Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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

Https

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

Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2007

Publication Date

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services


This report was written by Gil Crouse, Sarah Douglas, and Susan Hauan of the Office of Human Services Policy under the direction of Melissa Pardue, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

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

"

Executive Summary

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare annual reports to Congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence.  The 2007 Indicators of Welfare Dependence, the tenth annual report, provides welfare dependence indicators through 2004, reflecting changes that have taken place since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996.  As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act, the report focuses on benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration.  Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs.  The amount of time over which families depend on welfare might also be considered in assessing their degree of dependence.  Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in defining and measuring dependence, a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed that:  A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities.  Given data limitations, we follow the Board’s proposal by adopting the following definition of 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, food stamps and/or SSI.

This report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data for theAFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI programs to provide updated measures through 2004 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 report include the following:

  • In 2004, 3.7 percent of the total population was dependent in that they received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and/or SSI (see Indicator 1).  While slightly higher than the 3.6 percent dependency rate measured in 2003, the 2004 rate is lower than the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996.  Overall, 3 million fewer Americans were dependent on welfare in 2004 compared with 1996.
  • Although data are not yet available to show a clear trend in dependency rates through 2005, available data suggest that the rate may not change from 2004.
  • Trends in dependency are similar to the more well-known changes in TANF and food stamp caseloads.  For example, the percentage of individuals receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance fell from 5.4 percent to 1.7 percent between 1993 and 2005 (see Indicator 3).  Food stamp recipiency rates fell from 10.4 percent in 1993 to 6.1 percent in 2000 and 2001.  Since then, the food stamp recipiency rate has increased to 8.6 percent in 2005.  This increase in food stamp recipiency may explain the increase in overall dependency since 2000.
  • In an average month in 2004, more than half (52 percent) of TANF recipients lived in families with at least one family member in the labor force.  Comparable figures for food stamp and SSI recipients were 60 and 39 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2).  Although there was a decline in labor force participation among TANF families from 2002 to 2004, full-time employment increased considerably among TANF families during much of the last decade.
  • Spells of TANF receipt in the early 2000s were much shorter than spells of AFDC receipt in the early 1990s.  Half (50 percent) of TANF spells for individuals entering the program between 2001 and 2003 lasted 4 months or less, compared to 30 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994 (See Indicator 7).
  • Longer-term welfare receipt was much less common during the 1990s compared to earlier decades.  Less than 4 percent of those with some AFDC/TANF assistance between 1991 and 2000 received assistance in nine or ten years of the period, compared to 12 percent and 13 percent of AFDC recipients in the earlier two time periods (See Indicator 9).

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

  • As the dependency rate decreased after 1993, the poverty rate for all individuals fell also, from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000.  Between 2000 and 2004, the poverty rate increased, but still remained lower than any year between 1980 and 1997.  In 2005, 12.6 percent of all individuals were poor (see Economic Security 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.

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

Contents

  • Organization of Report
  • Measuring Welfare Dependence
  • Measuring Economic Well-Being
  • Data Sources

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. This 2007 report, the tenth annual indicators report, gives updated data on the measures of welfare recipiency, dependency, and predictors of welfare dependence developed for previous reports. Much of this report reflects changes that have taken place since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996.

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

This 2007 report provides updated measures through 2004 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with one preliminary estimate for 2005. Although more recent administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI programs provide some information on recipiency through 2005, the survey data needed to examine overall welfare recipiency are not available past 2004 for the CPS-based measures and 2003 for the SIPP-based measures and are even less current for measures based on the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). As in the 2006 report, measures updated annually are presented at the front of each chapter, followed by the figures that are derived from data sources that are updated less frequently.

Organization of Report

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

Chapter II of the report, Indicators of Dependence, presents ten indicators of welfare dependence and recipiency. These indicators include dependence measures based on total income from all three programs — AFDC/TANF, SSI and food stamps — as well as measures of recipiency for each of the three programs considered separately. Labor force participation among families receiving welfare and benefit receipt across multiple programs 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, receipt of child support, food insecurity and health insurance coverage – is important in predicting dependence because families with fewer economic resources are more likely to rely on welfare programs for their support.
  2. Measures of the work status and potential barriers to employment of adult family members also are critical, because families must generally receive an adequate income from employment in order to avoid dependence without severe deprivation.
  3. Finally, data on nonmarital births are important since a high proportion of long-term welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage, frequently as teenagers.

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

  • The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the cash assistance program serving the largest number of persons, provided monthly cash benefits to families with children, until its replacement by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is run directly by the states. Data on the AFDC and TANF programs are provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1962 through June 1997, and TANF data from July 1997 through 2005.
  • The Food Stamp Program provides monthly food stamp benefits to individuals living in families or alone, provided their income and assets are below limits set in federal law. It reaches more poor people over the course of a year than any other means-tested public assistance program. Appendix A provides historical data from 1962 to 2005.
  • 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 2005 are provided in Appendix A.

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

Measuring Welfare Dependence

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

Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. For this purpose, the 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 AFDC, food stamps 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 families2 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, food stamps and/or SSI.

Any definition of welfare dependence is not 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 because welfare income associated with work required to obtain benefits is classified as welfare and not as income from work. This issue may be growing in importance under the increased work requirements of the TANF program. In FY 2005, 31 percent of welfare recipients were working (including employment, work experience and community service), compared to only 7 percent in 1992.3

As shown in Figure SUM 1, 3.7 percent of the population would be considered “dependent” on welfare in 2004 in that they received more than half of their family income in 2004 from TANF, food stamps and/or SSI. This is one-quarter of the percentage (15.0 percent) that lived in a family receiving at least some TANF, food stamp or SSI benefits during the year. Although data are not yet available to show a clear trend in dependency rates through 2005, available data suggest the rate may remain the same between 2004 and 2005.4


Figure SUM 1.
Recipiency and Dependency Rates:  1993-2004

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates:  1993-2004

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or food stamps during year. Dependency is defined as having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or food stamps. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. The estimate for 2005 is preliminary.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


Dependency and recipiency rates follow fairly similar trends, falling fairly dramatically during the 1990s to lows of 3.0 percent for dependency and 12.5 percent for recipiency in 2000. While rates have increased somewhat between 2000 and 2004, the 2004 dependency and recipiency rates remain significantly lower than the peak rates of 5.9 and 17.2 percent, occurring in 1993 and 1994, respectively. The overall drop in recipiency rates in this time period is consistent with TANF administrative data showing declining caseloads, especially after enactment of welfare reform in 1996. What is not apparent from these administrative records, but is shown in the national survey data, is that dependency also declined after 1993, with the sharpest decline occurring after enactment of the 1996 welfare reform legislation. While 13.74 million individuals were dependent in 1996, only 10.75 million were dependent in 2004 — representing a decline of 3 million people.

Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence also are higher for young children than for adults, and for individuals in female-headed families than for those in married-couple families. However, both recipiency and dependency rates are much lower for non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, children and individuals in female-headed families in 2004 compared to 1993.

Measures of welfare dependency also vary based upon which programs are counted as “welfare programs.” Dependency would be much lower — 2.0 percent — if only AFDC/TANF and food stamp benefits were counted (as shown in Appendix B and as is done in some measures in this report). Moreover, the drop in dependency is even larger under this alternative definition of dependence than usually reported. For example, between 1995 and 2004, dependency declined from 3.6 percent to 2.0 percent under the alternative definition.

Another factor affecting dependence is the time period observed. The summary measures shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 focus on recipiency and dependency rates measured on an annual, cross-sectional basis. Longitudinal measures of program receipt (both annual and monthly) show that program spells are typically short and long-term recipiency is more rare (see Chapter II). Indicator 9, for example, shows that among individuals receiving AFDC/TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2000, 18 percent received some welfare during six or more years. Another 31 percent were recipients in three to five years, and more than half (51 percent) received welfare in only one or two years.


2 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.

3 This 31 percent includes just over 20 percent in unsubsidized employment and 10 percent in work preparation activities (including subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, work experience or community services). The earnings of those in unsubsidized employment would be correctly captured as income from work in national surveys. Any welfare benefits associated with work experience, community service programs or other work activities, however, would be counted as income from welfare in most national surveys, a classification incompatible with the Advisory Board’s proposed measure.

4 While TRIM-adjusted CPS data for 2005 are not yet available, non-adjusted estimates from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the CPS, indicate no change in the level of dependence between 2004 and 2005.

Measuring Economic Well-Being

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

The poverty rate in 2005 remains much lower than in 1993, when poverty reached its highest peak since the early 1980s. The official poverty rate for 2005 was 12.6 percent, compared to 15.1 percent in 1993. This difference in the poverty rate indicates that 2.2 million fewer people are in poverty and 2.4 million fewer children are in families with incomes below poverty in 2005 than in 1993.

Table SUM 1.
Recipiency and Dependency Rates:  Selected Years

  1993 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or food stamps during the year. Dependency is defined as having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or food stamps. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. Spouses are not present in the Male-Headed and Female-Headed family categories. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, or SSI)
All Persons 16.6 16 13.3 12.5 12.6 13.2 14.1 15.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 10.3 9.9 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.8 9.2 10.1
Non-Hispanic Black 38.0 35.6 29.8 27.0 26.3 27.7 31.3 32.4
Hispanic 34.6 32.0 23.4 21.0 21.6 21.7 22.5 22.6
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 30.5 28.2 21.5 19.8 20.8 21.4 24.2 24.6
Children Ages 6-10 24.9 24.2 19.8 18.0 18.4 18.8 20.5 22.2
Children Ages 11-15 22.1 21.1 17.3 16.3 16.1 16.8 19.7 20.4
Women Ages 16-64 16.4 16.0 13.6 12.5 12.5 13.4 14.0 15.0
Men Ages 16-64 11.5 11.7 9.6 9.2 9.6 10.3 10.6 11.6
Adults Ages 65 and over 11.2 10.3 10.0 10.4 9.6 9.7 9.9 10.0
Family Categories
Persons in:
   Married-Couple Families 10.5 9.6 7.9 7.2 7.4 7.5 8.2 8.6
   Female-Headed Families 47.8 46.0 39.9 37.1 36.4 37.7 39.9 42.6
   Male-Headed Families 27.6 25.3 19.3 21.8 21.2 21.2 22.2 21.9
Unrelated Individuals 9.7 11.5 10.0 10.1 10.0 11.5 11.6 12.7
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, or SSI)
All Persons 5.9 5.2 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 3.0 2.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.2
Non-Hispanic Black 17.8 13.8 9.1 7.7 8.8 8.7 10.1 10.0
Hispanic 11.8 10.9 5.4 4.5 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 13.9 11.2 6.2 6.0 5.9 6.0 7.5 7.1
Children Ages 6-10 11.2 9.5 6.1 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.8 6.0
Children Ages 11-15 9.3 8.1 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.0 5.0 5.1
Women Ages 16-64 5.9 5.2 3.5 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7
Men Ages 16-64 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.4
Adults Ages 65 and over 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2
Family Categories
Persons in:
   Married-Couple Families 1.8 1.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0
   Female-Headed Families 25.7 21.1 13.6 11.4 11.9 11.7 13.2 13.8
   Male-Headed Families 6.8 5.4 3.0 4.4 4.0 3.8 4.9 4.0
Unrelated Individuals 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.5

Figure SUM 2.
Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2005.

Figure SUM 2. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2005.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2006, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office. See ECON 4 in Chapter III for underlying table and further notes.


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

  • The solid line with filled squares shows the official poverty rate, based on total cash income, including earned and unearned income. The official poverty rate was 12.6 percent in 2005.
  • The dotted line shows what the poverty rate would be if means-tested cash assistance (primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI) were excluded from cash income. Income in this measure includes earnings and other private cash income, plus social security, workers compensation and other social insurance programs, as income. The poverty rate under this measure would be higher than under the official measure, or 13.3 percent in 2005.
  • The lowest line shows that the poverty rate would be lower if the cash value of selected non-cash benefits (food and housing) and taxes, including refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit EITC), were counted as income.5 Under this definition, poverty rates in 2005 would be more than two percentage points lower than the official measure, or 10.3 percent.

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

Data Sources

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

If it were not for the lags in data availability, the SIPP would be considered the most useful national survey for measuring welfare dependency. It was used most extensively in the first three annual dependence reports. Its longitudinal design, system of monthly accounting and detail concerning employment, income and participation in federal income-support and related programs, make the SIPP particularly effective for capturing the complexities of program dynamics. It continues to be an important source of data in this report, particularly for measures related to AFDC/TANF and poverty spell duration, transitions in and out of program dependency and reasons for entering or leaving the AFDC/TANF program. Currently, the Census Bureau is planning to reengineer the SIPP and create a new Dynamics of Economic Well-Being System (DEWS) in 2009.

For measures of receipt, dependency and poverty at a single point in time, the report primarily uses the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the CPS, which measures income and poverty over an annual accounting period. As stated above, the CPS data are available on a timelier basis than the SIPP, and have been widely used to measure trends since the welfare reform legislation of 1996. However, because the CPS does not collect income in the same detail as the SIPP, it has been subject to criticism for underreporting of income, particularly welfare income. To address this concern, some of the indicators in this report are based on CPS data that have been analyzed by the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3), a microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Although its primary purpose is to simulate program eligibility and the impact of policy proposals, the TRIM model 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 AFDC/TANF, food stamps and SSI 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 SUM 3, the overall measures of dependency and recipiency have not been greatly affected by the change in data sources. Both data sources show a decline in dependence between 1996 and 1999 and a small increase in dependence between 2001 and 2003. Still, readers are cautioned against comparing measures for 1987-1995 from the SIPP data in the first three annual reports with the measures for 1993-2004 from the TRIM-adjusted CPS data.


Figure SUM 3.
Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-2004

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-2004

Note: Recipiency is defined as receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or food stamps during year. Dependency is defined as having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or food stamps. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. 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 receipt and dependence estimates prior to 2001.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model, and unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.


The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is another source of data used in this report. Like the SIPP it provides longitudinal data, but over a much longer time period than the three- to fouryear time period of the SIPP. With annual data on program receipt since 1968, the PSID provides vital data for measuring longer-term welfare use over periods of up to 10 years. Because the PSID indicators cover time spans as long as a decade, they are updated less frequently than the CPS-based and SIPP-based measures.

Finally, the report also draws upon administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI programs. These data are largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data from these programs are generally available with little time lags; these data are generally available through fiscal year (FY) 2005. To the extent possible, TANF administrative data are reported in a consistent manner with data from the earlier AFDC program, as noted in the footnotes to the tables in Appendix A. The fact remains that assistance under locally designed TANF programs encompasses a diverse set of cash and non-cash benefits designed to support families in making a transition to work, and so direct comparisons between AFDC receipt and TANF receipt must be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on TANF receipt in national data sets such as the CPS and SIPP.

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

Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence

Following the format of the previous annual reports to Congress, Chapter II presents summary data related to indicators of dependence. These indicators differ from other welfare statistics because of their emphasis on welfare dependence, rather than simple welfare receipt.

As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested 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 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program (now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program), 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 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, food stamps 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 meanstested cash and nutritional assistance programs: cash assistance through the AFDC and TANF programs, benefits under the Food Stamp Program, 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.

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

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

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

Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance. This indicator paints yet another picture of dependence by measuring recipiency rates, that is, the percentage of the population that receives AFDC/TANF, food stamps or SSI in an average month. Administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp 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 are open to all that meet their requirements, not all eligible households participate in the programs. This indicator uses AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp 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 legally eligible.

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

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

Indicator 7: 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 Food Stamp Program 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 providing 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.


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.

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2004

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2004

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Only 3.7 percent of the total population in 2004 received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and SSI. As shown in Table IND 1b, the percentage of families dependent on public assistance has dropped dramatically since 1993, with most of the decline occurring between 1996 and 2000. Since 2000, there have been small increases in dependency each year resulting in a shift from 3.0 to 3.7 percent.
  • 15 percent of the overall population received at least one dollar in means-tested assistance in 2004. However, for 59 percent of these individuals (9 percent of the total population), such assistance represented 25 percent or less of annual family income. The vast majority (85 percent) of the population received no means-tested assistance in 2004.
  • As shown in Table IND 1a, individuals living in female-headed families were much more likely to be dependent on assistance from means-tested programs (more than 50% of total income from means-tested programs) than individuals in married-couple or male-headed families (13.8 percent compared to 1.0 and 4.0 percent respectively).
  • In 2004, about one in four individuals receiving some public assistance reported that TANF, food stamps and SSI accounted for more than half of their total family income. This number reflected a decline in dependence since 1993, when more than one in three individuals receiving public assistance were dependent on it.

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs
by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2004

  0% > 0% and <= 25% > 25% and <= 50% > 50% and <= 75% > 75% and <= 100% Total > 50%
All Persons 85.0 8.8 2.5 1.1 2.5 3.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 89.9 6.4 1.5 0.7 1.5 2.2
Non-Hispanic Black 67.6 16.2 6.1 2.9 7.1 10.0
Hispanic 77.4 13.4 4.1 1.8 3.4 5.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 75.4 12.6 5.0 2.6 4.5 7.1
Children Ages 6-10 77.8 11.6 4.6 2.2 3.8 6.0
Children Ages 11-15 79.6 11.3 4.0 1.9 3.2 5.1
Women Ages 16-64 85.0 8.9 2.4 1.1 2.6 3.7
Men Ages 16-64 88.4 7.6 1.6 0.5 1.9 2.4
Adults Ages 65 and over 90.0 6.2 1.6 0.8 1.5 2.2
Family Categories
Persons in Married-Couple Families 91.4 6.3 1.3 0.4 0.7 1.0
Persons in Female-Headed Families 57.4 19.9 9.0 4.8 9.0 13.8
Persons in Male-Headed Families 78.1 14.4 3.6 1.5 2.5 4.0
Unrelated Individuals 87.3 7.0 1.2 0.5 4.0 4.5

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance
Programs: 1993-2004

  0% > 0% and <= 25% > 25% and <= 50% > 50% and <= 75% > 75% and <= 100% Total > 50%
See above for note and source.
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

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2004

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2004

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005, analyzed
using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • Those in families with income below the poverty level received almost half (48 percent) of their total family income from earnings and 31 percent of their total family income from means-tested assistance programs (TANF, SSI and food stamps) in 2003. In contrast, those with family income over 200 percent of the poverty level received the majority (87 percent) of their income from earnings and less than one percent of their income from means-tested assistance (a percentage so small that it is not visible in Figure IND 1b).
  • The percentage of family income received from earnings is inversely proportional to overall family income relative to the poverty line. For example, the percentage of income received from earnings for persons living in deep poverty (below 50 percent of poverty) was only 26 percent, compared to 48 percent for all poor persons in 2004.
  • On average, persons in married-couple families rely on earnings more and on means-tested assistance programs less than persons in other families at all income levels, as shown in Table IND 1c.
  • The percentage of income received from earnings for families with incomes below the poverty level has increased over time, as shown in Table IND 1d. In 1995, poor families received only 40 percent of their income from earnings; this percentage rose to 48 percent in 1998 and has remained above 45 percent ever since. Over the same time period, there was a decline in the percentage of income from means-tested programs among poor families from 41 percent in 1995 to 31 percent in 2004.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status
Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2004

  < 50% Poverty < 100% of Poverty < 200% of Poverty 200% + of Poverty All Individuals
All Persons
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.4 31.1 10.4 0.2 1.2
Earnings 25.7 48.2 67.2 86.8 84.9
Other Income 15.9 20.7 22.4 13 13.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 49 27.9 7.9 0.1 0.6
Earnings 29.6 44.1 61.4 85.8 84.3
Other Income 21.5 28 30.7 14.1 15.1
Non-Hispanic Black
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 69.8 43.4 18.5 0.5 4.2
Earnings 17 36.6 60.3 87.3 81.8
Other Income 13.2 20 21.2 12.1 14
Hispanic
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 56.5 24.5 9 0.5 2.6
Earnings 31.5 64 81.1 92.1 89.4
Other Income 12 11.5 9.9 7.4 8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 65 35.5 13.3 0.2 2.3
Earnings 23.5 53.6 78 94.4 91.9
Other Income 11.5 10.9 8.7 5.3 5.9
Children Ages 6-10
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 63.6 34.1 12.3 0.2 2
Earnings 23.8 52.1 76.2 93.4 90.9
Other Income 12.6 13.9 11.5 6.4 7.2
Children Ages 11-15
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 63.8 34.4 12.1 0.2 1.7
Earnings 22.2 50 73.8 92.1 89.8
Other Income 14.1 15.6 14.1 7.7 8.5
Women Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 55.4 31.1 11 0.2 1.1
Earnings 27 48.4 71 89.3 87.8
Other Income 17.6 20.4 18.1 10.5 11.1
Men Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 48.5 26.3 8.3 0.2 0.7
Earnings 32.5 53 75 90.5 89.5
Other Income 19 20.8 16.7 9.3 9.8
Adults Ages 65 and over
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 39.6 23.3 6.6 0.3 1.1
Earnings 3.7 5 9.3 38.6 34.9
Other Income 56.8 71.7 84 61.1 64
Family Categories
Persons in Married-Couple Families
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 45.9 20.6 6.1 0.1 0.5
Earnings 37.9 64.8 76.2 87.7 87
Other Income 16.2 14.6 17.7 12.1 12.5
Persons in Female-Headed Families
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 68.8 44.6 21.2 1 7
Earnings 17.2 36.1 57.6 80.9 74.1
Other Income 14 19.4 21.2 18 19
Persons in Male-Headed Families
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 55.1 28.7 11.2 0.6 2.1
Earnings 30.5 51.4 72.5 86.9 84.9
Other Income 14.4 19.9 16.3 12.5 13.1

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of food stamps. Other income is non-means-tested, nonearnings income such as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive. 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, 2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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

  < 50% Poverty <100% of Poverty <200% of Poverty 200% + of Poverty
1995
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
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.9 32.0 10.6 0.2
Earnings 27.0 47.9 67.8 85.3
Other Income 14.1 20.1 21.6 14.5
2000
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 54.3 30.3 9.8 0.2
Earnings 30.5 49.5 68.7 86.7
Other Income 15.2 20.3 21.5 13.0
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
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants in that Month by Program: 2004

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants in that Month by Program: 2004

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • About one-third of TANF and food stamp recipients lived in families with at least one fulltime worker in 2004, with an additional one-quarter living in families with a labor force participant who was not full time. Thus, 52 percent of TANF recipients and 60 percent of food stamp recipients were in families with at least one person in the labor force. In contrast, SSI recipients were more likely to live in families with no labor force participant.
  • As shown in Table IND 2a, persons in female-headed families receiving TANF were less likely to live with at least one full-time worker than were persons in similar families receiving food stamps and SSI.
  • As shown in Table IND 2b, the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with at least one full-time worker increased from 19 percent in 1993 to 35 percent in 1999 and remained stable through 2002. From 2002 to 2004 this percentage decreased to 28 percent. Lower family employment rates are reported in the TANF administrative data, which is limited to employment of family members in the TANF assistance unit and employment reported to the welfare agency (see Table TANF 7 in Appendix A).

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2004

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

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. 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, 2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

TANF All Persons 48 23.8 28.1
 
Non-Hispanic White 47.5 27.1 25.4
Non-Hispanic Black 52 23.1 25
Hispanic 42.5 22.4 35.1
 
Children Ages 0-5 47.5 22.9 29.6
Children Ages 6-10 47.4 25.4 27.2
Children Ages 11-15 53.1 21.4 25.5
Women Ages 16-64 47.9 24.8 27.3
Men Ages 16-64 40.9 26 33.1
Adults Ages 65 and over 45 55 0
 
Persons in Married-Couple Families 25.1 23.9 51
Persons in Female-Headed Families 57.1 23.8 19.1
Persons in Male-Headed Families 34.8 23.8 41.4
Unrelated Individuals 0 0 0
FOOD STAMPS All Persons 40.4 23.2 36.5
 
Non-Hispanic White 41 25.1 33.9
Non-Hispanic Black 42.6 23.6 33.8
Hispanic 36.7 17.6 45.7
 
Children Ages 0-5 32.5 23.9 43.6
Children Ages 6-10 31.1 24.5 44.4
Children Ages 11-15 32.9 24.1 43
Women Ages 16-64 41 25.4 33.6
Men Ages 16-64 41.8 22.8 35.4
Adults Ages 65 and over 85.6 7.1 7.3
 
Persons in Married-Couple Families 22.5 19 58.5
Persons in Female-Headed Families 42.6 26.7 30.7
Persons in Male-Headed Families 32.8 25.8 41.5
Unrelated Individuals 70.9 18.4 10.7
SSI All Persons 60.6 10.2 29.2
 
Non-Hispanic White 63.9 10 26.1
Non-Hispanic Black 64.2 12.9 22.9
Hispanic 54.4 7.3 38.4
 
Children Ages 0-5 38.2 11.3 50.5
Children Ages 6-10 36.1 14.9 49.1
Children Ages 11-15 42.5 19.5 38.1
Women Ages 16-64 65.9 10.3 23.8
Men Ages 16-64 61.1 10.5 28.4
Adults Ages 65 and over 64.8 7.4 27.8
 
Persons in Married-Couple Families 35.6 10.3 54.1
Persons in Female-Headed Families 54.8 14.5 30.7
Persons in Male-Headed Families 43.8 11.4 44.8
Unrelated Individuals 94 5.3 0.7

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants 1993-2004

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

Note: See above.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

1993 57 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 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 35.3
2002 39.8 25.8 34.3
2003 47.4 24.1 28.5
2004 48 23.8 28.1

Indicator 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-tested Assistance

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2005

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2005

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


  • A little under 2 percent of the total population received TANF in 2005. The rate of AFDC/TANF receipt has dropped significantly since 1993, when it was at a 25-year high of over 5 percent, as shown in Table IND 3a. The 2005 rate of receipt was less than one-third of the peak rate and the lowest since 1970.
  • AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been much higher with more pronounced changes over time for children than for adults. Between 1993 and 2005, AFDC/TANF receipt among children decreased by more than half (from 14 percent to just over 5 percent), the most rapid decline in a generation.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age 1970-2005

  Total Recipients Adult Recipients Child Recipients
Fiscal Year Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent

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

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

1970 7,188 3.5 1,863 1.4 5,325 7.6
1971 9,281 4.5 2,516 1.8 6,765 9.7
1972 10,345 4.9 2,848 2.0 7,497 10.8
1973 10,760 5.1 2,984 2.1 7,776 11.3
1974 10,591 5.0 2,935 2.0 7,656 11.3
1975 10,854 5.0 3,078 2.1 7,776 11.6
1976 11,171 5.1 3,271 2.2 7,900 11.9
1977 10,933 5.0 3,230 2.1 7,703 11.8
1978 10,485 4.7 3,128 2.0 7,357 11.4
1979 10,146 4.5 3,071 1.9 7,075 11.0
1980 10,422 4.6 3,226 2.0 7,196 11.3
1981 10,979 4.8 3,491 2.1 7,488 11.8
1982 10,233 4.4 3,395 2.0 6,838 10.9
1983 10,467 4.5 3,548 2.1 6,919 11.1
1984 10,677 4.5 3,652 2.1 7,025 11.2
1985 10,630 4.5 3,589 2.0 7,041 11.2
1986 10,810 4.5 3,637 2.1 7,173 11.4
1987 10,878 4.5 3,624 2.0 7,254 11.5
1988 10,734 4.4 3,536 2.0 7,198 11.4
1989 10,741 4.4 3,503 1.9 7,238 11.4
1990 11,263 4.5 3,643 2.0 7,620 11.9
1991 12,391 4.9 4,016 2.1 8,375 12.8
1992 13,423 5.2 4,336 2.3 9,087 13.7
1993 13,943 5.4 4,519 2.3 9,424 13.9
1994 14,033 5.3 4,554 2.3 9,479 13.8
1995 13,479 5.1 4,322 2.2 9,157 13.2
1996 12,477 4.6 3,921 2.0 8,556 12.2
1997 10,779 4.0 3,106 1.5 7,673 10.8
1998 8,653 3.1 2,469 1.2 6,184 8.7
1999 7,068 2.5 1,838 0.9 5,231 7.3
2000 6,218 2.2 1,687 0.8 4,531 6.3
2001 5,674 2.0 1,504 0.7 4,171 5.7
2002 5,576 1.9 1,477 0.7 4,099 5.6
2003 5,452 1.9 1,415 0.6 4,037 5.5
2004 5,314 1.8 1,357 0.6 3,957 5.4
2005 5,071 1.7 1,277 0.6 3,794 5.2

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2005

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2005

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 2005 and earlier reports (available online at www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/participation.htm), and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank. Population denominators are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • The food stamp recipiency rate increased to 8.6 percent in 2005, up from a low of 6.1 percent in 2000 and 2001 – the lowest rate since the Food Stamp Program became available nationwide. While the 2005 recipiency rate is higher than the rate for 2004, it is still significantly lower than the peak of 10.4 percent experienced in 1993 and 1994.
  • As with AFDC/TANF, food stamp recipiency rates have been much higher over time for children than for adults. Between 1980 and 2005, the percentage of all children who received food stamps was at least double the percentage for all adults ages 18 to 59.
  • Similar trends in food stamp recipiency – largely reflecting changes in the rate of unemployment and programmatic changes – existed across all age groups over time, as shown in Table IND 3b. The percentages of individuals receiving food stamps declined from 1984 through 1988, rose in the early 1990s until reaching a peak in 1994, declined sharply through 2000 and since then have risen from their low of 6.1 percent in 2000 and 2001.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age 1975-2005

  Total Recipients Adult Recipients
Ages 60 and over
Adult Recipients
Ages 18-59
Child Recipients
Ages 0-18
Fiscal Year Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent

Note: See Appendix A, Tables FSP 1 and FSP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient total 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 2005 and earlier reports (available online at www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/participation.htm), and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank. Individual age groups do not sum exactly to total participants. The population denominators for the percents in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

1975 16,320 7.6
1976 17,033 7.8 9,126 13.8
1977 15,604 7.1
1978 14,405 6.5
1979 15,942 7.1
1980 19,253 8.5 1,741 4.9 7,186 5.6 9,876 15.5
1981 20,654 9.0 1,845 5.0 7,811 6.0 9,803 15.5
1982 21,754 9.4 1,641 4.4 7,838 6.0 9,591 15.3
1983 21,668 9.3 1,654 4.4 8,960 6.7 10,910 17.4
1984 20,796 8.8 1,758 4.5 8,521 6.3 10,492 16.8
1985 19,847 8.3 1,783 4.5 8,258 6.1 9,906 15.8
1986 19,382 8.1 1,631 4.1 7,895 5.7 9,844 15.7
1987 19,072 7.9 1,589 3.9 7,684 5.5 9,771 15.5
1988 18,613 7.6 1,500 3.7 7,506 5.3 9,351 14.8
1989 18,778 7.6 1,582 3.8 7,560 5.3 9,429 14.9
1990 20,020 8.0 1,511 3.6 8,084 5.6 10,127 15.8
1991 22,599 8.9 1,593 3.8 9,190 6.3 11,952 18.3
1992 25,370 9.9 1,687 3.9 10,550 7.2 13,349 20.1
1993 26,957 10.4 1,876 4.3 11,214 7.5 14,196 21.0
1994 27,439 10.4 1,955 4.5 11,615 7.7 14,391 21.0
1995 26,579 10.0 1,920 4.4 11,105 7.3 13,860 20.0
1996 25,495 9.5 1,891 4.3 10,769 7.0 13,189 18.8
1997 22,820 8.4 1,831 4.1 9,373 6.0 11,847 16.7
1998 19,749 7.2 1,635 3.6 7,760 4.9 10,524 14.7
1999 18,146 6.5 1,696 3.7 7,079 4.4 9,332 13.0
2000 17,156 6.1 1,700 3.7 6,612 4.0 8,743 12.1
2001 17,282 6.1 1,658 3.6 6,778 4.1 8,819 12.1
2002 19,059 6.6 1,684 3.6 7,625 4.5 9,688 13.3
2003 21,222 7.3 1,786 3.7 8,503 5.0 10,605 14.5
2004 23,819 8.1 1,917 3.9 9,753 5.7 11,771 16.1
2005 25,634 8.6 2,044 4.1 10,390 6.0 12,405 16.9

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2005

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2005

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2005, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/), and U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and food stamps, which have been influenced by outside factors such as the economy and welfare reform, overall recipiency rates for SSI show less variation over time. After trending downward slightly from 1975 to the early 1980s, the proportion of the total population that receives SSI has risen from 1.7 percent in 1985 to 2.5 percent in 1996 and subsequently declined slightly to 2.4 percent in 2005. As shown in Table IND 3c, the total number of recipients has grown by 72 percent over the same period, from 4.1 million in 1985 to a little over 7 million people in 2005.
  • Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have much higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap has narrowed, however, as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has been cut in half, declining from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.4 percent in 2005.
  • The proportion of children receiving SSI increased gradually between 1975 and 1990, and grew more rapidly in the early and mid-1990s, reaching a high of 1.4 percent in 1996. The rate then fell slightly through 2000 before inching back upward to 1.4 percent in 2004 and 2005.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2005

  Total Recipients Adult Recipients
Ages 65 & over
Adult Recipients
Ages 18-64
Child Recipients
Ages 0-18
Date Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent

Note: December population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the Census Bureau's July 1 population estimates for the current and the following year. See Appendix A, Tables SSI 2, SSI 8 and SSI 9 for more detailed data on SSI recipiency rates.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2005, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy), and U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Dec 1975 4,314 2.0 2,508 10.9 1,699 1.3 107 0.2
Dec 1976 4,236 1.9 2,397 10.2 1,714 1.3 125 0.2
Dec 1977 4,238 1.9 2,353 9.7 1,738 1.3 147 0.2
Dec 1978 4,217 1.9 2,304 9.3 1,747 1.3 166 0.3
Dec 1979 4,150 1.8 2,246 8.8 1,727 1.3 177 0.3
Dec 1980 4,142 1.8 2,221 8.6 1,731 1.2 190 0.3
Dec 1981 4,019 1.7 2,121 8.0 1,703 1.2 195 0.3
Dec 1982 3,858 1.7 2,011 7.4 1,655 1.2 192 0.3
Dec 1983 3,901 1.7 2,003 7.3 1,700 1.2 198 0.3
Dec 1984 4,029 1.7 2,037 7.2 1,780 1.2 212 0.3
Dec 1985 4,138 1.7 2,031 7.1 1,879 1.3 227 0.4
Dec 1986 4,269 1.8 2,018 6.9 2,010 1.3 241 0.4
Dec 1987 4,385 1.8 2,015 6.7 2,119 1.4 251 0.4
Dec 1988 4,464 1.8 2,006 6.6 2,203 1.5 255 0.4
Dec 1989 4,593 1.9 2,026 6.5 2,302 1.5 265 0.4
Dec 1990 4,817 1.9 2,059 6.5 2,450 1.6 309 0.5
Dec 1991 5,118 2.0 2,080 6.5 2,642 1.7 397 0.6
Dec 1992 5,566 2.2 2,100 6.5 2,910 1.9 556 0.8
Dec 1993 5,984 2.3 2,113 6.4 3,148 2.0 723 1.1
Dec 1994 6,296 2.4 2,119 6.3 3,335 2.1 841 1.2
Dec 1995 6,514 2.5 2,115 6.3 3,482 2.2 917 1.3
Dec 1996 6,630 2.5 2,110 6.2 3,568 2.2 955 1.4
Dec 1997 6,495 2.4 2,054 6.0 3,562 2.2 880 1.3
Dec 1998 6,566 2.4 2,033 5.9 3,646 2.2 887 1.3
Dec 1999 6,557 2.4 2,019 5.8 3,691 2.2 847 1.2
Dec 2000 6,602 2.3 2,011 5.7 3,744 2.1 847 1.2
Dec 2001 6,688 2.3 1,995 5.6 3,811 2.1 882 1.2
Dec 2002 6,788 2.3 1,995 5.6 3,878 2.1 915 1.3
Dec 2003 6,902 2.4 1,990 5.5 3,953 2.2 959 1.3
Dec 2004 6,988 2.4 1,978 5.4 4,017 2.2 993 1.4
Dec 2005 7,114 2.4 1,995 5.4 4,083 2.2 1,036 1.4

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

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

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

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


  • Whereas Indicator 3 examined participants as a percentage of the total population (recipiency rates), this indicator examines participating families or households as a percentage of the estimated eligible population (participation rates, also known as “take-up” rates).
  • Only 42 percent of the families estimated as eligible for TANF cash assistance actually enrolled and received benefits in an average month in 2004. This is significantly lower than AFDC participation rates, which ranged from 77 percent to 86 percent between 1981 and 1996. See Table IND 4a for further information.
  • Over the past four years the participation rate for food stamps has increased from 48 percent in 2000 to 55 percent in 2004.
  • After rising steadily to 76 percent in 2000, the SSI participation rate dropped 10 percentage points over the last 4 years. At 66 percent it still is considerably higher than recent TANF and food stamp participation rates. See Table IND 4c for details by age and disability status.

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

Calendar Year Eligible Families (millions) Participating Families (millions) Participation Rate (percent)

Note: Participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) that uses CPS data to simulate AFDC/TANF eligibility and participation for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Most notably, since 1994 the model has been revised to more accurately estimate SSI participation among children, and in 1997 and 1998 the model was adjusted to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. In contrast to editions prior to 2004, this table includes families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs. Note that families subject to full-family sanctions are counted as nonparticipating eligible families due to modeling limitations. Although the coverage rate estimates take into account the number of families who lost aid due to the time limit (and do not count such families in the denominator of the coverage rate estimate), they do not make any allowance for families staying off of TANF to conserve their time-limited assistance months. Also, the numbers of eligible and participating families include the territories and pregnant women without children, even though these two small groups are excluded from the TRIM model. The numbers shown here implicitly assume that participation rates for the territories and for pregnant women with no other children are the same as for all other eligibles. 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.

1981 4.78 3.84 80.2
1983 4.75 3.69 77.7
1985 4.67 3.70 79.3
1987 4.92 3.78 76.7
1988 4.78 3.75 78.4
1989 4.54 3.80 83.6
1990 4.93 4.06 82.2
1992 5.64 4.83 85.7
1993 6.14 5.01 81.7
1994 (revised) 6.13 5.03 82.1
1995 5.69 4.80 84.3
1996 5.62 4.43 78.9
1997 (adjusted) 5.41 3.74 69.2
1998 (adjusted) 5.47 3.05 55.8
1999 5.07 2.65 52.3
2000 4.44 2.30 51.8
2001 4.56 2.19 48.0
2002 4.55 2.19 48.1
2003 4.77 2.18 45.7
2004 5.08 2.14 42.0
  • Between 2003 and 2004, there was a small increase in the number of families eligible for the TANF program.
  • After falling every year from 1994 to 2001, the caseload has remained fairly steady between 2001 and 2004. The participation rate continued to decrease in 2004 due to the increase of families eligible for the TANF program. In 2004 there were 500,000 more families eligible for TANF than in 2000.
  • Participating families were defined as families receiving cash assistance only. Families receiving services and benefits, other than cash assistance, were not included in the participation rate.

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

Date Eligible Households (millions) Participating Households (millions) Participation Rate (percent)

Note: Eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Food Stamp Program. Caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in 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 reweighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining food stamp eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the estimates for FY 2000 - FY 2002. Due to additional changes in methodology, the estimates for 2003 should not be directly compared to previous estimates.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 2004, June 2006 (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/FSPP...).

September 1976 16.3 5.3 32.6
February 1978 14.0 5.3 37.8
August 1980 14.0 7.4 52.5
August 1982 14.5 7.5 51.5
August 1986 15.3 7.1 46.5
August 1988 14.9 7.0 47.1
August 1990 14.5 8.0 54.9
August 1991 15.6 9.2 59.1
August 1992 16.7 10.2 61.6
August 1993 17.0 10.9 64.0
September 1994 (revised) 15.3 10.7 69.6
September 1995 15.0 10.4 69.2
September 1996 15.3 9.9 65.1
September 1997 14.7 8.4 57.5
September 1998 14.0 7.6 54.2
September 1999 13.7 7.3 53.0
Fiscal Year 1999 14.5 7.5 51.7
Fiscal Year 2001 15.2 7.3 48.0
Fiscal Year 2002 16.6 8.0 48.3
Fiscal Year 2003 17.8 8.9 49.9
Fiscal Year 2004 18.3 10.0 54.7

Between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 there was a 26 percent increase in households eligible for the Food Stamp Program (from 14.5 to 18.3 million households). Caseloads grew by a third over the same period, with the largest increase occurring from 2003 to 2004. Subsequently, the estimated participation rate increased from 52 percent in 1999 to 55 percent in 2004.

While there were 10 million households participating in the Food Stamps Program in 2004, the caseload is still lower than the 1993 peak in. During the mid to late nineties, there was a 32 percent drop in food stamp caseloads, from a peak of nearly 11 million households in 1993 to just over 7 million in 1999. This decline in caseloads occurred during a time when both the eligible population and the program participation rates were generally decreasing.

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program, by Type 1993-2004

    One-Person Units Married-Couple
  All Adult Units Aged Disabled Units

Note: Participation rates are estimated using the TRIM3 microsimulation model that uses CPS data to simulate SSI eligibility for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. In particular, the model was revised in 1997 to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. Thus the increased participation rate in 1997 is partly due to a revision in estimating methodology. In 2004 the TRIM methods for identifying individuals eligible for SSI due to disability were improved resulting in more eligibles for this category. Also note that the figures for married-couple units are based on very small sample sizes–for example, married-couple units were only about 7.5 percent of the eligible adults units and 5.1 percent of the units receiving SSI in the average month of 1998.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

1993 62.0 57.0 71.0 37.0
1994 65.0 58.4 73.0 43.9
1995 69.1 64.9 74.0 52.2
1996 66.6 60.4 73.5 46.7
1997 71.1 62.7 79.4 49.1
1998 70.7 63.6 77.9 48.1
1999 74.3 65.8 83.3 47.8
2000 75.8 70.9 82.3 49.9
2001 69.7 64.4 75.9 45.7
2002 70.4 61.9 78.3 47.9
2003 68.2 62.3 73.8 47.6
2004 65.7 63.3 69.2 46.0
  • After holding fairly constant at about 70 percent between 2001 and 2002, the SSI participation rate among adult units declined in 2003 and 2004. The 2004 SSI participation rate among adult units was about 66 percent – the lowest rate in 10 years.
  • The participation rates among aged one-person units increased slightly to about 63 percent in 2004.
  • The rates for disabled one-person units continued to move downward in 2004 reaching a rate nearly 14 percentage points below its peak of 83 percent in 1999.
  • In 2004, as in past years, disabled adults in one-person units had a higher participation rate (69 percent) than both aged adults in one-person units (63 percent) and adults in marriedcouple units (46 percent).

Indicator 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), among Those Receiving Assistance: 2004

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), among Those Receiving Assistance: 2004

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


  • About three-quarters (73 percent) of the families receiving TANF, food stamps or SSI benefits in an average month in 2004 received assistance from only one program. Most of these families received food stamps or SSI benefits only. However, other common patterns include food stamp and TANF receipt (16 percent) and food stamp and SSI receipt (11 percent).
  • Children are more likely than other age groups to live in families receiving TANF and/or food stamps. For example, 20 percent of children under six lived in families receiving any public assistance in an average month in 2004, and 6 percent of children under six lived in families receiving both TANF and food stamps, as shown in Table IND 5a.
  • Almost one in three persons in a female-headed family received TANF, food stamps or SSI benefits in an average month in 2004. Most of these families received food stamps only (19 percent) or TANF and food stamps (8 percent).
  • The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from at least one program among AFDC/TANF, food stamps and SSI in an average month decreased during the mid- and late 1990s (from 13 percent in 1994 to 8 percent in 2000). It increased to 10 percent in 2004, largely due to an increase in families receiving food stamps only, as shown in Table IND 5b.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2004

  Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs
    TANF FS SSI TANF & FS FS & SSI

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt are based on the full recipient unit. In practice, individuals do not tend to receive both AFDC/TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs. The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from any one program in an average month (shown here) is lower than the percentage residing in families receiving assistance 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, 1994-2005, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

All Persons 10.3 0.2 6.1 1.2 1.6 1.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 6.8 0.1 4.3 0.9 0.7 0.8
Non-Hispanic Black 24.9 0.5 14.0 1.9 5.7 2.8
Hispanic 14.3 0.5 8.2 1.7 2.8 1.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 20.2 0.6 12.1 0.6 6.2 0.7
Children Ages 6-10 17.8 0.5 11.5 0.7 4.5 0.6
Children Ages 11-15 15.8 0.5 10.1 0.9 3.6 0.7
Women Ages 16-64 9.5 0.1 6.0 1.0 1.3 1.1
Men Ages 16-64 6.6 0.1 4.0 1.2 0.3 0.9
Adults Ages 65 and over 7.9 0.0 2.3 3.1 0.0 2.5
Family Categories
Persons in Married-Couple Families 4.9 0.1 3.1 0.7 0.5 0.4
Persons in Female-Headed Families 33.0 0.6 19.3 2.7 7.9 2.5
Persons in Male-Headed Families 13.7 0.4 7.5 2.2 2.3 1.3
Unrelated Individuals 9.7 0.0 5.2 1.7 0.0 2.8

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, SSI): 1993-2004

  Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs
    AFDC/ TANF FS SSI AFDC/ TANF & FS FS & SSI
See above for note and source.
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

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

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

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

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


  • Of the recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI in 2002, Hispanics were less likely to be dependent in 2003 than non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.
  • As shown in Table IND 6a, men between the ages of 16 and 64 who received more than half of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 2002 remained dependent in 2003 in higher percentages than women.
  • Recipients of means-tested assistance were more likely to move out of dependency in the early 2000s than in the early 1990s. About three-tenths (28 percent) of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 2002 transitioned out of this dependency status in 2003. The comparable transition rate was only 20 percent between 1993 and 1994, as shown in Table IND 6b.

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

    Percentage of Persons Receiving
Individuals Receiving More than 50 Percent of Income from Assistance in 2002 Total (thousands) No Aid in 2003 Up to 50% in 2003 Over 50% in 2003

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, food stamps and SSI. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in families with more than 50 percent of total annual family income from these means-tested programs.

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

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

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

All Persons 6,023 2.6 25.8 71.6
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 2,222 4.6 24.6 70.8
Non-Hispanic Black 2,225 1.7 25.7 72.6
Hispanic 1,077 0.7 30.2 69.1
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 853 2.9 33.9 63.2
Children Ages 6-10 697 1.3 27.9 70.9
Children Ages 11-15 648 0.0 24.8 75.2
Women Ages 16-64 2,271 3.7 27.3 69.0
Men Ages 16-64 1,090 3.1 17.9 79.0
Adults Ages 65 and over 447 0.9 20.3 78.8

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

    Percentageof Persons Receiving
Transitions from: Total (thousands) No Aid in Second Year Up to 50% in Second Year Over 50% in Second Year

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

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

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

Indicator 7. Program Spell Duration

Figure IND 7. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 7. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell

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


  • Between the years 2001 and 2003, short spells lasting 4 months or less accounted for about 50 percent of TANF spells, 36 percent of food stamp spells and 28 percent of SSI spells.
  • Approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells (73 percent) and three-fifths of food stamp spells (60 percent) lasted one year or less. In contrast, only 49 percent of SSI spells ended within one year, as shown in Table IND 7a.
  • As shown in Table IND 7a, for TANF spells, a smaller percentage of long spells (lasting more than 20 months) occurred among non-Hispanic whites (12 percent) compared to non- Hispanic blacks and Hispanics (19 percent and 20 percent, respectively). In contrast, these groups did not differ greatly in the percentage of long spells for food stamps.
  • Spells of welfare receipt were shorter in the early 2000s than in the early 1990s, as shown in Table IND 7b. For example, only 17 percent of TANF spells for individuals entering TANF between 2001 and 2003 lasted 20 months or longer, compared with 34 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994. A similar pattern was found for SSI with only 44 percent of SSI spells lasting 20 months or longer in early 2000, compared with 61 percent in the early nineties.
  • Length of TANF receipt varies across states, as shown in Appendix Table TANF 17, which shows an alternative measure of length of TANF receipt, using state administrative data.

Table IND 7a. Percentage of TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity and Age

    Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months

Note: Spell length categories are not mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. TANF spells are defined as those starting during the 2001 SIPP Panel. For certain age categories, data are not available (NA) because of insufficient sample size.

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

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

TANF All Recipients 49.6 23.7 10 16.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 51.4 23.7 13.1 11.9
Non-Hispanic Black 50.6 23.5 6.8 19.1
Hispanic 51.7 20.1 8.4 19.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 50 24 11.9 14.1
Children Ages 6-10 45.4 21.5 8.5 24.6
Children Ages 11-15 43.7 25.3 12.4 18.6
Adults Ages 16-64 52.9 24.2 8.4 14.4
Adults Ages 65 and over NA NA NA NA
FOOD STAMPS All Recipients 35.9 24.4 8.9 30.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 35.9 25.8 8 30.3
Non-Hispanic Black 32.2 23.7 11.7 32.4
Hispanic 40.5 22.5 7.8 29.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 27.7 25.6 12.9 33.8
Children Ages 6-10 28.6 27.4 10.7 33.3
Children Ages 11-15 31.8 28.1 9.6 30.6
Adults Ages 16-64 40.3 23.9 7.5 28.4
Adults Ages 65 and over 30 12.5 9.6 48
SSI All Recipients 27.9 21.4 7.3 43.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 31.3 19.8 7.9 41
Non-Hispanic Black 26.9 25.3 7.1 40.7
Hispanic 23.7 18.8 7.3 50.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-10 NA NA NA NA
Children Ages 11-15 31.2 18.8 3.9 46.1
Adults Ages 16-64 29.4 20.9 7.2 42.5
Adults Ages 65 and over 22.7 23.2 8.4 45.7

Table IND 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs during Selected Time Periods

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1992, 1993, 1996 and 2001 Panels.
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 Food Stamps 30.7 33.1 25.4 26.8 12.5 10.1 31.4 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

Indicator 8. Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell

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


  • Welfare spells with no labor force attachment are measured as consecutive months that an individual received TANF benefits and lived in a family with no labor force participants.
  • In the early 2000s, 56 percent of TANF spells with no labor force attachment ended within four months and over three-quarters (79 percent) ended within a year.
  • As shown in Table IND 8a, the percentage of spells ending in four months or less was larger for non-Hispanic whites (61 percent) than for non-Hispanic blacks (53 percent) and Hispanics (60 percent).
  • The percentage of spells lasting more than 20 months was much higher in the early nineties than in the early 2000s. About 10 percent of spells between 2001 and 2003 lasted more than 20 months, compared to 23 percent between 1993 and 1995, as shown in Table IND 8b.
  • Spells shown in Indicator 8 are limited to spells of recipients in families without any labor force participation. Spell lengths, on average, are slightly longer in Indicator 7, which shows spells for all recipients, including those in families with labor force participants. For example, whereas 10 percent of spells between 2001 and 2003 shown in Figure IND 8 last more than 20 months, 17 percent of all TANF spells during the same time period are more than 20 months long, as shown in Figure IND 7.

Table IND 8a. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Individuals Entering Programs during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity and Age

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months

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 2001 SIPP panel for individuals 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, 2001 panel.

All Persons 56.1 23.0 10.6 10.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 61.2 20.2 13.5 5.1
Non-Hispanic Black 52.8 25.7 4.5 17.0
Hispanic 59.9 21.1 12.8 6.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-15 53.7 23.8 11.4 11.1
Adults Ages 16-64 59.7 22.1 9.4 8.9

Table IND 8b. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Individuals Entering Programs during Selected Time Periods

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993,1996 and 2001 panels.
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

Indicator 9. Long-term Receipt

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public release data files, 1992-2001.


  • Among all persons receiving AFDC/TANF at some point in the ten-year period ending in 2000, about half (51 percent) received assistance in only one or two of these years. Less than one third (31 percent) received AFDC/TANF in three to five years, and less than one fifth (19 percent) received AFDC/TANF during more than five of the ten years, as shown in Table IND 9.
  • A larger percentage of child recipients experienced long-term receipt (some receipt in at least six of the ten years) and a smaller percentage experienced short-term receipt (receipt in only one or two years) in all three time periods relative to the percentages for all recipients, as shown in Table IND 9.
  • Longer-term welfare receipt was much less common during the 1990s compared to earlier decades. Less than 4 percent of those with some AFDC/TANF assistance between 1991 and 2000 received at least one assistance payment in nine or ten years of the period, compared to 12 percent and 13 percent of AFDC recipients in the earlier two time periods.
  • In the two ten-year time periods between 1971-1990, there was a large percentage difference in short-term AFDC receipt between all black and non-black recipients. In the ten-year period ending in 2000, this percentage difference was much smaller, with 49 percent of blacks and 53 percent of non-blacks receiving AFDC/TANF in only one or two years.

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

All Races:

Years Received AFDC/TANF All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000
1-2 Years 44.0 44.8 50.9 36.3 36.1 37.9
3-5 Years 30.1 26.5 30.9 28.1 24.1 33.9
6-8 Years 12.5 16.4 14.5 17.9 20.5 23.3
9-10 Years 13.3 12.2 3.8 17.7 19.4 4.9

Black:

Years Received AFDC/TANF All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000
1-2 Years 30.8 35.8 48.6 24.2 26.9 37.7
3-5 Years 31.9 28.4 24.2 28.4 25.7 28.2
6-8 Years 18.6 17.5 NA 24.7 18.7 NA
9-10 Years 18.7 18.4 NA 22.8 28.7 NA

Non-Black:

Years Received AFDC/TANF All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5
1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public release data files, 1972-2001.

1-2 Years 51.0 51.3 52.6 45.0 43.0 38.2
3-5 Years 29.2 25.2 36.0 27.8 22.9 38.7
6-8 Years 9.4 15.7 NA 13.1 21.8 NA
9-10 Years 10.5 7.9 NA 14.1 12.3 NA

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

Figure IND 10a. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2001-2003 Period

Figure IND 10a. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2001-2003 Period

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


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

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

  Spell Began 1993-1995 Spell Began 1996-1999 Spell Began 2001-2003

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.

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

Recipients’ Earnings Decreased 57.1 52.6 50.3
Other Household Earnings Decreased 24.0 21.0 19.8
Lost SSI Benefits (own) 1.4 5.1 4.5
Lost Other Government Benefits (own) 8.1 5.1 6.1
New Child in Family 22.0 17.1 20.2
Divorced/Separated from Spouse 8.7 6.7 4.2
Decrease in Number of Adults (not divorce) 19.2 17.6 15.3
Onset of Work Limitation 7.2 10.9 11.6
Moved across State Lines 1.7 1.4 2.1
None of above in Recent Past 8.8 14.1 16.9
  • Spells of welfare receipt and associated trigger events are measured using monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2004.
  • Note that events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event. For example, if a single mother separated from an adult with earnings and subsequently entered welfare, her welfare entry would be coded as associated with both a decrease in adults in the household and a decrease in household earnings. In other words, events are generally not defined to be mutually exclusive. (However, see two exceptions in note above.)

Figure IND 10b. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2001-2003 Period

Figure IND 10b. Trigger Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2001-2003 Period

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


  • Welfare exits were most often associated with increases in recipient earnings. Close to onehalf (46 percent) of spells ending between 2001 and 2003 were associated with either an increase in the recipient’s own earnings (34 percent) or an increase in household earnings without an increase in the recipient’s own earnings (12 percent).
  • The percentage of all spell exits associated with an increase in recipient earnings has decreased over time (see Table IND 10b). Some of this decline may reflect the fact that a larger share of the caseload is combining welfare and work, and so some recipients with welfare exits in more recent years may have experienced increases in earnings before the 5- to 8-month time period used to observe “associated” events in Table 10b.
  • Smaller shares of welfare exits were associated with household composition changes (changes in marital status, presence of children and number of adults) compared with welfare entries (see Figure IND 10a).
  • Nearly two-fifths (37 percent) of welfare spells ending between 2001 and 2003 were not associated with any of the events listed above within the period observed. The percentage has risen over time (see Table IND 10b).

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

  Spell Ended 1993-1995 Spell Ended 1996-1999 Spell Ended 2001-2003

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

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

Increase in Own Earnings 54.8 44.6 34.1
Increase in Other Household Earnings 10.3 11.9 12.1
Became SSI Recipient 1.6 5.9 5.2
Became Recipient of Other Government Benefits 2.2 2.6 3.0
Last Child Left or Turned 19 5.6 2.4 1.5
Married 5.4 2.1 2.2
Increase in Number of Adults (not marriage) 17.6 12.4 12.8
Ended Work Limitation 3.0 10.9 9.0
Moved across State Lines 2.4 1.4 2.8
None of above in Recent Past 24.0 31.1 37.4
  • Spells of welfare receipt and associated trigger events are measured using monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2004.
  • Note that events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event. For example, if a single mother got a job, left welfare, and reported she no longer had a disability limiting her work status, her welfare exit would be coded as being associated with both an increase in earnings and an ending of a work limitation. In other words, events are generally not defined to be mutually exclusive. (However, see two exceptions in note above.)

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

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

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

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

 

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON)

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

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

Reductions in caseloads and dependence can reduce poverty, to the extent that such reductions are associated with greater work activity and higher economic resources for former welfare families. However, 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 child support collections (ECON 6), which can play an important role in reducing dependence on government assistance and thus serve as a predictor of dependence. Household food insecurity (ECON 7) is an important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over time. Finally, health insurance (ECON 8) is tied to the income level of the family, and may be a precursor to future health problems among adults and children.

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2005

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” Current Population
Reports
, Series P60-231, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.


  • The official poverty rate was 12.6 percent in 2005. The percentage of persons living in poverty in 2005 was below the poverty rates experienced during all of the 1980s and most of the 1990s.
  • Children under 18 had a poverty rate of 17.6 percent in 2005, down slightly from 17.8 percent in 2004. As in past years, the child poverty rate is considerably higher than the overall poverty rate.
  • The poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 10.1 percent in 2005, up slightly from 9.8 in 2004. This was a percentage point below the 11.1 percent rate for adults ages 18-64 and far lower than poverty rate of children, as shown in table ECON 1.

Table ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age and Marital Status: Selected Years

Calendar
Year
Related Children All Persons
Ages 0-5 Ages 6-17 Total Under 18 1 18 to 64 65 & over Married Families Female Householder 3

1 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.

2 In 1959-1987, persons in “Married 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 in both groups of persons below the poverty level.

3 No spouse present.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” Current Population
Reports
, Series P60-231, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

1959 NA NA 22.4 27.3 17.0 35.2 18.2 2 49.4
1963 NA NA 19.5 23.1 NA NA 14.9 2 47.7
1966 NA NA 14.7 17.6 10.5 28.5 10.3 2 39.8
1969 15.3 13.1 12.1 14.0 8.7 25.3 7.4 2 38.2
1973 15.7 13.6 11.1 14.4 8.3 16.3 6.0 2 37.5
1976 17.7 15.1 11.8 16.0 9.0 15.0 6.4 2 37.3
1979 17.9 15.1 11.7 16.4 8.9 15.2 6.3 2 34.9
1980 20.3 16.8 13.0 18.3 10.1 15.7 7.4 2 36.7
1981 22.0 18.4 14.0 20.0 11.1 15.3 8.1 2 38.7
1982 23.3 20.4 15.0 21.9 12.0 14.6 9.1 2 40.6
1983 24.6 20.4 15.2 22.3 12.4 13.8 9.3 2 40.2
1984 23.4 19.7 14.4 21.5 11.7 12.4 8.5 2 38.4
1985 22.6 18.8 14.0 20.7 11.3 12.6 8.2 2 37.6
1986 21.6 18.8 13.6 20.5 10.8 12.4 7.3 2 38.3
1987 22.3 18.3 13.4 20.3 10.6 12.5 7.2 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

Economic Security Risk Factor 2. Deep Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level 1975-2005

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level 1975-2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-231, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.


  • The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 5.4 percent in 2005, compared to an overall poverty rate of 12.6 percent. Only about 4 percent of the population was “near-poor” (had incomes at or above 100 percent but below 125 percent of the federal poverty level).
  • In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty threshold has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate, as shown in Figure ECON 2. The percentage of people below 50 percent of poverty rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but then, after falling slightly, rose to a second peak in 1993. The rates for 100 percent of poverty and 125 percent of poverty followed a somewhat similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
  • Over the past two decades, the proportion of the poverty population in “deep poverty” has increased. From a low of 28 percent of the poverty population in 1976, this population rose to just over 43 percent in 2005 up slightly from 2004.
  • The total number of poor people in 2005 was 37 million, as shown in Table ECON 2. While similar to the previous year, this number was 2.3 million lower than the peak of 39.3 million in 1993.

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

Year Total Population (thousands) Below 50 Percent Below 75 Percent Below 100 Percent Below 125 Percent
Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” Current Population
Reports
, Series P60-231, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html; also 1970 Census of
Population, Volume 1, Social and Economic Characteristics
, Table 259.

1959 176,600 NA NA NA NA 39,500 22.4 54,900 31.1
1961 181,300 NA NA NA NA 39,600 21.9 54,300 30.0
1963 187,300 NA NA NA NA 36,400 19.5 50,800 27.1
1965 191,400 NA NA NA NA 33,200 17.3 46,200 24.1
1967 195,700 NA NA NA NA 27,800 14.2 39,200 20.0
1969 199,500 9,600 4.8 16,400 8.2 24,100 12.1 34,700 17.4
1971 204,600 NA NA NA NA 25,600 12.5 36,500 17.8
1973 208,500 NA NA NA NA 23,000 11.1 32,800 15.8
1975 210,900 7,700 3.7 15,400 7.3 25,900 12.3 37,100 17.6
1976 212,300 7,000 3.3 14,900 7.0 25,000 11.8 35,500 16.7
1977 213,900 7,500 3.5 15,000 7.0 24,700 11.6 35,700 16.7
1978 215,700 7,700 3.6 14,900 6.9 24,500 11.4 34,100 15.8
1979 222,900 8,600 3.8 16,300 7.3 26,100 11.7 36,600 16.4
1980 225,000 9,800 4.4 18,700 8.3 29,300 13.0 40,700 18.1
1981 227,200 11,200 4.9 20,700 9.1 31,800 14.0 43,800 19.3
1982 229,400 12,800 5.6 23,200 10.1 34,400 15.0 46,600 20.3
1983 231,700 13,600 5.9 23,600 10.2 35,300 15.2 47,000 20.3
1984 233,800 12,800 5.5 22,700 9.7 33,700 14.4 45,400 19.4
1985 236,600 12,400 5.2 22,200 9.4 33,100 13.6 44,200 18.7
1986 238,600 12,700 5.3 22,400 9.4 32,400 14.0 44,600 18.7
1987 241,000 12,500 5.2 21,700 9.0 32,200 13.4 43,100 17.9
1988 243,500 12,700 5.2 21,400 8.8 31,700 13.0 42,600 17.5
1989 246,000 12,000 4.9 20,700 8.4 31,500 12.8 42,600 17.3
1990 248,600 12,900 5.2 22,600 9.1 33,600 13.5 44,800 18.0
1991 251,200 14,100 5.6 24,400 9.7 35,700 14.2 47,500 18.9
1992 256,500 15,500 6.1 26,200 10.2 38,000 14.8 50,500 19.7
1993 259,300 16,000 6.2 27,200 10.5 39,300 15.1 51,900 20.0
1994 261,600 15,400 5.9 26,400 10.1 38,100 14.5 50,500 19.3
1995 263,700 13,900 5.3 24,500 9.3 36,400 13.8 48,800 18.5
1996 266,200 14,400 5.4 24,800 9.3 36,500 13.7 49,300 18.5
1997 268,500 14,600 5.4 24,200 9.0 35,600 13.3 47,800 17.8
1998 271,100 13,900 5.1 23,000 8.5 34,500 12.7 46,000 17.0
1999 276,200 12,900 4.7 21,800 7.9 32,800 11.9 45,000 16.3
2000 278,900 12,600 4.5 20,500 7.4 31,100 11.3 43,600 15.6
2001 281,500 13,400 4.8 22,000 7.8 32,900 11.7 45,300 16.1
2002 285,300 14,100 4.9 23,100 8.1 34,600 12.1 47,100 16.5
2003 287,700 15,300 5.3 24,500 8.5 35,900 12.5 48,700 16.9
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

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Experimental Poverty Measures

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures by Age: 2004

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures by Age: 2004

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “The Effects of Government Taxes and Transfers on Income and Poverty: 2004,”, available online at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/..., and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.


  • Three experimental measures of poverty (developed by the Census Bureau in response to the recommendation of a 1995 panel of the National Academy of Sciences) yield poverty rates that are similar to the official poverty measure overall, but differ by age and other characteristics. For more information on the definition of these measures see note for Table ECON 3a.
  • Experimental measures generally show lower poverty rates among children than the official measure, partly because they take into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, experimental measures show higher rates of poverty among the elderly than the official measure, in part due to the inclusion of certain out-of-pocket health costs in these measures.
  • All three alternative measures shown in Figure Econ 3 do not take into account geographic adjustments (NGA) in housing costs; the measures can be calculated with geographic adjustment (GA), as shown in Tables ECON 3a and 3b. See note to Table ECON 3a.

Table ECON 3a. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2004

    No Geographic Adjustment Geographic Adjustment
  Official Alternative 1 (MSI-NGA) Alternative 2 (MIT-NGA) Alternative 3 (CMB-NGA) Alternative 1 (MSI-GA) Alternative 2 (MIT-GA) Alternative 3 (CMB-GA)

Note: These experimental poverty measures implement changes recommended by a 1995 NAS panel, including: counting noncash income as benefits; subtracting from income certain work-related, health and child care expenses; and adjusting poverty thresholds for family size and geographic differences in housing costs. The three alternative measures are similar, except that each account for medical out-of-pocket expenses (MOOP) differently. The first alternative (“MOOP subtracted from income” or MSI) subtracts out-of-pocket medical expenses from income. The second alternative, (“MOOP in the threshold” or MIT) increases the poverty thresholds to take MOOP expenses into account. The third measure, CMB for combined methods, combines attributes of the previous two measures. Each of the three measures is calculated with and without accounting for geographic adjustments (GA and NGA).

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Alternative Poverty Estimates in the United States: 2004,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-227, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf , and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

All Persons 12.7 12.7 13.1 13.3 12.5 13.0 13.3
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 8.7 9.4 9.5 9.8 8.7 8.8 9.1
Non-Hispanic Black 24.7 22.1 22.9 23.1 21.3 22.0 22.4
Hispanic 21.9 20.2 21.7 21.2 22.8 25.3 24.7
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-17 17.8 14.1 15.2 14.8 13.9 15.3 14.9
Adults Ages 18-64 11.3 11.5 12.1 12.0 11.4 12.1 12.0
Adults Ages 65 and over 9.8 15.9 13.7 16.9 15.4 13.1 16.3

Table ECON 3b. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures 1999-2004

  1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
See above for note and source.
Official Measure 11.9 11.3 11.7 12.1 12.5 12.7
No Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds            
Medical Costs Alternative 1 (MSI-NGA) 12.2 12.1 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.7
Medical Costs Alternative 2 (MIT-NGA) 12.8 12.7 12.8 13.0 12.8 13.1
Medical Costs Alternative 3 (CMB-NGA) 12.9 12.8 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.3
Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds            
Medical Costs Alternative 1 (MSI-GA) 12.1 12.0 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.5
Medical Costs Alternative 2 (MIT-GA) 12.7 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.7 13.0
Medical Costs Alternative 3 (CMB-GA) 12.8 12.6 12.9 12.9 12.9 13.3

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

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2005

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2005

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2006,
analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.


  • The official poverty rate – the definition of which includes means-tested cash assistance (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-tax cash income and social insurance – was 12.6 percent in 2005, as shown in the bold line with empty boxes in Figure ECON 4. Without cash welfare, the 2005 poverty rate would be 13.3 percent, as shown by the top line in the figure above.
  • Adding other non-cash, public assistance benefits to this definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people who have incomes below the official poverty line. Including the value of food and housing benefits in total income reduces the poverty rate to 11.2 percent in 2005.
  • When income is defined as including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and federal taxes, the percentage of the total population in poverty decreases to 10.3 percent in 2005. Federal taxes and tax credits have had a net effect of reducing poverty rates following the EITC expansions in 1993 and 1995.
  • The combined effect of means-tested cash assistance, food and housing benefits, EITC and taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2005 by 3.0 percentage points, as shown in Table ECON 4. Net reductions in poverty rates were somewhat lower during the recession of the early 1980s, and somewhat higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

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

  1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1984-2006, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

Cash Income Plus All Social Insurance 16.0 14.5 13.8 15.6 14.9 13.5 12.0 12.8 13.5 13.3
   Plus Means-Tested Cash Assistance 15.2 13.6 12.8 14.5 13.8 12.7 11.3 12.1 12.7 12.6
   Plus Food and Housing Benefits 13.7 12.2 11.2 12.9 12.0 11.3 10.1 10.9 11.5 11.2
   Plus EITC and Federal Taxes 14.7 13.1 11.8 13.0 11.5 10.4 9.5 10.0 10.5 10.3
Reduction in Poverty Rate 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.1 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.0

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the 1993-1995 and 2001-2003 Periods, by Length of Spell

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the 1993-1995 and 2001-2003 Periods, by Length of Spell

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


  • About half of all poverty spells that began between 2001 and 2003 ended within four months, and 77 percent ended within one year. Only 15 percent of all such spells were longer than 20 months, as shown in Table ECON 5a.
  • Spells of poverty that began between 1993 and 1995 were similar to those between 2001 and 2003; 47 percent ended within four months and 16 percent were longer than 20 months.
  • Poverty spells among adults ages 65 and older were more likely to last longer than 20 months (21 percent) than spells among other age groups, as shown in Table ECON 5a.

Table ECON 5a. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the 2001-2003 Period, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity and Age

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed.

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

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

All Persons 49.2 27.7 7.7 15.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 52.3 27.1 7.1 13.5
Non-Hispanic Black 42.1 27.4 9.4 21.1
Hispanic 45.7 29.7 7.8 16.8
Age Categories
Ages 0-5 Years 48.0 29.6 8.3 14.2
Ages 6-10 Years 48.0 28.5 7.7 15.8
Ages 11-15 Years 50.3 27.8 8.5 13.4
Women Ages 16-24 49.4 28.6 7.6 14.4
Men Ages 16-64 Years 52.0 28.3 7.6 12.1
Adults Ages 65 Years and over 47.7 23.7 7.4 21.2

Table ECON 5b. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty during the Selected Time Periods, by Length of Spell and Panel

  Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996 and 2001 panels.
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

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child SUPPORT

Figure ECON 6. Child Support Collections Received by Families, by Receipt of IV-D Services and Other Assistance (Billions of 2003 Dollars): 1993-2003

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 6. CHILD SUPPORT

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Child Support Supplement, 1994-2004.


  • In 2003 families reported receiving $25.6 billion in child support payments from nonresident parents. This amount represents current year support received for a twelvemonth period and does not include amounts paid for prior periods (arrearages) or amounts retained by the federal and state government to recoup welfare costs. Total child support collections have increased by 24 percent since 1993, after adjusting for inflation.
  • The amount of payments received by families who also received AFDC/TANF cash assistance at some point in the year has declined, from $3.1 billion in 1993 (in inflationadjusted dollars) to $2.6 billion in 2003. This partly reflects the decline in the AFDC/TANF caseloads. In addition, some states no longer “pass-through” any payments to families receiving TANF. Prior to the enactment of PRWORA in 1996, states were required to pass-through the first $50 of any child support collected.
  • Child support payments to families who did not receive TANF, but received another form of public assistance (SSI, food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance) increased significantly between 1993 and 2003, from $2.1 to $5.3 billion (in 2003 dollars). This group of families includes former TANF recipients, as well as families at risk of turning to cash assistance. The increased collections for this group more than offset the decline in payments to TANF families.
  • The total amount reported received by families through the child support enforcement system (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) was $16.2 billion, or 63 percent of all child support payments received by families, as shown in Table ECON 6.
  Collections (billions) Total (percent)
Current $ Constant 03$

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

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

Families receiving services through the IV-D system are estimated according to the methodology described in technical appendices to the ASPE-published report Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001, available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CSEChar04/index.htm and previous reports. Due to a slight change in methodology, estimates for 1993 through 2001 differ slightly from estimates in previously published reports.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Child Support Supplement, 1994-2004.

2001 Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
    TANF 2.6 2.6 10
    Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 5.3 5.3 21
    Child Support Services Only 8.3 8.3 32
    Subtotal Families Receiving IV-D Services 16.2 16.2 63
Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 9.4 9.4 37
Total Families 25.6 25.6 100
2001 Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
    TANF 1.5 1.6 7
    Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 3.7 3.8 16
    Child Support Services Only 8.3 8.6 36
    Subtotal Families Receiving IV-D Services 13.5 14.0 59
Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 9.4 9.8 41
Total Families 22.9 23.8 100
1999 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
    TANF 1.7 1.9 8
    Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 2.9 3.2 14
    Child Support Services Only 6.7 7.5 34
    Subtotal IV-D Families 11.3 12.5 56
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 8.8 9.7 44
Total Families 20.1 22.2 100
1997 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
    AFDC/TANF 2.5 2.9 12
    Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 2.8 3.2 14
    Child Support Services Only 5.9 6.8 29
    Subtotal IV-D Families 11.2 12.8 55
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 9.3 10.7 45
Total Families 20.6 23.5 100
1995 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
    AFDC 2.4 2.9 12
    Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 2.0 2.4 10
    Child Support Services Only 6.7 8.1 34
    Subtotal IV-D Families 11.1 13.3 56
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 8.8 10.5 44
Total Families 19.9 23.8 100
1993 Families Receiving Title IV-D Child Support Services and:      
    AFDC 2.5 3.1 15
    Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid or Housing 1.7 2.1 10
    Child Support Services Only 4.7 5.9 28
    Subtotal IV-D Families 8.8 11.0 53
Families Not Receiving IV-D Child Support Services 7.7 9.7 47
Total Families 16.5 20.7 100

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2005

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2005

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2005.


  • Many American households (89 percent) were food secure in 2005 – that is, showed little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake.
  • The prevalence of very low food security in 2005 was estimated to be 3.9 percent. During the twelve months ending in December 2005, one or more members of these households experienced reduced food intake and normal eating patterns disrupted as a result of financial constraints. An additional 7 percent of households experienced food insecurity, during the twelve months ending in December 2004. Food insecurity would be lower if measured over a monthly basis.
  • Poor households and female-headed households have higher rates of very low food security (13.5 and 8.7 percent, respectively) than the 3.9 percent rate among the general population, as shown in Table ECON 7a.
  • The percentage of households with food insecurity has decreased between 2004 and 2005 (11.9 and 11.0 percent, respectively). This reverses a five year trend, as shown in Table ECON 7b.

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2005

    Food Insecurity
  Food Secure All Low Very Low

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2005. Data are from the Current Population Survey, Food Security Supplement.

All Households 89.0 11.0 7.0 3.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 91.8 8.2 5.2 2.9
Non-Hispanic Black 77.6 22.4 13.8 8.6
Hispanic 82.1 17.9 12.6 5.3
Households, by Age
Households with Children under 6 83.3 16.7 12.9 3.9
Households with Children under 18 84.4 15.6 11.6 4.1
Households with Elderly 94.0 6.0 4.2 1.8
Household Categories      
Married-Couple Households 90.1 9.9 7.6 2.3
Female-Headed Households 69.2 30.8 22.2 8.7
Male-Headed Households 82.1 17.9 12.4 5.5
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.00 64.0 36.0 22.4 13.5
Under 1.30 66.8 33.2 20.6 12.6
Under 1.85 71.7 28.3 17.7 10.6
1.85 and over 94.8 5.2 3.6 1.7

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2005

    Food Insecurity
  Food Secure All Low Very Low
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2005.
1998 88.2 11.8 8.1 3.7
1999 89.9 10.1 7.1 3.0
2000 89.5 10.5 7.3 3.1
2001 89.3 10.7 7.4 3.3
2002 88.9 11.1 7.6 3.5
2003 88.8 11.2 7.7 3.5
2004 88.1 11.9 8.0 3.9
2005 89.0 11.0 7.0 3.9

Economic Security Risk Factor 8. Lack of Health Insurance

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2005

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2005

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2006.


  • Poor persons were almost twice as likely as all persons to be without health insurance in 2005 (31 percent compared to 16 percent). While the ratio varied across categories, persons with family income at or below the poverty line were more likely to be without health insurance regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, age or family status.
  • Hispanics were the ethnic group least likely to have health insurance in 2005, among both the general population and those with incomes below the poverty line. Hispanic individuals were three times more likely to be uninsured than non-Hispanic white individuals.
  • Among all persons, education levels were inversely related to health insurance coverage. However, among poor persons, there was less variation in insurance coverage rates across education levels than there was among all persons, as shown in Figure ECON 8.
  • As shown in Table ECON 8, more than half of poor people ages 25 to 34 were without health insurance. Among the general population, individuals ages 18 to 24 were the most likely to be without health insurance.
  • Among all persons, individuals in married families were more likely to have health insurance than those in female or male-headed households. People in poor married families, however, were less likely to have insurance than those in poor female or male-headed families, as shown in Table ECON 8.

Table ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income and Selected Characteristics: 2005

  All Persons Poor Persons

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

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Some of the race categories presented for ECON 8 have been changed slightly from prior year reports to provide more internal consistency throughout this report; in reports prior to 2006, the race categories for “Black” and “White” included people of Hispanic origin.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2006.

All Persons 15.9 31.0
 
Men 17.2 33.3
Women 14.5 29.3
     
Non-Hispanic White 11.3 26.6
Non-Hispanic Black 19.3 26.3
Hispanic 32.7 42.5
 
Not a High School Graduate 30.1 38.4
High School Graduate, No College 20.3 39.0
College Graduate 8.3 32.4
 
Ages 17 and under 11.2 19.0
    Ages 5 and under 10.8 16.8
    Ages 6-11 10.2 17.9
    Ages 12-17 12.6 22.9
 
Ages 18-24 30.6 45.9
Ages 25-34 26.4 50.9
Ages 35-44 18.8 45.8
Ages 45-54 15.3 37.5
Ages 55-64 13.6 29.1
 
Under 65 years 17.9 34.0
Ages 65 and over 1.3 3.9
 
Persons in Married-Couple Families 12.3 33.8
Persons in Female-Headed Families 22.2 25.5
Persons in Male-Headed Families 25.6 29.1
Unrelated Individuals 19.7 33.6

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

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

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

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

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be predictors of greater dependence. Substance abuse (WORK 6) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 7) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work. In addition, debilitating health conditions and high medical expenditures can strain a family’s economic resources. The labor force participation of women with children (WORK 8) is also a predictor of dependence.

 

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

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race/Ethnicity: 2005

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race/Ethnicity: 2005

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2006.


  • In 2005, 72 percent of the total population lived in families with at least one person working on a full-time, full-year basis (FT/FY), as shown in Table WORK 1a. While slightly lower than the peak in 2000, the percentage of individuals living with full-time, full year workers has generally increased since the early 1990s, as shown in Table WORK 1b.
  • Persons of Hispanic origin were less likely than non-Hispanic whites or non-Hispanic blacks to live in families with no one in the labor force in 2005 (9 percent compared to 15 and 17 percent, respectively).
  • Working-age women in 2005 were more likely than working-age men to live in families with no one in the labor force (8 percent compared to 6 percent), as shown in Table Work 1a. Men were more likely than women to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year worker (81 percent compared to 77 percent).
  • More than 80 percent of individuals in married families lived with at least one full-time, fullyear worker in 2005, compared to only about 60 percent in male or female-headed households, as shown in Table WORK 1a.

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2005

  No One in LF During Year At Least One in LF No One FT/FY At Least One FT/FY Worker

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1991-2006.

All Persons 13.7 14.1 72.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 14.7 13.2 72.1
Non-Hispanic Black 16.7 18.8 64.5
Hispanic 8.7 14.2 77.2
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 6.2 15.4 78.4
Children Ages 6-10 6.4 14.1 79.6
Children Ages 11-15 6.2 13.6 80.1
Women Ages 16-64 8.2 14.8 77.0
Men Ages 16-64 5.9 12.8 81.3
Adults Ages 65 and over 63.6 15.2 21.3
Family Structure
Individuals in married families 9.3 9.9 80.8
Individuals in female-headed families 14.6 26.1 59.3
Individuals in male-headed families 14.6 23.8 61.6
Unrelated individuals 29.7 18.3 52.0

Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Individuals 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
See above for note and source.
1990 13.7 17.6 68.7
1991 14.3 18.1 67.6
1992 14.4 18.1 67.6
1993 14.1 17.9 68.0
1996 13.6 16.1 70.3
1997 13.4 15.7 70.9
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
2004 13.9 14.4 71.7
2005 13.7 14.1 72.2

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/Ethnicity: 1968-2005

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/Ethnicity: 1968-2005

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2006.


  • Employment rates for women with a high school education or less generally increased during the 1980s and 1990s, although this trend has shown some modest reversal since 2000. Employment levels have been higher among low-skilled non-Hispanic white and black women (66 and 63 percent, respectively, in 2005) than among low-skilled Hispanic women (56 percent).
  • In contrast, employment levels for non-Hispanic men with a high school education or less have decreased over the past three decades, especially for non-Hispanic black men (66 percent in 2005 compared to 90 percent in 1968). Hispanic men with a high school education or less have had only slight variation in employment levels over the past three decades.
  • As shown in Figure and Table WORK 2, employment levels for non-Hispanic black men with a high school education or less were 3 percentage points higher than those of similarly educated non-Hispanic black women in 2005. In contrast, there was a 14 percentage point difference in employment levels of non-Hispanic white men and women with a high school education or less, and a 30 percentage point difference between similarly educated Hispanic men and women.

Table WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed, by Race/Ethnicity: 1968-2005

  Women Men
  Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

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, 1969-2006.

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

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

Figure WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race/Ethnicity (2005 Dollars): Selected Years

Figure WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race/Ethnicity (2005 Dollars): Selected Years

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1981-2006.


  • Average weekly wages of low-skilled women have been consistently lower than those of low-skilled men. For example, the average weekly wages of non-Hispanic black women without a high school education who worked full-time, full-year were 80 percent of those of men of the same race, education and work status in 2005 ($477 compared to $597).
  • Non-Hispanic white women have had the highest average weekly wages among low-skilled women working full-time, full-year reaching $570 in 2005. This level is a 19 percent increase over their mean weekly wages in 1980. Over the same time period, non-Hispanic black women and Hispanic women’s weekly wages increased at slower rates (9 percent and 5 percent, respectively).
  • Average weekly wages for all low-skilled workers decreased from 2004 to 2005. Wages for Hispanic men decreased the most during this time period ($551 compared to $531), while low-skilled non-Hispanic black women had the smallest drop in wages ($480 compared to $477).
  • Over the past two decades, both Hispanic women and men’s wages have lagged behind non-Hispanic whites and blacks among low-skilled, full-time workers. In 2005, Hispanic women’s wages were 25 percent lower than non-Hispanic white women and 10 percent lower than non-Hispanic black women. Hispanic men trailed non-Hispanic white men by 33 percent and non-Hispanic black men by 11 percent.

Table WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race/Ethnicity (2005 Dollars): Selected Years

  Women Men
  Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

Note: Full-time, full-year workers work at least 48 weeks per year and usually 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1981-2006.

1980 479 438 410 792 589 597
1981 470 425 417 783 583 589
1982 475 431 414 765 565 565
1983 474 430 410 755 544 571
1984 480 447 417 773 544 576
1985 493 447 411 767 568 565
1986 497 447 432 781 568 548
1987 508 468 420 784 582 549
1988 509 452 420 781 611 554
1989 507 477 431 766 571 537
1990 510 467 409 738 570 525
1991 502 453 407 723 566 504
1992 513 458 424 733 558 519
1993 509 444 412 719 551 505
1994 518 460 416 731 566 502
1995 523 460 404 756 574 504
1996 529 487 419 778 599 502
1997 535 457 428 789 599 540
1998 556 464 431 771 605 537
1999 535 466 424 795 648 536
2000 554 472 414 817 643 547
2001 562 495 433 807 620 550
2002 573 510 437 806 626 574
2003 593 490 445 809 639 540
2004 582 480 436 805 602 551
2005 570 477 430 796 597 531

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2005

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2005,” Current Population Reports and earlier reports.


  • There has been a notable decline over the past 45 years in the percentage of the population that has not received a high school education. This percentage fell from 59 percent in 1960 to 15 percent in 2005.
  • The percentage of the population receiving a high school education only (with no subsequent college education) was 25 percent in 1960 and rose to 39 percent in 1988. Since then this figure has fallen to 32 percent in 2005, although some of this decline is a result of a change in the survey methodology in 1992 (see note to Table WORK 4).
  • Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of the population with some college (one to three years) doubled, from 9 percent to 18 percent. The apparent jump in 1992 is a result of a change in the survey methodology (see note to Table WORK 4), but the trend continued upward, reaching 25 percent in 2005.
  • The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college has more than tripled from 1960 to 2005, rising steadily from 8 percent to 28 percent.

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

  Not a High School Graduate High School Graduate, No College One to Three Years of College Four or More Years of College
1940 76 14 5 5
1950 67 20 7 6
1960 59 25 9 8
1965 51 31 9 9
1970 45 34 10 11
1975 37 36 12 14
1980 31 37 15 17
1981 30 38 15 17
1982 29 38 15 18
1983 28 38 16 19
1984 27 38 16 19
1985 26 38 16 19
1986 25 38 17 19
1987 24 39 17 20
1988 24 39 17 20
1989 23 38 17 21
1990 22 38 18 21
1991 22 39 18 21
1992 21 36 22 21
1993 20 35 23 22
1994 19 34 24 22
1995 18 34 25 23
1996 18 34 25 24
1997 18 34 24 24
1998 17 34 25 24
1999 17 33 25 25
2000 16 33 25 26
2001 16 33 26 26
2002 16 32 25 27
2003 15 32 25 27
2004 15 32 25 28
2005 15 32 25 28

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2005,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html and earlier reports.

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2003 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).


  • Dropout rates for teens in grades 10 to 12 (all races) generally declined during the 1980s, from a high of 6.7 percent in the late 1970s to a low of 4.0 percent in the early 1990s. The rate then began rising in the early 1990s, reaching as high as 5.7 percent in 1995. Since then, it has fallen to 4.0 percent in 2003.
  • The 2002 dropout rate of 3.6 percent was the lowest rate in thirty years.
  • Dropout rates among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black teens have fluctuated considerably over this period. Still, dropout rates are generally highest for Hispanic teens and lowest for non-Hispanic white teens. In 2003, the dropout rate was 7.1 percent for Hispanic teens, compared to 4.8 percent for non-Hispanic black teens and 3.2 percent for non-Hispanic white teens.

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

  Total Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2003 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

1972 6.1 5.3 9.5 11.2
1973 6.3 5.5 9.9 10.0
1974 6.7 5.8 11.6 9.9
1975 5.8 5.0 8.7 10.9
1976 5.9 5.6 7.4 7.3
1977 6.5 6.1 8.6 7.8
1978 6.7 5.8 10.2 12.3
1979 6.7 6.0 9.9 9.8
1980 6.1 5.2 8.2 11.7
1981 5.9 4.8 9.7 10.7
1982 5.5 4.7 7.8 9.2
1983 5.2 4.4 7.0 10.1
1984 5.1 4.4 5.7 11.1
1985 5.2 4.3 7.8 9.8
1986 4.7 3.7 5.4 11.9
1987 4.1 3.5 6.4 5.4
1988 4.8 4.2 5.9 10.4
1989 4.5 3.5 7.8 7.8
1990 4.0 3.3 5.0 7.9
1991 4.0 3.2 6.0 7.3
1992 4.4 3.7 5.0 8.2
1993 4.5 3.9 5.8 6.7
1994 5.3 4.2 6.6 10.0
1995 5.7 4.5 6.4 12.3
1996 5.0 4.1 6.7 9.0
1997 4.6 3.6 5.0 9.5
1998 4.8 3.9 5.2 9.4
1999 5.0 4.0 6.5 7.8
2000 4.8 4.1 6.1 7.4
2001 5.0 4.1 6.3 8.8
2002 3.6 2.6 4.9 5.8
2003 4.0 3.2 4.8 7.1

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

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2005

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2005

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006.


In 2005, young adults (ages 18 to 25) were more likely than older adults to report alcohol abuse, marijuana use, or cocaine use in the past month. For example, about one in six (16 percent) adults ages 18 to 25 reported using marijuana in the past month during 2005, compared with 9 percent of adults ages 26 to 34 and 3 percent of adults ages 35 and older.

The percentage of persons reporting binge alcohol use was significantly larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups, as shown in Table WORK 6.

Among young adults, heavy drinking and marijuana and cocaine use increased between 2004 and 2005 while heavy drinking and marijuana use declined for adults ages 35 and over, as shown in Table WORK 6.

Table WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 1999-2005

  1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

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, 2000-2006.

Cocaine              
Ages 18-25 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6
Ages 26-34 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.3
Ages 35 and over 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6
 
Marijuana              
Ages 18-25 14.2 13.6 16.0 17.3 17.0 16.1 16.6
Ages 26-34 5.4 5.9 6.8 7.7 8.4 8.3 8.6
Ages 35 and over 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0
 
Binge Alcohol Use              
Ages 18-25 37.9 37.8 38.7 40.9 41.6 41.2 41.9
Ages 26-34 29.3 30.3 30.1 33.1 32.9 32.2 32.9
Ages 35 and over 16.0 16.4 16.2 18.6 18.1 18.5 18.3
 
Heavy Alcohol Use              
Ages 18-25 13.3 12.8 13.6 14.9 15.1 15.1 15.3
Ages 26-34 7.5 7.6 7.8 9.0 9.4 9.4 9.6
Ages 35 and over 4.2 4.1 4.2 5.2 5.1 5.3 4.7

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

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2005

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2005

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006.


  • In 2005, non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 10.7 percent compared to 7.4 percent.
  • While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children than adults were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2005 (6.2 percent compared to 4.7 percent), as shown in Table WORK 7.
  • 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. Non-Hispanic black adults and children also were more likely to receive disability program benefits than non-Hispanic white and Hispanic adults and children in 2005, as shown in Table WORK 7.
  • Among non-elderly adults, rates of work disability and long-term care needs were lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, as shown in Table WORK 7.

Table WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2005

  Activity Limitation Work Disability Long-Term Care Needs Disability Program Recipient

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006.

All Persons        
Adults Ages 18-64 10.7 8.1 2.1 4.7
Children Ages 0-17 7.4 NA NA 6.2
 
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)        
Non-Hispanic White 11.3 8.7 2.1 4.6
Non-Hispanic Black 13.5 10.3 3.0 7.6
Hispanic 7.2 5.4 1.4 3.1
 
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)        
Non-Hispanic White 7.6 NA NA 6.2
Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic 8.9 6.4 NA NA NA NA 7.5 5.5

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

Figure WORK 8. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2005

Figure WORK 8. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2005

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1976-2006.


  • The labor force participation rates for married and for divorced, separated or widowed mothers decreased between 2004 and 2005, as shown in Figure WORK 8.
  • Since 1992, the labor force participation rate of never-married mothers with children under 18 has increased dramatically from 53 percent to 73 percent. Since 1998, the participation rate for never-married mothers has exceeded the rate for married mothers. Similarly, the employment rate for never-married mothers increased from 43 percent in 1992 to 62 percent in 2005, as shown in Table WORK 8.
  • Historically, mothers who are divorced, separated or widowed have always had the highest rates of labor force participation. By 1994, the gap between these women and married mothers had narrowed considerably; however, over the past 10 years this gap has again widened. In 2005, the labor force participation rate of divorced, separated or widowed mothers was 80 percent, compared to 68 percent for married mothers.
  • The labor force participation rate of married mothers with children under 18 followed an upward trend from 1950 until 1997 when it peaked at 71 percent. Since 1997 it has edged downward slowly.
  • While the labor force participation rate of married mothers decreased last year, the employment rate, which excludes women laid off or unemployed but looking for work, increased slightly.

Table WORK 8. Employment Status of Women with Children under 18 Years of Age: 1975-2005

  Labor Force Participation Rate (percent of population) Employment Rate
  Married, Spouse Present Divorced, Separated or Widowed Never-Married Married, Spouse Present Divorced, Separated or Widowed Never-Married

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, 1976-2006.

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

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH)

The final group of risk factors addresses out-of-wedlock childbearing. The tables and figures in this subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix. This category includes long-term time trends in nonmarital births (BIRTH 1), nonmarital teen births (BIRTH 2 and BIRTH 3), and children living in families with never-married parents (BIRTH 4). Children living in families with nevermarried 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.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1. Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by Age Group: 1940-2005

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital, by Age Group: 1940-2005

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 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2006, and preliminary data for 2005 published at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/Default.htm.


  • The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past six decades, from 4 percent in 1940 to 37 percent in 2005. This increase reflects changes in several factors: the rate at which unmarried women have children, the rate at which married women have children and the rate at which women marry.
  • The percentage of children born outside of marriage is especially high among teen women and women ages 20-24. A little more than four-fifths (83 percent) of all births to teens and over half (56 percent) of all births to women ages 20-24 took place outside of marriage in 2005.
  • After reaching a plateau of 33 percent in 1994, the percentage of births that are nonmarital has inched up, with notable increases in the last three years. The growth in the percentage of nonmarital teen births also slowed in the mid-1990s and has increased since 1994 (from 76 to 83 percent). The steepest growth between 1994 and 2005 has been among the 20 to 24 year old age group, where the percentage of births that are nonmarital has increased from 45 to 56 percent.
  • In contrast, the percentage of births that are nonmarital continues to remain steady since 1994 among black teens and all black women. Among white teens and all white women, the trend continues upward (see Table C-1 in Appendix C for nonmarital birth data by age and race).

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

Year Under 15 15-17 Years 18-19 Years All Teens 20-24 Years All Women

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2006, and preliminary data for 2005 published at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/Default.htm.

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 prel. 97.9 90.4 79.1 83.0 55.9 36.8

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births that are Nonmarital Teen Births, by Race/Ethnicity 1940-2004

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births that are Nonmarital Teen Births, by Race/Ethnicity 1940-2004

Note: 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 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2005.


In contrast to the earlier Figure BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births, Figure BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage fell over the last six years, from 9.7 to 8.3 percent, reversing a long upward trend since 1940. This rate may be affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens and the birth rate among all other women.

Among black women, the percentage of all births that were nonmarital teen births fell to 16.0 percent in 2004, the lowest percentage since 1969. This rate has varied greatly over time, peaking at 24 percent in 1975, and then gradually declining over most of the past three decades.

The percentage of all births that were nonmarital teen births increased slightly for whites (from 7.1 to 7.2 percent) and Hispanics (from 10.7 to 10.9 percent) between 2003 and 2004.

Table BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births that are Nonmarital Teen Births, by Race/Ethnicity: Selected Years

Year All Races White Black Hispanic

Note: Trends in nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child. Teens are defined as people ages 15 to 19.

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (2), September 2006.

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
1969 4.7 2.4 17.5 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 11.6
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

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

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2004

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2004

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2004

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2004

Note: 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 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2006.


  • The birth rate per 1,000 unmarried teens fell again in 2004 for both black and white teens 15 to 17 years. The rates of teens in the older age groups (18 and 19 years) showed little change. The rate for black teens ages 15 to 17 has been cut by more than half from 80 per thousand in 1991 to 37 per thousand in 2004, and for blacks ages 18 and 19, the rate fell from 148 per thousand in 1991 to 101 per thousand in 2004.
  • Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried white teens in both age groups rose steadily for over four decades (from 4 to 24 percent among 15 to 17 year-olds and from 11 to 56 percent among 18 and 19 year-olds). Since then the rates for both age groups have followed a downward trend.
  • The birth rate among unmarried black teens 15 to 17 years was lower in 2004 than it has been in over four decades. While birth rates among unmarried black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried white teens, the gap between black and white teens narrowed considerably during the 1990s and 2000s.

Table BIRTH 3. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teen Women within Age Groups, by Race: 1950-2004

  Ages 15 to 17 Ages 18 and 19
Year All Races White Black All Races White Black

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

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 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2006. Birthrates for 1950 to 1965 computed by ASPE staff from NCHS birth data and Census population estimates.

1950 9.9 3.4 NA 18.3 8.5 NA
1955 11.1 3.9 NA 23.6 10.3 NA
1960 11.1 4.4 NA 24.3 11.4 NA
1961 11.7 4.6 NA 24.6 12.1 NA
1962 10.7 4.1 NA 23.8 11.7 NA
1963 10.9 4.5 NA 25.8 13.0 NA
1964 11.6 4.9 NA 26.5 13.6 NA
1965 12.5 5.0 NA 25.8 13.9 NA
1966 13.1 5.4 NA 25.6 14.1 NA
1967 13.8 5.6 NA 27.6 15.3 NA
1968 14.7 6.2 NA 29.6 16.6 NA
1969 15.2 6.6 72.0 30.8 16.6 128.4
1970 17.1 7.5 77.9 32.9 17.6 136.4
1971 17.5 7.4 80.7 31.7 15.8 135.2
1972 18.5 8.0 82.8 30.9 15.1 128.2
1973 18.7 8.4 81.2 30.4 14.9 120.5
1974 18.8 8.8 78.6 31.2 15.3 122.2
1975 19.3 9.6 76.8 32.5 16.5 123.8
1976 19.0 9.7 73.5 32.1 16.9 117.9
1977 19.8 10.5 73.0 34.6 18.7 121.7
1978 19.1 10.3 68.8 35.1 19.3 119.6
1979 19.9 10.8 71.0 37.2 21.0 123.3
1980 20.6 12.0 68.8 39.0 24.1 118.2
1981 20.9 12.6 65.9 39.0 24.6 114.2
1982 21.5 13.1 66.3 39.6 25.3 112.7
1983 22.0 13.6 66.8 40.7 26.4 111.9
1984 21.9 13.7 66.5 42.5 27.9 113.6
1985 22.4 14.5 66.8 45.9 31.2 117.9
1986 22.8 14.9 67.0 48.0 33.5 121.1
1987 24.5 16.2 69.9 48.9 34.5 123.0
1988 26.4 17.6 73.5 51.5 36.8 130.5
1989 28.7 19.3 78.9 56.0 40.2 140.9
1990 29.6 20.4 78.8 60.7 44.9 143.7
1991 30.8 21.7 79.9 65.4 49.4 147.7
1992 30.2 21.5 77.2 66.7 51.1 146.4
1993 30.3 21.9 75.9 66.1 51.9 140.0
1994 31.7 23.9 73.9 69.1 55.7 139.6
1995 30.1 23.3 67.4 66.5 54.6 129.2
1996 28.5 22.3 62.6 64.9 53.4 127.2
1997 27.7 22.0 59.0 63.9 52.8 124.8
1998 26.5 21.5 55.0 63.7 53.0 121.5
1999 25.0 20.7 50.0 62.4 52.8 115.8
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

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 4. Never-married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2006

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2006

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, Series P20-537, 547, 553 and ASPE tabulations of the CPS for 2006.

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


  • The percentage of children living in families with never-married female heads increased from 5 percent in 1982 to 11 percent in 2006.
  • The percentage of white children living in families headed by never-married women has steadily increased threefold over the past twenty years, from 2 percent in 1982 to 6 percent in 2006.
  • Among Hispanics, the percentage of children living with never-married female heads tripled over the past 25 years, going from 4 percent in 1980 to 12 percent in 2004. Over the past three years, however, the percentage has remained stable at 12 percent.
  • The percentage of black children (35 percent) living in families headed by never-married women has been much higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period (6 percent for white children and 12 percent for Hispanic children).

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

  Number of Children(thousands) Percentage
Year All Races White Black Hispanic All Races White Black Hispanic

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. In 1982, improved data collection and processing procedures helped to identify parent-child subfamilies. (See Current Population Reports, P-20, 399, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1984.)

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Nonwhite data are shown for Black in 1960.

Source of CPS data: U.S. 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, Series P20-537, 547, 553 and ASPE tabulations of the CPS for 2005.

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

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
1982 2,768 793 1,947 291 4.6 1.6 22.7 5.7
1984 3,131 959 2,109 357 5.2 1.9 23.9 6.5
1986 3,606 1,174 2,375 451 5.9 2.3 26.6 7.2
1987 3,985 1,385 2,524 587 6.5 2.8 28.2 9.2
1988 4,302 1,482 2,736 600 7.0 3.0 30.4 9.2
1989 4,290 1,483 2,695 592 6.9 2.9 29.6 8.7
1990 4,365 1,527 2,738 605 7.0 3.0 29.6 8.7
1991 5,040 1,725 3,176 644 8.0 3.4 33.3 9.0
1992 5,410 2,016 3,192 757 8.4 3.9 33.1 10.3
1993 5,511 2,015 3,317 848 8.5 3.9 33.6 11.3
1994 6,000 2,412 3,321 1,083 9.0 4.5 32.9 12.0
1995 5,862 2,317 3,255 1,017 8.7 4.3 32.3 10.8
1996 6,365 2,563 3,567 1,161 9.4 4.8 34.4 12.0
1997 6,598 2,788 3,575 1,242 9.7 5.1 34.3 12.4
1998 6,700 2,850 3,644 1,254 9.8 5.2 35.1 12.2
1999 6,736 2,826 3,643 1,297 9.8 5.2 35.3 12.2
2000 6,591 2,881 3,413 1,255 9.5 5.3 32.9 11.4
2001 6,736 3,002 3,381 1,397 9.8 5.5 33.2 11.9
2002 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 7,412 3,278 3,609 1,622 10.6 6.0 35.4 12.0
2006 7,443 3,263 3,557 1,677 10.6 6.0 35.0 12.0

Appendix A. Program Data

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs:

  • The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996);
  • The Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended;
  • The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act.

This chapter includes information on these three programs, derived primarily from administrative data reported by state and federal agencies instead of the national survey data presented in previous chapters. National caseloads and expenditure trend information on each of the three programs is included, as well as state-by-state trend tables and information on the characteristics of program participants.

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

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

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

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) replaced AFDC, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months) on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with federal funds, increasing work participation rate requirements that states must meet, and broad state flexibility on program design. Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.5 billion per year, slightly above fiscal year 1995 federal expenditures for the four component programs. States also must meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail work participation rate requirements).

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

Recent Legislative Action

The current legislative authority for the TANF block grant is from the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). Enacted in February 2006, the Act reauthorizes the original 1996 legislation at an annual funding level of $16.5 billion and continues to require each state to have at least 50 percent of its work eligible families participating in meaningful work activities. However, prior to this Act, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload declines since 1995. As most states experienced dramatic caseload declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states. Starting with FY 2007, the Deficit Reduction Act recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit to 2005, effectively re-implementing a meaningful performance guideline.

Also starting in FY 2007, the Deficit Reduction Act expands the work participation calculations to include adults in certain welfare programs funded out of state funds countable toward the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Under the original legislation, these adults were excluded from the calculations. This change was implemented because there was some concern that states were moving work-eligible TANF adults into non-TANF programs with similar program structures, in part, to avoid federal work participation standards.

The Deficit Reduction Act also provides $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages, and up to $50 million annually for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In addition, the new law increased mandatory child care funding to states to $2.9 billion annually.

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 is also possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. The vast majority of families receiving “assistance”1 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 out of 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 exempted from federal time limits and work requirements; as of October 2006, such families are subject to the same work requirements as regular TANF families, but may still be excluded from time limits. The official TANF caseload figures do not include SSP families when reporting TANF caseloads. Starting with the 2004 edition, this Indicators report adds recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state) but Tribal TANF families are not included in any of the caseload counts. Expenditures for Separate State Programs are shown in Table TANF 5.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in 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)2 and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 17). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a and IND 4a in Chapter II.

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Tables TANF 1 through TANF 3 and Figure TANF 1). Welfare caseloads have stabilized over the past few years after declining dramatically during the 1990s. In fiscal year 2005, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.1 million persons, down 4.7 percent from FY 2004. Moreover, this was 59 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in fiscal year 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1967. From the peak of 14.4 million in March 1994, the number of AFDC/TANF recipients dropped by more than 64 percent to 5.1 million in March 2005.3 Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the passage of Welfare Reform in August 1996 (data not shown). These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs.

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

In general, studies have found that both economic conditions and welfare reform policies have played important roles in the recent caseload decline. A review of a dozen studies concluded that roughly 15 to 30 percent of the caseload decline prior to 1996 was attributed by most studies to welfare policies under waivers to the AFDC rules with approximately 30 to 45 percent of the decline explained by economic conditions (Schoeni and Blank, 2000). A study by the Council of Economic Advisers (1999) of the post-PRWORA period finds that just over one-third of the caseload decline can be explained by welfare reform policy, while 8 to 10 percent is due to the economy. A more recent study estimates that over half the decline in caseloads after enactment of PRWORA was attributable to welfare reform (O’Neill and Hill, 2001). The relative stability of the caseload during the recent recession further supports the argument that the economy was only one of several factors driving caseloads down.

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


Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 show that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, by 2005 the average monthly benefit per recipient had declined to 69 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.

AFDC/TANF Recipient Characteristics (Table TANF 7). With the dramatic declines in the welfare rolls since the implementation of TANF, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding how the composition of the caseload has changed. Two striking trends are the increases in the proportion of families with no adult in the assistance unit and in employment among adult recipients.

One of the most dramatic trends is the increase in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 2005, 23 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, down from 26 percent in 2000, but up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1992, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was 31 percent in FY 20054 (data not shown). Similar trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect the effects of welfare-to-work programs and the overall economy. One can also see a relationship between employment of welfare recipients and broader trends in labor force participation. (For example, see Table WORK 8 in Chapter III for trends in employment rates for women with children under age 18.)

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of cases without an adult recipient. Such cases occur when the adults are ineligible (because they are a caretaker relative, SSI parent, immigrant parent, or sanctioned parent). Families with no adults in the assistance unit have climbed from 14.8 percent of the caseload in FY 1992 to 45.5 percent in FY 2005. Not counting cases with a sanctioned parent, 42.6 percent of the caseload was child-only in 2005. This dramatic growth has been due to an increase in the number of child-only cases during the early 1990s, followed by a decline in the number of adult-present cases. The number of cases without an adult in the assistance unit has fallen by about 108,000 since 1996 — between 1996 and 1998 the child-only caseload decreased by 254,000 but subsequently increased by 146,000.

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

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

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8 through TANF 17). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since 1993, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and June 2006 ranges from 96 percent (Wyoming) to 27 percent (Nebraska). Twelve states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as June 1997 (Hawaii).

Table TANF 15 shows TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) families and recipients, by state. Tables TANF 16 and 17 use a data source available beginning in 2003, the High Performance Bonus data, which links TANF administrative records with quarterly earnings records, and allows examination of patterns of TANF receipt and employment. For example, Table TANF 16 shows the range across states in employment rates among TANF recipients (where employment is measured by presence of quarterly earnings in the same calendar quarter as one or more months of TANF recipient or in the immediately subsequent quarter). Table 17 complements the data on program spell duration provided in Table IND 7 in Chapter II, by examining state-by-state variation in the percentage of TANF recipients that receive benefits over the course of one year (four quarters) after a selected calendar quarter.

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and “UP Families” are two-parent cases receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is June 2006.

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

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2005 Dollars

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2005 Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in current and constant 2005 dollars with the weighted average maximum benefit in current and constant 2005 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. The current value of the maximum benefits has not shown much increase in most states.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 plus unpublished data and Seventh TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2006.

Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads: 1962-2005

  Average Monthly Number (thousands)    
Fiscal Year Total Families 1 AFDC UP 2 Two-Parent Families TANF Two-Parent Families Total Recipients Child Recipients Children as a Percent of Total  Recipients Average 1 Number of Children per Family
1962........... 924 48 NA 3,593 2,778 77.3 3.0
1964........... 984 60 NA 4,059 3,043 75.0 3.1
1965........... 1,037 69 NA 4,323 3,242 75.0 3.1
1966........... 1,074 62 NA 4,472 3,369 75.3 3.1
1967........... 1,141 58 NA 4,718 3,560 75.5 3.1
1968........... 1,310 67 NA 5,349 4,013 75.0 3.1
1969........... 1,539 66 NA 6,146 4,591 74.7 3.0
1970........... 1,906 78 NA 7,415 5,484 74.0 2.9
1971........... 2,531 143 NA 9,557 6,963 72.9 2.8
1972........... 2,918 134 NA 10,632 7,698 72.4 2.6
1973........... 3,123 120 NA 11,038 7,967 72.2 2.6
1974........... 3,170 93 NA 10,845 7,825 72.2 2.5
1975........... 3,357 100 NA 11,067 7,952 71.9 2.4
1976........... 3,575 135 NA 11,386 8,054 70.7 2.3
1977........... 3,593 149 NA 11,130 7,846 70.5 2.2
1978........... 3,539 128 NA 10,672 7,492 70.2 2.1
1979........... 3,496 114 NA 10,318 7,197 69.8 2.1
1980........... 3,642 141 NA 10,597 7,320 69.1 2.0
1981........... 3,871 209 NA 11,160 7,615 68.2 2.0
1982........... 3,569 232 NA 10,431 6,975 66.9 2.0
1983........... 3,651 272 NA 10,659 7,051 66.1 1.9
1984........... 3,725 287 NA 10,866 7,153 65.8 1.9
1985........... 3,692 261 NA 10,813 7,165 66.3 1.9
1986........... 3,748 254 NA 10,997 7,300 66.4 1.9
1987........... 3,784 236 NA 11,065 7,381 66.7 2.0
1988........... 3,748 210 NA 10,920 7,325 67.1 2.0
1989........... 3,771 193 NA 10,934 7,370 67.4 2.0
1990........... 3,974 204 NA 11,460 7,755 67.7 2.0
1991........... 4,374 268 NA 12,592 8,513 67.6 1.9
1992........... 4,768 322 NA 13,625 9,226 67.7 1.9
1993........... 4,981 359 NA 14,143 9,560 67.6 1.9
1994........... 5,046 363 NA 14,226 9,611 67.6 1.9
1995........... 4,871 335 NA 13,660 9,280 67.9 1.9
1996........... 4,543 301 NA 12,645 8,672 68.6 1.9
1997 2......... 3,937 256 NA 10,935 7,781 3 71.2 3 2.0 3
1998........... 3,200 NA 162 8,790 6,273 71.4 2.0
1999........... 2,674 NA 125 7,188 5,319 74.0 2.0
2000........... 2,356 NA 132 6,324 4,598 72.7 2.0
2001........... 2,200 NA 119 5,761 4,225 73.3 1.9
2002........... 2,195 NA 118 5,656 4,149 73.3 1.9
2003........... 2,181 NA 116 5,518 4,075 73.9 1.9
2004........... 2,160 NA 113 5,375 3,993 74.3 1.8
2005........... 2,098 NA 108 5,124 3,824 74.6 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.dhhs.gov/ ).

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups: 1970-2005

Calendar Year 1 Total Recipients inthe States & DC (thousands) Child Recipients in the States & DC (thousands) Recipients as a Percent of Total Population 2 Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population 3 Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population 2 Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty 3
1970 8,303 6,104 4.0 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 11.3 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 55.9
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 7,077 4 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 5,529 4,083 1.9 16.0 5.6 33.6
2003 5,424 4,025 1.9 15.1 5.5 31.3
2004 5,281 3,935 1.8 14.3 5.4 30.2
2005 4,983 3,732 1.7 13.5 5.1 28.9

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: 2005,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-231 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2005

[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 1,987 173 2,160
2005 1,929 169 2,098
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 4,783 592 5,375
2005 4,556 569 5,124
Child Recipients
2000 4,370 228 4,598
2001 4,023 202 4,225
2002 3,841 308 4,149
2003 3,731 344 4,075
2004 3,618 375 3,993
2005 3,465 359 3,824

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

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

Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970-2005

[In millions of dollars]

  Federal Funds
(current dollars)
State Funds
(current dollars)
Total
(current dollars)
Total
(constant 2005 dollars1)
Fiscal Year Benefits Admin Benefits Admin Benefits Admin Benefits Admin
1970 $2,187 $572 2 $1,895 $309 $4,082 $881 2 18,445 3,981
1971 3,008 271 2,469 254 5,477 525 23,693 2,271
1972 3,612 240 3 2,942 241 6,554 481 3 27,378 2,009
1973 3,865 313 3,138 296 7,003 610 28,097 2,447
1974 4,071 379 3,300 362 7,371 740 27,238 2,735
1975 4,625 552 3,787 529 8,412 1,082 28,332 3,644
1976 5,258 541 4,418 527 9,676 1,069 30,507 3,370
1977 5,626 595 4,762 583 10,388 1,177 30,488 3,454
1978 5,724 631 4,898 617 10,621 1,248 29,244 3,436
1979 5,825 683 4,954 668 10,779 1,350 27,291 3,418
1980 6,448 750 5,508 729 11,956 1,479 27,281 3,375
1981 6,928 835 5,917 814 12,845 1,648 26,655 3,420
1982 6,922 878 5,934 878 12,857 1,756 24,987 3,413
1983 7,332 915 6,275 915 13,607 1,830 25,310 3,404
1984 7,707 876 6,664 822 14,371 1,698 25,713 3,038
1985 7,817 890 6,763 889 14,580 1,779 25,206 3,076
1986 8,239 993 6,996 967 15,235 1,960 25,739 3,311
1987 8,914 1,081 7,409 1,052 16,323 2,133 26,868 3,511
1988 9,125 1,194 7,538 1,159 16,663 2,353 26,439 3,734
1989 9,433 1,211 7,807 1,206 17,240 2,417 26,232 3,678
1990 10,149 1,358 8,390 1,303 18,539 2,661 26,985 3,873
1991 11,165 1,373 9,191 1,300 20,356 2,673 28,370 3,725
1992 12,258 1,459 9,993 1,378 22,250 2,837 30,261 3,858
1993 12,270 1,518 10,016 1,438 22,286 2,956 29,554 3,920
1994 12,512 1,680 10,285 1,621 22,797 3,301 29,591 4,285
1995 12,019 1,770 10,014 1,751 22,032 3,521 27,941 4,466
1996 11,065 1,633 9,346 1,633 20,411 3,266 25,249 4,040
1997 4 9,748 1,273 7,799 1,098 17,547 2,371 21,186 2,862
1998 7,518 1,231 7,096 1,028 14,614 2,259 17,383 2,688
1999 6,475 1,407 6,975 884 13,449 2,291 15,720 2,677
2000 5,444 1,570 5,736 1,032 11,180 2,302 12,668 2,948
2001 4,772 1,598 5,390 1,042 10,163 2,639 11,157 2,898
2002 4,554 1,633 4,854 983 9,408 2,617 10,178 2,831
2003 5,820 1,592 4,398 859 10,219 2,451 10,801 2,591
2004 4,717 1,471 5,652 828 10,368 2,300 10,710 2,376
2005 5,193 1,507 5,546 870 10,739 2,377 10,739 2,377

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 2005 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: for example administrative expenses under TANF do not include IV-A child care administration (which accounted for 4 percent of 1996 administrative expense).

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

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending Fiscal Years 1997-2005

[In millions of dollars]

  Cash & Work-Based Assistance Work Activities Child Care Trans- portation Administration Systems Transitional Services Other Expenditures Total Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
1997 7,708 467 14 872 109 0 862 10,032
1998 7,168 763 252 938 224 6 1,136 10,487
1999 6,475 1,225 604 1,070 337 17 1,595 11,323
2000 5,444 1,606 1,553 496 1,328 242 2,715 13,384
2001 4,772 1,983 1,583 522 1,375 223 4,325 14,782
2002 4,554 2,121 1,572 339 1,339 294 4,368 14,588
2003 5,820 1,937 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
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF Program
1997 5,955 311 752 704 101 9 926 8,758
1998 6,879 520 890 883 138 11 1,301 10,623
1999 6,541 503 1,135 743 118 23 1,334 10,397
2000 5,432 884 1,893 150 921 92 1,170 10,541
2001 4,887 685 1,730 113 920 83 1,195 9,613
2002 3,994 582 1,860 221 877 66 1,554 9,154
2003 3,597 596 1,993 73 766 60 1,441 8,526
2004 4,729 501 1,878 119 721 55 1,330 9,333
2005 4,537 429 1,761 111 776 46 1,489 9,148
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in Separate State Programs
1997 69 12 111 0 0 18 210
1998 216 3 137 6 1 28 391
1999 434 26 257 22 0 0 126 865
2000 305 11 73 17 19 0 431 856
2001 503 28 34 20 38 1 499 1,125
2002 860 24 72 24 41 -.5 652 1,673
2003 801 66 -223 36 33 -.3 848 1,560
2004 922 40 45 19 52 1.1 1,016 2,095
2005 1,009 36 157 19 46 1.9 999 2,268
Total Expenditures
1997 13,731 790 877 1,577 211 9 1,805 19,000
1998 14,264 1,286 1,280 1,828 362 17 2,465 21,502
1999 13,449 1,754 1,995 1,835 456 40 3,055 22,585
2000 11,180 2,501 3,519 663 2,267 335 4,316 24,781
2001 10,163 2,696 3,347 655 2,333 306 6,019 25,520
2002 9,408 2,727 3,504 584 2,258 359 6,574 25,414
2003 10,219 2,599 3,468 543 2,106 345 7,060 26,340
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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services (available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html).

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962-2005

  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)
Fiscal Year Current Dollars 2005 Dollars Current Dollars 2005 Dollars Current Dollars 2005 Dollars
1962 $31 $174 3.9 $121 $676 NA NA
1963 31 172 4.0 126 694 NA NA
1964 32 173 4.1 131 714 NA NA
1965 34 180 4.2 140 752 NA NA
1966 35 184 4.2 146 765 NA NA
1967 36 185 4.1 150 765 NA NA
1968 40 195 4.1 162 798 NA NA
1969 43 205 4.0 173 819 $186 2 $885
1970 46 207 3.9 178 805 194 2 878
1971 48 207 3.8 180 780 201 2 870
1972 51 214 3.6 187 781 205 2 857
1973 53 212 3.5 187 750 213 2 854
1974 57 209 3.4 194 716 229 2 845
1975 63 213 3.3 209 703 243 818
1976 71 223 3.2 226 711 257 809
1977 78 228 3.1 241 707 271 796
1978 83 228 3.0 250 689 284 783
1979 87 220 3.0 257 651 301 762
1980 94 215 2.9 274 624 320 730
1981 96 199 2.9 277 574 326 676
1982 103 200 2.9 300 583 331 642
1983 106 198 2.9 311 578 336 625
1984 110 197 2.9 322 575 352 629
1985 112 194 2.9 329 569 369 638
1986 115 195 2.9 339 572 383 647
1987 123 202 2.9 359 592 393 648
1988 127 202 2.9 370 588 403 640
1989 131 200 2.9 381 580 413 628
1990 135 196 2.9 389 566 420 611
1991 135 188 2.9 388 541 424 591
1992 136 185 2.9 389 529 419 569
1993 131 174 2.8 373 494 414 549
1994 134 173 2.8 376 489 416 539
1995 134 170 2.8 376 478 418 531
1996 135 166 2.8 374 463 419 519
1997 3 130 157 2.8 362 437 418 505
1998 130 155 2.7 358 426 429 510
1999 133 155 2.7 357 417 450 526
2000 133 151 2.6 349 395 446 505
2001 137 151 2.6 351 386 448 492
2002 146 158 2.5 364 393 452 489
2003 140 153 2.4 354 374 449 475
2004 150 155 2.4 360 372 462 478
2005 157 157 2.4 370 370 468 468

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2004 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 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 noncash 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 1969-2005

  May May March Fiscal Year 1
  1969 1975 1979 1983 1988 1992 1996 2000 2002 2005
Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4
Number of Child Recipients
    One 26.6 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.5 43.9 44.2 47.0 49.2
    Two 23.0 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.2 29.9 28.4 28.0 27.2
    Three 17.7 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.3 14.2 13.6
    Four or More 32.5 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.1 8.9 8.0
    Unknown NA NA NA 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.9
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit 10.1 12.5 14.6 8.3 9.6 14.8 21.5 34.4 39.0 45.5
    Child-Only Families 2 32.7 36.6 42.6
Families with Non-Recipients 33.1 34.8 NA 36.9 36.8 38.9 49.9
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
    Since Most Recent Opening 23.0 31.0 29.0 26.0 26.3 22.5 23.6
Presence of Assistance
    Living in Public Housing 12.8 14.6 NA 10.0 9.6 9.2 8.8 17.7 19.2 18.4
    Participating in Food Stamp or Donated Food Program 52.9 75.1 75.1 83.0 84.6 87.3 89.3 79.9 80.1 81.5
Presence of Income
    With Earnings NA 14.6 12.8 5.7 8.4 7.4 11.1 23.6 3 21.8 3 19.5 3
    No Non-AFDC/TANF Income 56.0 71.1 80.6 86.8 79.6 78.9 76.0 71.6 3 72.8 3 75.3 3
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
    Employed 6.6 11.3 26.4 25.3 23.2
    Unemployed 49.2 47.2 50.4
    Not in Labor Force 24.3 27.5 26.4
Adult Women's Employment Status (percent of adult female recipients):4
    Full-Time Job 8.2 10.4 8.7 1.5 2.2 2.2 4.7
    Part-Time Job 6.3 5.7 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 5.4
Marital Status (percent of adults)
    Single 65.3 66.6 68.8
    Married 12.4 11.5 10.7
    Separated 13.1 13.0 11.8
    Widowed 0.7 0.7 0.6
    Divorced 8.5 8.2 8.1
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
    Incapacitated 11.7 5 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3
    Unemployed 4.6 5 3.7 4.1 8.7 6.5 8.2 8.3
    Death 5.5 5 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6
    Divorce or Separation 43.3 5 48.3 44.7 38.5 34.6 30.0 24.3
    Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 5 31.0 37.8 44.3 51.9 53.1 58.6
    Absent, Other Reason 3.5 5 4.0 5.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.4
    Unknown 1.7 0.9 0.6

Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise.

1 Percentages are based on the average monthly 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 In this table, child-only families are those families with no adult in the assistance unit excluding those where there is no adult in the assistance unit as a result of the parent being sanctioned for non-compliance.

3 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 1978-2005

[In millions of dollars]

  1978 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1998 2000 2002 2004
United States $10,621 $14,371 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $14,614 $11,180 $9,408 $ 10,753
Alabama $78 $74 $68 $62 $62 $92 $44 $36 $33 $47
Alaska 17 37 46 54 60 113 77 55 55 41
Arizona 30 67 79 103 138 266 145 107 130 160
Arkansas 51 39 48 53 57 57 26 34 26 18
California 1,813 3,207 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 4,128 3,643 2,608 3,504
Colorado 74 107 107 125 137 158 80 48 53 75
Connecticut 168 226 223 218 295 397 305 166 128 126
Delaware 28 28 25 24 29 40 24 20 19 19
Dist. of Columbia 91 75 77 76 84 126 97 72 67 66
Florida 145 251 261 318 418 806 357 234 256 199
Georgia 103 149 223 266 321 428 313 180 109 117
Hawaii 83 83 73 77 99 163 153 141 85 82
Idaho 21 21 19 19 20 30 6 3 5 7
Illinois 699 845 886 815 839 914 771 269 146 122
Indiana 118 153 148 167 170 228 104 87 146 113
Iowa 107 159 170 155 152 169 104 79 76 76
Kansas 73 87 91 97 105 123 41 43 50 65
Kentucky 122 135 104 143 179 198 147 104 101 105
Louisiana 97 145 162 182 188 168 103 58 67 51
Maine 51 69 84 80 101 108 80 73 66 90
Maryland 166 229 250 250 296 314 192 196 227 124
Massachusetts 476 406 471 558 630 730 442 336 279 332
Michigan 780 1,214 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 589 386 326 412
Minnesota 164 287 322 338 355 379 276 193 184 137
Mississippi 33 58 74 85 86 82 60 18 37 27
Missouri 152 196 209 215 228 287 180 139 148 125
Montana 15 27 37 41 40 49 30 21 31 20
Nebraska 38 56 62 56 59 62 41 41 52 54
Nevada 8 10 16 20 27 48 39 28 48 33
New Hampshire 21 16 20 21 32 62 39 32 29 35
New Jersey 489 485 509 459 451 531 372 222 194 441
New Mexico 32 49 51 56 61 144 104 113 82 75
New York 1,689 1,916 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,149 1,554 1,465 1,762
North Carolina 138 149 138 206 247 353 211 140 139 108
North Dakota 14 16 20 22 24 26 22 12 10 11
Ohio 441 725 804 805 877 1,016 546 368 336 316
Oklahoma 74 85 100 119 132 165 72 78 45 33
Oregon 148 101 120 128 145 197 141 34 69 105
Pennsylvania 726 724 389 747 798 935 523 573 338 407
Rhode Island 59 71 79 82 99 136 117 105 89 72
South Carolina 52 75 103 91 96 115 52 91 35 73
South Dakota 18 17 15 21 22 25 14 10 11 12
Tennessee 77 83 100 125 168 215 108 146 132 121
Texas 122 229 281 344 416 544 315 248 203 181
Utah 41 52 55 61 64 77 50 40 41 45
Vermont 21 40 40 40 48 65 47 39 38 36
Virginia 136 165 179 169 177 253 123 186 101 143
Washington 175 294 375 401 438 610 450 312 295 262
West Virginia 53 75 109 107 110 126 52 49 71 43
Wisconsin 260 519 444 506 440 425 145 7 126 115
Wyoming 6 13 16 19 19 21 7 9 2 7

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management Services, data from the ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report.

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs and 2005 Family Assistance Grants Awarded under PRWORA

[In millions of dollars]

State FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1 FY 2005 Family Assistance Grants & Supplemental 2 FY 2005 Bonus Awards 3 FY 2005 Total Awards Increase of FY 2005 over FY 1996 Level Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States $15,067 $16,667 $325 $16,989 $1,922 13
Alabama $79.0 $104.4 $0.0 $104.0 $25.0 32
Alaska 60.7 58.9 2.7 61.6 0.9 1
Arizona 200.6 226.1 0.3 226.4 25.8 13
Arkansas 54.3 63.0 2.8 65.8 11.5 21
California 3,545.6 3,681.0 12.9 3,693.9 148.4 4
Colorado 138.9 149.6 0.0 149.6 10.7 8
Connecticut 221.1 266.8 0.0 266.8 45.7 21
Delaware 30.2 32.3 1.0 33.3 3.1 10
Dist. of Columbia 77.1 92.6 24.9 117.5 40.4 52
Florida 504.7 622.7 0.0 622.7 118.0 23
Georgia 301.2 368.0 4.0 372.0 70.8 23
Hawaii 98.4 98.9 0.3 99.2 0.9 1
Idaho 31.3 33.9 0.0 33.9 2.6 8
Illinois 593.8 585.1 0.8 585.8 -8.0 -1
Indiana 121.4 206.8 7.4 214.2 92.9 77
Iowa 129.3 131.5 6.3 137.8 8.5 7
Kansas 86.9 101.9 0.1 102.1 15.1 17
Kentucky 171.6 181.3 0.0 181.3 9.6 6
Louisiana 122.4 181.0 4.6 185.6 63.2 52
Maine 73.2 78.1 3.0 81.2 7.9 11
Maryland 207.6 229.1 0.0 229.1 21.5 10
Massachusetts 372.0 459.4 9.2 468.6 96.5 26
Michigan 581.5 775.4 5.2 780.5 199.0 34
Minnesota 239.3 265.3 13.4 278.7 39.4 16
Mississippi 68.6 95.8 1.8 97.6 29.0 42
Missouri 207.9 217.1 10.9 227.9 20.0 10
Montana 39.2 41.2 2.3 43.5 4.3 11
Nebraska 56.2 57.8 0.0 57.8 1.6 3
Nevada 41.2 47.7 0.0 47.4 6.1 15
New Hampshire 36.0 38.5 1.9 40.4 4.4 12
New Jersey 353.4 404.0 0.5 404.6 51.2 14
New Mexico 129.9 117.1 0.0 115.2 -14.7 -11
New York 2,332.7 2,442.9 44.4 2,487.3 154.6 7
North Carolina 311.9 338.3 0.0 338.3 26.5 8
North Dakota 24.5 26.4 1.3 27.7 3.2 13
Ohio 564.5 728.0 14.7 742.6 178.2 32
Oklahoma 125.1 147.6 6.2 153.8 28.7 23
Oregon 146.4 166.8 1.1 167.9 21.5 15
Pennsylvania 780.1 719.5 4.7 724.2 -56.0 -7
Rhode Island 82.9 95.0 2.9 97.9 15.0 18
South Carolina 99.4 100.0 25.0 125.0 25.5 26
South Dakota 19.7 21.3 0.4 21.7 2.0 10
Tennessee 178.9 213.1 47.9 260.9 82.0 46
Texas 437.1 539.0 5.9 544.9 107.7 25
Utah 68.0 84.3 28.7 113.0 45.0 66
Vermont 42.4 47.4 1.1 48.5 6.1 14
Virginia 134.6 158.3 7.9 166.2 31.6 23
Washington 393.2 383.6 9.0 392.7 -0.5 -0
West Virginia 95.1 110.2 0.1 110.3 15.2 16
Wisconsin 241.6 314.5 6.4 320.9 79.4 33
Wyoming 14.4 18.5 0.7 19.2 4.8 33

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 2005 Family Assistance Grants and Supplemental is net of the Tribal Grants amounts.

3 FY 2005 Bonus Awards include Out of Wedlock Bonus, High Performance Bonus, and Contingency Fund Grants but not penalties assessed.

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 June 2006 Peak

[In thousands]

State Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to June ’06 Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to June ’06 Sept ’96 AFDC Caseload June ’06 TANF & SSP Caseload Percent Decline 1 Sept ’96 to June ’06 Percent Decline Peak to June ’06
United States 5,098 Mar-94 4,346 1,903 56 63
Alabama 52.3 Mar-93 40.7 18.5 54 65
Alaska 13.4 Apr-94 12.3 3.6 70 73
Arizona 72.8 Dec-93 61.8 37.8 39 48
Arkansas 27.1 Mar-92 22.1 7.9 64 71
California 933.1 Mar-95 870.3 486.9 44 48
Colorado 43.7 Dec-93 33.6 14.1 58 68
Connecticut 61.9 Mar-95 57.1 21.8 62 65
Delaware 11.8 Apr-94 10.5 5.4 48 54
Dist. of Columbia 27.5 Apr-94 25.1 15.3 39 44
Florida 259.9 Nov-92 200.3 50.8 75 80
Georgia 142.8 Nov-93 120.9 29.2 76 80
Hawaii 23.4 Jun-97 21.9 9.2 58 61
Idaho 9.5 Mar-95 8.4 1.8 79 81
Illinois 243.1 Aug-94 217.8 36.1 83 85
Indiana 76.1 Sep-93 49.7 43.5 13 43
Iowa 40.7 Apr-94 31.1 21.2 32 48
Kansas 30.8 Aug-93 23.4 17.0 27 45
Kentucky 84.0 Mar-93 70.4 32.6 54 61
Louisiana 94.7 May-90 66.5 10.6 84 89
Maine 24.4 Aug-93 19.7 11.4 42 53
Maryland 81.8 May-95 68.9 19.3 72 76
Massachusetts 115.7 Aug-93 84.3 47.1 44 59
Michigan 233.6 Apr-91 167.5 83.2 50 64
Minnesota 66.2 Jun-92 57.2 30.9 46 53
Mississippi 61.8 Nov-91 45.2 12.6 72 80
Missouri 93.7 Mar-94 79.1 43.1 46 54
Montana 12.3 Mar-94 9.8 3.8 62 69
Nebraska 17.2 Mar-93 14.4 12.5 13 27
Nevada 16.3 Mar-95 13.2 6.9 48 58
New Hampshire 11.8 Apr-94 8.9 6.2 30 47
New Jersey 132.6 Nov-92 100.8 41.8 59 68
New Mexico 34.9 Nov-94 33.0 16.3 51 53
New York 463.7 Dec-94 412.7 174.3 58 62
North Carolina 134.1 Mar-94 107.5 29.2 73 78
North Dakota 6.6 Apr-93 4.7 2.7 42 59
Ohio 269.8 Mar-92 201.9 78.3 61 71
Oklahoma 51.3 Mar-93 35.3 9.9 72 81
Oregon 43.8 Apr-93 28.5 18.5 35 58
Pennsylvania 212.5 Sep-94 180.1 92.8 48 56
Rhode Island 22.9 Apr-94 20.5 12.2 41 47
South Carolina 54.6 Jan-93 42.9 17.6 59 68
South Dakota 7.4 Apr-93 5.7 2.8 50 61
Tennessee 112.6 Nov-93 96.2 68.2 29 39
Texas 287.5 Dec-93 238.8 67.9 72 76
Utah 18.7 Mar-93 14.0 7.1 49 62
Vermont 10.3 Apr-92 8.7 4.7 46 54
Virginia 76.0 Apr-94 60.5 34.3 43 55
Washington 104.8 Feb-95 96.8 54.7 43 48
West Virginia 41.9 Apr-93 37.6 10.9 71 74
Wisconsin 82.9 Jan-92 49.9 18.3 63 78
Wyoming 7.1 Aug-92 4.3 0.3 93 96

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

1 Negative values denote percent increase.

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

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

[In thousands]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States 4,323 7,415 10,597 11,460 14,226 12,645 6,324 5,124 -50 -19
Alabama 78 123 180 130 132 105 46 49 -56 6
Alaska 5 8 15 20 38 36 22 12 -38 -46
Arizona 40 51 51 124 201 172 87 99 -49 14
Arkansas 30 45 85 71 69 58 29 19 -50 -36
California 528 1,148 1,387 1,902 2,639 2,626 1,574 1,256 -40 -20
Colorado 42 66 77 102 119 99 29 38 -71 33
Connecticut 59 83 139 120 166 162 73 53 -55 -27
Delaware 12 20 32 21 27 23 13 13 -43 -2
Dist. of Columbia 20 40 85 49 74 70 47 43 -33 -8
Florida 106 204 256 370 669 561 158 113 -72 -29
Georgia 71 198 221 293 393 353 129 91 -64 -29
Guam 1 2 5 4 7 8 10 11 26 9
Hawaii 14 25 60 44 62 67 75 31 12 -58
Idaho 10 16 21 17 23 23 2 3 -90 43
Illinois 262 368 672 636 712 655 256 98 -61 -62
Indiana 48 73 157 154 216 148 103 136 -30 31
Iowa 44 64 104 98 110 89 54 52 -39 -4
Kansas 36 53 68 77 87 68 32 46 -54 46
Kentucky 81 129 167 175 208 175 89 75 -49 -15
Louisiana 104 202 213 282 248 236 75 37 -68 -50
Maine 19 36 60 56 64 56 32 32 -42 0
Maryland 80 131 212 186 222 204 77 63 -62 -18
Massachusetts 94 208 350 263 307 237 102 104 -57 3
Michigan 162 253 685 655 666 527 207 215 -61 4
Minnesota 51 76 135 171 187 171 116 87 -32 -25
Mississippi 83 115 173 179 159 129 34 35 -74 3
Missouri 107 140 199 211 263 232 131 118 -44 -10
Montana 7 13 19 29 35 31 13 12 -58 -6
Nebraska 16 30 35 43 45 40 28 35 -30 25
Nevada 5 12 12 23 38 38 16 19 -58 19
New Hampshire 4 9 22 16 30 24 14 15 -42 5
New Jersey 104 286 459 309 335 288 138 118 -52 -15
New Mexico 30 51 53 57 102 101 72 45 -28 -37
New York 517 1,052 1,100 981 1,255 1,184 724 490 -39 -32
North Carolina 111 124 198 223 333 278 100 68 -64 -32
North Dakota 8 11 13 16 16 13 8 7 -44 -2
Ohio 183 266 513 632 685 546 245 179 -55 -27
Oklahoma 73 95 89 112 131 105 36 28 -66 -22
Oregon 31 75 102 89 114 87 39 45 -55 15
Pennsylvania 303 426 629 521 620 544 250 253 -54 1
Puerto Rico 202 223 168 190 183 155 92 42 -40 -55
Rhode Island 24 38 52 46 63 58 50 35 -15 -30
South Carolina 30 52 153 111 140 119 41 43 -65 5
South Dakota 11 16 20 19 19 16 7 6 -59 -10
Tennessee 76 129 162 211 300 260 147 191 -43 30
Texas 91 214 308 611 788 684 342 214 -50 -38
Utah 22 33 37 45 50 40 23 23 -44 1
Vermont 5 12 23 22 28 25 16 13 -36 -22
Virgin Islands 1 2 3 3 4 5 3 1 -35 -56
Virginia 46 87 166 151 195 162 75 87 -53 16
Washington 71 109 154 228 292 274 168 144 -39 -14
West Virginia 116 93 77 111 114 95 32 31 -66 -4
Wisconsin 45 79 213 237 226 170 40 49 -76 21
Wyoming 4 5 7 14 16 13 1 1 -91 -52

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 http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm).

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

[In percent]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States 2.1 3.5 4.6 4.5 5.3 4.6 2.2 1.7 -52 -22
Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.6 3.2 3.1 2.4 1.0 1.1 -57 4
Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.7 3.7 6.3 5.9 3.6 1.8 -40 -49
Arizona 2.6 2.9 1.9 3.4 4.7 3.7 1.7 1.7 -55 -1
Arkansas 1.5 2.3 3.7 3.0 2.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 -52 -38
California 2.9 5.7 5.8 6.3 8.4 8.2 4.6 3.5 -44 -25
Colorado 2.2 3.0 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.5 0.7 0.8 -73 23
Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.5 3.6 5.0 4.8 2.1 1.5 -56 -29
Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 3.2 3.8 3.2 1.7 1.6 -46 -8
Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 13.3 8.1 12.6 12.3 8.2 7.8 -33 -5
Florida 1.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 4.7 3.8 1.0 0.6 -74 -36
Georgia 1.6 4.3 4.0 4.5 5.5 4.7 1.6 1.0 -67 -36
Hawaii 1.9 3.2 6.2 3.9 5.2 5.5 6.1 2.5 11 -60
Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9 0.2 0.2 -91 30
Illinois 2.5 3.3 5.9 5.6 6.0 5.4 2.1 0.8 -62 -63
Indiana 1.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.7 2.5 1.7 2.2 -32 27
Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.1 1.9 1.8 -40 -5
Kansas 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.4 2.6 1.2 1.7 -55 43
Kentucky 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.7 5.4 4.5 2.2 1.8 -51 -18
Louisiana 2.9 5.6 5.0 6.7 5.7 5.4 1.7 0.8 -69 -51
Maine 1.9 3.6 5.4 4.5 5.2 4.5 2.5 2.5 -43 -3
Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.9 4.4 4.0 1.5 1.1 -64 -22
Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.1 4.4 5.0 3.8 1.6 1.6 -58 2
Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.4 7.0 6.9 5.4 2.1 2.1 -62 2
Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.9 4.1 3.6 2.3 1.7 -35 -28
Mississippi 3.6 5.2 6.9 6.9 5.9 4.7 1.2 1.2 -75 0
Missouri 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.9 4.3 2.3 2.0 -45 -13
Montana 1.0 1.9 2.4 3.6 4.0 3.5 1.4 1.3 -59 -9
Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.4 1.6 2.0 -31 22
Nevada 1.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.3 0.8 0.8 -65 -0
New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.7 2.1 1.1 1.1 -45 -0
New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.2 4.0 4.2 3.5 1.6 1.3 -54 -18
New Mexico 3.0 5.0 4.1 3.8 6.1 5.8 4.0 2.3 -31 -41
New York 2.9 5.8 6.3 5.4 6.8 6.4 3.8 2.5 -40 -33
North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.6 3.7 1.2 0.8 -67 -37
North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.2 1.2 -43 -1
Ohio 1.8 2.5 4.8 5.8 6.1 4.9 2.2 1.6 -56 -27
Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 2.9 3.6 4.0 3.1 1.0 0.8 -67 -24
Oregon 1.6 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.7 2.7 1.1 1.2 -58 8
Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 4.4 5.1 4.4 2.0 2.0 -54 0
Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 4.6 6.2 5.7 4.7 3.2 -17 -32
South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.9 3.2 3.8 3.1 1.0 1.0 -67 -1
South Dakota 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.2 0.9 0.8 -59 -13
Tennessee 2.0 3.3 3.5 4.3 5.7 4.8 2.6 3.2 -46 24
Texas 0.9 1.9 2.1 3.6 4.2 3.5 1.6 0.9 -54 -43
Utah 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.9 -48 -8
Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 3.9 4.8 4.3 2.7 2.0 -38 -24
Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.1 2.4 3.0 2.4 1.1 1.2 -56 9
Washington 2.4 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.4 4.9 2.8 2.3 -42 -19
West Virginia 6.4 5.3 4.0 6.2 6.3 5.2 1.8 1.7 -66 -5
Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 4.5 4.8 4.4 3.3 0.8 0.9 -77 17
Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.4 2.6 0.2 0.1 -91 -54

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/states/).

Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients, by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In thousands]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States 3,242 5,483 7,320 7,755 9,611 8,672 4,598 3,824 12 -56
Alabama 62 96 129 93 96 79 37 38 -57 10
Alaska 4 6 10 13 24 23 15 8 -49 -31
Arizona 31 39 38 87 136 118 66 74 -40 5
Arkansas 23 34 62 51 49 42 22 14 -51 -30
California 391 816 932 1,294 1,804 1,805 1,163 1,002 -42 -4
Colorado 33 50 53 69 80 68 22 28 -66 18
Connecticut 43 62 97 81 111 108 50 37 -62 -12
Delaware 9 15 22 14 19 16 9 10 -38 1
Dist. of Columbia 16 31 59 34 51 48 34 32 -34 1
Florida 85 160 184 264 463 395 124 91 -74 -12
Georgia 54 150 161 206 274 251 101 74 -60 -26
Guam 1 1 4 3 5 6 NA 0 NA NA
Hawaii 10 18 40 29 41 44 50 21 -26 -36
Idaho 7 11 14 11 16 16 2 3 -88 40
Illinois 202 283 473 436 486 456 193 78 -76 -27
Indiana 36 55 111 105 145 104 74 102 1 -3
Iowa 32 46 69 64 72 59 36 34 -39 -6
Kansas 28 41 49 52 59 48 23 31 -47 24
Kentucky 58 93 118 117 137 120 64 56 -52 -2
Louisiana 79 157 156 199 180 162 59 31 -70 -35
Maine 14 26 40 35 40 35 22 22 -41 5
Maryland 61 100 145 124 151 140 56 46 -63 -12
Massachusetts 71 153 228 168 197 153 73 72 -50 -6
Michigan 119 190 460 427 439 354 153 157 -58 6
Minnesota 39 58 91 110 124 116 81 61 -32 -22
Mississippi 66 93 128 129 116 96 27 26 -68 -15
Missouri 82 106 135 139 176 162 94 81 -43 -13
Montana 6 10 13 19 23 21 9 8 -47 -23
Nebraska 12 23 25 29 31 28 20 23 -24 10
Nevada 4 9 8 16 27 27 12 14 -16 -37
New Hampshire 3 7 15 11 19 16 10 10 -37 2
New Jersey 79 209 318 213 228 195 102 85 -58 5
New Mexico 23 39 35 37 66 65 51 32 -48 -4
New York 380 759 759 658 813 771 491 343 -52 -8
North Carolina 83 94 141 152 223 191 76 54 -63 -24
North Dakota 6 8 9 10 11 9 5 5 -34 -13
Ohio 136 198 348 414 455 382 180 136 -63 -4
Oklahoma 55 71 65 77 90 74 28 22 -62 -22
Oregon 23 52 65 60 76 60 29 33 -50 10
Pennsylvania 217 307 432 345 417 368 184 179 -58 15
Puerto Rico 161 166 118 130 124 105 64 29 -55 -38
Rhode Island 18 27 36 30 41 39 34 24 -24 -18
South Carolina 24 40 109 80 102 89 32 32 -57 -17
South Dakota 8 12 15 13 14 12 5 5 -55 -6
Tennessee 58 99 115 144 203 181 107 136 -33 13
Texas 68 162 225 428 549 484 252 172 -44 -36
Utah 16 23 24 31 33 27 16 17 -47 15
Vermont 4 8 14 14 17 16 10 8 -42 -11
Virgin Islands 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 1 -52 -40
Virginia 35 66 116 104 134 114 55 61 -55 20
Washington 50 76 97 148 187 177 115 101 -39 -6
West Virginia 80 65 58 68 72 62 22 22 -54 -23
Wisconsin 34 60 142 158 153 123 34 39 -69 4
Wyoming 3 4 5 9 11 9 1 0 -92 -30

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 http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm).

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children, by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965-2005

[In percent]

  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States 4.4 7.6 11.3 11.9 14.0 12.4 6.3 5.2 -49 -18
Alabama 4.6 7.7 11.1 8.8 8.9 7.3 3.3 3.5 -55 4
Alaska 3.1 5.0 8.0 7.4 12.8 12.4 7.9 4.3 -36 -45
Arizona 4.8 6.0 4.8 8.6 12.1 9.7 4.7 4.7 -52 -0
Arkansas 3.1 5.2 9.3 8.2 7.7 6.4 3.2 2.1 -49 -34
California 6.0 12.3 14.6 16.2 20.8 20.3 12.5 10.3 -38 -17
Colorado 4.4 6.4 6.5 7.8 8.3 6.8 1.9 2.3 -72 21
Connecticut 4.4 6.1 11.8 10.8 14.2 13.7 5.9 4.4 -57 -26
Delaware 4.7 7.5 13.4 8.7 10.5 8.9 4.9 5.0 -45 2
Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 40.9 30.7 44.5 44.1 31.4 28.8 -29 -8
Florida 4.3 7.6 7.8 8.8 14.1 11.6 3.3 2.2 -71 -32
Georgia 3.2 9.1 9.8 11.8 14.6 12.8 4.6 3.1 -64 -31
Hawaii 3.6 6.5 14.5 10.5 13.6 14.5 17.2 7.0 19 -60
Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.6 4.6 4.6 0.5 0.7 -89 45
Illinois 5.3 7.5 14.6 14.8 15.7 14.4 6.0 2.4 -58 -60
Indiana 2.0 3.0 6.9 7.3 9.8 7.0 4.7 6.4 -33 37
Iowa 3.2 4.7 8.4 8.8 9.9 8.2 5.0 5.0 -38 -0
Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.5 7.9 8.5 7.0 3.2 4.7 -54 44
Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.9 12.4 14.1 12.4 6.7 5.7 -46 -15
Louisiana 5.5 11.3 11.8 16.5 14.6 13.3 4.9 2.7 -63 -44
Maine 3.9 7.7 12.5 11.5 13.1 11.8 7.5 7.9 -36 4
Maryland 4.6 7.3 12.4 10.6 12.0 11.1 4.1 3.3 -63 -20
Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 15.3 12.4 13.9 10.6 4.9 5.0 -53 0
Michigan 3.7 5.8 16.7 17.4 17.4 13.9 5.9 6.2 -57 5
Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.7 9.4 10.1 9.3 6.4 5.0 -32 -22
Mississippi 7.0 11.1 15.7 17.6 15.3 12.7 3.5 3.5 -72 -1
Missouri 5.2 6.9 9.9 10.6 12.9 11.6 6.6 5.9 -43 -12
Montana 2.0 4.0 5.7 8.4 9.7 8.9 3.8 4.1 -57 5
Nebraska 2.3 4.4 5.5 6.8 7.0 6.1 4.4 5.3 -28 21
Nevada 2.5 5.2 3.8 5.0 7.1 6.5 2.2 2.3 -66 5
New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 5.8 3.9 6.6 5.4 3.1 3.4 -42 8
New Jersey 3.4 8.8 16.0 11.7 11.7 9.9 4.9 4.0 -51 -19
New Mexico 5.2 9.5 8.5 8.3 13.5 13.1 10.1 6.6 -23 -34
New York 6.3 13.0 16.2 15.4 18.0 17.0 10.6 7.5 -37 -29
North Carolina 4.4 5.3 8.5 9.3 12.6 10.4 3.8 2.5 -63 -34
North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.7 6.0 6.3 5.4 3.6 3.8 -34 7
Ohio 3.6 5.3 11.2 14.9 16.0 13.4 6.3 4.9 -53 -21
Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 7.6 9.1 10.4 8.5 3.1 2.6 -63 -18
Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.0 8.1 9.7 7.4 3.4 3.9 -55 16
Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 13.8 12.3 14.4 12.8 6.3 6.3 -50 -0
Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 14.7 13.4 17.5 16.5 13.8 10.0 -16 -28
South Carolina 2.3 4.2 11.6 8.7 10.8 9.4 3.2 3.1 -66 -3
South Dakota 3.1 5.0 7.1 6.7 6.6 5.9 2.7 2.7 -53 -2
Tennessee 4.2 7.5 8.9 11.8 15.7 13.7 7.7 9.8 -44 27
Texas 1.7 4.1 5.2 8.7 10.4 8.8 4.2 2.7 -52 -36
Utah 3.7 5.4 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.0 2.3 2.2 -42 -3
Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.9 9.5 11.7 10.8 7.2 6.1 -33 -15
Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 6.8 8.4 7.0 3.1 3.3 -56 7
Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 11.3 13.3 12.4 7.6 6.8 -39 -11
West Virginia 12.2 11.2 10.4 15.7 16.8 14.6 5.5 5.7 -62 3
Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 10.5 12.1 11.4 9.1 2.5 3.0 -73 21
Wyoming 2.1 3.2 3.4 7.0 8.1 6.8 0.8 0.4 -89 -43

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/states/).

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2005

[In thousands]

  Families All Recipients Child Recipients
  TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total
U.S. Total 1,929 169 2,098 4,556 569 5,124 3,465 359 3,824
Alabama 20.3 0.3 20.5 48.2 1.2 49.4 37.2 0.6 37.9
Alaska 4.4 4.4 12.0 12.0 8.2 8.2
Arizona 43.7 43.7 99.3 99.3 73.8 73.8
Arkansas 8.6 8.6 18.8 18.8 14.4 14.4
California 463.6 42.9 506.5 1,087.9 167.8 1,255.7 895.4 106.8 1,002.2
Colorado 15.3 15.3 38.3 38.3 27.5 27.5
Connecticut 19.8 4.3 24.1 40.1 13.1 53.2 28.7 7.8 36.5
Delaware 5.6 0.1 5.7 12.5 0.5 13.1 9.5 0.3 9.8
D.C. 16.9 0.4 17.3 42.0 1.1 43.1 31.7 0.7 32.5
Florida 60.3 1.4 61.6 107.2 5.4 112.6 88.5 2.7 91.2
Georgia 41.7 0.2 42.0 90.1 0.9 91.0 73.9 0.5 74.4
Guam 3.1 3.1 10.8 10.8 0.0
Hawaii 8.0 2.9 10.9 20.3 11.0 31.3 14.4 6.5 20.9
Idaho 1.9 1.9 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.7
Illinois 38.4 0.9 39.3 96.3 1.9 98.3 77.3 0.9 78.2
Indiana 48.7 2.5 51.2 124.8 10.7 135.5 96.3 6.1 102.3
Iowa 17.7 4.2 21.9 42.9 9.5 52.4 30.1 3.7 33.8
Kansas 17.6 17.6 46.0 46.0 31.4 31.4
Kentucky 34.7 34.7 75.0 75.0 56.1 56.1
Louisiana 16.1 16.1 37.5 37.5 31.5 31.5
Maine 9.5 1.9 11.5 25.5 7.0 32.5 17.5 4.4 21.8
Maryland 23.1 3.0 26.1 54.4 8.8 63.2 40.6 5.7 46.3
Massachusetts 48.8 0.1 48.9 103.9 0.4 104.3 72.0 0.2 72.3
Michigan 80.6 80.6 214.5 214.5 157.1 157.1
Minnesota 29.0 3.3 32.3 73.0 14.3 87.3 53.5 7.8 61.4
Mississippi 16.1 16.1 34.7 34.7 26.0 26.0
Missouri 40.1 6.4 46.5 96.6 21.2 117.9 68.1 12.7 80.8
Montana 4.6 4.6 12.2 12.2 8.3 8.3
Nebraska 10.0 2.3 12.4 26.4 8.4 34.8 18.0 5.0 23.0
Nevada 6.8 1.1 7.9 15.6 3.4 19.0 12.5 2.0 14.5
New Hampshire 6.2 0.2 6.3 14.2 0.6 14.8 9.8 0.4 10.2
New Jersey 46.0 2.0 48.0 109.2 8.5 117.7 80.9 4.5 85.4
New Mexico 17.6 17.6 45.3 45.3 32.4 32.4
New York 141.5 49.2 190.7 323.1 167.1 490.2 233.8 108.9 342.6
North Carolina 33.8 33.8 67.6 67.6 53.7 53.7
North Dakota 2.9 2.9 7.4 7.4 5.2 5.2
Ohio 82.6 82.6 179.4 179.4 136.2 136.2
Oklahoma 12.1 12.1 27.9 27.9 22.1 22.1
Oregon 19.6 19.6 44.7 44.7 33.1 33.1
Pennsylvania 96.6 96.6 253.4 253.4 178.6 178.6
Puerto Rico 15.1 15.1 41.5 41.5 29.3 29.3
Rhode Island 10.7 2.5 13.3 27.1 7.5 34.6 18.9 5.5 24.4
South Carolina 15.9 2.5 18.4 36.1 7.3 43.3 27.7 4.4 32.0
South Dakota 2.8 2.8 6.1 6.1 5.1 5.1
Tennessee 70.6 1.3 71.9 186.0 5.1 191.1 133.3 3.1 136.3
Texas 86.7 2.9 89.6 201.4 12.3 213.7 165.1 6.6 171.7
Utah 9.0 0.0 9.1 22.8 0.2 23.0 16.4 0.1 16.6
Vermont 4.6 0.4 5.0 11.5 1.1 12.6 7.4 0.7 8.1
Virgin Islands 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1
Virginia 9.9 26.8 36.7 28.2 59.0 87.2 18.1 42.8 60.9
Washington 56.8 1.8 58.6 136.9 7.5 144.4 96.4 4.5 100.8
West Virginia 12.0 0.9 12.9 27.2 3.7 30.9 19.9 1.8 21.8
Wisconsin 20.2 0.5 20.7 46.6 2.3 48.9 37.7 1.5 39.2
Wyoming 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 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://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm).

Table TANF 16. Recipients with Earnings in Current and Following Quarters: Fiscal Year 2003

State Adult TANF
Recipients (thousands)
Percentage with Earnings Percentage without Earnings
Total With Earnings in Following Quarter Total With Earnings in Following Quarter
All Reporting States 1,467 36 76 64 17
Alabama 12.0 35 72 65 21
Alaska 5.9 43 78 57 19
Arizona 36.6 34 72 66 18
Arkansas 8.5 40 76 60 25
California 261.0 36 82 64 13
Colorado 12.1 32 69 68 20
Connecticut 15.2 41 78 59 18
Delaware 3.8 41 73 59 22
Dist. of Columbia 11.9 34 75 66 15
Florida 36.0 37 75 63 22
Georgia 37.4 38 70 62 19
Hawaii 9.0 37 85 63 13
Idaho 1.0 44 77 56 27
Illinois 21.4 35 80 65 16
Indiana 41.1 45 80 55 20
Iowa 21.5 44 78 56 22
Kansas 15.4 43 74 57 22
Kentucky 23.9 36 69 64 18
Louisiana 14.5 34 69 66 23
Maine 10.1 42 79 58 17
Maryland 18.1 32 73 68 18
Massachusetts 39.1 22 65 78 13
Michigan 63.9 33 73 67 18
Minnesota 32.3 42 76 58 20
Mississippi 14.9 32 73 68 20
Missouri 34.0 45 77 55 22
Montana 7.4 42 73 58 22
Nebraska 9.8 45 75 55 22
Nevada 7.6 43 78 57 20
New Hampshire 5.3 36 74 64 18
New Jersey 31.0 31 74 69 17
New Mexico 16.6 41 72 59 20
New York 111.2 26 73 74 13
North Carolina 24.6 36 72 64 22
North Dakota 3.3 43 76 57 22
Ohio 61.7 37 75 63 19
Oklahoma 11.2 38 71 62 22
Oregon 13.7 24 70 76 14
Pennsylvania 68.2 32 70 68 18
Rhode Island 12.1 35 77 65 15
South Carolina 18.5 42 76 58 21
South Dakota 1.6 30 71 70 18
Tennessee 57.5 46 80 54 19
Texas 92.8 38 77 62 19
Utah 7.7 36 75 64 19
Vermont 5.6 39 75 61 18
Virginia 20.0 45 78 55 23
Washington 50.9 36 74 64 18
West Virginia 16.1 32 72 68 17
Wisconsin 12.3 31 73 69 17
Wyoming 0.2 40 67 60 31

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

Source: Unpublished ASPE calculations of High Performance Bonus data.

Table TANF 17. Patterns of TANF Receipt: Fiscal Year 2003

State Adult TANF
Recipients in Qtr(t) (thousands)
Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients Also Receiving Benefits in Following Quarters
Qtr(t+1) Qtr(t+2) Qtr(t+3) Qtr(t+4)
All Reporting States 1,206 74 57 47 40
Alabama 12.0 76 56 44 38
Alaska 5.9 75 59 49 42
Arizona 36.6 78 62 53 47
Arkansas 8.5 69 47 34 26
California NA NA NA NA NA
Colorado 12.1 74 55 44 37
Connecticut 15.2 76 61 49 41
Delaware 3.8 76 57 48 42
Dist. of Columbia 11.9 86 76 69 63
Florida 36.0 57 38 30 25
Georgia 37.4 77 58 46 37
Hawaii 9.0 80 66 56 49
Idaho 1.0 51 25 16 11
Illinois 21.4 77 59 47 39
Indiana 41.1 78 61 49 41
Iowa 21.5 72 53 43 36
Kansas 15.4 74 57 48 43
Kentucky 23.9 78 60 50 42
Louisiana 14.5 73 51 36 25
Maine 10.1 78 64 57 50
Maryland 18.1 79 63 52 45
Massachusetts 39.1 79 67 59 52
Michigan 63.9 79 64 56 50
Minnesota 32.3 80 66 56 49
Mississippi 14.9 76 58 47 39
Missouri 34.0 80 66 56 49
Montana 7.4 74 56 47 41
Nebraska 9.8 74 60 52 46
Nevada 7.6 71 47 32 23
New Hampshire 5.3 78 62 51 44
New Jersey 31.0 80 66 58 52
New Mexico 16.6 71 52 44 38
New York 111.2 80 66 57 50
North Carolina 24.6 69 48 37 29
North Dakota 3.3 77 61 52 45
Ohio 61.7 72 52 42 35
Oklahoma 11.2 71 49 38 32
Oregon 13.7 75 58 47 41
Pennsylvania 68.2 80 66 59 54
Rhode Island 12.1 85 74 66 58
South Carolina 18.5 68 43 28 19
South Dakota 1.6 64 43 34 30
Tennessee 57.5 87 76 69 63
Texas 92.8 73 50 35 27
Utah 7.7 74 55 44 37
Vermont 5.6 76 61 53 48
Virginia 20.0 67 45 31 27
Washington 50.9 75 58 50 44
West Virginia 16.1 71 52 41 33
Wisconsin 12.3 77 61 54 48
Wyoming 0.2 41 17 12 8

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

Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.


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

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

3 Note that these figures include recipients in SSPs, who are usually omitted from TANF caseload statistics.

4 Not all of these adults are participating in enough hours to meet the TANF Work Participation Rate requirement.

Food Stamp Program

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

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

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

In addition to the regular Food Stamp Program, the Food Stamp Act authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, was funded under a federal block grant of over $1.3 billion in 2002. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior to 2004, editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to the Food Stamp Program, to be consistent with FSP data published by the USDA.)

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

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for households that are categorically eligible (they are composed entirely of TANF, SSI, General Assistance participants), or contain 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. Households that are not categorically eligible also must not have more than $2,000 in assets comprised of cash, savings, stocks and bonds, and certain vehicles (households with an elderly or disabled member can have up to $3,000 in countable assets).

All nonexempt adult applicants for food stamps must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the FSP office. Nondisabled adults living in households without children can receive benefits for three months only, unless they work or participate in workrelated activities. 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.

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

Recent Legislative and Regulatory Changes

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

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

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

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

Between 1996 and 2001, regulatory and legislative changes were made to increase access to food stamps among working poor families. Regulatory changes announced in July 1999 and expanded in November 2000 allowed states to reduce reporting requirements and made it easier for working families to report income changes on a semiannual basis. Under the November 2000 regulations, states also were given the option of providing a three-month transitional food stamp benefit to most families leaving TANF. Regulations that went into effect in 2001 expanded categorical eligibility to those receiving noncash TANF benefits, excluded vehicles with little equity from the assets test, and eliminated the equity test for most vehicles. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2001 (P.L. 106-387) provided states with the option of liberalizing the treatment of vehicle assets to align with the states’ TANF rules on vehicle eligibility. These changes were intended to address concerns that some of the decline in food stamp caseloads may be leaving poor families without nutritional assistance as they make the transition from welfare dependence to full self-sufficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

Food Stamp Program Data

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

  • Tables FSP 1 and FSP 2 and Figure FSP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the Food Stamp Program as discussed below;
  • Table FSP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the food stamp caseload; and
  • Tables FSP 4 through FSP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the FSP through fiscal year 2005.

Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Table FSP 1). Average monthly food stamp participation was 25.7 million persons in fiscal year 2005, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.2 million participants. It is, however, below the 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 food stamp caseload, specifically, food stamp recipiency and participation rates.

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

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

The increase in FSP participation from 2000 to 2005 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to six 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 the Food and Nutrition Service was encouraging states to conduct outreach efforts and simplify the program. In addition, in the fall of 2005, participation reached all-time highs as a result of emergency disaster assistance provided to those affected by the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

Food Stamp Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table FSP 2, were considerably higher in 2005 than 2004, reflecting the increase in participation during that period as well as an increase in average benefits. Total federal program costs were $31.1 billion in 2005; the comparable 2004 cost was $30.0 billion (after adjusting for inflation). Average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table FSP 2, were $92.72 per person in fiscal year 2005, up from $88.80 in 2004. This constitutes a 4.4 percent increase in average monthly benefits over the previous year adjusted to 2005 dollars.

Food Stamp Household Characteristics. As shown in Table FSP 3, the proportion of food stamp households with earnings has increased, from about 20 percent for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, to 29 percent in 2005. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 43 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2005, following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. Over half of all food stamp households have children, although the proportion has declined somewhat from over 60 percent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s to 54 percent in 2005. The vast majority (88 percent in 2005) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2005

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2005

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

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank.

Table FSP 1. Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2005

  Food Stamp Participants Participants as a Percent of: Child Participants as a Percent of:
Fiscal Year Including Territories 1 (thousands) Excluding Territories (thousands) Children Excld. Terr. (thousands) Total Population 2 All Poor Persons 2 Total Child Population 2 Children in Poverty 2
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 8,317 8,317 NA 4.1 32.7 NA NA
1971 13,010 13,010 NA 6.3 50.9 NA NA
1972 14,111 14,111 NA 6.7 57.7 NA NA
1973 14,607 14,607 NA 6.9 63.6 NA NA
1974 14,288 14,288 NA 6.7 61.1 NA NA
1975 4 17,152 16,320 NA 7.6 63.1 NA NA
1976 18,628 17,033 9,126 7.8 68.2 13.8 88.8
1977 17,161 15,604 NA 7.1 63.1 NA NA
1978 16,077 14,405 NA 6.5 58.8 NA NA
1979 5 17,758 15,942 NA 7.1 61.1 NA NA
1980 21,173 19,253 9,876 8.5 65.8 15.5 85.6
1981 22,518 20,655 9,803 9.0 64.6 15.5 78.4
1982 21,808 20,392 9,591 8.8 59.3 15.3 70.3
1983 21,727 20,095 10,910 8.6 61.4 17.4 78.4
1984 20,854 20,796 10,492 8.8 61.7 16.8 78.2
1985 19,899 19,847 9,906 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 25,406 25,370 13,349 9.9 66.7 20.1 87.3
1993 26,982 26,952 14,196 10.4 68.6 21.0 90.3
1994 27,468 27,433 14,391 10.4 72.1 21.0 94.1
1995 26,619 26,579 13,860 10.0 73.0 20.0 94.5
1996 25,543 25,495 13,189 9.5 69.8 18.8 91.2
1997 22,858 22,820 11,847 8.4 64.1 16.7 83.9
1998 19,791 19,748 10,524 7.2 57.3 14.7 78.1
1999 18,183 18,146 9,332 6.5 55.3 13.0 76.0
2000 17,194 17,156 8,743 6.1 54.3 12.1 75.5
2001 17,318 17,282 8,819 6.1 52.5 12.1 75.2
2002 19,096 19,059 9,688 6.6 55.1 13.3 79.8
2003 21,259 21,222 10,605 7.3 59.2 14.5 82.4
2004 23,858 23,819 11,771 8.1 64.4 16.1 90.3
2005 25,674 25,634 12,405 8.6 69.4 16.9 96.2

1 Total participants includes all participating states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982–a separate Nutrition Assistance Grant for Puerto Rico was begun in July 1982). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the FSP in 1975. The FFAP participants (as of December) for the seven years shown during the period from 1962 to 1974 were respectively: 6,411; 4,742; 3,977; 3,642; 3,002; 2,441; and 1,406 (all in thousands). From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.

2 Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only–the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population numbers used as denominators are the resident population.

3 The pre-transfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families or living alone whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the relevant poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.

4 The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.

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

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm 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: 2005,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-231.

Table FSP 2. Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2005

  Total Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration) Benefits (Federal)(millions) Administration1 Total Program Cost (millions) Average Monthly Benefit per Person
  Current Dollars (millions) 2005 Dollars2(millions) Federal (millions) State & Local (millions) Current Dollars 2005 Dollars2
1975 $4,619 $15,556 $4,386 $233 $175 $4,794 $21.30 $71.70
1976 5,685 17,925 5,326 359 270 5,955 23.90 75.40
1977 5,461 16,027 5,067 394 295 5,756 24.80 72.80
1978 5,520 15,198 5,139 381 285 5,805 26.60 73.20
19793 6,940 17,571 6,480 460 388 7,328 30.50 77.20
1980 9,206 21,007 8,721 486 375 9,581 34.50 78.70
1981 11,225 23,294 10,630 595 504 11,729 39.50 82.00
1982 10,837 21,061 10,208 628 557 11,394 39.20 75.00
1983 11,847 22,036 11,152 695 612 12,459 43.00 80.00
19844 11,579 20,717 10,696 8835 805 12,384 42.70 76.40
1985 11,703 20,233 10,744 960 871 12,574 45.00 77.80
1986 11,638 19,662 10,605 1,033 935 12,573 45.50 76.90
1987 11,604 19,101 10,500 1,104 996 12,600 45.80 75.40
1988 12,317 19,543 11,149 1,168 1,080 13,397 49.80 79.00
1989 12,934 19,681 11,702 1,232 1,101 14,033 51.90 79.00
1990 15,490 22,547 14,186 1,305 1,174 16,664 59.00 85.90
1991 18,771 26,160 17,339 1,432 1,247 20,018 63.90 89.10
1992 22,462 30,550 20,906 1,557 1,375 23,837 68.60 93.30
1993 23,653 31,367 22,006 1,647 1,572 25,225 68.00 90.20
1994 24,494 31,793 22,749 1,745 1,643 26,136 69.00 89.60
1995 24,620 31,223 22,764 1,856 1,748 26,368 71.30 90.40
1996 24,331 30,099 22,440 1,891 1,842 26,173 73.20 90.60
1997 21,485 25,941 19,549 1,937 1,904 23,389 71.30 86.10
1998 18,888 22,468 16,891 1,998 1,988 20,876 71.10 84.60
1999 17,710 20,700 15,769 1,941 1,874 19,584 72.30 84.50
2000 17,054 19,324 14,983 2,071 2,086 19,140 72.60 82.30
2001 17,790 19,529 15,547 2,242 2,233 20,023 74.80 82.10
2002 20,637 22,325 18,256 2,381 2,397 23,034 79.70 86.20
2003 23,814 25,172 21,404 2,410 2,430 26,244 83.90 88.70
2004 27,099 27,993 24,619 2,480 2,500 29,599 86.00 88.80
2005 31,124 31,124 28,567 2,556 2,556 33,680 92.72 92.72

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 over $1.4 billion in 2004.)

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 2005 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 online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm); and the House Ways and Means Committee, 2004 Green Book (available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/2004.html).

Table FSP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Selected Years 1980-2005

[In percent]

  Year 1
  1980 1984 1988 1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2005
With Gross Monthly Income:                    
    Below the Federal Poverty Levels 87 93 92 92 90 91 90 89 88 88
    Between the Poverty Levels and 130 Percent of the Poverty Levels 10 6 8 8 9 8 9 10 11 10
    Above 130 Percent of Poverty 2 1 * * 1 1 1 1 1 2
With Earnings 19 19 20 19 21 23 26 27 28 29
With Public Assistance Income 2 §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ 61 59 56 50 43
    With AFDC/TANF Income NA 42 42 43 38 37 31 26 21 15
    With SSI Income 18 18 20 19 23 24 28 32 29 26
With Children 60 61 61 61 61 60 58 54 54 54
    And Female Heads of Household NA 47 50 51 51 50 47 44 44 44
        With No Spouse Present NA NA 39 37 43 43 41 38 37 36
With Elderly Members 3 23 22 19 18 16 16 18 21 19 17
Average Household Size 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3

1 Data were gathered in August in the years 1980-84 and during the summer in the years from 1986 to 1994. Reports from 1995 to the present are based on fiscal year averages.

2 Public assistance income includes: AFDC/TANF, SSI, and general assistance.

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

§§ 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.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2005, Report No. FSP-06-CHAR (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/participation.htm) and earlier reports.

Table FSP 4. Value of Food Stamps Issued, by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2005

[In millions]

  1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 2000 2002 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States $4,386 $8,721 $10,744 $14,186 $22,441 $14,983 $18,256 $28,567 -33 91
Alabama $103 $246 $318 $328 $440 $344 $417 $616 -22 79
Alaska 6 27 25 25 54 46 59 80 -15 75
Arizona 41 97 121 239 372 240 386 634 -35 164
Arkansas 78 122 126 155 224 206 265 401 -8 95
California 361 530 639 968 2,555 1,639 1,706 2,313 -36 41
Colorado 44 71 94 156 210 127 165 313 -40 147
Connecticut 36 59 62 72 175 138 146 223 -21 62
Delaware 6 21 22 25 47 31 39 65 -34 110
Dist. of Columbia 31 41 40 43 95 77 76 103 -19 35
Florida 207 421 368 609 1,296 771 878 1,598 -40 107
Georgia 129 264 290 382 703 489 621 1,048 -30 114
Guam 2 15 18 15 27 36 52 54 34 49
Hawaii 23 60 93 81 196 166 152 156 -15 -6
Idaho 11 29 36 40 61 46 62 103 -25 123
Illinois 238 394 713 835 1,034 777 923 1,400 -25 80
Indiana 58 154 242 226 330 268 408 627 -19 134
Iowa 28 54 107 109 141 100 129 220 -29 119
Kansas 12 38 64 96 135 83 113 180 -39 118
Kentucky 135 211 332 334 413 337 410 611 -18 82
Louisiana 148 243 365 549 597 448 587 979 -25 118
Maine 31 60 62 63 113 81 97 162 -28 99
Maryland 76 140 171 203 362 199 215 320 -45 61
Massachusetts 75 171 173 207 295 182 209 363 -38 100
Michigan 124 263 541 663 773 457 645 1,099 -41 141
Minnesota 40 62 105 165 221 165 201 275 -26 67
Mississippi 110 199 264 352 376 226 298 463 -40 105
Missouri 82 142 212 312 480 358 477 736 -25 105
Montana 11 18 31 41 58 51 58 89 -12 74
Nebraska 11 25 44 59 78 61 74 120 -21 96
Nevada 10 15 22 41 91 57 96 129 -38 128
New Hampshire 11 22 15 20 42 28 35 51 -32 80
New Jersey 125 226 260 289 508 304 314 437 -40 44
New Mexico 48 81 88 117 199 140 154 251 -30 80
New York 209 726 938 1,086 2,054 1,361 1,479 2,136 -34 57
North Carolina 122 234 237 282 547 403 536 856 -26 112
North Dakota 5 9 16 25 32 25 31 45 -22 77
Ohio 253 382 697 861 934 520 726 1,157 -44 122
Oklahoma 38 73 134 186 308 208 288 440 -32 111
Oregon 56 80 142 168 259 198 319 456 -24 131
Pennsylvania 175 373 547 661 981 656 700 1,105 -33 68
Rhode Island 18 31 35 42 78 59 64 79 -24 32
South Carolina 121 181 194 240 299 249 352 566 -17 127
South Dakota 8 18 26 35 41 37 45 61 -10 67
Tennessee 115 282 280 372 542 415 552 942 -23 127
Texas 314 514 701 1,429 2,140 1,215 1,522 2,659 -43 119
Utah 12 22 40 71 87 68 80 141 -21 107
Vermont 9 18 20 22 43 32 34 45 -26 41
Virgin Islands 6 19 23 18 42 21 17 21 -50 -1
Virginia 63 158 189 247 450 263 305 500 -42 90
Washington 70 90 140 229 426 241 318 539 -43 123
West Virginia 56 87 159 192 252 185 198 258 -26 39
Wisconsin 29 68 148 180 198 129 197 317 -35 146
Wyoming 3 6 15 21 28 19 22 27 -34 45

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 (2000 to 2005 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfybft.htm) and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

Table FSP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp Recipients, by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In thousands]

  1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 2000 2002 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States 17,192 21,082 19,899 20,049 25,543 17,194 19,096 25,673 -33 49
Alabama 365 583 588 454 509 396 444 559 -22 41
Alaska 15 29 22 25 46 38 46 56 -19 48
Arizona 143 196 206 317 427 259 379 550 -39 112
Arkansas 267 301 253 235 274 247 284 374 -10 52
California 1,455 1,493 1,615 1,937 3,143 1,830 1,711 1,992 -42 9
Colorado 150 163 170 221 244 156 178 246 -36 58
Connecticut 155 170 145 133 223 165 169 204 -26 24
Delaware 26 52 40 33 58 32 40 62 -44 91
Dist. of Columbia 122 103 72 62 93 81 74 89 -13 10
Florida 647 912 630 781 1,371 882 985 1,382 -36 57
Georgia 498 627 567 536 793 559 646 921 -29 65
Guam 6 22 20 12 18 22 24 27 26 23
Hawaii 75 102 99 77 130 118 105 94 -9 -21
Idaho 39 61 59 59 80 58 70 93 -27 61
Illinois 926 903 1,110 1,013 1,105 817 886 1,158 -26 42
Indiana 392 353 406 311 390 300 411 556 -23 85
Iowa 115 141 203 170 177 123 141 207 -30 68
Kansas 58 90 119 142 172 117 140 178 -32 53
Kentucky 472 468 560 458 486 403 450 570 -17 41
Louisiana 510 569 644 727 670 500 588 808 -25 62
Maine 126 139 114 94 131 102 111 153 -22 51
Maryland 261 324 287 255 375 219 228 289 -41 32
Massachusetts 365 453 337 347 374 232 243 368 -38 59
Michigan 619 813 985 917 935 603 750 1,048 -36 74
Minnesota 167 171 228 263 295 196 217 260 -33 33
Mississippi 376 496 495 499 457 276 325 391 -40 42
Missouri 300 335 362 431 554 423 515 766 -24 81
Montana 38 43 58 57 71 59 63 81 -16 36
Nebraska 49 66 94 95 102 82 88 117 -19 42
Nevada 32 32 32 50 97 61 97 122 -37 100
New Hampshire 44 50 28 31 53 36 41 52 -31 44
New Jersey 490 605 464 382 540 345 320 392 -36 14
New Mexico 157 185 157 157 235 169 170 241 -28 42
New York 1,291 1,759 1,834 1,548 2,099 1,439 1,349 1,755 -31 22
North Carolina 466 582 474 419 631 488 574 800 -23 64
North Dakota 19 25 33 39 40 32 37 42 -20 33
Ohio 854 865 1,133 1,089 1,045 610 735 1,007 -42 65
Oklahoma 171 209 263 267 354 253 317 424 -28 68
Oregon 201 197 228 216 288 234 359 429 -19 83
Pennsylvania 848 980 1,032 952 1,124 777 767 1,043 -31 34
Rhode Island 86 87 69 64 91 74 72 76 -18 2
South Carolina 410 426 373 299 358 295 379 521 -18 76
South Dakota 33 43 48 50 49 43 48 56 -12 31
Tennessee 397 624 518 527 638 496 598 850 -22 71
Texas 1,133 1,167 1,263 1,880 2,372 1,333 1,554 2,442 -44 83
Utah 46 54 75 99 110 82 90 133 -26 63
Vermont 44 46 44 38 56 41 40 45 -28 11
Virgin Islands 16 34 32 18 31 16 12 14 -49 -14
Virginia 257 384 360 346 538 336 352 488 -37 45
Washington 253 248 281 340 478 295 350 508 -38 72
West Virginia 242 209 278 262 300 227 236 262 -24 16
Wisconsin 148 215 363 286 283 193 262 346 -32 79
Wyoming 10 14 27 28 33 22 24 24 -32 8

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 2005 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm) and unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table FSP 6. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates, by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In percent]

  1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 2000 2002 2005 Percent Change
1996-00 2000-05
United States 7.6 8.5 8.3 8.0 9.5 6.1 6.6 8.6 -36 42
Alabama 9.9 14.9 14.8 11.2 11.8 8.9 9.9 12.3 -24 38
Alaska 4.0 7.1 4.1 4.5 7.6 6.0 7.2 8.4 -21 40
Arizona 6.3 7.1 6.5 8.6 9.3 5.0 7.0 9.3 -46 85
Arkansas 12.4 13.1 10.9 10.0 10.6 9.2 10.5 13.4 -14 46
California 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.5 9.8 5.4 4.9 5.5 -45 2
Colorado 5.8 5.6 5.3 6.7 6.2 3.6 4.0 5.3 -42 46
Connecticut 5.0 5.5 4.5 4.0 6.7 4.8 4.9 5.8 -28 20
Delaware 4.5 8.7 6.5 5.0 7.8 4.1 4.9 7.3 -48 78
Dist. of Columbia 17.2 16.1 11.4 10.3 16.2 14.1 13.0 16.1 -13 14
Florida 7.6 9.3 5.5 6.0 9.2 5.5 5.9 7.8 -40 41
Georgia 9.8 11.4 9.5 8.2 10.6 6.8 7.6 10.2 -36 49
Hawaii 8.4 10.6 9.5 6.9 10.8 9.7 8.5 7.3 -10 -25
Idaho 4.6 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.6 4.5 5.2 6.5 -33 46
Illinois 8.2 7.9 9.7 8.8 9.1 6.6 7.0 9.1 -28 38
Indiana 7.3 6.4 7.4 5.6 6.6 4.9 6.7 8.9 -25 80
  4.0 4.8 7.2 6.1 6.2 4.2 4.8 7.0 -32 65
Kansas 2.5 3.8 4.9 5.7 6.6 4.3 5.2 6.5 -34 50
Kentucky 13.6 12.8 15.2 12.4 12.4 10.0 11.0 13.7 -20 37
Louisiana 13.1 13.5 14.6 17.2 15.2 11.2 13.1 17.9 -27 60
Maine 11.8 12.3 9.8 7.6 10.5 8.0 8.6 11.6 -24 45
Maryland 6.3 7.7 6.5 5.3 7.3 4.1 4.2 5.2 -44 25
Massachusetts 6.3 7.9 5.7 5.8 6.0 3.6 3.8 5.8 -40 58
Michigan 6.8 8.8 10.8 9.8 9.6 6.1 7.5 10.4 -37 71
Minnesota 4.2 4.2 5.5 6.0 6.3 4.0 4.3 5.1 -36 27
Mississippi 15.7 19.6 19.1 19.4 16.6 9.7 11.3 13.4 -42 38
Missouri 6.2 6.8 7.2 8.4 10.2 7.6 9.1 13.2 -26 75
Montana 5.1 5.5 7.1 7.1 8.0 6.6 7.0 8.6 -18 31
Nebraska 3.2 4.2 5.9 6.0 6.1 4.8 5.1 6.7 -21 39
Nevada 5.2 4.0 3.4 4.1 5.8 3.0 4.5 5.0 -48 67
New Hampshire 5.3 5.4 2.8 2.7 4.5 2.9 3.2 4.0 -35 37
New Jersey 6.7 8.2 6.1 4.9 6.6 4.1 3.7 4.5 -38 10
New Mexico 13.5 14.1 10.9 10.3 13.4 9.3 9.2 12.5 -31 34
New York 7.2 10.0 10.3 8.6 11.3 7.6 7.0 9.1 -33 20
North Carolina 8.4 9.9 7.6 6.3 8.4 6.0 6.9 9.2 -28 52
North Dakota 2.9 3.9 4.9 6.1 6.1 5.0 5.8 6.6 -19 34
Ohio 7.9 8.0 10.6 10.0 9.3 5.4 6.4 8.8 -42 64
Oklahoma 6.2 6.9 8.0 8.5 10.6 7.3 9.1 12.0 -31 63
Oregon 8.6 7.5 8.5 7.6 8.9 6.8 10.2 11.8 -23 73
Pennsylvania 7.1 8.3 8.8 8.0 9.2 6.3 6.2 8.4 -31 33
Rhode Island 9.2 9.1 7.2 6.4 8.9 7.1 6.7 7.1 -21 0
South Carolina 14.1 13.6 11.3 8.5 9.4 7.3 9.2 12.2 -22 67
South Dakota 4.8 6.2 6.9 7.2 6.6 5.7 6.3 7.2 -14 27
Tennessee 9.3 13.6 11.0 10.8 11.8 8.7 10.3 14.2 -26 64
Texas 9.0 8.1 7.8 11.0 12.3 6.4 7.2 10.7 -48 68
Utah 3.7 3.7 4.6 5.7 5.3 3.7 3.9 5.4 -31 48
Vermont 9.1 8.9 8.2 6.8 9.5 6.7 6.5 7.3 -30 8
Virginia 5.1 7.2 6.3 5.6 8.0 4.7 4.8 6.5 -41 36
Washington 7.0 6.0 6.4 6.9 8.6 5.0 5.8 8.1 -42 62
West Virginia 13.1 10.7 14.6 14.6 16.4 12.6 13.1 14.4 -24 15
Wisconsin 3.2 4.6 7.6 5.8 5.4 3.6 4.8 6.2 -34 74
Wyoming 2.7 3.0 5.4 6.2 6.8 4.5 4.7 4.8 -33 5

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of food stamp recipients in each state during the particular fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerator is from Table FSP 5.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2004 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm), and unpublished data from the National Data Bank; U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness, or disability. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18 and meet the applicable SSI disability or blindness, income and resource requirements. Individuals and married couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels of $603 for an individual and $904 for a married couple in fiscal year 2005. 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 food stamp benefits to cash payments that are included in the state supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive food stamps. If all household members receive SSI, the household is categorically eligible for food stamps and does not need to meet the Food Stamp Program’s financial eligibility standards. If SSI beneficiaries live in households in which other household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility standard of the Food Stamp Program to be eligible for food stamp benefits.

Legislative Changes

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

PRWORA made several changes designed to maintain the SSI program’s goal of limiting benefits to severely disabled children. First, the act replaced the former “comparable severity” test with a new definition of disability specifically for children, based on a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that results in “marked and severe functional limitations.” Second, SSA discontinued use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) which it had implemented in 1991 following the Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990).5 Third, references to “maladaptive behaviors” in certain sections of the Listing of Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function) were eliminated. The latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Beneficiaries who were receiving benefits due to an IFA or under the Listings because of limitations resulting from maladaptive behaviors received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might end when their case was redetermined. Additional provisions of PRWORA with impact on enrollment are the requirement that eligibility be redetermined when beneficiaries reach age 18, using the adult disability standard; that "continuing disability reviews" be done for children; and that children who were eligible due to low birth weight have their eligibility redetermined at age one.

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

Several provisions aimed at reducing SSI fraud and improving recovery of overpayments were enacted in 1999 as part of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P. L. 106-169). Other legislation enacted in 1999 provides additional work incentives for disabled beneficiaries of SSI. Additionally, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-203), enacted March 2, 2004, introduced program and beneficiary protections covering the use of representative payees and required documentation of changes in beneficiary status. Furthermore, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) included two SSI program reforms, designed to improve the accuracy of disability determinations and benefit awards, among other program goals.

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 2005.

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 2005, the caseload increased from 6.6 to 7.1 million beneficiaries, an average annual growth rate of 1.6 percent. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2005, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind, and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adults ages 18-64, and adults ages 65 or older). See also Tables IND 3c and IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation rates.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 1. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to a low of 1.2 million persons in December 2005. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 5.9 million in December 2005. 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 over 1 million children in 2005.

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 noncitizens – 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.6

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). While down slightly from 2004, the total amount paid out in SSI benefits has increased over the past 4 years from $35.8 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2001 to over $38.1 billion in 2005, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly benefits per person were $438 in 2005, down slightly (about 4 percent) from 1999 inflation adjusted benefit level of $445. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics (Table SSI 6). Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI recipients aged 65 or older has decreased dramatically, from 54 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 2005.

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients, by Age: 1974-2005

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients, by Age: 1974-2005

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2006 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2006/index.html).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974-2004

[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 1,738 2,353
Dec 1978 4,217 1,968 2,249 77 2,172 166 1,747 2,304
Dec 1979 4,150 1,872 2,278 77 2,201 177 1,727 2,246
Dec 1980 4,142 1,808 2,334 78 2,256 190 1,731 2,221
Dec 1981 4,019 1,678 2,341 79 2,262 195 1,703 2,121
Dec 1982 3,858 1,549 2,309 77 2,231 192 1,655 2,011
Dec 1983 3,901 1,515 2,386 79 2,307 198 1,700 2,003
Dec 1984 4,029 1,530 2,499 81 2,419 212 1,780 2,037
Dec 1985 4,138 1,504 2,634 82 2,551 227 1,879 2,031
Dec 1986 4,269 1,473 2,796 83 2,713 241 2,010 2,018
Dec 1987 4,385 1,455 2,930 83 2,846 251 2,119 2,015
Dec 1988 4,464 1,433 3,030 83 2,948 255 2,203 2,006
Dec 1989 4,593 1,439 3,154 83 3,071 265 2,302 2,026
Dec 1990 4,817 1,454 3,363 84 3,279 309 2,450 2,059
Dec 1991 5,118 1,465 3,654 85 3,569 397 2,642 2,080
Dec 1992 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 3,878 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

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, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates: 1974-2005

[In percent]

Date All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population 1 Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population 1 Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children 1 Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
All Persons 65 & Older 1 All Elderly Poor 2
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 72.4
Dec 1977 1.9 1.3 0.2 9.7 74.1
Dec 1978 1.9 1.3 0.3 9.3 71.5
Dec 1979 1.8 1.3 0.3 8.8 61.3
Dec 1980 1.8 1.2 0.3 8.6 57.5
Dec 1981 1.7 1.2 0.3 8.0 55.0
Dec 1982 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.4 53.6
Dec 1983 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.3 55.2
Dec 1984 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.2 61.2
Dec 1985 1.7 1.3 0.4 7.1 58.7
Dec 1986 1.8 1.3 0.4 6.9 57.9
Dec 1987 1.8 1.4 0.4 6.7 56.5
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 1.9 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 2.2 1.3 6.2 63.7
Dec 1996 2.4 2.2 1.4 6.1 61.0
Dec 1997 2.4 2.2 1.2 6.0 60.8
Dec 1998 2.4 2.2 1.2 5.9 60.0
Dec 1999 2.3 2.2 1.2 5.8 62.7
Dec 2000 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.7 60.5
Dec 2001 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.6 58.4
Dec 2002 2.3 2.1 1.3 5.6 55.8
Dec 2003 2.4 2.2 1.3 5.5 56.0
Dec 2004 2.4 2.2 1.4 5.4 57.3
Dec 2005 2.4 2.2 1.4 5.4 55.4

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

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 P60-231.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005," Current Population Reports, Series P60-231, (available online at www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Total, Federal and State SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974-2005 1

[In millions of dollars]

Calendar Year Total Benefits Federal Payments State Supplementation Administrative Costs
(fiscal year)
2005 2 Dollars Current Dollars Total Federally Administered State Administered
1974 $18,165 $5,246 $3,833 $1,413 $1,264 $149 $285
1975 18,798 5,878 4,314 1,565 1,403 162 399
1976 18,346 6,066 4,512 1,554 1,388 166 500
1977 17,928 6,306 4,703 1,603 1,431 172 526
1978 17,859 6,552 4,881 1,671 1,491 180 539
1979 17,629 7,075 5,279 1,797 1,590 207 611
1980 17,818 7,941 5,866 2,074 1,848 226 668
1981 17,626 8,593 6,518 2,076 1,839 237 717
1982 17,393 8,981 6,907 2,074 1,798 276 780
1983 17,486 9,404 7,423 1,982 1,711 270 846
1984 18,545 10,372 8,281 2,091 1,792 299 864
1985 19,139 11,060 8,777 2,283 1,973 311 956
1986 20,530 12,081 9,498 2,583 2,243 340 1,023
1987 21,283 12,951 10,029 2,922 2,563 359 977
1988 21,860 13,786 10,734 3,052 2,671 381 976
1989 22,774 14,980 11,606 3,374 2,955 419 1,052
1990 24,040 16,599 12,894 3,705 3,239 466 1,075
1991 25,892 18,524 14,765 3,759 3,231 529 1,230
1992 30,315 22,233 18,247 3,986 3,435 550 1,426
1993 32,670 24,557 20,722 3,835 3,270 566 1,468
1994 33,715 25,877 22,175 3,701 3,116 585 1,780
1995 35,143 27,628 23,919 3,708 3,118 590 1,978
1996 35,667 28,792 25,265 3,527 2,988 539 1,953
1997 35,237 29,052 25,457 3,595 2,913 682 2,055
1998 36,140 30,216 26,405 3,812 3,003 808 2,304
1999 36,223 30,923 26,805 4,154 3,301 853 2,493
2000 35,781 31,564 27,290 4,274 3,381 893 2,321
2001 36,459 33,061 28,706 4,355 3,460 895 2,397
2002 37,523 34,567 29,899 4,668 3,820 848 2,522
2003 37,784 35,605 30,688 4,917 4,005 912 2,656
2004 38,197 36,961 31,887 5,075 4,179 896 2,806
2005 38,129 38,129 33,058 5,071 4,178 893 2,795

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.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006, (Data available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2006/index.html).

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly SSI Benefit Payments: 1974-2005

Calendar Year Total 1 Federal Payments State Supplementation
2005 Dollars Current Dollars Total Federally Administered State Administered
1974 $466 $135 $108 $64 $71 $35
1975 359 112 92 66 69 45
1976 357 118 99 68 71 50
1977 348 123 104 69 72 53
1978 349 128 108 72 74 56
1979 350 140 119 77 79 67
1980 354 158 133 89 91 76
1981 361 176 151 92 94 79
1982 371 191 166 96 97 93
1983 368 198 172 91 92 89
1984 377 211 187 93 93 93
1985 380 219 193 99 99 102
1986 394 232 202 107 108 101
1987 398 242 208 117 118 110
1988 401 253 219 118 118 118
1989 406 267 230 126 126 127
1990 410 283 244 132 131 136
1991 415 297 260 125 122 143
1992 447 328 292 124 121 147
1993 449 337 306 112 107 150
1994 441 338 310 105 99 152
1995 445 350 322 110 103 164
1996 445 359 333 108 103 145
1997 447 369 342 99 102 86
1998 453 379 350 103 104 102
1999 455 388 356 111 113 105
2000 446 393 360 113 114 109
2001 448 407 373 113 114 108
2002 451 415 383 129 129 128
2003 446 421 387 136 135 138
2004 446 431 397 139 139 135
2005 438 438 404 151 155 135

Note: The numerators for these averages are given in Table SSI 3 and the denominators are given in Table SSI 5. Averages were computed by DHHS. Data adjusted for inflation using a calendar-year average CPI-U-RS index.

1 Total is a weighted average of the Federal plus State average benefit, the Federal-only average benefit, and State-only average benefit.

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2006/index.html).

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving SSI Payments, by Type of Payment: 1974-2005

[In thousands]

      State Supplementation
  Total Federal Total Federally Administered State Administered
Jan 1974 3,249 2,956 1,839 1,480 358
Dec 1975 4,360 3,893 1,987 1,684 303
Dec 1980 4,194 3,682 1,934 1,685 249
Dec 1984 4,094 3,699 1,875 1,607 268
Dec 1985 4,200 3,799 1,916 1,661 255
Dec 1986. 4,347 3,922 2,003 1,723 279
Dec 1987 4,458 4,019 2,079 1,807 272
Dec 1988 4,541 4,089 2,155 1,885 270
Dec 1989 4,673 4,206 2,224 1,950 275
Dec 1990 4,888 4,412 2,344 2,058 286
Dec 1991 5,200 4,730 2,512 2,204 308
Dec 1992 5,647 5,202 2,684 2,372 313
Dec 1993 6,065 5,636 2,850 2,536 314
Dec 1994 6,377 5,965 2,950 2,628 322
Dec 1995 6,576 6,194 2,817 2,518 300
Dec 1996 6,677 6,326 2,732 2,421 310
Dec 1997 6,565 6,212 3,029 2,372 657
Dec 1998 6,649 6,289 3,072 2,412 661
Dec 1999 6,641 6,275 3,116 2,441 675
Dec 2000 6,685 6,320 3,164 2,481 683
Dec 2001 6,776 6,410 3,209 2,520 689
Dec 2002 6,940 6,505 3,014 2,462 553
Dec 2003 7,052 6,614 3,019 2,467 551
Dec 2004 7,139 6,695 3,050 2,498 552
Dec 2005 7,262 6,819 2,794 2,242 552

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2006/index.htm).

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients, by Age, Sex, Earnings/Income and Citizenship: Selected Years 1980-2005

  1980 1985 1990 1994 1998 2000 2002 2005
Total
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
    under 18 5.5 5.5 6.4 13.4 13.5 12.8 13.5 14.6
    18-64 40.9 45.4 50.9 53.0 55.5 56.7 57.2 57.4
    65 or older 53.6 49.1 42.7 33.7 31.0 30.5 29.3 28.0
Sex                
    Male 34.4 35.2 37.2 41.3 41.3 41.5 42.0 43.1
    Female 65.5 64.8 62.8 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.0 56.9
Selected Sources of Income                
    Earnings 3.2 3.8 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.1 3.8
    Social Security 51.0 49.4 45.9 39.1 36.5 36.1 35.5 35.2
    No other income 34.8 34.5 36.4 43.6 47.3 54.4 55.1 NA
Noncitizens Eligibility Category NA 5.1 9.0 11.7 10.2 10.5 10.4 NA
    Aged 43.6 36.4 30.2 23.3 20.3 19.5 18.4 17.1
    Blind 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1
    Disabled 54.5 61.7 68.1 75.4 78.5 79.3 80.4 81.9
Aged
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
    65-69 14.0 14.9 19.4 20.5 17.6 17.6 15.3 15.1
    70-79 51.5 45.6 41.3 44.3 48.4 48.4 49.1 46.8
    80 or older 34.5 39.5 39.2 35.1 34.0 34.0 35.7 38.1
Sex                
    Male 27.3 25.5 25.1 26.8 27.8 27.8 29.9 31.4
    Female 72.6 74.5 74.9 73.2 72.2 72.2 70.1 68.6
Noncitizens NA 9.7 19.4 30.0 27.0 27.0 29.2 NA
Blind and Disabled
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
    18-64 80.2 77.7 80.0 83.4 83.6 83.6 83.8 84.1
    65 or older 19.8 22.3 20.0 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.1 16.0
Sex1                
    Male 39.8 40.8 42.4 41.8 41.1 41.1 44.8 41.2
    Female 60.2 59.2 57.6 58.2 58.9 58.9 55.2 58.8
Noncitizens NA 2.4 4.6 6.2 5.5 5.5 7.2 NA
Children
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
    Under 5 11.7 NA NA 15.8 15.8 15.8 16.1 15.5
    5-9 20.9 NA NA 28.5 30.2 30.2 26.8 27.3
    10-14 28.8 NA NA 32.7 34.6 34.6 36.9 35.3
    15-17 21.7 NA NA 17.3 19.4 19.4 20.2 22.0
    18-212 16.8 14.3 9.3 5.7
Sex                
    Male NA NA NA 63.0 62.9 62.9 64.3 65.4
    Female NA NA NA 37.0 37.1 37.1 35.7 34.6

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, 2005 and prior years (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 7. Total SSI Payments, Federal SSI Payments and State Supplementary Payments Calendar Year 2005

[In thousands]

State 1 Total Total Federal Federal SSI State Supplementation
Federally Administered State Administered
Total $38,128,653 $37,235,843 $33,058,056 $4,177,787 $892,810
Alabama 776,750 776,426 776,426 324
Alaska 109,321 53,232 53,232 56,089
Arizona 482,030 481,652 481,652 378
Arkansas 406,593 406,593 406,593
California 8,146,401 8,146,401 4,899,479 3,246,922
Colorado 354,115 263,801 263,801 90,314
Connecticut 341,616 259,818 259,818 81,798
Delaware 65,681 65,681 64,602 1,079
District of Columbia 113,382 113,382 109,720 3,662
Florida 2,041,147 2,031,442 2,031,442 9,705
Georgia 943,626 943,626 943,626
Hawaii 119,074 119,074 106,312 12,762
Idaho 113,628 105,635 105,635 7,993
Illinois 1,364,003 1,336,609 1,336,609 27,394
Indiana 491,972 488,082 488,082 3,890
Iowa 208,017 193,191 189,321 3,870 14,826
Kansas 186,659 186,659 186,657 2
Kentucky 879,478 861,923 861,923 17,555
Louisiana 771,703 771,262 771,262 441
Maine 165,300 145,872 145,872 19,428
Maryland 488,592 480,910 480,893 17 7,682
Massachusetts 902,250 902,250 736,031 166,219
Michigan 1,236,629 1,157,308 1,134,397 22,911 79,321
Minnesota 445,821 354,514 354,514 91,307
Mississippi 571,831 571,831 571,823 8
Missouri 599,958 573,065 573,065 26,893
Montana 69,871 69,871 68,975 896
Nebraska 109,540 103,215 103,215 6,325
Nevada 163,037 163,037 157,589 5,448
New Hampshire 78,148 66,524 66,524 11,624
New Jersey 763,413 763,413 681,309 82,104
New Mexico 248,142 247,904 247,904 238
New York 3,561,230 3,561,230 3,010,222 551,008
North Carolina 1,024,575 894,175 894,175 130,400
North Dakota 35,441 33,488 33,488 1,953
Ohio 1,295,011 1,295,011 1,295,011
Oklahoma 418,234 380,582 380,582 37,652
Oregon 317,804 297,508 297,508 20,296
Pennsylvania 1,658,833 1,658,833 1,610,509 48,324
Rhode Island 160,833 160,833 137,075 23,758
South Carolina 499,482 488,167 488,167 11,315
South Dakota 57,293 54,686 54,684 2 2,607
Tennessee 752,148 752,148 752,137 11
Texas 2,191,462 2,190,604 2,190,604 858
Utah 109,845 109,845 109,773 72
Vermont 62,630 62,630 53,916 8,714
Virginia 650,926 632,173 632,173 18,753
Washington 616,282 616,054 616,054 228
West Virginia 375,880 375,880 375,880
Wisconsin 551,894 437,359 437,359 114,535
Wyoming 27,138 26,450 26,450 688
Other: N. Mariana Islands 3,987 3,987 3,987

1 Columns do not added to totals since the totals 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, 2006
(available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 8. SSI Recipiency Rates by State and Program Type: 1979 and 2005

[In percent]

  Total Recipiency Rate Rate for Adults 18-64 Rate for Adults 65 & Over
  1979 2005 Percent Change 1979-05 1979 2005 Percent Change 1979-05 1979 2005 Percent Change 1979-05
Total 1.9 2.4 30 1.3 2.2 75 9.0 5.4 -40
Alabama 3.6 3.6 1 1.8 3.5 91 21.0 5.8 -72
Alaska 0.8 1.7 121 0.5 1.6 196 14.0 6.9 -51
Arizona 1.1 1.6 44 0.9 1.6 80 5.0 3.1 -38
Arkansas 3.5 3.3 -6 1.9 3.1 66 17.1 5.0 -71
California 3.0 3.3 9 2.1 2.6 27 16.4 13.5 -18
Colorado 1.1 1.2 9 0.8 1.2 56 6.7 3.0 -55
Connecticut 0.8 1.5 100 0.6 1.5 138 2.7 2.6 -4
Delaware 1.2 1.6 34 0.9 1.5 60 5.4 2.2 -59
District of Columbia 2.3 3.8 67 1.9 3.4 77 8.6 6.2 -28
Florida 1.8 2.4 35 1.1 1.9 67 6.2 4.7 -24
Georgia 2.9 2.2 -23 1.9 2.0 6 17.7 5.9 -67
Hawaii 1.1 1.8 71 0.7 1.6 132 7.6 4.9 -35
Idaho 0.8 1.6 103 0.6 1.7 166 3.8 1.9 -50
Illinois 1.1 2.0 85 1.0 2.0 111 4.3 3.8 -11
Indiana 0.8 1.6 113 0.6 1.7 179 3.3 1.6 -52
Iowa 0.9 1.5 69 0.6 1.6 158 3.5 1.6 -54
Kansas 0.9 1.4 57 0.6 1.5 138 3.5 1.8 -48
Kentucky 2.5 4.3 69 1.8 4.5 151 12.5 6.5 -48
Louisiana 3.4 3.4 1 2.0 3.2 58 20.1 6.5 -68
Maine 2.0 2.4 23 1.4 2.7 94 8.6 2.8 -67
Maryland 1.2 1.7 48 0.9 1.6 70 5.4 3.8 -30
Massachusetts 2.2 2.7 21 1.3 2.6 103 10.8 5.6 -48
Michigan 1.3 2.2 75 1.1 2.3 115 5.9 2.9 -50
Minnesota 0.8 1.4 73 0.6 1.4 155 3.7 2.6 -30
Mississippi 4.5 4.3 -4 2.4 3.9 61 26.0 8.6 -67
Missouri 1.8 2.0 14 1.1 2.1 91 7.9 2.6 -67
Montana 0.9 1.6 80 0.7 1.7 136 3.8 1.9 -50
Nebraska 0.9 1.3 48 0.6 1.4 119 3.4 1.7 -50
Nevada 0.8 1.4 67 0.5 1.2 126 5.9 3.3 -44
New Hampshire 0.6 1.0 72 0.4 1.2 173 2.5 1.1 -57
New Jersey 1.1 1.7 49 0.9 1.5 74 4.7 4.5 -4
New Mexico 2.0 2.8 42 1.4 2.6 90 12.4 6.7 -46
New York 2.1 3.3 56 1.6 2.7 70 8.3 9.0 9
North Carolina 2.4 2.3 -4 1.6 2.1 33 13.6 4.6 -66
North Dakota 1.0 1.2 21 0.6 1.3 128 5.1 1.9 -62
Ohio 1.1 2.2 98 1.0 2.4 142 4.2 2.4 -42
Oklahoma 2.3 2.2 -5 1.3 2.3 73 11.6 3.4 -71
Oregon 0.9 1.7 98 0.7 1.7 143 3.3 2.8 -15
Pennsylvania 1.4 2.6 86 1.1 2.6 132 5.0 3.2 -35
Rhode Island 1.6 2.8 76 1.1 2.8 159 6.4 4.8 -25
South Carolina 2.7 2.5 -7 1.8 2.3 29 17.0 4.7 -72
South Dakota 1.1 1.6 40 0.7 1.6 122 5.0 2.8 -44
Tennessee 2.9 2.7 -6 1.9 2.7 44 14.8 4.8 -68
Texas 1.9 2.2 16 1.0 1.8 89 12.7 7.2 -43
Utah 0.6 0.9 64 0.5 1.0 96 3.0 1.8 -41
Vermont 1.8 2.1 19 1.3 2.2 68 8.1 3.0 -63
Virginia 1.5 1.8 20 1.0 1.6 57 8.5 4.1 -52
Washington 1.2 1.8 55 1.0 1.8 84 4.8 3.7 -23
West Virginia 2.1 4.2 97 1.9 4.8 158 8.0 4.4 -45
Wisconsin 1.4 1.7 18 1.0 1.7 77 6.5 2.2 -66
Wyoming 0.4 1.1 162 0.3 1.2 314 2.7 1.4 -49

Note: Recipiency rates for 2004 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS. The 1979 rates are based on the average number of recipients during the year.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2006 and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates, by State: Selected Fiscal Years: 1975-2005

[In percent]

  1975 1980 1985 1990 1994 2 1998 2 2002 2 2005 2
Total 1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Alabama 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6
Alaska 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Arizona 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6
Arkansas 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.3
California 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3
Colorado 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2
Connecticut 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5
Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
District of Columbia 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.8
Florida 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
Georgia 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2
Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Idaho 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6
Illinois 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0
Indiana 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6
Iowa 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5
Kansas 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Kentucky 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.3
Louisiana 3.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 4.1 4.0 3.7 3.4
Maine 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4
Maryland 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7
Massachusetts 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7
Michigan 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2
Minnesota 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4
Mississippi 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 5.2 4.9 4.4 4.3
Missouri 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0
Montana 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Nebraska 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Nevada 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4
New Hampshire 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0
New Jersey 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7
New Mexico 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8
New York 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3
North Carolina 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.3
North Dakota 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
Ohio 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2
Oklahoma 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2
Oregon 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6
Rhode Island 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8
South Carolina 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.5
South Dakota 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6
Tennessee 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.7
Texas 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2
Utah 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
Vermont 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.8
Washington 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8
West Virginia 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.5 3.9 4.1 4.2
Wisconsin 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.7
Wyoming 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1

1 The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively.

2 For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that year. For 1994-2003 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2006, and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/)


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

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

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

As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432), this annual report on Indicators of Welfare Dependence focuses on dependence on three programs: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 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, food stamps and/or SSI.

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and food stamps alone, excluding SSI. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been much lower – only 2.0 percent – in 2004 if based on income from TANF and food stamps, as opposed to 3.7 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, food stamps and SSI).

There also is significant variation across age groups in the programs upon which individuals are dependent. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and food stamps; whereas 2.2 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, very few, 0.1 percent, are dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and food stamps. In contrast, children are primarily dependent on TANF and food stamps.

Dependency from AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt has declined since 1995, while dependency from SSI receipt alone has remained stable, as shown in Table B-2. As a result, the difference between the standard definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based on TANF and food stamps only) has grown. In 1995, over two-thirds (68 percent) of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition also were dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 2004, the proportion had dropped to just over half (54 percent). If this report had focused on the alternative definition of dependence, it would have shown an even larger decline in dependence than usually reported. For example, between 1995 and 2004, dependency declined by 44 percent (3.6 percent to 2.0 percent) under the alternative definition, compared to a decline of 30 percent (5.3 percent to 3.7 percent) under the standard definition.

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2004

  TANF, SSI & Food Stamps TANF & Food Stamps SSI Only
All Persons 3.7 2.0 1.3
 
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 2.2 1.0 1.0
Non-Hispanic Black 10.0 6.2 2.8
Hispanic 5.2 3.1 1.6
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5 7.1 5.1 1.3
Children Ages 6-10 6.0 4.2 1.1
Children Ages 11-15 5.1 3.4 1.0
 
Women Ages 16-64 3.7 2.0 1.4
Men Ages 16-64 2.4 1.0 1.2
Adults Ages 65 and over 2.2 0.1 1.9
Family Categories
Persons in married families 1.0 0.4 0.5
Persons in female-headed families 13.8 9.1 3.4
Persons in male-headed (no spouse) families 4.0 1.5 1.7
Unrelated individuals 4.5 1.7 2.8

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, 2005, 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: 1995-2004

  TANF, SSI & Food Stamps TANF & Food Stamps SSI Only
1995 5.3 3.6 1.1
1998 3.8 2.1 1.3
1999 3.3 1.7 1.2
2000 3.0 1.5 1.2
2001 3.1 1.4 1.3
2002 3.2 1.5 1.3
2003 3.6 1.9 1.3
2004 3.7 2.0 1.3

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2005, 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/Ethnicity

  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 99 94 68 76 82 67 43
2001 73 83 68 28 96 99 94 68 75 81 67 42
2002 75 85 70 28 96 99 94 68 77 83 69 44
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

Notes: 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
2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), and earlier reports. Additional calculations by ASPE staff.

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women, by State Selected Years 1960-2004

  1960 1970 1980 1990 1992 1994 1996 2000 2004
United States 5 11 18 28 30 33 32 33 36
Alabama 11 14 22 30 33 34 34 34 36
Alaska 5 9 16 26 27 29 31 33 35
Arizona NA 9 19 33 36 38 39 39 42
Arkansas NA 13 20 29 31 33 34 36 39
California NA NA 21 32 34 36 31 33 34
Colorado NA 9 13 21 24 25 25 25 28
Connecticut NA NA 18 27 29 30 31 29 31
Delaware 9 15 24 29 33 35 35 38 42
Dist of Columbia 20 38 56 65 67 69 66 60 56
Florida 9 14 23 32 34 36 36 38 41
Georgia NA NA 23 33 35 36 35 37 39
Hawaii 5 10 18 25 26 28 30 32 33
Idaho NA NA 8 17 18 19 21 22 23
Illinois 6 13 23 32 33 34 34 35 36
Indiana 4 8 16 26 29 32 32 35 39
Iowa 2 7 10 21 24 25 26 28 31
Kansas 3 7 12 22 24 26 27 29 33
Kentucky 5 8 15 24 26 28 30 31 35
Louisiana 9 15 23 37 40 43 43 46 49
Maine 3 7 14 23 25 28 29 31 34
Maryland NA NA 25 30 30 34 34 35 36
Massachusetts NA NA 16 25 26 27 25 27 29
Michigan 4 11 16 26 27 35 34 33 36
Minnesota 3 8 11 21 23 24 25 26 29
Mississippi 14 17 28 40 43 45 45 46 48
Missouri 6 11 18 29 32 33 33 35 37
Montana NA NA 13 24 26 26 28 31 34
Nebraska NA 8 12 21 23 25 25 27 30
Nevada 4 11 13 25 33 35 43 36 40
New Hampshire NA 6 11 17 19 22 23 25 26
New Jersey 4 10 21 24 26 28 28 29 30
New Mexico NA NA 16 35 39 42 42 46 49
New York NA NA 24 33 35 38 40 37 38
North Carolina 9 12 19 29 31 32 32 33 37
North Dakota 3 7 9 18 23 23 25 28 30
Ohio 4 NA 18 29 32 33 33 35 37
Oklahoma NA 8 14 25 28 30 31 34 38
Oregon 3 7 15 26 27 29 30 30 33
Pennsylvania 4 10 18 29 32 33 32 33 35
Rhode Island 3 7 16 26 30 32 33 35 37
South Carolina 12 15 23 33 35 37 37 40 42
South Dakota 3 7 13 23 27 28 30 33 35
Tennessee 9 12 20 30 33 33 33 35 38
Texas 5 9 13 18 17 29 30 31 36
Utah 2 4 6 14 15 16 16 17 18
Vermont NA NA 14 20 23 25 26 28 32
Virginia 8 11 19 26 28 29 29 30 31
Washington 3 9 14 24 25 26 27 28 30
West Virginia 6 6 13 25 28 30 31 32 35
Wisconsin 3 8 14 24 26 27 27 29 31
Wyoming 2 7 8 20 24 27 27 29 32

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54 (2), September 2005 and earlier reports.

Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women, by Race/Ethnicity and State 1994 and 2004

State     Non-Hispanic Hispanic
All races White Black
1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004 1994 2004
United States 33 36 21 25 71 69 43 46
Alabama 35 36 16 21 71 71 19 25
Alaska 29 35 21 22 41 39 29 35
Arizona 38 42 25 25 65 61 51 54
Arkansas 33 39 20 28 74 77 31 42
California 36 34 23 21 63 63 46 45
Colorado 25 28 18 19 57 53 44 42
Connecticut 31 31 18 17 70 67 65 62
Delaware 35 42 22 28 74 71 50 58
Dist. of Columbia 69 56 10 6 81 78 59 63
Florida 36 41 24 30 69 67 34 43
Georgia 36 39 18 23 68 67 23 45
Hawaii 28 33 15 24 19 28 44 45
Idaho 19 23 17 19 42 38 25 37
Illinois 34 36 18 22 79 78 38 45
Indiana 32 39 26 33 78 78 42 53
Iowa 25 31 23 28 75 73 37 44
Kansas 26 33 21 28 67 71 39 45
Kentucky 28 35 23 31 73 76 25 49
Louisiana 43 49 21 30 73 77 30 41
Maine 28 34 28 34 45 36 23 32
Maryland 34 36 18 21 64 60 39 49
Massachusetts 27 29 19 20 63 57 62 63
Michigan 35 36 23 27 79 74 42 46
Minnesota 24 29 20 22 75 58 46 52
Mississippi 45 48 18 26 75 77 21 47
Missouri 33 37 24 29 79 77 34 48
Montana 26 34 20 28 29 51 30 41
Nebraska 25 30 20 24 74 70 39 44
Nevada 35 40 27 29 70 69 44 48
New Hampshire 22 26 21 26 33 40 37 40
New Jersey 28 30 13 14 68 65 48 54
New Mexico 42 49 23 28 60 54 49 56
New York 38 38 19 21 70 67 61 62
North Carolina 32 37 17 22 68 68 29 50
North Dakota 23 30 19 23 24 26 26 35
Ohio 33 37 25 30 78 76 50 52
Oklahoma 30 38 23 31 70 72 31 46
Oregon 29 33 27 29 72 65 35 45
Pennsylvania 33 35 23 26 80 75 63 61
Rhode Island 32 37 24 27 70 64 58 61
South Carolina 37 42 19 25 67 73 28 44
South Dakota 28 35 20 25 21 42 33 47
Tennessee 33 38 21 28 75 74 26 49
Texas 29 36 18 24 63 64 31 41
Utah 16 18 13 13 52 46 37 41
Vermont 25 32 25 33 32 49 34 35
Virginia 29 31 18 20 64 62 38 44
Washington 26 30 23 26 56 55 35 44
West Virginia 30 35 29 34 76 77 22 34
Wisconsin 27 31 20 24 82 82 46 48
Wyoming 28 32 25 28 42 46 45 49

Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2006 and earlier reports.

Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, by State: Selected Years 1960-2004

[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State 1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
United States 89 68 56 53 51 60 56 48 41
Alabama 104 90 78 68 64 71 69 61 52
   Alaska 128 103 60 64 56 65 55 49 39
   Arizona 112 79 67 65 67 76 74 68 60
   Arkansas 116 93 84 75 73 80 72 66 60
   California 103 69 52 53 53 71 67 47 40
   Colorado 97 67 51 50 48 55 52 51 44
Connecticut 54 44 32 31 31 39 39 31 24
   Delaware 100 73 49 51 51 55 55 48 44
   Dist. of Columbia 132 116 73 62 72 93 85 53 67
   Florida 117 86 64 59 58 69 60 51 42
   Georgia 117 101 78 72 68 76 70 63 53
Hawaii 77 66 52 51 48 61 49 46 36
   Idaho 102 66 59 59 47 51 49 43 39
   Illinois 63 63 56 56 51 63 58 48 40
   Indiana 100 75 64 57 52 59 57 49 44
   Iowa 73 53 46 43 35 41 38 34 32
Kansas 94 65 57 57 52 56 52 46 41
   Kentucky 108 86 78 72 63 68 62 55 49
   Louisiana 113 84 79 76 72 74 70 62 56
   Maine 93 65 55 47 42 43 34 29 24
   Maryland 100 69 46 43 46 53 47 41 32
Massachusetts 51 40 31 28 29 35 33 26 22
   Michigan 80 69 52 45 43 59 49 40 34
   Minnesota 64 44 36 35 31 36 33 30 27
   Mississippi 121 103 92 84 76 81 79 70 62
   Missouri 99 72 59 58 54 63 55 49 43
   Montana 97 62 54 48 44 48 42 37 36
   Nebraska 82 54 45 45 40 42 38 38 36
   Nevada 118 94 60 59 55 73 73 63 51
   New Hampshire 76 55 41 34 32 33 30 23 18
   New Jersey 58 50 37 35 34 41 38 32 24
   New Mexico 127 79 67 72 73 78 74 66 61
   New York 57 51 38 35 36 44 42 33 27
   North Carolina 104 88 72 58 57 68 63 59 49
   North Dakota 68 44 43 42 36 35 33 27 27
   Ohio 84 65 56 52 50 58 53 46 39
Oklahoma 112 83 76 75 69 67 64 60 56
   Oregon 88 58 48 51 43 55 50 43 33
   Pennsylvania 67 53 44 41 40 45 41 34 31
   Rhode Island 56 43 35 33 36 44 40 34 33
   South Carolina 109 89 73 65 63 71 63 58 52
   South Dakota 83 49 51 53 46 47 41 38 39
   Tennessee 103 88 74 64 61 72 67 60 52
   Texas 115 85 74 74 72 75 76 69 63
   Utah 86 56 54 65 50 49 41 38 34
   Vermont 74 54 43 39 36 34 28 23 21
Virginia 103 76 53 48 46 53 48 41 35
   Washington 88 60 46 47 45 53 48 39 31
   West Virginia 87 72 73 68 54 57 53 47 44
   Wisconsin 64 46 41 40 39 43 38 35 30
   Wyoming 112 71 68 79 59 56 48 42 43

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2004,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55 (1), September 2006 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/nvsr/nvsr.htm).

Table C-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, by Race/Ethnicity and State: Selected Years 1990-2002

[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

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

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.

Appendix D. Technical Notes

Age Categories

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

Annual and Monthly Measures

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

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

Race and Ethnicity

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

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

Family Structure Categories

For the primary measure of dependency, as well as selected indicators and measures, estimates are provided for individual persons by family structure (see SUM 1, IND 1, IND 2, IND 5, and ECON 7). 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 Individuals.

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

Spells

Spells of program recipiency (IND 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 2 or more spells of dependency or receipt, each is counted separately in the analysis.

Unit of Analysis

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


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

Product Type
Report to Congress
Populations
Children