Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2001 . Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

03/01/2001

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother is 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 which 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, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a cash welfare block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.  Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months) on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with federal funds, increasing work participation rate requirements which states must meet, and broad state flexibility on program design.  Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.4 billion per year, slightly above fiscal year 1995 federal expenditures for the four component programs.  States must also meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail work participation rate requirements).

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

Data Issues Relating to the AFDC-TANF Transition

States had the option of beginning their TANF programs as soon as PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, and a few states began TANF programs as early as September 1996.  All states were required to implement TANF by July 1, 1997.  Because states implemented TANF at different times, the FY 1997 data reflects 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 will be spent on activities other than cash payments to families.  When tracking overall expenditure trends, the tables in this Appendix (e.g., Table TANF 3) include only those TANF funds spent on “cash and work-based assistance” and “administrative costs,” not on work activities, supportive services, or other allowable uses of funds.  Spending on these other activities is detailed in Table TANF 5.  Note that TANF administrative costs include funds spent administering all activities, not just cash and work-based assistance.  (Administrative costs under AFDC had included a small amount of funds for administering AFDC child care programs; such programs, and the costs of administering them, have now been 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.  One program change is that there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” program under TANF.  While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC.  Moreover, it is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit.  At present, the vast majority of families receiving “assistance”[1] are, in fact, receiving cash payments; however, this may change over time.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs.  Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figure TANF 1 and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1-6).  These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7) and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8-13).  These data complement the data on trends in AFDC recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 4a and IND 5a in Chapter II.

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Figure TANF 1, Tables TANF 1-2).  Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically during the past several years.  Welfare caseloads peaked at record highs in 1994, when 14.2 million recipients in over 5 million families received AFDC benefits each month.  Since then, the welfare caseload has fallen by 8.3 million recipients to 5.8 million recipients in June 2000, a drop of 59 percent.  This is the largest welfare caseload decline in history and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1968, and the lowest percentage of the population on welfare since 1965.

As shown in Figure TANF 1, AFDC caseloads generally tended to increase in times of economic recession and decline in times of economic growth.  The recent decline, however, has far outstripped that experienced in any previous period.

Several studies have attempted to explain the unprecedented decline in caseloads, and specifically, to disentangle the effects of PRWORA and welfare reform from the simultaneous growth in the U.S. economy.  Separating these effects is difficult, because PRWORA was enacted at a time when the economy was expanding dramatically, offering a uniquely conducive environment within which to move many welfare recipients off the 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 Advisors (1999) of the post-PRWORA period finds that just over one-third of caseload decline can be explained by welfare reform policy, while 8 to 10 percent is due to the economy.  In addition to general labor market conditions, the effects of economic policy post-1996 (namely increases in the minimum wage) explain another 10 to 16 percent of the caseload drop.  In both periods, a large portion of the welfare decline is not explained by the examined variables.  Possible factors that could account for this additional decline include the expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and changing cultural perceptions of welfare receipt.

Recent studies using different modeling techniques and a wider range of outcomes find that the economy may be even more important in the post-1996 period than previously thought.  For example, one study finds that while TANF does have a very strong effect on post-1996 caseload decreases, the economy has a stronger effect than does TANF on trends in work, hours and earnings during the same period. 

The full effect of a robust economy is difficult to capture, partly because most econometric models cannot measure the true interaction between welfare reform and concurrent economic conditions.  The existing models also do not measure precisely the separate effects of additional policy enhancements to make work pay -- such as expansions in EITC, SCHIP/Medicaid, child care, transportation and housing subsidies -- which have occurred over the same period.

AFDC/TANF Expenditures (Tables TANF 3-6 and Figure TANF 2).  Tables TANF 3, 4 and 5 show trends in expenditures on AFDC and TANF.  Table TANF 3 tracks both programs, breaking out the costs of benefits and administrative expenses.  It also shows the division between federal and state spending.  Table TANF 4 breaks out the benefits paid under the single parent or “basic” program and the Unemployed Parent (UP) program, and also nets out the value of child support collected on behalf of recipient children, but retained by the state to reimburse welfare expenditures.  This table presents data through 1996 only, because the TANF data reporting requirements do not require that caseload data be separated into “basic” and “UP” components.  Table TANF 5 shows the variety of activities funded under the TANF program.

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 shows that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit.  In real dollars, the average monthly benefit per recipient in 1998 was only 65 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.  The benefit per person increased in 1999, however, reaching $156 per month.  This level was $20 higher than in 1998, but still below the real value of benefits in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

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 child-only cases and in employment among adult recipients.

One of the most dramatic trends is the recent jump in the proportion of adult recipients who are working.  In FY 1999, 28 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1990.  Similar trends are shown in data on income from earnings.  These trends likely reflect positive effects of welfare-to-work programs, the strong economy, and the fact that, with larger earnings disregards, families with earnings do not exit welfare as rapidly.  In addition, the increased employment of welfare recipients is consistent with broader trends in labor force participation among mothers with young children.  Among single mothers with children under six and family income below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, for example, the employment rate increased from 35 percent in 1992 to 55 percent in 1999.  In addition, employment rates for white, black, and Hispanic women ages 18 to 65 with no more than a high school education were at all-time highs in 1999 (as shown in WORK 2 in Chapter III).

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of child-only cases.  Child only cases have climbed from 11.6 percent of the caseload in FY 1990 to 29.1 percent in FY 1999.  This dramatic growth has been due to both the overall decline in the number of adult-present cases as well as an increase in the number of child-only cases.  Child-only cases are generally not subject to the work requirements or time limits under TANF.

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

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

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends  (Tables TANF 8-14).  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 2000 ranges from 92 percent (Wyoming) to 29 percent (Rhode Island).  Seven 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 May 1995 (Maryland).

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 periods of recession from peak to trough as designated by the National Bureau for Economic Research.  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. Last data point plotted is June 2000.

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


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

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

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993, and unpublished data.


Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads, 1962 – 1999

  Average Monthly Number (In thousands) Children as a Percent of Total Recipients Average Number of Children per Family
Fiscal Year Total Families 1 Total Recipients Unemployed Parent Families Unemployed Parent Recipients Total Children
1962........... 924 3,593 49 224 2,778 77.3 3.0
1963........... 950 3,834 54 291 2,896 75.5 3.0
1964........... 984 4,059 60 343 3,043 75.0 3.1
1965........... 1,037 4,323 69 400 3,242 75.0 3.1
1966........... 1,074 4,472 62 361 3,369 75.3 3.1
1967........... 1,141 4,718 58 340 3,561 75.5 3.1
1968........... 1,307 5,348 67 377 4,011 75.0 3.1
1969........... 1,538 6,147 66 361 4,591 74.7 3.0
1970........... 1,909 7,429 78 420 5,494 74.0 2.9
1971........... 2,532 9,556 143 726 6,963 72.9 2.8
1972........... 2,918 10,632 134 639 7,698 72.4 2.6
1973........... 3,124 11,038 120 557 7,965 72.2 2.5
1974........... 3,170 10,845 95 434 7,824 72.1 2.5
1975........... 3,357 11,067 101 451 7,928 71.6 2.4
1976........... 3,575 11,339 135 593 8,156 71.9 2.3
1977........... 3,593 11,108 149 659 7,818 70.4 2.2
1978........... 3,539 10,663 128 567 7,475 70.1 2.1
1979........... 3,496 10,311 114 506 7,193 69.8 2.1
1980........... 3,642 10,597 141 612 7,320 69.1 2.0
1981........... 3,871 11,160 209 881 7,615 68.2 2.0
1982........... 3,569 10,431 232 976 6,975 66.9 2.0
1983........... 3,651 10,659 272 1,144 7,051 66.1 1.9
1984........... 3,725 10,866 287 1,222 7,153 65.8 1.9
1985........... 3,692 10,813 261 1,131 7,165 66.3 1.9
1986........... 3,748 10,995 254 1,102 7,300 66.4 1.9
1987........... 3,784 11,065 236 1,035 7,381 66.7 2.0
1988........... 3,748 10,920 210 929 7,325 67.1 2.0
1989........... 3,771 10,935 193 856 7,370 67.4 2.0
1990........... 3,974 11,460 204 899 7,755 67.7 2.0
1991........... 4,374 12,592 268 1,148 8,513 67.6 1.9
1992........... 4,768 13,625 322 1,348 9,226 67.7 1.9
1993........... 4,981 14,143 359 1,489 9,560 67.6 1.9
1994........... 5,046 14,226 363 1,510 9,611 67.6 1.9
1995........... 4,879 13,659 335 1,384 9,280 67.9 1.9
1996........... 4,552 12,644 301 1,241 8,671 68.6 1.9
1997 2 ......... 3,947 10,954 275 3 1,158 3 7,781 3 71.0 3 2.0 3
1998........... 3,179 8,770 179 753 4 6,273 71.5 2.0
1999........... 2,643 7,188 NA NA 5,319 74.0 2.0

1 Includes unemployed parent families.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.
3 Based on data from the old AFDC reporting system which was available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year.
4 Estimated based on the ratio of Unemployed Parent recipients to Unemployed Parent families in 1997.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, (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 – 1999

Calendar 1 Year Total Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands) Child Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands) Recipients as a Percent of Total Population 2 Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population 3 Recipients as a Percent of Pretransfer Poverty Population 4 Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population 2 Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty 3
1970........... 8,303 6,104 4.1 32.7 NA 8.8 58.5
1971........... 10,043 7,303 4.9 39.3 NA 10.5 69.2
1972........... 10,736 7,766 5.1 43.9 NA 11.2 75.5
1973........... 10,738 7,763 5.1 46.7 NA 11.3 80.5
1974........... 10,621 7,637 5.0 45.4 NA 11.3 75.2
1975........... 11,131 7,928 5.2 43.0 NA 11.8 71.4
1976........... 11,098 7,850 5.1 44.4 NA 11.8 76.4
1977........... 10,856 7,632 4.9 43.9 NA 11.7 74.2
1978........... 10,387 7,270 4.7 42.4 NA 11.2 73.2
1979........... 10,140 7,057 4.5 38.9 53.1 11.0 68.0
1980........... 10,599 7,295 4.7 36.2 49.2 11.4 63.2
1981........... 10,893 7,397 4.7 34.2 47.1 11.7 59.2
1982........... 10,161 6,767 4.4 29.5 40.6 10.8 49.6
1983........... 10,569 6,967 4.5 29.9 41.9 11.1 50.1
1984........... 10,644 7,017 4.5 31.6 43.6 11.2 52.3
1985........... 10,672 7,073 4.5 32.3 45.0 11.3 54.4
1986........... 10,851 7,206 4.5 33.5 46.6 11.5 56.0
1987........... 10,842 7,240 4.5 33.6 46.7 11.5 55.9
1988........... 10,728 7,201 4.4 33.8 47.7 11.4 57.8
1989........... 10,799 7,286 4.4 34.3 47.6 11.5 57.9
1990........... 11,497 7,781 4.6 34.2 47.1 12.1 57.9
1991........... 12,728 8,601 5.0 35.6 49.1 13.2 60.0
1992........... 13,571 9,189 5.3 35.7 50.8 13.9 60.1
1993........... 14,007 9,460 5.4 35.7 48.5 14.1 60.2
1994........... 13,970 9,448 5.4 36.7 50.0 13.9 61.8
1995........... 13,241 9,013 5.0 36.4 50.1 13.1 61.5
1996........... 12,156 8,355 4.6 33.3 46.4 12.1 57.8
1997........... 10,235 7,3405 3.8 28.8 40.7 10.5 52.0
1998........... 8,250 5,791 3.1 23.9 34.6 8.3 43.0
1999........... 8,250 4,850 2.5 20.9 31.1 6.9 40.1

1 Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates.  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 P60-210 and Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex, April 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000, Internet release date January 2, 2001.
4 The pretransfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families with related children under 18 years of age whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold.  See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book;data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.
5 Average for January through June of 1997.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Poverty in the United States: 1999," Current Population reports, Series P60-210 and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).


Table TANF 3. Total, Federal, and State AFDC/TANF Expenditures, 1970 – 1999 [In millions of dollars]

  Federal Funds
(Current Dollars)
State Funds
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Constant ‘99 Dollars 1 )
 
Fiscal Year Benefits Administrative Benefits Administrative Benefits Administrative Benefits Administrative
1970.............. $2,187 $572 2 $1,895 $309 $4,082 $881 2 $16,722 $3,609
1971.............. 3,008 271 2,469 254 5,477 525 21,480 2,059
1972.............. 3,612 240 3 2,942 241 6,554 481 3 24,821 NA
1973................ 3,865 313 3,138 296 7,003 610 25,473 2,219
1974.............. 4,071 379 3,300 362 7,371 740 24,694 2,479
1975.............. 4,625 552 3,787 529 8,412 1,082 25,686 3,304
1976.............. 5,258 541 4,418 527 9,676 1,069 27,658 3,056
1977.............. 5,626 595 4,762 583 10,388 1,177 27,640 3,132
1978.............. 5,724 631 4,898 617 10,621 1,248 26,513 3,115
1979.............. 5,825 683 4,954 668 10,779 1,350 24,742 3,099
1980.............. 6,448 750 5,508 729 11,956 1,479 24,672 3,052
1981.............. 6,928 835 5,917 814 12,845 1,648 24,103 3,092
1982.............. 6,922 878 5,934 878 12,857 1,756 22,541 3,079
1983.............. 7,332 915 6,275 915 13,607 1,830 22,816 3,069
1984.............. 7,707 876 6,664 822 14,371 1,698 23,114 2,731
1985.............. 7,817 890 6,763 889 14,580 1,779 22,636 2,762
1986.............. 8,239 993 6,996 967 15,235 1,960 23,069 2,968
1987.............. 8,914 1,081 7,409 1,052 16,323 2,133 24,034 3,141
1988.............. 9,125 1,194 7,538 1,159 16,663 2,353 23,570 3,328
1989.............. 9,433 1,211 7,807 1,206 17,240 2,417 23,273 3,263
1990.............. 10,149 1,358 8,390 1,303 18,539 2,661 23,840 3,422
1991.............. 11,165 1,373 9,191 1,300 20,356 2,673 24,918 3,272
1992.............. 12,258 1,459 9,993 1,378 22,250 2,837 26,435 3,371
1993.............. 12,270 1,518 10,016 1,438 22,286 2,956 25,703 3,409
1994.............. 12,512 1,680 10,285 1,621 22,797 3,301 25,614 3,709
1995.............. 12,019 1,770 10,014 1,751 22,032 3,521 24,083 3,849
1996.............. 11,065 1,633 9,346 1,633 20,411 3,266 21,709 3,474
1997 4 ........... 9,746 1,271 7,902 1,128 17,648 2,399 18,278 2,484
1998.............. 7,168 1,125 7,096 1,028 14,264 2,154 14,536 2,195
1999.............. 6,475 1,407 6,975 884 13,449 2,291 13,449 2,291

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.  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 1999 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.
2 Includes expenditures for services.
3 Administrative expenditures only.
4 The Personal Responsibility and Work opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)program.  Under PRWORA, spending categories are not entirely equivalent to those under AFDC: for example administrative expenses under TANF do not include IV-A child care administration (which accounted for 4 percent of1996 administrative expense).
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Systems.


Table TANF 4. Federal and State AFDC Benefit Payments Under the single Parent and Unemployed Parent Programs, Fiscal Years 1970 to1996 [In millions of current and 1996 dollars]

  Cash & Work Based Assistance Work Activities Child Care Adminis tration Systems Transitional Services Other Expenditures Total Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
1997 7,708 467 14 872 109 0 862 10,032
1998 7,168 763 252 938 224 6 1,136 10,487
1999 6,475 1,225 604 1,070 337 17 1,595 11,323
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
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
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

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


Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments, 1962 – 1999

  Monthly Benefit per Recipient

Average Number of Persons per Family

Monthly per Fa(not reduced by CBenefit mily hild Support) Weighted Average1 Maximum Benefit
(per 3-person  Family)
Fiscal Year Current Dollars 1999 Dollars Current Dollars 1999 Dollars Current Dollars 1999 Dollars
1962........... $31 $158 3.9 $121 $614 NA NA
1963........... 31 156 4.0 126 630 NA NA
1964........... 32 157 4.1 131 649 NA NA
1965........... 34 164 4.2 140 683 NA NA
1966........... 35 167 4.2 146 694 NA NA
1967........... 36 168 4.1 150 694 NA NA
1968........... 40 177 4.1 162 723 NA NA
1969........... 43 186 4.0 173 742 186 2 802
1970........... 46 188 3.9 178 730 194 2 796
1971........... 48 187 3.8 180 707 201 2 788
1972........... 51 195 3.6 187 709 205 2 778
1973........... 53 192 3.5 187 680 213 2 774
1974........... 57 190 3.4 194 649 229 2 766
1975........... 63 193 3.3 209 638 243 742
1976........... 71 202 3.2 226 645 257 734
1977........... 78 207 3.1 241 641 271 721
1978........... 83 207 3.0 249 624 284 710
1979........... 87 200 2.9 257 590 301 690
1980........... 94 194 2.9 274 564 320 660
1981........... 96 180 2.9 277 519 326 611
1982........... 103 180 2.9 300 526 331 579
1983........... 106 178 2.9 311 521 336 564
1984........... 110 177 2.9 321 517 352 565
1985........... 112 174 2.9 329 511 369 573
1986........... 116 175 2.9 339 513 383 580
1987........... 123 181 2.9 359 529 393 579
1988........... 127 180 2.9 370 524 404 572
1989........... 131 177 2.9 381 514 412 557
1990........... 135 173 2.9 389 500 421 541
1991........... 135 165 2.9 388 475 425 520
1992........... 136 162 2.9 389 462 419 498
1993........... 131 151 2.8 373 430 414 478
1994........... 134 150 2.8 376 423 420 467
1995........... 134 147 2.8 377 411 418 457
1996........... 135 143 2.8 374 397 422 449
1997 3 ........ 134 139 2.8 373 386 420 435
1998........... 136 138 2.8 374 381 431 439
1999........... 156 156 2.7 424 424 450 450

1 The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC families.
2 Estimated based on the weighted average benefit for a 4-person family.
3 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy families (TANF) program.
Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections.  Constant dollar adjustments to 1999 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.

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 – 1999

        Fiscal year1
  May 1969 May 1975 March 1979 1983 1988 1990 1992 1996 1998 1999
Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8
Number of Child Recipients                    
  One 26.6 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.2 42.5 43.9 42.4 42.3
  Two 23.0 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.3 30.2 29.9 29.6 29.0
  Three 17.7 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.7 15.9
  Four or More 32.5 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.9 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.6 11.0
  Unknown NA NA NA 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.7 1.3 1.8 1.9
Child-Only Families 10.1 12.5 14.6 8.3 9.6 11.6 14.8 21.5 23.4 29.1
Families with Non-Recipients 33.1 34.8 NA 36.9 36.8 37.7 38.9 49.9
Median Months on AFDC/TANF                    
  Since Most Recent Opening 23.0 31.0 29.0 26.0 26.3 23.0 22.5 23.6
Presence of Assistance                    
  Living in Public Housing 12.8 14.6 NA 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.2 8.8 NA 12.6
  Part icipating in Food Stamp                    
  Or Donated Food Program 52.9 75.1 75.1 83.0 84.6 85.6 87.3 89.3 83.5 80.7
Presence of Income                    
  With Earnings NA 14.6 12.8 5.7 8.4 8.2 7.4 11.1 20.6 4 25.2 4
  No Non-AFDC/TANF Income 56.0 71.1 80.6 86.8 79.6 80.1 78.9 76.0 73.0 4 69.9 4
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)                    
  Employed 7.0 6.6 11.3 22.8 27.6
  Unemployed 45.0 43.9
  Not in Labor Force 28.3 25.5
  Unknown 4.0 3.0
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):3                    
  Full-time job 8.2 10.4 8.7 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 4.7
  Part -time job 6.3 5.7 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 5.4
Marital Status (percent of adults)                    
  Single 52.5 58.1
  Married 16.4 18.4
  Separated 11.7 12.3
  Widowed 0.7 0.8
  Divorced 8.8 8.3
  Unknown 9.9 2.0
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):                    
  Incapacitated 11.7 2 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 4.3
  Unemployed 4.6 2 3.7 4.1 8.7 6.5 6.4 8.2 8.3
  Death 5.5 2 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6
  Divorce or Separation 43.3 2 48.3 44.7 38.5 34.6 32.9 30.0 24.3
  Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 2 31.0 37.8 44.3 51.9 54.0 53.1 58.6
  Absent, Other Reason 3.5 2 4.0 5.9 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.4
  Unknown 1.7 0.9 0.6

Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise.
1 Percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in1983.
Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii.
2 Calculated on the basis of total number of families.
3 For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only.
4 Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients,not families, in 1998 and subsequent years.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: Fiscal year 1999 and earlier years, (Current data available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/characteristics/fy98/sum.htm).


Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 1999 [Millions of dollars]

  1978 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999
Alabama $78 $72 $74 $68 $62 $62 $85 $92 $75 $35
Alaska 17 32 37 46 54 60 96 113 107 64
Arizona 30 49 67 79 103 138 243 266 228 122
Arkansas 51 34 39 48 53 57 61 57 52 24
California 1,813 2,734 3,207 3,574 4,091 4,955 5,828 6,088 5,908 4,290
Colorado 74 87 107 107 125 137 163 158 129 55
Connecticut 168 210 226 223 218 295 377 397 323 187
Delaware 28 28 28 25 24 29 37 40 35 23
Dist. of Columbia 91 86 75 77 76 84 102 126 121 80
Florida 145 207 251 261 318 418 733 806 680 285
Georgia 103 172 149 223 266 321 420 428 385 207
Guam 3 4 5 4 3 5 8 12 14 NA
Hawaii 83 88 83 73 77 99 125 163 173 100
Idaho 21 20 21 19 19 20 24 30 30 4
Illinois 699 802 845 886 815 839 883 914 833 540
Indiana 118 139 153 148 167 170 218 228 153 85
Iowa 107 127 159 170 155 152 164 169 131 92
Kansas 73 81 87 91 97 105 119 123 98 46
Kentucky 122 123 135 104 143 179 213 198 191 120
Louisiana 97 127 145 162 182 188 182 168 130 67
Maine 51 59 69 84 80 101 118 108 99 61
Maryland 166 213 229 250 250 296 333 314 285 156
Massachusetts 476 468 406 471 558 630 751 730 560 331
Michigan 780 1,064 1,214 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,162 1,132 779 435
Minnesota 164 235 287 322 338 355 387 379 333 234
Mississippi 33 55 58 74 85 86 89 82 68 27
Missouri 152 175 196 209 215 228 274 287 254 165
Montana 15 19 27 37 41 40 46 49 45 25
Nebraska 38 49 56 62 56 59 65 62 54 68
Nevada 8 12 10 16 20 27 41 48 48 28
New Hampshire 21 25 16 20 21 32 54 62 50 36
New Jersey 489 513 485 509 459 451 527 531 462 301
New Mexico 32 45 49 51 56 61 106 144 153 108
New York 1,689 1,641 1,916 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,944 2,913 2,929 2,105
North Carolina 138 143 149 138 206 247 335 353 300 176
North Dakota 14 14 16 20 22 24 28 26 21 22
Ohio 441 606 725 804 805 877 984 1,016 763 380
Oklahoma 74 74 85 100 119 132 169 165 122 58
Oregon 148 100 101 120 128 145 200 197 155 177
Pennsylvania 726 740 724 389 747 798 906 935 822 530
Puerto Rico 25 65 38 33 67 72 75 74 63 NA
Rhode Island 59 70 71 79 82 99 128 136 125 110
South Carolina 52 76 75 103 91 96 119 115 101 39
South Dakota 18 17 17 15 21 22 25 25 22 11
Tennessee 77 74 83 100 125 168 206 215 190 110
Texas 122 118 229 281 344 416 517 544 496 233
Utah 41 47 52 55 61 64 76 77 64 40
Vermont 21 38 40 40 40 48 67 65 56 52
Virgin Islands 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 NA
Virginia 136 166 165 179 169 177 225 253 199 117
Washington 175 240 294 375 401 438 606 610 585 317
West Virginia 53 56 75 109 107 110 120 126 101 33
Wisconsin 260 406 519 444 506 440 453 425 291 91
Wyoming 6 9 13 16 19 19 27 21 17 10
United States $10,621 $12,857 $14,371 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,250 $22,798 $20,411 $13,016

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid (see Table TANF 3) 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 1999 Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA [In millions]

State FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1 FY 1999 State Family Assistance Grant 2 Increase from FY 1996 Level

Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level

Alabama $75.9 $118.7 $42.8 56
Alaska 58.7 64.5 5.9 10
Arizona 197.8 230.6 32.9 17
Arkansas 51.9 59.8 7.9 15
California 3,622.8 3,751.1 128.4 4
Colorado 158.3 142.7 -15.6 -10
Connecticut 215.3 266.8 51.5 24
Delaware 35.2 32.3 -2.9 -8
Dist of Columbia 70.8 92.6 21.8 31
Florida 497.5 591.8 94.3 19
Georgia 288.4 348.9 60.5 21
Hawaii 97.9 98.9 1.0 1
Idaho 31.3 33.1 1.8 6
Illinois 601.1 585.1 -16.0 -3
Indiana 133.1 206.8 73.7 55
Iowa 128.9 131.5 2.7 2
Kansas 89.8 101.9 12.2 14
Kentucky 157.2 181.3 24.0 15
Louisiana 114.3 172.3 58.0 51
Maine 74.8 78.1 3.3 4
Maryland 214.3 229.1 14.8 7
Massachusetts 353.1 479.4 126.3 36
Michigan 632.2 795.4 163.1 26
Minnesota 220.8 267.4 46.5 21
Mississippi 70.3 91.2 20.8 30
Missouri 195.4 217.1 21.7 11
Montana 40.4 45.5 5.1 13
Nebraska 56.0 58.0 2.0 4
Nevada 41.4 45.8 4.4 11
New Hampshire 34.7 38.5 3.8 11
New Jersey 383.2 404.0 20.9 5
New Mexico 132.1 132.7 0.5 0
New York 2,160.7 2,442.9 282.3 13
North Carolina 312.6 319.8 7.2 2
North Dakota 25.7 26.4 0.7 3
Ohio 543.7 728.0 184.3 34
Oklahoma 118.2 147.6 29.4 25
Oregon 142.0 166.8 24.8 17
Pennsylvania 770.1 719.5 -50.6 -7
Rhode Island 89.5 95.0 5.5 6
South Carolina 94.4 100.0 5.6 6
South Dakota 20.2 21.3 1.1 5
Tennessee 137.4 202.0 64.6 47
Texas 419.0 512.0 92.9 22
Utah 64.7 81.1 16.4 25
Vermont 42.4 47.4 5.0 12
Virginia 121.4 158.3 36.9 30
Washington 415.4 403.3 -12.1 -3
West Virginia 87.7 110.2 22.5 26
Wisconsin 276.4 317.5 41.1 15
Wyoming 15.0 20.8 5.8 39
United States $14,931 $16,713 $1,782 12

1 Excludes IV-A child care.  AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant; 1996 expenditures as reported through February 25, 1997.
2 The awards include State Family Assistance Grants (SFAG) and supplemental Grants for Population Increases. AZ, CA, OK, OR, SD WI, and WY cumulative totals have been adjusted for Tribes operating TANF within the State.
Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services.


Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State, October 1989 to June2000Peak [In thousands]

State Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to June 2000 Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to June 2000 August ‘96 Caseload June 2000 Caseload Percent Decline 1 August ’96 to June 2000 Percent Decline Peak to June 2000
Alabama 52.3 Mar-93 41.0 18.7 54 64
Alaska 13.4 Apr-94 12.2 7.5 38 44
Arizona 72.8 Dec-93 62.4 31.9 49 56
Arkansas 27.1 Mar-92 22.1 12.0 45 56
California 933.1 Mar-95 880.4 489.1 44 48
Colorado 43.7 Dec-93 34.5 10.8 69 75
Connecticut 61.9 Mar-95 57.3 27.1 53 56
Delaware 11.8 Apr-94 10.6 5.8 45 51
Dist. of Columbia 27.5 Apr-94 25.4 22.4 12 18
Florida 259.9 Nov-92 200.9 62.8 69 76
Georgia 142.8 Nov-93 123.3 51.2 58 64
Guam 2.8 Sep-99 2.2 2.8 -23 1
Hawaii 23.4 Jun-97 21.9 14.9 32 36
Idaho 9.5 Mar-95 8.6 1.4 84 85
Illinois 243.1 Aug-94 220.3 85.8 61 65
Indiana 76.1 Sep-93 51.4 35.1 32 54
Iowa 40.7 Apr-94 31.6 20.1 36 51
Kansas 30.8 Aug-93 23.8 12.4 48 60
Kentucky 84.0 Mar-93 71.3 37.5 47 55
Louisiana 94.7 May-90 67.5 25.5 62 73
Maine 24.4 Aug-93 20.0 10.7 47 56
Maryland 81.8 May-95 70.7 28.9 59 65
Massachusetts 115.7 Aug-93 84.7 41.7 51 64
Michigan 233.6 Apr-91 170.0 70.9 58 70
Minnesota 66.2 Jun-92 57.7 39.3 32 41
Mississippi 61.8 Nov-91 46.4 15.0 68 76
Missouri 93.7 Mar-94 80.1 45.9 43 51
Montana 12.3 Mar-94 10.1 4.5 56 64
Nebraska 17.2 Mar-93 14.4 10.1 30 41
Nevada 16.3 Mar-95 13.7 6.9 50 58
New Hampshire 11.8 Apr-94 9.1 5.8 36 51
New Jersey 132.6 Nov-92 101.7 50.1 51 62
New Mexico 34.9 Nov-94 33.4 22.7 32 35
New York 463.7 Dec-94 418.3 248.1 41 46
North Carolina 134.1 Mar-94 110.1 44.7 59 67
North Dakota 6.6 Apr-93 4.8 2.9 40 57
Ohio 269.8 Mar-92 204.2 95.8 53 64
Oklahoma 51.3 Mar-93 36.0 7.3 80 86
Oregon 43.8 Apr-93 29.9 17.1 43 61
Pennsylvania 212.5 Sep-94 186.3 88.0 53 59
Puerto Rico 61.7 Jan-92 49.9 31.3 37 49
Rhode Island 22.9 Apr-94 20.7 16.3 21 29
South Carolina 54.6 Jan-93 44.1 15.5 65 72
South Dakota 7.4 Apr-93 5.8 2.8 52 62
Tennessee 112.6 Nov-93 97.2 55.5 43 51
Texas 287.5 Dec-93 243.5 128.3 47 55
Utah 18.7 Mar-93 14.2 8.2 43 56
Vermont 10.3 Apr-92 8.8 5.9 33 43
Virgin Islands 1.4 Dec-95 1.4 0.8 43 46
Virginia 76.0 Apr-94 61.9 30.1 51 60
Washington 104.8 Feb-95 97.5 54.8 44 48
West Virginia 41.9 Apr-93 37.0 10.7 71 75
Wisconsin 82.9 Jan-92 51.9 16.4 68 80
Wyoming 7.1 Aug-92 4.3 0.6 87 92
United States 5,098 Mar-94 4,409 2,208 50 57

1 Negative values denote percent increase.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Division of Data Collection and Analysis.


Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 –1999 [In thousands]

  1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 1999 Percent Change
1989-94 1994-99
Alabama 78 123 160 180 151 129 132 48 2 -64
Alaska 5 8 12 15 16 19 38 26 96 -32
Arizona 40 51 71 51 72 105 201 90 91 -55
Arkansas 30 45 101 85 64 70 69 29 -0 -58
California 528 1,148 1,362 1,387 1,619 1,763 2,639 1,791 50 -32
Colorado 42 66 96 77 79 97 119 38 22 -68
Connecticut 59 83 125 139 122 106 166 84 56 -50
Delaware 12 20 31 32 24 19 27 15 43 -44
Dist. of Columbia 20 40 103 85 58 48 74 51 55 -31
Florida 106 204 265 256 271 327 669 198 105 -70
Georgia 71 198 354 221 239 266 393 156 48 -60
Guam 1 2 3 5 6 4 7 9 67 27
Hawaii 14 25 47 60 51 43 62 45 45 -28
Idaho 10 16 19 21 17 17 23 3 38 -88
Illinois 262 368 777 672 735 632 712 368 13 -48
Indiana 48 73 162 157 165 147 216 108 47 -50
Iowa 44 64 85 104 123 98 110 59 13 -46
Kansas 36 53 67 68 67 74 87 33 17 -62
Kentucky 81 129 159 167 160 156 208 99 34 -52
Louisiana 104 202 235 213 230 277 248 109 -10 -56
Maine 19 36 80 60 57 51 64 35 27 -45
Maryland 80 131 216 212 195 176 222 88 26 -60
Massachusetts 94 208 347 350 235 242 307 133 27 -57
Michigan 162 253 641 685 691 640 666 261 4 -61
Minnesota 51 76 124 135 152 164 187 123 14 -34
Mississippi 83 115 186 173 155 179 159 39 -11 -76
Missouri 107 140 260 199 197 203 263 132 30 -50
Montana 7 13 22 19 22 28 35 14 26 -60
Nebraska 16 30 38 35 44 41 45 33 10 -26
Nevada 5 12 14 12 14 20 38 20 89 -47
New Hampshire 4 9 26 22 14 13 30 15 139 -49
New Jersey 104 286 440 459 367 298 335 165 13 -51
New Mexico 30 51 61 53 51 59 102 79 74 -22
New York 517 1,052 1,210 1,100 1,112 979 1,255 812 28 -35
North Carolina 111 124 170 198 166 200 333 135 66 -59
North Dakota 8 11 14 13 12 15 16 8 8 -50
Ohio 183 266 535 513 673 629 685 276 9 -60
Oklahoma 73 95 97 89 82 103 131 56 27 -57
Oregon 31 75 99 102 74 87 114 44 31 -61
Pennsylvania 303 426 627 629 561 523 620 298 19 -52
Puerto Rico 202 223 232 168 173 185 183 107 -2 -41
Rhode Island 24 38 52 52 44 42 63 50 50 -21
South Carolina 30 52 135 153 120 107 140 44 30 -69
South Dakota 11 16 25 20 16 19 19 8 1 -57
Tennessee 76 129 201 162 155 195 300 150 53 -50
Texas 91 214 394 308 363 540 788 309 46 -61
Utah 22 33 34 37 38 44 50 29 14 -41
Vermont 5 12 21 23 22 20 28 18 41 -35
Virgin Islands 1 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 11 -11
Virginia 46 87 174 166 154 146 195 89 34 -54
Washington 71 109 143 154 178 219 292 172 33 -41
West Virginia 116 93 69 77 106 109 114 32 5 -72
Wisconsin 45 79 161 213 288 245 226 47 -8 -79
Wyoming 4 5 7 7 10 14 16 2 19 -90
United States 4,323 7,415 11,094 10,597 10,813 10,934 14,226 7,188 30 -49

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Program, Third Annual Report to Congress, August 2000.


Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 1999 [In percent]

  1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 1999 Percent Change
1989-94 1994-99
Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.3 4.6 3.8 3.2 3.1 1.1 -3 -65
Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.1 3.7 3.0 3.5 6.3 4.2 78 -34
Arizona 2.6 2.9 3.1 1.9 2.3 2.9 4.8 1.9 66 -61
Arkansas 1.5 2.3 4.7 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.8 1.1 -5 -60
California 2.9 5.7 6.3 5.8 6.1 6.0 8.4 5.4 40 -36
Colorado 2.2 3.0 3.7 2.6 2.5 3.0 3.3 0.9 10 -71
Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.1 4.5 3.8 3.2 5.1 2.5 57 -50
Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 5.4 3.9 2.9 3.9 2.1 33 -47
Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 14.6 13.3 9.2 7.7 13.1 9.9 71 -25
Florida 1.8 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.6 4.8 1.3 85 -73
Georgia 1.6 4.3 7.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 5.6 2.0 35 -64
Hawaii 1.9 3.2 5.4 6.2 4.9 3.9 5.3 3.8 35 -28
Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.0 0.2 21 -89
Illinois 2.5 3.3 6.9 5.9 6.4 5.5 6.0 3.0 9 -50
Indiana 1.0 1.4 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.8 1.8 41 -52
Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.3 3.5 3.9 2.1 11 -47
Kansas 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.4 1.2 13 -64
Kentucky 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.2 5.4 2.5 28 -54
Louisiana 2.9 5.6 6.1 5.0 5.2 6.5 5.8 2.5 -11 -57
Maine 1.9 3.6 7.5 5.4 4.9 4.2 5.2 2.8 25 -46
Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.2 5.0 4.4 3.7 4.4 1.7 19 -62
Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.0 6.1 4.0 4.0 5.1 2.2 27 -58
Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.0 7.4 7.6 6.9 6.9 2.6 0 -62
Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 2.6 9 -37
Mississippi 3.6 5.2 7.8 6.9 6.0 6.9 6.0 1.4 -14 -77
Missouri 2.4 3.0 5.4 4.0 3.9 4.0 5.0 2.4 25 -52
Montana 1.0 1.9 2.9 2.4 2.7 3.5 4.1 1.6 18 -61
Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.0 7 -28
Nevada 1.2 2.4 2.3 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.6 1.1 48 -57
New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 3.1 2.4 1.4 1.2 2.7 1.3 133 -52
New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.0 6.2 4.9 3.9 4.2 2.0 10 -52
New Mexico 3.0 5.0 5.3 4.1 3.5 3.9 6.2 4.6 59 -26
New York 2.9 5.8 6.7 6.3 6.2 5.4 6.9 4.5 27 -35
North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.1 3.4 2.6 3.1 4.7 1.8 54 -63
North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.3 9 -49
Ohio 1.8 2.5 5.0 4.8 6.3 5.8 6.2 2.4 6 -60
Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.5 3.3 4.0 1.7 24 -59
Oregon 1.6 3.6 4.3 3.9 2.8 3.1 3.7 1.3 18 -64
Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.4 5.1 2.5 17 -52
Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.2 6.3 5.0 51 -20
South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.6 4.9 3.6 3.1 3.8 1.1 23 -70
South Dakota 1.6 2.4 3.6 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.6 1.1 -3 -58
Tennessee 2.0 3.3 4.7 3.5 3.3 4.0 5.8 2.7 44 -53
Texas 0.9 1.9 3.1 2.1 2.2 3.2 4.3 1.5 34 -64
Utah 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 1.4 1 -47
Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.5 4.8 3.0 36 -37
Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 1.3 25 -56
Washington 2.4 3.2 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.6 5.5 3.0 18 -45
West Virginia 6.4 5.3 3.7 4.0 5.5 6.0 6.3 1.8 4 -72
Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 3.5 4.5 6.1 5.0 4.4 0.9 -12 -80
Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.4 0.4 15 -90
United States 2.1 3.5 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.4 5.4 2.6 24 -52

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC recipients in each State during the given fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year.  The numerators are from Table TANF 11.

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available on line at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).


Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients By State, Selected Fiscal Years1965 – 1999 [In thousands]

  1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 1999 Percent 1989-94 Change 1994-99
Alabama 62 96 119 129 105 92 96 38 4 -60
Alaska 4 6 9 10 10 13 24 17 90 -28
Arizona 31 39 54 38 50 74 136 43 85 -69
A rkansas 23 34 75 62 45 50 49 22 -0 -57
California 391 816 943 932 1,070 1,186 1,804 1,381 52 -23
Colorado 33 50 68 53 53 66 80 30 22 -63
Connecticut 43 62 92 97 82 71 111 60 56 -46
Delaware 9 15 23 22 16 13 19 13 41 -32
Dist. of Columbia 16 31 75 59 43 38 51 40 33 -21
Florida 85 160 200 184 191 235 463 155 97 -66
Georgia 54 150 261 161 166 187 274 116 47 -58
Guam 1 1 2 4 4 3 5 7 63 39
Hawaii 10 18 33 40 33 28 41 31 45 -23
Idaho 7 11 14 14 11 11 16 2 36 -86
Illinois 202 283 562 473 493 432 486 277 12 -43
Indiana 36 55 119 111 111 100 145 78 45 -47
Iowa 32 46 59 69 77 63 72 40 13 -44
Kansas 28 41 50 49 45 50 59 24 17 -59
Kentucky 58 93 113 118 107 105 137 72 31 -47
Louisiana 79 157 177 156 163 195 180 105 -8 -42
Maine 14 26 56 40 36 32 40 24 25 -39
Maryland 61 100 157 145 126 117 151 64 28 -57
Massachusetts 71 153 242 228 152 154 197 96 28 -51
Michigan 119 190 454 460 441 414 439 201 6 -54
Minnesota 39 58 89 91 95 105 124 89 18 -28
Mississippi 66 93 144 128 112 129 116 33 -10 -71
Missouri 82 106 193 135 129 134 176 102 31 -42
Montana 6 10 16 13 15 18 23 9 28 -60
Nebraska 12 23 28 25 29 28 31 23 10 -25
Nevada 4 9 10 8 9 14 27 15 89 -43
New Hampshire 3 7 18 15 9 8 19 11 130 -45
New Jersey 79 209 316 318 247 205 228 125 11 -45
New Mexico 23 39 45 35 34 41 66 53 64 -20
New York 380 759 862 759 729 648 813 568 26 -30
North Carolina 83 94 125 141 113 136 223 102 63 -54
North Dakota 6 8 10 9 8 10 11 6 6 -43
Ohio 136 198 373 348 424 411 455 210 11 -54
Oklahoma 55 71 74 65 57 71 90 37 27 -59
Oregon 23 52 67 65 49 58 76 31 30 -60
Pennsylvania 217 307 430 432 369 348 417 212 20 -49
Puerto Rico 161 166 170 118 116 126 124 78 -2 -37
Rhode Island 18 27 37 36 28 28 41 29 50 -31
South Carolina 24 40 100 109 84 77 102 34 33 -67
South Dakota 8 12 18 15 11 13 14 6 3 -54
Tennessee 58 99 150 115 105 133 203 111 53 -45
Texas 68 162 292 225 256 378 549 220 45 -60
Utah 16 23 23 24 24 28 33 19 17 -44
Vermont 4 8 14 14 14 12 17 12 39 -32
Virgin Islands 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 9 -2
Virginia 35 66 125 116 103 100 134 64 34 -52
Washington 50 76 95 97 113 141 187 121 32 -35
West Virginia 80 65 47 58 64 67 72 21 7 -71
Wisconsin 34 60 116 142 181 161 153 36 -5 -77
Wyoming 3 4 5 5 7 9 11 1 22 -88
United States 3,242 5,483 7,952 7,320 7,165 7,370 9,611 5,319 30 -45

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and evaluation, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Program, Third annual Report to Congress, August 2000.


Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965– 1999 [In percent]

  1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 1999 Percent Change
1989-94 1994-99
Alabama 4.6 7.7 9.9 11.1 9.7 8.6 8.9 3.6 4 -60
Alaska 3.1 5.0 6.2 8.0 5.9 7.3 12.8 8.8 76 -31
Arizona 4.8 6.0 7.2 4.8 5.9 7.6 12.1 3.2 60 -74
Arkansas 3.1 5.2 10.9 9.3 7.1 7.9 7.7 3.3 -3 -58
California 6.0 12.3 14.6 14.6 15.6 15.6 20.8 15.5 33 -26
Colorado 4.4 6.4 8.4 6.5 6.1 7.6 8.3 2.8 10 -66
Connecticut 4.4 6.1 9.8 11.8 10.8 9.5 14.2 7.2 49 -49
Delaware 4.7 7.5 12.3 13.4 10.2 8.1 10.5 6.9 30 -34
Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 41.1 40.9 33.9 30.7 44.5 42.1 45 -5
Florida 4.3 7.6 8.4 7.8 7.6 8.4 14.1 4.4 68 -69
Georgia 3.2 9.1 15.5 9.8 10.1 10.8 14.6 5.6 35 -61
Hawaii 3.6 6.5 11.7 14.5 11.6 10.1 13.6 10.9 35 -20
Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.8 4.7 3.6 3.7 4.6 0.6 22 -87
Illinois 5.3 7.5 16.0 14.6 16.1 14.5 15.7 8.7 8 -45
Indiana 2.0 3.0 6.9 6.9 7.5 6.9 9.8 5.1 43 -48
Iowa 3.2 4.7 6.6 8.4 10.2 8.8 9.9 5.6 12 -44
Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.3 7.5 6.9 7.6 8.5 3.4 12 -60
Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.2 10.9 10.5 10.9 14.1 7.4 29 -47
Louisiana 5.5 11.3 13.2 11.8 12.2 15.5 14.6 8.8 -6 -40
Maine 3.9 7.7 16.4 12.5 11.7 10.4 13.1 8.4 26 -36
Maryland 4.6 7.3 11.9 12.4 11.4 10.2 12.0 4.9 18 -59
Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 14.2 15.3 11.2 11.4 13.9 6.6 22 -53
Michigan 3.7 5.8 15.0 16.7 17.7 16.9 17.4 7.8 3 -55
Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.0 7.7 8.5 9.2 10.1 7.0 10 -30
Mississippi 7.0 11.1 17.3 15.7 14.0 17.1 15.3 4.4 -10 -71
Missouri 5.2 6.9 13.2 9.9 9.8 10.2 12.9 7.3 26 -43
Montana 2.0 4.0 6.6 5.7 6.1 7.9 9.7 4.1 22 -58
Nebraska 2.3 4.4 5.8 5.5 6.8 6.5 7.0 5.2 8 -26
Nevada 2.5 5.2 5.4 3.8 3.9 5.0 7.1 3.1 40 -56
New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 6.9 5.8 3.7 3.1 6.6 3.5 118 -47
New Jersey 3.4 8.8 14.1 16.0 13.5 11.3 11.7 6.2 3 -47
New Mexico 5.2 9.5 10.9 8.5 7.8 9.0 13.5 10.7 50 -21
New York 6.3 13.0 16.3 16.2 16.7 15.1 18.0 12.8 19 -29
North Carolina 4.4 5.3 7.2 8.5 7.1 8.5 12.6 5.3 49 -58
North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.9 4.7 4.3 5.7 6.3 3.9 12 -39
Ohio 3.6 5.3 10.9 11.2 14.7 14.6 16.0 7.4 9 -54
Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 8.7 7.6 6.3 8.3 10.4 4.2 24 -60
Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.6 9.0 6.9 8.2 9.7 3.7 18 -62
Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 12.3 13.8 12.9 12.4 14.4 7.4 16 -48
Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 13.3 14.7 12.6 12.1 17.5 11.9 44 -32
South Carolina 2.3 4.2 10.4 11.6 9.1 8.3 10.8 3.5 30 -67
South Dakota 3.1 5.0 8.2 7.1 5.7 6.7 6.6 3.2 -1 -52
Tennessee 4.2 7.5 11.3 8.9 8.6 10.9 15.7 8.3 44 -47
Texas 1.7 4.1 7.1 5.2 5.4 7.9 10.4 3.9 32 -63
Utah 3.7 5.4 5.0 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.9 2.6 9 -47
Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.3 9.9 9.9 8.8 11.7 8.4 33 -28
Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 7.9 7.1 6.7 8.4 3.9 26 -54
Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 8.5 9.7 11.5 13.3 8.1 16 -39
West Virginia 12.2 11.2 8.4 10.4 12.6 14.8 16.8 5.1 13 -70
Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 7.8 10.5 14.2 12.6 11.4 2.7 -9 -77
Wyoming 2.1 3.2 4.1 3.4 4.1 6.6 8.1 1.0 24 -87
United States 4.4 7.6 11.6 11.3 11.2 11.4 14.0 7.5 22 -47

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC child recipients in each State during the given fiscal year as a percent of the resident population under 18 years of age as of july 1 of that year.  The numerators are from Table TANF 13.

Sources:  U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available on line at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).


Endnotes

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

View full report

Preview
Download

"Indicators of Welfare Dependence Annual Report to Congress March 2001 .pdf" (pdf, 430.45Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®