67.2 16.9 96.2
2006 26,549 25,555 12,580 8.6 70.1 17.1 98.1
2007 26,316 25,887 12,693 8.6 69.4 17.2 95.3
2008 28,223 27,751 13,473 9.1 69.7 18.2 95.8
2009 33,490 32,842 15,589 10.7 75.4 21.0 100.9
2010 40,302 39,703 18,484 12.8 85.7 24.9 113.5
2011 44,709 44,086 19,892 14.1 95.3 26.9 123.3

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 first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.

4 The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2011Characteristics.pdf and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank, the House Ways and Means Committee, 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245.

Table SNAP 2. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2011

Fiscal Year Total Federal Cost
(Benefits + Administration)
Benefits (Federal) (millions) Administration1 Total Program Cost (millions) Average Monthly Benefit per Person
Current Dollars (millions) 2011 Dollars(millions) Federal (millions) State & Local (millions) Current Dollars 2011 Dollars2
1975 $4,619 $18,057 $4,386 $233 $175 $4,794 $21.40 $83.30
1980 9,206 24,353 8,721 486 375 9,581 34.50 91.30
1981 11,225 26,982 10,630 595 504 11,729 39.50 94.90
1982 10,837 24,378 10,208 628 557 11,394 39.20 86.80
1983 11,847 25,469 11,152 695 612 12,459 43.00 92.40
1984 4 11,579 23,908 10,696 883 805 12,384 42.70 88.20
1985 11,703 23,334 10,744 960 871 12,574 45.00 89.70
1986 11,638 22,674 10,605 1,033 935 12,573 45.50 88.60
1987 11,604 22,022 10,500 1,104 996 12,600 45.80 86.90
1988 12,317 22,535 11,149 1,168 1,080 13,397 49.80 91.10
1989 12,902 22,643 11,670 1,232 1,101 14,003 51.70 90.70
1990 15,447 25,933 14,143 1,305 1,174 16,621 58.80 98.70
1991 18,747 30,122 17,316 1,432 1,247 19,994 63.80 102.50
1992 22,462 35,225 20,906 1,557 1,375 23,837 68.60 107.60
1993 23,653 36,167 22,006 1,647 1,572 25,225 68.00 104.00
1994 24,493 36,666 22,749 1,745 1,643 26,136 69.00 103.30
1995 24,620 36,004 22,764 1,856 1,748 26,368 71.30 104.30
1996 24,331 34,706 22,440 1,891 1,842 26,173 73.20 104.40
1997 21,508 29,941 19,549 1,959 1,904 23,412 71.30 99.30
1998 18,988 26,050 16,891 2,098 1,988 20,976 71.10 97.50
1999 17,821 24,017 15,769 2,052 1,874 19,695 72.30 97.40
2000 17,054 22,281 14,983 2,071 2,086 19,140 72.60 94.90
2001 17,789 22,522 15,547 2,242 2,233 20,022 74.80 94.70
2002 20,637 25,744 18,256 2,381 2,397 23,034 79.70 99.40
2003 23,816 29,023 21,404 2,412 2,633 26,449 83.90 102.20
2004 27,099 32,277 24,619 2,480 2,645 29,744 86.20 102.70
2005 31,072 35,835 28,568 2,504 2,713 33,785 92.90 107.10
2006 32,903 36,595 30,187 2,716 2,866 35,769 94.80 105.40
2007 33,192 36,069 30,373 2,819 2,947 36,139 96.20 104.50
2008 37,642 39,167 34,608 3,034 3,202 40,844 102.20 106.30
2009 53,622 55,979 50,360 3,262 3,394 57,016 125.30 130.80
2010 68,313 70,128 64,702 3,611 3,448 71,761 133.80 137.40
2011 75,718 75,718 71,811 3,907 3,433 79,151 133.85 133.85

Note: Total federal cost and the cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but 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 $2.0 billion in 2009.)

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 2011 level were made using a CPI-U-RS 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.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data (available at online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm) and http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011_state_activity.pdf.

Table SNAP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp/SNAP Households: Selected Years 1980–2011

  Year 1
1980 1984 1988 1990 1996 1998 2000 2005 2010 2011
With Gross Monthly Income: (In Percent)  
    Below the Federal Poverty Levels 87 93 92 92 91 90 89 88 85 83
    Between the Poverty Levels and 130
percent of the Poverty Levels
10 6 8 8 8 9 10 10 11 12
    Above 130 Percent of Poverty 2 1 * * 1 1 1 2 4 5
With Earnings 19 19 20 19 23 26 27 29 30 31
With Public Assistance Income 2 §§ §§ §§ §§ 61 59 56 43 31 30
    With AFDC/TANF Income NA 42 42 42 37 31 26 15 8 8
    With SSI Income 18 18 20 19 24 28 32 26 21 20
With Children 60 61 61 60 60 58 54 54 49 47
    And Female Heads of Household NA 47 50 51 50 47 44 44 NA NA
        With No Spouse Present NA NA 39 37 43 41 38 36 NA NA
With Elderly Members 3 23 22 19 18 16 18 21 17 16 16
Average Household Size 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1

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 These data refer to single-parent female heads with only one adult in the household but does not include households with more than one adult, not married, that are headed by a female (such as a single mom with teenage children, one of whom is 18).

4 Elderly members and heads of household include those of age 60 or older.

§§ The total percentage of households with public assistance income is approximately equal to the sum of those with AFDC/TANF and SSI income with some small percentage of households receiving both due to having individual members eligible for different forms of assistance (in 1996 just under 6 percent of households received assistance from multiple sources).

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households, Fiscal Year 2011, Report No. SNAP-12-CHAR (available online at www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2011Characteristics.pdf and earlier reports.

Table SNAP 4. Value of Food Stamps/SNAP Issued by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2011

  [In millions] Percent Change
1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 1995-00 2000-11
United States $4,386 $8,721 $14,186 $22,764 $14,983 $28,568 $64,702 $71,811 -34 379
Alabama $103 $246 $328 $441 $344 $616 $1,226 $1,493 -22 334
Alaska 6 27 25 50 46 80 159 176 -8 285
Arizona 41 97 239 414 240 634 1,588 1,649 -42 586
Arkansas 78 122 155 212 206 401 686 722 -3 250
California 361 530 968 2,473 1,639 2,315 5,692 6,482 -34 295
Colorado 44 71 156 217 127 313 688 763 -42 503
Connecticut 36 59 72 169 138 223 570 647 -18 369
Delaware 6 21 25 47 31 65 171 205 -33 560
Dist. of Columbia 31 41 43 92 77 103 196 229 -17 199
Florida 207 421 609 1,307 771 1,598 4,417 5,149 -41 568
Georgia 129 264 382 700 489 1,048 2,565 2,892 -30 491
Guam 2 15 15 24 36 54 97 105 48 194
Hawaii 23 60 81 177 166 156 358 413 -6 148
Idaho 11 29 40 59 46 103 300 362 -21 684
Illinois 238 394 835 1,056 777 1,400 2,784 2,995 -26 286
Indiana 58 154 226 382 268 627 1,291 1,386 -30 417
Iowa 28 54 109 142 100 220 526 567 -29 466
Kansas 12 38 96 144 83 180 403 453 -43 447
Kentucky 135 211 334 413 337 611 1,186 1,261 -18 274
Louisiana 148 243 549 629 448 979 1,286 1,386 -29 209
Maine 31 60 63 112 81 162 356 382 -28 369
Maryland 76 140 203 365 199 320 878 1,035 -45 419
Massachusetts 75 171 207 315 182 363 1,166 1,292 -42 612
Michigan 124 263 663 806 457 1,099 2,809 3,151 -43 590
Minnesota 40 62 165 240 165 275 625 698 -31 324
Mississippi 110 199 352 383 226 463 847 921 -41 307
Missouri 82 142 312 488 358 736 1,361 1,438 -27 302
Montana 11 18 41 57 51 89 177 193 -11 278
Nebraska 11 25 59 77 61 120 238 256 -20 321
Nevada 10 15 41 91 57 129 415 497 -38 777
New Hampshire 11 22 20 44 28 51 152 163 -37 478
New Jersey 125 226 289 506 304 437 1,030 1,214 -40 300
New Mexico 48 81 117 196 140 251 542 632 -29 353
New York 209 726 1,086 2,065 1,361 2,136 4,985 5,351 -34 293
North Carolina 122 234 282 495 403 856 2,072 2,377 -18 490
North Dakota 5 9 25 32 25 45 95 96 -22 279
Ohio 253 382 861 1,017 520 1,155 2,734 2,986 -49 474
Oklahoma 38 73 186 315 208 440 900 947 -34 355
Oregon 56 80 168 254 198 456 1,067 1,189 -22 501
Pennsylvania 175 373 661 1,006 656 1,105 2,333 2,647 -35 304
Rhode Island 18 31 42 82 59 79 238 275 -28 364
South Carolina 121 181 240 297 249 566 1,256 1,340 -16 437
South Dakota 8 18 35 40 37 61 153 162 -7 341
Tennessee 115 282 372 554 415 942 1,966 2,049 -25 394
Texas 314 514 1,429 2,246 1,215 2,659 5,447 5,993 -46 393
Utah 12 22 71 90 68 141 367 401 -24 488
Vermont 9 18 22 46 32 45 124 135 -30 321
Virgin Islands 6 19 18 28 21 21 43 48 -24 129
Virginia 63 158 247 450 263 500 1,213 1,335 -42 408
Washington 70 90 229 417 241 539 1,387 1,603 -42 564
West Virginia 56 87 192 253 185 258 487 497 -27 168
Wisconsin 29 68 180 220 129 317 1,000 1,118 -42 768
Wyoming 3 6 21 28 19 27 52 53 -32 186

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 (2004 to 2008 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/17SNAPfyBEN$.htm) and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

Table SNAP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp/SNAP Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years

  [In thousands] Percent Change
1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 1995-00 2000-10
United States 17,192 21,082 20,049 26,619 17,194 25,718 40,302 44,709 -35 160
Alabama 365 583 454 525 396 559 805 920 -24 132
Alaska 15 29 25 45 38 56 76 86 -17 129
Arizona 143 196 317 480 259 550 1,018 1,068 -46 312
Arkansas 267 301 235 272 247 374 467 486 -9 97
California 1,455 1,493 1,937 3,175 1,831 1,992 3,239 3,673 -42 101
Colorado 150 163 221 252 156 246 405 453 -38 191
Connecticut 155 170 133 226 165 204 336 379 -27 129
Delaware 26 52 33 57 32 62 113 135 -44 319
Dist. of Columbia 122 103 62 94 81 89 118 135 -14 67
Florida 647 912 781 1,395 882 1,382 2,603 3,075 -37 248
Georgia 498 627 536 816 559 921 1,591 1,780 -31 218
Guam 6 22 12 16 22 27 37 41 35 83
Hawaii 75 102 77 125 118 94 138 160 -5 35
Idaho 39 61 59 80 58 93 194 229 -27 293
Illinois 926 903 1,013 1,151 817 1,158 1,646 1,794 -29 120
Indiana 392 353 311 470 300 556 813 878 -36 192
Iowa 115 141 170 184 123 207 340 374 -33 203
Kansas 58 90 142 184 117 178 270 299 -37 156
Kentucky 472 468 458 520 403 570 778 823 -22 104
Louisiana 510 569 727 711 500 808 826 885 -30 77
Maine 126 139 94 132 102 153 230 248 -23 144
Maryland 261 324 255 399 219 289 561 668 -45 205
Massachusetts 365 453 347 410 232 368 749 814 -43 251
Michigan 619 813 917 971 603 1,048 1,776 1,928 -38 220
Minnesota 167 171 263 308 196 260 430 506 -36 158
Mississippi 376 496 499 480 276 435 576 623 -43 126
Missouri 300 335 431 576 423 766 901 943 -26 123
Montana 38 43 57 71 59 81 114 124 -16 109
Nebraska 49 66 95 105 82 117 163 174 -22 111
Nevada 32 32 50 99 61 122 278 333 -38 447
New Hampshire 44 50 31 58 36 52 104 113 -38 213
New Jersey 490 605 382 551 345 392 622 759 -37 120
New Mexico 157 185 157 239 169 241 357 414 -29 145
New York 1,291 1,759 1,548 2,183 1,439 1,755 2,758 3,000 -34 109
North Carolina 466 582 419 614 488 800 1,346 1,590 -20 226
North Dakota 19 25 39 41 32 42 60 61 -23 91
Ohio 854 865 1,089 1,155 610 1,007 1,607 1,779 -47 192
Oklahoma 171 209 267 375 253 424 582 615 -32 143
Oregon 201 197 216 289 234 429 705 773 -19 230
Pennsylvania 848 980 952 1,173 777 1,043 1,575 1,718 -34 121
Rhode Island 86 87 64 93 74 76 139 160 -21 116
South Carolina 410 426 299 364 295 521 797 844 -19 186
South Dakota 33 43 50 50 43 56 95 102 -14 137
Tennessee 397 624 527 662 496 850 1,224 1,276 -25 157
Texas 1,133 1,167 1,880 2,558 1,333 2,442 3,552 3,977 -48 198
Utah 46 54 99 119 82 133 247 284 -31 247
Vermont 44 46 38 59 41 45 86 92 -31 125
Virgin Islands 16 34 18 23 16 14 20 23 -32 45
Virginia 257 384 346 546 336 488 786 859 -38 156
Washington 253 248 340 476 295 508 956 1,055 -38 257
West Virginia 242 209 262 309 227 262 341 346 -26 52
Wisconsin 148 215 286 320 193 346 715 801 -40 315
Wyoming 10 14 28 34 22 25 35 36 -33 61

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 (2000 to 2011 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm) and unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table SNAP 6. Food Stamp/SNAP Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years [In percent]

    Percent Change
1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 1995-00 2000-11
United States 7.6 8.4 8.0 10.0 6.1 8.7 13.0 14.3 -39 136
Alabama 9.9 14.9 11.2 12.2 8.9 12.2 16.8 19.2 -27 115
Alaska 4.0 7.1 4.5 7.5 6.0 8.3 10.7 11.9 -21 99
Arizona 6.3 7.1 8.6 10.8 5.0 9.4 15.9 16.5 -54 229
Arkansas 12.4 13.1 10.0 10.7 9.2 13.4 16.0 16.6 -14 80
California 6.8 6.3 6.5 10.0 5.4 5.6 8.7 9.7 -46 81
Colorado 5.8 5.6 6.7 6.6 3.6 5.3 8.0 8.9 -45 146
Connecticut 5.0 5.5 4.0 6.8 4.8 5.8 9.4 10.6 -29 118
Delaware  4.5  8.7  5.0  7.8  4.1  7.3  12.5  14.9  -48 193
Dist. of Columbia 17.2 16.1 10.3 16.2 14.1 15.3 19.6 21.8 -13 54
Florida 7.6 9.3 6.0 9.6 5.5 7.7 13.8 16.1 -43 193
Georgia 9.8 11.4 8.2 11.1 6.8 10.3 16.4 18.1 -39 167
Hawaii 8.4 10.6 6.9 10.4 9.7 7.2 10.1 11.6 -7 19
Idaho 4.6 6.4 5.8 6.8 4.5 6.5 12.4 14.4 -34 222
Illinois 8.2 7.9 8.8 9.6 6.6 9.2 12.8 13.9 -31 112
Indiana 7.3 6.4 5.6 8.0 4.9 8.9 12.5 13.5 -39 173
Iowa 4.0 4.8 6.1 6.4 4.2 7.0 11.2 12.2 -34 190
Kansas 2.5 3.8 5.7 7.1 4.3 6.5 9.4 10.4 -39 141
Kentucky 13.6 12.8 12.4 13.4 10.0 13.6 17.9 18.9 -26 89
Louisiana 13.1 13.5 17.2 16.2 11.2 17.7 18.2 19.3 -31 73
Maine  11.8  12.3  7.6  10.6  8.0  11.6  17.3  18.7 -25 135
Maryland 6.3 7.7 5.3 7.9 4.1 5.2 9.7 11.4 -48 177
Massachusetts 6.3 7.9 5.8 6.7 3.6 5.7 11.4 12.3 -45 238
Michigan 6.8 8.8 9.8 10.0 6.1 10.4 18.0 19.5 -40 222
Minnesota 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.6 4.0 5.1 8.1 9.5 -40 138
Mississippi 15.7 19.6 19.4 17.6 9.7 15.0 19.4 20.9 -45 116
Missouri 6.2 6.8 8.4 10.7 7.5 13.2 15.0 15.7 -29 108
Montana 5.1 5.5 7.1 8.1 6.6 8.6 11.5 12.5 -19 89
Nebraska 3.2 4.2 6.0 6.3 4.8 6.7 8.9 9.5 -24 97
Nevada 5.2 4.0 4.1 6.2 3.0 5.0 10.3 12.2 -52 306
New Hampshire 5.3 5.4 2.7 5.0 2.9 4.0 7.9 8.6 -42 194
New Jersey 6.7 8.2 4.9 6.8 4.1 4.5 7.1 8.6 -40 110
New Mexico 13.5 14.1 10.3 13.9 9.3 12.5 17.3 19.9 -33 114
New York 7.2 10.0 8.6 11.8 7.6 9.2 14.2 15.4 -36 103
North Carolina 8.4 9.9 6.3 8.4 6.0 9.2 14.1 16.5 -28 173
North Dakota 2.9 3.9 6.1 6.4 5.0 6.5 8.9 8.9 -22 79
Ohio 7.9 8.0 10.0 10.3 5.4 8.8 13.9 15.4 -48 187
Oklahoma 6.2 6.9 8.5 11.3 7.3 12.0 15.5 16.2 -35 122
Oregon 8.6 7.5 7.6 9.1 6.8 11.9 18.4 20.0 -25 192
Pennsylvania 7.1 8.3 8.0 9.6 6.3 8.4 12.4 13.5 -34 113
Rhode Island 9.2 9.1 6.4 9.2 7.1 7.1 13.2 15.2 -23 116
South Carolina 14.1 13.6 8.5 9.7 7.3 12.2 17.2 18.1 -24 146
South Dakota 4.8 6.2 7.2 6.8 5.7 7.2 11.7 12.4 -17 118
Tennessee 9.3 13.6 10.8 12.4 8.7 14.2 19.3 19.9 -30 129
Texas 9.0 8.1 11.0 13.5 6.4 10.7 14.1 15.5 -53 144
Utah 3.7 3.7 5.7 5.9 3.6 5.4 8.9 10.1 -38 176
Vermont 9.1 8.9 6.8 10.1 6.7 7.3 13.7 14.7 -33 119
Virginia 5.1 7.2 5.6 8.2 4.7 6.4 9.8 10.6 -42 124
Washington  7.0  6.0  6.9  8.7  5.0  8.1  14.2  15.5  -26  210 
West Virginia 13.1 10.7 14.6 16.9 12.6 14.4 18.4 18.7 -43 49
Wisconsin 3.2 4.6 5.8 6.2 3.6 6.2 12.6 14.0 -42 291
Wyoming 2.7 3.0 6.2 6.9 4.5 5.0 6.2 6.4 -34 40

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 and the denominator is the Census Bureau’s estimate of state population.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Office of Food and Nutrition Service, (2000 to 2010 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm and unpublished data from the National Data Bank; U.S. Census Bureau (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 $674 for an individual and $1,011 for a married couple (if both are eligible) in fiscal year 2011. 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.”

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, there is no federal prohibition against individuals receiving both TANF benefits and SSI.

With the exception of California, which converted the value of SNAP benefits to cash payments that are included in the state supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive SNAP. If all household members receive SSI, the household is categorically eligible for SNAP and does not need to meet SNAP’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 SNAP to be eligible for SNAP benefits.

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

  • Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 and Figure SSI 1 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 20011.

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 7 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. Between 2000 and 2011, the caseload increased from 6.6 to 8.1 million beneficiaries, an average annual growth rate of 1.9 percent. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2011, 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.

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 2004 and has since remained essentially unchanged. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 6.9 million in December 2011. 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 over the next three years, but has been increasing since 2000, reaching a little under 1.3 million children in 2011.

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.24

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). The total amount of federally administered SSI benefits has increased over the past six years from $42.9 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2005 to over $49.5 billion in 2011, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly federally administered benefits per person were $502 in 2011, down (0.8 percent) from 2005 inflation adjusted benefit level of $506. 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 aged recipients has decreased from 44 percent in 1980 to under 15 percent in 2011. During the same period, the percentage of disabled recipients increased from 55 percent in 1980 to 85 percent in 2011.

More information about the SSI program, including research and statistics, and Annual Statistical Supplements, can be found at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/.


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

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011 Source:

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

(In millions)

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

Figure SSI 2. Percent SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

Figure SSI 2. Percent SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

(Percent)

 src=
 

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974 – 2011 [In thousands]

Date Total Eligibility Category Type of Recipient
Aged Blind and Disabled Children Adults
Total Blind Disabled Age 18-64 65 or Older
Dec 1974 3,996 2,286 1,710 75 1,636 71 1 1,503 2,422
Dec 1975 4,314 2,307 2,007 74 1,933 107 1,699 2,508
Dec 1976 4,236 2,148 2,088 76 2,012 125 1,714 2,397
Dec 1977 4,238 2,051 2,187 77 2,109 147 1,737 2,353
Dec 1978 4,217 1,968 2,249 77 2,172 166 1,747 2,304
Dec 1979 4,150 1,872 2,278 77 2,201 177 1,727 2,246
Dec 1980 4,142 1,808 2,334 78 2,256 190 1,731 2,221
Dec 1981 4,019 1,678 2,341 79 2,262 195 1,703 2,121
Dec 1982 3,858 1,549 2,309 77 2,231 192 1,655 2,011
Dec 1983 3,901 1,515 2,386 79 2,307 198 1,700 2,003
Dec 1984 4,029 1,530 2,499 81 2,419 212 1,780 2,037
Dec 1985 4,138 1,504 2,634 82 2,551 227 1,879 2,031
Dec 1986 4,269 1,473 2,796 83 2,713 241 2,010 2,018
Dec 1987 4,385 1,455 2,930 83 2,846 251 2,119 2,015
Dec 1988 4,464 1,433 3,030 83 2,948 255 2,203 2,006
Dec 1989 4,593 1,439 3,154 83 3,071 265 2,302 2,026
Dec 1990 4,817 1,454 3,363 84 3,279 309 2,450 2,059
Dec 1991 5,118 1,465 3,654 85 3,569 397 2,642 2,080
Dec 1992 2 5,566 1,471 4,095 85 4,010 556 2,910 2,100
Dec 1993 5,984 1,475 4,509 85 4,424 723 3,148 2,113
Dec 1994 6,296 1,466 4,830 85 4,745 841 3,335 2,119
Dec 1995 6,514 1,446 5,068 84 4,984 917 3,482 2,115
Dec 1996 6,614 1,413 5,201 82 5,119 955 3,568 2,090
Dec 1997 6,495 1,362 5,133 81 5,052 880 3,562 2,054
Dec 1998 6,566 1,332 5,234 80 5,154 887 3,646 2,033
Dec 1999 6,557 1,308 5,249 79 5,169 847 3,691 2,019
Dec 2000 6,602 1,289 5,312 79 5,234 847 3,744 2,011
Dec 2001 6,688 1,264 5,424 78 5,346 882 3,811 1,995
Dec 2002 6,788 1,252 5,537 78 5,459 915 3,878 1,995
Dec 2003 6,902 1,233 5,670 77 5,593 959 3,953 1,990
Dec 2004 6,988 1,211 5,777 76 5,701 993 4,017 1,978
Dec 2005 7,114 1,214 5,900 75 5,825 1,036 4,083 1,995
Dec 2006 7,236 1,212 6,024 73 5,951 1,079 4,152 2,004
Dec 2007 7,360 1,205 6,155 72 6,083 1,121 4,222 2,017
Dec 2008 7,521 1,203 6,317 70 6,247 1,154 4,333 2,034
Dec 2009 7,677 1,186 6,491 69 6,421 1,200 4,445 2,026
Dec 2010 7,912 1,184 6,728 69 6,629 1,239 4,632 2,041
Dec 2011 8,113 1,182 6,931 69 6,862 1,277 4,777 2,059

1 Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.

2 The jump in benefits in 1992 is due to retroactive payments resulting from the Sullivan v. Zebley decision.

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2009 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates by Age: 1974 – 2011

Date All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population1 Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population1 Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children1 Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
All Persons 65 & Older1 All Elderly Poor2
Dec 1974 1.9 1.2 0.1 10.8 78.5
Dec 1975 2.0 1.3 0.2 10.9 75.6
Dec 1976 1.9 1.3 0.2 10.2 72.3
Dec 1977 1.9 1.3 0.2 9.7 74.1
Dec 1978 1.9 1.3 0.3 9.3 71.3
Dec 1979 1.8 1.3 0.3 8.8 61.0
Dec 1980 1.8 1.2 0.3 8.6 57.4
Dec 1981 1.7 1.2 0.3 8.0 55.1
Dec 1982 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.4 53.6
Dec 1983 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.3 55.3
Dec 1984 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.2 61.2
Dec 1985 1.7 1.3 0.4 7.1 58.8
Dec 1986 1.8 1.3 0.4 6.9 58.0
Dec 1987 1.8 1.4 0.4 6.7 56.6
Dec 1988 1.8 1.5 0.4 6.6 57.6
Dec 1989 1.9 1.5 0.4 6.5 60.3
Dec 1990 1.9 1.6 0.5 6.5 56.3
Dec 1991 2.0 1.7 0.6 6.5 55.0
Dec 1992 2.2 1.8 0.8 6.4 53.5
Dec 1993 2.3 2.0 1.1 6.4 56.3
Dec 1994 2.4 2.1 1.2 6.3 57.9
Dec 1995 2.4 2.1 1.3 6.2 63.7
Dec 1996 2.4 2.1 1.4 6.1 61.0
Dec 1997 2.4 2.1 1.2 6.0 60.8
Dec 1998 2.4 2.1 1.2 5.9 60.0
Dec 1999 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.8 62.7
Dec 2000 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.7 60.5
Dec 2001 2.3 2.2 1.2 5.6 58.4
Dec 2002 2.3 2.2 1.3 5.6 55.8
Dec 2003 2.4 2.2 1.3 5.5 56.0
Dec 2004 2.4 2.2 1.3 5.4 57.3
Dec 2005 2.4 2.2 1.4 5.4 55.4
Dec 2006 2.4 2.2 1.5 5.3 59.1
Dec 2007 2.4 2.2 1.5 5.3 56.7
Dec 2008 2.5 2.3 1.5 5.2 55.6
Dec 2009 2.5 2.3 1.6 5.1 59.0
Dec 2010 2.5 2.4 1.7 5.0 57.4
Dec 2011 2.6 2.4 1.7 4.9 56.9

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 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 P60-245.

Note: Numerators for these ratios are from Table SSI 1. Rates computed by DHHS.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011," Current Population Reports, Series P60-245 (available online at www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Federally Administered SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974 – 2011 (1) [In millions of dollars]

Calendar Year Total Benefits Federal Payments State Supplementation Administrative Costs (fiscal year)
2011 Dollars 2 Current Dollars
1974 $20,505 $5,097 $3,833 $1,264 $285
1975 21,238 5,716 4,314 1,403 399
1976 20,732 5,900 4,512 1,388 500
1977 20,261 6,134 4,703 1,431 527
1978 20,160 6,372 4,881 1,491 539
1979 19,832 6,869 5,279 1,590 611
1980 20,048 7,715 5,866 1,848 668
1981 19,830 8,357 6,518 1,839 717
1982 19,480 8,705 6,907 1,798 780
1983 19,603 9,134 7,423 1,711 846
1984 20,769 10,073 8,281 1,792 864
1985 21,429 10,750 8,777 1,973 956
1986 22,989 11,741 9,498 2,243 1,023
1987 23,848 12,592 10,029 2,563 977
1988 24,489 13,405 10,734 2,671 976
1989 25,501 14,561 11,606 2,955 1,052
1990 26,913 16,133 12,894 3,239 1,075
1991 28,981 17,996 14,765 3,231 1,230
1992 34,055 21,682 18,247 3,435 1,426
1993 36,772 23,991 20,722 3,270 1,468
1994 37,954 25,291 22,175 3,116 1,780
1995 39,620 27,037 23,919 3,118 1,978
1996 40,328 28,252 25,265 2,988 1,953
1997 39,640 28,371 25,457 2,913 2,055
1998 40,524 29,408 26,405 3,003 2,304
1999 40,638 30,106 26,805 3,301 2,493
2000 40,059 30,672 27,290 3,381 2,321
2001 40,863 32,166 28,706 3,460 2,397
2002 42,155 33,719 29,899 3,820 2,522
2003 42,426 34,693 30,688 4,005 2,656
2004 42,943 36,065 31,887 4,179 2,806
2005 42,898 37,236 33,058 4,178 2,795
2006 43,381 38,889 34,736 4,153 2,916
2007 44,696 41,205 36,884 4,321 2,857
2008 44,960 43,040 38,656 4,385 2,820
2009 48,855 46,592 42,629 3,964 3,316
2010 49,715 48,195 44,605 3,589 3,629
2011 49,520 49,520 46,000 3,521 3,931

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-RS for calendar years.

Note: This table differs from earlier versions; because of variations across states in reported numbers of recipients and payment amounts of SSI state-administered state supplements, information on state-administered state supplements is no longer published by SSA.

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report and Annual Report of the SSI Program.

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly Federally Administered SSI Benefits: 1975 – 2011 (1) [In millions of dollars]

Date Total Benefits Federal Payments State Supplementation
2011 Dollars 2 Current Dollars
Dec 1975 $395 $106 $91 $62
Dec 1976 393 112 96 67
Dec 1977 386 117 101 67
Dec 1978 387 122 107 111
Dec 1979 431 149 119 95
Dec 1980 421 162 138 95
Dec 1981 418 176 155 92
Dec 1982 423 189 168 91
Dec 1983 438 204 182 94
Dec 1984 436 211 189 99
Dec 1985 435 218 194 99
Dec 1986 456 233 205 116
Dec 1987 452 238 208 114
Dec 1988 448 245 215 121
Dec 1989 450 257 224 128
Dec 1990 461 276 242 128
Dec 1991 470 292 260 120
Dec 1992 474 302 275 105
Dec 1993 483 315 290 100
Dec 1994 488 325 302 94
Dec 1995 492 335 313 99
Dec 1996 491 344 322 99
Dec 1997 490 351 328 102
Dec 1998 495 359 336 102
Dec 1999 497 369 342 111
Dec 2000 495 379 351 113
Dec 2001 500 394 366 114
Dec 2002 509 407 377 128
Dec 2003 510 417 384 138
Dec 2004 510 428 395 138
Dec 2005 506 439 407 156
Dec 2006 507 455 423 156
Dec 2007 508 468 437 157
Dec 2008 499 478 447 156
Dec 2009 523 499 476 125
Dec 2010 516 501 479 124
Dec 2011 502 502 481 119

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-RS for calendar years.

Note: This table differs from earlier versions because of variations across states in reported numbers of recipients and payment amounts of SSI state-administered state supplements, information on state-administered state supplements is no longer published by SSA.

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/.

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments by Eligibility Category [In thousands]

Month and year Total 1 Federal SSI Federally Administered State Supplementation State Supplementation Only
Jan 1974 3,216 2,956 1,480 260
Dec 1975 4,314 3,893 1,684 421
Dec 1976 4,236 3,799 1,638 437
Dec 1977 4,238 3,778 1,658 460
Dec 1978 4,217 3,755 1,681 462
Dec 1979 4,150 3,687 1,684 462
Dec 1980 4,142 3,682 1,685 460
Dec 1981 4,019 3,590 1,625 429
Dec 1982 3,858 3,473 1,550 384
Dec 1983 3,901 3,590 1,558 312
Dec 1984 4,029 3,699 1,607 331
Dec 1985 4,138 3,799 1,661 339
Dec 1986 4,269 3,922 1,723 348
Dec 1987 4,385 4,019 1,807 366
Dec 1988 4,464 4,089 1,885 375
Dec 1989 4,593 4,206 1,950 387
Dec 1990 4,817 4,412 2,058 405
Dec 1991 5,118 4,730 2,204 389
Dec 1992 5,566 5,202 2,372 364
Dec 1993 5,984 5,636 2,536 348
Dec 1994 6,296 5,965 2,628 331
Dec 1995 6,514 6,194 2,518 320
Dec 1996 6,614 6,326 2,421 288
Dec 1997 6,495 6,212 2,372 283
Dec 1998 6,566 6,289 2,412 277
Dec 1999 6,557 6,275 2,441 282
Dec 2000 6,602 6,320 2,481 282
Dec 2001 6,688 6,410 2,520 278
Dec 2002 6,788 6,505 2,462 283
Dec 2003 6,902 6,614 2,467 288
Dec 2004 6,988 6,695 2,498 293
Dec 2005 7,114 6,819 2,242 295
Dec 2006 7,236 6,939 2,269 297
Dec 2007 7,360 7,061 2,302 298
Dec 2008 7,521 7,219 2,344 301
Dec 2009 7,677 7,423 2,339 254
Dec 2010 7,912 7,656 2,386 257
Dec 2011 8,113 7,866 2,389 246

1 Total equals the sum of "Federal SSI" and "State supplementation only."

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2010 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/).

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients by Selected Characteristics: Selected Years 1980-2011

  1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011
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 14.1  12.8 14.6 15.7 15.7
    18-64 40.9 45.4 50.9 53.5  56.7 57.4 58.5 58.9
    65 or older 53.6 49.1 42.7 32.5  30.5 28.0 25.8 25.4
Sex
    Male 34.4 35.2 37.2 41.7  41.5 43.1 45.3 45.8
    Female 65.5 64.8 62.8 58.3  58.5 56.9 54.7 54.2
Selected Sources of Income
    Earnings 3.2 3.8 4.7 4.3  4.4 3.8 3.3 3.2
    Social Security 51.0 49.4 45.9 37.9  36.1 35.2 34.1 33.9
    No other income 34.8 34.5 36.4 45.0  54.4 55.3 56.8 57.0
Noncitizens NA 5.1 9.0 12.1  10.5 9.6 7.9 7.5
Eligibility Category
    Aged 43.6 36.4 30.2 22.2 19.5 17.1 15.0 14.6
    Blind 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.3  1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9
    Disabled 54.5 61.7 68.1 76.5  79.3 81.9 84.2 84.6
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 20.0  15.6 15.1 15.3 15.8
    70-79 51.5 45.6 41.3 45.4  50.0 46.8 43.3 42.8
    80 or older 34.5 39.5 39.2 34.5  34.5 38.1 41.4 41.4
Sex
    Male 27.3 25.5 25.1 27.2  29.0 31.4 33.4 33.8
    Female 72.6 74.5 74.9 72.8  71.0 68.6 66.6 66.2
Noncitizens NA 9.7 19.4 31.8  28.5 28.3 25.6 24.6
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 83.7  83.8 84.1 84.4 84.4
    65 or older 19.8 22.3 20.0 16.3  16.2 16.0 15.6 15.5
Sex1
    Male 39.8 40.8 42.4 41.7  44.5 41.2 43.1 43.6
    Female 60.2 59.2 57.6 58.3  55.5 58.8 56.9 56.4
Noncitizens NA 2.4 4.6 6.3  6.2 5.7 4.8 4.5
Children
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
    Under 5 11.7 NA NA 15.2  15.5 15.5 15.7 15.3
    5-9 20.9 NA NA 28.4  28.5 27.3 29.4 29.6
    10-14 28.8 NA NA 32.7  36.2 35.3 34.3 35.1
    15-17 21.7 NA NA 17.9  19.8 22.0 20.5 20.0
    18-212 16.8 14.3 9.3 5.9 
Sex
    Male NA NA NA 63.3  63.8 65.4 66.2 66.4
    Female NA NA NA 36.7  36.2 34.6 33.8 33.6

Note: Data are for December of the year.

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.

Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2011 and prior years (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2012/).

Table SSI 7. Total Federally Administered SSI Payments by State: Calendar Year 2011 [In thousands]

State Total Federal Federal SSI Federally administered state supplementation
Other: N. Mariana Islands 6,488 6,488
Total $49,520,299 $45,999,647 $3,520,652
Alabama 1,008,827 1,008,827
Alaska 72,999 72,999
Arizona 669,673 669,673
Arkansas 623,208 623,208
California 8,950,632 6,432,284 2,518,348
Colorado 402,296 402,296
Connecticut 355,905 355,905
Delaware 93,873 92,916 957
District of Columbia 168,816 163,883 4,933
Florida 2,910,520 2,910,520
Georgia 1,383,616 1,383,616
Hawaii 159,996 143,169 16,827
Idaho 160,378 160,378
Illinois 1,676,216 1,676,216
Indiana 746,266 746,266
Iowa 272,792 267,241 5,551
Kansas 278,894 278,894
Kentucky 1,119,215 1,119,215
Louisiana 1,021,658 1,021,658
Maine 203,023 203,023
Maryland 689,306 689,306
Massachusetts 1,246,492 1,057,765 188,727
Michigan 1,657,124 1,636,653 20,471
Minnesota 535,030 535,030
Mississippi 710,070 710,070
Missouri 800,313 800,313
Montana 102,040 101,061 979
Nebraska 150,012 150,012
Nevada 258,900 252,584 6,316
New Hampshire 109,650 109,650
New Jersey 1,024,340 943,432 80,908
New Mexico 346,396 346,396
New York 4,496,907 3,870,446 626,461
North Carolina 1,269,939 1,269,939
North Dakota 43,831 43,831
Ohio 1,855,017 1,855,017
Oklahoma 554,446 554,446
Oregon 458,850 458,850
Pennsylvania 2,287,266 2,250,100 37,167
Rhode Island 192,026 189,397 2,629
South Carolina 653,845 653,845
South Dakota 76,633 76,633
Tennessee 1,054,028 1,054,028
Texas 3,485,804 3,485,804
Utah 169,551 169,465 86
Vermont 90,404 80,112 10,292
Virginia 857,338 857,338
Washington 904,784 904,784
West Virginia 477,142 477,142
Wisconsin 641,678 641,678
Wyoming 35,846 35,846

1 Columns may not added to totals since the totals may include a small amount of payments not distributed by jurisdiction.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2012 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 8. State Recipiency Rates for Federally Administered SSI Payments by Age: 1996 & 2011 [In percent]

State Rate for Children 0-17 Rate for Adults 18-64 Rate for Adults 65 & Over
1996 2011 Percent Change 1996-11 1996 2011 Percent Change 1996-11 1996 2011 Percent Change 1996-11
Total 1.5 1.7 17 2.2 2.4 13 6.2 5.0 -19
Alabama 2.8 2.7 -3 3.1 3.8 22 9.7 4.4 -55
Alaska 0.6 0.7 20 2.8 1.8 -36 5.5 5.2 -5
Arizona 1.1 1.3 14 0.6 1.7 196 3.5 2.9 -18
Arkansas 2.9 4.0 41 1.1 3.7 226 8.5 3.6 -57
California 0.9 1.2 37 2.9 2.6 -10 13.0 12.4 -4
Colorado 1.0 0.7 -25 0.9 1.3 46 3.6 2.7 -26
Connecticut 0.7 1.0 39 1.0 1.7 68 2.5 2.6 4
Delaware 1.5 1.8 17 0.7 1.8 137 2.8 1.9 -32
District of Columbia 2.8 4.3 51 1.5 3.8 154 7.6 6.0 -20
Florida 1.8 2.4 32 2.8 2.1 -26 5.1 4.9 -4
Georgia 1.5 1.7 13 1.8 2.3 26 9.2 4.6 -49
Hawaii 0.3 0.6 68 1.5 1.7 12 6.1 4.2 -31
Idaho 1.1 1.3 15 0.3 2.0 483 2.3 1.9 -18
Illinois 1.6 1.4 -9 1.1 2.1 93 3.9 3.7 -6
Indiana 1.4 1.6 18 1.6 2.0 29 2.0 1.5 -26
Iowa 1.0 1.1 8 1.4 1.8 31 2.1 1.5 -27
Kansas 1.3 1.3 -1 1.0 1.8 73 2.1 1.8 -14
Kentucky 2.5 2.9 17 1.3 4.8 272 8.3 5.4 -35
Louisiana 3.2 3.3 1 2.5 3.8 52 10.2 5.6 -45
Maine 0.9 1.5 57 3.2 3.2 -1 4.0 2.5 -38
Maryland 1.1 1.3 21 0.9 1.8 93 4.4 3.4 -22
Massachusetts 1.2 1.7 40 1.1 2.9 166 5.9 5.6 -5
Michigan 1.7 1.8 11 1.2 3.0 142 3.3 2.8 -15
Minnesota 0.9 1.0 10 1.7 1.7 2 2.6 2.7 3
Mississippi 3.4 3.2 -5 0.9 4.2 349 14.2 6.4 -55
Missouri 1.6 1.7 6 3.4 2.5 -25 3.7 2.2 -40
Montana 1.1 1.2 9 1.6 2.0 31 2.4 1.9 -21
Nebraska 1.0 0.9 -11 1.1 1.6 53 2.1 1.6 -21
Nevada 0.8 1.3 52 1.0 1.4 38 3.6 3.3 -8
New Hampshire 0.7 0.9 32 0.8 1.7 100 1.5 1.1 -25
New Jersey 1.2 1.3 7 0.7 1.7 150 4.6 4.5 -2
New Mexico 1.4 1.8 29 1.2 2.8 141 8.1 5.9 -27
New York 1.9 2.0 5 1.4 2.9 113 8.9 8.9 0
North Carolina 1.8 1.9 6 1.9 2.3 19 7.3 3.4 -53
North Dakota 0.8 0.7 -12 1.8 1.3 -25 2.9 1.6 -44
Ohio 2.0 1.8 -7 0.8 2.9 261 2.7 2.4 -10
Oklahoma 1.4 1.9 40 2.0 2.7 36 5.2 2.8 -46
Oregon 0.9 1.2 37 1.4 2.1 52 2.6 2.8 9
Pennsylvania 1.6 2.6 66 0.9 2.9 236 3.6 3.1 -12
Rhode Island 1.3 2.2 66 1.6 3.1 93 4.9 4.3 -11
South Carolina 2.0 1.9 -5 1.3 2.4 89 8.2 3.3 -59
South Dakota 1.4 1.2 -11 2.0 1.7 -14 3.5 2.5 -27
Tennessee 1.9 1.7 -10 1.4 3.0 119 7.8 3.7 -53
Texas 1.1 2.0 82 1.9 2.1 10 8.6 6.3 -27
Utah 0.7 0.6 -10 1.1 1.1 6 2.0 1.8 -10
Vermont 1.0 1.5 54 0.7 2.8 298 4.8 2.7 -44
Virginia 1.5 1.3 -13 1.0 1.8 81 5.6 3.4 -40
Washington 0.9 1.1 25 1.5 2.1 43 3.4 3.6 7
West Virginia 2.1 2.4 10 0.9 5.1 473 5.3 3.9 -27
Wisconsin 1.6 1.6 -2 2.1 2.0 -4 2.7 2.0 -26
Wyoming 0.9 0.7 -20 1.6 1.3 -19 1.9 1.1 -41

Note: Recipiency rates for 2010 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.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2011 and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates as Percent of Population by State: Selected Years 1975 – 2011 [In Percent]

State 1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 2 2001 2 2006 2 2011 2
Total 1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.6
Alabama 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.6
Alaska 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8
Arizona 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7
Arkansas 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.2 3.3 3.7
California 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4
Colorado 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3
Connecticut 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7
Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8
District of Columbia 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.2
Florida 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.7
Georgia 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.4
Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
Idaho 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.8
Illinois 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.1
Indiana 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.9
Iowa 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6
Kansas 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6
Kentucky 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4
Louisiana 3.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.9
Maine 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7
Maryland 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9
Massachusetts 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.0
Michigan 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.7
Minnesota 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.7
Mississippi 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 5.2 4.5 4.2 4.2
Missouri 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.3
Montana 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8
Nebraska 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4
Nevada 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6
New Hampshire 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.4
New Jersey 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.0
New Mexico 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.0
New York 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5
North Carolina 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3
North Dakota 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
Ohio 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.6
Oklahoma 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.5
Oregon 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9
Rhode Island 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1
South Carolina 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5
South Dakota 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7
Tennessee 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.4 2.8 2.7 2.8
Texas 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.5
Utah 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0
Vermont 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.5
Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9
Washington 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1
West Virginia 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.4
Wisconsin 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9
Wyoming 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2

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 1994-2009 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2011, and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Appendix B. Alternative Definition of Dependence Based on Income from TANF and SNAP

As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-432), this report on Indicators of Welfare Dependence and Risk Factors focuses on dependence on three programs: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food Stamp Program); and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. We adopt the following definition of welfare dependence for this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI.

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and SNAP alone, excluding SSI. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been much lower – only 3.2 percent – in 2011 if based on income from TANF and SNAP, as opposed to 5.2 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, SNAP, 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 SNAP; whereas 2.3 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, very few, 0.5 percent, are dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and SNAP. In contrast, children are primarily dependent on TANF and SNAP.

Dependency on AFDC/TANF and SNAP receipt has generally declined since 1995 but there is a noteworthy uptick in 2008 given the great recession of 2007-2009. Dependency on SSI receipt alone has remained relatively stable overall as shown in Table B-2. The difference between the standard definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based on TANF and SNAP only) has varied over time. In 1995, over two-thirds (67.9 percent) of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition also were dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 2007, the proportion had dropped to 51.4 percent and has since increased to 61.5 percent in 2011.

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2011

  TANF, SSI & SNAP TANF & SNAP SSI Only
All Persons 5.2 3.2 1.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 3.3 1.9 0.9
Non-Hispanic Black 12.3 7.6 3.3
Hispanic 7.7 5.2 1.7
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5 10.2 7.8 1.3
Children ages 6-10 8.4 5.9 1.4
Children ages 11-15 7.1 4.8 1.2
Women ages 16-64 5.7 3.5 1.6
Men ages 16-64 3.7 2.1 1.2
Adults ages 65 and over 2.3 0.5 1.4
Family Categories
Persons in married families 1.9 1.1 0.4
Persons in female-headed families 16.2 11.1 3.0
Persons in male-headed (no spouse) families 5.9 3.5 1.8
Unrelated persons 6.8 3.5 3.1

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, 2012, 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: 1995-2011

  TANF, SSI & SNAP TANF & SNAP 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
2003 3.6 1.9 1.3
2004 3.7 2.0 1.3
2005 3.8 2.1 1.4
2006 3.7 1.9 1.4
2007 3.5 1.8 1.3
2008 4.0 2.1 1.4
2009 4.6 2.7 1.4
2010 5.3 3.2 1.4
2011 5.2 3.2 1.4

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Appendix C. Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women within Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity: Selected Years 1940-2011

  White Black1 Hispanic2
Total Teens3 Age 15 - 17 Age 18 - 19 Total Women Total Teens Age 15 - 17 Age 18 - 19 Total Women   Total Teens Age 15 - 17 Age 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 98 94 69 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
2003 77 86 72 29 96 99 95 68 80 85 71 45
2004 78 87 74 31 96 99 95 69 81 86 73 46
2005 79 88 75 32 96 99 95 69 83 87 75 48
2006 80 89 76 33 97 99 95 70 84 89 76 50
2007 82 90 78 35 97 99 96 71 86 90 78 51
2008 83 92 79 36 97 99 96 72 88 92 80 53
2009 84 92 80 36 97 99 96 72 89 94 81 53
2010 85 94 81 36 97 99 97 72 87 94 82 53
2011 85 94 82 36 97 99 97 72 87 94 83 53

Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. 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, the percentage of births to unmarried Black women (shown in italics) includes 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 Teens under 15 included in Total Teen but 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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), and earlier reports. Additional calculations by ASPE staff.

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2011

  1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011
United States 5 11 18 28 32 33 37 41 41
Alabama 11 14 22 30 34 34 36 42 42
Alaska 5 9 16 26 30 33 36 38 37
Arizona NA 9 19 33 38 39 43 45 45
Arkansas NA 13 20 29 33 36 40 45 45
California NA NA 21 32 32 33 36 41 40
Colorado NA 9 13 21 25 25 27 24 24
Connecticut NA NA 18 27 31 29 32 37 38
Delaware 9 15 24 29 35 38 44 47 49
Dist of Columbia 20 38 56 65 66 60 56 55 54
Florida 9 14 23 32 36 38 43 48 48
Georgia NA NA 23 33 35 37 41 46 45
Hawaii 5 10 18 25 29 32 36 38 38
Idaho NA NA 8 17 20 22 23 27 27
Illinois 6 13 23 32 34 35 37 41 40
Indiana 4 8 16 26 32 35 40 43 43
Iowa 2 7 10 21 25 28 32 34 34
Kansas 3 7 12 22 26 29 34 38 37
Kentucky 5 8 15 24 29 31 36 41 42
Louisiana 9 15 23 37 42 46 48 53 53
Maine 3 7 14 23 28 31 35 41 42
Maryland NA NA 25 30 33 35 37 42 41
Massachusetts NA NA 16 25 26 27 30 35 35
Michigan 4 11 16 26 34 33 37 42 42
Minnesota 3 8 11 21 24 26 30 33 33
Mississippi 14 17 28 40 45 46 49 55 54
Missouri 6 11 18 29 32 35 38 40 40
Montana NA NA 13 24 26 31 35 36 37
Nebraska NA 8 12 21 24 27 31 34 33
Nevada 4 11 13 25 42 36 41 44 44
New Hampshire NA 6 11 17 22 25 27 33 35
New Jersey 4 10 21 24 28 29 31 35 36
New Mexico NA NA 16 35 43 46 51 52 51
New York NA NA 24 33 38 37 39 42 41
North Carolina 9 12 19 29 31 33 38 42 41
North Dakota 3 7 9 18 24 28 32 33 33
Ohio 4 NA 18 29 33 35 39 44 43
Oklahoma NA 8 14 25 30 34 39 42 42
Oregon 3 7 15 26 29 30 33 36 36
Pennsylvania 4 10 18 29 32 33 37 42 42
Rhode Island 3 7 16 26 31 35 39 45 45
South Carolina 12 15 23 33 37 40 43 48 47
South Dakota 3 7 13 23 28 33 36 38 39
Tennessee 9 12 20 30 33 35 40 44 44
Texas 5 9 13 18 30 31 38 42 42
Utah 2 4 6 14 16 17 18 19 19
Vermont NA NA 14 20 25 28 32 39 40
Virginia 8 11 19 26 29 30 32 36 36
Washington 3 9 14 24 27 28 31 33 33
West Virginia 6 6 13 25 31 32 37 44 44
Wisconsin 3 8 14 24 27 29 32 37 37
Wyoming 2 7 8 20 26 29 33 34 35

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013 and earlier reports.

Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race and Ethnicity and State: 1994 and 2011

  All races Non-Hispanic Hispanic*
White Black
State 1994 2011 1994 2011 1994 2011 1994 2011
United States 33 41 21 29 71 72 43 53
Alabama 35 42 16 28 71 76 19 27
Alaska 29 37 21 23 41 46 29 32
Arizona 38 45 25 30 65 63 51 57
Arkansas 33 45 20 35 74 80 31 51
California 36 40 23 24 63 68 46 53
Colorado 25 24 18 18 57 43 44 36
Connecticut 31 38 18 24 70 68 65 66
Delaware 35 49 22 37 74 72 50 67
Dist. of Columbia 69 54 10 6 81 79 59 67
Florida 36 48 24 36 69 71 34 51
Georgia 36 45 18 27 68 71 23 53
Hawaii 28 38 15 25 19 28 44 49
Idaho 19 27 17 23 42 42 25 44
Illinois 34 40 18 26 79 80 38 53
Indiana 32 43 26 37 78 80 42 51
Iowa 25 34 23 30 75 73 37 50
Kansas 26 37 21 31 67 74 39 53
Kentucky 28 42 23 38 73 76 25 52
Louisiana 43 53 21 35 73 80 30 55
Maine 28 42 28 42 45 33 23 43
Maryland 34 41 18 26 64 63 39 56
Massachusetts 27 35 19 26 63 56 62 64
Michigan 35 42 23 32 79 81 42 52
Minnesota 24 33 20 26 75 58 46 58
Mississippi 45 54 18 32 75 82 21 55
Missouri 33 40 24 32 79 78 34 51
Montana 26 37 20 31 29 47 30 48
Nebraska 25 33 20 27 74 69 39 50
Nevada 35 44 27 32 70 73 44 53
New Hampshire 22 35 21 35 33 35 37 54
New Jersey 28 36 13 19 68 69 48 61
New Mexico 42 51 23 31 60 54 49 57
New York 38 41 19 26 70 70 61 66
North Carolina 32 41 17 26 68 72 29 52
North Dakota 23 33 19 27 24 40 26 45
Ohio 33 43 25 36 78 79 50 61
Oklahoma 30 42 23 35 70 75 31 48
Oregon 29 36 27 32 72 61 35 50
Pennsylvania 33 42 23 32 80 79 63 67
Rhode Island 32 45 24 36 70 66 58 63
South Carolina 37 47 19 31 67 78 28 48
South Dakota 28 39 20 28 21 47 33 57
Tennessee 33 44 21 34 75 79 26 51
Texas 29 42 18 27 63 66 31 51
Utah 16 19 13 13 52 41 37 43
Vermont 25 40 25 40 32 43 34 42
Virginia 29 36 18 24 64 67 38 52
Washington 26 33 23 27 56 51 35 51
West Virginia 30 44 29 43 76 77 22 42
Wisconsin 27 37 20 28 82 84 46 55
Wyoming 28 35 25 30 42 49 45 53

* Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013 and earlier reports.

Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by State: Selected Years 1960-2011 [Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011
United States 89 68 53 51 60 56 48 40 34 31
Alabama 104 90 68 64 71 69 61 50 44 41
Alaska 128 103 64 56 65 55 49 37 38 36
Arizona 112 79 65 67 76 74 68 58 42 39
Arkansas 116 93 75 73 80 72 66 59 53 51
California 103 69 53 53 71 67 47 39 32 29
Colorado 97 67 50 48 55 52 51 43 33 29
Connecticut 54 44 31 31 39 39 31 23 19 16
Delaware 100 73 51 51 55 55 48 44 31 29
Dist. of Columbia 132 116 62 72 93 85 53 63 45 43
Florida 117 86 59 58 69 60 51 42 32 30
Georgia 117 101 72 68 76 70 63 53 41 38
Hawaii 77 66 51 48 61 49 46 36 33 30
Idaho 102 66 59 47 51 49 43 38 33 28
Illinois 63 63 56 51 63 58 48 39 33 30
Indiana 100 75 57 52 59 57 49 43 37 35
Iowa 73 53 43 35 41 38 34 33 29 25
Kansas 94 65 57 52 56 52 46 41 39 35
Kentucky 108 86 72 63 68 62 55 49 46 44
Louisiana 113 84 76 72 74 70 62 49 48 45
Maine 93 65 47 42 43 34 29 24 21 21
Maryland 100 69 43 46 53 47 41 32 27 25
Massachusetts 51 40 28 29 35 33 26 22 17 15
Michigan 80 69 45 43 59 49 40 32 30 28
Minnesota 64 44 35 31 36 33 30 26 23 19
Mississippi 121 103 84 76 81 79 70 61 55 50
Missouri 99 72 58 54 63 55 49 42 37 35
Montana 97 62 48 44 48 42 37 35 35 29
Nebraska 82 54 45 40 42 38 38 34 31 27
Nevada 118 94 59 55 73 73 63 50 39 36
New Hampshire 76 55 34 32 33 30 23 18 16 14
New Jersey 58 50 35 34 41 38 32 23 20 19
New Mexico 127 79 72 73 78 74 66 62 53 49
New York 57 51 35 36 44 42 33 27 23 21
North Carolina 104 88 58 57 68 63 59 48 38 35
North Dakota 68 44 42 36 35 33 27 30 29 28
Ohio 84 65 52 50 58 53 46 39 34 32
Oklahoma 112 83 75 69 67 64 60 54 50 48
Oregon 88 58 51 43 55 50 43 33 28 26
Pennsylvania 67 53 41 40 45 41 34 30 27 25
Rhode Island 56 43 33 36 44 40 34 31 22 21
South Carolina 109 89 65 63 71 63 58 51 43 39
South Dakota 83 49 53 46 47 41 38 38 35 34
Tennessee 103 88 64 61 72 67 60 55 43 41
Texas 115 85 74 72 75 76 69 62 52 47
Utah 86 56 65 50 49 41 38 33 28 23
Vermont 74 54 39 36 34 28 23 19 18 17
Virginia 103 76 48 46 53 48 41 34 27 25
Washington 88 60 47 45 53 48 39 31 27 25
West Virginia 87 72 68 54 57 53 47 43 45 44
Wisconsin 64 46 40 39 43 38 35 30 26 23
Wyoming 112 71 79 59 56 48 42 43 39 35

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1),June 28, 2013 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm).

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

  All races Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic*
State 1990 2000 2011 1990 2000 2011 1990 2000 2011 1990 2000 2011
United States  60  48  31 43  33  22 116  79  47 100  87  49
Alabama  71  61  41 55   49 34 106  82  51 34   107 70
Alaska  65  49  36 53   32 22 ‡   31 ‡   74 43
Arizona  76  68  39 51  39 22 124   79 42 123   115 52
Arkansas  80  66  51 66   56 45 132  98  66 ‡  103  60
California  71  47  29 43  23  13 109   58 36 112  79  43
Colorado  55  51  29 39  31  18 112  84  36 111  114  55
Connecticut  39  31  16 20  15  6 108  65  30 122   90 47
Delaware   55  48 29 35   31 20 121  87  44 ‡  103  52
Dist. of Columbia  93  53  43 11  ‡  123  77  62 89  80  63
Florida  69  51  30 51  37  23 138  85  48 60  59  30
Georgia   76 63  38 56  47  29 117  82  48 73  132  59
Hawaii  61  46  30 38  21  25 ‡  ‡  24 133  99  52
Idaho  51  43  28 46  36  22 ‡  ‡  49 119   105 52
Illinois  63  48  30 37  26  17 146  96  56 95  90  46
Indiana   59  49 35 52  42  31 124  92  56 65  95  48
Iowa   41  34 25 38  30  21 119  89  60 80   97 58
Kansas  56  46  35 49 37  28 135  89  55 86  100  71
Kentucky  68  55  44 64  52  42 116  84  52 ‡  92  58
Louisiana  74  62  45 53  43  35 113  92  60 21  40  51
Maine  43  29  21 43  29  21 ‡  ‡  28 ‡  
Maryland   53  41 25 36  27  15 97  68  37 46  63  46
Massachusetts  35  26  15 24  16  11 94  53  27 121  87  33
Michigan   59  40 28 41  30  20 132  81  56 94  81  45
Minnesota  36  30  19 30  21  13 156  93  41 79   105 49
Mississippi  81  70  50 56  51  41 113  93  61 ‡   52 43
Missouri  63  49  35 50  41  30 145  92  57 46  80  49
Montana  48  37  29 39  30  23 ‡  ‡  ‡  ‡   ‡  39
Nebraska  42  38  27 35   30 19 137  87  46 82  105  65
Nevada  73  63  36 61  42  23 133  83  53 108  110  51
New Hampshire  33  23  14 ‡  23  13 ‡  ‡  ‡  ‡  ‡  27
New Jersey  41  32  19 19  13  7 105   69 38 80   70 42
New Mexico   78  66 49 51  39  29 100  68  28 97  85  58
New York  44  33  21 25   19 13 86  55  32 82  64  39
North Carolina   68 59  35 51  43  25 107  80  46 106  146  63
North Dakota  35  27  28 29  21  20 ‡  ‡  ‡  ‡  ‡  62
Ohio  58  46  32 47  38  26 130  94  58 74  80  50
Oklahoma  67  60  48 na  51  41 na  85  59 na  97  69
Oregon   55 43  26 51   35 21 112   74 34 114  103  50
Pennsylvania  45  34  25 32  24  16 128  84  53 126  91  61
Rhode Island   44  34 21 32  22  12 137  66  34 130  92  53
South Carolina  71  58  39 54   44 31 101  79  51 67  96  59
South Dakota  47  38  34 35   27 22 ‡  ‡  33 ‡  ‡  67
Tennessee  72  60  41 61  50  35 122  91  55 41  120  66
Texas  75  69  47 49  41  27 117  78  47 104  104  66
Utah  49  38  23 44  31  17 ‡  51  23 115  106  56
Vermont  34  23  17 35  24  17 ‡  ‡  ‡  
Virginia   53 41  25 40  30  19 100  70  37 56  71  37
Washington  53  39  25 47  31  19 98  58  28 113  101  55
West Virginia  57  47  44 57  46  45 74  68  41 ‡  ‡  23
Wisconsin  43  35  23 30  24  15 177  113  65 90  98  50
Wyoming  56  42  35 51  36  31 ‡  ‡  ‡  94  81  58

* Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

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

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; and Declines in State Teen Birth Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin, NCHS Data Brief, No. 123, May 2013.

Appendix D. Technical Notes

Age Categories

Most of the indicators in Chapter II are shown by age categories, generally children ages 0 to 15, adults ages 16 to 64, and adults 65 and older. Youth 16, 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. Indicators based on program administrative data (Indicator 3) and many of the risk factors presented in Chapter III, however, use published data that generally define “children” to include all individuals less than 18 years of age.

Race and Ethnicity

Most of the data sources allow analysis of the indicators and predictors of welfare dependence across several 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) Current Population Survey (CPS) and Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data are affected by a change in the survey 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 (OMB) published guidelines for implementing these new standards. To accommodate the race categories under the new standards, CPS and SIPP 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, as well as selected indicators and many of our risk factor measures, estimates are provided for individual persons by family structure (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, Indicator 2, Indicator 5, ECON 3, ECON 7, and WORK 1). For these measures, the entire population is subdivided into the following four groups:

  • Persons in Married-Couple Families
  • Persons in Female-Headed Families
  • Persons in Male-Headed Families
  • Unrelated Persons.

Two additional measures use a subset of the above categories (see Indicator 4, and ECON 1).

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 and in Appendix A. The annual recipiency measures in Figure and Table SUM 1 are not only higher because they include any receipt from at least one of three welfare programs (while average monthly administrative data focus on receipt from only one program), they also are higher because they capture program receipt received in as little as one month during a given year, whereas average monthly recipiency rates, by definition, average across all the months in a given year.

Our key measure of dependency for the report, following the Advisory Board’s proposal, also measures the level of benefit receipt among AFDC/TANF, SNAP and SSI on an annual basis (see Figure and Table SUM1 and Indicator 1), as does our long term AFDC/TANF receipt measure (Indicator 9). These measures capture any benefit receipt during the year, which differs from several other “annual” indicators in Chapter I that present average monthly estimates for each given year (see Indicators 2, 3, 4 and 5).

The report includes several monthly longitudinal measures that analyze monthly observations for individuals and families across multiple years. These measures are based on the SIPP and provide information on the number of consecutive months receiving welfare benefits (see Indicators 7 and 8) and the number of consecutive months poor (see ECON 5) during multi-year time periods.

Note that annual estimates provided throughout the report represent calendar years except where explicitly noted as fiscal years. Please see footnotes to each table in the report for further technical information and documentation of time period measurement issues.

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 based on total family income, taking into account means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family.25 The introductory chapter of this report and our dependence indicators in Chapter II, for example, show the percentage of individuals that are dependent (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, and Indicator 6) according to annual total family income (including annual total family benefit receipt). This is similar to estimates of the number of individuals who are poor, which are based on the characteristics and total income of the family in which they live (see ECON 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).

Recipiency status also is based on total annual family benefit receipt and income in some instances; in SUM 1, for example, recipients are individuals in families where at least one family member receives assistance from AFDC/TANF, SNAP or SSI at some point in the year. In most other indicators, however, recipiency is measured as the direct receipt of a benefit by an individual in a month (see Indicators 7 and 8), an average month across a given year (see Indicators 2, 3, 4, and 5) or at some point within a year (see Indicators 6 and 9). Note that the differences between individual and family measures of recipiency are largest in the SSI program, which provides benefits to individuals and couples, not to families.

Spells

Spells of program recipiency (Indicator 7), spells of welfare receipt with no attachment to the labor market (IND 8) and spells of poverty (ECON 5) 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 two or more spells of dependency, receipt, or poverty, each is counted separately in the analysis.

Data Source for Dependency Measure

Beginning with the 2001 report, there was a shift to using CPS rather than SIPP data for our main welfare dependency measure (as well as several other indicators and predictors of welfare recipiency and dependence). This change was necessary because CPS data are updated annually, while SIPP updates are available less frequently.

The CPS data have been widely used to measure trends since the welfare reform legislation of 1996. However, because the CPS does not collect income information in the same detail as the SIPP, it has been subject to criticism for higher levels of underreporting of income, particularly welfare income. To address this concern, our measure of dependency (as well as some of the other 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 TRIM3 model also has 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. To maintain consistency in data trends, we present estimates based on CPS data analyzed by TRIM3 beginning in 1993, the first year the TRIM3 microsimulation model became available.

As shown in Figure D-1, 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 increases in dependence during the 2000s. Still, readers are cautioned against comparing measures for 1987-1995 from the SIPP data in the first three annual reports with the measures for 1993 and later from the TRIM3-adjusted CPS data.

Figure D-1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987 – 2011

(In percent)

Figure D-1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987 – 2011

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year. Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income and veterans’ pension benefits are included in means-tested assistance income for SIPP-based receipt and dependency estimates prior to 2001.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2007, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model, and unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

Product Type
Report to Congress
Program
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Supplemental Security Income (SSI) | Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)