The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), the Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act. This chapter includes information on these three programs, derived primarily from administrative data reported by state and federal agencies instead of the national survey data presented in previous chapters. National caseloads and expenditure trend information on each of the three programs is included, as well as state-by-state trend tables and information on the characteristics of program participants.
-
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
-
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
During the 1990s, the federal government increasingly used its authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to waive portions of the federal requirements under AFDC. This allowed states to test such changes as expanded earned income disregards, increased work requirements and stronger sanctions for failure to comply with them, time limits on benefits, and expanded access to transitional benefits such as child care and medical assistance. As a condition of receiving waivers, states were required to conduct rigorous evaluations of the impacts of these changes on the welfare receipt, employment, and earnings of participants.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) replaced AFDC, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a 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 $16.5 billion per year, slightly above fiscal year 1995 federal expenditures for the four component programs. States must also meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail work participation rate requirements).
TANF gives states wide latitude in spending both Federal TANF funds and state MOE funds. Subject to a few restrictions, TANF funds may be used in any way that supports one of the four statutory purposes of TANF: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at home; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
-
-
Recent Legislative Action
-
Legislative authority for the TANF block grant program expired September 2002. In February 2002, President Bush proposed a plan, Working Toward Independence, to strengthen welfare reform, in order to help families remaining on welfare and other low-income families move toward self-sufficiency. In May 2002, the House of Representatives passed HR 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002, which incorporated all of the key elements of the President’s plan. The Senate did not take up welfare reform legislation in the 107th Congress, so the program was temporarily extended. In February 2003, the House of Representatives passed HR 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003, an updated version of HR 4737, which would implement all of the key elements of the President’s plan. Senate action is expected in 2003.
-
-
Data Issues Relating to the AFDC-TANF Transition
-
States had the option of beginning their TANF programs as soon as PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, and a few states began TANF programs as early as September 1996. All states were required to implement TANF by July 1, 1997. Because states implemented TANF at different times, the FY 1997 data reflect a combination of the AFDC and TANF programs. In some states, limited data are available for FY 1997 because states were given a transition period of six months after they implemented TANF before they were required to report data on the characteristics and work activities of TANF participants.
Because of the greatly expanded range of activities allowed under TANF, a substantial portion of TANF funds are being spent on activities other than cash payments to families. When tracking overall expenditure trends, the tables in this Appendix (e.g., Table TANF 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, 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. Another program change is that under TANF some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs; the TANF caseload figures do not include these families. Finally, 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.
1 States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, child care, transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, generally should not be counted as recipients of TANF “assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” primarily includes payments directed at ongoing basic needs. It includes payments when individuals are participating in community service and work experience (or other work activities) as a condition of receiving payments (e.g., workfare). In addition to cash assistance, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits (provided the families are not employed). It excludes, however, such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.
-
-
AFDC/TANF Program Data
-
The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figure TANF 1 and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1-6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7) and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8-13). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 4a and IND 5a in Chapter II.
-
-
AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends
-
AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Figure TANF 1, Tables TANF 1-2). Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically during the past several years. In fiscal year 2001, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.4 million persons, 57 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in fiscal year 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1968. From the peak of 14.4 million in March 1994, the number of AFDC/TANF recipients dropped by 65 percent to 5.0 million in September 2002. Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the implementation of TANF. These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs.
As shown in Figure TANF 1, AFDC caseloads generally tended to increase in times of economic recession and decline in times of economic growth. The recent decline, however, has far outstripped that experienced in any previous period.
Several studies have attempted to explain the unprecedented decline in caseloads and, specifically, to disentangle the effects of PRWORA and welfare reform from the simultaneous growth in the U.S. economy. Separating these effects is difficult, however, because PRWORA was enacted at a time when the economy was expanding dramatically, offering a uniquely conducive environment within which to move many recipients off the welfare rolls and into the labor market. Other policy changes, most notably expansions in the Earned Income Tax credit,
add further complexity.In general, studies have found that both economic conditions and welfare reform policies have played important roles in the recent caseload decline. A review of a dozen studies concluded that roughly 15 to 30 percent of the caseload decline prior to 1996 was attributed by most studies to welfare policies under waivers to the AFDC rules with approximately 30 to 45 percent of the decline explained by economic conditions (Schoeni and Blank, 2000). A study by the Council of Economic Advisers (1999) of the post-PRWORA period finds that just over one-third of caseload decline can be explained by welfare reform policy, while 8 to 10 percent is due to the economy. A more recent study estimates that over half the decline in caseloads after enactment of PRWORA were attributable to welfare reform (O’Neill and Hill, 2001).
-
-
AFDC/TANF Expenditures
-
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 show 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 2001 was 62 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.
-
-
AFDC/TANF Recipient Characteristics
-
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 2001, 27 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1992, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was at an all-time high of 33 percent in FY 2001 (data not shown). Similar upward trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect positive effects of welfare-to-work programs, the strong economy, and the fact that, with larger earnings disregards, families with earnings do not exit welfare as rapidly. In addition, the increased employment of welfare recipients is consistent with broader trends in labor force participation 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 59 percent in 2000 (data not shown). In addition, employment rates for white and black women ages 18 to 65 with no more than a high school education were at all-time highs in 1999, and for Hispanic women in 2000. There was some leveling off among all three groups in 2001 (as shown in WORK 2 in Chapter III).
Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of cases without an adult recipient (i.e., child-only cases). Such cases occur when the adults are ineligible (because they are a caretaker relative, SSI parent, immigrant parent, or sanctioned parent). Child-only cases have climbed from 11.6 percent of the caseload in FY 1990 to 37.1 percent in FY 2001. 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 B those with the fewest barriers to employment B have already exited the welfare caseload and have stopped coming onto the welfare rolls, leaving a more disadvantaged population remaining. However, as the expectations for welfare recipients have increased, and fewer recipients are totally exempted from work requirements, others have speculated that the most disadvantaged recipients may also have been sanctioned off the rolls or terminated for failure to comply with administrative requirements. In fact, analyses of program data have not found much evidence of an increase or decline in readily observed barriers to employment in the current caseload.
The question of whether the caseload has become more disadvantaged cannot be answered simply through administrative data provided by the states, which do not contain detailed information on such barriers to employment as lack of basic skills, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and disabilities. A few recent studies have found very high levels of these barriers among the TANF population. These studies also have found that the effects of these barriers are interactive; while any one barrier to employment can often be overcome, the more barriers a recipient faces, the less likely she is to find a job and maintain consistent employment over a period of time.
-
-
AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends
-
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 September 2002 ranges from 94 percent (Wyoming) to 29 percent (Nevada). Six states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as June 1997 (Hawaii).
-
-
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. Last data point plotted is September 2002.
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
-
Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 plus unpublished data and Fifth TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2003.
-
-
Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads, 1962 – 2001
-
Average Monthly Number(In thousands) Children asAverage 1 Fiscal Year Total Families 1 Total Recipients Unemployed Parent Families Unemployed Parent Recipients Total Children a Percent of Total Recipients Number of Children per Family 1 Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it
with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.
3 Based on data from the old AFDC reporting system which was available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year.
4 Estimated based on the ratio of Unemployed Parent recipients to Unemployed Parent families in 1997.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, (Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/).1962........... 924 3,593 48 224 2,778 77.3 3.0 1963........... 950 3,834 54 291 2,896 75.5 3.0 1964........... 984 4,059 60 343 3,043 75.0 3.1 1965........... 1,037 4,323 69 400 3,242 75.0 3.1 1966........... 1,074 4,472 62 361 3,369 75.3 3.1 1967........... 1,141 4,718 58 340 3,560 75.5 3.1 1968........... 1,310 5,349 67 377 4,013 75.0 3.1 1969........... 1,539 6,146 66 360 4,591 74.7 3.0 1970........... 1,906 7,415 78 420 5,484 74.0 2.9 1971........... 2,531 9,557 143 726 6,963 72.9 2.8 1972........... 2,918 10,632 134 639 7,698 72.4 2.6 1973........... 3,123 11,038 120 557 7,967 72.2 2.6 1974........... 3,170 10,845 93 434 7,825 72.2 2.5 1975........... 3,342 11,067 100 451 7,928 71.6 2.4 1976........... 3,549 11,369 135 593 8,072 71.0 2.3 1977........... 3,575 11,108 149 659 7,818 70.4 2.2 1978........... 3,528 10,663 128 567 7,475 70.1 2.1 1979........... 3,493 10,311 114 504 7,194 69.8 2.1 1980........... 3,642 10,598 141 612 7,322 69.1 2.0 1981........... 3,871 11,160 208 881 7,614 68.2 2.0 1982........... 3,569 10,431 232 976 6,975 66.9 2.0 1983........... 3,651 10,659 272 1,144 7,051 66.1 1.9 1984........... 3,725 10,866 287 1,222 7,153 65.8 1.9 1985........... 3,692 10,813 261 1,131 7,165 66.3 1.9 1986........... 3,748 10,997 254 1,102 7,300 66.4 1.9 1987........... 3,784 11,065 236 1,035 7,381 66.7 2.0 1988........... 3,748 10,920 210 929 7,325 67.1 2.0 1989........... 3,771 10,934 193 856 7,370 67.4 2.0 1990........... 3,974 11,460 204 899 7,755 67.7 2.0 1991........... 4,374 12,592 268 1,148 8,513 67.6 1.9 1992........... 4,768 13,625 322 1,348 9,226 67.7 1.9 1993........... 4,981 14,143 359 1,489 9,560 67.6 1.9 1994........... 5,046 14,226 363 1,510 9,611 67.6 1.9 1995........... 4,879 13,659 335 1,384 9,280 67.9 1.9 1996........... 4,543 12,645 293 1,241 8,671 68.6 1.9 1997 2........ 3,937 10,935 275 3 1,158 3 7,781 3 71.2 3 2.0 3 1998........... 3,200 8,790 179 754 4 6,273 71.4 2.0 1999........... 2,674 7,188 NA NA 5,319 74.0 2.0 2000........... 2,265 5,943 NA NA 4,385 73.8 1.9 2001........... 2,117 5,420 NA NA 4,055 74.8 1.9
-
-
Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups, 1970 – 2001
-
Calendar Year 1 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 Percentof Pretransfer Poverty Population 4 Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population 2 Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty 3 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: 2001," Current Population Reports, Series P60-219 and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).1970 8,303 6,104 4.1 32.7 NA 8.8 58.5 1971 10,043 7,303 4.9 39.3 NA 10.5 69.2 1972 10,736 7,766 5.1 43.9 NA 11.2 75.5 1973 10,738 7,763 5.1 46.7 NA 11.3 80.5 1974 10,621 7,637 5.0 45.4 NA 11.3 75.2 1975 11,131 7,928 5.2 43.0 NA 11.8 71.4 1976 11,098 7,850 5.1 44.4 NA 11.8 76.4 1977 10,856 7,632 4.9 43.9 NA 11.7 74.2 1978 10,387 7,270 4.7 42.4 NA 11.2 73.2 1979 10,140 7,057 4.5 38.9 53.1 11.0 68.0 1980 10,599 7,295 4.7 36.2 49.2 11.4 63.2 1981 10,893 7,397 4.7 34.2 47.1 11.7 59.2 1982 10,161 6,767 4.4 29.5 40.6 10.8 49.6 1983 10,569 6,967 4.5 29.9 41.9 11.1 50.1 1984 10,643 7,017 4.5 31.6 43.6 11.2 52.3 1985 10,672 7,073 4.5 32.3 45.0 11.3 54.4 1986 10,850 7,206 4.5 33.5 46.6 11.5 56.0 1987 10,841 7,240 4.5 33.6 46.7 11.5 55.9 1988 10,728 7,201 4.4 33.8 47.7 11.4 57.8 1989 10,798 7,286 4.4 34.3 47.6 11.5 57.9 1990 11,497 7,781 4.6 34.2 47.1 12.1 57.9 1991 12,728 8,601 5.0 35.6 49.1 13.2 60.0 1992 13,571 9,189 5.3 35.7 50.8 13.8 60.1 1993 14,007 9,460 5.4 35.7 48.5 14.0 60.2 1994 13,970 9,448 5.3 36.7 50.0 13.8 61.8 1995 13,241 9,013 5.0 36.4 50.1 13.0 61.5 1996 12,156 8,355 4.5 33.3 46.4 11.9 57.8 1997 10,224 7,340 5 3.7 28.7 40.7 10.4 52.0 1998 8,215 5,781 3.0 23.8 34.7 8.1 42.9 1999 6,709 4,836 2.4 20.8 30.9 6.7 39.9 2000 5,700 4,181 2.0 18.2 27.9 5.8 36.1 2001 5,273 3,917 1.9 16.0 25.1 5.4 33.4
-
-
Table TANF 4. Federal and State AFDC Benefit Payments Under the Single Parent and Unemployed Parent Programs, Fiscal Years 1970 to 1996 [In millions of current and 1996 dollars]
-
Fiscal Year (1) Single Parent 1 (2) Unemployed Parent (3) Child Support Collections 2 (4) Net Benefits 3 (1) + (2) minus (3) (5) Net Benefits ( 1996 dollars) 4 >1 Includes payments to two-parent families where one adult is incapacitated.
2 Total AFDC collections (including collections on behalf of foster care children) less payments to AFDC families.
3 Net AFDC benefits--Gross benefits less those reimbursed by child support collections.
4 Constant dollar adjustments to 1996 level were made using a CPI-U-XI fiscal year price index.
Note: Data are not available after 1996 because the TANF data reporting requirements do not require that caseload data be separated into single parent and unemployed parent components.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Management.1970.................. 3,851 231 0 4,082 15,722 1971.................. 4,993 412 0 5,405 19,882 1972.................. 5,972 422 0 6,394 22,715 1973.................. 6,459 414 0 6,873 22,504 1974.................. 6,881 324 0 7,205 22,740 1975.................. 7,791 362 0 8,153 23,363 1976.................. 8,825 525 245 9,105 24,469 1977.................. 9,420 617 395 9,642 24,121 1978.................. 9,624 565 459 9,730 22,870 1979.................. 9,865 522 584 9,803 21,156 1980.................. 10,847 693 593 10,947 21,186 1981.................. 11,769 1,075 659 12,185 21,472 1982.................. 11,601 1,256 771 12,086 19,879 1983.................. 12,136 1,471 865 12,742 20,128 1984.................. 12,759 1,612 983 13,388 20,264 1985.................. 13,024 1,556 901 13,679 19,967 1986.................. 13,672 1,563 951 14,284 20,335 1987.................. 14,807 1,516 1,070 15,252 21,115 1988.................. 15,243 1,420 1,196 15,466 20,569 1989.................. 15,889 1,350 1,286 15,952 20,246 1990.................. 17,059 1,480 1,416 17,123 20,702 1991.................. 18,529 1,827 1,603 18,753 21,583 1992.................. 20,130 2,121 1,824 20,426 22,816 1993.................. 19,988 2,298 1,971 20,315 22,028 1994.................. 20,393 2,404 2,093 20,704 21,871 1995.................. 19,820 2,212 2,215 19,817 20,367 1996.................. 18,438 1,973 2,374 18,037 18,037
-
-
Table TANF 5.Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending Fiscal Years 1997 to 2001 (Millions)
-
Cash & Work-Based Assistance Work Activities Child Care Trans- portation Adminis- tration Systems Transitional Services Other Expenditures Total Expenditures 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.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 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 State Maintenance of EffortExpendituresin SeparateState 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 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
-
-
Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments, 1962 – 2001
-
Monthly Benefit per Recipient Average Number of
Persons per FamilyMonthly Benefit per Family (not reduced by Child Support) Weighted Average 1 Maximum Benefit (per 3-person Family) Fiscal Year Current Dollars 2001 Dollars Current Dollars 2001 Dollars Current Dollars 2001 Dollars 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 2001 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.1962 $31 $168 3.9 $121 $634 NA NA 1963 31 166 4.0 126 650 NA NA 1964 32 167 4.1 131 670 NA NA 1965 34 174 4.2 140 705 NA NA 1966 35 178 4.2 146 716 NA NA 1967 36 179 4.1 150 716 NA NA 1968 40 188 4.1 162 746 NA NA 1969 43 198 4.0 173 766 $186 2 $854 1970 46 200 3.9 178 753 194 2 848 1971 48 200 3.8 180 730 201 2 840 1972 51 207 3.6 187 732 205 2 828 1973 53 205 3.5 187 701 213 2 824 1974 57 202 3.4 194 670 229 2 816 1975 63 206 3.3 209 658 243 791 1976 71 216 3.2 226 665 257 782 1977 78 220 3.1 241 662 271 768 1978 83 221 3.0 249 644 284 756 1979 87 213 2.9 257 609 301 735 1980 94 207 2.9 274 583 320 703 1981 96 192 2.9 277 536 326 651 1982 103 192 2.9 300 543 331 617 1983 106 190 2.9 311 537 336 600 1984 110 189 2.9 321 534 352 602 1985 112 186 2.9 329 527 369 610 1986 115 186 2.9 339 529 383 618 1987 123 193 2.9 359 546 393 617 1988 127 192 2.9 370 541 404 609 1989 131 189 2.9 381 531 412 593 1990 135 185 2.9 389 516 421 577 1991 135 176 2.9 388 490 425 554 1992 136 172 2.9 389 477 419 530 1993 131 161 2.8 373 444 414 509 1994 134 160 2.8 376 437 420 497 1995 134 157 2.8 376 425 418 487 1996 135 152 2.8 374 410 422 478 1997 3 130 144 2.8 362 405 420 464 1998 130 142 2.7 358 406 432 469 1999 133 142 2.7 357 439 452 481 2000 133 138 2.6 349 428 453 468 2001 137 137 2.6 351 351 456 456
-
-
Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families, Selected Years 1969 – 2001
-
May
1969May
1975March
1979Fiscal year1 1983 1988 1992 1996 1998 2000 2001 Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise.
1 Percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983.
Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii.
2 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 Family Assistance, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: 2002 TANF Annual Report to Congress and earlier years.Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 Number of Child Recipients One 26.6 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.5 43.9 42.4 44.2 44.8 Two 23.0 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.2 29.9 29.6 28.4 28.5 Three 17.7 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.7 15.3 14.8 Four or More 32.5 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.6 10.1 9.9 Unknown NA NA NA 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 Child-Only Families 10.1 12.5 14.6 8.3 9.6 14.8 21.5 23.4 34.5 37.1 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 NA 17.7 20.0 Participating in Food Stamp Or Donated Food Program 52.9 75.1 75.1 83.0 84.6 87.3 89.3 83.5 79.9 80.9 Presence of Income With Earnings NA 14.6 12.8 5.7 8.4 7.4 11.1 20.6 4 23.6 4 24.3 4 No Non-AFDC/TANF Income 56.0 71.1 80.6 86.8 79.6 78.9 76.0 73.0 4 71.6 4 77.2 4 Adult Employment Status (percent of adults) Employed – – – – – 6.6 11.3 22.8 26.4 26.7 Unemployed – – – – – – – 45.0 49.2 47.5 Not in Labor Force – – – – – – – 28.3 24.3 25.8 Unknown – – – – – – – 4.0 – – Adult Women's employment status (percent ofadult female recipients):3 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 – – – – – – – 52.5 65.3 66.9 Married – – – – – – – 16.4 12.4 11.7 Separated – – – – – – – 11.7 13.1 12.5 Widowed – – – – – – – 0.7 0.7 0.8 Divorced – – – – – – – 8.8 8.5 8.2 Unknown – – – – – – – 9.9 – – Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children): Incapacitated 11.7 2 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3 – – – Unemployed 4.6 2 3.7 4.1 8.7 6.5 8.2 8.3 – – – Death 5.5 2 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 – – – Divorce or Separation 43.3 2 2 48.3 44.7 38.5 34.6 30.0 24.3 – – – Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 31.0 37.8 44.3 51.9 53.1 58.6 – – – Absent, Other Reason 3.5 2 4.0 5.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.4 – – – Unknown – – – 1.7 – 0.9 0.6 – – –
-
-
Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2001
-
1978 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1996 1998 2001 Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid (see Table TANF 3) but does not include emergency assistance payments. NA denotes data not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management Services, data from the ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report.Alabama $78 $72 $74 $68 $62 $62 $92 $75 $44 $32 Alaska 17 32 37 46 54 60 113 107 77 51 Arizona 30 49 67 79 103 138 266 228 145 91 Arkansas 51 34 39 48 53 57 57 52 26 25 California 1,813 2,734 3,207 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 5,908 4,128 3,301 Colorado 74 87 107 107 125 137 158 129 80 55 Connecticut 168 210 226 223 218 295 397 323 305 151 Delaware 28 28 28 25 24 29 40 35 24 21 Dist. of Columbia 91 86 75 77 76 84 126 121 97 67 Florida 145 207 251 261 318 418 806 680 357 251 Georgia 103 172 149 223 266 321 428 385 313 172 Guam 3 4 5 4 3 5 12 14 NA NA Hawaii 83 88 83 73 77 99 163 173 153 126 Idaho 21 20 21 19 19 20 30 30 6 5 Illinois 699 802 845 886 815 839 914 833 771 191 Indiana 118 139 153 148 167 170 228 153 104 120 Iowa 107 127 159 170 155 152 169 131 104 78 Kansas 73 81 87 91 97 105 123 98 41 56 Kentucky 122 123 135 104 143 179 198 191 147 113 Louisiana 97 127 145 162 182 188 168 130 103 66 Maine 51 59 69 84 80 101 108 99 80 68 Maryland 166 213 229 250 250 296 314 285 192 224 Massachusetts 476 468 406 471 558 630 730 560 442 143 Michigan 780 1,064 1,214 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 779 589 329 Minnesota 164 235 287 322 338 355 379 333 276 184 Mississippi 33 55 58 74 85 86 82 68 60 31 Missouri 152 175 196 209 215 228 287 254 180 148 Montana 15 19 27 37 41 40 49 45 30 26 Nebraska 38 49 56 62 56 59 62 54 41 39 Nevada 8 12 10 16 20 27 48 48 39 25 New Hampshire 21 25 16 20 21 32 62 50 39 27 New Jersey 489 513 485 509 459 451 531 462 372 199 New Mexico 32 45 49 51 56 61 144 153 104 111 New York 1,689 1,641 1,916 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,929 2,149 1,620 North Carolina 138 143 149 138 206 247 353 300 211 128 North Dakota 14 14 16 20 22 24 26 21 22 13 Ohio 441 606 725 804 805 877 1,016 763 546 336 Oklahoma 74 74 85 100 119 132 165 122 72 53 Oregon 148 100 101 120 128 145 197 155 141 73 Pennsylvania 726 740 724 389 747 798 935 822 523 305 Puerto Rico 25 65 38 33 67 72 74 63 NA NA Rhode Island 59 70 71 79 82 99 136 125 117 88 South Carolina 52 76 75 103 91 96 115 101 52 33 South Dakota 18 17 17 15 21 22 25 22 14 10 Tennessee 77 74 83 100 125 168 215 190 108 123 Texas 122 118 229 281 344 416 544 496 315 242 Utah 41 47 52 55 61 64 77 64 50 39 Vermont 21 38 40 40 40 48 65 56 47 35 Virgin Islands 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 NA NA Virginia 136 166 165 179 169 177 253 199 123 103 Washington 175 240 294 375 401 438 610 585 450 288 West Virginia 53 56 75 109 107 110 126 101 52 64 Wisconsin 260 406 519 444 506 440 425 291 145 81 Wyoming 6 9 13 16 19 19 21 17 7 4 United States $10,621 $12,857 $14,371 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $20,411 $14,614 $ 10,163
-
-
Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs and 2001 Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA [in Millions]
-
State FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1 FY 2001 State Family Assistance Grant 2 Increase from FY 1996 Level Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level 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 2001 awards include State Family Assistance Grants, Supplemental Grants for Population Increases, Out of Wedlock Bonus and High Performance Bonus.
Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services.Alabama $79.0 $134.1 $55.1 70 Alaska 60.7 60.3 -0.4 -1 Arizona 200.6 233.0 32.4 16 Arkansas 54.3 65.8 11.5 21 California 3,545.6 3,764.6 219.1 6 Colorado 138.9 149.6 10.7 8 Connecticut 221.1 269.4 48.3 22 Delaware 30.2 32.9 2.7 9 Dist of Columbia 77.1 119.4 42.2 55 Florida 504.7 643.6 138.9 28 Georgia 301.2 368.0 66.8 22 Hawaii 98.4 103.9 5.5 6 Idaho 31.3 35.5 4.2 13 Illinois 593.8 601.8 7.9 1 Indiana 121.4 208.8 87.4 72 Iowa 129.3 131.5 2.2 2 Kansas 86.9 101.9 15.0 17 Kentucky 171.6 181.3 9.6 6 Louisiana 122.4 181.0 58.6 48 Maine 73.2 78.1 4.9 7 Maryland 207.6 229.1 21.5 10 Massachusetts 372.0 352.5 -19.6 -5 Michigan 581.5 800.4 218.9 38 Minnesota 239.3 269.8 30.4 13 Mississippi 68.6 98.2 29.6 43 Missouri 207.9 223.0 15.1 7 Montana 39.2 46.4 7.2 18 Nebraska 56.2 57.9 1.7 3 Nevada 41.2 49.9 8.7 21 New Hampshire 36.0 38.5 2.5 7 New Jersey 353.4 411.7 58.3 16 New Mexico 129.9 132.5 2.5 2 New York 2,332.7 2,442.9 110.2 5 North Carolina 311.9 346.6 34.7 11 North Dakota 24.5 27.7 3.2 13 Ohio 564.5 728.0 163.5 29 Oklahoma 125.1 151.7 26.5 21 Oregon 146.4 166.8 20.4 14 Pennsylvania 780.1 719.5 -60.6 -8 Rhode Island 82.9 95.0 12.2 15 South Carolina 99.4 100.0 0.5 1 South Dakota 19.7 21.3 1.5 8 Tennessee 178.9 222.7 43.7 24 Texas 437.1 563.3 126.2 29 Utah 68.0 85.8 17.8 26 Vermont 42.4 47.4 5.0 12 Virginia 134.6 166.2 31.6 23 Washington 393.2 402.2 9.0 2 West Virginia 95.1 112.1 17.0 18 Wisconsin 241.6 332.8 91.2 38 Wyoming 14.4 20.1 5.7 40 United States $15,067 $16,926 $1,859 12
-
-
Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State, October 1989 to September 2002 Peak [In thousands]
-
State Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to Sept ’02 Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to Sept ’02 Sept ’96 Caseload Sept ’02 Caseload Percent Decline 1 Sept ’96 to Sept ’02 Percent Decline Peak to Sept ’02 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.Alabama 52.3 Mar-93 40.7 17.9 56 66 Alaska 13.4 Apr-94 12.3 5.6 55 58 Arizona 72.8 Dec-93 61.8 43.9 29 40 Arkansas 27.1 Mar-92 22.1 11.7 47 57 California 933.1 Mar-95 870.3 454.2 48 51 Colorado 43.7 Dec-93 33.6 12.4 63 72 Connecticut 61.9 Mar-95 57.1 22.6 60 63 Delaware 11.8 Apr-94 10.5 5.6 47 53 Dist. of Columbia 27.5 Apr-94 25.1 16.4 35 40 Florida 259.9 Nov-92 200.3 58.3 71 78 Georgia 142.8 Nov-93 120.9 54.9 55 62 Guam 3.1 Apr-02 2.3 3.1 -36 0 Hawaii 23.4 Jun-97 21.9 10.3 53 56 Idaho 9.5 Mar-95 8.4 1.4 83 85 Illinois 243.1 Aug-94 217.8 42.5 80 83 Indiana 76.1 Sep-93 49.7 52.1 -5 32 Iowa 40.7 Apr-94 31.1 19.9 36 51 Kansas 30.8 Aug-93 23.4 14.7 37 52 Kentucky 84.0 Mar-93 70.4 34.7 51 59 Louisiana 94.7 May-90 66.5 23.1 65 76 Maine 24.4 Aug-93 19.7 9.3 53 62 Maryland 81.8 May-95 68.9 25.9 62 68 Massachusetts 115.7 Aug-93 84.3 48.4 43 58 Michigan 233.6 Apr-91 167.5 69.4 59 70 Minnesota 66.2 Jun-92 57.2 36.9 35 44 Mississippi 61.8 Nov-91 45.2 19.3 57 69 Missouri 93.7 Mar-94 79.1 43.7 45 53 Montana 12.3 Mar-94 9.8 5.8 41 53 Nebraska 17.2 Mar-93 14.4 10.6 26 38 Nevada 16.3 Mar-95 13.2 11.6 12 29 New Hampshire 11.8 Apr-94 8.9 6.1 31 48 New Jersey 132.6 Nov-92 100.8 40.5 60 69 New Mexico 34.9 Nov-94 33.0 16.6 50 52 New York 463.7 Dec-94 412.7 151.5 63 67 North Carolina 134.1 Mar-94 107.5 41.2 62 69 North Dakota 6.6 Apr-93 4.7 3.3 29 50 Ohio 269.8 Mar-92 201.9 83.5 59 69 Oklahoma 51.3 Mar-93 35.3 15.3 57 70 Oregon 43.8 Apr-93 28.5 18.0 37 59 Pennsylvania 212.5 Sep-94 180.1 78.8 56 63 Puerto Rico 61.7 Jan-92 49.5 18.6 62 70 Rhode Island 22.9 Apr-94 20.5 13.7 33 40 South Carolina 54.6 Jan-93 42.9 20.4 52 63 South Dakota 7.4 Apr-93 5.7 2.8 51 62 Tennessee 112.6 Nov-93 96.2 65.6 32 42 Texas 287.5 Dec-93 238.8 131.7 45 54 Utah 18.7 Mar-93 14.0 8.0 43 57 Vermont 10.3 Apr-92 8.7 5.0 42 51 Virgin Islands 1.4 Dec-95 1.3 0.5 65 67 Virginia 76.0 Apr-94 60.5 30.4 50 60 Washington 104.8 Feb-95 96.8 52.0 46 50 West Virginia 41.9 Apr-93 37.6 15.3 59 64 Wisconsin 82.9 Jan-92 49.9 19.4 61 77 Wyoming 7.1 Aug-92 4.3 0.4 90 94 United States 5,098 Mar-94 4,346 2,025 53 60
-
-
Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years [In thousands]
-
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 2001 PercentChange 1989-94 1994-01 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2002 TANF Report to Congress. Alabama 78 123 160 180 151 129 132 44 2 -67 Alaska 5 8 12 15 16 19 38 17 96 -55 Arizona 40 51 71 51 72 105 201 83 91 -59 Arkansas 30 45 101 85 64 70 69 28 -0 -60 California 528 1,148 1,355 1,387 1,619 1,763 2,639 1,185 50 -55 Colorado 42 66 96 77 79 97 119 27 22 -77 Connecticut 59 83 125 139 122 106 166 60 56 -64 Delaware 12 20 31 32 24 19 27 12 43 -55 Dist. of Columbia 20 40 103 85 58 48 74 43 55 -42 Florida 106 204 265 256 271 327 669 125 105 -81 Georgia 71 198 354 221 239 266 393 121 48 -69 Guam 1 2 3 5 6 4 7 10 67 43 Hawaii 14 25 47 60 51 43 62 41 45 -33 Idaho 10 16 19 21 17 17 23 2 38 -90 Illinois 262 368 776 672 735 632 712 183 13 -74 Indiana 48 73 162 157 165 147 216 116 47 -47 Iowa 44 64 85 104 123 98 110 54 13 -51 Kansas 36 53 67 68 67 74 87 33 17 -62 Kentucky 81 129 159 167 160 156 208 82 34 -61 Louisiana 104 202 235 213 230 277 248 66 -10 -74 Maine 19 36 80 60 57 51 64 26 27 -59 Maryland 80 131 216 212 195 176 222 68 26 -69 Massachusetts 94 208 347 350 235 242 307 100 27 -67 Michigan 162 253 641 685 691 640 666 193 4 -71 Minnesota 51 76 124 135 152 164 187 113 14 -40 Mississippi 83 115 186 173 155 179 159 36 -11 -78 Missouri 107 140 260 199 197 203 263 121 30 -54 Montana 7 13 22 19 22 28 35 14 26 -60 Nebraska 16 30 38 35 44 41 45 24 10 -47 Nevada 5 12 14 12 14 20 38 19 89 -49 New Hampshire 4 9 26 22 14 13 30 13 139 -56 New Jersey 104 286 440 459 367 298 335 113 13 -66 New Mexico 30 51 61 53 51 59 102 55 74 -46 New York 517 1,052 1,193 1,100 1,112 979 1,255 613 28 -51 North Carolina 111 124 170 198 166 200 333 93 66 -72 North Dakota 8 11 14 13 12 15 16 8 8 -53 Ohio 183 266 534 513 673 629 685 199 9 -71 Oklahoma 73 95 97 89 82 103 131 35 27 -73 Oregon 31 75 99 102 74 87 114 37 31 -68 Pennsylvania 303 426 626 629 561 523 620 216 19 -65 Puerto Rico 202 223 232 168 173 185 183 75 -2 -59 Rhode Island 24 38 52 52 44 42 63 42 50 -34 South Carolina 30 52 135 153 120 107 140 45 30 -68 South Dakota 11 16 25 20 16 19 19 6 1 -67 Tennessee 76 129 201 162 155 195 300 155 53 -48 Texas 91 214 394 308 363 540 788 349 46 -56 Utah 22 33 34 37 38 44 50 19 14 -62 Vermont 5 12 21 23 22 20 28 15 41 -47 Virgin Islands 1 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 11 -32 Virginia 46 87 174 166 154 146 195 65 34 -67 Washington 71 109 143 154 178 219 292 141 33 -51 West Virginia 116 93 69 77 106 109 114 39 5 -66 Wisconsin 45 79 160 213 288 245 226 40 -8 -82 Wyoming 4 5 7 7 10 14 16 1 19 -94 United States 4,323 7,415 11,067 10,597 10,813 10,935 14,226 5,423 30 -62
-
-
Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years [In percent]
-
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 2001 Percent Change 1989-94 1994-01 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/).Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.3 4.6 3.8 3.2 3.1 1.0 -3 -69 Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.1 3.7 3.0 3.5 6.3 2.7 78 -58 Arizona 2.6 2.9 3.1 1.9 2.3 2.9 4.8 1.6 66 -68 Arkansas 1.5 2.3 4.7 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.8 1.0 -5 -64 California 2.9 5.7 6.3 5.8 6.1 6.0 8.4 3.4 40 -59 Colorado 2.2 3.0 3.7 2.6 2.5 3.0 3.3 0.6 10 -81 Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.1 4.5 3.8 3.2 5.1 1.7 57 -66 Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 5.4 3.9 2.9 3.9 1.5 33 -60 Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 14.6 13.3 9.2 7.7 13.1 7.5 71 -43 Florida 1.8 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.6 4.8 0.8 85 -84 Georgia 1.6 4.3 7.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 5.6 1.4 35 -74 Hawaii 1.9 3.2 5.4 6.2 4.9 3.9 5.3 3.4 35 -36 Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.0 0.2 21 -92 Illinois 2.5 3.3 6.9 5.9 6.4 5.5 6.0 1.5 9 -76 Indiana 1.0 1.4 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 3.8 1.9 41 -50 Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.3 3.5 3.9 1.8 11 -53 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 2.0 28 -63 Louisiana 2.9 5.6 6.1 5.0 5.2 6.5 5.8 1.5 -11 -75 Maine 1.9 3.6 7.5 5.4 4.9 4.2 5.2 2.0 25 -61 Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.2 5.0 4.4 3.7 4.4 1.3 19 -72 Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.0 6.1 4.0 4.0 5.1 1.6 27 -69 Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.0 7.4 7.6 6.9 6.9 1.9 0 -72 Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 2.3 9 -45 Mississippi 3.6 5.2 7.8 6.9 6.0 6.9 6.0 1.2 -14 -79 Missouri 2.4 3.0 5.4 4.0 3.9 4.0 5.0 2.2 25 -57 Montana 1.0 1.9 2.9 2.4 2.7 3.5 4.1 1.5 18 -62 Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.8 1.4 7 -50 Nevada 1.2 2.4 2.3 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.6 0.9 48 -65 New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 3.1 2.4 1.4 1.2 2.7 1.1 133 -60 New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.0 6.2 4.9 3.9 4.2 1.3 10 -69 New Mexico 3.0 5.0 5.3 4.1 3.5 3.9 6.2 3.0 59 -51 New York 2.9 5.8 6.7 6.3 6.2 5.4 6.9 3.2 27 -53 North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.1 3.4 2.6 3.1 4.7 1.1 54 -76 North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.2 9 -52 Ohio 1.8 2.5 5.0 4.8 6.3 5.8 6.2 1.8 6 -72 Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.5 3.3 4.0 1.0 24 -75 Oregon 1.6 3.6 4.3 3.9 2.8 3.1 3.7 1.1 18 -71 Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.4 5.1 1.8 17 -66 Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.2 6.3 3.9 51 -38 South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.6 4.9 3.6 3.1 3.8 1.1 23 -71 South Dakota 1.6 2.4 3.6 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.6 0.8 -3 -68 Tennessee 2.0 3.3 4.7 3.5 3.3 4.0 5.8 2.7 44 -54 Texas 0.9 1.9 3.1 2.1 2.2 3.2 4.3 1.6 34 -62 Utah 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 0.8 1 -67 Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.5 4.8 2.4 36 -50 Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 0.9 25 -70 Washington 2.4 3.2 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.6 5.5 2.4 18 -57 West Virginia 6.4 5.3 3.7 4.0 5.5 6.0 6.3 2.2 4 -66 Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 3.5 4.5 6.1 5.0 4.4 0.7 -12 -83 Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.4 0.2 15 -94 United States 2.1 3.5 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.4 5.4 1.9 24 -65
-
-
Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients By State, Selected Fiscal Years [In thousands]
-
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 2001 Percent Change 1989-94 1994-01 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2002 TANF Report to Congress. Alabama 62 96 119 129 105 92 96 47 4 -51 Alaska 4 6 9 10 10 13 24 12 90 -52 Arizona 31 39 54 38 50 74 136 59 85 -57 Arkansas 23 34 75 62 45 50 49 20 -0 -59 California 391 816 938 932 1,070 1,186 1,804 955 52 -47 Colorado 33 50 68 53 53 66 80 20 22 -75 Connecticut 43 62 92 97 82 71 111 42 56 -63 Delaware 9 15 23 22 16 13 19 10 41 -48 Dist. of Columbia 16 31 75 59 43 38 51 32 33 -36 Florida 85 160 200 184 191 235 463 103 97 -78 Georgia 54 150 261 161 166 187 274 94 47 -66 Guam 1 1 2 4 4 3 5 NA 63 NA Hawaii 10 18 33 40 33 28 41 25 45 -39 Idaho 7 11 14 14 11 11 16 2 36 -88 Illinois 202 283 562 473 493 432 486 142 12 -71 Indiana 36 55 119 111 111 100 145 80 45 -45 Iowa 32 46 59 69 77 63 72 37 13 -48 Kansas 28 41 50 49 45 50 59 24 17 -60 Kentucky 58 93 113 118 107 105 137 59 31 -57 Louisiana 79 157 177 156 163 195 180 50 -8 -72 Maine 14 26 56 40 36 32 40 17 25 -58 Maryland 61 100 157 145 126 117 151 51 28 -66 Massachusetts 71 153 242 228 152 154 197 68 28 -65 Michigan 119 190 454 460 441 414 439 142 6 -68 Minnesota 39 58 89 91 95 105 124 79 18 -37 Mississippi 66 93 144 128 112 129 116 28 -10 -76 Missouri 82 106 193 135 129 134 176 89 31 -50 Montana 6 10 16 13 15 18 23 9 28 -59 Nebraska 12 23 28 25 29 28 31 17 10 -44 Nevada 4 9 10 8 9 14 27 14 89 -49 New Hampshire 3 7 18 15 9 8 19 9 130 -52 New Jersey 79 209 316 318 247 205 228 84 11 -63 New Mexico 23 39 45 35 34 41 66 38 64 -42 New York 380 759 845 759 729 648 813 434 26 -47 North Carolina 83 94 125 141 113 136 223 71 63 -68 North Dakota 6 8 10 9 8 10 11 6 6 -49 Ohio 136 198 372 348 424 411 455 149 11 -67 Oklahoma 55 71 74 65 57 71 90 26 27 -71 Oregon 23 52 67 65 49 58 76 27 30 -65 Pennsylvania 217 307 429 432 369 348 417 156 20 -62 Puerto Rico 161 166 170 118 116 126 124 54 -2 -56 Rhode Island 18 27 37 36 28 28 41 29 50 -29 South Carolina 24 40 100 109 84 77 102 31 33 -70 South Dakota 8 12 18 15 11 13 14 5 3 -63 Tennessee 58 99 149 115 105 133 203 114 53 -44 Texas 68 162 292 225 256 378 549 258 45 -53 Utah 16 23 23 24 24 28 33 14 17 -59 Vermont 4 8 14 14 14 12 17 9 39 -46 Virgin Islands 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 9 -25 Virginia 35 66 125 116 103 100 134 48 34 -64 Washington 50 76 95 97 113 141 187 100 32 -46 West Virginia 80 65 47 58 64 67 72 27 7 -63 Wisconsin 34 60 116 142 181 161 153 35 -5 -77 Wyoming 3 4 5 5 7 9 11 1 22 -93 United States 3,242 5,483 7,928 7,320 7,165 7,370 9,611 4,055 30 -51
-
-
Table TANF 14.AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2001 [In percent]
-
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 2001 Percent Change 1989-94 1994-01 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/).Alabama 4.6 7.7 9.9 11.1 9.7 8.6 8.9 4.2 4 -53 Alaska 3.1 5.0 6.2 8.0 5.9 7.3 12.8 6.0 76 -53 Arizona 4.8 6.0 7.2 4.8 5.9 7.6 12.1 4.3 60 -65 Arkansas 3.1 5.2 10.9 9.3 7.1 7.9 7.7 3.0 -3 -61 California 6.0 12.3 14.5 14.6 15.6 15.6 20.8 10.3 33 -51 Colorado 4.4 6.4 8.4 6.5 6.1 7.6 8.3 1.9 10 -78 Connecticut 4.4 6.1 9.8 11.8 10.8 9.5 14.2 4.9 49 -65 Delaware 4.7 7.5 12.3 13.4 10.2 8.1 10.5 4.9 30 -53 Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 41.1 40.9 33.9 30.7 44.5 28.2 45 -37 Florida 4.3 7.6 8.4 7.8 7.6 8.4 14.1 2.8 68 -80 Georgia 3.2 9.1 15.5 9.8 10.1 10.8 14.6 4.3 35 -70 Hawaii 3.6 6.5 11.7 14.5 11.6 10.1 13.6 8.4 35 -38 Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.8 4.7 3.6 3.7 4.6 0.5 22 -89 Illinois 5.3 7.5 16.0 14.6 16.1 14.5 15.7 4.3 8 -72 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 5.0 12 -49 Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.3 7.5 6.9 7.6 8.5 3.3 12 -61 Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.2 10.9 10.5 10.9 14.1 6.0 29 -58 Louisiana 5.5 11.3 13.2 11.8 12.2 15.5 14.6 4.1 -6 -72 Maine 3.9 7.7 16.4 12.5 11.7 10.4 13.1 5.6 26 -57 Maryland 4.6 7.3 11.9 12.4 11.4 10.2 12.0 3.7 18 -69 Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 14.2 15.3 11.2 11.4 13.9 4.5 22 -67 Michigan 3.7 5.8 15.0 16.7 17.7 16.9 17.4 5.5 3 -69 Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.0 7.7 8.5 9.2 10.1 6.1 10 -40 Mississippi 7.0 11.1 17.3 15.7 14.0 17.1 15.3 3.6 -10 -77 Missouri 5.2 6.9 13.2 9.9 9.8 10.2 12.9 6.2 26 -52 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 3.9 8 -45 Nevada 2.5 5.2 5.4 3.8 3.9 5.0 7.1 2.7 40 -62 New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 6.9 5.8 3.7 3.1 6.6 3.0 118 -55 New Jersey 3.4 8.8 14.1 16.0 13.5 11.3 11.7 4.0 3 -66 New Mexico 5.2 9.5 10.9 8.5 7.8 9.0 13.5 7.5 50 -44 New York 6.3 13.0 15.9 16.2 16.7 15.1 18.0 9.2 19 -49 North Carolina 4.4 5.3 7.2 8.5 7.1 8.5 12.6 3.6 49 -72 North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.9 4.7 4.3 5.7 6.3 3.4 12 -46 Ohio 3.6 5.3 10.9 11.2 14.7 14.6 16.0 5.1 9 -68 Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 8.7 7.6 6.3 8.3 10.4 2.9 24 -72 Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.6 9.0 6.9 8.2 9.7 3.1 18 -68 Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 12.3 13.8 12.9 12.4 14.4 5.3 16 -63 Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 13.3 14.7 12.6 12.1 17.5 11.8 44 -33 South Carolina 2.3 4.2 10.4 11.6 9.1 8.3 10.8 3.1 30 -72 South Dakota 3.1 5.0 8.2 7.1 5.7 6.7 6.6 2.5 -1 -62 Tennessee 4.2 7.5 11.3 8.9 8.6 10.9 15.7 8.1 44 -48 Texas 1.7 4.1 7.1 5.2 5.4 7.9 10.4 4.4 32 -58 Utah 3.7 5.4 5.0 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.9 1.9 9 -61 Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.3 9.9 9.9 8.8 11.7 6.3 33 -46 Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 7.9 7.1 6.7 8.4 2.8 26 -67 Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 8.5 9.7 11.5 13.3 6.6 16 -50 West Virginia 12.2 11.2 8.4 10.4 12.6 14.8 16.8 6.6 13 -61 Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 7.8 10.5 14.2 12.6 11.4 2.5 -9 -78 Wyoming 2.1 3.2 4.1 3.4 4.1 6.6 8.1 0.6 24 -92 United States 4.4 7.6 11.6 11.3 11.2 11.4 14.0 5.5 22 -61
-
-
Food Stamp Program
-
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service, is the largest food assistance program in the country, reaching more poor individuals over the course of a year than any other public assistance program. Unlike many other public assistance programs, the Food Stamp Program has few categorical requirements for eligibility, such as the presence of children, elderly, or disabled individuals in a household. Asresult, 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 increase the food purchasing power of eligible low-income households to the point where they can buy a nutritionally adequate lowcost 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, had an average of 1.1 million participants in 2001, funded under a federal block grant of $1.3 billion. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix include costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico. Prior to 1982, the regular Food Stamp Program operated in Puerto Rico, under modified eligibility and benefit rules.
The Food Stamp Program has financial, employment/training-related, and “categorical” tests for eligibility. The basic food stamp beneficiary unit is the “household.” Generally, individuals living together constitute a single food stamp household if they customarily purchase food and prepare meals together. Members of the same household must apply together, and their income, expenses, and assets normally are aggregated in determining food stamp eligibility and benefits. Except for households composed entirely of TANF, SSI, or general assistance recipients (who generally are automatically eligible for food stamps), monthly cash income is the primary food stamp eligibility determinant. Unless exempt, adult applicants for food stamps must register for work, typically with the welfare agency or a state employment service office. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job if offered one and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the administering welfare agencies.
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) contain major and extensive revisions 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 new 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 is 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 are currently under age 18 or disabled.
Finally, the 1996 legislation restrained growth in future program expenditures by making changes in the benefit structure for eligible participants, including a reduction in the maximum food stamp allotment. Other provisions of the 1996 act disqualified from eligibility those convicted of drug-related felonies and gave states the option to disqualify individuals, both custodial and noncustodial parents, from food stamps when they do not cooperate with child support agencies or are in arrears in their child support.
Recent regulatory and legislative changes have been made to increase access to food stamps among working poor families. Regulatory changes announced in July 1999 and expanded in November 2000 allow states to reduce reporting requirements and make it easier for working families to report income changes on a semiannual basis. Under the November 2000 regulations, states also have the option of providing a three-month transitional food stamp benefit to most families leaving TANF. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2001 (P.L. 106-387) provides states with the option of liberalizing the treatment of vehicle assets to align with the states’ TANF rules on vehicle eligibility. These changes were intended to address concerns that some of the decline in food stamp caseloads may be leaving poor families without nutritional assistance as they make the transition from welfare dependence to full self-sufficiency.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 - also known as the Farm Bill - reauthorized the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007. This law brought a number of significant changes to the program, including some which supercede earlier changes made through PRWORA and subsequent FSP legislation and regulations. Specifically, the Farm Bill restores food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants who have lived in the country five years and to legal immigrants receiving disability benefits, regardless of entry date. Children of legal immigrants are also 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 is eliminated. Each provision is effective at different times, but all restorations will be effective by April 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 replaces 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 will receive 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 implements a number of administrative reforms and program simplifications, including:
- changing the quality control system so that only those states with persistently high error rates will face liabilities;
- awarding bonuses to states that improve the quality and accuracy of their service;
- allowing states to exclude certain types of income and resources not counted under TANF or Medicaid, such as educational assistance, when determining food stamp eligibility;
- allowing states to deem child support payments as income exclusions rather than deductions as an incentive for parents to pay child support;
- allowing states to simplify the standard utility allowance (SUA) if the state elects to use the SUA rather than actual utility costs for all households, thus reducing administrative burden, costs and errors;
- permitting states to use a standard deduction from income of $143 per month for homeless households with some shelter expenses;
- allowing states to extend simplified reporting procedures to all households, not just households with earnings;
- eliminating the requirement that the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system be cost-neutral to the federal government to help support the EBT conversion process;
- allowing USDA to use alternative methods for issuing food stamp benefits during times of disaster when use of EBT is impractical;
- requiring food stamp applications be made available through the Internet; and combining Puerto Rico and American Samoa’s block grants into one grant and indexing both with inflation.
-
-
Food Stamp Program Data
-
The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Food Stamp Program, including information about the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico:
- Tables FSP 1-2 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 4-6 present some state-by-state trend data on the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2001.
-
-
Food Stamp Caseload Trends
-
Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Tables FSP 1-2). Average monthly food stamp participation in 2001 (including participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant) was 18.4 million persons. This represents a slight increase over the 2000 record-low average. Average monthly participation fell from its peak of 28.9 million in an average month in 1994 to an average of 18.2 million persons in 2000. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population, food stamp recipiency in 2000 was lower than at any point in the previous twenty years. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data on the recent decline in 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. A congressionally mandated study in 1990 concluded that a variety of factors contributed to this caseload growth, including expansions in Medicaid eligibility and changes in immigration laws, particularly the legalization of undocumented aliens, as well as a rise in unemployment (McConnell, 1991). Longer spells of participation also contributed to the caseload increase, according to an analysis of longitudinal data from the Survey on Income and Program Participation (Gleason, 1998).
Economic conditions were a significant factor in explaining the drop in food stamp caseload since 1994, according to an Economic Research Service review of recent research (ERS, 2000). Several econometric models suggest that economic variables explain between 25 and 44 percent of the decline in caseload. The full effect of the economy may be even higher, to the extent that some of the unexplained variation in the models reflects local economic conditions not captured in state-level economic variables.
Policy changes, most notably the enactment of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, have also contributed to the recent decline in food stamp caseload. The most direct impact was the elimination of eligibility for most legal immigrants and for many childless adults aged 18-50. Participation for these two groups fell sharply between 1994 and 1998 (Genser, 1999). In addition, changes in TANF policy may have affected food stamp participation, although these effects are less certain. Many studies of families leaving TANF cash assistance have found that many of these families leave the Food Stamp Program as well, despite appearing eligible for food stamp benefits. Econometric studies of the effects of specific changes in TANF policy, however, have found that only a small share of the decline in state food stamp caseloads was associated with waivers to AFDC policies. Increased stigma about welfare use and unintentional diversion from the Food Stamp Program may be additional factors affecting food stamp participation.
-
-
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 27 percent in 2001. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 42 percent in 1984 to 23 percent in 2001, 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 2001. The vast majority (89 percent) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.
-
-
Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps
-
Note: Shaded areas are periods of recession as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank.
-
-
Table FSP 1. Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads, Selected Years 1962 – 2001
-
Food Stamp Participants 1 Participants as a Percent of: Child Participants As a Percent of: Fiscal Year Including 2 Territories (in thousands) Excluding Territories (in thousands) Children Excld. Terr. (in thousands) Total Population 3 All Poor Persons 3 Pre-transfer Poverty Population 4 Total Child Population 3 Children in Poverty 3 1962 6,554 6,554 NA 3.5 17.0 NA NA NA 1965 5,167 5,167 NA 2.7 15.6 NA NA NA 1970 8,317 8,317 NA 4.1 32.7 NA NA NA 1971 13,010 13,010 NA 6.3 50.9 NA NA NA 1972 14,111 14,111 NA 6.7 57.7 NA NA NA 1973 14,607 14,607 NA 6.9 63.6 NA NA NA 1974 14,288 14,288 NA 6.7 61.1 NA NA NA 1975 5 17,152 16,320 NA 7.6 63.1 NA NA NA 1976 18,628 17,033 9,126 7.8 68.2 NA 13.8 88.8 1977 17,161 15,604 NA 7.1 63.1 NA NA NA 1978 16,077 14,405 NA 6.5 58.8 NA NA NA 1979 6 17,758 15,942 NA 7.1 61.1 57.1 NA NA 1980 21,173 19,253 9,876 8.5 65.8 60.7 15.5 85.6 1981 22,518 20,655 9,803 9.0 64.6 60.8 15.5 78.4 1982 22,224 20,392 9,591 8.8 59.3 56.3 15.3 70.3 1983 23,300 21,668 10,910 9.3 61.4 58.5 17.4 78.4 1984 22,379 20,796 10,492 8.8 61.7 58.5 16.8 78.2 1985 21,380 19,847 9,906 8.3 60.0 56.6 15.7 75.3 1986 20,904 19,381 9,844 8.1 59.9 56.2 15.7 76.5 1987 20,583 19,072 9,771 7.9 59.2 55.6 15.5 76.1 1988 20,095 18,613 9,351 7.6 58.6 55.2 14.8 75.1 1989 20,266 18,778 9,429 7.6 59.6 55.6 14.9 74.9 1990 21,529 20,020 10,127 8.0 59.6 55.7 15.8 75.4 1991 24,115 22,599 11,952 8.9 63.3 59.3 18.3 83.3 1992 26,886 25,370 13,349 9.9 66.7 64.0 20.1 87.3 1993 28,422 26,952 14,196 10.4 68.6 63.8 21.0 90.3 1994 28,878 27,433 14,391 10.4 72.1 66.8 21.0 94.1 1995 27,989 26,579 13,860 10.0 73.0 67.6 20.0 94.5 1996 26,875 25,494 13,189 9.5 69.8 64.6 18.8 91.2 1997 24,148 22,820 11,847 8.4 64.1 59.9 16.7 83.9 1998 20,969 19,745 10,524 7.2 57.3 53.8 14.7 78.1 1999 19,322 18,146 9,332 6.5 56.3 52.5 13.0 77.2 2000 18,240 17,120 8,743 6.1 55.0 51.7 12.1 75.5 2001 18,383 17,297 8,819 6.1 52.6 49.3 12.0 75.2 1 Total participants includes all participating States, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico). The number of child participants includes only the participating States and D.C. (the territories are not included). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp program 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 Participation figures in column 1 from 1982 on include enrollment in Puerto Rico’s Nutrition Assistance Program (averaging 1.2 to 1.5 million persons a month under the nutrition assistance grant and higher figures in earlier years under Food Stamps) as shown in Table FSP 5.
3 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—see Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106. For the persons living in poverty used as denominators, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-210.
4 The pretransfer 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 appropriate poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.
5 The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.
6 The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased in basis.
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank, the 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2001," Current Population Reports, Series P60-219 and earlier years.
-
-
Table FSP 2. Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures, Selected Years 1975 – 2001
-
Total Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration) Benefits 2
(Federal) [In millions]Administration 1 Total Program
Cost [In millions]Average Monthly Benefit per Person Fiscal Year Current Dollars [In millions] 2001 Dollars 3 [In millions] Federal [In millions] State & Local [In millions] Current Dollars 2001 Dollars 3 1 Amounts include the Federal share of state administrative and employment and training costs (including administrative costs of Puerto Rico's block grant) 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 (including Puerto Rico).
2 Benefit costs include the Food Stamp Program and Puerto Rico's nutritional assistance program and are based on unpublished data from the USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank (see Table FSP 4).
3 Constant dollar adjustments to 2001 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index.
4 The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased in basis.
5 Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps.
Note: Total federal cost includes food stamps in Puerto Rico (1975-1981) and funding for Puerto Rico's nutrition assistance grant (1982-present). Average benefit figures, however, do not reflect the lower benefits in Puerto Rico under either the food stamp program from 1975 to 1981 or its nutrition assistance program since July 1982.
Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data from the National Data Bank; and the 2000 Green Book.1975 $5,037 $16,383 $4,798 $238 $180 $5,217 $21.50 $73.20 1976 5,641 17,176 5,276 365 275 5,934 23.50 70.30 1977 5,463 15,484 5,061 402 300 5,775 24.00 68.00 1978 5,546 14,748 5,112 434 325 5,883 25.70 68.30 19794 6,965 17,032 6,450 515 388 7,388 29.90 73.10 1980 9,224 20,276 8,721 503 375 9,633 34.20 75.20 1981 11,308 22,603 10,630 678 504 11,906 39.40 78.80 1982 11,117 20,763 10,408 709 557 11,697 39.00 72.80 1983 12,708 22,700 11,930 778 612 13,343 43.00 76.80 1984 12,446 21,324 11,475 971 5 805 13,251 42.70 73.20 1985 12,573 20,794 11,530 1,043 871 13,444 45.00 74.40 1986 12,510 20,179 11,397 1,113 935 13,445 45.50 73.40 1987 12,512 19,626 11,317 1,195 996 13,508 45.80 72.00 1988 13,281 20,012 11,991 1,290 1,080 14,361 49.80 75.00 1989 13,904 19,993 12,572 1,332 1,101 15,005 51.80 74.50 1990 16,503 22,606 15,081 1,422 1,174 17,677 58.90 80.70 1991 19,790 25,806 18,274 1,516 1,247 21,037 63.90 83.30 1992 23,535 29,786 21,879 1,656 1,375 24,910 68.60 86.80 1993 24,733 30,386 23,017 1,716 1,572 26,305 68.00 83.50 1994 25,587 30,622 23,798 1,789 1,643 27,230 69.00 82.60 1995 25,776 30.020 23,859 1,917 1,748 27,524 71.30 83.00 1996 25,527 28,923 23,543 1,984 1,842 27,369 73.20 82.90 1997 22,750 25,099 20,692 2,058 1,904 24,654 71.30 78.70 1998 20,224 21,955 18,055 2,169 1,988 22,212 71.10 77.20 1999 19,045 20,288 16,945 2,100 1,874 22,919 72.20 76.90 2000 18,402 18,994 16,211 2,200 1,960 20,362 72.80 75.10 2001 19,193 19,193 16,793 2,400 2,140 21,333 74.80 74.80
-
-
Table FSP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, 1980 - 2001 [In percent]
-
Year 1 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 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, SSI, and general assistance.
3 Elderly members and heads of household include those of age 60 or older.
* Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2001 and earlier years.With Gross Monthly Income: Below the Federal Poverty Levels. 87 93 92 92 92 90 91 90 89 89 Between the Poverty Levels and 130 Percent of the Poverty Levels 10 6 8 8 8 9 8 9 10 10 Above 130 Percent of Poverty. 2 1 * * * 1 1 1 1 1 With Earnings. 19 19 20 19 21 21 23 26 27 27 With Public Assistance Income 2 65 71 72 73 66 69 67 65 63 61 With AFDC/TANF Income. NA 42 42 43 40 38 37 31 26 23 With SSI Income 18 18 20 19 19 23 24 28 32 32 With Children 60 61 61 61 62 61 60 58 54 54 And Female Heads of Household NA 47 50 51 51 51 50 47 44 NA With No Spouse Present . NA NA 39 37 44 43 43 41 38 NA With Elderly Members 3 23 22 19 18 15 16 16 18 21 20 With Elderly Female Heads of Household 3 NA 16 14 11 9 11 NA NA NA NA Average Household Size 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3
-
-
Table FSP 4. Value of Food Stamps Issued by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1975 – 2001 [Millions of dollars]
-
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 2000 2001 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank. Alabama $108 $246 $318 $328 $441 $357 $344 $365 Alaska 7 27 25 25 50 50 46 46 Arizona 45 97 121 239 414 253 240 280 Arkansas 78 122 126 155 212 206 206 223 California 374 530 639 968 2,473 2,020 1,639 1,583 Colorado 48 71 94 156 217 157 127 131 Connecticut 38 59 62 72 169 161 138 136 Delaware 8 21 22 25 47 34 31 32 Dist. of Columbia 32 41 40 43 92 85 77 70 Florida 236 421 368 609 1,307 845 773 771 Georgia 144 264 290 382 700 538 489 515 Guam 3 15 18 15 24 34 36 37 Hawaii 26 60 93 81 177 178 166 150 Idaho 12 29 36 40 59 47 46 47 Illinois 259 394 713 835 1,056 844 777 810 Indiana 64 154 242 226 382 263 268 317 Iowa 29 54 107 109 142 109 100 107 Kansas 13 38 64 96 144 83 83 92 Kentucky 138 211 332 334 413 345 337 350 Louisiana 149 243 365 549 629 467 448 483 Maine 36 60 62 63 112 100 81 86 Maryland 79 140 171 203 365 282 199 191 Massachusetts 104 171 173 207 315 222 182 173 Michigan 132 263 541 663 806 588 457 504 Minnesota 43 62 105 165 240 181 165 172 Mississippi 115 199 264 352 383 254 226 254 Missouri 85 142 212 312 488 345 358 395 Montana 11 18 31 41 57 52 51 54 Nebraska 12 25 44 59 77 68 61 63 Nevada 11 15 22 41 91 63 57 65 New Hampshire 14 22 15 20 44 30 28 28 New Jersey 136 226 260 289 506 384 304 292 New Mexico 49 81 88 117 196 144 140 136 New York 233 726 938 1,086 2,065 1,505 1,361 1,365 North Carolina 139 234 237 282 495 421 403 425 North Dakota 5 9 16 25 32 25 25 27 Ohio 268 382 697 861 1,017 613 520 573 Oklahoma 40 73 134 186 315 231 208 236 Oregon 58 80 142 168 254 198 198 240 Pennsylvania 190 373 547 661 1,006 764 656 639 Puerto Rico 366 828 786 894 1,095 1,166 1,217 1,246 Rhode Island 19 31 35 42 82 57 59 59 South Carolina 126 181 194 240 297 264 249 269 South Dakota 8 18 26 35 40 37 37 39 Tennessee 126 282 280 372 554 437 415 454 Texas 319 514 701 1,429 2,246 1,425 1,215 1,270 Utah 13 22 40 71 90 75 68 67 Vermont 10 18 20 22 46 34 32 31 Virgin Islands 9 19 23 18 28 22 21 18 Virginia 70 158 189 247 450 307 263 263 Washington 71 90 140 229 417 308 241 261 West Virginia 57 87 159 192 253 224 185 178 Wisconsin 33 68 148 180 220 130 129 152 Wyoming 3 6 15 21 28 21 19 19 United States $4,798 $8,721 $11,530 $15,081 $23,859 $18,055 $16,202 $16,793
-
-
Table FSP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years [In thousands]
-
Percent Change Fiscal Year 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 1997 2000 2001 1989-94 1994-01 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank. Alabama 365 583 588 436 545 469 396 411 25 -25 Alaska 15 29 22 26 46 45 38 38 76 -17 Arizona 143 196 206 264 512 364 259 291 94 -43 Arkansas 267 301 253 227 283 266 247 256 24 -9 California 1,455 1,493 1,615 1,776 3,155 2,815 1,832 1,668 78 -47 Colorado 150 163 170 211 268 217 156 154 27 -43 Connecticut 155 170 145 114 223 210 165 157 96 -29 Delaware 26 52 40 30 59 54 32 32 99 -46 Dist. of Columbia 122 103 72 58 91 90 81 73 55 -19 Florida 647 912 630 668 1,474 1,192 882 887 121 -40 Georgia 498 627 567 485 830 698 559 574 71 -31 Guam 6 22 20 13 15 18 22 23 21 49 Hawaii 75 102 99 78 115 127 118 108 47 -5 Idaho 39 61 59 61 82 70 58 60 34 -27 Illinois 926 903 1,110 990 1,189 1,020 779 825 20 -31 Indiana 392 353 406 285 518 348 300 347 82 -33 Iowa 115 141 203 168 196 161 123 126 16 -35 Kansas 58 90 119 128 192 149 117 124 50 -35 Kentucky 472 468 560 447 522 444 403 413 17 -21 Louisiana 510 569 644 725 756 575 500 518 4 -31 Maine 126 139 114 84 136 124 102 104 61 -23 Maryland 261 324 287 249 390 354 219 208 57 -47 Massachusetts 365 453 337 314 442 340 232 219 40 -50 Michigan 619 813 985 874 1,031 839 603 641 18 -38 Minnesota 167 171 228 245 318 260 196 198 30 -38 Mississippi 376 496 495 493 511 399 276 298 4 -42 Missouri 300 335 362 404 593 478 423 454 47 -23 Montana 38 43 58 56 71 67 59 62 28 -13 Nebraska 49 66 94 92 111 97 82 81 20 -27 Nevada 32 32 32 41 97 82 61 69 134 -28 New Hampshire 44 50 28 22 62 46 36 36 182 -42 New Jersey 490 605 464 353 545 491 345 318 54 -42 New Mexico 157 185 157 151 244 205 169 163 62 -33 New York 1,291 1,759 1,834 1,463 2,154 1,914 1,439 1,354 47 -37 North Carolina 466 582 474 390 630 586 488 494 61 -22 North Dakota 19 25 33 39 45 38 32 38 17 -17 Ohio 854 865 1,133 1,068 1,245 874 610 641 17 -49 Oklahoma 171 209 263 261 376 322 253 271 44 -28 Oregon 201 197 228 213 286 259 234 284 34 -1 Pennsylvania 848 980 1,032 916 1,208 1,009 777 748 32 -38 Puerto Rico 810 1,864 1,481 1,460 1,410 1,290 1,082 1,070 -3 -24 Rhode Island 86 87 69 57 94 85 74 71 65 -24 South Carolina 410 426 373 272 385 349 295 316 42 -18 South Dakota 33 43 48 50 53 47 43 45 6 -16 Tennessee 397 624 518 500 735 586 496 522 47 -29 Texas 1,133 1,167 1,263 1,634 2,726 2,034 1,333 1,361 67 -50 Utah 46 54 75 95 128 98 82 80 34 -38 Vermont 44 46 44 34 65 53 41 39 90 -40 Virgin Islands 16 34 32 16 20 20 16 13 23 -34 Virginia 257 384 360 333 547 476 336 332 65 -39 Washington 253 248 281 321 468 449 295 309 46 -34 West Virginia 242 209 278 259 321 287 227 221 24 -31 Wisconsin 148 215 363 291 330 232 193 216 13 -35 Wyoming 10 14 27 27 34 29 22 23 25 -34 United States 17,192 21,082 21,380 20,266 28,878 24,148 18,240 18,383 42 -36
-
-
Table FSP 6.Food Stamp Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years [In percent]
-
Percent Change 1975 1980 1985 1989 1994 1997 2000 2001 1989-94 1994-01 Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of food stamp recipients in each State during the particular fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerator is from Table FSP 5.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).Alabama 9.9 14.9 14.8 10.8 12.9 10.9 8.9 9.2 19 -29 Alaska 4.0 7.1 4.1 4.8 7.6 7.4 6.0 6.0 60 -22 Arizona 6.3 7.1 6.5 7.3 12.3 8.0 5.0 5.5 69 -56 Arkansas 12.4 13.1 10.9 9.7 11.5 10.5 9.2 9.5 19 -17 California 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.1 10.1 8.7 5.4 4.8 66 -52 Colorado 5.8 5.6 5.3 6.5 7.3 5.6 3.6 3.5 14 -53 Connecticut 5.0 5.5 4.5 3.5 6.8 6.4 4.8 4.6 97 -33 Delaware 4.5 8.7 6.5 4.5 8.4 7.3 4.1 4.0 85 -52 Dist. of Columbia 17.2 16.1 11.4 9.4 16.1 17.1 14.1 12.8 71 -20 Florida 7.6 9.3 5.5 5.3 10.6 8.1 5.5 5.4 100 -49 Georgia 9.8 11.4 9.5 7.6 11.8 9.3 6.8 6.8 56 -42 Hawaii 8.4 10.6 9.5 7.1 9.8 10.7 9.7 8.8 37 -10 Idaho 4.6 6.4 5.9 6.1 7.2 5.8 4.5 4.5 17 -37 Illinois 8.2 7.9 9.7 8.7 10.1 8.5 6.3 6.6 16 -35 Indiana 7.3 6.4 7.4 5.2 9.0 5.9 4.9 5.7 75 -37 Iowa 4.0 4.8 7.2 6.1 6.9 5.6 4.2 4.3 14 -38 Kansas 2.5 3.8 4.9 5.2 7.5 5.7 4.3 4.6 44 -38 Kentucky 13.6 12.8 15.2 12.1 13.7 11.4 10.0 10.1 13 -26 Louisiana 13.1 13.5 14.6 17.0 17.6 13.2 11.2 11.6 3 -34 Maine 11.8 12.3 9.8 6.9 11.0 9.9 8.0 8.1 59 -26 Maryland 6.3 7.7 6.5 5.3 7.8 7.0 4.1 3.9 49 -51 Massachusetts 6.3 7.9 5.7 5.2 7.3 5.6 3.6 3.4 40 -53 Michigan 6.8 8.8 10.8 9.4 10.8 8.6 6.1 6.4 14 -40 Minnesota 4.2 4.2 5.5 5.7 7.0 5.6 4.0 4.0 23 -43 Mississippi 15.7 19.6 19.1 19.1 19.2 14.6 9.7 10.4 0 -46 Missouri 6.2 6.8 7.2 7.9 11.2 8.8 7.6 8.1 42 -28 Montana 5.1 5.5 7.1 7.0 8.3 7.6 6.6 6.8 20 -18 Nebraska 3.2 4.2 5.9 5.9 6.8 5.9 4.8 4.7 17 -31 Nevada 5.2 4.0 3.4 3.6 6.6 4.9 3.0 3.3 83 -50 New Hampshire 5.3 5.4 2.8 2.0 5.4 3.9 2.9 2.8 174 -48 New Jersey 6.7 8.2 6.1 4.6 6.9 6.1 4.1 3.7 51 -46 New Mexico 13.5 14.1 10.9 10.0 14.8 11.9 9.3 8.9 47 -40 New York 7.2 10.0 10.3 8.1 11.9 10.5 7.6 7.1 46 -40 North Carolina 8.4 9.9 7.6 5.9 8.9 7.9 6.0 6.0 50 -33 North Dakota 2.9 3.9 4.9 6.0 7.1 5.9 5.0 5.9 19 -16 Ohio 7.9 8.0 10.6 9.9 11.2 7.8 5.4 5.6 14 -50 Oklahoma 6.2 6.9 8.0 8.3 11.6 9.7 7.3 7.8 40 -33 Oregon 8.6 7.5 8.5 7.6 9.3 8.0 6.8 8.2 21 -12 Pennsylvania 7.1 8.3 8.8 7.7 10.0 8.4 6.3 6.1 30 -39 Rhode Island 9.2 9.1 7.2 5.7 9.4 8.6 7.1 6.7 66 -29 South Carolina 14.1 13.6 11.3 7.9 10.5 9.2 7.3 7.8 34 -26 South Dakota 4.8 6.2 6.9 7.2 7.4 6.4 5.7 5.9 2 -20 Tennessee 9.3 13.6 11.0 10.3 14.2 10.9 8.7 9.1 38 -36 Texas 9.0 8.1 7.8 9.7 14.9 10.5 6.4 6.4 53 -57 Utah 3.7 3.7 4.6 5.6 6.6 4.8 3.7 3.5 19 -47 Vermont 9.1 8.9 8.2 6.1 11.2 9.0 6.7 6.3 83 -43 Virginia 5.1 7.2 6.3 5.4 8.4 7.1 4.7 4.6 54 -45 Washington 7.0 6.0 6.4 6.8 8.8 8.0 5.0 5.1 30 -41 West Virginia 13.1 10.7 14.6 14.3 17.7 15.8 12.6 12.3 23 -30 Wisconsin 3.2 4.6 7.6 6.0 6.5 4.5 3.6 4.0 8 -38 Wyoming 2.7 3.0 5.4 6.0 7.2 6.0 4.5 4.6 20 -36 United States 7.6 8.4 8.3 7.6 10.5 8.5 6.1 6.1 39 -43
-
-
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, which were $552 for an individual and $829 for a married couple in fiscal year 2003. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed as the “program of last resort.” The Social Security Administration, which administers the SSI program, helps recipients get any other public assistance for which they are eligible. After evaluating all other income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.” As of December 2001, 36 percent of all SSI recipients also received Social Security retirement or survivor benefits, which are the single greatest source of income for SSI recipients.
Prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), no individual could receive both SSI payments and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. If eligible for both, the individual had to choose which benefit to receive. Generally, the AFDC agency encouraged individuals to file for SSI and, once the SSI payments had started, the individual was removed from the AFDC filing unit. In contrast, the PRWORA does not prohibit an individual from receiving both TANF benefits and SSI, since states have the authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels.
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, they do not need to meet the Food Stamp Program financial eligibility standards but rather are categorically eligible. If SSI beneficiaries live in households in which other household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility standard of the Food Stamp Program to be eligible for food stamp benefits.
-
-
Legislative Changes
-
Several legislative changes made in the 104th Congress are likely to affect SSI participation and expenditures. Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, prohibits 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.
The 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, it discontinued use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) which the Social Security Administration had implemented in 1991 following the Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990).1 Third, it eliminated 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). The latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Beneficiaries who were receiving benefits due to an IFA or under the Listings because of limitations resulting from maladaptive behaviors received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might end when their case was redetermined. Additional provisions of the PRWORA with impact on enrollment are the requirement that eligibility be redetermined when beneficiaries reach age 18, using the adult disability standard; that "continuing disability reviews" be done for children; and that children who were eligible due to low birth weight have their eligibility redetermined at age one.
Title IV of PRWORA also made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for SSI benefits. Some of the restrictions were subsequently moderated, most notably by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which “grandfathered” immigrants who were receiving SSI at the time of enactment of the PRWORA. Those immigrants who entered the U.S. after August 22, 1996, may be eligible to receive SSI after having been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
Several provisions aimed at reducing SSI fraud and improving recovery of overpayments were enacted in 1999, as part of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P. L. 106-169). Other legislation enacted in 1999 provides additional work incentives for disabled beneficiaries of SSI.
1 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.
-
-
SSI Program Data
-
The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:
- Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program;
- Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload; and
- Tables SSI 7 and SSI 8 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2001.
From 1990 to 1995, the program increased from 4.8 million beneficiaries to 6.5 million beneficiaries, an average growth rate of over 6 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. In December 2001, there were 6.7 million beneficiaries. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2001, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adult age 18-64, and adult age 65 or older). See also Table 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 less than 1.3 million persons in December 2001. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 5.4 million in December 2001. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased dramatically, particularly during the 1990s, when the number of disabled children receiving SSI increased from 340,000 in December 1990 to 955,000 in December 1996. The number of disabled children fell in the next three years, stabilized at 847,000 in 1999 and 2000, and rose to 882,000 in 2001.
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 General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups – adults with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the Zebley case, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.1
1 The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the IFA for children was initiated.
-
-
Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age, 1974 – 2001
-
Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics/ores_home.html).
-
-
Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments 1974 – 2001 [In thousands]
-
Date Total Eligibility Category Type of Recipient Aged Blind and Disabled Children Adults Age 18-64 65 or Older Total Blind Disabled 1 Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.
Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002, (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics).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 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
-
-
Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates, 1974 – 2001 [In percent]
-
Date All Recipientsas a Percent of Total Population 1 Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population 1 Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children 1 Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of All Persons 65 & Older 1 All Elderly Poor 2 Pretransfer Elderly Poor 3 Dec 1974 1.9 1.2 0.1 10.8 78.5 NA Dec 1975 2.0 1.3 0.2 10.9 75.6 NA Dec 1976 1.9 1.3 0.2 10.2 72.4 NA Dec 1977 1.9 1.3 0.2 9.7 74.1 NA Dec 1978 1.9 1.3 0.3 9.3 71.5 NA Dec 1979 1.8 1.3 0.3 8.8 61.3 66.8 Dec 1980 1.8 1.2 0.3 8.6 57.5 64.7 Dec 1981 1.7 1.2 0.3 8.0 55.0 63.3 Dec 1982 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.4 53.6 62.3 Dec 1983 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.3 55.2 61.9 Dec 1984 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.2 61.2 66.3 Dec 1985 1.7 1.3 0.4 7.1 58.7 64.5 Dec 1986 1.8 1.3 0.4 6.9 57.9 63.4 Dec 1987 1.8 1.4 0.4 6.7 56.5 64.7 Dec 1988 1.8 1.5 0.4 6.6 57.6 64.3 Dec 1989 1.9 1.5 0.4 6.5 60.3 64.6 Dec 1990 1.9 1.6 0.5 6.5 56.3 63.3 Dec 1991 2.0 1.7 0.6 6.5 55.0 61.1 Dec 1992 2.2 1.9 0.8 6.4 53.5 59.8 Dec 1993 2.3 2.0 1.1 6.4 56.3 63.3 Dec 1994 2.4 2.1 1.2 6.3 57.9 65.6 Dec 1995 2.4 2.2 1.3 6.2 63.7 71.4 Dec 1996 2.4 2.2 1.4 6.1 61.0 69.3 Dec 1997 2.4 2.2 1.2 6.0 60.8 69.1 Dec 1998 2.4 2.2 1.2 5.9 60.0 69.1 Dec 1999 2.3 2.2 1.2 5.8 63.7 72.4 Dec 2000 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.7 60.5 66.9 Dec 2001 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.6 58.4 67.6 1 Population numbers used for the denominators are Census 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; see Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106 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 and the 2000 Decennial Census (Available online at http://www.census.gov).
2 For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-214.
3 The pretransfer poverty population used as the denominator is the number of all elderly persons living in elderly-only units whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.
Notes: Numerators for these ratios are from Table SSI 1. Rates computed by DHHS.
Source: 1994 Green Book and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2001," Current Population Reports, Series P60-219, and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).
-
-
Table SSI 3. Total, Federal, and State SSI Benefits and Administration, 1974 – 2000 1 [In millions of dollars]
-
Calendar Year Total Benefits Federal Payments State Supplementation Administrative Costs (fiscal year) 2001 1 Dollars Current Dollars Total Federally Administered State Administered 1 Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-X1 for calendar years
Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002, (Data available online at http://wwwssagov/statistics).1974 $17,900 $5,246 $3,833 $1,413 $1,264 $149 $285 1975 18,524 5,878 4,314 1,565 1,403 162 399 1976 18,086 6,066 4,512 1,554 1,388 166 500 1977 17,671 6,306 4,703 1,603 1,431 172 526 1978 17,191 6,552 4,881 1,671 1,491 180 539 1979 16,932 7,075 5,279 1,797 1,590 207 610 1980 17,088 7,941 5,866 2,074 1,848 226 668 1981 16,890 8,593 6,518 2,076 1,839 237 718 1982 16,637 8,981 6,907 2,074 1,798 276 779 1983 16,722 9,404 7,423 1,982 1,711 270 830 1984 17,679 10,372 8,281 2,091 1,792 299 864 1985 18,205 11,060 8,777 2,283 1,973 311 953 1986 19,521 12,081 9,498 2,583 2,243 340 1,022 1987 20,190 12,951 10,029 2,922 2,563 359 976 1988 20,639 13,786 10,734 3,052 2,671 381 975 1989 21,395 14,980 11,606 3,374 2,955 419 1,051 1990 22,491 16,599 12,894 3,705 3,239 466 1,075 1991 24,087 18,524 14,765 3,759 3,231 529 1,257 1992 28,064 22,233 18,247 3,986 3,435 550 1,538 1993 30,097 24,557 20,722 3,835 3,270 566 1,467 1994 30,923 25,877 22,175 3,701 3,116 585 1,775 1995 32,105 27,628 23,919 3,708 3,118 590 1,973 1996 32,499 28,792 25,265 3,527 2,988 539 1,949 1997 32,057 29,052 25,457 3,595 2,913 682 2,055 1998 32,830 30,216 26,405 3,812 3,003 808 2,304 1999 32,872 30,923 26,805 4,154 3,301 853 2,493 2000 32,463 31,564 27,290 4,274 3,381 893 2,401 2001 33,061 33,061 28,706 4,355 3,460 895 2,498
-
-
Table SSI 4. Average Monthly SSI Benefit Payments, 1974 – 2001
-
Calendar Year Total 1 Federal Payments State Supplementation 2001 Dollars Current Dollars Total Federally Administered State Administered 1 Total is a weighted average of the Federal plus State average benefit, the Federal-only average benefit, and State-only average benefit.
Note: The numerators for these averages are given in Table SSI 3 and the denominators are given in Table SSI 5. Averages were computed by DHHS. Data adjusted for inflation using a fiscal-year average CPI-U-X1 index.
Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002.1974 $480 $135 $108 $64 $71 $35 1975 366 112 92 66 69 45 1976 359 118 99 68 71 50 1977 347 123 104 69 72 53 1978 340 128 108 72 74 56 1979 343 140 119 77 79 67 1980 347 158 133 89 91 76 1981 352 176 151 92 94 79 1982 358 191 166 96 97 93 1983 353 198 172 91 92 89 1984 362 211 187 93 93 93 1985 363 219 193 99 99 102 1986 374 232 202 107 108 101 1987 380 242 208 117 118 110 1988 381 253 219 118 118 118 1989 384 267 230 126 126 127 1990 388 283 244 132 131 136 1991 387 297 260 125 122 143 1992 415 328 292 124 121 147 1993 415 337 306 112 107 150 1994 405 338 310 105 99 152 1995 408 350 322 110 103 164 1996 407 359 333 108 103 145 1997 407 369 342 99 102 86 1998 411 379 350 103 104 102 1999 414 388 356 111 113 105 2000 406 393 360 113 114 109 2001 407 407 373 113 114 108
-
-
Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving SSI Payments by Type of Payment, 1974 – 2001 (in thousands)
-
Date Total Federal State Supplementation Total Federally Administered State Administered Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002. 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
-
-
Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients, by Age, Sex, Earnings/Income, and Citizenship: Selected Years, 1980-2001
-
1980 1985 1990 1992 1994 1997 2000 2001 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 • 2002 and prior years.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 10.0 13.4 13.5 12.8 13.1 18-64 40.9 45.4 50.9 52.3 53.0 54.8 56.7 56.9 65 or older 53.6 49.1 42.7 37.7 33.7 31.6 30.5 30.0 Sex Male 34.4 35.2 37.2 39.0 41.3 41.3 41.5 41.7 Female 65.5 64.8 62.8 61.0 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.3 Selected Sources of Income Earnings 3.2 3.8 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.3 Social Security 51.0 49.4 45.9 42.1 39.1 37.1 36.1 35.7 No other income 34.8 34.5 36.4 38.7 43.6 46.5 54.4 54.8 Noncitizens NA 5.1 9.0 10.8 11.7 10.0 10.5 10.4 Eligibility Category Aged 43.6 36.4 30.2 26.4 23.3 21.0 19.5 18.9 Blind 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 Disabled 54.5 61.7 68.1 72.0 75.4 77.8 79.3 79.9 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 20.7 20.5 17.6 15.6 15.3 70-79 51.5 45.6 41.3 42.5 44.3 48.4 50.0 49.6 80 or older 34.5 39.5 39.2 36.8 35.1 34.0 34.5 35.0 Sex Male 27.3 25.5 25.1 25.6 26.8 27.8 29.0 29.4 Female 72.6 74.5 74.9 74.4 73.2 72.2 71.0 70.6 Noncitizens NA 9.7 19.4 25.4 30.0 27.0 28.5 28.8 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 82.0 83.4 83.6 83.8 84.0 65 or older 19.8 22.3 20.0 18.0 16.6 16.4 16.2 16.2 Sex 1 Male 39.8 40.8 42.4 43.9 41.8 41.1 44.5 44.6 Female 60.2 59.2 57.6 56.1 58.2 58.9 55.5 55.4 Noncitizens NA 2.4 4.6 5.6 6.2 5.5 6.1 6.1 Children Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Under 5 11.7 NA NA 16.0 15.8 15.8 15.5 16.1 5-9 20.9 NA NA 26.9 28.5 30.2 28.5 27.4 10-14 28.8 NA NA 30.6 32.7 34.6 36.2 36.5 15-17 21.7 NA NA 15.7 17.3 19.4 19.8 19.9 18-21 2 16.8 14.3 9.3 10.8 5.7 — — — Sex Male NA NA NA 62.0 63.0 62.9 63.8 63.9 Female NA NA NA 38.0 37.0 37.1 36.2 36.1
-
-
Table SSI 7. Total SSI Payments, Federal SSI Payments and State Supplementary Payments Calendar Year 2001 (in Thousands)
-
State Total Total Federal Federal SSI State Supplementation Federally Administered State Administered Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002. Total $33,060,819 $32,165,895 $28,705,503 $3,460,353 $894,963 Alabama 698,747 698,244 698,244 – 503 Alaska 92,858 40,434 40,434 – 52,424 Arizona 382,623 382,249 382,249 – 374 Arkansas 341,104 341,104 341,103 1 – California 6,684,637 6,684,637 4,275,710 2,408,927 – Colorado 315,315 236,648 236,648 – 78,667 Connecticut 311,512 227,245 227,245 – 84,267 Delaware 53,110 53,110 52,087 1,023 – District of Columbia 97,542 97,542 94,145 3,397 – Florida 1,752,175 1,724,213 1,724,204 9 27,962 Georgia 826,310 826,310 826,306 4 – Hawaii 106,664 106,664 94,416 12,248 – Idaho 89,857 80,917 80,917 – 8,940 Illinois 1,237,215 1,207,560 1,207,560 – 29,655 Indiana 402,965 399,185 399,185 – 3,780 Iowa 183,925 167,326 164,585 2,741 16,599 Kansas 157,989 157,989 157,989 – – Kentucky 796,683 778,881 778,881 – 17,802 Louisiana 741,775 741,293 741,293 – 482 Maine 131,686 122,659 122,659 – 9,027 Maryland 427,859 419,779 419,771 8 8,080 Massachusetts 833,337 833,337 667,633 165,704 – Michigan 1,099,694 1,021,227 994,836 26,391 78,467 Minnesota 369,230 288,792 288,792 – 80,438 Mississippi 529,598 529,598 529,594 4 – Missouri 521,055 495,343 495,343 – 25,712 Montana 60,977 60,977 60,151 826 – Nebraska 96,319 90,012 90,012 – 6,307 Nevada 120,453 120,453 115,385 5,068 – New Hampshire 63,764 52,167 52,167 – 11,597 New Jersey 700,334 700,334 620,880 79,454 – New Mexico 205,492 205,259 205,259 – 233 New York 3,319,861 3,319,861 2,765,299 554,562 – North Carolina 905,119 769,394 769,394 – 135,725 North Dakota 33,034 31,104 31,104 – 1,930 Ohio 1,161,754 1,161,754 1,161,747 7 – Oklahoma 353,139 315,739 315,739 – 37,400 Oregon 266,179 245,903 245,903 – 20,276 Pennsylvania 1,464,383 1,464,383 1,327,518 136,865 – Rhode Island 141,034 141,034 116,473 24,561 – South Carolina 458,854 445,746 445,746 – 13,108 South Dakota 53,198 51,007 51,001 6 2,191 Tennessee 688,916 688,916 688,914 2 – Texas 1,682,894 1,682,894 1,682,894 – – Utah 92,732 92,732 92,677 55 – Vermont 53,760 53,760 44,574 9,186 – Virginia 575,741 555,064 555,064 – 20,677 Washington 521,751 521,401 492,011 29,390 350 West Virginia 335,311 335,311 335,311 – – Wisconsin 491,921 370,606 370,606 – 121,315 Wyoming 25,221 24,546 24,546 – 675 Other: N. Mariana Islands 3,252 3,252 3,252 – –
-
-
Table SSI 8.SSI Recipiency Rates by State And Program Type for 1979 and 2001 [In percent]
-
Total Recipiency Rate Rate for Adults 18-64 Rate for Adults 65 & Over 1979 2001 Percent Change 1979-01 1979 2001 Percent Change 1979-01 1979 2001 Percent Change 1979-01 Note: Recipiency rates for 2001 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, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).Alabama 3.6 3.6 1 1.8 3.4 86 21.0 7.3 -65 Alaska 0.8 1.4 82 0.5 1.5 178 14.0 6.1 -57 Arizona 1.1 1.6 44 0.9 1.5 69 5.0 3.2 -36 Arkansas 3.5 3.2 -9 1.9 2.9 55 17.1 6.1 -64 California 3.0 3.2 6 2.1 2.5 22 16.4 13.1 -20 Colorado 1.1 1.2 9 0.8 1.2 56 6.7 3.2 -52 Connecticut 0.8 1.4 87 0.6 1.5 138 2.7 2.6 -4 Delaware 1.2 1.5 26 0.9 1.4 49 5.4 2.3 -58 District of Columbia 2.3 3.5 54 1.9 3.0 56 8.6 6.8 -21 Florida 1.8 2.4 35 1.1 1.9 67 6.2 4.6 -26 Georgia 2.9 2.4 -16 1.9 2.1 11 17.7 7.1 -60 Hawaii 1.1 1.7 62 0.7 1.5 117 7.6 5.4 -29 Idaho 0.8 1.4 77 0.6 1.6 150 3.8 2.1 -44 Illinois 1.1 2.0 85 1.0 2.0 111 4.3 3.8 -11 Indiana 0.8 1.5 100 0.6 1.5 146 3.3 1.7 -49 Iowa 0.9 1.4 57 0.6 1.6 158 3.5 1.7 -51 Kansas 0.9 1.4 57 0.6 1.5 138 3.5 1.9 -45 Kentucky 2.5 4.3 69 1.8 4.5 151 12.5 7.2 -43 Louisiana 3.4 3.7 10 2.0 3.5 72 20.1 8.1 -60 Maine 2.0 2.3 18 1.4 2.6 87 8.6 3.2 -63 Maryland 1.2 1.7 48 0.9 1.5 60 5.4 4.1 -24 Massachusetts 2.2 2.6 16 1.3 2.5 95 10.8 5.7 -47 Michigan 1.3 2.1 67 1.1 2.3 115 5.9 3.0 -49 Minnesota 0.8 1.3 60 0.6 1.3 136 3.7 2.6 -30 Mississippi 4.5 4.5 0 2.4 4.1 69 26.0 10.9 -58 Missouri 1.8 2.0 14 1.1 2.1 91 7.9 3.0 -62 Montana 0.9 1.6 80 0.7 1.8 150 3.8 2.1 -45 Nebraska 0.9 1.2 36 0.6 1.4 119 3.4 1.8 -47 Nevada 0.8 1.3 55 0.5 1.1 108 5.9 3.3 -44 New Hampshire 0.6 0.9 55 0.4 1.1 150 2.5 1.2 -53 New Jersey 1.1 1.7 49 0.9 1.5 74 4.7 4.5 -4 New Mexico 2.0 2.6 32 1.4 2.4 75 12.4 7.2 -42 New York 2.1 3.3 56 1.6 2.8 76 8.3 9.0 9 North Carolina 2.4 2.3 -4 1.6 2.0 27 13.6 5.7 -58 North Dakota 1.0 1.3 31 0.6 1.3 128 5.1 2.4 -52 Ohio 1.1 2.1 89 1.0 2.3 132 4.2 2.4 -42 Oklahoma 2.3 2.1 -9 1.3 2.1 58 11.6 3.9 -66 Oregon 0.9 1.6 86 0.7 1.6 129 3.3 2.7 -18 Pennsylvania 1.4 2.4 71 1.1 2.5 123 5.0 3.4 -31 Rhode Island 1.6 2.7 70 1.1 2.7 150 6.4 4.9 -24 South Carolina 2.7 2.6 -3 1.8 2.4 35 17.0 6.0 -65 South Dakota 1.1 1.7 49 0.7 1.7 136 5.0 3.0 -40 Tennessee 2.9 2.8 -2 1.9 2.8 50 14.8 5.8 -61 Texas 1.9 2.0 6 1.0 1.6 68 12.7 7.6 -40 Utah 0.6 0.9 64 0.5 1.0 96 3.0 1.9 -37 Vermont 1.8 2.0 13 1.3 2.2 68 8.1 3.7 -54 Virginia 1.5 1.8 20 1.0 1.6 57 8.5 4.8 -44 Washington 1.2 1.7 47 1.0 1.8 84 4.8 3.6 -25 West Virginia 2.1 4.1 92 1.9 4.6 147 8.0 4.7 -41 Wisconsin 1.4 1.6 11 1.0 1.6 67 6.5 2.3 -65 Wyoming 0.4 1.2 186 0.3 1.3 348 2.7 1.6 -42 Total 1.9 2.3 24 1.3 2.2 75 9.0 5.6 -38
-
-
Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1975 – 2001 [In percent]
-
1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 1994 2 1996 2 2001 2 1 The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively.
2 For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that year. For 1994-2001 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.
Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin • Annual Statistical Supplement • 2002, and Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).Alabama 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.6 Alaska 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 Arizona 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.6 Arkansas 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.2 California 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 Colorado 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 Connecticut 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 District of Columbia 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.5 Florida 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.4 Georgia 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.4 Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 Idaho 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 Illinois 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.0 Indiana 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 Iowa 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 Kansas 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 Kentucky 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.3 Louisiana 3.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.2 3.7 Maine 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 Maryland 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 Massachusetts 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.6 Michigan 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.1 Minnesota 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 Mississippi 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.2 4.5 Missouri 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.0 Montana 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 Nebraska 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 Nevada 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 New Hampshire 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 New Jersey 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 New Mexico 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.6 New York 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.3 North Carolina 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.3 North Dakota 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 Ohio 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 Oklahoma 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 Oregon 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 Pennsylvania 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.4 Rhode Island 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.7 South Carolina 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.6 South Dakota 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 Tennessee 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.8 Texas 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 Utah 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 Vermont 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.0 Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.8 Washington 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 West Virginia 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.8 4.1 Wisconsin 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.8 1.6 Wyoming 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 Total 1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.3
-
View full report

"title-TOC.pdf" (pdf, 289.11Kb)
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®
View full report

"ch1.pdf" (pdf, 268.53Kb)
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®
View full report

"ch2.pdf" (pdf, 1.71Mb)
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®
View full report

"ch3.pdf" (pdf, 2.3Mb)
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®
View full report

"apa.pdf" (pdf, 10.43Mb)
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®
View full report

"apb.pdf" (pdf, 158.5Kb)
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®
View full report

"apc.pdf" (pdf, 489.7Kb)
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®