Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2005 . Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

08/30/2005

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

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

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

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

Recent Legislative Action

Legislative authority for the TANF block grant program expired September 2002. Since then, the program has been operated under a series of short-term extensions.

In February 2002, President Bush proposed a plan, Working Toward Independence, to strengthen welfare reform, in order to help families remaining on welfare and other low-income families move toward self-sufficiency. The House of Representatives passed bills incorporating the key elements of the President’s plan in both the 107th Congress (H.R. 4737) and the 108th Congress (H.R. 4), with work progressing on a similar bill (H.R. 240) in the 109th Congress. Senate versions of TANF reauthorization have been reported out of committee (S. 667 in the 109th Congress). Final enactment of TANF reauthorization is expected in 2005.

Data Issues Relating to the AFDC-TANF Transition

States had the option of beginning their TANF programs as soon as PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, and a few states began TANF programs as early as September 1996. All states were required to implement TANF by July 1, 1997. Because states implemented TANF at different times, the FY 1997 data reflect a combination of the AFDC and TANF programs. In some states, limited data are available for FY 1997 because states were given a transition period of six months after they implemented TANF before they were required to report data on the characteristics and work activities of TANF participants.

Because of the greatly expanded range of activities allowed under TANF, a substantial portion of TANF funds are being spent on activities other than cash payments to families. Table TANF 4 in this Appendix which tracks overall expenditure trends includes only those TANF funds spent on “cash and work-based assistance” and “administrative costs,” not on work activities, supportive services, or other allowable uses of funds. Spending on these other activities is detailed in Table TANF 5. Note that TANF administrative costs include funds spent administering all activities, not just cash and work-based assistance. (Administrative costs under AFDC had included a small amount of funds for administering AFDC child care programs; such programs, and the costs of administering them, were transferred to the Child Care and Development Fund as part of PRWORA.)

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. For example, under TANF there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” (UP) program, as there was under AFDC. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. It is also possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. At present, the vast majority of families receiving “assistance”1 are, in fact, receiving cash payments; however, this may change over time.

One source of discontinuity was removed in the 2004 edition of the Indicators report. Under TANF some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded out of MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. This allows the states additional flexibility with regard to the time limits and work requirements. The official TANF caseload figures do not include these families. Starting with the 2004 edition, we have added recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state) but Tribal TANF families are not included in any of the caseload counts. Expenditures for Separate State Programs are shown in Table TANF 5.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figure TANF 1 and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1 through 6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7)2 and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 17). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a and IND 4a in Chapter II.

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Tables TANF 1 through TANF 3 and Figure TANF 1). Welfare caseloads have stabilized over the past few years after declining dramatically during the 1990s. In fiscal year 2003, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.5 million persons, down 2.4 percent from FY 2002. Moreover, this was 56 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in fiscal year 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1968. From the peak of 14.4 million in March 1994, the number of AFDC/TANF recipients dropped by nearly 63 percent to 5.3 million in March 2004.3 Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the implementation of TANF (data not shown). These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs.

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

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

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

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 show that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, by 2003 the average monthly benefit per recipient had declined to 61 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.

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

One of the most dramatic trends is the increase in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 2003, 23 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1993, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was 28 percent in FY 2003 (data not shown). Similar upward trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect positive effects of welfare-to-work programs, the strong economy, and the fact that, with larger earnings disregards, families with earnings do not exit welfare as rapidly. In addition, the increased employment of welfare recipients is consistent with broader trends in labor force participation. (For example, see Table WORK 2 in Chapter III for trends in employment rates for women with no more than a high school education.)

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of cases without an adult recipient. Such cases occur when the adults are ineligible (because they are a caretaker relative, SSI parent, immigrant parent, or sanctioned parent). Families with no adults in the assistance unit have climbed from 14.8 percent of the caseload in FY 1992 to 40.9 percent in FY 2003. Not counting cases with a sanctioned parent, 38.0 percent of the caseload was child-only in 2003. This dramatic growth has been due to an increase in the number of child-only cases during the early 1990s, followed by a decline in the number of adult-present cases. Even though child-only cases are generally not subject to the work requirements or time limits under TANF, the number of cases without an adult in the assistance unit has fallen by about 150,000 since 1996 — between 1996 and 1998 the child-only caseload decreased by 250,000 but subsequently increased by 100,000.

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

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

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8 through TANF 17). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since 1993, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and March 2004 ranges from 95 percent (Wyoming) to 28 percent (Indiana). Five states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as June 1997 (Hawaii).

Table TANF 15 shows TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) families and recipients, by state. Tables TANF 16 and 17 use a data source available beginning in 2003, the High Performance Bonus data, which links TANF administrative records with quarterly earnings records, and allows examination of patterns of TANF receipt and employment. For example, Table TANF 16 shows the range across states in employment rates among TANF recipients (where employment is measured by presence of quarterly earnings in the same calendar quarter as one or more months of TANF recipient or in the immediately subsequent quarter). Table 17 complements the data on program spell duration provided in Table IND 8 in Chapter II, by examining state-by-state variation in the percentage of TANF recipients that receive benefits over the course of one year (four quarters) after a selected calendar quarter.

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and “UP Families” are those two-parent cases whose eligibility was due to unemployment and who received benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF in the period from September 1996 to July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is March 2004.

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

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 plus unpublished data and Seventh TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2005.

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

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

1 Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.

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

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

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

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups: 1970–2003

Calendar
Year 1
Total Recipients in the States & DC(thousands) Child Recipients in the States & DC(thousands) Recipients as a Percent of Total Population 2 Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population 3 Recipients as a Percent of Pretransfer Poverty Population 4 Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population 2 Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty 3
1970 8,303 6,104 4.1 32.7 NA 8.8 58.5
1971 10,043 7,303 4.9 39.3 NA 10.5 69.2
1972 10,736 7,766 5.1 43.9 NA 11.2 75.5
1973 10,738 7,763 5.1 46.7 NA 11.3 80.5
1974 10,621 7,637 5.0 45.4 NA 11.3 75.2
1975 11,131 7,928 5.2 43.0 NA 11.8 71.4
1976 11,098 7,850 5.1 44.4 NA 11.8 76.4
1977 10,856 7,632 4.9 43.9 NA 11.7 74.2
1978 10,387 7,270 4.7 42.4 NA 11.2 73.2
1979 10,140 7,057 4.5 38.9 53.1 11.0 68.0
1980 10,599 7,295 4.7 36.2 49.2 11.4 63.2
1981 10,893 7,397 4.7 34.2 47.1 11.7 59.2
1982 10,161 6,767 4.4 29.5 40.6 10.8 49.6
1983 10,569 6,967 4.5 29.9 41.9 11.1 50.1
1984 10,643 7,017 4.5 31.6 43.6 11.2 52.3
1985 10,672 7,073 4.5 32.3 45.0 11.3 54.4
1986 10,850 7,206 4.5 33.5 46.6 11.5 56.0
1987 10,841 7,240 4.5 33.6 46.7 11.5 55.9
1988 10,728 7,201 4.4 33.8 47.7 11.4 57.8
1989 10,798 7,286 4.4 34.3 47.6 11.5 57.9
1990 11,497 7,781 4.6 34.2 47.1 12.1 57.9
1991 12,728 8,601 5.0 35.6 49.1 13.2 60.0
1992 13,571 9,189 5.3 35.7 50.8 13.8 60.1
1993 14,007 9,460 5.4 35.7 48.5 14.0 60.2
1994 13,970 9,448 5.3 36.7 50.0 13.8 61.8
1995 13,242 9,013 5.0 36.4 50.1 13.0 61.5
1996 12,156 8,355 4.5 33.3 46.4 11.9 57.8
1997 10,224 7,077 5 3.7 28.7 40.7 10.0 50.1
1998 8,215 5,781 3.0 23.8 34.7 8.1 42.9
1999 6,709 4,836 2.4 20.5 30.9 6.7 39.4
2000 6,043 4,399 2.1 19.1 29.7 6.1 38.0
2001 5,633 4,132 2.0 17.1 26.8 5.7 35.3
2002 5,529 4,050 1.9 16.0 25.4 5.6 33.4
2003 5,432 4,004 1.9 15.1 NA 5.5 31.1
 

1 Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates. From 2000 onward, total recipients includes SSP recipients as well as TANF recipients. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates.

2 Population numbers used as denominators are resident population. See Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106.

3 For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-226 (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

4 The pretransfer poverty population used as the denominator is the number of all persons in families with related children under 18 years of age whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.

5 Estimated based on the ratio of children recipients to total recipients for January through June of 1997.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2003," Current Population Reports, Series P60-226, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

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

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

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

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

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

1 Constant dollar adjustments to 2003 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.

2 Includes expenditures for services.

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

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

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

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending Fiscal Years 1997–2003
(millions)
  Cash & Work-Based Assistance Work Activities Child Care Trans- portation Adminis- tration Systems Transitional Services Other 1 Expenditures Total Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
1997 $7,708 $467 $14 $872 $109 $0 $862 $10,032
1998 7,168 763 252 938 224 6 1,136 10,487
1999 6,475 1,225 604 1,070 337 17 1,595 11,323
2000 5,444 1,606 1,553 496 1,328 242 2,715 13,384
2001 4,772 1,983 1,583 522 1,375 223 4,325 14,782
2002 4,554 2,121 1,572 339 1,339 294 4,368 14,588
2003 5,520 1,937 1,698 434 1,307 285 4,772 16,254
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF Program
1997 5,955 311 752 704 101 9 926 8,758
1998 6,879 520 890 883 138 11 1,301 10,623
1999 6,541 503 1,135 743 118 23 1,334 10,397
2000 5,432 884 1,893 150 921 92 1,170 10,541
2001 4,887 685 1,730 113 920 83 1,195 9,613
2002 3,994 582 1,860 221 877 66 1,554 9,154
2003 3,597 596 1,993 73 766 60 1,441 8,526
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in Separate State Programs
1997 69 12 111 0 0 18 210
1998 216 3 137 6 1 28 391
1999 434 26 257 22 0 0 126 865
2000 305 11 73 17 19 0 431 856
2001 503 28 34 20 38 1 499 1,125
2002 860 24 72 24 41 -.5 652 1,673
2003 801 66 -223 36 33 -.3 848 1,560
Total Expenditures
1997 13,731 790 877 1,577 211 9 1,805 19,000
1998 14,264 1,286 1,280 1,828 362 17 2,465 21 ,502
1999 13,449 1,754 1,995 1,835 456 40 3,055 22,585
2000 11,180 2,501 3,519 663 2,267 335 4,316 24,781
2001 10,163 2,696 3,347 655 2,333 306 6,019 25,520
2002 9,408 2,727 3,504 584 2,258 359 6,574 25,414
2003 10,219 2,599 3,468 543 2,106 345 7,060 26,340

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

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

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

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962–2003

 

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

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

1 The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC families.

2 Estimated based on the weighted average benefit for a 4-person family.

3 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Beginning in 1997, average monthly benefits are calculated from case-level data rather than by dividing aggregate expenditures on cash assistance by aggregate caseloads, as in the past. This change was necessary due to uncertainty about the extent to which states may be reporting non-cash basic assistance as well as cash assistance in the expenditure data formerly used to calculate average cash benefits.

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

 

Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families: Selected Years 1969–2003

 
May
1969
May
1975
March
1979
Fiscal Year 1
1983 1988 1992 1996 2000 2002 2003
Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5
Number of Child Recipients
One 26.6 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.5 43.9 44.2 47.0 47.9
Two 23.0 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.2 29.9 28.4 28.0 27.8
Three 17.7 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.3 14.2 13.8
Four or More 32.5 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.1 8.9 8.6
Unknown NA NA NA 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.9
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit 10.1 12.5 14.6 8.3 9.6 14.8 21.5 34.5 39.0 40.9
Child-Only Families 2 32.7 36.6 38.0
Families with Non-Recipients 33.1 34.8 NA 36.9 36.8 38.9 49.9
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
Since Most Recent Opening 23.0 31.0 29.0 26.0 26.3 22.5 23.6
Presence of Assistance
Living in Public Housing 12.8 14.6 NA 10.0 9.6 9.2 8.8 17.7 19.2 19.1
Participating in Food Stamp or
Donated Food Program
52.9 75.1 75.1 83.0 84.6 87.3 89.3 79.9 80.1 80.9
Presence of Income3
With Earnings  NA 14.6 12.8 5.7 8.4 7.4 11.1 23.6 21.8 19.5
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income  56.0 71.1 80.6 86.8 79.6 78.9 76.0 71.6 72.8 74.4
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed  14.0 5.5 6.8 6.6 11.3 26.4 25.3 22.9
Unemployed  49.2 47.2 49.0
Not in Labor Force  24.3 27.5 28.1
Adult Women's Employment Status (percent of adult female recipients)4
Full-Time Job 8.2 10.4 8.7 1.5 2.2 2.2 4.7
Part-Time Job 6.3 5.7 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 5.4
Marital Status (percent of adults)
Single 65.3 66.6 67.3
Married 12.4 11.5 10.7
Separated 13.1 13.0 12.8
Widowed 0.7 0.7 0.5
Divorced 8.5 8.2 8.7
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent of children)
Incapacitated 11.7 5 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3
Unemployed 4.6 5 3.7 4.1 8.7 6.5 8.2 8.3
Death 5.5 5 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6
Divorce or Separation 43.3 5 48.3 44.7 38.5 34.6 30.0 24.3
Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 5 31.0 37.8 44.3 51.9 53.1 58.6
Absent, Other Reason 3.5 5 4.0 5.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.4
Unknown 1.7 0.9 0.6

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

1 Percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii.

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

3 Percentages on presence of income are measured as a percentage of families through 1997 and for adult recipients in 1998 and subsequent years.

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

5 Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: 2003 TANF Annual Report to Congress and earlier years.

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits, by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978–2003
(millions)
  1978 1984 1986 1988 1990 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003
United States $10,621 $14,371 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $14,614 $11,180 $9,408 $10,219
Alabama $78 $74 $68 $62 $62 $92 $44 $36 $33 $46
Alaska 17 37 46 54 60 113 77 55 55 50
Arizona 30 67 79 103 138 266 145 107 130 175
Arkansas 51 39 48 53 57 57 26 34 26 22
California 1,813 3,207 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 4,128 3,643 2,608 3,119
Colorado 74 107 107 125 137 158 80 48 53 51
Connecticut 168 226 223 218 295 397 305 166 128 133
Delaware 28 28 25 24 29 40 24 20 19 20
Dist. of Columbia 91 75 77 76 84 126 97 72 67 68
Florida 145 251 261 318 418 806 357 234 256 251
Georgia 103 149 223 266 321 428 313 180 109 169
Guam 3 5 4 3 5 12 NA NA NA NA
Hawaii 83 83 73 77 99 163 153 141 85 91
Idaho 21 21 19 19 20 30 6 3 5 6
Illinois 699 845 886 815 839 914 771 269 146 115
Indiana 118 153 148 167 170 228 104 87 146 139
Iowa 107 159 170 155 152 169 104 79 76 81
Kansas 73 87 91 97 105 123 41 43 50 55
Kentucky 122 135 104 143 179 198 147 104 101 102
Louisiana 97 145 162 182 188 168 103 58 67 67
Maine 51 69 84 80 101 108 80 73 66 66
Maryland 166 229 250 250 296 314 192 196 227 32
Massachusetts 476 406 471 558 630 730 442 336 279 339
Michigan 780 1,214 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 589 386 326 390
Minnesota 164 287 322 338 355 379 276 193 184 193
Mississippi 33 58 74 85 86 82 60 18 37 36
Missouri 152 196 209 215 228 287 180 139 148 130
  15 27 37 41 40 49 30 21 31 31
Nebraska 38 56 62 56 59 62 41 41 52 59
Nevada 8 10 16 20 27 48 39 28 48 48
New Hampshire 21 16 20 21 32 62 39 32 29 39
New Jersey 489 485 509 459 451 531 372 222 194 222
New Mexico 32 49 51 56 61 144 104 113 82 78
New York 1,689 1,916 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,149 1,554 1,465 1,605
North Carolina 138 149 138 206 247 353 211 140 139 133
North Dakota 14 16 20 22 24 26 22 12 10 18
Ohio 441 725 804 805 877 1,016 546 368 336 304
Oklahoma 74 85 100 119 132 165 72 78 45 58
Oregon 148 101 120 128 145 197 141 34 69 82
Pennsylvania 726 724 389 747 798 935 523 573 338 324
Puerto Rico 25 38 33 67 72 74 NA NA NA NA
Rhode Island 59 71 79 82 99 136 117 105 89 83
South Carolina 52 75 103 91 96 115 52 91 35 49
South Dakota 18 17 15 21 22 25 14 10 11 11
Tennessee 77 83 100 125 168 215 108 146 132 138
Texas 122 229 281 344 416 544 315 248 203 323
Utah 41 52 55 61 64 77 50 40 41 44
Vermont 21 40 40 40 48 65 47 39 38 34
Virgin Islands 2 2 2 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA
Virginia 136 165 179 169 177 253 123 186 101 129
Washington 175 294 375 401 438 610 450 312 295 269
West Virginia 53 75 109 107 110 126 52 49 71 68
Wisconsin 260 519 444 506 440 425 145 7 126 109
Wyoming 6 13 16 19 19 21 7 9 2 15

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

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

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs
and 2003 Family Assistance Grants Awarded under PRWORA
(millions)
State FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1 FY 2003 Family Assistance Grants & Supplemental 2 FY 2003 Bonus Awards 3 FY 2003 Total Awards
Increase of FY 2003 over
FY 1996 Level
Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States $15,067 $16,685 $511 $17,196 $2,129 14
Alabama $79.0 $104.4 0.5 $104.9 $25.9 33
Alaska 60.7 60.3 6.3 66.6 6.0 10
Arizona 200.6 226.1 1.2 227.3 26.7 13
Arkansas 54.3 63.0 5.7 68.6 14.3 26
California 3,545.6 3,687.7 21.0 3,708.7 163.1 5
Colorado 138.9 149.6 19.8 169.4 30.5 22
Connecticut 221.1 266.8 11.7 278.5 57.5 26
Delaware 30.2 32.3 1.2 33.5 3.3 11
Dist. of Columbia 77.1 92.6 24.6 117.2 40.1 52
Florida 504.7 622.7 38.1 660.8 156.1 31
Georgia 301.2 368.0 4.4 372.4 71.2 24
Hawaii 98.4 98.9 0.9 99.8 1.4 1
Idaho 31.3 33.9 2.1 36.0 4.7 15
Illinois 593.8 585.1 0.0 585.1 -8.8 -1
Indiana 121.4 206.8 19.4 226.2 104.9 86
Iowa 129.3 131.5 7.2 138.7 9.4 7
Kansas 86.9 101.9 10.2 112.1 25.2 29
Kentucky 171.6 181.3 14.5 195.8 24.1 14
Louisiana 122.4 181.0 3.8 184.8 62.4 51
Maine 73.2 78.1 4.3 82.4 9.2 13
Maryland 207.6 229.1 21.4 250.5 42.9 21
Massachusetts 372.0 459.4 2.2 461.6 89.5 24
Michigan 581.5 775.4 22.0 797.3 215.8 37
Minnesota 239.3 267.2 13.4 280.6 41.2 17
Mississippi 68.6 95.8 0.8 96.6 28.0 41
Missouri 207.9 217.1 21.7 238.8 30.9 15
Montana 39.2 43.7 4.4 48.0 8.9 23
Nebraska 56.2 57.7 5.8 63.6 7.4 13
Nevada 41.2 47.7 2.0 49.7 8.5 21
New Hampshire 36.0 38.5 2.7 41.2 5.2 14
New Jersey 353.4 404.0 4.3 408.3 54.9 16
New Mexico 129.9 117.2 5.4 122.5 -7.4 -6
New York 2,332.7 2,442.9 23.1 2,466.0 133.3 6
North Carolina 311.9 338.3 3.5 341.8 29.9 10
North Dakota 24.5 26.4 1.3 27.7 3.2 13
Ohio 564.5 728.0 21.4 749.4 184.9 33
Oklahoma 125.1 147.6 6.5 154.1 29.0 23
Oregon 146.4 166.8 6.0 172.9 26.4 18
Pennsylvania 780.1 719.5 31.7 751.2 -29.0 -4
Rhode Island 82.9 95.0 2.9 97.9 15.0 18
South Carolina 99.4 100.0 1.6 101.5 2.1 2
South Dakota 19.7 21.3 1.6 22.9 3.1 16
Tennessee 178.9 213.1 11.2 224.3 45.3 25
Texas 437.1 539.0 27.6 566.5 129.4 30
Utah 68.0 84.3 6.0 90.3 22.3 33
Vermont 42.4 47.4 1.3 48.6 6.3 15
Virginia 134.6 158.3 15.8 174.1 39.5 29
Washington 393.2 388.7 12.6 401.3 8.1 2
West Virginia 95.1 110.2 2.8 113.0 17.9 19
Wisconsin 241.6 315.1 11.5 326.5 85.0 35
Wyoming 14.4 18.5 20.2 38.7 24.3 169

1 Includes Administration and FAMIS but excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant. The 1996 figures have been revised since earlier versions of this report, to reflect upward revisions in states' reports of expenditures on the JOBS program.

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

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

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

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

1Negative values denote percent increase.

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

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

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

Note: Recipients in 2000 and beyond include both TANF and SSP recipients but do not include Tribal TANF recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 2003 TANF Report to Congress.

Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population, by State: Selected Fiscal Years
(percent)
 
  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2003 PercentChange
1990-96 1996-03
United States 2.1 3.5 4.6 4.5 5.3 4.6 2.2 1.9 3 -60
Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.6 3.2 3.1 2.4 1.0 1.0 -24 -58
Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.7 3.7 6.3 5.9 3.6 2.3 63 -61
Arizona 2.6 2.9 1.9 3.4 4.7 3.7 1.7 2.0 11 -46
Arkansas 1.5 2.3 3.7 3.0 2.8 2.3 1.1 0.9 -25 -59
California 2.9 5.7 5.8 6.3 8.4 8.2 4.6 3.7 29 -55
Colorado 2.2 3.0 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.5 0.7 0.8 -19 -69
Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.5 3.6 5.0 4.8 2.1 1.6 33 -67
Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 3.2 3.8 3.2 1.7 1.6 -0 -48
Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 13.3 8.1 12.6 12.3 8.2 7.7 52 -37
Florida 1.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 4.7 3.8 1.0 0.8 33 -80
Georgia 1.6 4.3 4.0 4.5 5.5 4.7 1.6 1.6 4 -67
Hawaii 1.9 3.2 6.2 3.9 5.2 5.5 6.1 3.3 40 -41
Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9 0.2 0.2 16 -88
Illinois 2.5 3.3 5.9 5.6 6.0 5.4 2.1 0.8 -2 -86
Indiana 1.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.7 2.5 1.7 2.5 -9 -0
Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.1 1.9 1.8 -12 -40
Kansas 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.4 2.6 1.2 1.5 -16 -44
Kentucky 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.7 5.4 4.5 2.2 1.9 -6 -58
Louisiana 2.9 5.6 5.0 6.7 5.7 5.4 1.7 1.3 -20 -76
Maine 1.9 3.6 5.4 4.5 5.2 4.5 2.5 2.5 -2 -45
Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.9 4.4 4.0 1.5 1.3 3 -68
Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.1 4.4 5.0 3.8 1.6 1.7 -12 -56
Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.4 7.0 6.9 5.4 2.1 2.0 -23 -63
Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.9 4.1 3.6 2.3 2.3 -7 -36
Mississippi 3.6 5.2 6.9 6.9 5.9 4.7 1.2 1.6 -32 -66
Missouri 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.9 4.3 2.3 2.1 4 -50
Montana 1.0 1.9 2.4 3.6 4.0 3.5 1.4 1.9 -3 -46
Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.4 1.6 1.8 -12 -24
Nevada 1.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.3 0.8 1.3 22 -44
New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.7 2.1 1.1 1.2 40 -44
New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.2 4.0 4.2 3.5 1.6 1.3 -11 -64
New Mexico 3.0 5.0 4.1 3.8 6.1 5.8 4.0 2.4 53 -59
New York 2.9 5.8 6.3 5.4 6.8 6.4 3.8 2.6 17 -59
North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.6 3.7 1.2 1.0 10 -73
North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.2 1.4 -15 -34
Ohio 1.8 2.5 4.8 5.8 6.1 4.9 2.2 1.6 -17 -66
Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 2.9 3.6 4.0 3.1 1.0 1.0 -12 -67
Oregon 1.6 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.7 2.7 1.1 1.2 -14 -55
Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 4.4 5.1 4.4 2.0 1.7 2 -62
Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 4.6 6.2 5.7 4.7 3.8 25 -34
South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.9 3.2 3.8 3.1 1.0 1.2 -1 -61
South Dakota 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.2 0.9 0.8 -19 -63
Tennessee 2.0 3.3 3.5 4.3 5.7 4.8 2.6 3.2 11 -34
Texas 0.9 1.9 2.1 3.6 4.2 3.5 1.6 1.6 -1 -54
Utah 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.9 -25 -52
Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 3.9 4.8 4.3 2.7 2.2 10 -48
Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.1 2.4 3.0 2.4 1.1 1.0 -1 -58
Washington 2.4 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.4 4.9 2.8 2.4 6 -51
West Virginia 6.4 5.3 4.0 6.2 6.3 5.2 1.8 2.2 -16 -57
Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 4.5 4.8 4.4 3.3 0.8 0.9 -33 -72
Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.4 2.6 0.2 0.1 -16 -94

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

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

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

Note: From FY 2000 onward, TANF child recipients include TANF and SSP child recipients but not Tribal TANF recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 2003 TANF Report to Congress.

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children, by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965–2003
(percent)
 
  1965 1970 1980 1990 1994 1996 2000 2003 PercentChange
1990-96 1996-03
United States 4.4 7.6 11.3 11.9 14.0 12.4 6.3 5.5 4 -55
Alabama 4.6 7.7 11.1 8.8 8.9 7.3 3.3 3.2 -17 -56
Alaska 3.1 5.0 8.0 7.4 12.8 12.4 7.9 5.3 67 -57
Arizona 4.8 6.0 4.8 8.6 12.1 9.7 4.7 5.5 12 -44
Arkansas 3.1 5.2 9.3 8.2 7.7 6.4 3.2 2.8 -23 -56
California 6.0 12.3 14.6 16.2 20.8 20.3 12.5 10.7 25 -47
Colorado 4.4 6.4 6.5 7.8 8.3 6.8 1.9 2.2 -13 -67
Connecticut 4.4 6.1 11.8 10.8 14.2 13.7 5.9 4.6 27 -66
Delaware 4.7 7.5 13.4 8.7 10.5 8.9 4.9 5.0 2 -44
Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 40.9 30.7 44.5 44.1 31.4 29.9 44 -32
Flori a 4.3 7.6 7.8 8.8 14.1 11.6 3.3 2.6 31 -78
Georgia 3.2 9.1 9.8 11.8 14.6 12.8 4.6 4.5 9 -64
Hawaii 3.6 6.5 14.5 10.5 13.6 14.5 17.2 9.0 39 -38
Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.6 4.6 4.6 0.5 0.7 27 -85
Illinois 5.3 7.5 14.6 14.8 15.7 14.4 6.0 2.5 -3 -83
Indiana 2.0 3.0 6.9 7.3 9.8 7.0 4.7 7.1 -5 2
Iowa 3.2 4.7 8.4 8.8 9.9 8.2 5.0 5.0 -8 -38
Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.5 7.9 8.5 7.0 3.2 4.0 -12 -43
Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.9 12.4 14.1 12.4 6.7 5.7 -0 -54
Louisiana 5.5 11.3 11.8 16.5 14.6 13.3 4.9 3.9 -20 -70
Maine 3.9 7.7 12.5 11.5 13.1 11.8 7.5 7.2 3 -39
Maryland 4.6 7.3 12.4 10.6 12.0 11.1 4.1 3.7 5 -66
Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 15.3 12.4 13.9 10.6 4.9 5.2 -15 -51
Michigan 3.7 5.8 16.7 17.4 17.4 13.9 5.9 5.8 -20 -58
Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.7 9.4 10.1 9.3 6.4 6.4 -0 -31
Mississippi 7.0 11.1 15.7 17.6 15.3 12.7 3.5 4.4 -28 -65
Missouri 5.2 6.9 9.9 10.6 12.9 11.6 6.6 6.1 10 -48
Montana 2.0 4.0 5.7 8.4 9.7 8.9 3.8 5.3 6 -41
Nebraska 2.3 4.4 5.5 6.8 7.0 6.1 4.4 4.9 -10 -19
Nevada 2.5 5.2 3.8 5.0 7.1 6.5 2.2 3.6 29 -45
New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 5.8 3.9 6.6 5.4 3.1 3.3 40 -39
New Jersey 3.4 8.8 16.0 11.7 11.7 9.9 4.9 3.8 -16 -61
New Mexico 5.2 9.5 8.5 8.3 13.5 13.1 10.1 6.2 59 -53
New York 6.3 13.0 16.2 15.4 18.0 17.0 10.6 7.8 11 -54
North Carolina 4.4 5.3 8.5 9.3 12.6 10.4 3.8 3.1 12 -70
North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.7 6.0 6.3 5.4 3.6 4.1 -10 -24
Ohio 3.6 5.3 11.2 14.9 16.0 13.4 6.3 4.9 -10 -63
Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 7.6 9.1 10.4 8.5 3.1 3.2 -7 -62
Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.0 8.1 9.7 7.4 3.4 3.7 -8 -50
Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 13.8 12.3 14.4 12.8 6.3 5.4 4 -58
Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 14.7 13.4 17.5 16.5 13.8 11.5 23 -30
South Carolina 2.3 4.2 11.6 8.7 10.8 9.4 3.2 3.6 8 -62
South Dakota 3.1 5.0 7.1 6.7 6.6 5.9 2.7 2.6 -12 -55
Tennessee 4.2 7.5 8.9 11.8 15.7 13.7 7.7 9.5 16 -31
Texas 1.7 4.1 5.2 8.7 10.4 8.8 4.2 4.4 1 -50
Utah 3.7 5.4 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.0 2.3 2.1 -19 -47
Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.9 9.5 11.7 10.8 7.2 6.3 13 -41
Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 6.8 8.4 7.0 3.1 3.0 3 -58
Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 11.3 13.3 12.4 7.6 6.9 9 -44
West Virginia 12.2 11.2 10.4 15.7 16.8 14.6 5.5 7.1 -7 -52
Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 10.5 12.1 11.4 9.1 2.5 3.0 -25 -67
Wyoming 2.1 3.2 3.4 7.0 8.1 6.8 0.8 0.5 -2 -92

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

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

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2003
(thousands)
  Families All Recipients Child Recipients
TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total
U.S. Total 2,032 149 2,181 4,965 551 5,517 3,730 344 4,073
Alabama 18.8 0.3 19.1 44.7 1.0 45.7 35.2 0.5 35.8
Alaska 5.3 5.3 15.2 15.2 10.1 10.1
Arizona 47.8 47.8 113.0 113.0 82.8 82.8
Arkansas 11.2 11.2 25.4 25.4 18.9 18.9
California 449.7 45.7 495.4 1,111.6 191.1 1,302.7 891.3 119.1 1,010.5
Colorado 13.5 13.5 35.4 35.4 25.8 25.8
Connecticut 21.0 3.5 24.5 45.0 11.0 56.0 32.1 6.6 38.7
Delaware 5.6 0.1 5.7 12.7 0.6 13.3 9.7 0.3 10.0
District of Columbia 16.6 0.4 17.0 42.3 1.0 43.4 31.8 0.7 32.5
Florida 58.1 1.9 60.0 120.0 7.7 127.7 96.9 3.9 100.8
Georgia 55.9 0.7 56.6 133.8 2.7 136.5 103.1 1.4 104.5
Guam 3.1 3.1 10.8 10.8 0.0
Hawaii 9.8 3.9 13.6 25.7 15.2 40.9 18.0 8.8 26.8
Idaho 1.7 1.7 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.5
Illinois 37.9 0.5 38.4 98.0 0.9 98.9 80.3 0.3 80.6
Indiana 52.7 3.3 56.0 140.3 14.6 154.9 105.8 8.2 114.0
Iowa 20.0 2.1 22.1 52.2 2.1 54.3 34.9 0.0 34.9
Kansas 15.3 15.3 39.7 39.7 27.6 27.6
Kentucky 34.9 34.9 77.0 77.0 57.0 57.0
Louisiana 22.8 22.8 57.8 57.8 46.3 46.3
Maine 9.8 1.5 11.3 27.1 5.2 32.3 17.4 3.1 20.5
Maryland 26.1 2.8 29.0 61.8 8.9 70.7 46.0 5.6 51.6
Massachusetts 49.4 0.1 49.5 109.1 0.3 109.4 76.6 0.2 76.7
Michigan 75.1 75.1 200.6 200.6 147.8 147.8
Minnesota 36.5 5.1 41.6 94.6 22.5 117.2 67.9 12.4 80.3
Mississippi 19.8 19.8 45.7 45.7 33.6 33.6
Missouri 40.8 6.1 46.9 101.9 18.7 120.6 73.0 12.2 85.2
Montana 6.2 6.2 17.3 17.3 11.4 11.4
Nebraska 10.9 1.1 12.0 26.9 4.5 31.4 19.4 2.4 21.8
Nevada 10.6 0.8 11.4 25.3 2.9 28.2 19.2 1.6 20.8
New Hampshire 6.1 0.2 6.2 14.2 0.7 14.8 9.7 0.4 10.1
New Jersey 42.4 1.6 44.1 102.6 7.1 109.7 77.2 3.8 81.0
New Mexico 16.6 16.6 44.1 44.1 31.2 31.2
New York 148.8 47.3 196.1 338.7 162.4 501.1 243.4 109.2 352.6
North Carolina 40.4 40.4 84.2 84.2 65.4 65.4
North Dakota 3.4 3.4 8.7 8.7 6.1 6.1
Ohio 84.3 84.3 187.6 187.6 139.2 139.2
Oklahoma 15.0 15.0 36.8 36.8 28.1 28.1
Oregon 18.7 18.7 42.7 42.7 31.5 31.5
Pennsylvania 80.9 80.9 210.4 210.4 153.8 153.8
Puerto Rico 18.9 18.9 53.5 53.5 37.2 37.2
Rhode Island 13.3 1.5 14.9 35.5 5.3 40.8 24.8 3.2 28.0
South Carolina 20.7 20.7 50.6 50.6 36.7 36.7
South Dakota 2.8 2.8 6.3 6.3 5.2 5.2
Tennessee 68.7 1.3 69.9 180.9 4.6 185.6 129.7 2.8 132.5
Texas 133.2 6.6 139.8 334.4 28.3 362.7 259.4 15.3 274.7
Utah 8.5 0.0 8.6 21.8 0.2 22.0 15.6 0.1 15.7
Vermont 4.9 0.4 5.3 12.7 1.0 13.7 8.1 0.6 8.7
Virgin Islands 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1
Virginia 25.2 7.0 32.2 58.2 16.6 74.8 41.7 11.6 53.2
Washington 54.7 3.0 57.7 135.9 12.9 148.8 94.9 8.2 103.1
West Virginia 15.8 15.8 40.7 40.7 27.6 27.6
Wisconsin 20.5 0.4 20.8 49.0 1.4 50.4 39.2 0.9 40.1
Wyoming 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6

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

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

Table TANF 16. Recipients with Earnings in Current and Following Quarters: Fiscal Year 2002

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

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

Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.

Table TANF 17. Patterns of TANF Receipt: Fiscal Year 2002

State Adult TANF Recipients in Qtr(t) (thousands) Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients Also Receiving Benefits in Following Quarters
Qtr(t+1) Qtr(t+2) Qtr(t+3) Qtr(t+4)
All Reporting States 1,387 78 62 52 46
Alabama 10.9 74 54 44 39
Alaska 6.8 77 60 50 43
Arizona 30.1 76 59 51 47
Arkansas 9.0 71 50 37 29
California 273.4 83 70 62 56
Colorado 10.3 73 54 43 37
Connecticut 18.0 79 62 49 40
Delaware 3.6 77 59 49 43
Dist. of Columbia 12.1 86 75 67 62
Florida 37.1 57 38 30 25
Georgia 35.0 78 60 49 42
Hawaii 10.7 80 66 56 49
Idaho 0.7 47 21 14 11
Illinois 32.0 78 60 47 38
Indiana 45.6 82 67 55 44
Iowa 21.7 75 57 48 42
Kansas 13.5 73 55 47 42
Kentucky 24.4 77 59 48 41
Louisiana 15.4 72 52 41 33
Maine 9.9 79 64 56 51
Maryland 19.8 78 62 51 45
Massachusetts 38.3 79 66 58 52
Michigan 64.9 75 59 50 46
Minnesota 31.7 82 68 59 53
Mississippi 12.6 76 59 50 43
Missouri 40.2 79 64 53 45
Montana 7.1 76 61 54 49
Nebraska 9.1 74 60 53 48
Nevada 8.6 76 54 39 29
New Hampshire 5.5 77 60 51 44
New Jersey 31.0 79 64 55 50
New Mexico 17.6 69 50 42 36
New York NA NA NA NA NA
North Carolina 27.3 69 48 37 30
North Dakota 3.0 76 61 53 48
Ohio 63.0 72 52 42 36
Oklahoma 11.1 72 52 42 35
Oregon 13.3 76 60 50 43
Pennsylvania 67.6 79 64 56 51
Rhode Island 13.3 86 76 68 62
South Carolina 18.4 73 52 41 33
South Dakota 1.6 67 47 39 34
Tennessee 52.6 85 74 67 63
Texas 94.5 78 60 48 41
Utah 7.0 72 52 42 35
Vermont 5.8 78 63 54 48
Virginia 21.8 79 62 52 39
Washington 52.3 74 57 49 44
West Virginia 16.6 74 56 47 41
Wisconsin 10.9 77 59 49 44
Wyoming 0.2 48 21 14 10

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

Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.


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

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

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

 

 

View full report

Preview
Download

"report.pdf" (pdf, 14.14Mb)

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®