Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors: Fourteenth Report to Congress

Publication Date

Sep 21, 2015

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare an annual report to Congress on indicators welfare dependence. The Indicators of Welfare Dependence report is prepared by ASPE’s Office of Human Services Policy. As mandated under the Congressional act, the report addresses the rate of welfare dependence, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence. Analyses of means-tested assistance in the report include benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The report also includes risk factors related to economic security, employment, and nonmarital births, as well an appendix with data related to the above programs. Data for most indicators are updated through 2012."

Executive Summary

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare annual reports to Congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence. The 2015 report on Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors provides indicators and risk factors through 2012 for most indicators, reflecting changes that have taken place since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996. As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act, the report focuses on benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps); and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Highlights

Dependence^¹ and Economic Well-Being

The dependency rate rises and falls with economic cycles. The dependency rate fell during the economic expansions of the mid- to late-1990s to 3.0 percent in 2000. After 2000 it began to increase. With the onset of the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, the dependency rate increased to 5.3 percent in 2010. In 2012, the dependency rate was 5.1 percent.
Welfare dependency is beginning to come down. In 2012, 5.1 percent of the total population received more than half of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI, following a recent high of 5.3 percent in 2010 (see Indicator 1).
SNAP benefits provided the most support. The value of SNAP benefits received constitutes a larger share of program benefit income among the welfare dependent population than does cash benefits from the TANF or SSI programs. SNAP is an important support for families, including working families, to help them weather economic distress. The majority of SNAP recipients are in families with someone in the labor force (see Indicator 2).
More people became independent. Transitions out of dependence from one year to the next have improved since 2010 (see Indicator 6). Of those defined as welfare dependent in 2011, 27.6 percent were no longer dependent in 2012. This compares with 24.1 percent who transitioned out of dependency in 2010. Year-to-year transitions out of welfare dependence were lowest in 1994, when only 20.2 percent of those defined as dependent in 1993 were no longer dependent in 1994.

Poverty decreased, especially for children. In 2013, 14.5 percent of the population was poor, down from 15.1 percent in 2010 (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1). Poverty decreased for children even more prominently, from 22.0 percent in 2010 to 19.9 percent in 2013, and especially among younger children under age six who have experienced a 3.1 percentage point drop in poverty rates since 2010. Prior to 2010, the poverty rate had increased for the full population and among children between 2000 and 2004, and again between 2006 and 2010, a period that included the Great Recession.
Program benefits reduced poverty. Accounting for the value of a broader set of program benefits received by families would reduce the number of individuals counted as living in poverty according to the official poverty measure (see Economic Risk Factor 4). In 2012, means-tested cash transfers reduced the poverty rate by 0.7 percentage points, and the combined effect of food and housing assistance, the EITC, and federal taxes would be to reduce the percentage of the population in official poverty by an additional 3.6 percentage points.

Program Recipiency

Receipt of program benefits increased. In 2012, 23.6 percent of the total population received or lived with a family member who received a benefit of any amount from TANF, SNAP, or SSI at some point during the year (see SUM 1). While falling between 1994 and 2000, this annual recipiency rate across the three programs began to rise after 2000, and increased more rapidly during and in the immediate years following the Great Recession. The 2012 rate is higher than pre-recession rates, reflecting increased participation in the SNAP and SSI programs since the Great Recession (see Indicator 3).
Program benefits are responsive to economic conditions. To a significant extent, the trends in dependency and annual program benefit receipt correlated with worsening economic conditions. The increase in SNAP recipiency between 2005 and 2012 reflects its intended responsiveness to economic changes, expanding to meet increased need when the economy is in recession. SNAP is an important support for families especially those with ties to the labor force – 64.7 percent of SNAP recipients are in families with labor force participants (see Indicator 2). About half (53.7 percent)^² of recent SNAP entrants remain on the program for a year or less (see Indicator 7). As the economy continues to improve, SNAP is projected to respond as designed, with fewer people needing to access the program. In 2014, SNAP participation began to decrease (Table SNAP 1) and the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections show that average monthly participation will decline steadily over the next ten years.^³
Changes in program caseloads impact dependency rates. Trends in the annual recipiency rate across all three programs presented in this report reflect well-documented changes in TANF, SNAP, and SSI caseloads over the past two decades (see Indicator 3). For example, the percentage of individuals receiving TANF cash assistance in an average month fell from 5.4 percent in 1993 to 1.4 percent in 2007. Between 2008 and 2012 the percentage of the total population receiving TANF fluctuated from 1.3 to 1.5 percent. SNAP recipiency in an average month fell in the latter half of the 1990s from 10.4 percent in 1994 to 6.0 percent in 2000. Since 2000, SNAP recipiency in an average month increased to 14.6 percent in 2012. Conversely, SSI recipiency rates were relatively flat between 1993 and 2012, fluctuating between 2.3 and 2.6 percent.
Long-term recipiency is rare. Longitudinal measures show that program spells typically are short (see Indicator 7). For example, 79.6 percent of all TANF spells and 53.7 percent of all new SNAP spells lasted one year or less.

Connections to Employment

The majority of mothers in the U.S. are in the labor force (see Employment and Work-Related Risk Factor 7). Of particular note is the sharp increase in labor force participation rates for never-married mothers, rising from 52.5 percent in 1992 to a peak of 75.3 percent in 2002. In 2012 the rate was 71.5 percent. The report does not report the labor force participation of fathers.
Families who use TANF or SNAP benefits also tend to be in the labor force. In an average month in 2012, 56.7 percent of TANF recipients lived in families with labor force connections and 64.7 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits lived in families with at least one family member in the labor force, including unemployed individuals looking for work. The comparable figure for SSI recipients was 39.1 percent (see Indicator 2). Between 2005 and 2012^{^[4]} there has been an increase in the percentage of recipients in families having at least one person in the labor force. Between 2005 and 2012, the percentage of recipients in families with at least one person in the labor force increased from 52.3 to 56.7 percent for TANF recipients, from 55.3 to 64.7 percent for SNAP recipients, and from 38.9 to 39.1 percent for SSI recipients.
Families who receive TANF don’t stay out of work for long. Most spells of TANF receipt with no family labor force connection are not long (see Indicator 8). In the most recent time period (2008 to 2012), 56.4 percent of TANF spells where no one in the family was in the labor force lasted four months or less and 86.4 percent lasted 12 months or less. These proportions have grown since the early 1990s (1993 to 1995) from 42.6 percent and 69.0 percent, respectively.

Nonmarital Births and Never-Married Family Status as Risk Factors

Nonmarital births have risen since the 1940s (see Birth 1). In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women. Beginning in 1960, this percentage began to increase, reaching 32.6 percent by 1994. Since 2008 the rate has remained steady at approximately 40.7 percent. Nonmarital births to teens 15 – 19 years of age as a percentage of all births have declined from 9.7 percent in 1996 to 6.9 percent in 2012 (see Birth 2).
Many more children live with only their (single) mother than ever before. The percentage of all children living in families with a never-married female head has grown over time (see Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 4). In 2012, 11.7 percent of all children lived in a never-married, single-mother family, up from 2.9 percent in 1980.

¹ Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP (see Chapter 1).

² These estimates differ from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.

³ See Congressional Budget Office Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – January 2015 Baseline, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44211.

⁴See the 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Report online at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml for the 2005 numbers.

Measurment

Use of welfare programs, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and duration. Families may be more or less reliant if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which families receive benefits from welfare programs might also be considered in assessing their degree of dependence.

Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in defining and measuring dependence, a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed that: a family is defined as dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities.

Given data limitations, we are not able to identify which program benefits may be associated with recipient work activities. Thus, the definition of welfare dependence used in this report may characterize more individuals as welfare dependent than the Board had intended. We follow the Board’s proposal as closely as possible by adopting the following definition of possible welfare dependence among individuals in families⁵ for use in this report: welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI.

The report provides a number of key indicators of welfare dependence, recipiency, and labor force attachment. Also included is a broader set of risk factors associated with welfare receipt and potential dependence organized into three categories: 1) economic security measures, 2) measures related to employment and barriers to employment, and 3) measures of nonmarital childbearing. The key economic security risk factors include and supplement measures of poverty and well-being and are useful to ensure that predictors of receipt are not assessed in isolation. Measures related to employment and barriers to employment also may be useful since families must generally receive an adequate income from employment in order to avoid welfare programs without severe deprivation. Trends in nonmarital births are provided since the lower family incomes of single-parent families affects the need for and use of welfare programs. Historically a large percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients first became parents outside of marriage.

⁵Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report.

Data Sources and Topics

This report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data for the TANF cash assistance program, SNAP, and the SSI program to provide updated measures through 2012 for the key dependence indicators in Chapter II. Other measures in Chapters II and III are based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) and other data sources. To provide a greater program context, the report has five appendices that provide additional historical as well as subnational data on major welfare programs, alternative measures of dependence and nonmarital births, as well as background information on several data and technical issues.

Unless otherwise noted, dollar values are reported in current dollars.

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

This 2015 report provides data on measures of welfare recipiency, dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence. The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. The Welfare Indicators Act further specified that a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators be established to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the development of indictors and the development and presentation of annual reports required under the legislation. The Board assisted the Secretary in defining welfare dependence, developing indicators of welfare dependence, recipiency and associated risk factors, and choosing appropriate data.

The purpose of this report is to address questions concerning the extent to which American families depend on income from welfare programs. Under the Welfare Indicators Act, HHS was directed to address the rate of welfare dependence, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence. The Act further specified that analyses of means-tested assistance should include benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program),⁶ the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food Stamp Program).⁷ In this report we include information on cash assistance under the TANF and SSI programs and the cash value of food assistance benefits under SNAP. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 included provisions that would change (in most cases temporarily) some aspects of these three programs; these changes are discussed below.

This 2015 report, the fourteenth in the series, provides updated measures through 2012 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Data are available through 2012 for the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) measures (based on the 2008 to 2012 SIPP panel) and through 2008 for the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) measures.

⁶The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) repealed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and created a block grant program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in its place. The mandatory start date for TANF was July 1, 1997, but most states made the transition from AFDC before that date. Throughout the report we use AFDC/TANF to refer to cash assistance benefits received under these two programs.

⁷The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) re-named the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of October 1, 2008. The name change had no effect on the type of benefits or how they are made available to eligible households.

Measuring Welfare Dependence

This report focuses on welfare “dependence” as well as welfare “recipiency.” While recipiency can be defined based on the presence of benefits from TANF, SNAP, or SSI during a given time period, dependence is a more complex concept. Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. The definition of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board for this purpose is as follows: A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP (formerly Food Stamps), and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. In following the Board’s proposal, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals in families⁹ for use in this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than

half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI.

No definition of welfare dependence is without its limitations. The Advisory Board recognized that no single measure could capture fully all aspects of dependence and that their proposed measure should be examined in concert with other indicators of well-being. While the Board’s proposal would count unsubsidized and subsidized employment and work required to obtain benefits as work activities, existing data sources do not permit distinguishing between welfare income associated with work activities and non-work-related welfare benefits. As a result, the data shown in this report may overstate the incidence of dependence as conceptualized by the Advisory Board. In fiscal year 2012, 43.2 percent of all TANF adult recipients participated in some type of work activity during the reporting month compared with 7 percent in 1992.¹⁰

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

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

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

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1993-2012

[highchart chart_id=116196]

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

Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. Dependency
rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

The Great Recession, that officially began in late 2007 and lasted through mid-2009, reversed declines in welfare recipiency experienced in the late 1990s and exacerbated an upward trend in recipiency rates that began in 2001. As shown in Figure SUM 1, the annual dependency rate fell to a low of 3.0 percent in 2000 and the annual recipiency rate declined to 12.5 percent. By 2010, the dependency rate hit a recent peak of 5.3 percent before decreasing to 5.1 percent in 2012. The welfare recipiency rate reached 22.7 percent in 2010 and increased to 23.6 percent in 2012.

In 2012, as in previous years, general patterns in welfare receipt are apparent. Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics of any race than they are for Non-Hispanic Whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence are also higher for young children than they are for adults, and they are higher for individuals in female-headed families than they are for those in married-couple families. For those living in married-couple families, welfare recipiency rates increased from 8.8 percent in 2007 to 15.4 percent in 2012, a 6.6 percentage point increase. Hispanics of any race show a 12.6 percentage point increase in recipiency rates between 2007 and 2012. Adults age 65 and older experienced smaller increases in welfare recipiency than did other demographic groups. Their welfare recipiency rate increased from 10.6 percent to 13.7 percent over the 2007 to 2012 period, a 3.1 percentage point increase.

Another factor affecting dependence is the time period observed. The summary measures shown in Figure SUM 1 and Table SUM 1 focus on recipiency and dependency rates measured on an annual, cross-sectional basis. Longitudinal measures of program receipt (both annual and monthly) show that program spells are typically short and long-term recipiency is rare (see Chapter II). Indicator 7, for example, shows that 79.6 percent of all TANF spells and 53.7 percent of all new SNAP spells lasted one year or less, with 50.5 percent and 28.7 percent, respectively, lasting four months or less. Over a longer period of time, Indicator 9 shows that among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2008, 8.0 percent received some TANF benefits during six or more years. Another fifth (20.5 percent) were recipients in three to five years, and more than two-thirds (71.5 percent) received TANF in only one or two years during this period.

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years

	1993	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2002	2004	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, SNAP or SSI)
All Persons	16.6	16.0	14.8	13.5	13.3	12.5	13.2	15.0	15.6	15.8	17.1	19.9	22.7	23.1	23.6
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	10.3	9.9	9.7	8.6	8.4	8.2	8.8	10.1	10.6	10.4	11.4	13.3	15.7	16.3	16.5
Non-Hispanic Black	38.0	35.6	30.2	29.6	29.8	27.0	27.7	32.4	32.0	33.4	34.1	37.6	40.7	39.7	41.2
Hispanic	34.6	32.0	28.0	24.5	23.4	21.0	21.7	22.6	23.8	24.6	27.6	32.9	36.9	36.4	37.2
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5	30.5	28.2	25.1	22.4	21.5	19.8	21.4	24.6	25.7	27.0	28.9	34.3	38.1	38.0	39.5
Children ages 6-10	24.9	24.2	21.2	20.0	19.8	18.0	18.8	22.2	23.2	23.9	26.2	30.4	34.7	34.8	36.5
Children ages 11-15	22.1	21.1	19.4	17.0	17.3	16.3	16.8	20.5	21.5	22.5	23.1	27.4	31.3	32.0	32.6
Women ages 16-64	16.4	16.0	14.7	13.6	13.6	12.5	13.4	15.0	15.7	15.6	16.9	19.8	22.6	23.3	23.5
Men ages 16-64	11.5	11.7	11.1	10.0	9.6	9.2	10.3	11.6	12.0	12.1	13.5	16.0	18.6	19.2	19.6
Adults ages 65 and over	11.2	10.3	10.2	9.9	10.0	10.4	9.7	10.0	10.6	10.6	11.4	11.3	12.3	12.9	13.7
Family Categories
Persons in:
Married-couple families	10.5	9.6	8.7	8.3	7.9	7.2	7.5	8.6	8.9	8.8	9.9	12.5	15.0	14.6	15.4
Female-headed families	47.8	46.0	41.6	37.5	39.9	37.1	37.7	42.6	44.3	45.0	47.3	50.4	54.2	55.0	56.1
Male-headed families	27.6	25.3	24.3	19.7	19.3	21.8	21.2	21.9	25.8	26.4	27.3	33.1	34.3	34.9	37.3
Unrelated persons	9.7	11.5	11.9	10.9	10.0	10.1	11.5	12.7	12.6	12.4	14.1	15.5	18.0	20.0	19.3
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, SNAP and/or SSI)
All Persons	5.9	5.2	4.5	3.8	3.3	3.0	3.2	3.7	3.7	3.5	4.0	4.6	5.3	5.2	5.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	3.0	2.6	2.5	2.1	1.8	1.9	1.8	2.2	2.3	2.1	2.4	2.7	3.2	3.3	3.1
Non-Hispanic Black	17.8	13.8	11.4	10.5	9.1	7.7	8.7	10.0	9.5	9.4	10.2	11.1	12.5	12.3	12.0
Hispanic	11.8	10.9	9.1	6.6	5.4	4.5	4.9	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.7	7.1	8.0	7.7	7.4
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5	13.9	11.2	9.3	7.8	6.2	6.0	6.0	7.1	6.9	7.1	7.6	9.1	9.5	10.2	9.6
Children ages 6-10	11.2	9.5	8.4	6.7	6.1	5.1	5.1	6.0	5.7	5.3	6.3	7.5	8.4	8.4	8.3
Children ages 11-15	9.3	8.1	7.4	5.7	4.5	4.0	4.0	5.1	5.2	5.3	5.3	6.3	7.1	7.1	7.1
Women ages 16-64	5.9	5.2	4.6	3.9	3.5	3.0	3.4	3.7	3.9	3.7	4.2	4.8	5.5	5.7	5.5
Men ages 16-64	2.7	2.7	2.5	2.1	1.9	1.8	2.0	2.4	2.5	2.3	2.8	3.2	4.0	3.7	3.7
Adults ages 65 and over	2.4	2.4	2.1	2.1	2.0	2.1	2.0	2.2	2.1	2.1	2.2	2.2	2.4	2.3	2.5
Family Categories
Persons in:
Married-couple families	1.8	1.7	1.4	1.1	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.2	1.1	1.3	1.6	1.9	1.9	1.8
Female-headed families	25.7	21.1	18.4	15.0	13.6	11.4	11.7	13.8	13.2	12.6	13.4	14.6	16.4	16.2	15.8
Male-headed families	6.8	5.4	5.6	4.2	3.0	4.4	3.8	4.0	4.5	4.5	4.7	6.4	6.5	5.9	5.8
Unrelated persons	3.8	4.2	4.2	4.2	3.4	3.8	4.1	4.5	4.7	4.3	5.2	5.8	6.8	6.8	6.9

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

⁹ The unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report is “individuals” rather than families or households. Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals as the unit of analysis.

¹⁰Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2012. This 43.2 percent includes subsidized employment and work preparation activities (including subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, work experience or community services). The earnings of those in unsubsidized employment would be correctly captured as income from work in national surveys. Any welfare benefits associated with work experience, community service programs or other work activities, however, would be counted as income from welfare in most national surveys, a classification incompatible with the Advisory Board’s proposed definition.

Organization of Report

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the specific summary measure of welfare dependence proposed by a bipartisan Advisory Board⁸ and how this measure was adopted for use in this report series. It also discusses summary measures of poverty, following the Advisory Board’s recommendation that dependence measures not be assessed in isolation from other measures of economic well-being. The introduction concludes with a discussion of data sources used for the report.

Chapter II of this report, Indicators of Dependence, presents ten indicators of welfare dependence and recipiency. These indicators include dependence measures based on total income from all three programs – TANF, SNAP, and SSI – as well as measures of recipiency for each of the three programs considered separately. Labor force participation among families receiving welfare and benefit receipt across multiple programs are also shown. The second half of the chapter includes longitudinal data on transitions on and off welfare programs and spells of program recipiency, including spells of TANF receipt among persons in families that have no attachment to the labor market. Also, this section includes a measure of long-term program receipt of up to 10 years, and a measure of events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells.

Chapter III, Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt, focuses on predictors of welfare dependence – risk factors believed to be associated with welfare receipt. These predictors are shown in three different groups:

(1) Economic security – including various measures of poverty, the effect of receipt of child support on poverty rates, and food insecurity – is important in predicting dependence because families with fewer economic resources are more likely to rely on welfare programs for their support.

(2) Measures of the work status and potential barriers to employment of adult family members also are critical, because families must generally receive an adequate income from employment in order to avoid dependence without severe deprivation.

(3) Finally, data on nonmarital births are important. According to SIPP data (see Indicator 10b) 25.4 percent of single mother TANF entries were associated with a new child being added to the family during the 2008-2012 period.

Additional data and technical notes are presented in four appendices. Appendix A provides basic program data on each of the main welfare programs and their recipients, including historical trends and subnational estimates. Appendix B shows how dependence is affected by the inclusion of benefits from the SSI program; Appendix C includes additional data on non-marital childbearing; Appendix D provides background information on several data and technical issues; and Appendix E explains the methodology behind calculating the poverty rate and the supplemental poverty rate. The main welfare programs in Appendix A include the following:

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides monthly cash benefits and services to eligible families with children and is run directly by the states. Prior to 1996 welfare cash benefits were provided through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Data on cash benefits under the TANF and AFDC programs are provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1962 through June 1997, and TANF data from July 1997 through 2013.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to individuals living in families or alone, provided their income and assets are below limits set in federal law. Prior to October 1, 2008, these food assistance benefits were provided through the Food Stamp Program. Appendix A provides historical data on food assistance from 1962 to 2013.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides monthly cash payments to elderly, blind or disabled individuals or couples whose income and assets are below levels set in federal law. Though the majority of recipients are adults, disabled children also are eligible. Historical data from 1974 through 2013 are provided in Appendix A.

⁸The first annual report was produced under the oversight of a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators, which assisted the Secretary in defining welfare dependence, developing indicators of welfare dependence, and choosing appropriate data. Under the terms of the original authorizing legislation, the Advisory Board was terminated in October 1997, prior to the submission of the first annual report.

Measuring Economic Well-Being

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

Figure SUM 2a. Number Poor under 18 Years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959–2013

Number Poor under 18 Years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959–2013

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2013/index.html.

As shown in Figure Sum 2a, the child poverty rate for all persons under 18 is 19.9 percent in 2013 (see Table ECON 1 for further details). This is down from the recent peak of 22.0 percent in 2010, just after the end of the Great Recession. Earlier historical trends in child poverty rates also generally have followed similar patterns to broader economic expansions and contractions.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Welfare Benefits

On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA (Public Law 111-5) in response to the economic crisis, often referred to as “the Great Recession”. The Recovery Act had three immediate goals: create new jobs and save existing ones; spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth; and foster levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. The Recovery Act intended to achieve these goals by providing $787 billion in: tax cuts and benefits for working families and businesses; funding for federal contracts, grants and loans¹¹; and funding for entitlement programs. The SNAP, TANF, and SSI entitlements all were temporarily impacted by the ARRA legislation.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Households are eligible to receive SNAP benefits based on household income, assets, and certain basic expenses. ARRA increased benefits for all households and temporarily expanded program eligibility for jobless adults¹². The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the agency that administers SNAP at the Federal level, reported that in fiscal year 2008, the year prior to ARRA, an estimated 39 million people¹³ were eligible for SNAP benefits in a typical month and 27 million (71 percent) took-up the program. By 2012, 51 million people were eligible for SNAP and 42 million participated in the program resulting in a participation or “take-up” rate of 83.1 percent¹⁴. According to SNAP administrative data, the SNAP caseload increased from 28.2 million participants in 2008 to 46.6 million in 2012, an increase of 65.2 percent. In an average month in fiscal year 2012 (ending September 30, 2012), SNAP provided benefits to 14.8 percent of the population. The average benefit in 2012 was $133.41 per person per month and the total Federal expenditure for the program was $78.4 billion.

ARRA increased SNAP benefit levels for all households. Maximum benefits increased by 13.6 percent, or $80 per month for a family of four

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012 and earlier reports, http://www.fns.usda.gov/characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-households-fiscal-year-2012; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html; calculations by ASPE.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

The Recovery Act provided up to $5 billion in supplemental funding to the Emergency Contingency Fund (Emergency Fund), which is administered by the Office of Family Assistance within the Administration for Children and Families¹⁶. The funds were intended to provide additional revenue to States, territories, and tribes that had an increase in caseloads and basic assistance expenditures, or had an increase in expenditures related to short-term benefits or subsidized employment. The funds were awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, and were used in the same way that the annual Federal TANF block grants funds were spent, except a jurisdiction could not transfer the funds to other ACF block grant programs. States, tribes, and territories were eligible to receive the funds through September 30, 2010. Emergency Funds were reimbursed to these jurisdictions for 80 percent of the cost of increased spending in three areas: basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment for low-income parents and youth.

Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI)

The ARRA provided a one-time payment of $250 to adult Social Security beneficiaries and SSI recipients, except those receiving Medicaid in care facilities. To receive the payment, the person had to be eligible for Social Security or SSI during the months of November 2008, December 2008 or January 2009. The Recovery Act also provided a one-time payment to Veterans Affairs (VA) and Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) beneficiaries. The VA and RRB were responsible for paying individuals under their respective programs. However, if someone received Social Security and SSI, VA or RRB benefits, he or she would receive only one $250 payment.

¹¹http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

¹² USDA, Economic Research Service, Report Number 116, “Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err116.aspx and FNS Key Data, Nation Data Bank, Table 2, 2008 and 2012.

¹³ Note that while these participation rates are for individuals, Indicator 4 shows the participation rates for households.

¹⁴ Sources: SNAP Program Operations data, SNAP QC data, and CPS ASEC data for the years shown. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/ops/Trends2010-2012.pdf

¹⁵ http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/June11/features/foodsecuritysnap.htm

¹⁶ Catalogue for Domestic Assistance, ARRA – Emergency Contingency Fund for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Program.

https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=82b17b73ae63786a4dd9d3e212008aa8

Data Sources

The primary data sources for this report are the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and administrative data for the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs. Wherever possible, the current report includes updated estimates for indicators and risk factors through 2012.

For our key measures of receipt, dependency and poverty at a single point in time, the report primarily uses the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the CPS, which measures income, poverty, and benefit receipt across a broad range of social safety net programs over an annual accounting period. This allows for estimating and tracking measures that combine the three welfare programs specified in the Welfare Indicators Act and that compare the levels of program benefits received by families with levels of other family income sources. The release of CPS data is timely and CPS data have the added benefit that they may be analyzed with the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3) to correct for the underreporting of welfare program receipt and benefits that is often present in survey data. TRIM3 is a microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Welfare caseloads in TRIM3 are based on CPS data, adjusted upward to ensure that total estimates of recipients across multiple social welfare programs equal the total counts from administrative data. To maintain consistency in data trends in this report, we present estimates based on CPS data analyzed by TRIM3 beginning in 1993, the first year the TRIM3 microsimulation model became available.

For indicators and risk factors that capture the monthly dynamics of welfare receipt over time, we use the SIPP. The SIPP collects monthly survey data on income and program participation among individuals and families across the country in panels that last roughly three to four years. While the CPS collects data on the incidence of welfare program receipt and poverty in a given year, the SIPP allows us to

present monthly data on how long individuals and families receive welfare assistance and how long they remain poor over a time span of several years. The current report includes updated estimates for the SIPP measures based on newly available data from the 2008 SIPP panel, spanning from 2008 to 2012.

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

This report also draws upon administrative data for the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs. These data are largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data are available with minimal time lags; for the current report, administrative data are generally available through fiscal year (FY) 2012. To the extent possible, TANF administrative data are reported in a consistent manner with data from the earlier AFDC program, as noted in the footnotes to the tables in Appendix A. Assistance under locally designed TANF programs encompasses a diverse set of cash and non-cash benefits designed to support families in making a transition to work, and so direct comparisons between AFDC receipt and TANF receipt should be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on AFDC and TANF receipt in national data sets such as the CPS, SIPP, and PSID.

For further technical information about the data presented in the report please see Appendix D.

Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence

Chapter II presents summary data related to indicators of dependence. These indicators differ from other welfare statistics because of their emphasis on welfare dependence, rather than simply welfare receipt.

As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested that families be considered dependent if more than 50 percent of their total income in a one-year period comes from cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Furthermore, this welfare income was not to be associated with work activities. Existing data from administrative records and national surveys, however, do not generally distinguish welfare benefits received in conjunction with work from benefits received without work. Thus, it was not possible to construct one single indicator of dependence that captured fully the Advisory Board’s recommendation; that is, one indicator based on the percentage of income from means-tested assistance only if this income is not associated with work activities. As discussed in Chapter I, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals in families¹⁷ for use in this report:

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

The ten indicators in Chapter II were selected to provide information about the range and depth of dependence as proposed by the Advisory Board, including indicators that measure the presence of employment activities. This chapter focuses on recipients of three major means-tested cash and nutritional assistance programs: cash assistance through the AFDC and TANF programs, benefits under the Food Stamp Program and the SNAP, and SSI benefits for elderly and disabled recipients. For some indicators, summary data and characteristics are provided for all recipients, not just those defined as welfare-dependent. While a number of indicators focus on the percentage of recipients’ income from means-tested assistance, other indicators focus on presence of work activities at the same time as welfare receipt.

¹⁷ Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report.

Indicator Summary

Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence. This indicator focuses most closely on those individuals who meet the Advisory Board’s proposed definition of “dependence.” In addition to examining individuals with more than 50 percent of their annual family income from AFDC/TANF cash assistance, Food Stamps/SNAP, and/or SSI benefits, it shows various levels of dependency. This indicator also shows the average percentage of income from means-tested assistance and earnings received by families with various levels of income relative to the poverty level.

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

Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance. This indicator paints yet another picture of dependence by measuring average monthly recipiency rates, that is, the percentage of the population that receives AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP or SSI in an average month. Administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, SNAP and SSI programs make these figures readily available over time, allowing a better sense of historical trends than is available from the more specialized indicators of dependence.

Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs. While means-tested public assistance programs can serve those that meet each program’s requirements, not all eligible individuals and households participate in the programs. This indicator uses AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP and SSI administrative data and microsimulation models to reflect “take-up rates” – the number of families that actually participate in the programs as a percentage of those who are estimated to be legally eligible.

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

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

Indicator 7: Program Spell Duration. This indicator uses data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). One critical aspect of dependence is how long individuals receive means-tested assistance. This indicator provides information on short, medium and long spells of welfare receipt for each of the three major means-tested programs – AFDC/TANF, the SNAP, and SSI.

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

Indicator 9: Long Term Receipt. Many individuals who leave welfare programs cycle back on after an absence of several months. Thus it is important to look beyond individual program spells, measured in Indicator 7, to examine the cumulative amount of time individuals receive assistance over a period of several years.

Indicator 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells. To gain a better understanding of welfare dynamics, it is important to go beyond measures of spell duration and examine information regarding the major events in people’s lives that are correlated with the beginnings or endings of program spells. This measure focuses on receipt of TANF.

INDICATOR 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2012

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP benefits. Total >50% includes all persons with more than 50 percent of their total annual family income from these means-tested programs. Income includes cash income and the value of SNAP benefits.

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

Figure IND 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with varying degrees of total income that derived from means-tested assistance programs in 2012.
The majority of persons (76.4 percent) lived in families that received no income from means-tested assistance programs in 2012.
Twenty-four (23.6) percent of all persons lived in families that received means-tested assistance. Five (5.1) percent of persons lived in families that received more than half of their income from means-tested assistance programs. These persons would be considered welfare dependent under the definition of dependence used in this report.¹⁸
Table IND 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with varying degrees of reliance on income from means-tested assistance programs by selected demographic characteristics. Among racial and ethnic groups, Non-Hispanic Blacks were more likely to be welfare dependent (12.0 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (3.1 percent) or Hispanics of any race (7.4 percent).
Among age categories, children, particularly from birth to 5 years of age, were more likely to live in families that were welfare dependent than were persons age 16 and older.
Among family types, persons living in female-headed families were more likely to be welfare dependent than those in other family categories.
Table IND 1b shows trends in welfare dependence between 1993 and 2012. Welfare dependence was highest in 1993 at 5.9 percent. Welfare dependence declined between 1993 and 2000. After 2000, the downward trend in welfare dependence reversed. Dependency increased from 3.0 percent in 2000 to 5.3 percent in 2010, before beginning to decline again with 5.1 percent of the population defined as welfare dependent in 2012.

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2012

	0%	> 0% and <= 25%	> 25% and <= 50%	> 50% and <= 75%	> 75% and <= 100%	Total > 50%
All Persons	76.4	14.3	4.2	1.7	3.4	5.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	83.5	10.8	2.6	1.0	2.1	3.1
Non-Hispanic Black	58.8	20.9	8.3	3.4	8.6	12.0
Hispanic	62.8	22.6	7.3	2.7	4.6	7.4
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5	60.5	21.4	8.5	3.6	6.0	9.6
Children ages 6-10	63.5	20.0	8.2	3.3	5.0	8.3
Children ages 11-15	67.4	19.0	6.5	2.9	4.3	7.1
Women ages 16-64	76.5	14.0	4.0	1.6	3.9	5.5
Men ages 16-64	80.4	12.9	3.0	1.1	2.6	3.7
Adults ages 65 and over	86.3	9.1	2.1	0.7	1.7	2.5
Family Categories
Persons in married-couple families	84.6	11.0	2.5	0.8	1.0	1.8
Persons in female-headed families	43.9	28.0	12.3	5.8	10.0	15.8
Persons in male-headed families	62.7	24.7	6.7	2.1	3.7	5.8
Unrelated persons	80.7	10.3	2.1	1.0	5.9	6.9

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

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

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

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2012

	0%	> 0% and <= 25%	> 25% and <= 50%	> 50% and <= 75%	> 75% and <= 100%	Total > 50%
1993	83.4	7.8	3.0	1.8	4.1	5.9
1994	82.8	8.4	3.1	1.8	4.0	5.8
1995	83.2	8.5	3.1	1.8	3.5	5.3
1996	84.0	7.8	3.1	1.9	3.3	5.2
1997	85.3	7.7	2.5	1.5	3.1	4.5
1998	86.5	7.3	2.5	1.3	2.5	3.8
1999	86.7	7.7	2.3	1.1	2.2	3.3
2000	87.5	7.3	2.2	1.0	2.0	3.0
2001	87.4	7.3	2.2	1.0	2.1	3.1
2002	86.8	7.8	2.3	1.0	2.1	3.2
2003	85.9	8.2	2.4	1.1	2.4	3.6
2004	85.0	8.8	2.5	1.1	2.5	3.7
2005	84.7	8.9	2.6	1.1	2.7	3.8
2006	84.4	9.3	2.6	1.1	2.6	3.7
2007	84.1	9.7	2.8	1.1	2.3	3.4
2008	82.9	10.3	2.8	1.1	2.8	4.0
2009	80.1	11.4	3.9	1.5	3.1	4.6
2010	77.3	13.2	4.2	1.7	3.6	5.3
2011	76.9	13.8	4.1	1.7	3.5	5.2
2012	76.4	14.3	4.2	1.7	3.4	5.1

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

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status: 2012

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

Figure IND 1b shows sources of income by poverty status in 2012. There is a clear association between poverty status and receiving income from means-tested assistance programs.

Persons in families with incomes below the poverty line received 42.6 percent of their income from earnings and 38.2 percent from means-tested assistance programs. Persons in families with incomes at 200 percent or more of the poverty line received 85.7 percent of their income from earnings and 0.2 percent of their income from means-tested assistance programs.

The percentage of family income that comes from earnings is inversely proportional to overall family income relative to the poverty line. For example, the percentage of income received from earnings for persons in families living in deep poverty (below 50 percent of the poverty line) was 22.7 percent compared to 42.6 percent for all poor persons in 2012.
Table IND 1c shows sources of income by poverty status for various demographic groups. On average, persons in married-couple families and male heads of household receive higher proportions of their family income from earnings than do female heads of households.
Table IND 1d shows the percentage of income from various sources across selected years. The percentage of income received from earnings for persons in families with incomes below the poverty line increased from 40.4 percent in 1995 to 49.5 percent in 2000. In 2012, the rate had decreased to 42.6 percent.
Over the same time period, the percentage of income from means-tested programs among persons in poor families decreased from 41.3 percent in 1995 to 30.3 percent in 2000. In 2012, the rate increased to 38.2 percent.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status and Selected Characteristics: 2012

	<50% Poverty	<100% of Poverty	<200% of Poverty	200%+ of Poverty	All Persons
All Persons
TANF, SSI and SNAP	63.5	38.2	15.0	0.2	1.8
Earnings	22.7	42.6	62.6	85.7	83.3
Other income	13.8	19.1	22.4	14.1	14.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White
TANF, SSI and SNAP	59.8	36.7	12.1	0.1	0.9
Earnings	23.1	37.5	57.0	84.5	82.6
Other income	17.0	25.7	30.9	15.4	16.4
Non-Hispanic Black
TANF, SSI and SNAP	69.7	47.3	23.4	0.5	5.1
Earnings	17.9	33.5	54.9	85.6	79.4
Other income	12.4	19.2	21.7	13.9	15.5
Hispanic
TANF, SSI and SNAP	61.3	33.0	14.1	0.6	4.1
Earnings	27.4	54.9	74.5	90.8	86.6
Other income	11.3	12.1	11.4	8.7	9.4
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5
TANF, SSI and SNAP	67.2	41.8	19.2	0.2	3.5
Earnings	22.4	46.3	70.8	94.5	90.3
Other income	10.4	11.9	10.0	5.3	6.1
Children ages 6-10
TANF, SSI and SNAP	67.1	40.6	18.4	0.2	3.1
Earnings	20.9	46.2	70.6	93.9	90.2
Other income	12.0	13.2	11.0	5.9	6.7
Children ages 11-15
TANF, SSI and SNAP	65.7	40.2	16.8	0.2	2.6
Earnings	20.9	44.9	69.4	92.7	89.3
Other income	13.4	14.9	13.8	7.2	8.1
Women ages 16-64
TANF, SSI and SNAP	62.9	38.7	15.4	0.2	1.6
Earnings	22.5	42.2	65.6	89.2	87.0
Other income	14.6	19.2	19.0	10.5	11.3
Men ages 16-64
TANF, SSI and SNAP	57.2	34.3	12.7	0.2	1.2
Earnings	27.4	45.8	68.9	90.6	88.9
Other income	15.5	19.9	18.4	9.1	9.9
Adults ages 65 and over
TANF, SSI and SNAP	53.7	31.3	8.9	0.3	1.2
Earnings	7.5	7.3	11.8	42.8	39.7
Other income	38.8	61.3	79.3	56.9	59.1
Family Categories
Persons in married-couple families
TANF, SSI and SNAP	57.7	31.1	10.6	0.2	0.9
Earnings	28.1	54.3	71.7	86.7	85.6
Other income	14.2	14.6	17.7	13.2	13.5
Persons in female-headed families
TANF, SSI and SNAP	70.6	46.5	25.5	1.0	8.7
Earnings	16.8	35.4	53.9	81.3	72.7
Other income	12.7	18.1	20.6	17.7	18.6
Persons in male-headed families
TANF, SSI and SNAP	61.5	39.3	16.2	0.7	3.4
Earnings	27.1	43.6	64.2	86.5	82.5
Other income	11.4	17.2	19.6	12.9	14.0

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. Other income is non-means-tested, non-earnings income such as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive. Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed family categories. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

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

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

	< 50% Poverty	<100% of Poverty	<200% of Poverty	200%+ of Poverty
1995
AFDC, SSI and Food Stamps	65.9	41.3	14.2	0.3
Earnings	22.5	40.4	64.8	85.4
Other income	11.6	18.3	21.0	14.3
1998
AFDC, SSI and Food Stamps	58.9	32.0	10.6	0.2
Earnings	27.0	47.9	67.8	85.3
Other income	14.1	20.1	21.6	14.5
2000
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps	54.3	30.3	9.8	0.2
Earnings	30.5	49.5	68.7	86.7
Other income	15.2	20.3	21.5	13.0
2004
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps	58.4	31.1	10.4	0.2
Earnings	25.7	48.2	67.2	86.8
Other income	15.9	20.7	22.4	13.0
2005
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps	58.5	32.5	10.4	0.2
Earnings	25.3	46.6	68.2	86.6
Other income	16.2	20.8	21.4	13.2
2006
TANF, SSI and Food Stamps	58.2	31.4	10.4	0.2
Earnings	27.7	48.3	68.6	86.5
Other income	14.1	20.3	21.0	13.3
2009
TANF, SSI and SNAP	62.0	35.8	13.6	0.2
Earnings	25.2	44.2	62.8	85.8
Other income	12.8	20.0	23.6	14.0
2010
TANF, SSI and SNAP	64.6	38.1	14.9	0.2
Earnings	21.7	41.7	61.7	85.6
Other income	13.6	20.3	23.4	14.2
2011
TANF, SSI and SNAP	65.4	37.8	14.5	0.2
Earnings	21.2	42.4	62.5	85.7
Other income	13.5	19.8	23.0	14.1
2012
TANF, SSI and SNAP	63.5	38.2	15.0	0.2
Earnings	22.7	42.6	62.6	85.7
Other income	13.8	19.1	22.4	14.1

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

¹⁸ For a discussion on defining welfare dependence, please see “Measuring Welfare Dependence” in Chapter I.

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

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program: 2012

Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program: 2012

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes those who usually worked less than 35 hours per week. “Looking for work” includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off and/or looking for work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family member in the same month. Also note that lower family employment rates are reported in TANF administrative data, which are limited to the employment of family members in the TANF assistance unit and employment reported to welfare agencies (see Table TANF 7 in Appendix A).

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

Figure IND 2 shows the percentage of recipients in families with labor force participants by program in 2012. Of recipients across the three programs, SNAP recipients were most likely to live in families with labor force participants (64.7 percent), including 37.3 percent in families with at least one full-time worker. This was followed by TANF recipients where 56.7 percent lived in families with labor force participants, including 23.5 percent of TANF recipients living with a full-time worker.
In 2012, SSI recipients were more likely to live in families with no labor force participants (60.9 percent) than were TANF recipients (43.3 percent) or SNAP recipients (35.3 percent).
Table IND 2a shows the percentage of recipients in families with labor force participants by program and demographic characteristics. Among TANF, SNAP, and SSI recipients, Hispanics were more likely than other groups to live in families with at least one full-time worker (27.8, 48.6 and 32.9 percent, respectively, for each program).
Table IND 2b shows additional information on the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with labor force participants over time.

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program and Selected Characteristics: 2012

		At least one in labor force, no one full time
		No one in labor force	At least one looking, no one working	At least one part-time, no one full- time	Total with at least one in labor force, no one full-time	At least one full-time worker
TANF	All Persons	43.3	14.6	18.6	33.2	23.5
	Non-Hispanic White	42.4	15.0	19.5	34.4	23.2
	Non-Hispanic Black	47.8	19.2	14.9	34.0	18.2
	Hispanic	40.1	10.3	21.7	32.0	27.8
	Children ages 0-5	42.6	13.9	16.9	30.8	26.7
	Children ages 6-10	45.0	13.1	18.2	31.3	23.7
	Children ages 11-15	43.4	13.6	21.5	35.1	21.6
	Women ages 16-64	43.3	16.5	19.4	35.9	20.8
	Men ages 16-64	41.8	16.8	16.9	33.7	24.5
	Adults ages 65 and over	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
	Persons in married-couple families	24.6	11.8	18.9	30.7	44.7
	Persons in female-headed families	49.1	15.7	18.7	34.5	16.4
	Persons in male-headed families	43.4	12.5	16.0	28.5	28.0
	Unrelated persons	68.6	6.7	19.5	26.2	5.2
SNAP	All Persons	35.3	11.0	16.5	27.4	37.3
	Non-Hispanic White	39.3	10.6	16.6	27.2	33.5
	Non-Hispanic Black	36.9	14.0	16.7	30.6	32.5
	Hispanic	26.8	8.5	16.1	24.6	48.6
	Children ages 0-5	24.2	9.8	18.2	28.0	47.8
	Children ages 6-10	24.3	9.7	18.0	27.7	48.0
	Children ages 11-15	24.7	10.6	18.8	29.3	46.0
	Women ages 16-64	37.1	11.5	17.6	29.1	33.7
	Men ages 16-64	36.7	14.0	15.3	29.2	34.1
	Adults ages 65 and over	81.6	4.0	5.2	9.2	9.2
	Persons in married-couple families	20.4	9.0	15.7	24.7	54.9
	Persons in female-headed families	34.5	11.6	20.1	31.7	33.9
	Persons in male-headed families	28.6	14.2	15.2	29.4	42.0
	Unrelated persons	69.9	12.0	10.2	22.1	7.9
SSI	All Persons	60.9	5.5	8.1	13.6	25.5
	Non-Hispanic White	65.8	5.1	7.5	12.6	21.6
	Non-Hispanic Black	66.2	6.2	7.3	13.5	20.3
	Hispanic	52.0	5.1	10.0	15.1	32.9
	Children ages 0-5	33.0	10.7	7.3	18.0	48.9
	Children ages 6-10	40.3	12.6	8.8	21.5	38.2
	Children ages 11-15	41.4	8.3	15.6	23.9	34.7
	Women ages 16-64	67.9	5.4	7.2	12.5	19.5
	Men ages 16-64	63.3	5.0	8.2	13.1	23.5
	Adults ages 65 and over	61.7	3.5	7.7	11.2	27.1
	Persons in married-couple families	35.5	5.9	11.4	17.2	47.3
	Persons in female-headed families	52.7	8.1	10.6	18.7	28.6
	Persons in male-headed families	46.8	8.6	8.4	17.1	36.1
	Unrelated persons	93.9	2.1	3.0	5.1	1.0

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes those who usually worked less than 35 hours per week. “Looking for work” includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off and/or looking for work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family member in the same month. Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed family categories.

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

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1993-2012

		In the Labor Force
	No One in LF	Total	At Least One in LF, No One FT	At Least One FT Worker
1993	57.0	43.0	24.2	18.8
1994	54.8	45.2	24.8	20.4
1995	50.6	49.4	24.3	25.1
1996	50.1	49.9	25.6	24.3
1997	47.6	52.4	28.0	24.4
1998	44.3	55.7	25.8	29.9
1999	40.8	59.2	24.1	35.1
2000	41.2	58.8	24.1	34.7
2001	38.7	61.3	26.0	35.3
2002	39.8	60.1	25.8	34.3
2003	47.4	52.6	24.1	28.5
2004	48.0	51.9	23.8	28.1
2005	47.7	52.3	25.4	26.9
2006	46.6	53.4	21.2	32.2
2007	46.4	53.6	23.4	30.2
2008	45.6	54.4	27.2	27.2
2009	43.3	56.7	30.7	26.0
2010	43.5	56.5	31.4	25.1
2011	41.0	59.0	35.2	23.8
2012	43.3	56.7	33.2	23.5

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994 - 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

INDICATOR 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF: 1975-2012

Note: See Appendix A, Tables TANF 2, TANF 12 and TANF 14, for more detailed data on recipiency rates, including recipiency rates by calendar year. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories. Tribal TANF recipients also are excluded. Child recipients include a small number of dependents ages 18 and older who are students. The average number of adult and child recipients in 1998 and 1999 are estimated using data from the National Emergency TANF Data Files and thereafter using the National TANF Data Files. Beginning in 2000, the data include both TANF and SSP (Separate State Program) recipients who have comprised as much as 11 percent of total recipients.

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

Figure IND 3a shows the percentage of the population who received income from the AFDC program or the TANF program by age group from 1975 to 2012.
Table IND 3a shows the number and percentage of the population receiving AFDC/TANF by age between 1970 and 2012. In 1993, 5.4 percent of the population received income from AFDC. In 2012 the TANF recipiency rate was 1.4 percent, a sharp decline from pre-welfare reform levels.
AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been higher and have had more pronounced changes over time for children than for adults. Between 1993 and 2012, AFDC/TANF receipt among children decreased from 13.9 percent to 4.5 percent in 2012. During the same period, adult recipients decreased from 2.3 percent to 0.5 percent.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF by Age:
1970-2012

	Total Recipients		Adult Recipients		Child Recipients
Fiscal Year	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
1970	7,188	3.5	1,863	1.4	5,325	7.6
1971	9,281	4.5	2,516	1.8	6,765	9.7
1972	10,345	4.9	2,848	2.0	7,497	10.8
1973	10,760	5.1	2,984	2.1	7,776	11.3
1974	10,591	5.0	2,935	2.0	7,656	11.3
1975	10,854	5.0	3,102	2.1	7,753	11.5
1976	11,171	5.1	3,271	2.2	7,900	11.9
1977	10,933	5.0	3,230	2.1	7,703	11.8
1978	10,485	4.7	3,128	2.0	7,357	11.4
1979	10,146	4.5	3,068	1.9	7,071	11.0
1980	10,422	4.6	3,225	2.0	7,197	11.3
1981	10,979	4.8	3,491	2.1	7,488	11.8
1982	10,233	4.4	3,396	2.0	6,838	10.9
1983	10,467	4.5	3,548	2.1	6,919	11.1
1984	10,677	4.5	3,652	2.1	7,025	11.2
1985	10,630	4.5	3,589	2.0	7,041	11.2
1986	10,810	4.5	3,637	2.1	7,173	11.4
1987	10,878	4.5	3,625	2.0	7,254	11.5
1988	10,734	4.4	3,536	2.0	7,198	11.4
1989	10,741	4.4	3,503	1.9	7,238	11.4
1990	11,263	4.5	3,643	2.0	7,620	11.9
1991	12,391	4.9	4,016	2.1	8,375	12.8
1992	13,423	5.2	4,335	2.3	9,087	13.7
1993	13,943	5.4	4,520	2.3	9,424	13.9
1994	14,033	5.3	4,554	2.3	9,479	13.8
1995	13,480	5.1	4,323	2.2	9,157	13.2
1996	12,477	4.6	3,921	2.0	8,556	12.2
1997	10,779	4.0	3,106	1.5	7,673	10.8
1998	8,653	3.1	2,469	1.2	6,184	8.7
1999	7,068	2.5	1,838	0.9	5,231	7.3
2000	6,218	2.2	1,687	0.8	4,531	6.3
2001	5,673	2.0	1,503	0.7	4,171	5.7
2002	5,576	1.9	1,477	0.7	4,099	5.6
2003	5,452	1.9	1,415	0.7	4,037	5.5
2004	5,316	1.8	1,358	0.6	3,957	5.4
2005	5,064	1.7	1,276	0.6	3,788	5.2
2006	4,699	1.6	1,164	0.5	3,535	4.8
2007	4,099	1.4	962	0.4	3,138	4.2
2008	3,949	1.3	927	0.4	3,022	4.1
2009	4,217	1.4	1,021	0.4	3,197	4.3
2010	4,531	1.5	1,138	0.5	3,393	4.6
2011	4,554	1.5	1,150	0.5	3,405	4.6
2012	4,432	1.4	1,110	0.5	3,322	4.5

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by Select Demographic and Economic Characteristics and the Poverty Rate: 1975 – 2012

Note: See Appendix A, Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient totals exclude the territories and are the fiscal year averages of monthly caseloads from administrative data. From 1975 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp Program in 1975. From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.

Source: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Households, Fiscal Year 2012, No. SNAP-14-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2012Characteristics…), and unpublished data from the USDA National Data Bank. Individual age groups do not sum exactly to total recipients. The population denominators for the percentage in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3b shows the percentage of the population who received Food Stamps/ SNAP by age category from 1975 to 2012.
In 1993, 10.4 percent of the total population received SNAP benefits. By 2012, the rate had increased to 14.6 percent (see Table IND 3b).
Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for adults ages 60 and over has always been lower than the rates of receipt for children and adults ages 18 – 59.
The percentage of older adults receiving SNAP benefits was at or below 5.0 percent for the period 1980 – 2009. The rate began to increase in 2010 in response to the Great Recession. By 2012 the rate had increased to 6.8 percent.
Table IND 3b shows the number and percentage of the population receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by age group from 1975 to 2012. While the levels are different, the trend in Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for children and adults 18 – 59 years of age are similar over the time period.
As with AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency rates have been higher over time for children than for adults. Between 1980 and 2012, the percentage of all children who received SNAP benefits was at least double that of the adult recipiency rate. Among adults ages 18 – 59 years old, 11.9 percent received SNAP benefits compared to 27.8 percent of children under 18 in 2012.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP benefits: 1975-2012

	Total Poor	Total Recipients		Adult Recipients Ages 60 and over		Adult Recipients Ages 18 to 59		Child Recipients Ages 0 to 18
Fiscal Year	Number (thousands)	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent ^‡	Number (thousands)	Percent ^‡	Number (thousands)	Percent ^‡
1975	25,877	16,320	7.6	–	–	–	–	–	–
1976	24,975	17,033	7.8	–	–	–	–	9,126	13.8
1977	24,720	15,604	7.1	–	–	–	–	–	–
1978	24,497	14,405	6.5	–	–	–	–	–	–
1979	26,072	15,942	7.1	–	–	–	–	–	–
1980	29,272	19,253	8.5	1,741	4.9	7,186	5.6	9,876	15.5
1981	31,822	20,655	9.0	1,845	5.0	7,811	6.0	9,803	15.5
1982	34,398	20,391	8.8	1,641	4.4	7,838	6.0	9,591	15.3
1983	35,303	21,668	9.3	1,654	4.4	8,960	6.7	10,910	17.4
1984	33,700	20,796	8.8	1,758	4.5	8,521	6.3	10,492	16.8
1985	33,064	19,847	8.3	1,783	4.5	8,258	6.1	9,801	15.8
1986	32,370	19,381	8.1	1,631	4.1	7,895	5.7	9,844	15.7
1987	32,221	19,072	7.9	1,589	3.9	7,684	5.5	9,771	15.5
1988	31,745	18,613	7.6	1,500	3.7	7,506	5.3	9,351	14.8
1989	31,528	18,777	7.6	1,582	3.8	7,560	5.3	9,429	14.9
1990	33,585	20,020	8.0	1,511	3.6	8,084	5.6	10,127	15.8
1991	35,708	22,599	8.9	1,593	3.8	9,190	6.3	11,952	18.3
1992	38,014	25,371	9.9	1,687	3.9	10,550	7.2	13,349	20.1
1993	39,265	26,957	10.4	1,876	4.3	11,214	7.5	14,196	21.0
1994	38,059	27,439	10.4	1,955	4.5	11,615	7.7	14,391	21.0
1995	36,425	26,579	10.0	1,920	4.4	11,105	7.3	13,860	20.0
1996	36,529	25,495	9.5	1,891	4.3	10,769	7.0	13,189	18.8
1997	35,574	22,820	8.4	1,831	4.1	9,373	6.0	11,847	16.7
1998	34,476	19,748	7.2	1,635	3.6	7,760	4.9	10,520	14.7
1999	32,791	18,114	6.5	1,696	3.7	7,079	4.4	9,332	13.0
2000	31,581	17,054	6.0	1,700	3.7	6,612	4.0	8,743	12.1
2001	32,907	17,262	6.1	1,658	3.6	6,778	4.1	8,820	12.1
2002	34,570	19,003	6.6	1,684	3.6	7,625	4.5	9,688	13.3
2003	35,861	20,898	7.2	1,786	3.7	8,503	5.0	10,605	14.5
2004	37,040	23,447	8.0	1,917	3.9	9,753	5.7	11,771	16.0
2005	36,950	24,841	8.4	2,044	4.1	10,390	6.0	12,404	16.8
2006	36,460	25,555	8.6	2,226	4.4	12,758	7.3	12,579	17.0
2007	37,276	25,887	8.6	2,263	4.3	13,030	7.5	12,695	17.1
2008	39,829	27,751	9.1	2,517	4.7	14,145	8.0	13,472	18.1
2009	43,569	32,842	10.7	2,724	4.9	16,181	9.1	15,589	21.0
2010	46,343	39,703	12.8	3,117	5.4	18,102	10.2	18,484	24.9
2011	46,247	44,086	14.1	3,765	6.4	20,430	11.4	19,892	26.9
2012	46,496	45,956	14.6	4,150	6.8	21,342	11.9	20,463	27.8

Note: See Appendix A, Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient totals exclude the territories and are the fiscal year averages of monthly caseloads from administrative data. From 1975 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp Program in 1975. From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.

^‡Percent of persons in age group.

Source: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Households, Fiscal Year 2012, No. SNAP-14-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2012Characteristics…), and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank. Individual age groups do not sum exactly to total recipients. Total poor persons and the population denominators for the percentage in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012

Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012
Note: Population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the U.S. Census Bureau's July 1 population estimates for the current and the following year. See Appendix A, Tables SSI 2, SSI 8 and SSI 9 for more detailed data on SSI recipiency rates.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy). Population denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3c shows the percentage of the population who received income assistance from the SSI program by age category from 1975 through 2012.
Table IND 3c shows the percentage of the population and number of persons receiving SSI by age group between 1975 and 2012.
Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP, overall recipiency rates for SSI show less variation over time. After decreasing from 1975 to the early 1980s, the proportion of the total population that received SSI increased from 1.7 percent in 1985 to 2.4 percent in 1994. The rate has stayed consistent and is 2.6 percent in 2012.
Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap, however, has narrowed as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has declined from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 4.7 percent in 2012.
The proportion of children receiving SSI increased between 1977 and 1996, rising from .2 percent to 1.4 percent. The trend then reversed and decreased and child SSI receipt hovered at 1.2 percent through 2001. Beginning in 2002, the rate began to increase and in 2012 it was 1.8 percent.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012

	Total Recipients		Adult Recipients Ages 65 & over		Adult Recipients Ages 18-64		Child Recipients Ages 0-17
Date	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
Dec 1975	4,314	2.0	2,508	10.9	1,699	1.3	107	0.2
Dec 1976	4,236	1.9	2,397	10.2	1,714	1.3	125	0.2
Dec 1977	4,239	1.9	2,353	9.7	1,738	1.3	147	0.2
Dec 1978	4,217	1.9	2,304	9.3	1,747	1.3	166	0.3
Dec 1979	4,150	1.8	2,246	8.8	1,727	1.3	177	0.3
Dec 1980	4,142	1.8	2,221	8.6	1,731	1.3	190	0.3
Dec 1981	4,019	1.7	2,121	8.0	1,703	1.2	195	0.3
Dec 1982	3,858	1.7	2,011	7.4	1,655	1.2	192	0.3
Dec 1983	3,901	1.7	2,003	7.3	1,700	1.2	198	0.3
Dec 1984	4,029	1.7	2,037	7.2	1,780	1.2	212	0.3
Dec 1985	4,138	1.7	2,031	7.1	1,879	1.3	227	0.4
Dec 1986	4,269	1.8	2,018	6.9	2,010	1.4	241	0.4
Dec 1987	4,385	1.8	2,015	6.8	2,119	1.4	251	0.4
Dec 1988	4,464	1.8	2,006	6.6	2,203	1.5	255	0.4
Dec 1989	4,593	1.9	2,026	6.5	2,302	1.5	265	0.4
Dec 1990	4,817	1.9	2,059	6.5	2,450	1.6	309	0.5
Dec 1991	5,118	2.0	2,080	6.5	2,642	1.7	397	0.6
Dec 1992	5,566	2.2	2,100	6.4	2,910	1.8	556	0.8
Dec 1993	5,984	2.3	2,113	6.4	3,148	2.0	723	1.1
Dec 1994	6,296	2.4	2,119	6.3	3,335	2.1	841	1.2
Dec 1995	6,514	2.4	2,115	6.2	3,482	2.1	917	1.3
Dec 1996	6,634	2.4	2,110	6.2	3,568	2.2	955	1.4
Dec 1997	6,495	2.4	2,054	6.0	3,562	2.1	880	1.2
Dec 1998	6,566	2.4	2,033	5.9	3,646	2.1	887	1.2
Dec 1999	6,557	2.3	2,019	5.8	3,691	2.1	847	1.2
Dec 2000	6,602	2.3	2,011	5.7	3,744	2.1	847	1.2
Dec 2001	6,688	2.3	1,995	5.6	3,811	2.1	882	1.2
Dec 2002	6,788	2.3	1,995	5.6	3,878	2.2	915	1.3
Dec 2003	6,902	2.4	1,990	5.5	3,953	2.2	959	1.3
Dec 2004	6,988	2.4	1,978	5.4	4,017	2.2	993	1.4
Dec 2005	7,114	2.4	1,995	5.4	4,083	2.2	1,036	1.4
Dec 2006	7,236	2.4	2,004	5.3	4,152	2.2	1,079	1.5
Dec 2007	7,360	2.4	2,017	5.3	4,222	2.2	1,121	1.5
Dec 2008	7,521	2.5	2,034	5.2	4,333	2.3	1,154	1.6
Dec 2009	7,677	2.5	2,026	5.1	4,451	2.3	1,200	1.6
Dec 2010	7,912	2.6	2,041	5.0	4,632	2.4	1,239	1.7
Dec 2011	8,113	2.6	2,059	4.9	4,777	2.4	1,277	1.7
Dec 2012	8,263	2.6	2,082	4.7	4,869	2.4	1,312	1.8

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

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2013/index.html). Population denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

INDICATOR 4. Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs

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

Participation Rates in the AFDC/TANF1, SNAP and SSI Programs: Selected Years

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

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

SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate program eligibility. SNAP caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in the methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. The estimates for previous years show higher estimates of eligibles and lower participation rates relative to the revised estimate for 1994 and estimates for subsequent years. The two estimates for 1999 are due to re-weighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining SNAP eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the estimates for FY 2000 – FY 2009.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:
Fiscal Years 2010 and 2012 available online at . http://www.fns.usda.gov/trends-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-participation-rates-fiscal-year-2010-fiscal-year and unpublished tabulations from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Figure IND 4 shows the participation rates in the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs for selected years. This indicator examines the average monthly number of participating families, households, or adults as a percentage of the estimated eligible population. It is a contrast to Indicator 3, which examines participants as an average monthly (December for SSI) percentage of the total population (recipiency rates).
In 2012, 32.4 percent of families estimated as eligible for TANF assistance and 64.1 percent of households estimated as eligible for SSI are estimated to have received benefits in an average month. Eighty-seven (87.2) percent of households estimated as eligible for SNAP are estimated to have enrolled and received benefits in an average month.

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

Calendar Year	Eligible Families (millions)	Participating Families (millions)	Participation Rate (percent)
1981	4.8	3.8	80.2
1983	4.7	3.7	77.7
1985	4.7	3.7	79.3
1987	4.9	3.8	76.7
1988	4.8	3.7	78.4
1989	4.5	3.8	83.6
1990	4.9	4.1	82.2
1992	5.6	4.8	85.7
1993	6.1	5.0	81.7
1994 (revised)	6.1	5.0	82.1
1995	5.7	4.8	84.3
1996	5.6	4.4	78.9
1997 (adjusted)	5.4	3.7	69.2
1998 (adjusted)	5.5	3.1	55.8
1999	5.1	2.6	52.3
2000	4.4	2.3	51.8
2001	4.6	2.2	48.0
2002	4.5	2.2	48.1
2003	4.8	2.2	45.7
2004	5.1	2.2	42.0
2005	5.1	2.1	40.4
2006	4.9	2.1	39.0
2007	4.8	1.9	36.0
2008	5.2	1.7	33.0
2009	5.7	1.8	32.3
2010	5.7	1.9	33.7
2011	5.6	1.9	33.9
2012	5.7	1.9	32.4

Note: AFDC/TANF participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) that uses CPS data to simulate AFDC/TANF eligibility and participation for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. In contrast to editions prior to 2004, this table includes families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs). Note that families subject to full-family sanctions are counted as nonparticipating eligible families due to modeling limitations. Although the coverage rate estimates take into account the number of families who lost aid due to the time limit (and do not count such families in the denominator of the coverage rate estimate), they do not make any allowance for families staying off TANF to conserve their time-limited assistance months. Also, the numbers of eligible and participating families include the territories and pregnant women without children, even though these two small groups are excluded from the TRIM model. The numbers shown here implicitly assume that participation rates for the territories and for pregnant women with no other children are the same as for all other eligibles. In 2004 the methods for identifying potential child-only units capture the fact that non-parent caretakers generally have a choice of whether or not to be included in the TANF unit. TRIM now excludes those caretakers whose income would make the unit ineligible, increasing the number of potential child-only units.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, caseload tabulations and unpublished tabulations from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Between 1981 and 1996, participation rates in the AFDC program ranged from 76.7 percent (in 1987) to 85.7 percent (in 1992). From 1996 to 2012, participation rates in TANF have declined. In 1996, 78.9 percent of eligible families participated in the AFDC/TANF program. By 2012, 32.4 percent of eligible families participated in the TANF program.¹⁹
Since welfare reform, there has been a notable decline in the number of eligible families participating in the TANF program.²⁰

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

Date	Eligible Households (millions)	Participating Households (millions)	Participation Rate (percent)
September 1976	16.3	5.3	32.6
February 1978	14.0	5.3	37.8
August 1980	14.0	7.4	52.5
August 1982	14.5	7.5	51.5
August 1984	14.2	7.3	51.6
August 1986	15.3	7.1	46.5
August 1988	14.9	7.0	47.1
August 1990	14.5	8.0	54.9
August 1991	15.6	9.2	59.1
August 1992	16.6	10.2	61.6
August 1993	17.0	10.9	64.0
August 1994	17.0	11.0	64.6
September 1994 (revised)	15.3	10.7	69.6
September 1995	15.0	10.4	69.2
September 1996	15.3	9.9	65.1
September 1997	14.7	8.4	57.5
September 1998	14.0	7.6	54.2
September 1999	13.7	7.3	53.0
Fiscal Year 1999	14.5	7.5	51.6
Fiscal Year 2000	14.2	7.1	50.2
Fiscal Year 2001	15.1	7.3	48.0
Fiscal Year 2002(a)	16.7	8.0	47.6
Fiscal Year 2002(b)	16.0	8.0	49.7
Fiscal Year 2003	17.1	8.9	52.1
Fiscal Year 2004	17.5	10.0	57.1
Fiscal Year 2005	17.7	10.7	60.6
Fiscal Year 2006	17.1	11.2	65.3
Fiscal Year 2007	17.5	11.4	65.5
Fiscal Year 2008	18.0	12.3	68.4
Fiscal Year 2009	20.3	14.7	72.2
Fiscal Year 2010	23.3	17.4	74.6
Fiscal Year 2011	23.5	19.2	81.8
Fiscal Year 2012	23.2	20.2	87.2

Note: SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility. SNAP caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in the methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. The estimates for previous years show higher estimates of eligibles and lower participation rates relative to the revised estimate for 1994 and estimates for subsequent years. The two estimates for 1999 are due to re-weighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining SNAP eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the estimates for FY 2000 – FY 2006. The FY 2011 estimates are not based upon a revised methodologically consistent with prior estimates.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:
Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/trends-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-participation-rates-fiscal-year-2010-fiscal-year.

Table IND 4b shows the average monthly number and percentage of eligible households participating in Food Stamps/SNAP for selected years. Since fiscal year 2002, the participation rate for SNAP has increased from 47.6 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 87.2 percent in fiscal year 2012.

Between fiscal years 1999 and 2012 households eligible for the Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program increased from 14.5 to 23.2 million households (a 60.0 percent increase).
Over the same period caseloads grew from 7.5 to 20.2 million households (by a 170 percent increase), with notable increases occurring since Fiscal Year 2008.
During the mid to late 1990s, there was a 35.5 percent drop in SNAP caseloads, from a peak of 11 million households in 1994 to 7.1 million households in 2000. This decline in caseloads occurred during a time when both the eligible population and the program participation rates were decreasing. Beginning in 2002 these were both increasing.

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program by Selected Characteristics: 1993-2012

	All Adult Units	One-Person Units		Married-Couple Units
	All Adult Units	Aged	Disabled	Married-Couple Units
1993	62.0	57.0	71.0	37.0
1994	65.0	58.4	73.0	43.9
1995	69.1	64.9	74.0	52.2
1996	66.6	60.4	73.5	46.7
1997	71.1	62.7	79.4	49.1
1998	70.7	63.6	77.9	48.1
1999	74.3	65.8	83.3	47.8
2000	75.8	70.9	82.3	49.9
2001	69.7	64.4	75.9	45.7
2002	70.4	61.9	78.3	47.9
2003	68.2	62.3	73.8	47.6
2004	65.7	63.3	69.2	46.0
2005	67.7	63.4	73.5	41.1
2006	68.8	69.1	72.5	39.9
2007	66.8	61.6	72.3	43.0
2008	65.6	67.3	68.0	39.8
2009	64.6	64.8	67.4	40.0
2010	65.1	65.8	67.4	41.5
2011	67.3	67.3	70.3	40.1
2012	64.1	58.2	69.9	37.5

Note: SSI participation rates are estimated using the TRIM3 microsimulation model that uses CPS data to simulate SSI eligibility for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. In particular, the model was revised in 1997 and 1998 to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. Thus the increased participation rate in 1997 is partly due to a revision in estimating methodology. In 2004 the TRIM methods for identifying individuals eligible for SSI due to disability were improved resulting in more eligibles for this category. Still it is important to note that the TRIM model utilizes the limited information on disability status available from the Current Population Survey and thus may be underestimating the eligible non-elderly adult population resulting in participation rates that are too high. For example unpublished tabulations from the Social Security Administration based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation suggest that the rate of SSI participation among eligible non-elderly adults may be somewhere between a low estimate of around 40 percent and a high estimate of 80 percent – a fairly wide range. Also note that the figures for married-couple units are based on very small sample sizes–for example, married-couple units were only about 7.5 percent of the eligible adult units and 5.1 percent of the units receiving SSI in the average month of 1998.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 4c shows the average monthly number and percentage of eligible adult units participating in the SSI program by select demographic categories. After rising to 75.8 percent of adults estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2000, the SSI participation rate has decreased to 64.1 percent of those estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2012. This rate is higher than recent TANF rates (32.4 percent) but is lower than the SNAP participation rate of 87.2 percent (see Tables IND 4a and IND 4b).
For aged adults in one-person units, the estimated SSI participation rate increased from 57.0 percent in 1993 to a high of 70.9 percent in 2000. The estimated SSI participation rate among aged one-person units was 58.2 percent in 2012.

¹⁹ Note that TANF is a flexible program with a flexible funding stream. As such, states provide substantial “non assistance” services and benefits that would not be included in the cash assistance caseload counts used to derive these participation rate estimates. Over the years families also may have received cash benefits or other services through general assistance and other solely state-funded programs that are separate from the TANF program and are not shown here.

²⁰ As discussed in the note to Table IND 4a above, the model for estimating participation in the TANF cash assistance program does take into account benefits from separate state programs (SSPs) that are used to meet Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements.

INDICATOR 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, SNAP and SSI: 2012

Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, SNAP and SSI: 2012

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

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

Figure IND 5 shows the percentage of those receiving benefits from TANF, SNAP, or SSI or a combination of benefits from these programs in 2012. Eighty-three (83.0) percent of all individuals received no benefits from means tested programs, while 17.0 percent did. Of those who received any benefits from the three programs,76.7 percent of recipients received only SNAP benefits, 7.2 percent of recipients received both TANF and SNAP benefits, and 9.5 percent of recipients received SSI and SNAP.
Table IND 5a shows the percentage of the population receiving assistance from TANF, SNAP, and SSI by demographic characteristics. About five (4.5) percent of children from birth to 5 years lived in families that received both TANF and SNAP.
Among family categories, persons in female-headed families were more likely than those living in other types of families to receive support from multiple means-tested assistance programs.
Table IND 5b shows the percentage of the population receiving assistance from multiple means-tested assistance programs between 1993 and 2012. Reliance on TANF and SNAP together has decreased over time. In 1993, 4.8 percent of the population received AFDC and food stamps. In 2012, the percent that received both TANF and SNAP decreased to 1.2 percent. Reliance on SNAP and SSI was 1.0 percent in 1993 and in 2012 it was 1.6 percent.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2012

	Any Receipt	One Program Only			Two Programs
		TANF	SNAP	SSI	TANF & SNAP	SNAP & SSI
All Persons	17.0	0.1	13.0	1.0	1.2	1.6
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	12.0	0.1	9.5	0.7	0.5	1.3
Non-Hispanic Black	32.7	0.2	24.1	1.4	3.3	3.7
Hispanic	24.8	0.3	18.9	1.7	2.4	1.6
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5	33.3	0.5	27.0	0.6	4.5	0.7
Children ages 6-10	30.6	0.4	24.5	0.8	3.6	1.3
Children ages 11-15	26.4	0.4	20.8	0.9	3.1	1.2
Women ages 16-64	15.9	0.1	12.3	0.8	1.0	1.8
Men ages 16-64	12.5	0.0	9.8	0.9	0.3	1.5
Adults ages 65 and over	10.2	0.0	5.4	2.3	0.0	2.6
Family Categories
Persons in married-couple families	9.8	0.1	8.1	0.7	0.4	0.5
Persons in female-headed families	43.5	0.3	32.3	1.7	5.8	3.3
Persons in male-headed families	24.9	0.1	19.3	1.7	1.4	2.3
Unrelated persons	16.3	0.0	11.4	1.2	0.0	3.6

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP receipt are based on the full recipient unit. In practice, individuals do not tend to receive both AFDC/TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs. The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from any one program in an average month (shown here) is lower than the percentage residing in families receiving assistance at some point over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II). Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed family categories.

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

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2012

	Any Receipt	One Program Only			Two Programs
		AFDC/TANF	FS/SNAP	SSI	AFDC/TANF & SNAP	SNAP & SSI
1993	12.6	0.6	5.2	1.1	4.8	1.0
1994	12.8	0.5	5.3	1.2	4.6	1.1
1995	12.3	0.4	5.0	1.2	4.5	1.1
1996	12.0	0.3	5.3	1.2	4.0	1.1
1997	10.2	0.4	4.3	1.3	3.1	1.0
1998	9.0	0.4	3.9	1.4	2.4	0.9
1999	8.5	0.4	3.8	1.3	2.0	1.0
2000	8.1	0.2	3.8	1.4	1.7	1.0
2001	8.1	0.3	3.9	1.4	1.5	1.0
2002	8.5	0.3	4.5	1.3	1.4	1.0
2003	9.7	0.2	5.5	1.3	1.6	1.0
2004	10.3	0.2	6.1	1.2	1.6	1.1
2005	10.2	0.2	6.2	1.3	1.5	1.2
2006	10.4	0.2	6.5	1.3	1.3	1.2
2007	10.6	0.2	6.8	1.3	1.2	1.2
2008	11.4	0.2	7.7	1.2	1.2	1.2
2009	13.5	0.2	9.6	1.1	1.3	1.4
2010	16.3	0.2	12.2	1.0	1.3	1.5
2011	16.8	0.2	12.7	1.0	1.3	1.6
2012	17.0	0.1	13.0	1.0	1.2	1.6

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

INDICATOR 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Race and Ethnicity

Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Race and Ethnicity

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

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

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

Figure IND 6 shows the 2012 dependency status of persons who were welfare dependent in 2011 by race and ethnicity. Welfare dependence is defined as receiving more than half of one’s total family income in the year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI. For further discussion of defining welfare dependency, see Chapter I.
Of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI in 2011, approximately three-quarters across three racial and ethnic groups (71.3 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites, 72.6 percent of Non-Hispanic Blacks, and 73.1 percent of Hispanics) also were welfare dependent in 2012.
Table IND 6a shows the 2012 dependency status of persons who were welfare dependent in 2011 by demographic groups. Women ages 16 – 64 had a higher dependency rate (76.2 percent) than men (70.4 percent), and children less than 5 years old also had a higher dependency rate (70.5 percent) than those ages 11 – 15 (66.7 percent).
Table IND 6b shows the dependency status of all persons who received more than 50 percent of their family income from means-tested assistance programs in the previous year. While most remain dependent from one year to the next, this has lessened some with a 7.4 percentage point decrease in remaining dependent from the previous year to the current year from 1994 to 2012.

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Selected Characteristics

		Percentage of Persons Receiving
Persons Receiving More than 50 Percent of Income from Assistance in 2011	Total (thousands)	No aid in 2012	Up to 50% in 2012	Over 50% in 2012
All Persons	9,834	1.2	26.5	72.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	3,619	1.8	26.9	71.3
Non-Hispanic Black	3,410	0.2	27.3	72.6
Hispanic	2,011	1.2	25.7	73.1
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5	1,278	2.1	27.4	70.5
Children ages 6-10	1,068	1.1	33.4	65.6
Children ages 11-15	1,015	0.0	33.3	66.7
Women ages 16-64	3,665	0.5	23.3	76.2
Men ages 16-64	2,266	2.2	27.4	70.4
Adults ages 65 and over	488	0.6	13.9	85.4

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

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

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

		Percentage of Persons Receiving
	Total (thousands)	No aid in second year	Up to 50% in second year	Over 50% in second year
Transitions from:
1993 to 1994	14,810	1.6	18.6	79.8
1994 to 1995	13,986	2.7	18.8	78.5
1997 to 1998	9,672	3.1	28.8	68.1
1998 to 1999	8,163	2.9	27.1	70.0
2001 to 2002	6,258	1.5	29.2	69.3
2002 to 2003	6,023	2.6	25.8	71.6
2004 to 2005	7,682	4.1	31.7	64.2
2005 to 2006	7,339	2.4	24.2	73.5
2006 to 2007	6,969	2.4	20.9	76.7
2009 to 2010	8,344	1.7	22.4	75.9
2010 to 2011	9,481	2.2	25.5	72.3
2011 to 2012	9,834	1.2	26.5	72.4

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in families with more than 50 percent of total annual family income from these means-tested programs. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income in all years and veterans’ pension benefits are included in means-tested assistance income for receipt and dependence estimates prior to 2001. Because full calendar year data for 1995 were not available for all SIPP respondents, some transitions between 1994 and 1995 were based on twelve-month periods that do not correspond exactly to calendar years.

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

INDICATOR 7. Program Spell Duration

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

Percentage of TANF, SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011). This estimate differs from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.

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

Figure IND 7 shows the percentage of TANF, SNAP, and SSI spells by spell length categories for persons entering programs in the late 2000s. Between 2008 and 2012, brief spells lasting four months or less accounted for 50.5 percent of TANF spells, 28.7 percent of SNAP spells, and 33.0 percent of SSI spells.
Eighty (79.6) percent of all TANF spells, over half of SNAP spells (53.7 percent) and 54.0 percent of SSI spells lasted one year or less.
Table IND 7a shows the percentage of program spells for persons entering programs during the 2008 – 2012 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics. Among child recipients of TANF, most children experienced shorter spells of receipt (less than 4 months) rather than longer spells of receipt (greater than 20 months).
Adults 65 years and older had the longest spells of SSI receipt (55.9 percent lasted more than 20 months). Children ages 6 – 10 had the longest spells of SNAP receipt (42.4 percent lasted more than 20 months). Children ages 11 – 15 had the longest spells of TANF receipt (21.9 percent lasted more than 20 months).
Table IND 7b shows how the percentage of program spells of varying lengths for persons entering programs during selected periods has changed. Spells of TANF receipt were shorter in the 2000s than in the early 1990s. For instance, 11.3 percent of TANF spells for persons entering TANF between 2008 and 2012 lasted 20 months or longer as compared to 34.4 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994.

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

Program		Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
TANF	All Recipients	50.5	29.1	9.2	11.3
	Non-Hispanic White	50.1	30.2	7.7	12.0
	Non-Hispanic Black	53.7	25.5	9.4	11.5
	Hispanic	47.3	32.4	10.2	10.2
	Children ages 0-5	41.9	34.4	11.3	12.4
	Children ages 6-10	44.0	30.8	12.8	12.4
	Children ages 11-15	46.2	28.3	3.6	21.9
	Adults ages 16-64	55.7	27.5	9.5	7.4
	Adults ages 65 and over	60.3	26.3	0.0	13.4
SNAP	All Recipients	28.7	25.0	11.0	35.3
	Non-Hispanic White	27.1	27.3	10.3	35.3
	Non-Hispanic Black	28.8	22.5	10.3	38.4
	Hispanic	30.0	24.0	12.8	33.2
	Children ages 0-5	20.0	28.3	10.3	41.4
	Children ages 6-10	21.7	25.2	10.7	42.4
	Children ages 11-15	26.3	25.7	10.5	37.4
	Adults ages 16-64	30.5	25.2	11.5	32.9
	Adults ages 65 and over	36.7	16.6	8.6	38.1
SSI	All Recipients	33.0	21.0	8.3	37.8
	Non-Hispanic White	32.1	20.1	5.4	42.4
	Non-Hispanic Black	34.6	23.8	11.0	30.6
	Hispanic	36.6	18.7	7.1	37.7
	Children ages 0-5	46.2	29.7	8.8	15.3
	Children ages 6-10	46.6	29.9	8.8	14.8
	Children ages 11-15	42.7	23.7	8.8	24.9
	Adults ages 16-64	29.9	19.9	7.6	42.5
	Adults ages 65 and over	21.3	12.3	10.5	55.9

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2012). Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.²¹

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

Period	Program	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1992 – 1994	AFDC	30.4	24.7	10.5	34.4
	Food Stamps	33.4	24.9	10.2	31.5
	SSI	25.7	8.9	4.8	60.6
1993 – 1995	AFDC	30.7	25.4	12.5	31.4
	Food Stamps	33.1	26.8	10.1	30.0
	SSI	24.0	7.9	4.7	63.4
1996 – 1999	AFDC/TANF	46.6	29.2	11.5	12.7
	Food Stamps	43.1	27.7	9.3	19.8
	SSI	34.1	19.2	9.1	37.6
2001 – 2003	TANF	49.6	23.7	10.0	16.8
	Food Stamps	35.9	24.4	8.9	30.7
	SSI	27.9	21.4	7.3	43.5
2004 – 2007	TANF	43.8	29.9	12.2	14.1
	Food Stamps	33.1	29.0	9.1	28.8
	SSI	24.2	19.8	9.1	47.0
2008 – 2012	TANF	50.5	29.1	9.2	11.3
	SNAP	28.7	25.0	11.0	35.3
	SSI	33.0	21.0	8.3	37.8

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

These estimates differ from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.

²¹ These estimates differ from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.

INDICATOR 8. Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment

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

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

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. TANF spells with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each month.

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

Figure IND 8 shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment for persons entering the TANF program between 2008 and 2012 by length of spell.²²
Welfare spells with no family labor force attachment are measured as consecutive months that a person received TANF benefits and lived in a family with no labor force participants. Welfare spells with no family labor force attachment may end when a person leaves the TANF program or when a person remains on TANF but at least one person in the family enters the labor market.
Fifty-six (56.4) percent of welfare spells with no family labor force attachment lasted four months or less as measured in the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Table IND 8a shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment by spell length for different demographic groups. The percentage of spells ending in four months or less was smaller for Non-Hispanic Whites (44.9 percent) than it was for Non-Hispanic Blacks (68.0 percent) and Hispanics (54.5 percent).

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

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
All Persons	56.4	30.0	5.9	7.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	44.9	35.1	11.4	8.5
Non-Hispanic Black	68.0	22.2	2.7	7.1
Hispanic	54.5	35.1	4.9	5.5
Age Categories
Children ages 0-15	53.8	31.8	4.9	9.4
Adults ages 16-64	59.3	27.9	7.4	5.4

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2012) for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each month.

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

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

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 – 1995	42.6	26.4	8.5	22.5
1996 – 1999	54.2	28.3	9.3	8.3
2001 – 2003	56.1	23.0	10.6	10.2
2004 – 2007	51.6	25.0	9.4	14.0
2008—2012	56.4	30.0	5.9	7.8

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

Table IND 8b shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment for persons entering the program during selected periods by spell length. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, 56.4 percent of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment ended within four months and 86.4 percent ended within a year. This compares to 42.6 percent and 69.0 percent, respectively, in the early 1990s.
The percentage of spells with no family labor force attachment lasting more than 20 months was higher in the early 1990s than in the late 2000s and early 2010s (22.5 percent compared to 7.8 percent, respectively).

²² Indicators 7 and 8 provide similar information; however, the percentages of spell lengths differ because the two Indicators are computed differently. Indicator 7 shows spells for all recipients while Indicator 8 restricts welfare spells to recipients in families without any labor force participants. This difference results in a higher percentage of spells longer than 20 months in Indicator 7, where TANF employment may be combined, and compared to Indicator 8 where no one in the family may be in the labor force at any time during the spell.

INDICATOR 9. Long Term Receipt

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

Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients by Years of Receipt in the 1999 – 2008 Period
Note: The base for the percentages consists of mothers who received at least $1 of AFDC/TANF in any year in the ten-year period. Child recipients are defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This indicator measures years of recipiency over the specified ten-year time periods and does not take into account years of recipiency that may have occurred before or after each ten-year period.

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

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

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

All Persons	All Recipients				Child Recipients Ages 0-5
	1969-1978	1979-1988	1989-1998	1999-2008	1969-1978	1979-1988	1989-1998	1999-2008
Years received AFDC/TANF
1-2 years	43.6	44.6	47.9	71.5	33.3	36.8	40.4	73.0
3-5 years	23.1	25.0	31.5	20.5	28.3	25.0	27.1	18.4
6-8 years	20.5	17.3	12.4	6.9	21.1	18.4	17.3	6.2
9-10 years	12.8	13.1	8.2	1.1	17.3	19.8	15.2	2.4
Non-Hispanic Whites	All Recipients				Child Recipients Ages 0-5
	1969-1978	1979-1988	1989-1998	1999-2008	1969-1978	1979-1988	1989-1998	1999-2008
Years received AFDC/TANF
1-2 years	51.0	54.0	51.3	76.4	41.4	47.4	50.9	78.2
3-5 years	21.1	21.2	36.8	18.0	29.1	23.3	31.3	15.2
6-8 years	17.7	15.1	7.4	5.6	16.8	15.5	8.7	5.2
9-10 years	10.2	9.7	4.5	0.0	12.7	13.8	9.1	1.4
Non-Hispanic Blacks	All Recipients				Child Recipients Ages 0-5
	1969-1978	1979-1988	1989-1998	1999-2008	1969-1978	1979-1988	1989-1998	1999-2008
Years received AFDC/TANF
1-2 years	30.2	31.2	44.1	62.6	19.4	20.8	33.0	60.0
3-5 years	26.1	29.1	25.4	25.5	28.8	27.7	23.3	25.1
6-8 years	26.2	21.3	18.0	9.0	28.3	23.0	24.4	9.1
9-10 years	17.5	18.4	12.5	2.9	23.5	28.5	19.3	5.8

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

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

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

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

Figure IND 10a. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2008 - 2012 Period

Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2008 - 2012 Period

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

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2012).

Figure IND 10a shows events associated with single mother TANF exits during the 2008 SIPP panel. Welfare exits were most often associated with an increase in recipient earnings. Thirty-seven (37.3) percent of welfare spells that ended during the 2008 to 2012 time period were associated with an increase in the recipient’s earnings. Twenty (19.7) percent of welfare exits were associated with an increase in the earnings of other household members.
Twenty-nine (28.5) percent of welfare exits among single mothers during the 2008 – 2012 time period were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed.
Table IND 10a shows the events associated with welfare exits among single mother recipients for selected years. Increases in recipient earnings are the most common event associated with welfare exits, but exits associated with recipient earnings increases have decreased over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 54.8 percent of exits were associated with an increase in recipient earnings, yet for the 2008 – 2012 time period 37.3 percent were associated with increases in recipient earnings.

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

	Spell Ended 1993-1995	Spell Ended 1996-1999	Spell Ended 2001-2003	Spell Ended 2004-2006	Spell Ended 2008-2012
Increase in own earnings	54.8	60.6	49.9	48.6	37.3
Increase in other household earnings	10.3	12.2	14.5	16.6	19.7
Became SSI recipient	1.6	5.9	5.1	4.2	8.9
Became recipient of other government benefits	2.2	2.6	2.9	0.7	3.3
Last child left or turned 19	5.6	2.4	1.6	3.3	4.2
Married	5.4	2.1	2.3	1.9	1.9
Increase in number of adults (not marriage)	17.6	12.4	12.8	14.2	19.8
Ended work limitation	3.0	10.9	8.8	5.2	6.1
Moved across state lines	2.4	1.4	2.8	4.4	4.3
None of above in recent past	24.0	19.0	24.7	27.3	28.5

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

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

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

Welfare exits associated with increases in other household earnings have increased over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 10.3 percent of welfare exits were related to increases in other household earnings, compared to 19.7 percent for the 2008 – 2012 time period.
Welfare exits associated with marriage also declined over the two time periods. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 5.4 percent of exits were related to marriage, for the 2008 – 2012 time period, the rate was 1.9 percent.

Figure IND 10b. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2008 - 2012 Period

Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2008 - 2012 Period

Note: Welfare entries are defined as moving from non-receipt to receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an event was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare entry. In general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are that “Other Household Earnings Decreased” was limited to cases when there were decreases in household earnings without a decrease in recipient earnings, and “Decrease in Number of Adults (not divorce)” was limited to cases where the adult leaving the household was not married to the head of the household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans payments and Workers Compensation. A decrease in earnings must be a decrease of at least $50 per month. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category "None of above in recent past" represents the percentage of all spell beginnings during the period that were not associated with any of the events measured.

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

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

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

Figure IND 10b shows the events associated with the beginning of TANF spells among single mother recipients in the 2008 – 2012 time period. A decrease in earnings was the most common event associated with welfare entries. For spells beginning between 2008 and 2012, 31.2 percent were associated with a decrease in the recipient’s earnings and 21.5 percent were associated with a decrease in the earnings of other household members.
Changes in household composition also were associated with the beginning of welfare spells. Twenty-five (25.4) percent of welfare entries were associated with a new child joining the family while 17.0 percent of TANF entries were the result of a decrease in the number of adults in a household not due to divorce. Four percent of TANF entries were associated with divorce or separation.
Twenty-six (26.4) percent of welfare entries were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed.

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

	Spell Began 1993-1995	Spell Began 1996-1999	Spell Began 2001-2003	Spell Began 2004-2006	Spell Began 2007-2012
Recipients’ earnings decreased	57.1	48.1	46.7	43.8	31.2
Other household earnings decreased	24.0	19.6	17.2	19.2	21.5
Lost SSI benefits (own)	1.4	5.1	4.4	5.2	4.6
Lost other government benefits (own)	8.1	5.1	6.1	4.7	6.7
New child in family	22.0	22.0	27.5	28.9	25.4
Divorced/separated from spouse	8.7	6.7	4.3	5.8	4.0
Decrease in number of adults (not divorce)	19.2	17.8	14.7	19.8	17.0
Onset of work limitation	7.2	10.9	11.5	10.4	5.2
Moved across state lines	1.7	1.4	2.2	4.7	4.3
None of above in recent past	8.8	17.4	20.6	19.4	26.4

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

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

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

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

Table IND 10b shows the events associated with the beginning of welfare spells among single mother recipients by selected time periods.
Decreases in a recipient’s earnings has been the most common event associated with welfare entries over time.
For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 57.1 percent of AFDC spell entries were associated with a decrease in recipient earnings. The percentage was 31.2 percent for the 2008– 2012 time period.
The percentage of welfare entries not associated with any events has increased over time. Twenty-six (26.4) percent of welfare entries were not associated with any of the events listed above in the 2008 – 2012 time period, compared to 8.8 percent observed in the 1993-1995 period.
A decrease in other household members’ earnings also was related to the beginning of welfare spells. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 24.0 percent of welfare entries were associated with a decrease in other household members’ earnings. For the 2008 – 2012 time period, 21.5 percent of welfare entries were associated with a decrease in other household members’ earnings.
A new child in the family was the third consistently common reason for welfare spells entries. Adding a child to the family was associated with 25.4 percent of spells beginning during 2008-2012 and 22.0 percent of spells beginning in the 1993-1995 period.

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

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

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON)

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

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

Reductions in caseloads and dependence can reduce poverty, to the extent that such reductions are associated with greater work activity and higher economic resources for former welfare families. However, if former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources, reductions in welfare caseloads may not lead to decreases in poverty.

Several aspects of poverty are examined in this chapter. Those that can be updated annually using the Current Population Survey include: overall poverty rates (ECON 1); the percentage of individuals in deep poverty (ECON 2), and poverty rates using alternative definitions of income (ECON 3 and 4). The chapter also includes data on the length of poverty episodes or spells (ECON 5).

This chapter also includes data on poverty rates for custodial parents (ECON 6). Receipt of child support is associated with reduced poverty among custodial parents. Household food insecurity (ECON 7) is an important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over time.

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

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

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

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

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

Indicator WORK 4 focuses on educational attainment. Individuals with less than a high school education have the lowest amount of human capital and are at the greatest risk of being poor, despite their work effort.

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be predictors of greater dependence. Substance abuse (WORK 5) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 6) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work. The labor force participation of women with children (WORK 7) is also a predictor of dependence.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH)

The final group of risk factors addresses nonmarital childbearing. The tables and figures in this subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix. This category includes long-term time trends in nonmarital births (BIRTH 1), nonmarital teen births (BIRTH 2 and BIRTH 3), and children living in families with never-married parents (BIRTH 4). Children living in families with never-married mothers are at risk of becoming dependent as adults, and it is therefore important to track changes in the size of this vulnerable population.

As noted above, the predictors/risk factors included in this chapter do not represent an exhaustive list of measures. They are merely a sampling of available data that address in some way the question of how a family is faring on the scale of deprivation and well-being. Such questions are a necessary part of the discussion on dependence as researchers continue to assess the effects of welfare reform.

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age: 1959-2013

Note: All persons under 18 include related children (own children, including stepchildren and adopted children, plus all other children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), unrelated individuals under 18 (persons who are not living with any relatives), and householders or spouses under age 18.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html

Figure ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age from 1959 to 2013. The official poverty rate was 14.5 percent in 2013, down from 15.1 percent in 2010. Prior to 2010, poverty rates had increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 15.1 percent in 2010, a time period that included the Great Recession.
All persons under 18 had a poverty rate of 19.9 percent in 2013, down from 22.0 percent in 2010. In all years after 1959, the child poverty rate was higher than the overall poverty rate.
Table ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age and family type for selected years. In 2013, the poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 9.5 percent and the poverty rate for other adults (persons ages 18 to 64) was 13.6 percent.
Related children from birth to age five have had the highest poverty rate among all age groups throughout the last four decades. In 2013, 22.2 percent of related children from birth to age 5 lived below the poverty line, though this is down from 25.3 percent in 2010.
The poverty rates for persons in both married-couple families and female-headed families have decreased since the 1960s. In 1959, 18.2 percent of persons in married-couple families and 49.4 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor. By 2013, 6.8 percent of persons in married-couple families and 33.2 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor.

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

Calendar Year	Related Children		All Persons
Calendar Year	Ages 0-5	Ages 6-17	Total	Under 18	18 to 64	65 & over	In married- couple families	In female- headed families
1959	NA	NA	22.4	27.3	17.0	35.2	18.2	49.4
1963	NA	NA	19.5	23.1	NA	NA	14.9	47.7
1966	NA	NA	14.7	17.6	10.5	28.5	10.3	39.8
1969	15.3	13.1	12.1	14.0	8.7	25.3	7.4	38.2
1973	15.7	13.6	11.1	14.4	8.3	16.3	6.0	37.5
1976	17.7	15.1	11.8	16.0	9.0	15.0	6.4	37.3
1979	17.9	15.1	11.7	16.4	8.9	15.2	6.3	34.9
1980	20.3	16.8	13.0	18.3	10.1	15.7	7.4	36.7
1981	22.0	18.4	14.0	20.0	11.1	15.3	8.1	38.7
1982	23.3	20.4	15.0	21.9	12.0	14.6	9.1	40.6
1983	24.6	20.4	15.2	22.3	12.4	13.8	9.3	40.2
1984	23.4	19.7	14.4	21.5	11.7	12.4	8.5	38.4
1985	22.6	18.8	14.0	20.7	11.3	12.6	8.2	37.6
1986	21.6	18.8	13.6	20.5	10.8	12.4	7.3	38.3
1987	22.3	18.3	13.4	20.3	10.6	12.5	7.2	38.1
1988	21.8	17.5	13.0	19.5	10.5	12.0	6.6	37.2
1989	21.9	17.4	12.8	19.6	10.2	11.4	6.7	35.9
1990	23.0	18.2	13.5	20.6	10.7	12.2	6.9	37.2
1991	24.0	19.5	14.2	21.8	11.4	12.4	7.2	39.7
1992	25.7	19.4	14.8	22.3	11.9	12.9	7.7	38.5
1993	25.6	20.0	15.1	22.7	12.4	12.2	8.0	38.7
1994	24.5	19.5	14.5	21.8	11.9	11.7	7.4	38.6
1995	23.7	18.3	13.8	20.8	11.4	10.5	6.8	36.5
1996	22.7	18.3	13.7	20.5	11.4	10.8	6.9	35.8
1997	21.6	18.0	13.3	19.9	10.9	10.5	6.4	35.1
1998	20.6	17.1	12.7	18.9	10.5	10.5	6.2	33.1
1999	18.4	15.7	11.9	17.1	10.1	9.7	5.9	30.5
2000	17.8	14.7	11.3	16.2	9.6	9.9	5.5	27.9
2001	18.2	14.6	11.7	16.3	10.1	10.1	5.7	28.6
2002	18.5	15.3	12.1	16.7	10.6	10.4	6.1	28.8
2003	19.8	15.9	12.5	17.6	10.8	10.2	6.2	30.0
2004	20.0	16.0	12.7	17.8	11.3	9.8	6.4	30.5
2005	20.0	15.7	12.6	17.6	11.1	10.1	5.9	31.1
2006	20.0	15.4	12.3	17.4	10.8	9.4	5.7	30.5
2007	20.8	16.0	12.5	18.0	10.9	9.7	5.8	30.7
2008	21.3	17.1	13.2	19.0	11.7	9.7	6.7	31.4
2009	23.8	18.2	14.3	20.7	12.9	8.9	7.2	32.5
2010	25.3	19.6	15.1	22.0	13.8	8.9	7.7	34.3
2011	24.5	19.9	15.0	21.9	13.7	8.7	7.4	34.2
2012	24.4	19.8	15.0	21.8	13.7	9.1	7.5	33.9
2013	22.2	18.2	14.5	19.9	13.6	9.5	6.8	33.2

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 2. Deep Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level: 1975 - 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60- 249, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.]

Figure ECON 2 shows the percentage of the population below 50, 100, and 125 percent of the poverty level over time. The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 6.3 percent in 2013, compared to an overall poverty rate of 14.5 percent.
Less than five (4.7) percent of the population was “near-poor;” they had incomes at or above 100 percent but below 125 percent of the federal poverty level in 2013.
Table ECON 2 shows the number and percentage of the population below 50, 75, and 125 percent of the poverty level for selected years. In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate.
The percentage of people below 50 percent of the poverty level rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s to 5.9 percent, and then after falling, has risen past its 1993 peak of 6.2 percent. The rates for 100 percent and 125 percent of the poverty level followed a similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
Over the past three decades, the proportion of the poverty population in “deep poverty” has increased substantially. The percentage of the poverty population in deep poverty went from a low of 29.9 percent in 1975 to 43.8 percent in 2013.

Percent of Poor in Deep Poverty

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

Year	Total Population (thousands)	Below 50 Percent		Below 75 Percent		Below 100 Percent		Below 125 Percent
		Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
		Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent	Number (thousands)	Percent
1961	181,300	NA	NA	NA	NA	39,600	21.9	54,300	30.0
1963	187,300	NA	NA	NA	NA	36,400	19.5	50,800	27.1
1965	191,400	NA	NA	NA	NA	33,200	17.3	46,200	24.1
1967	195,700	NA	NA	NA	NA	27,800	14.2	39,200	20.0
1969	199,500	NA	NA	14,600	7.3	24,100	12.1	34,700	17.4
1971	204,600	NA	NA	NA	NA	25,600	12.5	36,500	17.8
1973	207,600	NA	NA	NA	NA	23,000	11.1	32,800	15.8
1975	210,900	7,700	3.7	15,400	7.3	25,900	12.3	37,200	17.6
1976	212,300	7,000	3.3	14,900	7.0	25,000	11.8	35,500	16.7
1977	213,900	7,500	3.5	15,000	7.0	24,700	11.6	35,700	16.7
1978	215,700	7,700	3.6	14,900	6.9	24,500	11.4	34,200	15.8
1979	222,900	8,600	3.8	16,300	7.3	26,100	11.7	36,600	16.4
1980	225,000	9,800	4.4	18,700	8.3	29,300	13.0	40,700	18.1
1981	227,200	11,200	4.9	20,700	9.1	31,800	14.0	43,700	19.3
1982	229,400	12,800	5.6	23,200	10.1	34,400	15.0	46,500	20.3
1983	231,700	13,600	5.9	23,600	10.2	35,300	15.2	47,200	20.3
1984	233,800	12,800	5.5	22,700	9.7	33,700	14.4	45,300	19.4
1985	236,600	12,400	5.2	22,200	9.4	33,100	13.6	44,200	18.7
1986	238,600	12,700	5.3	22,400	9.4	32,400	14.0	43,500	18.7
1987	241,000	12,500	5.2	21,700	9.0	32,200	13.4	43,000	17.9
1988	243,500	12,700	5.2	21,400	8.8	31,700	13.0	42,600	17.5
1989	246,000	12,000	4.9	20,700	8.4	31,500	12.8	42,700	17.3
1990	248,600	12,900	5.2	22,600	9.1	33,600	13.5	44,800	18.0
1991	251,200	14,100	5.6	24,400	9.7	35,700	14.2	47,500	18.9
1992	256,500	15,500	6.1	26,200	10.2	38,000	14.8	50,600	19.7
1993	259,300	16,000	6.2	27,200	10.5	39,300	15.1	51,800	20.0
1994	261,600	15,400	5.9	26,400	10.1	38,100	14.5	50,400	19.3
1995	263,700	13,900	5.3	24,500	9.3	36,400	13.8	48,800	18.5
1996	266,200	14,400	5.4	24,800	9.3	36,500	13.7	49,300	18.5
1997	268,500	14,600	5.4	24,200	9.0	35,600	13.3	47,900	17.8
1998	271,100	13,900	5.1	23,000	8.5	34,500	12.7	46,000	17.0
1999	276,200	12,900	4.7	21,800	7.9	32,800	11.9	45,000	16.3
2000	278,900	12,600	4.5	20,900	7.5	31,600	11.3	43,600	15.6
2001	281,500	13,400	4.8	22,000	7.8	32,900	11.7	45,300	16.1
2002	285,300	14,100	4.9	23,100	8.1	34,600	12.1	47,100	16.5
2003	287,700	15,300	5.3	24,500	8.5	35,900	12.5	48,700	16.9
2004	290,600	15,700	5.4	25,000	8.6	37,000	12.7	49,700	17.1
2005	293,100	15,900	5.4	25,200	8.6	37,000	12.6	49,300	16.8
2006	296,500	15,400	5.2	25,200	8.5	36,500	12.3	49,700	16.8
2007	298,700	15,600	5.2	25,100	8.4	37,300	12.5	50,900	17.0
2008	301,000	17,100	5.7	27,400	9.1	39,800	13.2	53,800	17.9
2009	303,800	19,000	6.3	30,100	9.9	43,600	14.3	56,800	18.7
2010	306,100	20,500	6.7	32,100	10.5	46,300	15.1	60,700	19.8
2011	308,500	20,400	6.6	31,800	10.3	46,200	15.0	60,900	19.8
2012	310,600	20,400	6.6	32,300	10.4	46,500	15.0	61,200	19.7
2013	313,000	19,900	6.3	31,300	10.0	45,300	14.5	60,200	19.2

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Research Supplemental Poverty Measure

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures by Demographic Characteristics: 2013

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures by Demographic Characteristics: 2013

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2014.

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013" Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-251.

Figure ECON 3 shows a comparison of the percentage of persons in poverty using the official poverty measure and the Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure by selected demographic characteristics.²³
The supplemental poverty measure yields poverty rates that are similar to the official poverty measure overall. In 2013, 15.5 percent of all persons were poor under the supplemental poverty measure and 14.6 percent of all persons were poor under the official poverty measure.
The supplemental and official poverty rates show some differences by age and other characteristics. In 2013, the supplemental poverty rate among children was 4.0 percentage points lower than the official rate, partly because it takes into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, the supplemental poverty rate among the elderly in 2013 was 5.1 percentage points higher than the official rate, in part due to out-of-pocket health costs for these persons.
Table ECON 3 provides greater detail on the supplemental and official poverty measures.

Table ECON 3. Poverty in 2010 and 2013: Official Poverty Measure and Supplemental Poverty Measure

	Official Poverty Rates			SPM Poverty Rates
	2010	2013	Change	2010	2013	Change
Demographic characteristics:
All individuals	15.1	14.6	-0.5	16.0	15.5	-0.5
Children under age 18	22.0	20.4	-1.6	18.0	16.4	-1.6
Individuals ages 18 — 64	13.6	13.6	0.0	15.2	15.4	0.2
Individuals age 65 and older	8.9	9.5	0.6	15.8	14.6	-1.2
Hispanic	26.5	23.7	-2.8	27.7	26.0	-1.7
Black	27.4	27.3	-0.1	25.4	24.7	-0.7
Asian	12.2	10.5	-1.7	16.6	16.4	-0.2
White, non-Hispanic	9.9	9.7	-0.2	11.0	10.7	-0.3
Foreign-born	19.9	18.1	-1.8	25.1	23.8	-1.3
In married-couple units	7.6	6.7	-0.9	9.8	9.5	-0.3
In female-householder units	28.7	28.6	-0.1	29.0	28.5	-0.5
Employment and insurance:
All workers	7.3	7.3	0.0	9.1	9.8	0.7
Full-time/year-round workers	2.7	2.7	0.0	4.8	5.4	0.6
With private health insurance	4.8	5.2	0.4	7.5	8.2	0.7
With public health insurance, no private	37.6	34.1	-3.5	31.5	28.5	-3.0
Not insured	29.2	27.0	-2.2	30.5	29.1	-1.5
Geographic areas:
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)	14.9	14.3	-0.6	16.6	15.9	-0.7
Non-metropolitan Areas	16.5	16.2	-0.3	12.8	13.2	0.4
West	15.3	14.8	-0.5	19.3	18.7	-0.6
South	16.8	16.2	-0.6	16.3	15.9	-0.4
Northeast	12.9	12.8	-0.1	14.5	14.3	-0.2
Midwest	14.0	13.0	-1.0	13.1	12.5	-0.6
Poverty by threshold:
0 — 50 % of the poverty threshold	6.8	6.5	-0.3	5.4	5.2	-0.2
50 — 100 % of the poverty threshold	8.4	8.1	-0.3	10.7	10.3	-0.4
100 — 200 % of the poverty threshold	18.8	19.4	0.6	31.8	31.4	-0.4

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2014

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013," Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-251.

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

²³ The U.S. Census Bureau developed the supplemental poverty measure based on the 2010 recommendations of an Interagency Technical Working Group, which drew on the earlier recommendations of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance.

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

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979-2012

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2012, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

Figure ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population below the official poverty line with various means-tested transfers counted as income for the years 1979 to 2012. The official poverty rate – using the official income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-transfer cash income and social insurance cash transfers – was 15.0 percent in 2012. Without cash welfare (TANF and SSI), the 2012 poverty rate would be 15.7 percent
Adding non-cash, means-tested transfers (food and housing benefits including SNAP) to the official income definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people with incomes below the official poverty line. Including the value of food and housing benefits in total income would reduce the poverty rate to 12.9 percent in 2012.
When income is defined to include all of the previously mentioned benefits plus the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the effect of federal taxes, the percentage of people below the official poverty line would decrease to 11.4 percent in 2012. Federal taxes and the EITC have had the net effect of reducing poverty rates following the EITC expansions in 1993 and 1995.
Table ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population below the official poverty line with various means-tested transfers counted as income for selected years. The combined effect of means-tested cash transfers, food and housing benefits, the EITC, and federal taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2012 by 4.3 percentage points. Net reductions in poverty rates were smaller during the 1981 - 1982 recession, and higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

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

	Cash income plus all social insurance	Plus means-tested cash transfers (official poverty measure)	Plus food and housing benefits	Plus EITC and federal taxes	Reduction in poverty rate
1979	12.8	11.6	9.7	10.0	2.8
1981	14.9	13.9	12.2	13.2	1.7
1983	16.0	15.2	13.7	14.7	1.3
1986	14.5	13.6	12.2	13.1	1.4
1989	13.8	12.8	11.2	11.8	2.0
1992	15.6	14.5	12.9	13.0	2.6
1995	14.9	13.8	12.0	11.5	3.4
1998	13.5	12.7	11.3	10.4	3.1
2000	12.0	11.3	10.1	9.5	2.5
2001	12.5	11.7	10.5	9.8	2.7
2002	12.8	12.1	10.9	10.0	2.8
2003	13.2	12.5	11.2	10.4	2.8
2004	13.5	12.7	11.5	10.5	3.0
2005	13.3	12.6	11.2	10.3	3.0
2006	13.0	12.3	11.0	10.0	3.0
2007	13.2	12.5	11.1	10.1	3.1
2008	13.9	13.2	11.7	10.1	3.8
2009	15.1	14.3	12.4	10.5	4.6
2010	15.8	15.1	13.0	11.3	5.0
2011	15.8	15.0	12.9	11.2	4.6
2012	15.7	15.0	12.9	11.4	4.3

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2012, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

The four measures of income are as follows:

(1) “Cash income plus all social insurance” is earnings and cash income, plus social security, workers compensation, disability, unemployment, public and private pensions, veterans benefits and other social insurance cash transfers. It does not include means-tested cash transfers;

(2) “Plus means-tested cash transfers” is the official Census Bureau income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI;

(3) “Plus food and housing benefits” counts the cash value of means-tested food and housing benefits as income; and

(4) “Plus EITC and federal taxes” is the most comprehensive income measure used. It adds the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to income, while subtracting federal payroll and income taxes. The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included in any of the income measures.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2012).

Figure ECON 5 shows the percentage of poverty spells that are of various lengths for persons who became poor during the 2008 - 2012 period. Forty-six (45.7) percent of poverty spells that began between 2008 and 2012 ended within 4 months. Almost three-quarters (72.5 percent) of poverty spells during this period ended within one year while 17.7 percent of spells lasted more than 20 months.
Table ECON 5a shows the percentage of poverty spells for persons entering poverty during the 2008 - 2012 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics.
Among racial and ethnic groups, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites had short spells of poverty (48.3 percent) than Non-Hispanic Blacks (39.9 percent) or Hispanics of any race (44.0 percent). A larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks (23.1 percent) had poverty spells greater than 20 months than did Non-Hispanic Whites (15.1 percent) and Hispanics of any race (19.9 percent).
When examining long spells of poverty, greater than 20 months by age group, children 0 - 5 years of age had the highest rate (21.9 percent) and men 16-64 years of age had the lowest rate (14.9 percent).

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

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
All Persons	45.7	26.8	9.8	17.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	48.3	27.3	9.3	15.1
Non-Hispanic Black	39.9	26.6	10.5	23.1
Hispanic	44.0	25.6	10.5	19.9
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5 years	42.4	25.7	10.0	21.9
Children ages 6-10 years	44.0	26.1	9.4	20.5
Children ages 11-15 years	45.2	28.2	9.9	16.7
Women ages 16-64 years	45.7	26.5	10.2	17.7
Men ages 16-64 years	48.1	27.4	9.6	14.9
Adults ages 65 years and over	41.3	24.0	8.3	26.3

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2012).

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

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 – 1995	47.3	28.1	8.9	15.7
1996 – 1999	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
2001 – 2003	49.2	27.7	7.7	15.5
2004 – 2007	47.8	26.7	12.2	13.4
2008 – 2012	45.7	26.8	9.8	17.7

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child Support

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

Note: Data are for mothers with custody.

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2012

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2012

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2012.

Figure ECON 7 shows the percentage of households that were food secure, had low food security, and had very low food security in 2012. The majority of U.S. households (85.5 percent) were food secure in 2012; that is, they had consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.
Fifteen (14.5) percent of U.S. households experienced low food security, including 5.7 percent who were classified as having very low food security. Very low food security is defined as having reduced food intake and having normal eating patterns disrupted due to a lack of resources. After increasing from 2007 to 2008, the percentage of households reporting low and very low food security has remained virtually unchanged from 2008 to 2012.
Table ECON 7a shows the percentage of households classified by food security status and by selected demographic characteristics. Households with elderly were more food secure (91.2 percent) than were households with children under six (79.5 percent) or households with children under 18 (80.0 percent).
Food insecurity increases as poverty increases. Ninety-three (93.2) percent of households above 185 percent of the poverty level were food secure while 61.8 percent of households below 130 percent of the poverty level were food secure. Among poor households, 59.1 percent were food secure.
Married-couple households with children were less likely to experience food insecurity than were female-headed households with children. Thirteen percent (13.2) percent of married-couple households with children were food insecure in 2012 compared to 35.4 percent of female-headed households with children.
Table ECON 7b shows the percentage of households classified by food security status between 1998 and 2012. The percentage of households with food insecurity (both low and very low food insecurity) has ranged from a low of 10.1 percent in 1999 to a high of 14.9 percent in 2011.

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2012

	Food Secure	Food Insecurity
	Food Secure	All	Low	Very Low
All Households	85.5	14.5	8.8	5.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	88.8	11.2	6.6	4.6
Non-Hispanic Black	75.4	24.6	14.3	10.4
Hispanic	76.7	23.3	15.8	7.4
Age Categories
Households with children under 6	79.5	20.5	15.1	5.5
Households with children under 18	80.0	20.0	14.0	6.0
Households with elderly	91.2	8.8	5.3	3.5
Family Categories
Married-couple households with children	86.8	13.2	9.9	3.3
Female-headed households with children	64.6	35.4	22.7	12.7
Male-headed households with children	76.4	23.6	17.3	6.3
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.00	59.1	40.9	22.7	18.2
Under 1.30	61.8	38.2	21.5	16.7
Under 1.85	65.7	34.3	19.8	14.5
1.85 and over	93.2	6.8	4.5	2.3

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err108.aspx. Data are from the Current Population Survey, Food Security Supplement.

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2012

	Food Secure	Food Insecurity
	Food Secure	All	Low	Very Low
1998	88.2	11.8	8.1	3.7
1999	89.9	10.1	7.1	3.0
2000	89.5	10.5	7.3	3.1
2001	89.3	10.7	7.4	3.3
2002	88.9	11.1	7.6	3.5
2003	88.8	11.2	7.7	3.5
2004	88.1	11.9	8.0	3.9
2005	89.0	11.0	7.1	3.9
2006	89.1	10.9	6.9	4.0
2007	88.9	11.1	7.0	4.1
2008	85.4	14.6	8.9	5.7
2009	85.3	14.7	9.0	5.7
2010	85.5	14.5	9.1	5.4
2011	85.1	14.9	9.2	5.7
2012	85.5	14.5	8.8	5.7

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2012.

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

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

Note: Full-time, full-year workers (FT/FY) are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given year. Part-time labor force participation includes those working for some portion of the year but less than full-time, full-year. Looking for work includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2013.

Figure WORK 1 shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants by race and ethnicity. In 2012, Hispanics were more likely to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant (70.5 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (68.1 percent) or Non-Hispanic Blacks (59.6 percent).
In 2012, 4.3 percent of Non-Hispanic Blacks lived in families with at least one person actively looking for work but no one working, compared to 1.3 percent for Non-Hispanic Whites and 1.9 percent for Hispanics.
Table WORK 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants by demographic characteristics. Among family types, persons living in married-couple families were more likely than persons living in other family types to live with at least one full-time, full-year labor force participant.
Table WORK 1b shows the percentage of persons in families with labor force participants for select years between 1990 and 2012. The percentage of persons living in families with a full-time, full-year labor force participant increased from 67.6 percent in 1992 to 73.3 percent in 2000. In 2012, 67.9 percent of persons lived in families with a full-time, full-year worker.

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

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

Note: Full-time, full-year (FT/FY) workers are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given year. Part-time labor force participation includes those working for some portion of the year but less than full-time, full-year. Looking for work includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2013.

Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants: Selected Years

	No One in LF During Year	At Least One in LF No One FT/FY	At Least One FT/FY Worker
1990	13.7	17.6	68.7
1992	14.4	18.1	67.6
1994	14.1	17.1	68.8
1996	13.6	16.1	70.3
1998	13.3	14.6	72.1
1999	12.6	14.4	73.1
2000	12.8	13.8	73.3
2001	13.3	14.4	72.4
2002	13.4	14.6	72.0
2003	13.8	15.0	71.2
2004	13.9	14.4	71.7
2005	13.7	14.1	72.2
2006	13.6	13.7	72.8
2007	13.5	14.1	72.5
2008	13.7	16.0	70.4
2009	14.0	18.2	67.8
2010	14.4	18.2	67.4
2011	14.9	17.2	67.9
2012	14.4	17.7	67.9

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1991-2013.

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

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

Note: All data include both full and partial year employment for the given calendar year. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2013.

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

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

	Women			Men
	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic White	Non-Hispanic Black	Hispanic
1968	55.8	65.8	NA	92.8	89.9	NA
1969	56.1	64.9	NA	92.1	89.2	NA
1971	55.2	59.4	NA	90.9	86.1	NA
1972	55.6	58.1	NA	91.1	84.3	NA
1975	58.3	57.2	49.7	88.2	78.8	86.2
1977	61.4	57.6	52.2	88.3	78.1	89.2
1979	62.9	58.9	55.0	88.5	78.7	89.4
1980	64.1	57.6	53.7	88.0	75.2	86.8
1981	64.0	57.5	53.0	87.4	74.5	87.6
1982	62.7	56.6	51.1	85.6	71.1	85.3
1983	63.5	55.3	51.7	84.8	70.2	85.2
1984	65.0	58.9	54.0	86.5	71.9	83.9
1985	66.0	59.4	52.9	86.1	74.6	83.9
1986	66.8	61.0	54.0	86.4	74.3	86.5
1987	67.3	59.9	54.0	86.7	73.9	85.6
1988	68.0	61.4	54.6	86.3	74.0	87.8
1989	68.8	61.1	55.8	87.7	75.3	86.6
1990	68.5	60.7	55.0	87.7	75.6	85.4
1991	68.3	61.0	54.6	86.4	73.9	85.0
1992	67.8	57.8	53.3	85.7	71.5	83.7
1993	68.6	60.0	52.2	84.6	71.2	83.5
1994	69.0	60.9	53.3	85.0	69.1	83.2
1995	69.6	60.1	53.9	85.9	70.1	83.3
1996	70.2	64.1	55.4	85.9	70.3	84.0
1997	69.9	66.6	56.9	85.3	72.0	85.0
1998	70.4	67.1	57.1	85.3	71.8	85.5
1999	71.4	68.4	58.8	84.5	72.0	86.4
2000	70.6	67.7	61.0	84.7	72.7	86.4
2001	69.8	64.8	59.2	83.4	69.9	85.5
2002	69.5	64.4	57.5	82.5	67.3	85.1
2003	66.9	65.2	56.9	81.1	65.7	84.6
2004	66.3	62.9	56.1	80.8	66.7	84.9
2005	66.3	63.3	56.1	80.7	66.3	85.6
2006	66.5	63.2	56.8	80.6	65.6	86.4
2007	66.1	62.4	56.0	80.3	65.8	85.6
2008	65.6	61.3	57.2	79.0	64.5	83.6
2009	63.4	57.1	55.6	76.7	60.0	80.1
2010	61.2	55.6	53.7	74.4	57.8	78.3
2011	61.0	55.9	54.7	74.4	57.3	78.4
2012	61.4	55.0	54.3	74.6	57.8	79.7

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2013.

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

Figure WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

Figure WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

Note: Data are adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Full-time workers usually work at least work 35 hours per week. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure WORK 3a shows the trend in median weekly wages in 2012 dollars of low-skilled women and men (those with less than four years of high school education) working full-time by race and ethnicity. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take into account other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials.
In 2012, White women with less than four years of high school education working full-time had median weekly earnings of $389 compared to $377 for similar Black women and $369 for similar Hispanic women of any race.
Among men working full-time with less than four years of high school education, White men had median weekly earnings of $515 compared to $446 for Black men and $486 for Hispanic men of any race in 2012. There has been a narrowing of the median weekly earnings gap between White men and both Black men and Hispanic men over time.
Table WORK 3a shows the detailed estimates of median wages for low-skilled women and men working full time by race and ethnicity.
Men who were working full-time and had less than four years of high school education have had consistently higher median weekly earnings than similar women, though men have experienced greater declines in median weekly earnings over time between 1980 and 2012 than have women.

Table WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1979-2012

	Women			Men
	White	Black	Hispanic²	White	Black	Hispanic²
1979	$461	$428	$419	$786	$625	$625
1980	447	420	398	748	584	603
1981	437	413	410	725	582	570
1982	433	403	403	705	556	556
1983	438	418	387	694	556	549
1984	433	406	389	679	538	536
1985	423	401	374	671	541	535
1986	428	404	373	679	554	535
1987	424	408	396	661	561	534
1988	422	405	388	651	545	507
1989	428	390	386	655	528	517
1990	418	401	380	625	529	503
1991	420	400	374	599	509	482
1992 ¹	418	410	—	587	511	—
1993	419	416	—	581	510	—
1994	404	385	361	546	497	454
1995	401	390	354	545	478	445
1996	396	399	362	537	479	452
1997	399	392	370	541	476	452
1998	405	394	372	558	490	458
1999	405	401	370	558	517	475
2000	413	410	391	553	544	486
2001	417	403	400	555	522	503
2002	421	407	394	553	519	506
2003	419	410	398	547	533	498
2004	413	402	385	556	513	496
2005	406	405	385	554	482	494
2006	410	415	375	551	484	485
2007	413	420	385	546	504	481
2008	409	413	389	543	486	511
2009	411	425	386	547	492	509
2010	408	429	389	521	498	473
2011	408	399	390	512	463	466
2012	389	377	369	515	446	486

Note: Full-time workers usually work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

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

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

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure WORK 3b shows the trend in median weekly wages in 2012 dollars for women and men with four years of high school education but no college who are working full-time by race and ethnicity. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take into account other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials.
In 2012, White women with four years of high school education and no college who were working full-time had median weekly earnings of $581 compared to $499 for similar Black women and $501 for similar Hispanic women of any race. There has been relatively little change in these median weekly wages over time.
Among men working full-time with four years of high school education and no college, median weekly earnings of White men were $760 compared to $604 for Black men and $624 for Hispanic men of any race. Median weekly earnings among men in all three racial and ethnic groups shown have declined over time since 1980.
Throughout the 1980 – 2012 time period, there is a notable and persistent gap between women and men’s wages. Men consistently earn higher median weekly wages than women, though the gap has narrowed over time.
There also is a racial and ethnic gap in median weekly wages among full time workers who have four years of high school education but no college, where White persons earn more than Black persons and Hispanic persons of any race. Among women, this racial and ethnic wage gap has increased over time.

Table WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1979-2012

	Women			Men
	White	Black	Hispanic²	White	Black	Hispanic²
1979	$556	$520	$526	$939	$751	$828
1980	544	509	519	902	735	783
1981	538	506	519	897	713	784
1982	554	508	531	885	688	772
1983	556	502	531	878	694	749
1984	559	513	542	869	679	743
1985	559	510	524	863	652	721
1986	568	521	525	866	659	714
1987	571	522	516	859	665	702
1988	571	515	528	855	660	698
1989	559	517	524	845	642	675
1990	551	498	527	822	615	670
1991	559	504	517	809	607	657
1992 ¹	560	498	—	799	592	—
1993	564	491	—	794	602	—
1994	561	473	507	794	595	631
1995	554	475	483	794	607	634
1996	554	478	480	797	591	615
1997	561	476	485	815	612	638
1998	577	508	512	831	628	662
1999	577	505	509	836	640	664
2000	584	519	511	822	664	659
2001	597	522	532	824	670	655
2002	609	528	523	827	654	656
2003	613	550	526	826	657	661
2004	612	564	535	826	641	643
2005	601	520	519	808	630	632
2006	589	526	494	813	627	657
2007	588	528	527	807	617	656
2008	579	519	518	798	629	652
2009	604	540	538	804	639	645
2010	596	524	524	786	634	630
2011	592	511	519	772	619	628
2012	581	499	501	760	604	624

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2012

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2013),” Current Population Reports and earlier reports.

Figure WORK 4 shows educational attainment for adults 25 years and older between 1960 and 2012. Table WORK 4 shows the corresponding point estimates for select years.
The percentage of the population 25 years and older completing four or more years of college has increased between 1960 and 2012, rising from 7.7 percent to 30.9 percent. The percentage of the population 25 years and older with some college but less than four years increased from 8.8 percent in 1960 to 26.3 percent in 2012.
The percentage of the population 25 years and older without at least a high school education has declined over the past 50 years, from 59.0 percent in 1960 to 12.4 percent in 2012.
The percentage of the population 25 years and older receiving a high school education (but no post secondary education) was 24.6 percent in 1960 and rose to 38.9 percent in 1988. Since 1988, this figure has fallen to 30.4 percent in 2012 due (in part) to increased college attendance.

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

Year	Not a High School Graduate	High School Graduate, No College	One to Three Years of College	Four or More Years of College
1940	75.9	14.1	5.4	4.6
1950	66.7	20.1	7.1	6.0
1960	59.0	24.6	8.8	7.7
1965	51.0	30.7	8.9	9.4
1970	44.8	34.0	10.2	11.0
1975	37.5	36.2	12.4	13.9
1980	31.4	36.8	14.9	17.0
1981	30.3	37.6	15.1	17.1
1982	29.0	37.9	15.3	17.7
1983	27.9	37.7	15.6	18.8
1984	26.7	38.4	15.8	19.1
1985	26.1	38.2	16.3	19.4
1986	25.3	38.4	16.9	19.4
1987	24.4	38.7	17.1	19.9
1988	23.8	38.9	17.0	20.3
1989	23.1	38.5	17.3	21.1
1990	22.4	38.4	17.9	21.3
1991	21.6	38.6	18.4	21.4
1992	20.6	36.0	22.1	21.4
1993	19.8	35.4	23.0	21.9
1994	19.1	34.4	24.3	22.2
1995	18.3	33.9	24.8	23.0
1996	18.3	33.6	24.6	23.6
1997	17.9	33.8	24.5	23.9
1998	17.2	33.8	24.7	24.4
1999	16.6	33.3	24.8	25.2
2000	15.9	33.1	25.4	25.6
2001	15.9	32.3	25.7	26.2
2002	15.9	32.1	25.3	26.7
2003	15.4	32.0	25.3	27.2
2004	14.8	32.0	25.5	27.7
2005	14.8	32.2	25.4	27.7
2006	14.5	31.7	25.7	28.0
2007	14.3	31.6	25.3	28.7
2008	13.4	31.2	26.0	29.4
2009	13.3	31.1	26.1	29.5
2010	12.9	31.2	26.0	29.9
2011	12.4	30.7	26.4	30.4
2012	12.4	30.4	26.3	30.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2013. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2013/tables.html and earlier reports.

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

Figure WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 2012

Note: Cocaine and marijuana use is defined as use during the past month. “Binge alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days. “Heavy alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of five or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users are also binge alcohol users.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012.

Figure WORK 5 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine, marijuana, and who abused alcohol by age group in 2012.
Adults 18 to 25 years of age were more likely than older adults to report marijuana, binge alcohol or heavy alcohol use in the prior month. For example, 18.7 percent reported using marijuana in the past month during 2012, compared with 11.3 percent of adults 26 to 34 years of age and 3.9 percent of adults 35 years and over.
The percentage of adults reporting binge alcohol use was larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups shown.
Table WORK 5 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine or marijuana or abused alcohol from 1999 through 2012.
Marijuana use has been trending upward for all age groups. Levels of cocaine use are low compared to use of marijuana and alcohol for all age groups. Since 1999, heavy alcohol use and binge alcohol use has fluctuated across all the age groups but it remains highest amongst 18-25 years old and lowest amongst those 35 years and older.

Table WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 1999-2012

	Cocaine			Marijuana			Binge Alcohol Use			Heavy Alcohol Use
	Ages 18-25	Ages 26-34	Ages 35 & over	Ages 18-25	Ages 26-34	Ages 35 & over	Ages 18-25	Ages 26-34	Ages 35 & over	Ages 18-25	Ages 26-34	Ages 35 & over
1999	1.7	1.2	0.4	14.2	5.4	2.2	37.9	29.3	16.0	13.3	7.5	4.2
2000	1.4	0.8	0.3	13.6	5.9	2.3	37.8	30.3	16.4	12.8	7.6	4.1
2001	1.9	1.1	0.5	16.0	6.8	2.4	38.7	30.1	16.2	13.6	7.8	4.2
2002	2.0	1.2	0.6	17.3	7.7	3.1	40.9	33.1	18.6	14.9	9.0	5.2
2003	2.2	1.5	0.6	17.0	8.4	3.0	41.6	32.9	18.1	15.1	9.4	5.1
2004	2.1	1.4	0.5	16.1	8.3	3.1	41.2	32.2	18.5	15.1	9.4	5.3
2005	2.6	1.3	0.6	16.6	8.6	3.0	41.9	32.9	18.3	15.3	9.6	4.7
2006	2.2	1.7	0.6	16.3	8.5	3.2	42.2	34.2	18.4	15.6	10.0	5.1
2007	1.7	1.4	0.6	16.4	7.9	3.0	41.8	35.1	18.9	14.7	9.7	5.3
2008	1.5	1.5	0.4	16.5	8.8	3.2	41.0	36.4	18.8	14.5	10.6	5.3
2009	1.4	1.0	0.5	18.1	9.6	3.4	41.7	36.3	19.2	13.7	10.1	5.3
2010	1.5	1.1	0.3	18.5	10.5	3.4	40.6	36.5	18.6	13.6	10.3	5.1
2011	1.4	0.8	0.3	19.0	10.2	3.6	39.8	35.7	18.4	12.1	10.5	4.6
2012	1.1	1.2	0.5	18.7	11.3	3.9	39.5	35.6	19.0	12.7	9.4	5.4

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2000-2012.

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

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Selected Characteristics: 2012

Note: Work disability is defined as limitations in or the inability to work as a result of a physical, mental or emotional health condition. Individuals are identified as having long-term care needs if they need the help of others in handling either personal care needs (eating, bathing, dressing, getting in or out of bed, getting around the home, or driving) or routine needs (household chores, shopping, getting around for business or other purposes). Disability program recipients include persons covered by Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Special Education Services, Early Intervention Services and/or disability pensions.

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition above; (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental or emotional problems.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

Figure WORK 6 shows the percentage of non-elderly adults and children reporting an activity limitation by race and ethnicity in 2012. Non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 12.1 percent compared to 8.9 percent.
Table WORK 6 shows the percentage of the non-elderly population reporting a disability by selected demographic characteristics. While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children (7.9 percent) than adults (6.1 percent) were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2012.
For both non-elderly adults and children, the percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks with an activity limitation was higher than the percentages for Non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics.
Among adults ages 18 – 64, rates of work disability were lower for Hispanics (6.1 percent) than they were for Non-Hispanic Whites (10.0 percent) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (12.3 percent).

Table WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Selected Characteristics: 2012

	Activity Limitation	Work Disability	Long-Term Care Needs	Disability Program Recipient
All Persons
Adults ages 18-64	12.1	9.3	2.6	6.1
Children ages 0-17	8.9	NA	NA	7.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)
Non-Hispanic White	12.8	10.0	2.6	6.1
Non-Hispanic Black	16.4	12.3	3.4	10.1
Hispanic	8.5	6.1	1.9	4.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)
Non-Hispanic White	9.5	NA	NA	8.4
Non-Hispanic Black	10.2	NA	NA	8.9
Hispanic	7.3	NA	NA	6.4

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition above); (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental or emotional problems.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

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

Figure WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2012

Note: The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate includes only those women who are employed. The population of mothers with children under age 18 includes those 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2013 and earlier reports.

Figure WORK 7 shows the labor force participation rates for mothers with children under 18 years of age by marital status between 1975 and 2012. In 2012, regardless of marital status, the majority of mothers in the U.S. were engaged in the labor force.
Between 1975 and 2012, labor force participation rates for never-married mothers with children under 18 markedly increased—rising from 42.2 percent in 1975 to 71.5 percent in 2012.
Historically, divorced, widowed and separated mothers have had the highest rates of labor force participation among mothers. In 1975, 62.8 percent of divorced, widowed or separated mothers were in the labor force, rising to 80.2 percent in 2012.
The labor force participation rate of married mothers with children under 18 followed an upward trend increasing from 44.9 percent in 1975 to 71.1 percent in 1997, before decreasing some to 68.5 percent in 2012.
Table WORK 7 shows both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of mothers with children under 18 years of age between 1975 and 2012.
The employment rate for all mothers increased over the time period up until 2000 and has since reached a plateau. In 2012, the employment rate for married mothers with a spouse present was 65.0 percent, the employment rate for divorced, widowed and separated mothers was 71.8 percent, and the employment rate for never-married mothers was 59.6 percent.

Table WORK 7. Employment Status of Women with Children under 18 Years of Age: 1975-2012

	Labor Force Participation Rate (percent of population)			Employment Rate (percent of population)
	Married, Spouse Present	Divorced, Separated or Widowed	Never Married	Married, Spouse Present	Divorced, Separated or Widowed	Never Married
1975	44.9	62.8	42.2	40.5	54.9	32.1
1976	46.1	64.3	46.2	42.4	56.9	36.3
1977	48.2	66.4	43.4	44.6	58.7	29.6
1978	50.2	68.1	51.1	47.0	61.2	38.9
1979	51.9	67.8	54.4	48.6	61.4	42.6
1980	54.1	69.9	52.0	50.9	63.4	39.9
1981	55.7	70.5	52.3	52.1	63.0	38.3
1982	56.3	71.1	50.4	51.6	62.3	36.2
1983	57.2	70.1	49.8	52.4	58.5	34.5
1984	58.8	72.7	50.7	54.9	63.4	36.3
1985	60.8	72.9	51.6	56.8	64.0	39.3
1986	61.3	74.1	52.9	57.6	66.3	37.8
1987	63.8	74.0	54.1	60.4	66.5	40.2
1988	65.0	72.8	51.6	61.9	66.9	40.0
1989	65.6	72.0	54.7	63.1	66.0	43.1
1990	66.3	74.2	55.3	63.5	67.9	45.1
1991	66.8	72.7	53.6	63.2	66.1	44.0
1992	67.8	73.2	52.5	63.9	65.3	43.4
1993	67.5	72.1	54.4	64.2	65.9	44.0
1994	69.0	73.1	56.9	65.6	65.9	45.8
1995	70.2	75.3	57.5	67.1	69.1	47.9
1996	70.0	77.0	60.5	67.6	72.1	49.3
1997	71.1	79.1	68.1	68.6	72.0	56.6
1998	70.6	79.7	72.5	68.0	74.3	61.5
1999	70.1	80.4	73.4	68.0	75.4	64.8
2000	70.6	82.7	73.9	68.5	78.5	65.8
2001	70.4	83.1	73.5	68.0	78.7	64.6
2002	69.6	82.1	75.3	66.7	75.6	65.8
2003	69.2	82.0	73.1	66.3	74.7	63.2
2004	68.2	80.7	72.6	65.4	75.0	63.1
2005	68.1	79.8	72.9	66.0	74.4	62.0
2006	68.4	80.4	71.5	66.2	75.4	62.5
2007	69.3	80.0	71.4	67.4	75.2	63.7
2008	69.4	79.3	71.0	67.1	74.6	62.9
2009	69.8	79.2	72.0	66.0	70.3	60.9
2010	69.7	79.2	70.1	65.3	70.4	57.4
2011	69.1	79.8	70.0	65.0	70.3	56.8
2012	68.5	80.2	71.5	65.0	71.8	59.6

Notes: The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate includes only those women who are employed. The population of mothers with children under age 18 includes those 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2012 and earlier reports.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1. Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2012

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm

Figure BIRTH 1 shows the percentage of births that were nonmarital by age group from 1940 to 2012 and Table BIRTH 1 shows corresponding estimates for selected years. Changes in nonmarital births reflect changes in the rate at which unmarried women have children, the rate at which married women have children and the rate at which women marry. The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past 70 years. In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women. By 2012, the percentage had increased to 40.7 percent.
Teen births, as shown in Figure BIRTH 1 and Table BIRTH 1, show nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births. In 1940, 14.0 percent of births to teens were nonmarital. While the percentage of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased since the mid-1960s, growth in the percentage slowed in the mid- to late-1990s before rising to 88.8 percent in 2012.
Over the past 15 years, the percentage of nonmarital births among all births to women 20 to 24 years of age increased by 40.7 percent from 45.6 percent in 1996 to 64.8 percent in 2012 This compares to an increase of 16.4 percent in the percentage of nonmarital births among teen births over the same period.
Since 1994, the percentage of births that are nonmarital remains steady among Black teens and all Black women. Among White teens and all White women, the trend continues upward (see Table C-1 in Appendix C for nonmarital birth data by age and race).

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

Year	Under 15	15-17 Years	18-19 Years	All Teens	20-24 Years	All Women
1940	64.5	NA	NA	14.0	3.7	3.8
1945	70.0	NA	NA	18.2	4.7	4.3
1950	63.7	22.6	9.4	13.9	3.8	4.0
1955	66.3	23.2	10.3	14.9	4.4	4.5
1960	67.9	24.0	10.7	15.4	4.8	5.3
1965	78.5	32.8	15.3	21.6	6.8	7.7
1970	80.8	43.0	22.4	30.5	8.9	10.7
1975	87.0	51.4	29.8	39.3	12.3	14.3
1980	88.7	61.5	39.8	48.3	19.4	18.4
1981	89.2	63.3	41.4	49.9	20.4	18.9
1982	89.2	65.0	43.0	51.4	21.4	19.4
1983	90.4	67.5	45.7	54.1	22.9	20.3
1984	91.1	69.2	48.1	56.3	24.5	21.0
1985	91.8	70.9	50.7	58.7	26.3	22.0
1986	92.5	73.3	53.6	61.5	28.7	23.4
1987	92.9	76.2	55.8	64.0	30.8	24.5
1988	93.6	77.1	58.5	65.9	32.9	25.7
1989	92.4	77.7	60.4	67.2	35.1	27.1
1990	91.6	77.7	61.3	67.6	36.9	28.0
1991	91.3	78.7	63.2	69.3	39.4	29.5
1992	91.3	79.2	64.6	70.5	40.7	30.1
1993	91.3	79.9	66.1	71.8	42.2	31.0
1994	94.5	84.1	70.0	75.9	44.9	32.6
1995	93.5	83.7	69.8	75.6	44.7	32.2
1996	93.8	84.4	70.8	76.3	45.6	32.4
1997	95.7	86.7	72.5	78.2	46.6	32.4
1998	96.6	87.5	73.6	78.9	47.7	32.8
1999	96.5	87.7	74.0	79.0	48.5	33.0
2000	96.5	87.7	74.3	79.1	49.5	33.2
2001	96.3	87.8	74.6	79.2	50.4	33.5
2002	97.0	88.5	75.8	80.2	51.6	34.0
2003	97.1	89.7	77.3	81.6	53.2	34.6
2004	97.4	90.3	78.7	82.6	54.8	35.8
2005	98.0	90.9	79.7	83.5	56.2	36.9
2006	98.3	91.9	80.6	84.4	57.9	38.5
2007	98.8	93.3	82.2	85.7	59.6	39.7
2008	99.1	93.7	83.5	86.8	60.9	40.6
2009	99.0	94.2	84.2	87.4	62.1	41.0
2010	99.3	95.0	85.1	88.2	63.1	40.8
2011	99.1	95.3	85.7	88.6	64.0	40.7
2012	99.0	95.4	86.0	88.8	64.8	40.7

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity: 1940 ─ 2012

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

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

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

Figure BIRTH 2 shows the percentage of all births to unmarried teens 15 to 19 years of age by race and ethnicity, and Table BIRTH 2 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1940 and 2012. Unlike BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births, BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage is affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens and the birth rate among all other women.
The percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens declined over the last five years, from 8.2 in 2003 to 6.9 percent in 2012.
Among Black women, the percentage of all births that were nonmarital teen births decreased to 11.9 percent in 2012. This was the lowest percentage since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were tabulated separately.
Among White women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens decreased to 6.2 percent in 2012.
Among Hispanic women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens increased from a low of 9.8 percent in 1990 to a high of 12.1 percent in 1998; since 2008 the rate has been decreasing. The rate in 2012 was 9.9 percent.

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

Selected Years

Year	All Races	White	Black	Hispanic
1940	1.7	0.8	NA	NA
1950	1.6	0.6	NA	NA
1955	1.7	0.7	NA	NA
1960	2.0	0.9	NA	NA
1965	3.3	1.6	NA	NA
1970	5.1	2.6	18.8	NA
1975	7.1	3.7	24.2	NA
1980	7.3	4.4	22.2	NA
1981	7.1	4.5	21.5	NA
1982	7.1	4.5	21.2	NA
1983	7.2	4.6	21.2	NA
1984	7.1	4.6	20.7	NA
1985	7.2	4.8	20.3	NA
1986	7.5	5.1	20.1	NA
1987	7.7	5.3	20.0	NA
1988	8.0	5.6	20.3	NA
1989	8.3	5.9	20.6	NA
1990	8.4	6.1	20.4	9.8
1991	8.7	6.4	20.4	10.3
1992	8.7	6.5	20.2	10.3
1993	8.9	6.8	20.2	10.6
1994	9.7	7.5	21.1	12.1
1995	9.6	7.6	21.1	11.7
1996	9.6	7.7	20.9	11.5
1997	9.7	7.8	20.5	11.9
1998	9.7	7.9	19.9	12.1
1999	9.5	7.8	19.1	11.9
2000	9.1	7.6	18.3	11.5
2001	8.7	7.3	17.5	11.0
2002	8.5	7.2	16.7	10.8
2003	8.2	7.1	16.2	10.7
2004	8.3	7.2	16.0	10.9
2005	8.3	7.2	15.8	11.0
2006	8.6	7.4	16.1	11.3
2007	8.8	7.7	16.3	11.5
2008	8.9	7.8	16.2	11.7
2009	8.7	7.6	15.6	11.6
2010	8.1	7.2	14.5	11.1
2011	7.4	6.6	13.1	10.4
2012	6.9	6.2	11.9	9.9

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 3. Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2012

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2012

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

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

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

Figures BIRTH 3a and 3b show births per thousand unmarried teens between the ages of 15 to 17 and 18 to 19 from 1960 to 2012. Table BIRTH 3 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1950 and 2012.
The birth rate per thousand unmarried teens ages 15 to 17 decreased in 2012 for both Black and White teens. The rate for Black teens ages 15 to 17 has been cut by more than two-thirds from 79.9 per thousand in 1991 to 22.0 per thousand in 2012. The 2012 rate is lower than in any other year since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
The birth rates of unmarried teens in the older age group (18 and 19 years) showed a decrease in 2012. For Black teens ages 18 and 19, the birth rate fell from a high of 147.7 per thousand in 1991 to a low of 100.4 per thousand in 2003 before again decreasing to 73.2 births per thousand in 2012.
Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried White teens in both age groups rose steadily for over four decades. For White teens 15 to 17 years of age, the birth rate increased from 3.4 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 23.9 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. Subsequently their rate has generally followed a downward trend to 12.4 per thousand in 2012. For 18 to 19 year olds, the rate increased from 8.5 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 55.8 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. Until 2008 their rate fluctuated between 50 and 54 but by 2012 had declined to 41.4 per thousand.
While birth rates among unmarried Black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried White teens, the gap between Black and White teens narrowed during the 1990s and 2000s.

Table BIRTH 3. Births per Thousand Unmarried Teen Women by Age and Race: 1950-2012

	Ages 15 to 17			Ages 18 and 19
Year	All Races	White	Black	All Races	White	Black
1950	9.9	3.4	NA	18.3	8.5	NA
1955	11.1	3.9	NA	23.6	10.3	NA
1960	11.1	4.4	NA	25.0	11.4	NA
1965	12.5	5.0	NA	25.8	13.9	NA
1966	13.1	5.4	NA	25.6	14.1	NA
1967	13.8	5.6	NA	27.6	15.3	NA
1968	14.7	6.2	NA	29.6	16.6	NA
1969	15.2	6.6	72.0	30.8	16.6	128.4
1970	17.1	7.5	77.9	32.9	17.6	136.4
1971	17.5	7.4	80.7	31.7	15.8	135.2
1972	18.5	8.0	82.8	30.9	15.1	128.2
1973	18.7	8.4	81.2	30.4	14.9	120.5
1974	18.8	8.8	78.6	31.2	15.3	122.2
1975	19.3	9.6	76.8	32.5	16.5	123.8
1976	19.0	9.7	73.5	32.1	16.9	117.9
1977	19.8	10.5	73.0	34.6	18.7	121.7
1978	19.1	10.3	68.8	35.1	19.3	119.6
1979	19.9	10.8	71.0	37.2	21.0	123.3
1980	20.6	12.0	68.8	39.0	24.1	118.2
1981	20.9	12.6	65.9	39.0	24.6	114.2
1982	21.5	13.1	66.3	39.6	25.3	112.7
1983	22.0	13.6	66.8	40.7	26.4	111.9
1984	21.9	13.7	66.5	42.5	27.9	113.6
1985	22.4	14.5	66.8	45.9	31.2	117.9
1986	22.8	14.9	67.0	48.0	33.5	121.1
1987	24.5	16.2	69.9	48.9	34.5	123.0
1988	26.4	17.6	73.5	51.5	36.8	130.5
1989	28.7	19.3	78.9	56.0	40.2	140.9
1990	29.6	20.4	78.8	60.7	44.9	143.7
1991	30.8	21.7	79.9	65.4	49.4	147.7
1992	30.2	21.5	77.2	66.7	51.2	146.4
1993	30.3	21.9	75.9	66.2	52.0	140.0
1994	31.7	23.9	73.9	69.1	55.8	139.6
1995	30.1	23.3	67.4	66.5	54.7	129.2
1996	28.5	22.3	62.6	64.9	53.5	127.2
1997	27.7	22.0	59.0	63.9	52.9	124.8
1998	26.5	21.5	55.0	63.6	53.1	121.5
1999	25.0	20.7	50.0	62.3	52.9	115.8
2000	23.9	19.7	48.3	62.2	53.1	115.0
2001	22.0	18.1	43.8	60.6	52.1	110.2
2002	20.8	17.5	39.9	58.6	51.0	104.1
2003	20.3	17.2	38.1	57.6	50.4	100.4
2004	20.1	17.1	37.0	57.7	50.4	100.9
2005	19.7	16.8	35.4	58.4	50.9	101.6
2006	20.4	17.4	36.6	61.8	53.9	107.8
2007	20.8	18.0	36.3	63.9	55.9	109.1
2008	20.6	18.0	35.5	61.9	54.2	104.4
2009	19.3	16.9	32.6	58.2	51.1	96.8
2010	16.8	15.1	27.6	52.0	46.9	83.6
2011	14.9	13.4	24.7	48.2	43.4	77.4
2012	13.7	12.4	22.0	45.8	41.4	73.2

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 4. Never-married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race and Ethnicity: 1982-2012

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

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

Source of CPS data: U.S. Census Bureau, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Table C3, http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013C.html.

Figure BIRTH 4 shows the percentage of all children living in families with a never-married female head of household by race and ethnicity from 1980 to 2012. Table BIRTH 4 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1960 and 2012. The percentage of children living in families with never‑married female heads increased from 4.6 percent in 1982 to 11.7 percent in 2012.
The percentage of White children living in families headed by never-married women has increased more than fourfold over the past 25 years, from 1.6 percent in 1982 to 7.0 percent in 2012.
Among Hispanics of all races, the percentage of children living with a never-married female head of household more than doubled over the past 25 years, from 5.7 percent in 1982 to 13.4 percent in 2012.
The percentage of Black children living in families with a never-married female head of household has been higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period. In 2012, 36.5 percent of Black children lived in families with a never-married female head of household compared to 7.0 percent for White children and 13.4 percent for Hispanic children.

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

	Number of Children (thousands)				Percentage
Year	All Races	White	Black	Hispanic²	All Races	White	Black	Hispanic
1960	221	49	173	NA	0.4	0.1	2.2	NA
1970	527	110	442	NA	0.8	0.2	5.2	NA
1975	1,166	296	864	NA	1.8	0.5	9.9	NA
1980	1,745	501	1,193	210	2.9	1.0	14.5	4.0
1981	1,807	527	1,245	202	3.0	1.0	15.0	4.0
1982¹	2,768	793	1,947	291	4.6	1.6	22.7	5.7
1983	3,212	958	2,203	357	5.3	1.9	24.9	6.7
1984	3,131	959	2,109	357	5.2	1.9	23.9	6.5
1985	3,496	1,086	2,355	391	5.8	2.2	26.6	6.7
1986	3,606	1,174	2,375	451	5.9	2.4	26.6	7.2
1987	3,985	1,385	2,524	587	6.5	2.8	28.2	9.2
1988	4,302	1,482	2,736	600	7.0	3.0	30.4	9.2
1989	4,290	1,483	2,695	592	6.9	2.9	29.6	8.7
1990	4,365	1,527	2,738	605	7.0	3.0	29.6	8.7
1991	5,040	1,725	3,176	644	8.0	3.4	33.3	9.0
1992	5,410	2,016	3,192	757	8.4	3.9	33.1	10.3
1993	5,511	2,015	3,317	848	8.5	3.9	33.6	11.3
1994	6,000	2,412	3,321	1,083	9.0	4.5	32.9	12.0
1995	5,862	2,317	3,255	1,017	8.7	4.3	32.3	10.8
1996	6,365	2,563	3,567	1,161	9.4	4.8	34.4	12.0
1997	6,598	2,788	3,575	1,242	9.7	5.1	34.3	12.4
1998	6,700	2,850	3,644	1,254	9.8	5.2	35.1	12.2
1999	6,736	2,826	3,643	1,297	9.8	5.2	35.3	12.2
2000	6,591	2,881	3,413	1,255	9.5	5.3	32.9	11.4
2001	6,736	3,002	3,481	1,397	9.8	5.5	33.2	11.9
2002	6,872	3,048	3,573	1,400	9.9	5.6	33.4	11.5
2003	7,006	3,029	3,451	1,495	10.0	5.6	33.3	11.9
2004	7,218	3,113	3,541	1,577	10.3	5.8	34.1	12.0
2005	7,413	3,284	3,617	1,627	10.6	6.0	35.5	12.0
2006	7,443	3,263	3,557	1,677	10.6	6.0	35.0	12.0
2007	6,945	2,928	3,501	1,569	9.8	5.4	33.2	10.8
2008	7,236	2,994	3,707	1,649	10.2	5.5	35.6	11.0
2009	7,450	3,254	3,642	1,918	10.5	6.0	35.3	12.2
2010	7,543	3,440	3,548	1,987	10.5	6.3	34.0	12.2
2011	8,080	3,706	3,732	2,233	11.3	6.8	36.2	13.3
2012	8,356	3,686	3,797	2,281	11.7	7.0	36.5	13.4

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

Children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator. Based on Current Population Survey (CPS) except 1960 which is based on decennial census data.

¹In 1982, improved data collection and processing procedures helped to identify parent-child subfamilies (See Current Population Reports, P-20, 399, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1984). Some of the increase between 1981 and 1982 is a result of these changes.

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Nonwhite data are shown for Black in 1960.

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

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

Appendices

Appendix A. Program Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), replaced AFDC, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months)²⁴ on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with federal funds, 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, 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. Without any federal limitations, each state has the flexibility to define “need”, set their own benefit levels, determine who is a member of the assistance unit, and establish income and resource limits for all benefits and services allowable under TANF (including cash assistance). 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.

²⁴ However, some states also use the 20 percent hardship exemption or state funds to provide continued assistance for some families that reach the 60-month time limit.

Data Issues Relating to the TANF Program and the AFDC-TANF Transition

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

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

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. For example, under TANF there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” (UP) program, as there was under AFDC. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. Even in the TANF era, the population subject to the two-parent rate changed. Before the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, families with two adult recipients were generally subject to the two-parent rate; after the Act, the focus was on families with two work-eligible individuals (effective FY 2007). It also is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. The vast majority of families receiving “assistance”²⁵ are, in fact, receiving cash payments.

Another data issue concerns the treatment of families who receive cash and other forms of assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded by MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. Under TANF, some states use SSP programs to serve specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families, families because they were subject to a 90 percent work requirement, which many states considered unachievable, and families who have exhausted their time limits). From FY 1997 through FY 2006, such families were not subject to federal time limits, and states did not have to include them in calculating their work participation rates. As of October 2006, such families are included in the work participation rate calculation. Starting with the 2004 edition, this Indicators report adds recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals²⁶ (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state). Native Americans served through state TANF and SSP programs are included in these caseload counts, but families served through TANF programs operated by Tribal governments are excluded. Expenditures for SSPs are shown in Table TANF 5.

²⁵ States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, child care, transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, generally should not be counted as recipients of TANF “assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” primarily includes payments directed at ongoing basic needs. It includes payments when individuals are participating in community service and work experience (or other work activities) as a condition of receiving payments (e.g., workfare). In addition, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits when families are not employed. It excludes, however, such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

²⁶ States began submitting caseload data on SSPs in FY 2000.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figures TANF 1 and TANF 2, and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1 through 6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7)²⁷ and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 15). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a and IND 4a in Chapter II.

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

²⁷Family characteristics in Table TANF 7 may differ from those reported in Chapter II because the administrative data focus on the assistance unit, whereas the survey-based data in Chapter II often use a broader family unit definition. For example, grandparents, adult siblings, aunts, uncles, and other adult relatives living in the same household as the recipient children may be excluded from the assistance unit and thus the administrative data, yet be included in survey data on the family in which the TANF recipient resides.

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and two-parent families in which one of the parents is incapacitated and “UP Families” are two-parent cases who are needy due to the unemployment of the principal earner and 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. 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. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance beginning in 1996 is attributed to welfare reform and the introduction of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is December 2013. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is December 2013.

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

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2012 Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in constant dollars with the weighted average maximum benefit in constant 2012 dollars since 1988 indicates that the cause of the decline in the average monthly benefit has been the erosion of the real value of the maximum benefit due to inflation. This is due to the fact that the current value of the maximum benefits has increased less than the cost of living in most states since the late1980s.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: TANF Annual Report to Congress selected years; Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 and earlier years along with unpublished data.

Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Caseloads: 1962-2013

	Average Monthly Number (thousands)					Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average ¹Number of Children per Family
	Total Families	AFDC UP ¹ Two-Parent Families	TANF Two-Parent Families	Total Recipients	Child Recipients
Fiscal Year	Total Families	AFDC UP ¹ Two-Parent Families	TANF Two-Parent Families	Total Recipients	Child Recipients
1962	924	48	NA	3,593	2,778	77.3	3.0
1964	984	60	NA	4,059	3,043	75.0	3.1
1966	1,074	62	NA	4,472	3,369	75.3	3.1
1968	1,310	67	NA	5,349	4,013	75.0	3.1
1970	1,906	78	NA	7,415	5,484	74.0	2.9
1972	2,918	134	NA	10,632	7,698	72.4	2.6
1974	3,170	93	NA	10,845	7,825	72.2	2.5
1975	3,357	100	NA	11,067	7,952	71.9	2.4
1976	3,575	135	NA	11,386	8,054	70.7	2.3
1977	3,593	149	NA	11,130	7,846	70.5	2.2
1978	3,539	128	NA	10,672	7,492	70.2	2.1
1979	3,496	114	NA	10,318	7,197	69.8	2.1
1980	3,642	141	NA	10,597	7,320	69.1	2.0
1981	3,871	209	NA	11,160	7,615	68.2	2.0
1982	3,569	232	NA	10,431	6,975	66.9	2.0
1983	3,651	272	NA	10,659	7,051	66.1	1.9
1984	3,725	287	NA	10,866	7,153	65.8	1.9
1985	3,692	261	NA	10,813	7,165	66.3	1.9
1986	3,748	254	NA	10,997	7,300	66.4	1.9
1987	3,784	236	NA	11,065	7,381	66.7	2.0
1988	3,748	210	NA	10,920	7,325	67.1	2.0
1989	3,771	193	NA	10,934	7,370	67.4	2.0
1990	3,974	204	NA	11,460	7,755	67.7	2.0
1991	4,374	268	NA	12,592	8,513	67.6	1.9
1992	4,768	322	NA	13,625	9,226	67.7	1.9
1993	4,981	359	NA	14,143	9,560	67.6	1.9
1994	5,046	363	NA	14,226	9,611	67.6	1.9
1995	4,871	335	NA	13,660	9,280	67.9	1.9
1996	4,543	301	NA	12,645	8,671	68.6	1.9
1997²	3,937	256	NA	10,935	7,781²	71.2²	2.0²
1998	3,200	NA	162	8,790	6,273	71.4	2.0
1999	2,674	NA	125	7,188	5,319	74.0	2.0
2000	2,356	NA	132	6,324	4,598	72.7	2.0
2001	2,200	NA	119	5,761	4,233	73.5	1.9
2002	2,195	NA	118	5,656	4,149	73.3	1.9
2003	2,181	NA	116	5,518	4,075	73.9	1.9
2004	2,161	NA	114	5,377	3,993	74.3	1.8
2005	2,090	NA	108	5,118	3,818	74.6	1.8
2006	1,960	NA	98	4,741	3,565	75.2	1.8
2007	1,754	NA	62	4,138	3,165	76.5	1.8
2008	1,693	NA	63	3,982	3,044	76.5	1.8
2009	1,796	NA	86	4,254	3,222	75.7	1.8
2010	1,911	NA	101	4,573	3,421	74.8	1.8
2011	1,921	NA	104	4,600	3,435	74.7	1.8
2012	1,876	NA	94	4,476	3,352	74.9	1.8
2013	1,751	NA	83	4,102	3,091	75.3	1.8

Note: Beginning in 2000, all caseload numbers include SSP families. AFDC-UP was limited to two-parent families where the principal earner was unemployed. Two-parent families in which a parent was incapacitated were part of the AFDC-Basic caseload.

¹ 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 no later than July 1, 1997.

² Based on data from the AFDC reporting system that were available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year.

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

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups: 1970-2013

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	Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population ²	Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty ³
1970	8,303	6,104	4.0	32.7	8.7	58.5
1971	10,043	7,303	4.8	39.3	10.5	69.2
1972	10,736	7,766	5.1	43.9	11.2	75.5
1973	10,738	7,763	5.1	46.7	11.3	80.5
1974	10,621	7,637	5.0	45.4	11.2	75.2
1975	11,131	7,928	5.2	43.0	11.8	71.4
1976	11,098	7,850	5.1	44.4	11.8	76.4
1977	10,856	7,632	4.9	43.9	11.7	74.2
1978	10,387	7,270	4.7	42.4	11.2	73.2
1979	10,140	7,057	4.5	38.9	11.0	68.0
1980	10,599	7,295	4.7	36.2	11.5	63.2
1981	10,893	7,397	4.7	34.2	11.7	59.2
1982	10,161	6,767	4.4	29.5	10.8	49.6
1983	10,569	6,967	4.5	29.9	11.1	50.1
1984	10,643	7,017	4.5	31.6	11.2	52.3
1985	10,672	7,073	4.5	32.3	11.3	54.4
1986	10,850	7,206	4.5	33.5	11.5	56.0
1987	10,841	7,240	4.5	33.6	11.5	56.4
1988	10,728	7,201	4.4	33.8	11.4	57.8
1989	10,798	7,286	4.4	34.3	11.5	57.9
1990	11,497	7,781	4.6	34.2	12.1	57.9
1991	12,728	8,601	5.0	35.6	13.2	60.0
1992	13,571	9,189	5.3	35.7	13.8	60.1
1993	14,007	9,460	5.4	35.7	14.0	60.2
1994	13,970	9,448	5.3	36.7	13.8	61.8
1995	13,242	9,013	5.0	36.4	13.0	61.5
1996	12,156	8,355	4.5	33.3	11.9	57.8
1997	10,224	7,077⁴	3.7	28.7	10.0	50.1
1998	8,215	5,781	3.0	23.8	8.1	42.9
1999	6,709	4,836	2.4	20.5	6.7	39.4
2000	6,043	4,415	2.1	19.1	6.1	38.1
2001	5,631	4,140	2.0	17.1	5.7	35.3
2002	5,534	4,073	1.9	16.0	5.6	33.6
2003	5,424	4,024	1.9	15.1	5.5	31.3
2004	5,283	3,935	1.8	14.3	5.4	30.2
2005	4,975	3,726	1.7	13.5	5.1	28.9
2006	4,537	3,428	1.5	12.4	4.6	26.7
2007	4,038	3,093	1.3	10.8	4.2	23.2
2008	3,972	3,036	1.3	10.0	4.1	21.6
2009	4,331	3,268	1.4	9.9	4.4	21.2
2010	4,553	3,405	1.5	9.8	4.6	20.9
2011	4,512	3,378	1.4	9.8	4.6	20.9
2012	4,358	3,270	1.4	9.4	4.4	20.3
2013	4,002	3,024	1.3	8.8	4.1	20.6

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

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

³ For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-231 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

⁴ Estimated based on the ratio of children recipients to total recipients for January through June of 1997.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2013

[In thousands]

Fiscal Year	TANF	SSP	Total
	Families
2000	2,265	91	2,356
2001	2,117	82	2,200
2002	2,065	129	2,195
2003	2,032	149	2,181
2004	1,987	174	2,161
2005	1,920	170	2,090
2006	1,805	155	1,960
2007	1,699	55	1,754
2008	1,628	65	1,693
2009	1,727	70	1,796
2010	1,848	69	1,917
2011	1,864	58	1,922
2012	1,754	123	1,876
2013	1,641	110	1,751
	All Recipients
2000	5,943	380	6,324
2001	5,423	338	5,761
2002	5,149	508	5,656
2003	4,967	551	5,518
2004	4,784	593	5,377
2005	4,549	569	5,118
2006	4,222	520	4,742
2007	3,961	177	4,138
2008	3,782	199	3,982
2009	4,041	213	4,254
2010	4,371	222	4,593
2011	4,417	186	4,603
2012	4,107	370	4,476
2013	3,782	320	4,102
	Child Recipients
2000	4,370	228	4,598
2001	4,025	202	4,227
2002	3,841	308	4,149
2003	3,731	344	4,075
2004	3,617	376	3,993
2005	3,459	360	3,818
2006	3,237	328	3,565
2007	3,050	115	3,165
2008	2,914	130	3,044
2009	3,084	139	3,223
2010	3,289	146	3,435
2011	3,316	122	3,437
2012	3,107	245	3,352
2013	2,885	206	3,091

Note: States may spend their State maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds within the TANF program or in "Separate State programs" (SSPs) that are not subject to many of the TANF requirements, including work requirements until FY 2007. See Table TANF 15 for SSPs by state

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

Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970 – 2013

[In millions of dollars]

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

¹ Constant dollar adjustments to 2013 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year price index.

² Includes expenditures for services.

³ Administrative expenditures only.

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource-library/search?tag=5287.

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending: 2000 – 2013

[In millions of current dollars]

Fiscal Year		Cash & Work-Based Assistance	Work Activities	Child Care	Trans- portation	Adminis- tration	Systems	Other Expenditures	Total Expenditures
		Federal TANF Grants
2000	5,444		1,606	1,553	496	1,328	242	2,715	13,384
2001	4,772		1,983	1,583	522	1,375	223	4,325	14,782
2002	4,554		2,121	1,572	339	1,339	294	4,368	14,588
2003	5,820		1,937	1,698	434	1,307	285	4,772	16,254
2004	4,717		1,613	1,427	354	1,220	251	4,811	14,393
2005	5,193		1,702	1,279	393	1,277	230	4,089	14,164
2006	4,926		1,681	1,238	341	1,294	231	3,859	13,570
2007	4,532		1,678	1,168	354	1,317	236	4,352	13,637
2008	4,755		1,696	1,622	399	1,305	219	4,478	14,474
2009	4,504		1,778	1,787	420	1,365	207	5,118	15,179
2010	6,889		2,578	1,426	445	1,396	206	5,125	18,065
2011	5,255		1,928	1,352	412	1,313	162	4,761	15,183
2012	5,003		1,627	1,233	361	1,230	167	4,498	14,120
2013	4,485		1,517	1,110	373	1,237	172	5,258	14,152
		State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF AND Separate State Programs
2000	5,736		895	1,966	166	939	93	1,601	11,398
2001	5,390		713	1,765	133	958	84	1,694	10,737
2002	4,854		606	1,932	245	918	65	2,206	10,827
2003	4,398		662	1,770	109	799	60	2,288	10,086
2004	5,652		540	1,924	138	772	56	2,346	11,429
2005	5,546		465	1,918	130	822	48	2,488	11,416
2006	4,980		683	2,304	131	844	42	3,039	12,024
2007	4,583		661	2,549	119	904	51	4,418	13,285
2008	3,894		574	2,614	110	999	55	5,410	13,656
2009	4,820		581	2,347	127	837	74	6,614	15,399
2010	3,810		723	2,644	108	835	50	7,020	15,191
2011	4,350		720	2,606	82	781	48	6,855	15,441
2012	3,979		536	2,431	88	813	44	6,857	14,748
2013	4,253		517	2,529	77	838	44	6,738	14,995
		Total Expenditures
2000	11,180		2,501	3,519	663	2,267	335	4,316	24,781
2001	10,163		2,696	3,347	655	2,333	306	6,019	25,520
2002	9,408		2,727	3,504	584	2,258	359	6,574	25,414
2003	10,219		2,599	3,468	543	2,106	345	7,060	26,340
2004	10,368		2,154	3,350	492	1,992	307	7,157	25,821
2005	10,739		2,167	3,197	523	2,099	278	6,577	25,580
2006	9,906		2,364	3,542	472	2,138	273	6,898	25,594
2007	9,115		2,338	3,717	474	2,221	287	8,770	26,922
2008	8,649		2,270	4,236	510	2,304	274	9,888	28,130
2009	9,324		2,359	4,134	547	2,202	281	11,732	30,578
2010	10,699		3,302	4,069	554	2,230	256	12,145	33,255
2011	9,604		2,648	3,958	494	2,094	210	11,616	30,624
2012	8,982		2,163	3,664	449	2,043	211	11,355	28,867
2013	8,738		2,034	3,639	450	2,075	216	11,995	29,147

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

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962 – 2012

	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)
	Monthly Benefit per Recipient			Monthly Benefit per Family (not reduced by Child Support)		Weighted Average ¹ Maximum Benefit (per 3-person Family)
Fiscal Year	Current Dollars	2012 Dollars		Current Dollars	2012 Dollars	Current Dollars	2012 Dollars
1962	$31	$207	3.9	$121	$803	NA	NA
1964	32	206	4.1	131	850	NA	NA
1966	35	218	4.2	146	909	NA	NA
1967	36	220	4.1	150	910	NA	NA
1968	40	232	4.1	162	948	NA	NA
1969	43	244	4.0	173	974	$186 ²	$1,051
1970	46	246	3.9	178	957	194 ²	1,044
1971	48	246	3.8	180	927	201 ²	1,034
1972	51	255	3.6	187	929	205 ²	1,020
1973	53	252	3.5	187	891	213 ²	1,015
1974	57	249	3.4	194	851	229 ²	1,005
1975	63	253	3.3	209	836	243	973
1976	71	265	3.2	226	845	257	962
1977	78	271	3.1	241	840	271	946
1978	83	271	3.0	250	819	284	930
1979	87	262	3.0	257	773	301	905
1980	94	255	2.9	274	741	320	867
1981	96	236	2.9	277	681	326	802
1982	103	237	2.9	300	692	331	761
1983	106	234	2.9	311	684	336	740
1984	110	233	2.9	322	680	352	743
1985	112	229	2.9	329	672	369	754
1986	115	230	2.9	339	676	383	764
1987	123	239	2.9	359	699	393	765
1988	127	238	2.9	370	694	403	755
1989	131	236	2.9	381	685	413	742
1990	135	232	2.9	389	668	420	722
1991	135	222	2.9	388	638	424	698
1992	136	219	2.9	389	624	419	672
1993	131	206	2.8	373	584	414	649
1994	134	205	2.8	376	577	416	637
1995	134	201	2.8	377	564	418	627
1996	135	196	2.8	374	547	419	612
1997 ³	130	186	2.8	362	516	418	597
1998	130	183	2.7	358	503	429	603
1999	133	183	2.7	357	493	450	621
2000	130	174	2.7	349	467	446	597
2001	134	174	2.6	351	455	448	581
2002	141	180	2.6	364	465	452	578
2003	140	175	2.5	354	442	455	568
2004	145	177	2.5	360	440	462	564
2005	151	178	2.4	370	437	468	553
2006	154	175	2.4	372	424	489	557
2007	160	178	2.4	377	419	499	555
2008	163	173	2.4	383	408	511	544
2009	164	175	2.4	389	415	507	543
2010	164	172	2.4	392	412	517	543
2011	162	165	2.4	387	396	502	514
2012	157	157	2.4	375	375	506	506

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2012 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal-year price index.

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

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

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

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

Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families: Selected Years 1969 – 2012

	May 1969	March 1979	Fiscal year ¹
	May 1969	March 1979	1983	1988	1992	1996	2000	2005	2010	2012
Avg. Family Size (persons)	4.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.9	2.8	2.6	2.4	2.4	2.3
Number of Child Recipients
One	26.6	42.3	43.4	42.5	42.5	43.9	44.2	49.2	50.4	50.9
Two	23.0	28.1	29.8	30.2	30.2	29.9	28.4	27.2	27.6	26.9
Three	17.7	15.6	15.2	15.8	15.5	15.0	15.3	13.6	12.8	12.7
Four or More	32.5	13.9	10.1	9.9	10.1	9.2	10.1	8.0	7.4	7.6
Unknown	NA	NA	1.5	1.7	0.7	1.3	2.0	1.9	1.8	1.9
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit	10.1	14.6	8.3	9.6	14.8	21.5	34.4	45.5	46.3	46.7
Child-Only Families ²	–	–	–	–	–	–	32.7	42.6	44.0	44.1
Families with Non-Recipients	33.1	NA	36.9	36.8	38.9	49.9	–	–	–	–
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
Since Most Recent Opening	23.0	29.0	26.0	26.3	22.5	23.6	–	–	–	–
Presence of Assistance
Living in Public Housing	12.8	NA	10.0	9.6	9.2	8.8	17.7	18.4	13.1	11.7
Participating in Food Stamp or Donated Food Program	52.9	75.1	83.0	84.6	87.3	89.3	79.9	81.5	82.4	84.5
Presence of Income
With Earnings	NA	12.8	5.7	8.4	7.4	11.1	23.6 ³	19.5 ³	20.5 ³	20.5 ³
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income	56.0	80.6	86.8	79.6	78.9	76.0	71.6 ³	75.3 ³	75.1 ³	75.7 ³
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed	–	–	–	–	6.6	11.3	26.4	23.2	22.3	22.9
Unemployed	–	–	–	–	–	–	49.2	50.4	46.8	49.6
Not in Labor Force	–	–	–	–	–	–	24.3	26.4	30.9	27.6
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):⁴
Full-time job	8.2	8.7	1.5	2.2	2.2	4.7	–	–	–	–
Part-time job	6.3	5.4	3.4	4.2	4.2	5.4	–	–	–	–
Marital Status (percent of adults)
Single	–	–	–	–	–	–	65.3	68.8	70.0	72.6
Married	–	–	–	–	–	–	12.4	10.7	14.4	12.8
Separated	–	–	–	–	–	–	13.1	11.8	9.6	8.9
Widowed	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.4
Divorced	–	–	–	–	–	–	8.5	8.1	5.5	5.4
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
Incapacitated	11.7 ⁵	5.3	3.4	3.7	4.1	4.3	–	–	–	–
Unemployed	4.6 ⁵	4.1	8.7	6.5	8.2	8.3	–	–	–	–
Death	5.5 ⁵	2.2	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.6	–	–	–	–
Divorce or Separation	43.3 ⁵	44.7	38.5	34.6	30.0	24.3	–	–	–	–
Absent, No Marriage Tie	27.9 ⁵	37.8	44.3	51.9	53.1	58.6	–	–	–	–
Absent, Other Reason	3.5 ⁵	5.9	1.4	1.6	2.0	2.4	–	–	–	–
Unknown	–	–	1.7	–	0.9	0.6	–	–	–	–

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

¹ Percentages are based on the average monthly TANF caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii. Unlike most of the figures in this report, this table does not include families from Separate State Programs (SSP).

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

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

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

⁵ Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Cash Benefits by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2013

[In millions of current dollars]

	1978	1986	1988	1990	1994	1998	2000	2005	2010	2013
United States	$10,621	$15,236	$16,663	$18,543	$22,798	$14,614	$11,180	$10,739	$10,785	$ 8,799
Alabama	$78	$68	$62	$62	$92	$44	$36	$47	$49	$ 46
Alaska	17	46	54	60	113	77	55	41	40	39
Arizona	30	79	103	138	266	145	107	160	105	-22
Arkansas	51	48	53	57	57	26	34	18	16	13
California	1,813	3,574	4,091	4,955	6,088	4,128	3,643	3,504	3,971	3,248
Colorado	74	107	125	137	158	80	48	75	71	71
Connecticut	168	223	218	295	397	305	166	126	93	81
Delaware	28	25	24	29	40	24	20	19	13	13
Dist. of Columbia	91	77	76	84	126	97	72	66	53	59
Florida	145	261	318	418	806	357	234	184	187	173
Georgia	103	223	266	321	428	313	180	117	48	48
Hawaii	83	73	77	99	163	153	141	82	73	64
Idaho	21	19	19	20	30	6	3	7	6	7
Illinois	699	886	815	839	914	771	269	122	72	81
Indiana	118	148	167	170	228	104	87	113	92	29
Iowa	107	170	155	152	169	104	79	76	70	54
Kansas	73	91	97	105	123	41	43	65	50	27
Kentucky	122	104	143	179	198	147	104	105	130	102
Louisiana	97	162	182	188	168	103	58	51	41	26
Maine	51	84	80	101	108	80	73	90	98	65
Maryland	166	250	250	296	314	192	196	124	124	139
Massachusetts	476	471	558	630	730	442	336	332	337	340
Michigan	780	1,248	1,231	1,211	1,132	589	386	412	546	207
Minnesota	164	322	338	355	379	276	193	137	96	94
Mississippi	33	74	85	86	82	60	18	27	20	17
Missouri	152	209	215	228	287	180	139	125	113	101
Montana	15	37	41	40	49	30	21	20	18	15
Nebraska	38	62	56	59	62	41	41	54	35	28
Nevada	8	16	20	27	48	39	28	33	42	43
New Hampshire	21	20	21	32	62	39	32	35	44	27
New Jersey	489	509	459	451	531	372	222	441	266	304
New Mexico	32	51	56	61	144	104	113	75	96	53
New York	1,689	2,099	2,140	2,259	2,913	2,149	1,554	1,762	1,668	1,606
North Carolina	138	138	206	247	353	211	140	108	75	59
North Dakota	14	20	22	24	26	22	12	11	8	5
Ohio	441	804	805	877	1,016	546	368	316	506	302
Oklahoma	74	100	119	132	165	72	78	33	24	20
Oregon	148	120	128	145	197	141	34	105	208	156
Pennsylvania	726	389	747	798	935	523	573	407	202	272
Rhode Island	59	79	82	99	136	117	105	72	40	42
South Carolina	52	103	91	96	115	52	91	73	46	35
South Dakota	18	15	21	22	25	14	10	12	16	13
Tennessee	77	100	125	168	215	108	146	121	134	108
Texas	122	281	344	416	544	315	248	181	107	75
Utah	41	55	61	64	77	50	40	45	37	23
Vermont	21	40	40	48	65	47	39	36	17	21
Virginia	136	179	169	177	253	123	186	143	123	101
Washington	175	375	401	438	610	450	312	262	373	202
West Virginia	53	109	107	110	126	52	49	43	43	31
Wisconsin	260	444	506	440	425	145	7	115	130	134
Wyoming	6	16	19	19	21	7	9	7	11	2

Note: Benefits refers to total federal and state cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance or contingency fund payments. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report, also see TANF Tables 4 and 5.

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs with 2013 Total Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA

[In millions of current dollars]

State	FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS ¹	FY 2013 Family Assistance Grants ²	FY 2013 Contingency Fund Awards ³	FY 2013 Total Awards	Change from FY 1996 Level To FY 2013	Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States	$15,067	$ 16,306	$ 529	$ 16,835	$ 1,767	12
Alabama	$79.0	$93.3	—	$93.3	$14.3	$18
Alaska	60.7	45.3	—	45.3	-15.4	-25
Arizona	200.6	200.1	19	218.7	18.1	9
Arkansas	54.3	56.7	5	61.7	7.4	14
California	3,545.6	3,659.4	—	3,659.4	113.8	3
Colorado	138.9	136.1	12	148.0	9.0	6
Connecticut	221.1	266.8	—	266.8	45.7	21
Delaware	30.2	32.3	3	35.1	4.9	16
Dist. of Columbia	77.1	92.6	8	100.7	23.6	31
Florida	504.7	562.3	—	562.3	57.6	11
Georgia	301.2	330.7	—	330.7	29.5	10
Hawaii	98.4	98.9	9	107.6	9.2	9
Idaho	31.3	30.4	—	30.4	-0.9	-3
Illinois	593.8	585.1	—	585.1	-8.8	-1
Indiana	121.4	206.8	—	206.8	85.4	70
Iowa	129.3	131.0	—	131.0	1.7	1
Kansas	86.9	101.9	—	101.9	15.0	17
Kentucky	171.6	181.3	—	181.3	9.6	6
Louisiana	122.4	164.0	—	164.0	41.6	34
Maine	73.2	78.1	—	78.1	4.9	7
Maryland	207.6	229.1	20	249.1	41.5	20
Massachusetts	372.0	459.4	40	499.5	127.5	34
Michigan	581.5	775.4	—	775.4	193.9	33
Minnesota	239.3	263.4	—	263.4	24.1	10
Mississippi	68.6	86.8	—	86.8	18.2	26
Missouri	207.9	217.1	19	236.0	28.2	14
Montana	39.2	38.0	—	38.0	-1.1	-3
Nebraska	56.2	57.5	—	57.5	1.3	2
Nevada	41.2	43.9	4	47.7	6.5	16
New Hampshire	36.0	38.5	—	38.5	2.5	7
New Jersey	353.4	404.0	—	404.0	50.7	14
New Mexico	129.9	110.6	10	120.2	-9.7	-7
New York	2,332.7	2,442.9	214	2,656.6	323.9	14
North Carolina	311.9	301.4	26	327.8	15.9	5
North Dakota	24.5	26.4	—	26.4	1.9	8
Ohio	564.5	728.0	—	728.0	163.5	29
Oklahoma	125.1	145.3	—	145.3	20.2	16
Oregon	146.4	166.8	14	181.3	34.8	24
Pennsylvania	780.1	719.5	—	719.5	-60.6	-8
Rhode Island	82.9	95.0	—	95.0	12.2	15
South Carolina	99.4	100.0	9	108.7	9.3	9
South Dakota	19.7	21.3	—	21.3	1.5	8
Tennessee	178.9	191.5	17	208.3	29.3	16
Texas	437.1	486.3	43	528.8	91.7	21
Utah	68.0	75.6	—	75.6	7.6	11
Vermont	42.4	47.4	—	47.4	5.0	12
Virginia	134.6	158.3	—	158.3	23.6	18
Washington	393.2	380.5	32	413.0	19.8	5
West Virginia	95.1	110.2	—	110.2	15.0	16
Wisconsin	241.6	313.9	26	340.3	98.7	41
Wyoming	14.4	18.5	—	18.5	4.1	28

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

² The FY 2013 Family Assistance Grants differs from the previous edition and does not include the Tribal Family Assistance Grants. Supplemental Grants have been zeroed out since FY 2012.

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

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

Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State: October 1989 to December 2013 Peak

[In thousands]

State	Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to Dec ‘13	Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to Dec ‘13	Sept ’96 AFDC Caseload	Dec ‘13 TANF & SSP Caseload	Percent Decline¹ from Sept ’96 to Dec ‘13	Percent Decline from the Peak to Dec ‘13
United States	5,098	Mar-94	4293	1,654.2	61	68
Alabama	52.3	Mar-93	40.7	18.4	55	65
Alaska	13.4	Apr-94	12.3	3.4	72	74
Arizona	72.8	Dec-93	61.8	14.0	77	81
Arkansas	27.1	Mar-92	22.1	6.4	71	76
California	933.1	Mar-95	870.3	533.1	39	43
Colorado	43.7	Dec-93	33.6	17.3	49	61
Connecticut	61.9	Mar-95	57.1	14.3	75	77
Delaware	11.8	Apr-94	10.5	4.8	54	59
Dist. of Columbia	27.5	Apr-94	25.1	4.4	83	84
Florida	259.9	Nov-92	200.3	53.1	73	80
Georgia	142.8	Nov-93	120.9	16.5	86	88
Hawaii	23.4	Jun-97	21.9	8.9	59	62
Idaho	9.5	Mar-95	8.4	1.8	78	81
Illinois	243.1	Aug-94	217.8	20.4	91	92
Indiana	76.1	Sep-93	49.7	11.2	77	85
Iowa	40.7	Apr-94	31.1	16.1	48	60
Kansas	30.8	Aug-93	23.4	7.6	68	75
Kentucky	84.0	Mar-93	70.4	29.5	58	65
Louisiana	94.7	May-90	66.5	6.2	91	94
Maine	24.4	Aug-93	19.7	26.6	*-35*	-9
Maryland	81.8	May-95	68.9	21.3	69	74
Massachusetts	115.7	Aug-93	84.3	71.0	16	39
Michigan	233.6	Apr-91	167.5	30.3	82	87
Minnesota	66.2	Jun-92	57.2	22.3	61	66
Mississippi	61.8	Nov-91	45.2	9.3	80	85
Missouri	93.7	Mar-94	79.1	32.2	59	66
Montana	12.3	Mar-94	9.8	3.5	64	72
Nebraska	17.2	Mar-93	14.4	6.4	56	63
Nevada	16.3	Mar-95	13.2	11.9	10	27
New Hampshire	11.8	Apr-94	8.9	6.1	32	49
New Jersey	132.6	Nov-92	100.8	28.9	71	78
New Mexico	34.9	Nov-94	33.0	13.2	60	62
New York	463.7	Dec-94	412.7	153.1	63	67
North Carolina	134.1	Mar-94	107.5	18.6	83	86
North Dakota	6.6	Apr-93	4.7	1.4	71	79
Ohio	269.8	Mar-92	201.9	64.4	68	76
Oklahoma	51.3	Mar-93	35.3	7.3	79	86
Oregon	43.8	Apr-93	28.5	43.8	*-53*	0
Pennsylvania	212.5	Sep-94	180.1	69.7	61	67
Rhode Island	22.9	Apr-94	20.5	5.8	72	75
South Carolina	54.6	Jan-93	42.9	11.8	73	78
South Dakota	7.4	Apr-93	5.7	3.2	44	56
Tennessee	112.6	Nov-93	96.2	50.9	47	55
Texas	287.5	Dec-93	238.8	38.5	84	87
Utah	18.7	Mar-93	14.0	4.4	69	77
Vermont	10.3	Apr-92	8.7	3.1	64	70
Virginia	76.0	Apr-94	60.5	28.9	52	62
Washington	104.8	Feb-95	96.8	42.7	56	59
West Virginia	41.9	Apr-93	37.6	8.9	76	79
Wisconsin	82.9	Jan-92	49.9	27.5	45	67
Wyoming	7.1	Aug-92	4.3	0.4	91	95

Note: these data do not include Tribal TANF families (about 15,000 in number in FY 2011). This makes little difference nationally, but in States like Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona, their exclusion under TANF overstates the real decline from AFDC years.

¹Negative values denote percent increase.

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

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

[In thousands]

	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	1995-05	2005-13
United States	4,323	7,415	10,597	11,460	13,659	6,324	5,118	4,573	4,102	*-63*	*-20*
Alabama	78	123	180	130	118	46	48	51	48	*-59*	-2
Alaska	5	8	15	20	37	22	12	9	10	*-67*	*-20*
Arizona	40	51	51	124	190	87	99	70	37	*-48*	*-63*
Arkansas	30	45	85	71	63	29	19	19	16	*-70*	*-16*
California	528	1,148	1,387	1,902	2,680	1,574	1,256	1,416	1,355	*-53*	8
Colorado	42	66	77	102	109	29	38	29	40	*-65*	3
Connecticut	59	83	139	120	171	73	53	34	29	*-69*	*-45*
Delaware	12	20	32	21	25	13	13	15	14	*-48*	8
Dist. of Columbia	20	40	85	49	73	47	43	20	17	*-41*	*-59*
Florida	106	204	256	370	622	158	112	107	95	*-82*	*-16*
Georgia	71	198	221	293	383	129	91	38	35	*-76*	*-61*
Guam	1	2	5	4	8	10	11	3	3	42	*-70*
Hawaii	14	25	60	44	66	75	31	28	27	*-52*	*-14*
Idaho	10	16	21	17	24	2	3	3	3	*-86*	*-15*
Illinois	262	368	672	636	696	256	98	62	46	*-86*	*-53*
Indiana	48	73	157	154	189	103	136	89	27	*-28*	*-80*
Iowa	44	64	104	98	101	54	52	56	45	*-48*	*-14*
Kansas	36	53	68	77	80	32	46	38	20	*-42*	*-56*
Kentucky	81	129	167	175	189	89	75	61	62	*-60*	*-18*
Louisiana	104	202	213	282	251	75	37	24	17	*-85*	*-55*
Maine	19	36	60	56	60	32	32	38	60	*-46*	84
Maryland	80	131	212	186	223	77	64	59	53	*-71*	*-18*
Massachusetts	94	208	350	263	274	102	104	111	150	*-62*	44
Michigan	162	253	685	655	598	207	215	179	85	*-64*	*-60*
Minnesota	51	76	135	171	180	116	87	52	52	*-52*	*-41*
Mississippi	83	115	173	179	144	34	35	26	21	*-76*	*-39*
Missouri	107	140	199	211	254	131	118	94	85	*-54*	*-28*
Montana	7	13	19	29	34	13	12	10	7	*-64*	*-39*
Nebraska	16	30	35	43	41	28	33	21	16	*-19*	*-52*
Nevada	5	12	12	23	41	16	19	26	27	*-54*	42
New Hampshire	4	9	22	16	28	14	15	13	15	*-47*	4
New Jersey	104	286	459	309	316	138	114	79	76	*-64*	*-33*
New Mexico	30	51	53	57	104	72	45	52	37	*-56*	*-17*
New York	517	1,052	1,100	981	1,256	724	490	388	397	*-61*	*-19*
North Carolina	111	124	198	223	313	100	68	47	39	*-78*	*-42*
North Dakota	8	11	13	16	14	8	7	5	4	*-49*	*-50*
Ohio	183	266	513	632	612	245	179	237	137	*-71*	*-24*
Oklahoma	73	95	89	112	124	36	28	21	17	*-77*	*-38*
Oregon	31	75	102	89	104	39	44	78	113	*-57*	*153*
Pennsylvania	303	426	629	521	596	250	253	126	179	*-58*	*-30*
Puerto Rico	202	223	168	190	168	92	42	36	36	*-75*	*-14*
Rhode Island	24	38	52	46	61	50	35	17	15	*-44*	*-58*
South Carolina	30	52	153	111	129	41	43	43	29	*-66*	*-33*
South Dakota	11	16	20	19	17	7	6	7	6	*-65*	6
Tennessee	76	129	162	211	276	147	191	161	126	*-31*	*-34*
Texas	91	214	308	611	743	342	214	115	91	*-71*	*-57*
Utah	22	33	37	45	46	23	23	19	11	*-50*	*-53*
Vermont	5	12	23	22	27	16	13	7	9	*-54*	*-29*
Virgin Islands	1	2	3	3	5	3	1	1	1	*-69*	*-11*
Virginia	46	87	166	151	184	75	87	84	69	*-53*	*-21*
Washington	71	109	154	228	286	168	144	170	110	*-50*	*-24*
West Virginia	116	93	77	111	105	32	31	22	20	*-71*	*-36*
Wisconsin	45	79	213	237	209	40	49	51	63	*-77*	29
Wyoming	4	5	7	14	15	1	1	1	1	*-96*	28

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

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

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

[In percent]

	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2013	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2013	1995-05		2005-13
Alabama	2.2	3.6	4.6	3.2	2.7	1.0	1.1	1.0	-56	-7
Alaska	1.8	2.6	3.7	3.7	6.1	3.6	1.8	1.3	-70	-27
Arizona	2.6	2.9	1.9	3.4	4.3	1.7	1.7	0.6	-55	-67
Arkansas	1.5	2.3	3.7	3.0	2.5	1.1	0.7	0.5	-70	-21
California	2.9	5.7	5.8	6.3	8.5	4.6	3.5	3.5	-57	1
Colorado	2.2	3.0	2.6	3.1	2.8	0.7	0.8	0.7	-67	-9
Connecticut	2.1	2.7	4.5	3.6	5.1	2.1	1.5	0.8	-69	-46
Delaware	2.4	3.6	5.4	3.2	3.4	1.7	1.6	1.5	-51	-2
Dist. of Columbia	2.5	5.3	13.3	8.1	12.6	8.2	7.4	2.7	-40	-64
Florida	1.8	3.0	2.6	2.8	4.3	1.0	0.6	0.5	-83	-23
Georgia	1.6	4.3	4.0	4.5	5.2	1.6	1.0	0.4	-78	-66
Hawaii	1.9	3.2	6.2	3.9	5.5	6.1	2.5	1.9	-56	-20
Idaho	1.4	2.2	2.2	1.6	2.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	-88	-25
Illinois	2.5	3.3	5.9	5.6	5.8	2.1	0.8	0.4	-86	-54
Indiana	1.0	1.4	2.9	2.8	3.2	1.7	2.2	0.4	-14	-81
Iowa	1.6	2.3	3.6	3.5	3.5	1.9	1.8	1.5	-43	-17
Kansas	1.6	2.4	2.9	3.1	3.1	1.2	1.7	0.7	-36	-58
Kentucky	2.5	4.0	4.6	4.7	4.9	2.2	1.8	1.4	-60	-22
Louisiana	2.9	5.6	5.0	6.7	5.7	1.7	0.8	0.4	-85	-55
Maine	1.9	3.6	5.4	4.5	4.8	2.5	2.5	4.5	-45	83
Maryland	2.2	3.3	5.0	3.9	4.4	1.5	1.2	0.9	-71	-22
Massachusetts	1.8	3.7	6.1	4.4	4.5	1.6	1.6	2.2	-58	38
Michigan	2.0	2.9	7.4	7.0	6.2	2.1	2.1	0.9	-60	-60
Minnesota	1.4	2.0	3.3	3.9	3.9	2.3	1.7	1.0	-53	-44
Mississippi	3.6	5.2	6.9	6.9	5.3	1.2	1.2	0.7	-75	-41
Missouri	2.4	3.0	4.0	4.1	4.7	2.3	2.0	1.4	-52	-31
Montana	1.0	1.9	2.4	3.6	3.9	1.4	1.3	0.7	-63	-43
Nebraska	1.1	2.0	2.2	2.7	2.5	1.6	1.9	0.9	-20	-54
Nevada	1.2	2.4	1.5	1.9	2.6	0.8	0.8	1.0	-65	24
New Hampshire	0.7	1.2	2.4	1.5	2.4	1.1	1.1	1.2	-45	2
New Jersey	1.5	4.0	6.2	4.0	3.9	1.6	1.3	0.9	-63	-35
New Mexico	3.0	5.0	4.1	3.8	6.0	4.0	2.4	1.8	-59	-23
New York	2.9	5.8	6.3	5.4	6.8	3.8	2.5	2.0	-60	-21
North Carolina	2.2	2.4	3.4	3.4	4.3	1.2	0.8	0.4	-79	-49
North Dakota	1.2	1.7	2.0	2.4	2.2	1.2	1.2	0.5	-45	-56
Ohio	1.8	2.5	4.8	5.8	5.5	2.2	1.6	1.2	-68	-24
Oklahoma	3.0	3.7	2.9	3.6	3.7	1.0	0.8	0.4	-75	-43
Oregon	1.6	3.6	3.9	3.1	3.3	1.1	1.2	2.9	-54	133
Pennsylvania	2.6	3.6	5.3	4.4	4.9	2.0	2.1	1.4	-54	-31
Rhode Island	2.7	4.0	5.5	4.6	6.0	4.7	3.2	1.4	-43	-57
South Carolina	1.2	2.0	4.9	3.2	3.4	1.0	1.0	0.6	-68	-40
South Dakota	1.6	2.4	2.9	2.7	2.3	0.9	0.8	0.8	-64	-3
Tennessee	2.0	3.3	3.5	4.3	5.2	2.6	3.2	1.9	-34	-39
Texas	0.9	1.9	2.1	3.6	3.9	1.6	0.9	0.3	-73	-63
Utah	2.2	3.1	2.5	2.6	2.3	1.0	0.9	0.4	-52	-60
Vermont	1.4	2.6	4.4	3.9	4.6	2.7	2.0	1.4	-53	-29
Virginia	1.0	1.9	3.1	2.4	2.8	1.1	1.2	0.8	-52	-28
Washington	2.4	3.2	3.7	4.7	5.2	2.8	2.3	1.6	-53	-32
West Virginia	6.4	5.3	4.0	6.2	5.7	1.8	1.7	1.1	-67	-37
Wisconsin	1.1	1.8	4.5	4.8	4.0	0.8	0.9	1.1	-73	25
Wyoming	1.1	1.5	1.4	3.1	3.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	-96	13
United States	2.1	3.5	4.6	4.5	5.1	2.2	1.7	1.3	-63	-25

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

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html.

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

[In thousands]

	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	1995-05	2005-13
United States	3,242	5,483	7,320	7,755	9,280	4,598	3,818	3,421	3,091	*-59*		*-19*
Alabama	62	96	129	93	87	37	37	38	35	*-57*		-5
Alaska	4	6	10	13	24	15	8	6	7	*-65*		*-20*
Arizona	31	39	38	87	130	66	73	53	26	*-44*		*-64*
Arkansas	23	34	62	51	45	22	14	14	11	*-68*		*-22*
California	391	816	932	1,294	1,833	1,163	1,002	1,104	1,076	*-45*		7
Colorado	33	50	53	69	74	22	28	22	28	*-63*		2
Connecticut	43	62	97	81	114	50	37	24	21	*-68*		*-44*
Delaware	9	15	22	14	17	9	10	9	9	*-42*		*-12*
Dist. of Columbia	16	31	59	34	51	34	32	14	13	*-36*		*-59*
Florida	85	160	184	264	432	124	91	86	78	*-79*		*-14*
Georgia	54	150	161	206	269	101	74	34	31	*-72*		*-59*
Guam	1	1	4	3	5	1	2	3	2	*-66*		33
Hawaii	10	18	40	29	43	50	21	19	18	*-52*		*-14*
Idaho	7	11	14	11	16	2	3	2	3	*-83*		-4
Illinois	202	283	473	436	478	193	78	55	38	*-84*		*-51*
Indiana	36	55	111	105	129	74	102	66	23	*-21*		*-77*
Iowa	32	46	69	64	66	36	34	38	31	*-49*		-7
Kansas	28	41	49	52	55	23	31	25	15	*-42*		*-53*
Kentucky	58	93	118	117	128	64	56	48	49	*-56*		*-13*
Louisiana	79	157	156	199	173	59	31	20	15	*-82*		*-53*
Maine	14	26	40	35	38	22	22	25	33	*-42*		52
Maryland	61	100	145	124	152	56	47	43	39	*-69*		*-18*
Massachusetts	71	153	228	168	176	73	72	75	101	*-59*		40
Michigan	119	190	460	427	398	153	157	129	63	*-60*		*-60*
Minnesota	39	58	91	110	121	81	61	39	39	*-49*		*-36*
Mississippi	66	93	128	129	106	27	26	19	15	*-75*		*-40*
Missouri	82	106	135	139	175	94	81	64	58	*-54*		*-28*
Montana	6	10	13	19	22	9	8	7	5	*-62*		*-34*
Nebraska	12	23	25	29	29	20	23	17	13	*-21*		*-42*
Nevada	4	9	8	16	29	12	14	20	20	*-50*		38
New Hampshire	3	7	15	11	18	10	10	9	10	*-44*		2
New Jersey	79	209	318	213	213	102	81	56	54	*-62*		*-33*
New Mexico	23	39	35	37	67	51	32	37	28	*-52*		*-15*
New York	380	759	759	658	811	491	343	282	284	*-58*		*-17*
North Carolina	83	94	141	152	211	76	54	40	33	*-75*		*-39*
North Dakota	6	8	9	10	10	5	5	4	3	*-46*		*-45*
Ohio	136	198	348	414	415	180	136	171	111	*-67*		*-18*
Oklahoma	55	71	65	77	86	28	22	17	14	*-74*		*-35*
Oregon	23	52	65	60	71	29	33	54	75	*-53*		*127*
Pennsylvania	217	307	432	345	403	184	179	94	128	*-56*		*-28*
Puerto Rico	161	166	118	130	114	64	29	24	23	*-74*		*-22*
Rhode Island	18	27	36	30	41	34	24	12	10	*-40*		*-59*
South Carolina	24	40	109	80	96	32	32	33	22	*-67*		*-30*
South Dakota	8	12	15	13	12	5	5	6	6	*-59*		9
Tennessee	58	99	115	144	190	107	136	116	92	*-28*		*-33*
Texas	68	162	225	428	522	252	172	99	80	*-67*		*-54*
Utah	16	23	24	31	31	16	17	12	8	*-46*		*-52*
Vermont	4	8	14	14	17	10	8	5	6	*-52*		*-24*
Virgin Islands	1	2	2	2	3	2	1	1	1	*-69*		*-15*
Virginia	35	66	116	104	128	55	61	59	50	*-52*		*-18*
Washington	50	76	97	148	184	115	101	118	74	*-45*		*-26*
West Virginia	80	65	58	68	67	22	22	16	15	*-67*		*-33*
Wisconsin	34	60	142	158	146	34	39	40	47	*-73*		20
Wyoming	3	4	5	9	10	1	0	1	1	*-95*		17

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

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2013

[In percent]

	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2013	Percent Change
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2013	1995-05	2005-13
United States	4.4	7.6	11.3	11.9	13.4	6.3	5.2	4.2	*-61*	*-19*
Alabama	4.6	7.7	11.1	8.8	8.0	3.3	3.4	3.2	*-58*	-5
Alaska	3.1	5.0	8.0	7.4	12.6	7.9	4.4	3.5	*-65*	*-22*
Arizona	4.8	6.0	4.8	8.6	11.0	4.8	4.7	1.6	*-56*	*-66*
Arkansas	3.1	5.2	9.3	8.2	7.0	3.2	2.1	1.6	*-70*	*-24*
California	6.0	12.3	14.6	16.2	20.9	12.6	10.6	11.7	*-49*	10
Colorado	4.4	6.4	6.5	7.8	7.6	2.0	2.4	2.3	*-69*	-4
Connecticut	4.4	6.1	11.8	10.8	14.4	6.0	4.4	2.6	*-70*	*-40*
Delaware	4.7	7.5	13.4	8.7	9.6	4.8	4.9	4.2	*-49*	*-13*
Dist. of Columbia	6.0	13.8	40.9	30.7	44.6	30.1	28.4	12.0	*-32*	*-61*
Florida	4.3	7.6	7.8	8.8	12.9	3.4	2.3	1.9	*-82*	*-16*
Georgia	3.2	9.1	9.8	11.8	14.0	4.6	3.1	1.2	*-77*	*-61*
Hawaii	3.6	6.5	14.5	10.5	14.2	17.1	7.2	5.8	*-51*	*-17*
Idaho	2.7	4.2	4.7	3.6	4.7	0.5	0.7	0.6	*-85*	*-11*
Illinois	5.3	7.5	14.6	14.8	15.3	6.0	2.4	1.3	*-84*	*-48*
Indiana	2.0	3.0	6.9	7.3	8.7	4.7	6.5	1.5	*-26*	*-77*
Iowa	3.2	4.7	8.4	8.8	9.1	4.9	4.8	4.3	*-48*	-8
Kansas	3.5	5.4	7.5	7.9	8.0	3.2	4.5	2.0	*-44*	*-54*
Kentucky	4.9	8.3	10.9	12.4	13.1	6.5	5.6	4.8	*-57*	*-14*
Louisiana	5.5	11.3	11.8	16.5	14.1	4.8	2.7	1.3	*-81*	*-51*
Maine	3.9	7.7	12.5	11.5	12.4	7.3	7.6	12.8	*-40*	70
Maryland	4.6	7.3	12.4	10.6	12.0	4.1	3.4	2.9	*-72*	*-15*
Massachusetts	3.8	8.1	15.3	12.4	12.3	4.8	4.9	7.2	*-60*	47
Michigan	3.7	5.8	16.7	17.4	15.7	5.9	6.3	2.8	*-60*	*-55*
Minnesota	2.9	4.2	7.7	9.4	9.8	6.3	4.9	3.1	*-51*	*-36*
Mississippi	7.0	11.1	15.7	17.6	14.0	3.5	3.4	2.1	*-76*	*-39*
Missouri	5.2	6.9	9.9	10.6	12.7	6.6	5.7	4.2	*-55*	*-27*
Montana	2.0	4.0	5.7	8.4	9.5	3.7	3.8	2.4	*-60*	*-35*
Nebraska	2.3	4.4	5.5	6.8	6.5	4.3	5.1	2.8	*-22*	*-44*
Nevada	2.5	5.2	3.8	5.0	7.3	2.3	2.3	3.0	*-67*	28
New Hampshire	1.4	2.6	5.8	3.9	6.2	3.1	3.3	3.8	*-46*	16
New Jersey	3.4	8.8	16.0	11.7	10.8	4.9	3.9	2.7	*-65*	*-30*
New Mexico	5.2	9.5	8.5	8.3	13.5	10.0	6.5	5.4	*-52*	*-15*
New York	6.3	13.0	16.2	15.4	17.9	10.5	7.5	6.7	*-58*	*-12*
North Carolina	4.4	5.3	8.5	9.3	11.7	3.9	2.5	1.4	*-78*	*-43*
North Dakota	2.3	3.6	4.7	6.0	5.7	3.4	3.6	1.8	*-39*	*-49*
Ohio	3.6	5.3	11.2	14.9	14.6	6.2	4.9	4.2	*-67*	*-13*
Oklahoma	6.4	8.5	7.6	9.1	9.8	3.1	2.5	1.5	*-74*	*-39*
Oregon	3.3	7.4	9.0	8.1	8.8	3.4	3.9	8.7	*-56*	*124*
Pennsylvania	5.5	8.0	13.8	12.3	13.9	6.3	6.3	4.7	*-55*	*-24*
Rhode Island	5.9	9.1	14.7	13.4	17.1	13.5	10.1	4.7	*-41*	*-53*
South Carolina	2.3	4.2	11.6	8.7	10.1	3.1	3.1	2.1	*-69*	*-33*
South Dakota	3.1	5.0	7.1	6.7	6.0	2.7	2.6	2.7	*-57*	2
Tennessee	4.2	7.5	8.9	11.8	14.5	7.7	9.5	6.2	*-35*	*-34*
Texas	1.7	4.1	5.2	8.7	9.7	4.3	2.7	1.1	*-72*	*-59*
Utah	3.7	5.4	4.4	4.9	4.5	2.3	2.1	0.9	*-52*	*-59*
Vermont	2.7	5.4	9.9	9.5	11.5	7.0	5.9	4.9	*-50*	*-15*
Virginia	2.2	4.1	7.9	6.8	7.9	3.1	3.4	2.7	*-58*	*-20*
Washington	4.7	6.5	8.5	11.3	13.0	7.6	6.7	4.7	*-49*	*-30*
West Virginia	12.2	11.2	10.4	15.7	15.7	5.5	5.6	3.8	*-64*	*-32*
Wisconsin	2.2	3.8	10.5	12.1	10.8	2.5	2.9	3.6	*-73*	24
Wyoming	2.1	3.2	3.4	7.0	7.5	0.7	0.4	0.4	*-95*	4

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

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state and age available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html.

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2013

[In thousands]

	Families			All Recipients			Child Recipients
	TANF	SSP	Total	TANF	SSP	Total	TANF	SSP	Total
U.S. Total	1,641	110	1,751	3,782	320	4,102	2,885	206	3,091
Alabama	19.8	–	19.8	47.7	–	47.7	35.4	–	35.4
Alaska	3.6	–	3.6	9.6	–	9.6	6.5	–	6.5
Arizona	16.3	–	16.3	37.1	–	37.1	26.4	–	26.4
Arkansas	7.0	–	7.0	15.7	–	15.7	11.2	–	11.2
California	563.8	–	563.8	1,355.3	–	1,355.3	1,076.5	–	1,076.5
Colorado	15.1	–	15.1	39.5	–	39.5	28.2	–	28.2
Connecticut	14.8	–	14.8	29.2	–	29.2	20.5	–	20.5
Delaware	5.0	–	5.0	14.1	–	14.1	8.6	–	8.6
D.C. ColCColumbia	6.7	–	6.7	17.4	–	17.4	13.3	–	13.3
Florida	53.6	–	53.6	94.6	–	94.6	77.9	–	77.9
Georgia	17.8	–	17.8	35.0	–	35.0	30.7	–	30.7
Guam	1.3	–	1.3	3.2	–	3.2	2.4	–	2.4
Hawaii	9.3	–	9.3	27.1	–	27.1	17.9	–	17.9
Idaho	1.8	–	1.8	2.8	–	2.8	2.6	–	2.6
Illinois	20.9	–	20.9	46.2	–	46.2	38.2	–	38.2
Indiana	12.4	0.6	13.0	25.3	1.5	26.8	22.1	1.3	23.4
Iowa	15.1	2.7	17.7	37.9	7.2	45.0	26.8	4.6	31.4
Kansas	8.5	–	8.5	20.5	–	20.5	14.7	–	14.7
Kentucky	30.5	–	30.5	61.8	–	61.8	49.0	–	49.0
Louisiana	7.5	–	7.5	17.0	–	17.0	14.6	–	14.6
Maine	6.9	21.4	28.3	15.1	44.6	59.7	10.1	23.1	33.2
Maryland	22.0	0.0	22.0	53.0	0.0	53.0	38.8	0.0	38.8
Massachusetts	48.0	18.7	66.6	91.8	58.6	150.4	60.6	40.2	100.9
Michigan	36.6	–	36.6	84.9	–	84.9	62.9	–	62.9
Minnesota	21.4	1.8	23.3	46.5	5.3	51.8	35.9	3.5	39.4
Mississippi	10.1	–	10.1	21.2	–	21.2	15.5	–	15.5
Missouri	32.1	3.3	35.4	77.0	8.4	85.4	53.0	5.1	58.1
Montana	3.2	–	3.2	7.5	–	7.5	5.5	–	5.5
Nebraska	5.6	1.1	6.7	12.8	3.4	16.1	10.8	2.3	13.1
Nevada	10.5	0.0	10.5	26.9	0.0	26.9	20.0	0.0	20.0
New Hampshire	3.5	2.7	6.3	7.5	7.8	15.4	5.3	5.0	10.3
New Jersey	31.9	–	31.9	75.7	–	75.7	54.3	–	54.3
New Mexico	15.0	–	15.0	37.4	–	37.4	27.7	–	27.7
New York	120.7	36.0	156.7	276.2	120.8	397.0	203.8	80.6	284.3
North Carolina	20.1	–	20.1	39.0	–	39.0	32.8	–	32.8
North Dakota	1.4	–	1.4	3.6	–	3.6	2.9	–	2.9
Ohio	68.6	–	68.6	137.1	–	137.1	111.1	–	111.1
Oklahoma	7.8	–	7.8	17.2	–	17.2	14.4	–	14.4
Oregon	25.0	18.5	43.5	60.6	51.9	112.5	41.3	33.5	74.8
Pennsylvania	72.6	–	72.6	178.6	–	178.6	128.2	–	128.2
Puerto Rico	13.0	–	13.0	35.7	–	35.7	22.7	–	22.7
Rhode Island	6.1	–	6.1	14.7	–	14.7	10.0	–	10.0
South Carolina	12.7	–	12.7	29.0	–	29.0	22.5	–	22.5
South Dakota	3.2	–	3.2	6.4	–	6.4	5.5	–	5.5
Tennessee	51.5	0.7	52.2	123.9	2.6	126.4	90.4	1.5	91.9
Texas	40.6	–	40.6	91.3	–	91.3	79.5	–	79.5
Utah	4.2	0.2	4.4	10.1	0.6	10.8	7.5	0.4	7.9
Vermont	3.3	0.6	3.8	7.2	1.7	8.9	5.1	1.0	6.1
Virgin Islands	0.4	–	0.4	1.3	–	1.3	0.9	–	0.9
Virginia	29.4	1.8	31.1	64.1	4.6	68.7	46.9	2.9	49.8
Washington	47.2	–	47.2	109.8	–	109.8	74.5	–	74.5
West Virginia	9.0	–	9.0	19.7	–	19.7	14.5	–	14.5
Wisconsin	25.9	0.4	26.3	61.9	1.3	63.1	46.2	0.8	47.0
Wyoming	0.4	–	0.4	0.7	–	0.7	0.6	–	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.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

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

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

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

In addition to the regular SNAP program, the legislation authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, was funded under a federal block grant of $2.0 billion in 2012. Unless noted otherwise, SNAP caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior to 2004, editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to SNAP, to be consistent with data published by the USDA.)

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

Certain households are categorically eligible for SNAP and therefore not subject to income or asset limits, but must still meet SNAP nonfinancial eligibility criteria and have a low enough income, after deductions, to qualify for a benefit. Households are categorically eligible if all of their members receive SSI, cash or in-kind TANF benefits, or General Assistance. States have options on which in-kind TANF programs confer categorical eligibility.

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for categorically-eligible households, or households containing elderly or disabled members, gross income cannot exceed 130 percent of poverty. After certain amounts are deducted for living expenses, working expenses, dependent care expenses, excess shelter expenses, child support payment, and - for elderly/disabled households - medical expenses, net income cannot exceed 100 percent of poverty. Non categorically-eligible households also must not have more than $2,000 in assets comprised of cash, savings, stocks and bonds, and in some states some vehicles. Households with an elderly or disabled member can have up to $3,250 in countable assets. (The resource limits are indexed to inflation and rounded down to the nearest $250 increment each fiscal year.)

All nonexempt adult applicants for SNAP must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the SNAP office. Nondisabled adults between the ages of 18 and 50 living in households without children are restricted to three months of SNAP benefits during any 36-month period, unless they work or participate in qualified work-related activities at least 20 hours per week. This time limit can be waived for participants living in States or parts of States with high unemployment who apply for a waiver, and a limited number of nondisabled childless adults can be exempted from the time limits at a State’s discretion. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, were admitted as refugees or asylees, or have at least five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

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

SNAP Program Data

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

Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 2 and Figure SNAP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on SNAP as discussed below;

Table SNAP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the SNAP caseload; and

Tables SNAP 4 through SNAP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the SNAP through fiscal year 2012.

SNAP Caseload Trends (Table SNAP 1). Average monthly SNAP participation was 46.6 million persons in fiscal year 2012, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This is an increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.2 million participants and exceeds the previous peak of 27.5 million recipients in fiscal year 1994. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data trends in SNAP caseload, specifically, SNAP recipiency and participation rates.

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

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

The increase in SNAP participation from 2000 to 2005 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to five percent, eligibility was restored to many legal immigrants, states expanded categorical eligibility and liberalized the treatment of vehicles, and efforts were made to streamline program administration and improve access for vulnerable populations. Driven to an even larger extent by the 2007-2009 recession, by 2012 the SNAP take-up rate (the percent of eligible households) is estimated to be 87.2 percent. During the recession, the poverty rate increased from 12.5 percent in 2007 to 14.3 percent in 2009 (see Indicator ECON 1). Between 2000 and 2012, SNAP participation increased by 13.1 million households (see Table IND 4b). Part of this increase was associated with an increase in the number of eligible households and part was associated with an increased participation rate among those households that were eligible. In 2014, SNAP participation has begun to decrease (see Table SNAP 1).

SNAP Expenditures. Trends in Food Stamps/SNAP expenditures for selected years between 1975 – 2013 are shown in Table SNAP 2. Since 2008 total federal costs have grown every year reflecting the increase in participation during that period due to the “Great Recession”. In 2008, total federal costs were $40.7 billion. By 2013 total federal costs had increased to $79.9 billion (in 2013 dollars). Benefit levels have also increased due to the “Great Recession” rising from $110.70 in 2008 to $133.10 per person in 2013. Benefit levels were highest in 2010 at $143.00 per person (in 2013 dollars). Note that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 temporarily increased SNAP benefits (through November 1, 2013), which impacted both SNAP expenditures and average benefit amounts, both of which have subsequently declined.

SNAP Household Characteristics. As shown in Table SNAP 3, the proportion of SNAP households with earnings has increased from 19.0 percent in 1980 to 31.0 percent in 2012. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined from 42.0 percent in 1984 to 7.0 percent in 2012 following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. A large percentage of all SNAP households have children although the proportion has declined from over 60.0 percent in 1980 to 45.0 percent in 2012. Eight-three percent of households have gross incomes below the federal poverty guidelines in 2012.

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

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2013

Note: Total participants includes persons receiving assistance in Guam and the Virgin Islands. Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Annual poverty data have been converted to monthly data by linear interpolation to correspond to the monthly Food Stamps/SNAP data.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank; U.S. Census Bureau, , “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 and earlier reports (the population below 130 percent of poverty level income for 1962-2001 estimated by ASPE).

Figure SNAP 2. Distribution of Food Stamps/SNAP Benefits by Percent of the Poverty Guideline 1987–2013

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

¹ Constant dollar adjustments to 2013 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year average price index.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm, www.fns.usda.gov/characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-households-fiscal-year-2013 and earlier reports.

Table SNAP 1. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2013

	Food Stamp Participants/SNAP			Ratio of Participants to:		Ratio of Child Participants to:
Fiscal Year	Including Territories ¹ (thousands)	Excluding Territories (thousands)	Children Excld. Terr. (thousands)	Total Population ² (percent)	130% Poverty Level Population ² (percent)	Total Child Population ² (percent)	130% Poverty Level Child Population ² (percent)
1962	6,554	6,554	NA	3.5	11.7	NA	NA
1965	5,167	5,167	NA	2.7	10.6	NA	NA
1970	8,340	8,317	NA	4.1	22.1	NA	NA
1975 ³	17,064	16,320	NA	7.6	41.3	NA	NA
1976	18,549	17,033	9,126	7.8	45.0	13.8	62.4
1977	17,064	15,604	NA	7.1	41.1	NA	NA
1978	16,001	14,405	NA	6.5	39.7	NA	NA
1979 ⁴	17,653	15,942	NA	7.1	41.1	NA	NA
1980	21,082	19,253	9,876	8.5	44.7	15.5	62.3
1981	22,430	20,655	9,803	9.0	44.6	15.5	57.9
1982	21,717	20,391	9,591	8.8	41.6	15.3	52.9
1983	21,625	20,095	10,910	8.6	40.6	17.4	59.0
1984	20,854	20,796	10,492	8.8	43.6	16.8	59.6
1985	19,899	19,847	9,801	8.3	42.6	15.7	57.4
1986	19,429	19,381	9,844	8.1	41.2	15.7	58.5
1987	19,113	19,072	9,771	7.9	42.1	15.5	57.9
1988	18,645	18,613	9,351	7.6	41.4	14.8	56.5
1989	18,806	18,778	9,429	7.6	41.8	14.9	56.4
1990	20,049	20,020	10,127	8.0	42.5	15.8	57.2
1991	22,625	22,599	11,952	8.9	45.3	18.3	63.6
1992	25,407	25,371	13,349	9.9	47.8	20.1	68.6
1993	26,987	26,957	14,196	10.4	49.5	21.0	69.3
1994	27,474	27,439	14,391	10.4	51.7	21.0	71.8
1995	26,619	26,579	13,856	10.0	51.7	20.0	71.4
1996	25,543	25,495	13,195	9.5	49.1	18.8	68.6
1997	22,858	22,820	11,848	8.4	45.3	16.7	63.5
1998	19,791	19,748	10,520	7.2	40.7	14.7	58.9
1999	18,183	18,114	9,331	6.5	38.1	13.0	55.2
2000	17,194	17,156	8,743	6.1	37.2	12.1	54.3
2001	17,318	17,282	8,820	6.1	36.0	12.1	53.2
2002	19,096	19,059	9,688	6.6	38.1	13.3	57.0
2003	21,250	21,222	10,605	7.3	41.2	14.5	60.4
2004	23,811	23,819	11,771	8.1	45.9	16.1	67.5
2005	25,628	25,677	12,404	8.7	48.7	16.9	70.3
2006	26,549	26,631	12,579	8.9	51.3	17.1	70.7
2007	26,316	26,426	12,695	8.8	49.3	17.2	68.8
2008	28,223	28,181	13,472	9.3	49.9	18.2	69.6
2009	33,490	33,442	15,589	10.9	55.9	21.0	76.6
2010	40,302	40,245	18,484	13.0	63.7	24.9	86.9
2011	44,709	44,645	19,892	14.3	69.5	26.9	92.6
2012	46,609	46,541	20,463	14.8	71.8	27.8	95.6
2013	47,636	47,563	20,633	15.0	74.5	28.0	101.7
2014	46,536	46,461	NA	14.6	NA	NA	NA

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

² Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only–the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population numbers used as denominators are the resident population and the 130 poverty level population.

³ The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.

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

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-prog… and unpublished data from the USDA National Data Bank, the House Ways and Means Committee, 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 and earlier reports (the population below 130 percent of poverty level income for 1962-2001 estimated by ASPE).

Table SNAP 2. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2013

Fiscal Year	Total Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration)		Benefits	Administration¹			Total Program Cost	Average Monthly Benefit per Person
	Total Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration)		Benefits	Administration¹				Average Monthly Benefit per Person
	Current Dollars	2013 Dollars²	Federal		Federal	State & Local		Current Dollars	2013 Dollars²
	(millions)	(millions)	(millions)		(millions)	(millions)	(millions)	Current Dollars	2013 Dollars²
1975	$4,619	$18,793	$4,386		$233	$175	$4,794	$21.40	$87.10
1980	9,206	25,346	8,721		486	375	9,581	34.50	95.00
1981	11,225	28,082	10,630		595	504	11,729	39.50	98.80
1982	10,837	25,371	10,208		628	557	11,394	38.60	90.40
1983	11,847	26,507	11,152		695	612	12,459	43.00	96.20
1984⁴	11,579	24,883	10,696		883	805	12,384	42.70	91.80
1985	11,703	24,286	10,744		960	871	12,574	45.00	93.40
1986	11,638	23,599	10,605		1,033	935	12,573	45.50	92.30
1987	11,604	22,920	10,500		1,104	996	12,600	45.80	90.50
1988	12,317	23,454	11,149		1,168	1,080	13,397	49.80	94.80
1989	12,902	23,566	11,670		1,232	1,101	14,003	51.70	94.40
1990	15,447	26,991	14,143		1,304	1,174	16,621	58.80	102.70
1991	18,747	31,350	17,316		1,432	1,247	19,994	63.80	106.70
1992	22,462	36,661	20,906		1,557	1,375	23,837	68.60	112.00
1993	23,653	37,641	22,006		1,647	1,572	25,225	68.00	108.20
1994	24,493	38,161	22,749		1,745	1,643	26,136	69.00	107.50
1995	24,620	37,472	22,764		1,856	1,748	26,368	71.30	108.50
1996	24,331	36,121	22,440		1,891	1,842	26,173	73.20	108.70
1997	21,508	31,162	19,549		1,959	1,904	23,412	71.30	103.30
1998	18,988	27,112	16,890		2,098	1,988	20,976	71.10	101.50
1999	17,821	24,996	15,769		2,052	1,874	19,695	72.30	101.40
2000	17,054	23,189	14,983		2,071	2,086	19,140	72.60	98.70
2001	17,789	23,440	15,547		2,242	2,233	20,022	74.80	98.60
2002	20,637	26,794	18,256		2,381	2,397	23,034	79.70	103.50
2003	23,816	30,207	21,404		2,412	2,633	26,449	83.90	106.40
2004	27,099	33,593	24,619		2,480	2,645	29,744	86.20	106.90
2005	31,072	37,296	28,568		2,504	2,713	33,785	92.90	111.50
2006	32,903	38,087	30,187		2,716	2,866	35,769	94.80	109.70
2007	33,174	37,519	30,373		2,800	2,947	36,120	96.20	108.80
2008	37,640	40,761	34,608		3,031	3,202	40,842	102.20	110.70
2009⁵	53,620	58,260	50,360		3,260	3,394	57,014	125.30	136.10
2010⁵	68,284	72,956	64,702		3,582	3,448	71,731	133.80	143.00
2011⁵	75,687	78,773	71,811		3,876	3,433	79,120	133.80	139.30
2012⁵	78,455	79,732	74,619		3,836	3,565	82,020	133.40	135.60
2013⁵	79,929	79,929	76,066		3,863	3,578	83,508	133.10	133.10

Note: Total federal cost and the cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but does not include the funding for the Puerto Rico nutrition assistance grant from the last quarter of FY 1982 (when it replaced Puerto Rico’s food stamp program) to the present. (Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance grant was $778 million in 1983 and rose to $2.0 billion in 2013.)

¹ Amounts include the federal share of state administrative and Employment and Training costs and certain direct federal administrative costs. They do not generally include approximately $60 million in food stamp-related federal administrative costs budgeted under a separate appropriation account (although estimates prior to 1989 do include estimates of food stamp related federal administrative expenses paid out of other Agriculture Department accounts). State and local costs are estimated based on the known federal shares and represent an estimate of all administrative expenses of participating states.

² Constant dollar adjustments to 2013 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year average price index. These tabulations differ from USDA data because the data are rounded to the nearest $.10 in this table.

³ The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis.

⁴ Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps.

⁵ The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 temporarily increased SNAP benefits (through November 1, 2013), which impacted both SNAP expenditures and average benefit amounts.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data (available at online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm) and www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2013-state-activity.pdf.

Table SNAP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp/SNAP Households: Selected Years 1980–2013

	Year 1
	1980	1984	1988	1990	1996	1998	2000	2005	2010	2013
Distribution of Households by Gross Income (as percentage of Poverty Guideline)
Below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level	NA	NA	37	39	42	37	33	40	43	43
Between 50% and 100% of the Federal Poverty Level	NA	NA	55	53	50	53	56	49	42	40
Between 100% and 130% of the Federal Poverty Level	10	6	8	8	8	9	10	10	11	12
Above 130% of the Federal Poverty Level	2	1	*	*	1	1	1	2	4	5
Distribution of Benefits by Gross Monthly Income (as percentage of Poverty Guideline)
Below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level.	NA	NA	54	56	57	57	54	57	55	56
Between 50% and 100% of the Federal Poverty Level	NA	NA	43	41	39	40	42	38	37	36
Between 100% and 130% of the Federal Poverty Level	NA	NA	3	3	3	3	4	5	6	7
Above 130% of the Federal Poverty Level	NA	NA	*	*	*	*	*	*	1	1
Percent of Households
With AFDC/TANF Income	NA	42	42	42	37	31	26	15	8	7
With SSI Income	18	18	20	19	24	28	32	26	21	20
With Children	60	61	61	60	60	58	54	54	49	45
And Female Heads of Household	NA	47	50	51	50	47	44	44	NA	NA
With No Spouse Present	NA	NA	39	37	43	41	38	36	NA	NA
With Elderly Members ³	23	22	19	18	16	18	21	17	16	17
Average Household Size	2.8	2.8	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.3	2.2	2.1

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

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

³ These data refer to single-parent female heads with only one adult in the household but does not include households with more than one adult, not married, that are headed by a female (such as a single mom with teenage children, one of whom is 18).

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

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

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households, Fiscal Year 2012, Report No. SNAP-14-CHAR (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/ops/Characteristics… and earlier reports.

Table SNAP 4. Value of Food Stamps/SNAP Issued by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2013

	[In millions of current dollars]								Percent Change
	1975	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	1995-05	2005-13
Alabama	$103	$246	$328	$441	$344	$616	$1,226	$1,415	40	130
Alaska	6	27	25	50	46	80	159	190	61	136
Arizona	41	97	239	414	240	634	1,588	1,648	53	160
Arkansas	78	122	155	212	206	401	686	732	89	82
California	361	530	968	2,473	1,639	2,315	5,692	7,558	-6	227
Colorado	44	71	156	217	127	313	688	824	45	163
Connecticut	36	59	72	169	138	223	570	708	32	217
Delaware	6	21	25	47	31	65	171	235	39	260
Dist. of Columbia	31	41	43	92	77	103	196	235	12	128
Florida	207	421	609	1,307	771	1,598	4,417	5,906	22	270
Georgia	129	264	382	700	489	1,048	2,565	3,189	50	204
Guam	2	15	15	24	36	54	97	118	121	120
Hawaii	23	60	81	177	166	156	358	494	-12	217
Idaho	11	29	40	59	46	103	300	347	76	237
Illinois	238	394	835	1,056	777	1,400	2,784	3,378	33	141
Indiana	58	154	226	382	268	627	1,291	1,461	64	133
Iowa	28	54	109	142	100	220	526	587	55	167
Kansas	12	38	96	144	83	180	403	474	25	163
Kentucky	135	211	334	413	337	611	1,186	1,333	48	118
Louisiana	148	243	549	629	448	979	1,286	1,480	56	51
Maine	31	60	63	112	81	162	356	367	44	126
Maryland	76	140	203	365	199	320	878	1,179	-12	268
Massachusetts	75	171	207	315	182	363	1,166	1,395	15	284
Michigan	124	263	663	806	457	1,099	2,809	2,912	36	165
Minnesota	40	62	165	240	165	275	625	771	15	180
Mississippi	110	199	352	383	226	463	847	993	21	115
Missouri	82	142	312	488	358	736	1,361	1,429	51	94
Montana	11	18	41	57	51	89	177	192	56	115
Nebraska	11	25	59	77	61	120	238	265	56	121
Nevada	10	15	41	91	57	129	415	535	42	315
New Hampshire	11	22	20	44	28	51	152	163	14	222
New Jersey	125	226	289	506	304	437	1,030	1,419	-14	224
New Mexico	48	81	117	196	140	251	542	679	28	170
New York	209	726	1,086	2,065	1,361	2,136	4,985	5,621	3	163
North Carolina	122	234	282	495	403	856	2,072	2,491	73	191
North Dakota	5	9	25	32	25	45	95	86	38	91
Ohio	253	382	861	1,017	520	1,155	2,734	2,923	14	153
Oklahoma	38	73	186	315	208	440	900	959	40	118
Oregon	56	80	168	254	198	456	1,067	1,250	79	174
Pennsylvania	175	373	661	1,006	656	1,105	2,333	2,748	10	149
Rhode Island	18	31	42	82	59	79	238	303	-4	286
South Carolina	121	181	240	297	249	566	1,256	1,382	90	144
South Dakota	8	18	35	40	37	61	153	165	55	168
Tennessee	115	282	372	554	415	942	1,966	2,128	70	126
Texas	314	514	1,429	2,246	1,215	2,659	5,447	5,934	18	123
Utah	12	22	71	90	68	141	367	378	57	168
Vermont	9	18	22	46	32	45	124	150	-2	233
Virgin Islands	6	19	18	28	21	21	43	57	-24	174
Virginia	63	158	247	450	263	500	1,213	1,442	11	189
Washington	70	90	229	417	241	539	1,387	1,679	29	211
West Virginia	56	87	192	253	185	258	487	504	2	95
Wisconsin	29	68	180	220	129	317	1,000	1,198	44	278
Wyoming	3	6	21	28	19	27	52	57	-2	111
United States	$4,386	$8,721	$14,186	$22,764	$14,983	$28,568	$64,702	$76,066	25	166

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include amounts for Puerto Rico of $366 and $828 million respectively.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2004 to 2013 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap) and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

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

	[In thousands]								Percent Change
	1975	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	1995-05	2005-13
United States	17,192	21,082	20,049	26,619	17,194	25,718	40,302	47,636	-3	85
Alabama	365	583	454	525	396	559	805	915	6	64
Alaska	15	29	25	45	38	56	76	91	22	64
Arizona	143	196	317	480	259	550	1,018	1,111	15	102
Arkansas	267	301	235	272	247	374	467	505	37	35
California	1,455	1,493	1,937	3,175	1,831	1,992	3,239	4,159	-37	109
Colorado	150	163	221	252	156	246	405	508	-2	107
Connecticut	155	170	133	226	165	204	336	425	-10	108
Delaware	26	52	33	57	32	62	113	153	8	149
Dist. of Columbia	122	103	62	94	81	89	118	145	-6	63
Florida	647	912	781	1,395	882	1,382	2,603	3,556	-1	157
Georgia	498	627	536	816	559	921	1,591	1,948	13	111
Guam	6	22	12	16	22	27	37	46	66	67
Hawaii	75	102	77	125	118	94	138	189	-25	102
Idaho	39	61	59	80	58	93	194	227	16	143
Illinois	926	903	1,013	1,151	817	1,158	1,646	2,040	1	76
Indiana	392	353	311	470	300	556	813	926	18	66
Iowa	115	141	170	184	123	207	340	420	12	103
Kansas	58	90	142	184	117	178	270	317	-4	78
Kentucky	472	468	458	520	403	570	778	872	10	53
Louisiana	510	569	727	711	500	808	826	940	14	16
Maine	126	139	94	132	102	153	230	249	16	63
Maryland	261	324	255	399	219	289	561	771	-28	167
Massachusetts	365	453	347	410	232	368	749	888	-10	141
Michigan	619	813	917	971	603	1,048	1,776	1,776	8	69
Minnesota	167	171	263	308	196	260	430	553	-16	113
Mississippi	376	496	499	480	276	435	576	669	-9	54
Missouri	300	335	431	576	423	766	901	930	33	21
Montana	38	43	57	71	59	81	114	129	14	59
Nebraska	49	66	95	105	82	117	163	180	12	53
Nevada	32	32	50	99	61	122	278	361	24	197
New Hampshire	44	50	31	58	36	52	104	117	-10	124
New Jersey	490	605	382	551	345	392	622	876	-29	123
New Mexico	157	185	157	239	169	241	357	440	1	83
New York	1,291	1,759	1,548	2,183	1,439	1,755	2,758	3,170	-20	81
North Carolina	466	582	419	614	488	800	1,346	1,704	30	113
North Dakota	19	25	39	41	32	42	60	57	2	34
Ohio	854	865	1,089	1,155	610	1,007	1,607	1,825	-13	81
Oklahoma	171	209	267	375	253	424	582	622	13	47
Oregon	201	197	216	289	234	429	705	818	49	90
Pennsylvania	848	980	952	1,173	777	1,043	1,575	1,785	-11	71
Rhode Island	86	87	64	93	74	76	139	180	-19	136
South Carolina	410	426	299	364	295	521	797	876	43	68
South Dakota	33	43	50	50	43	56	95	104	12	85
Tennessee	397	624	527	662	496	850	1,224	1,342	28	58
Texas	1,133	1,167	1,880	2,558	1,333	2,442	3,552	4,042	-5	66
Utah	46	54	99	119	82	133	247	252	12	89
Vermont	44	46	38	59	41	45	86	101	-24	122
Virgin Islands	16	34	18	23	16	14	20	27	-41	102
Virginia	257	384	346	546	336	488	786	941	-11	93
Washington	253	248	340	476	295	508	956	1,113	7	119
West Virginia	242	209	262	309	227	262	341	351	-15	34
Wisconsin	148	215	286	320	193	346	715	857	8	148
Wyoming	10	14	28	34	22	25	35	38	-24	49

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include recipients in Puerto Rico of 810 thousand and 1.86 million respectively.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2013 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap) and unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table SNAP 6. Food Stamp/SNAP Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In percent]

	1975	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	Percent Change
	1975	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013	1995-05	2005-13
United States	7.6	8.4	8.0	10.0	6.1	8.7	13.0	15.0	-39	147
Alabama	9.9	14.9	11.2	12.2	8.9	12.2	16.8	18.9	-27	113
Alaska	4.0	7.1	4.5	7.5	6.0	8.3	10.7	12.4	-21	107
Arizona	6.3	7.1	8.6	10.8	5.0	9.4	15.9	16.8	-54	234
Arkansas	12.4	13.1	10.0	10.7	9.2	13.4	16.0	17.1	-14	85
California	6.8	6.3	6.5	10.0	5.4	5.6	8.7	10.8	-46	101
Colorado	5.8	5.6	6.7	6.6	3.6	5.3	8.0	9.6	-45	168
Connecticut	5.0	5.5	4.0	6.8	4.8	5.8	9.4	11.8	-29	144
Delaware	4.5	8.7	5.0	7.8	4.1	7.3	12.5	16.5	-48	303
Dist. of Columbia	17.2	16.1	10.3	16.2	14.1	15.3	19.6	22.4	-13	59
Florida	7.6	9.3	6.0	9.6	5.5	7.7	13.8	18.2	-43	231
Georgia	9.8	11.4	8.2	11.1	6.8	10.3	16.4	19.5	-39	187
Hawaii	8.4	10.6	6.9	10.4	9.7	7.2	10.1	13.5	-7	38
Idaho	4.6	6.4	5.8	6.8	4.5	6.5	12.4	14.1	-34	214
Illinois	8.2	7.9	8.8	9.6	6.6	9.2	12.8	15.8	-31	141
Indiana	7.3	6.4	5.6	8.0	4.9	8.9	12.5	14.1	-39	186
Iowa	4.0	4.8	6.1	6.4	4.2	7.0	11.2	13.6	-34	223
Kansas	2.5	3.8	5.7	7.1	4.3	6.5	9.4	11.0	-39	153
Kentucky	13.6	12.8	12.4	13.4	10.0	13.6	17.9	19.8	-26	99
Louisiana	13.1	13.5	17.2	16.2	11.2	17.7	18.2	20.3	-31	82
Maine	11.8	12.3	7.6	10.6	8.0	11.6	17.3	18.7	-25	136
Maryland	6.3	7.7	5.3	7.9	4.1	5.2	9.7	13.0	-48	215
Massachusetts	6.3	7.9	5.8	6.7	3.6	5.7	11.4	13.3	-45	264
Michigan	6.8	8.8	9.8	10.0	6.1	10.4	18.0	17.9	-40	196
Minnesota	4.2	4.2	6.0	6.6	4.0	5.1	8.1	10.2	-40	157
Mississippi	15.7	19.6	19.4	17.6	9.7	15.0	19.4	22.4	-45	131
Missouri	6.2	6.8	8.4	10.7	7.5	13.2	15.0	15.4	-29	104
Montana	5.1	5.5	7.1	8.1	6.6	8.6	11.5	12.7	-19	93
Nebraska	3.2	4.2	6.0	6.3	4.8	6.7	8.9	9.6	-24	100
Nevada	5.2	4.0	4.1	6.2	3.0	5.0	10.3	12.9	-52	329
New Hampshire	5.3	5.4	2.7	5.0	2.9	4.0	7.9	8.8	-42	202
New Jersey	6.7	8.2	4.9	6.8	4.1	4.5	7.1	9.8	-40	141
New Mexico	13.5	14.1	10.3	13.9	9.3	12.5	17.3	21.1	-33	127
New York	7.2	10.0	8.6	11.8	7.6	9.2	14.2	16.1	-36	113
North Carolina	8.4	9.9	6.3	8.4	6.0	9.2	14.1	17.3	-28	186
North Dakota	2.9	3.9	6.1	6.4	5.0	6.5	8.9	7.9	-22	59
Ohio	7.9	8.0	10.0	10.3	5.4	8.8	13.9	15.8	-48	194
Oklahoma	6.2	6.9	8.5	11.3	7.3	12.0	15.5	16.2	-35	120
Oregon	8.6	7.5	7.6	9.1	6.8	11.9	18.4	20.8	-25	205
Pennsylvania	7.1	8.3	8.0	9.6	6.3	8.4	12.4	14.0	-34	121
Rhode Island	9.2	9.1	6.4	9.2	7.1	7.1	13.2	17.1	-23	142
South Carolina	14.1	13.6	8.5	9.7	7.3	12.2	17.2	18.3	-24	150
South Dakota	4.8	6.2	7.2	6.8	5.7	7.2	11.7	12.3	-17	117
Tennessee	9.3	13.6	10.8	12.4	8.7	14.2	19.3	20.7	-30	138
Texas	9.0	8.1	11.0	13.5	6.4	10.7	14.1	15.3	-53	140
Utah	3.7	3.7	5.7	5.9	3.6	5.4	8.9	8.7	-38	138
Vermont	9.1	8.9	6.8	10.1	6.7	7.3	13.7	16.1	-33	141
Virginia	5.1	7.2	5.6	8.2	4.7	6.4	9.8	11.4	-42	141
Washington	7.0	6.0	6.9	8.7	5.0	8.1	14.2	16.0	-43	220
West Virginia	13.1	10.7	14.6	16.9	12.6	14.4	18.4	18.9	-26	51
Wisconsin	3.2	4.6	5.8	6.2	3.6	6.2	12.6	14.9	-42	315
Wyoming	2.7	3.0	6.2	6.9	4.5	5.0	6.2	6.5	-34	44

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Office of Food and Nutrition Service, (2000 to 2013 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-sn… and data from the U.S. Census Bureau (population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness, or disability, along with applicable income, resource, citizenship, and other criteria. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18 and meet the applicable SSI disability or blindness, in addition to the criteria mentioned above. Individuals and married couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels of $710 for an individual and $1,066 for a married couple (if both are eligible) effective January 2013. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the SSI program. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed as the “program of last resort.” Therefore, SSA helps recipients obtain any other public assistance that they are eligible to receive before providing SSI benefits. After evaluating all other income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.”

Prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), no individual could receive both SSI payments and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. If eligible for both, the individual had to choose which benefit to receive. Generally, the AFDC agency encouraged individuals to file for SSI and, once the SSI payments had started, the individual was removed from the AFDC filing unit. Since states have the authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels under PRWORA, there is no federal prohibition against individuals receiving both TANF benefits and SSI.

With the exception of California, which converted the value of SNAP benefits to cash payments that are included in the state supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive SNAP. If all household members receive SSI, the household is categorically eligible for SNAP and does not need to meet SNAP’s financial eligibility standards. If SSI beneficiaries live in households in which other household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility standard of SNAP to be eligible for SNAP benefits.

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 and Figure SSI 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program;

Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload;

Tables SSI 7 through SSI 9 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2013.

SSI Caseload Trends (Tables SSI 1 and SSI 2 and Figure SSI 1). From 1990 to 1995, the number of federally administered SSI recipients increased from 4.8 million to 6.5 million, an average growth rate of about 6 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. Between 2000 and 2013, the caseload increased from 6.6 to 8.4 million beneficiaries, an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI
payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2013, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind, and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adults ages 18-64, and adults ages 65 or older). See also Tables IND 3c and IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 1. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to a low of 1.16 million persons in December 2013. At the same time, there has been growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 7.2 million in December 2013. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased over time from 309,000 in December 1990 to 1.3 million in December 2013.

Several factors have contributed to the growth of the Supplemental Security Income program. Expansions in disability eligibility (particularly for mentally impaired adults and for children), increased outreach, overall growth in immigration, and transfers from state programs were among the key factors identified in a 1995 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups – adults with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the Zebley case, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.28

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). The total amount of federally administered SSI benefits has increased over the past six years from $44.4 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2005 to over $53.9 billion in 2013, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly federally administered benefits per person were $529 in 2013, up (1.0 percent) from 2005 inflation adjusted benefit level of $524. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics (Table SSI 6). Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI aged recipients has decreased from 43.6 percent in 1980 to 13.8 percent in 2013. During the same period, the percentage of disabled recipients increased from 54.5 percent in 1980 to 85.4 percent in 2013.

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

²⁸ The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) for children was initiated.

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2013

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

Figure SSI 2. Percent SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2013

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974 – 2013

[In thousands]

Date	Total	Eligibility Category				Type of Recipient
		Aged	Blind and Disabled			Children	Adults
			Blind and Disabled				Age	65 or
			Total	Blind	Disabled		18-64	Older
Dec	3,996	2,286	1,710	75	1,636	71 ¹	1,503	2,422
Dec	4,314	2,307	2,007	74	1,933	107	1,699	2,508
Dec	4,236	2,148	2,088	76	2,012	125	1,714	2,397
Dec	4,238	2,051	2,187	77	2,109	147	1,737	2,353
Dec	4,217	1,968	2,249	77	2,172	166	1,747	2,304
Dec	4,150	1,872	2,278	77	2,201	177	1,727	2,246
Dec	4,142	1,808	2,334	78	2,256	190	1,731	2,221
Dec	4,019	1,678	2,341	79	2,262	195	1,703	2,121
Dec	3,858	1,549	2,309	77	2,231	192	1,655	2,011
Dec	3,901	1,515	2,386	79	2,307	198	1,700	2,003
Dec	4,029	1,530	2,499	81	2,419	212	1,780	2,037
Dec	4,138	1,504	2,634	82	2,551	227	1,879	2,031
Dec	4,269	1,473	2,796	83	2,713	241	2,010	2,018
Dec	4,385	1,455	2,930	83	2,846	251	2,119	2,015
Dec	4,464	1,433	3,030	83	2,948	255	2,203	2,006
Dec	4,593	1,439	3,154	83	3,071	265	2,302	2,026
Dec	4,817	1,454	3,363	84	3,279	309	2,450	2,059
Dec	5,118	1,465	3,654	85	3,569	397	2,642	2,080
Dec	5,566	1,471	4,095	85	4,010	556	2,910	2,100
Dec	5,984	1,475	4,509	85	4,424	723	3,148	2,113
Dec	6,296	1,466	4,830	85	4,745	841	3,335	2,119
Dec	6,514	1,446	5,068	84	4,984	917	3,482	2,115
Dec	6,614	1,413	5,201	82	5,119	955	3,568	2,090
Dec	6,495	1,362	5,133	81	5,052	880	3,562	2,054
Dec	6,566	1,332	5,234	80	5,154	887	3,646	2,033
Dec	6,557	1,308	5,249	79	5,169	847	3,691	2,019
Dec	6,602	1,289	5,312	79	5,234	847	3,744	2,011
Dec	6,688	1,264	5,424	78	5,346	882	3,811	1,995
Dec	6,788	1,252	5,537	78	5,459	915	3,878	1,995
Dec	6,902	1,233	5,670	77	5,593	959	3,953	1,990
Dec	6,988	1,211	5,777	76	5,701	993	4,017	1,978
Dec	7,114	1,214	5,900	75	5,825	1,036	4,083	1,995
Dec	7,236	1,212	6,024	73	5,951	1,079	4,152	2,004
Dec	7,360	1,205	6,155	72	6,083	1,121	4,222	2,017
Dec	7,521	1,203	6,317	70	6,247	1,154	4,333	2,034
Dec	7,677	1,186	6,491	69	6,421	1,200	4,445	2,026
Dec	7,912	1,184	6,728	69	6,629	1,239	4,632	2,041
Dec	8,113	1,182	6,931	69	6,862	1,277	4,777	2,059
Dec	8,263	1,156	7,107	68	7,039	1,312	4,869	2,082
Dec	8,363	1,157	7,206	68	7,139	1,322	4,934	2,108

¹ Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.

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

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2009 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2013/).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates by Age: 1974 – 2013

Date	All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population ¹	Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population ¹	Child Recipients as a Percentof All Children ¹	Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
Date	All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population ¹	Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population ¹	Child Recipients as a Percentof All Children ¹	All Persons 65 & Older ¹	All Elderly Poor ²
Dec 1974	1.9	1.2	0.1	10.8	78.5
Dec 1975	2.0	1.3	0.2	10.9	75.6
Dec 1976	1.9	1.3	0.2	10.2	72.3
Dec 1977	1.9	1.3	0.2	9.7	74.1
Dec 1978	1.9	1.3	0.3	9.3	71.3
Dec 1979	1.8	1.3	0.3	8.8	61.0
Dec 1980	1.8	1.2	0.3	8.6	57.4
Dec 1981	1.7	1.2	0.3	8.0	55.1
Dec 1982	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.4	53.6
Dec 1983	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.3	55.3
Dec 1984	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.2	61.2
Dec 1985	1.7	1.3	0.4	7.1	58.8
Dec 1986	1.8	1.3	0.4	6.9	58.0
Dec 1987	1.8	1.4	0.4	6.7	56.6
Dec 1988	1.8	1.5	0.4	6.6	57.6
Dec 1989	1.9	1.5	0.4	6.5	60.3
Dec 1990	1.9	1.6	0.5	6.5	56.3
Dec 1991	2.0	1.7	0.6	6.5	55.0
Dec 1992	2.2	1.8	0.8	6.4	53.5
Dec 1993	2.3	2.0	1.1	6.4	56.3
Dec 1994	2.4	2.1	1.2	6.3	57.9
Dec 1995	2.4	2.1	1.3	6.2	63.7
Dec 1996	2.4	2.1	1.4	6.1	61.0
Dec 1997	2.4	2.1	1.2	6.0	60.8
Dec 1998	2.4	2.1	1.2	5.9	60.0
Dec 1999	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.8	62.7
Dec 2000	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.7	60.5
Dec 2001	2.3	2.2	1.2	5.6	58.4
Dec 2002	2.3	2.2	1.3	5.6	55.8
Dec 2003	2.4	2.2	1.3	5.5	56.0
Dec 2004	2.4	2.2	1.3	5.4	57.3
Dec 2005	2.4	2.2	1.4	5.4	55.4
Dec 2006	2.4	2.2	1.5	5.3	59.1
Dec 2007	2.4	2.2	1.5	5.3	56.7
Dec 2008	2.5	2.3	1.5	5.2	55.6
Dec 2009	2.5	2.3	1.6	5.1	59.0
Dec 2010	2.5	2.4	1.7	5.0	57.4
Dec 2011	2.6	2.4	1.7	4.9	56.9
Dec 2012	2.6	2.5	1.8	4.7	53.0
Dec 2013	2.6	2.5	1.8	4.6	49.8

¹ Population numbers used for the denominators are Census Bureau resident population estimates adjusted to the December date by averaging the July 1 population of the current year with the July 1 population of the following year (resident population estimates by age are available online at www.census.gov).

² For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-249.

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013," Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 (available online at www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Federally Administered SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974 – 2013 (1)

[In millions of dollars]

	Total Benefits		Federal	State	Administrative
Calendar Year	2013 Dollars ²	Current Dollars	Payments	Supplementation	Costs (fiscal year)
1974	$21,238	$5,097	$3,833	$1,264	$285
1975	21,996	5,716	4,314	1,403	399
1976	21,472	5,900	4,512	1,388	500
1977	20,984	6,134	4,703	1,431	527
1978	20,880	6,372	4,881	1,491	539
1979	20,541	6,869	5,279	1,590	611
1980	20,765	7,715	5,866	1,848	668
1981	20,538	8,357	6,518	1,839	717
1982	20,176	8,705	6,907	1,798	780
1983	20,303	9,134	7,423	1,711	846
1984	21,511	10,073	8,281	1,792	864
1985	22,194	10,750	8,777	1,973	956
1986	23,810	11,741	9,498	2,243	1,023
1987	24,700	12,592	10,029	2,563	977
1988	25,364	13,405	10,734	2,671	976
1989	26,412	14,561	11,606	2,955	1,052
1990	27,874	16,133	12,894	3,239	1,075
1991	30,016	17,996	14,765	3,231	1,230
1992	35,271	21,682	18,247	3,435	1,426
1993	38,085	23,991	20,722	3,270	1,468
1994	39,310	25,291	22,175	3,116	1,780
1995	41,036	27,037	23,919	3,118	1,978
1996	41,768	28,252	25,265	2,988	1,953
1997	41,056	28,371	25,457	2,913	2,055
1998	41,971	29,408	26,405	3,003	2,304
1999	42,090	30,106	26,805	3,301	2,493
2000	41,490	30,672	27,290	3,381	2,321
2001	42,323	32,166	28,706	3,460	2,397
2002	43,661	33,719	29,899	3,820	2,522
2003	43,941	34,693	30,688	4,005	2,656
2004	44,477	36,065	31,887	4,179	2,806
2005	44,431	37,236	33,058	4,178	2,795
2006	44,930	38,889	34,736	4,153	2,916
2007	46,293	41,205	36,884	4,321	2,857
2008	46,566	43,040	38,656	4,385	2,820
2009	50,601	46,592	42,629	3,964	3,316
2010	51,491	48,195	44,605	3,589	3,629
2011	51,289	49,520	46,000	3,521	3,931
2012	52,831	52,075	48,770	3,305	3,881
2013	53,900	53,900	50,625	3,275	3,789

¹ Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year.

² Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS for calendar years.

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

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report and Annual Report of the SSI Program, http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/.

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly Federally Administered SSI Benefits: 1975 – 2013 (1)

[In millions of dollars]

Date	Total Benefits		Federal	State
Date	2013 Dollars ²	Current Dollars	Payments	Supplementation
Dec 1975	$409	$106	$91	$62
Dec 1976	407	112	96	67
Dec 1977	400	117	101	67
Dec 1978	400	122	107	111
Dec 1979	446	149	119	95
Dec 1980	436	162	138	95
Dec 1981	433	176	155	92
Dec 1982	438	189	168	91
Dec 1983	454	204	182	94
Dec 1984	451	211	189	99
Dec 1985	450	218	194	99
Dec 1986	472	233	205	116
Dec 1987	468	238	208	114
Dec 1988	464	245	215	121
Dec 1989	466	257	224	128
Dec 1990	478	276	242	128
Dec 1991	487	292	260	120
Dec 1992	491	302	275	105
Dec 1993	500	315	290	100
Dec 1994	505	325	302	94
Dec 1995	509	335	313	99
Dec 1996	508	344	322	99
Dec 1997	507	351	328	102
Dec 1998	513	359	336	102
Dec 1999	515	369	342	111
Dec 2000	512	379	351	113
Dec 2001	518	394	366	114
Dec 2002	528	407	377	128
Dec 2003	528	417	384	138
Dec 2004	528	428	395	138
Dec 2005	524	439	407	156
Dec 2006	525	455	423	156
Dec 2007	526	468	437	157
Dec 2008	517	478	447	156
Dec 2009	542	499	476	125
Dec 2010	535	501	479	124
Dec 2011	520	502	481	119
Dec 2012	526	518	500	122
Dec 2013	529	529	510	121

¹ Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year.

² Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS for calendar years.

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

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2013/.

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments by Eligibility Category: 1974 - 2013

[In thousands]

Month and year	Total ¹	Federal SSI	Federally Administered State Supplementation	State Supplementation Only
Jan 1974	3,216	2,956	1,480	260
Dec 1975	4,314	3,893	1,684	421
Dec 1976	4,236	3,799	1,638	437
Dec 1977	4,238	3,778	1,658	460
Dec 1978	4,217	3,755	1,681	462
Dec 1979	4,150	3,687	1,684	462
Dec 1980	4,142	3,682	1,685	460
Dec 1981	4,019	3,590	1,625	429
Dec 1982	3,858	3,473	1,550	384
Dec 1983	3,901	3,590	1,558	312
Dec 1984	4,029	3,699	1,607	331
Dec 1985	4,138	3,799	1,661	339
Dec 1986	4,269	3,922	1,723	348
Dec 1987	4,385	4,019	1,807	366
Dec 1988	4,464	4,089	1,885	375
Dec 1989	4,593	4,206	1,950	387
Dec 1990	4,817	4,412	2,058	405
Dec 1991	5,118	4,730	2,204	389
Dec 1992	5,566	5,202	2,372	364
Dec 1993	5,984	5,636	2,536	348
Dec 1994	6,296	5,965	2,628	331
Dec 1995	6,514	6,194	2,518	320
Dec 1996	6,614	6,326	2,421	288
Dec 1997	6,495	6,212	2,372	283
Dec 1998	6,566	6,289	2,412	277
Dec 1999	6,557	6,275	2,441	282
Dec 2000	6,602	6,320	2,481	282
Dec 2001	6,688	6,410	2,520	278
Dec 2002	6,788	6,505	2,462	283
Dec 2003	6,902	6,614	2,467	288
Dec 2004	6,988	6,695	2,498	293
Dec 2005	7,114	6,819	2,242	295
Dec 2006	7,236	6,939	2,269	297
Dec 2007	7,360	7,061	2,302	298
Dec 2008	7,521	7,219	2,344	301
Dec 2009	7,677	7,423	2,339	254
Dec 2010	7,912	7,656	2,386	257
Dec 2011	8,113	7,866	2,389	246
Dec 2012	8,263	8,040	2,216	223
Dec 2013	8,363	8,144	2,228	220

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

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/index.html).

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of Federally Administered SSI Recipients by Selected Characteristics: Selected Years, 1980-2013

	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2013
	Total
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
under 18	5.5	5.5	6.4	14.1	12.8	14.6	15.7	15.8
18-64	40.9	45.4	50.9	53.5	56.7	57.4	58.5	59.0
65 or older	53.6	49.1	42.7	32.5	30.5	28.0	25.8	25.2
Sex
Male	34.4	35.2	37.2	41.7	41.5	43.1	45.3	46.6
Female	65.5	64.8	62.8	58.3	58.5	56.9	54.7	53.4
Selected Sources of Income
Earnings	3.2	3.8	4.7	4.3	4.4	3.8	3.3	3.1
Social Security	51.0	49.4	45.9	37.9	36.1	35.2	34.1	33.2
No other income	34.8	34.5	36.4	45.0	54.4	55.3	56.8	57.5
Noncitizens	NA	5.1	9.0	12.1	10.5	9.6	7.9	6.7
Eligibility Category
Aged	43.6	36.4	30.2	22.2	19.5	17.1	15.0	13.8
Blind	1.9	2.0	1.7	1.3	1.2	1.1	0.9	0.8
Disabled	54.5	61.7	68.1	76.5	79.3	81.9	84.2	85.4
	Aged
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
65-69	14.0	14.9	19.4	20.0	15.6	15.1	15.3	16.3
70-79	51.5	45.6	41.3	45.4	50.0	46.8	43.3	42.3
80 or older	34.5	39.5	39.2	34.5	34.5	38.1	41.4	41.4
Sex
Male	27.3	25.5	25.1	27.2	29.0	31.4	33.4	34.4
Female	72.6	74.5	74.9	72.8	71.0	68.6	66.6	65.6
Noncitizens	NA	9.7	19.4	31.8	28.5	28.3	25.6	22.6
	Blind and Disabled
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
18-64	80.2	77.7	80.0	83.7	83.8	84.1	84.4	83.9
65 or older	19.8	22.3	20.0	16.3	16.2	16.0	15.6	16.0
Sex¹
Male	39.8	40.8	42.4	41.7	44.5	41.2	43.1	44.4
Female	60.2	59.2	57.6	58.3	55.5	58.8	56.9	55.6
Noncitizens	NA	2.4	4.6	6.3	6.2	5.7	4.8	4.2
	Children
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Under 5	11.7	NA	NA	15.2	15.5	15.5	15.7	14.1
5-9	20.9	NA	NA	28.4	28.5	27.3	29.4	29.9
10-14	28.8	NA	NA	32.7	36.2	35.3	34.3	35.8
15-17	21.7	NA	NA	17.9	19.8	22.0	20.5	20.2
18-21²	16.8	14.3	9.3	5.9	—	—	—	—
Sex
Male	NA	NA	NA	63.3	63.8	65.4	66.2	66.7
Female	NA	NA	NA	36.7	36.2	34.6	33.8	33.3

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, 2013 and prior years (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2013/).

Table SSI 7. Total Federally Administered SSI Payments by State: Calendar Year 2013

[In thousands]

State	Total Federal	Federal SSI	Federally administered state supplementation
Other: N. Mariana Islands	7,443	7,443	—
Total	$53,899,898	$50,624,771	$3,275,127
Alabama	1,090,520	1,090,520	—
Alaska	76,537	76,537	—
Arizona	747,469	747,469	—
Arkansas	695,246	695,246	—
California	9,439,771	6,977,616	2,462,155
Colorado	449,877	449,877	—
Connecticut	393,294	393,294	—
Delaware	104,184	103,264	920
District of Columbia	185,037	179,951	5,086
Florida	3,339,620	3,339,620	—
Georgia	1,594,068	1,594,068	—
Hawaii	167,554	150,751	16,804
Idaho	186,199	186,199	—
Illinois	1,796,098	1,796,098	—
Indiana	815,007	815,007	—
Iowa	301,503	295,236	6,267
Kansas	304,993	304,993	—
Kentucky	1,174,499	1,174,499	—
Louisiana	1,115,504	1,115,504	—
Maine	224,176	224,176	—
Maryland	772,568	772,568	—
Massachusetts	1,162,786	1,162,786	—
Michigan	1,820,379	1,801,534	18,844
Minnesota	600,653	600,653	—
Mississippi	757,491	757,491	—
Missouri	886,130	886,130	—
Montana	112,281	111,284	996
Nebraska	164,800	164,800	—
Nevada	305,327	298,494	6,833
New Hampshire	119,951	119,951	—
New Jersey	1,128,754	1,045,568	83,185
New Mexico	388,406	388,406	—
New York	4,773,593	4,144,301	629,293
North Carolina	1,422,918	1,422,918	—
North Dakota	47,530	47,530	—
Ohio	2,031,274	2,031,274	—
Oklahoma	612,588	612,588	—
Oregon	527,687	527,687	—
Pennsylvania	2,502,347	2,469,158	33,189
Rhode Island	207,777	206,708	1,070
South Carolina	721,975	721,975	—
South Dakota	86,481	86,481	—
Tennessee	1,146,579	1,146,579	—
Texas	3,908,394	3,908,394	—
Utah	193,167	193,066	101
Vermont	97,032	86,647	10,385
Virginia	939,470	939,470	—
Washington	991,949	991,949	—
West Virginia	495,061	495,061	—
Wisconsin	725,263	725,263	—
Wyoming	40,690	40,690	—

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

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 8. State Recipiency Rates for Federally Administered SSI Payments by Age: 1996 & 2013

[In percent]

	Rate for Children 0-17			Rate for Adults 18-64			Rate for Adults 65 & Over
State	1996	2013	Percent Change 1996-13	1996	2013	Percent Change 1996-13	1996	2013	Percent Change 1996-13
Total	1.5	1.8	22	2.2	2.5	16	6.2	4.7	*-24*
Alabama	2.8	2.6	-5	3.1	4.0	27	9.7	3.9	*-60*
Alaska	0.6	0.7	21	2.8	1.8	*-35*	5.5	4.8	*-14*
Arizona	1.1	1.3	17	0.6	1.7	*209*	3.5	2.7	*-22*
Arkansas	2.9	4.3	49	1.1	3.8	*238*	8.5	3.3	*-61*
California	0.9	1.3	43	2.9	2.6	*-10*	13.0	11.7	*-10*
Colorado	1.0	0.8	*-21*	0.9	1.4	52	3.6	2.5	*-32*
Connecticut	0.7	1.1	53	1.0	1.7	74	2.5	2.6	3
Delaware	1.5	1.8	21	0.7	1.8	*145*	2.8	1.8	*-38*
District of Columbia	2.8	3.8	35	1.5	4.0	*163*	7.6	6.1	*-19*
Florida	1.8	2.6	43	2.8	2.2	*-21*	5.1	4.9	-4
Georgia	1.5	1.8	20	1.8	2.5	36	9.2	4.3	*-54*
Hawaii	0.3	0.6	62	1.5	1.8	17	6.1	4.0	*-36*
Idaho	1.1	1.3	24	0.3	2.2	*531*	2.3	1.8	*-23*
Illinois	1.6	1.4	*-10*	1.1	2.1	97	3.9	3.6	-9
Indiana	1.4	1.6	16	1.6	2.2	36	2.0	1.5	*-27*
Iowa	1.0	1.2	13	1.4	1.9	36	2.1	1.5	*-29*
Kansas	1.3	1.3	5	1.0	1.9	82	2.1	1.7	*-19*
Kentucky	2.5	2.9	14	1.3	4.8	*274*	8.3	5.0	*-39*
Louisiana	3.2	3.3	2	2.5	3.9	57	10.2	5.2	*-49*
Maine	0.9	1.6	72	3.2	3.4	4	4.0	2.3	*-43*
Maryland	1.1	1.4	30	0.9	1.9	*104*	4.4	3.2	*-27*
Massachusetts	1.2	1.7	42	1.1	2.7	*152*	5.9	4.7	*-19*
Michigan	1.7	1.9	17	1.2	3.1	*155*	3.3	2.8	*-14*
Minnesota	0.9	1.1	16	1.7	1.8	7	2.6	2.6	1
Mississippi	3.4	3.3	-3	0.9	4.3	*361*	14.2	5.7	*-60*
Missouri	1.6	1.7	10	3.4	2.7	*-21*	3.7	2.1	*-43*
Montana	1.1	1.2	10	1.6	2.1	34	2.4	1.8	*-24*
Nebraska	1.0	0.9	*-11*	1.1	1.7	58	2.1	1.6	*-21*
Nevada	0.8	1.4	71	1.0	1.5	51	3.6	3.2	*-10*
New Hampshire	0.7	1.0	44	0.8	1.8	*112*	1.5	1.0	*-31*
New Jersey	1.2	1.3	12	0.7	1.8	*162*	4.6	4.4	-5
New Mexico	1.4	1.9	37	1.2	3.0	*157*	8.1	5.6	*-31*
New York	1.9	2.1	11	1.4	2.9	*113*	8.9	8.5	-4
North Carolina	1.8	1.9	9	1.9	2.4	27	7.3	3.1	*-58*
North Dakota	0.8	0.6	*-19*	1.8	1.3	*-27*	2.9	1.5	*-47*
Ohio	2.0	1.9	-2	0.8	3.0	*283*	2.7	2.4	*-10*
Oklahoma	1.4	1.9	38	2.0	2.8	41	5.2	2.6	*-49*
Oregon	0.9	1.3	45	1.4	2.3	62	2.6	2.7	6
Pennsylvania	1.6	2.8	77	0.9	3.0	*246*	3.6	3.1	*-14*
Rhode Island	1.3	2.2	72	1.6	3.2	*101*	4.9	4.3	*-12*
South Carolina	2.0	1.9	-5	1.3	2.6	*100*	8.2	3.0	*-63*
South Dakota	1.4	1.2	*-11*	2.0	1.8	*-10*	3.5	2.4	*-30*
Tennessee	1.9	1.7	*-10*	1.4	3.1	*127*	7.8	3.4	*-57*
Texas	1.1	2.1	93	1.9	2.1	12	8.6	5.8	*-32*
Utah	0.7	0.6	*-10*	1.1	1.2	10	2.0	1.8	*-13*
Vermont	1.0	1.4	44	0.7	2.9	*312*	4.8	2.5	*-48*
Virginia	1.5	1.3	*-14*	1.0	1.8	89	5.6	3.1	*-45*
Washington	0.9	1.1	28	1.5	2.3	51	3.4	3.5	3
West Virginia	2.1	2.2	3	0.9	5.1	*471*	5.3	3.7	*-30*
Wisconsin	1.6	1.7	6	2.1	2.2	1	2.7	1.9	*-29*
Wyoming	0.9	0.8	*-14*	1.6	1.4	*-16*	1.9	1.1	*-43*

Note: Recipiency rates for 2013 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2013 and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates as Percent of Population by State: Selected Years 1975 – 2013

[In Percent]

State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996 ²	2001 ²	2007 ²	2013 ²
Total ¹	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.9	2.5	2.3	2.4	2.7
Alabama	4.0	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.9	3.6	3.6	3.7
Alaska	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.8	1.2	1.4	1.7	1.8
Arizona	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.2	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.8
Arkansas	4.1	3.4	3.1	3.2	3.8	3.2	3.4	3.8
California	3.1	3.0	2.6	2.9	3.3	3.2	3.4	3.4
Colorado	1.4	1.0	0.9	1.1	1.5	1.2	1.2	1.4
Connecticut	0.8	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.7
Delaware	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.6	1.5	1.7	1.8
District of Columbia	2.2	2.4	2.5	2.7	3.7	3.5	3.8	4.2
Florida	1.9	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.8
Georgia	3.3	2.8	2.6	2.5	2.7	2.4	2.2	2.6
Hawaii	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9
Idaho	1.1	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.9
Illinois	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.6	2.3	2.0	2.0	2.2
Indiana	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.6	1.5	1.6	1.9
Iowa	1.0	0.9	1.0	1.2	1.5	1.4	1.5	1.6
Kansas	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.5	1.4	1.5	1.7
Kentucky	2.8	2.6	2.7	3.1	4.4	4.3	4.3	4.4
Louisiana	3.9	3.2	2.9	3.2	4.2	3.7	3.8	3.9
Maine	2.3	1.9	1.9	1.9	2.2	2.3	2.5	2.8
Maryland	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.7	1.7	1.7	2.0
Massachusetts	2.3	2.2	1.9	2.0	2.7	2.6	2.8	2.8
Michigan	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.5	2.2	2.1	2.3	2.8
Minnesota	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.4	1.3	1.5	1.7
Mississippi	5.2	4.4	4.3	4.4	5.2	4.5	4.2	4.2
Missouri	2.1	1.7	1.6	1.7	2.2	2.0	2.1	2.4
Montana	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.3	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.8
Nebraska	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.3	1.2	1.3	1.5
Nevada	1.0	0.8	0.9	1.0	1.4	1.3	1.4	1.7
New Hampshire	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.5
New Jersey	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.4	1.8	1.7	1.8	2.0
New Mexico	2.3	1.9	1.8	2.1	2.7	2.6	2.9	3.1
New York	2.2	2.1	2.0	2.3	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.6
North Carolina	2.7	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.7	2.3	2.3	2.4
North Dakota	1.3	1.0	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.2
Ohio	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.4	2.3	2.1	2.2	2.7
Oklahoma	3.0	2.2	1.8	1.9	2.3	2.1	2.4	2.5
Oregon	1.1	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.5	1.6	1.7	2.1
Pennsylvania	1.2	1.4	1.4	1.6	2.2	2.4	2.7	3.0
Rhode Island	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.7	2.6	2.7	2.9	3.2
South Carolina	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.6	3.0	2.6	2.4	2.5
South Dakota	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.9	1.7	1.6	1.8
Tennessee	3.2	2.8	2.7	2.9	3.4	2.8	2.6	2.8
Texas	2.2	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.2	2.0	2.3	2.5
Utah	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.7	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.1
Vermont	1.9	1.7	1.8	1.8	2.2	2.0	2.2	2.5
Virginia	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	2.0	1.8	1.8	1.9
Washington	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.7	1.7	1.9	2.2
West Virginia	2.4	2.1	2.2	2.6	3.8	4.1	4.4	4.3
Wisconsin	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.0
Wyoming	0.7	0.4	0.5	0.8	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.2

¹ The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively.
² For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that year. For 1994-2009 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2013, and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

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

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

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

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and SNAP alone, excluding SSI. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been lower – 3.0 percent – in 2012 if based on income from TANF and SNAP, as opposed to 5.1 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, SNAP, and SSI).

There also is variation across age groups in the programs upon which individuals are dependent. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and SNAP; whereas 2.5 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, few, 0.5 percent, are dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and SNAP. In contrast, children are primarily dependent on TANF and SNAP.

Dependence on AFDC/TANF and SNAP receipt has generally declined since 1995 but there is a noteworthy uptick in 2008 given the “Great Recession” of 2007-2009. Dependence on SSI receipt alone has remained relatively stable overall as shown in Table B-2. The difference between the standard definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based on TANF and SNAP only) has varied over time. In 1995, over two-thirds (67.9 percent) of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition also were dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 2012, the proportion had dropped to 58.8 percent.

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2012
	TANF, SSI & SNAP	TANF & SNAP	SSI Only
All Persons	5.1	3.0	1.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White	3.1	1.8	1.0
Non-Hispanic Black	12.0	6.7	3.6
Hispanic	7.4	4.7	1.8
Age Categories
Children ages 0-5	9.6	7.0	1.4
Children ages 6-10	8.3	5.4	1.5
Children ages 11-15	7.1	4.7	1.2
Women ages 16-64	5.5	3.2	1.7
Men ages 16-64	3.7	1.9	1.3
Adults ages 65 and over	2.5	0.5	1.6
Family Categories
Persons in married families	1.8	1.0	0.4
Persons in female-headed families	15.8	10.0	3.6
Persons in male-headed (no spouse) families	5.8	2.6	2.1
Unrelated persons	6.9	3.5	3.2
Note: Income is measured as total family income. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table B-2. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1995-2012
	TANF, SSI & SNAP	TANF & SNAP	SSI Only
1995	5.3	3.6	1.1
1998	3.8	2.1	1.3
1999	3.3	1.7	1.2
2000	3.0	1.5	1.2
2001	3.1	1.4	1.3
2002	3.2	1.5	1.3
2003	3.6	1.9	1.3
2004	3.7	2.0	1.3
2005	3.8	2.1	1.4
2006	3.7	1.9	1.4
2007	3.5	1.8	1.3
2008	4.0	2.1	1.4
2009	4.6	2.7	1.4
2010	5.3	3.2	1.4
2011	5.2	3.2	1.4
2012	5.1	3.0	1.5
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Appendix C. Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women within Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity:
Selected Years 1940-2012
	White				Black¹				Hispanic²
	Total Teens³	Age 15 - 17	Age 18 - 19	Total Women	Total Teens	Age 15 - 17	Age 18 - 19	Total Women	Total Teens	Age 15 - 17	Age 18 - 19	Total Women
Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. In particular, the increases from 1993 to 1994 to a great extent reflect improvements in the completeness of reporting of nonmarital births in two states, Michigan and Texas. ¹From 1940 to 1965, the percentage of births to unmarried Black women (shown in italics) includes all unmarried Non-white. ²Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for Hispanics have been available only since 1980, with 22 states reporting in 1980, representing 90 percent of the Hispanic population. Hispanic birth data were reported by 23 states and the District of Columbia in 1985; 48 states and the District of Columbia in 1990; 49 states and the District of Columbia in 1991 and 1992; and all 50 states and the District of Columbia since 1993. ³Teens under 15 included in Total Teens but not shown separately. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1980,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 32, No. 6 Supplement; “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1985,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 11 Supplement; “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16); “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), and earlier reports. Additional calculations by ASPE staff.
1940	7	–	–	2	36	–	–	17	–	–	–	–
1945	10	–	–	2	41	–	–	18	–	–	–	–
1950	6	10	5	2	37	48	28	18	–	–	–	–
1955	7	10	5	2	42	52	33	20	–	–	–	–
1960	7	12	5	2	43	54	34	22	–	–	–	–
1965	12	17	9	4	51	63	39	26	–	–	–	–
1970	17	25	14	6	64	76	52	38	–	–	–	–
1975	23	33	17	7	78	87	68	49	–	–	–	–
1980	34	45	27	11	86	93	80	56	42	51	36	24
1985	45	58	38	15	91	96	86	61	–	61	46	30
1990	57	68	51	20	92	96	89	67	62	68	54	37
1991	59	70	53	22	93	96	90	68	64	69	56	38
1992	61	71	55	23	93	96	90	68	65	69	57	39
1993	63	72	57	24	93	96	91	69	66	69	58	40
1994	68	78	62	25	95	98	93	70	73	77	65	43
1995	68	77	62	25	95	98	93	70	71	75	62	41
1996	69	79	63	26	96	98	94	70	71	75	63	41
1997	71	82	65	26	96	98	94	69	76	80	66	41
1998	72	83	67	26	96	98	94	69	77	82	67	42
1999	73	83	67	27	96	98	94	69	76	82	67	42
2000	73	83	68	27	96	98	94	69	76	82	67	43
2001	73	83	68	28	96	99	94	68	75	81	67	42
2002	75	85	70	28	96	99	94	68	77	83	69	44
2003	77	86	72	29	96	99	95	68	80	85	71	45
2004	78	87	74	31	96	99	95	69	81	86	73	46
2005	79	88	75	32	96	99	95	69	83	87	75	48
2006	80	89	76	33	97	99	95	70	84	89	76	50
2007	82	90	78	35	97	99	96	71	86	90	78	51
2008	83	92	79	36	97	99	96	72	88	92	80	53
2009	84	92	80	36	97	99	96	72	89	94	81	53
2010	85	94	81	36	97	99	97	72	87	94	82	53
2011	85	94	82	36	97	99	97	72	87	94	83	53
2012	85	94	82	36	97	99	96	72	87	94	84	53

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2012
	1960	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2012
United States	5	11	18	28	32	33	37	41	41
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013 and earlier reports.
Alabama	11	14	22	30	34	34	36	42	43
Alaska	5	9	16	26	30	33	36	38	37
Arizona	NA	9	19	33	38	39	43	45	46
Arkansas	NA	13	20	29	33	36	40	45	45
California	NA	NA	21	32	32	33	36	41	40
Colorado	NA	9	13	21	25	25	27	24	23
Connecticut	NA	NA	18	27	31	29	32	37	38
Delaware	9	15	24	29	35	38	44	47	47
Dist of Columbia	20	38	56	65	66	60	56	55	51
Florida	9	14	23	32	36	38	43	48	48
Georgia	NA	NA	23	33	35	37	41	46	45
Hawaii	5	10	18	25	29	32	36	38	38
Idaho	NA	NA	8	17	20	22	23	27	27
Illinois	6	13	23	32	34	35	37	41	40
Indiana	4	8	16	26	32	35	40	43	43
Iowa	2	7	10	21	25	28	32	34	35
Kansas	3	7	12	22	26	29	34	38	37
Kentucky	5	8	15	24	29	31	36	41	41
Louisiana	9	15	23	37	42	46	48	53	53
Maine	3	7	14	23	28	31	35	41	42
Maryland	NA	NA	25	30	33	35	37	42	41
Massachusetts	NA	NA	16	25	26	27	30	35	34
Michigan	4	11	16	26	34	33	37	42	42
Minnesota	3	8	11	21	24	26	30	33	33
Mississippi	14	17	28	40	45	46	49	55	55
Missouri	6	11	18	29	32	35	38	40	40
Montana	NA	NA	13	24	26	31	35	36	36
Nebraska	NA	8	12	21	24	27	31	34	33
Nevada	4	11	13	25	42	36	41	44	45
New Hampshire	NA	6	11	17	22	25	27	33	35
New Jersey	4	10	21	24	28	29	31	35	36
New Mexico	NA	NA	16	35	43	46	51	52	52
New York	NA	NA	24	33	38	37	39	42	41
North Carolina	9	12	19	29	31	33	38	42	41
North Dakota	3	7	9	18	24	28	32	33	32
Ohio	4	NA	18	29	33	35	39	44	44
Oklahoma	NA	8	14	25	30	34	39	42	42
Oregon	3	7	15	26	29	30	33	36	35
Pennsylvania	4	10	18	29	32	33	37	42	42
Rhode Island	3	7	16	26	31	35	39	45	46
South Carolina	12	15	23	33	37	40	43	48	48
South Dakota	3	7	13	23	28	33	36	38	39
Tennessee	9	12	20	30	33	35	40	44	44
Texas	5	9	13	18	30	31	38	42	42
Utah	2	4	6	14	16	17	18	19	19
Vermont	NA	NA	14	20	25	28	32	39	41
Virginia	8	11	19	26	29	30	32	36	35
Washington	3	9	14	24	27	28	31	33	33
West Virginia	6	6	13	25	31	32	37	44	45
Wisconsin	3	8	14	24	27	29	32	37	37
Wyoming	2	7	8	20	26	29	33	34	34

Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race and Ethnicity and State: 1994 and 2012
			Non-Hispanic
	All races		White		Black		Hispanic^†
State	1994	2012	1994	2012	1994	2012	1994	2012
United States	33	41	21	29	71	72	43	54
^†Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013 and earlier reports.
Alabama	35	43	16	28	71	75	19	27
Alaska	29	37	21	24	41	51	29	36
Arizona	38	46	25	31	65	65	51	57
Arkansas	33	45	20	35	74	80	31	50
California	36	40	23	24	63	68	46	53
Colorado	25	23	18	17	57	42	44	34
Connecticut	31	38	18	24	70	68	65	66
Delaware	35	47	22	36	74	72	50	63
Dist. of Columbia	69	51	10	6	81	77	59	64
Florida	36	48	24	37	69	70	34	51
Georgia	36	45	18	28	68	71	23	50
Hawaii	28	38	15	24	19	24	44	49
Idaho	19	27	17	23	42	38	25	45
Illinois	34	40	18	27	79	80	38	52
Indiana	32	43	26	37	78	79	42	53
Iowa	25	35	23	31	75	72	37	51
Kansas	26	37	21	31	67	71	39	53
Kentucky	28	41	23	38	73	75	25	52
Louisiana	43	53	21	35	73	80	30	55
Maine	28	42	28	42	45	35	23	51
Maryland	34	41	18	26	64	63	39	55
Massachusetts	27	34	19	26	63	56	62	63
Michigan	35	42	23	32	79	80	42	53
Minnesota	24	33	20	26	75	60	46	56
Mississippi	45	55	18	33	75	82	21	55
Missouri	33	40	24	33	79	77	34	52
Montana	26	36	20	30	29	53	30	48
Nebraska	25	33	20	27	74	69	39	51
Nevada	35	45	27	33	70	72	44	54
New Hampshire	22	35	21	35	33	42	37	50
New Jersey	28	36	13	19	68	69	48	60
New Mexico	42	52	23	31	60	55	49	58
New York	38	41	19	26	70	69	61	65
North Carolina	32	41	17	26	68	72	29	51
North Dakota	23	32	19	26	24	45	26	42
Ohio	33	44	25	36	78	79	50	60
Oklahoma	30	42	23	35	70	73	31	48
Oregon	29	35	27	32	72	60	35	49
Pennsylvania	33	42	23	32	80	79	63	67
Rhode Island	32	46	24	37	70	69	58	67
South Carolina	37	48	19	32	67	78	28	51
South Dakota	28	39	20	28	21	51	33	56
Tennessee	33	44	21	34	75	79	26	51
Texas	29	42	18	27	63	66	31	51
Utah	16	19	13	13	52	45	37	42
Vermont	25	41	25	41	32	35	34	44
Virginia	29	35	18	24	64	67	38	51
Washington	26	33	23	27	56	48	35	51
West Virginia	30	45	29	44	76	75	22	55
Wisconsin	27	37	20	29	82	84	46	56
Wyoming	28	34	25	29	42	54	45	52

Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by State: Selected Years 1960-2012
[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]
State	1960	1970	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2012
United States	89	68	53	51	60	56	48	40	34	29
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013 and earlier reports available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.
Alabama	104	90	68	64	71	69	61	48	44	39
Alaska	128	103	64	56	65	55	49	40	38	35
Arizona	112	79	65	67	76	74	68	59	42	37
Arkansas	116	93	75	73	80	72	66	59	53	46
California	103	69	53	53	71	67	47	39	32	27
Colorado	97	67	50	48	55	52	51	42	33	25
Connecticut	54	44	31	31	39	39	31	23	19	15
Delaware	100	73	51	51	55	55	48	40	31	25
Dist. of Columbia	132	116	62	72	93	85	53	42	45	39
Florida	117	86	59	58	69	60	51	42	32	28
Georgia	117	101	72	68	76	70	63	52	41	34
Hawaii	77	66	51	48	61	49	46	37	33	28
Idaho	102	66	59	47	51	49	43	36	33	28
Illinois	63	63	56	51	63	58	48	39	33	28
Indiana	100	75	57	52	59	57	49	42	37	33
Iowa	73	53	43	35	41	38	34	31	29	24
Kansas	94	65	57	52	56	52	46	40	39	34
Kentucky	108	86	72	63	68	62	55	48	46	42
Louisiana	113	84	76	72	74	70	62	47	48	43
Maine	93	65	47	42	43	34	29	24	21	19
Maryland	100	69	43	46	53	47	41	32	27	22
Massachusetts	51	40	28	29	35	33	26	20	17	14
Michigan	80	69	45	43	59	49	40	32	30	26
Minnesota	64	44	35	31	36	33	30	26	23	19
Mississippi	121	103	84	76	81	79	70	58	55	46
Missouri	99	72	58	54	63	55	49	42	37	32
Montana	97	62	48	44	48	42	37	35	35	29
Nebraska	82	54	45	40	42	38	38	33	31	27
Nevada	118	94	59	55	73	73	63	52	39	33
New Hampshire	76	55	34	32	33	30	23	18	16	14
New Jersey	58	50	35	34	41	38	32	24	20	17
New Mexico	127	79	72	73	78	74	66	61	53	48
New York	57	51	35	36	44	42	33	26	23	20
North Carolina	104	88	58	57	68	63	59	47	38	32
North Dakota	68	44	42	36	35	33	27	27	29	27
Ohio	84	65	52	50	58	53	46	38	34	30
Oklahoma	112	83	75	69	67	64	60	53	50	47
Oregon	88	58	51	43	55	50	43	33	28	24
Pennsylvania	67	53	41	40	45	41	34	29	27	24
Rhode Island	56	43	33	36	44	40	34	28	22	20
South Carolina	109	89	65	63	71	63	58	49	43	37
South Dakota	83	49	53	46	47	41	38	37	35	33
Tennessee	103	88	64	61	72	67	60	53	43	39
Texas	115	85	74	72	75	76	69	61	52	44
Utah	86	56	65	50	49	41	38	31	28	23
Vermont	74	54	39	36	34	28	23	17	18	16
Virginia	103	76	48	46	53	48	41	34	27	23
Washington	88	60	47	45	53	48	39	31	27	23
West Virginia	87	72	68	54	57	53	47	42	45	44
Wisconsin	64	46	40	39	43	38	35	30	26	22
Wyoming	112	71	79	59	56	48	42	43	39	35

Table C-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by Race and Ethnicity and State: Selected Years
[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]
	All races			Non-Hispanic White			Non-Hispanic Black			Hispanic^†
State	1990	2000	2012	1990	2000	2012	1990	2000	2012	1990	2000	2012
United States	60	48	29	43	33	21	116	79	44	100	87	46
^† Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race. ‡ Rates not deemed to be reliable due to small number of births or number of women in the group. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Trends in Characteristics of Births by State: United States, 1990, 1995, 2000-2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (19), May 2004; and National and State Patterns of Teen Births in the United States, Vol. 23 (4), August 20, 2014.
Alabama	71	61	39	55	49	33	106	82	49	34	107	59
Alaska	65	49	35	53	32	21	‡	‡	38	‡	74	32
Arizona	76	68	37	51	39	21	124	79	42	123	115	52
Arkansas	80	66	46	66	56	40	132	98	63	‡	103	53
California	71	47	27	43	23	12	109	58	33	112	79	40
Colorado	55	51	25	39	31	16	112	84	32	111	114	48
Connecticut	39	31	15	20	15	7	108	65	25	122	90	43
Delaware	55	48	25	35	31	18	121	87	36	‡	103	39
Dist. of Columbia	93	53	39	11	‡	*	123	77	55	89	80	60
Florida	69	51	28	51	37	22	138	85	44	60	59	28
Georgia	76	63	34	56	47	26	117	82	42	73	132	50
Hawaii	61	46	28	38	21	23	‡	‡	26	133	99	53
Idaho	51	43	28	46	36	23	‡	‡	30	119	105	51
Illinois	63	48	28	37	26	16	146	96	53	95	90	42
Indiana	59	49	33	52	42	29	124	92	53	65	95	48
Iowa	41	34	24	38	30	20	119	89	51	80	97	58
Kansas	56	46	34	49	37	28	135	89	49	86	100	64
Kentucky	68	55	42	64	52	41	116	84	48	‡	92	53
Louisiana	74	62	43	53	43	33	113	92	57	21	40	52
Maine	43	29	19	43	29	19	‡	‡	26	‡	‡	‡
Maryland	53	41	22	36	27	13	97	68	33	46	63	45
Massachusetts	35	26	14	24	16	8	94	53	23	121	87	46
Michigan	59	40	26	41	30	18	132	81	54	94	81	45
Minnesota	36	30	19	30	21	12	156	93	40	79	105	52
Mississippi	81	70	46	56	51	39	113	93	55	‡	52	43
Missouri	63	49	32	50	41	28	145	92	50	46	80	48
Montana	48	37	29	39	30	23	‡	‡	‡	‡	‡	39
Nebraska	42	38	27	35	30	19	137	87	57	82	105	60
Nevada	73	63	33	61	42	22	133	83	47	108	110	47
New Hampshire	33	23	14	‡	23	13	‡	‡	‡	‡	‡	33
New Jersey	41	32	17	19	13	6	105	69	33	80	70	38
New Mexico	78	66	48	51	39	28	100	68	31	97	85	56
New York	44	33	20	25	19	12	86	55	30	82	64	36
North Carolina	68	59	32	51	43	23	107	80	42	106	146	56
North Dakota	35	27	27	29	21	19	‡	‡	50	‡	‡	64
Ohio	58	46	30	47	38	24	130	94	55	74	80	47
Oklahoma	67	60	47	na	51	41	na	85	56	na	97	67
Oregon	55	43	24	51	35	19	112	74	33	114	103	45
Pennsylvania	45	34	24	32	24	16	128	84	49	126	91	57
Rhode Island	44	34	20	32	22	11	137	66	31	130	92	49
South Carolina	71	58	37	54	44	29	101	79	48	67	96	52
South Dakota	47	38	33	35	27	21	‡	‡	42	‡	‡	66
Tennessee	72	60	39	61	50	33	122	91	52	41	120	58
Texas	75	69	44	49	41	26	117	78	44	104	104	62
Utah	49	38	23	44	31	17	‡	51	32	115	106	53
Vermont	34	23	16	35	24	17	‡	‡	‡	‡	‡	‡
Virginia	53	41	23	40	30	18	100	70	36	56	71	36
Washington	53	39	23	47	31	17	98	58	25	113	101	53
West Virginia	57	47	44	57	46	45	74	68	44	‡	‡	‡
Wisconsin	43	35	22	30	24	14	177	113	59	90	98	50
Wyoming	56	42	35	51	36	30	‡	‡	‡	94	81	53

Appendix D. Technical Notes

Age Categories

Most of the indicators in Chapter II are shown by age categories, generally children ages 0 to 15, adults ages 16 to 64, and adults 65 and older. Youth 16, 17 and 18 years of age are often classified with adults because they are considered potential members of the labor force in many labor force statistics. Indicators based on program administrative data (Indicator 3) and many of the risk factors presented in Chapter III, however, use published data that generally define “children” to include all individuals less than 18 years of age.

Race and Ethnicity

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

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

Family Structure Categories

For the primary measure of dependency, as well as selected indicators and many of our risk factor measures, estimates are provided for individual persons by family structure (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, Indicator 2, Indicator 5, ECON 3, ECON 7, and WORK 1). For these measures, the entire population is subdivided into the following four groups:

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

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

Annual and Monthly Measures

There are differences between monthly and annual observation of benefit receipt. The measures of annual recipiency (that is, any receipt over the course of a year) shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 are higher than the more traditional measures of recipiency in an average month, as shown in several other indicators and in Appendix A. The annual recipiency measures in Figure and Table SUM 1 are not only higher because they include any receipt from at least one of three welfare programs (while average monthly administrative data focus on receipt from only one program), they also are higher because they capture program receipt received in as little as one month during a given year, whereas average monthly recipiency rates, by definition, average across all the months in a given year.

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

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

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

Unit of Analysis

The individual, rather than the family or household, is the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report. The individual’s dependency status, however, is based on total family income, taking into account means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family.²⁹ The introductory chapter of this report and our dependence indicators in Chapter II, for example, show the percentage of individuals that are dependent (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, and Indicator 6) according to annual total family income (including annual total family benefit receipt). This is similar to estimates of the number of individuals who are poor, which are based on the characteristics and total income of the family in which they live (see ECON 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).

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

Spells

Spells of program recipiency (Indicator 7), spells of welfare receipt with no attachment to the labor market (Indicator 8) and spells of poverty (ECON 5) are limited to those spells that begin during the SIPP panel of observation. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. If an individual has two or more spells of dependency, receipt, or poverty, each is counted separately in the analysis.

Data Source for Dependency Measure

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

The CPS data have been widely used to measure trends since the welfare reform legislation of 1996. However, because the CPS does not collect income information in the same detail as the SIPP, it has been subject to criticism for higher levels of underreporting of income, particularly welfare income. To address this concern, our measure of dependency (as well as some of the other indicators in this report) are based on CPS data that have been analyzed by the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3), a microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Although its primary purpose is to simulate program eligibility and the impact of policy proposals, the TRIM3 model also has been used to correct for underreporting of welfare receipt and benefits. Welfare caseloads in TRIM3 are based on CPS data, adjusted upward to ensure that total estimates of recipients equal the total counts from administrative data. To maintain consistency in data trends, we present estimates based on CPS data analyzed by TRIM3 beginning in 1993, the first year the TRIM3 microsimulation model became available.

As shown in Figure D-1, the overall measures of dependency and recipiency have not been greatly affected by the change in data sources. Both data sources show a decline in dependence between 1996 and 1999 and increases in dependence during the 2000s. Still, readers are cautioned against comparing measures for 1987-1995 from the SIPP data in the first three annual reports with the measures for 1993 and later from the TRIM3-adjusted CPS data.

Figure D-1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987 – 2012

src=

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model, and unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

²⁹ Family is generally defined as following the broad U.S. Census Bureau definition of family – all persons residing together that are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Appendix E. The Methodology behind Poverty Measurement

How is Official Poverty Measured?

Official poverty is calculated by comparing families’ incomes to a specific dollar value, which is called a poverty threshold. Thresholds differ by family size, but for any particular family, values are the same for all 50 states. If a family’s yearly income falls below the poverty threshold then each person in the family is counted as poor. The official poverty measure looks only at cash income such as earnings, TANF, or Social Security payments. Only pre-tax income is counted against the poverty threshold. That is, taxes and tax credits are not considered when calculating official poverty. The 2013 official poverty threshold for a family of four, with two adults and two children, was $23,600.

Absolute dollar value thresholds, reflecting consumption at one point in time, were developed in 1963 and 1964 by Mollie Orshansky, an economist in the Social Security Administration. Two tools were necessary, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food plans and costs and the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey. USDA food plans provided the dollar amounts necessary to feed a family at a minimal level.³⁰Orshansky estimated the poverty thresholds by multiplying the cost of a minimal diet by three. Subsequently thresholds were adjusted for family size and composition and each year since 1964 the threshold values have been updated for inflation.³¹

As a widely-used barometer, the official poverty measure offers a consistent metric by which to view changes in poverty over time. The official poverty measure has been criticized over the years for not reflecting families’ current circumstances. Some families receive government benefits but these are not counted by the official measure. For example, in-kind benefits such as SNAP and WIC are not counted as income. By this logic, poverty may be overstated. Alternatively, the official measure ignores nondiscretionary expenses, such as payroll and Social Security taxes, work-related expenses and medical care costs. Such expenses reduce the amount of income that families can use for subsistence needs. Thus poverty could be understated. These and related criticisms led to the development of a research supplemental poverty measure described in detail in the next section.

Poverty status is based on family relationships and household residence. Therefore, for some groups poverty status cannot be determined. Excluded groups include foster children, and those living in college dormitories, institutional group quarters, or military barracks. The new supplemental poverty measure is inclusive of foster children and unmarried partners.

Introducing the Supplemental Poverty Measure

An alternative poverty measure emerged from decades of research by poverty scholars and government agencies called the Supplemental Poverty Measure, or SPM. Following many years of debate and discussion among experts, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report in 1995 outlining recommendations for improving the nation’s measure of poverty.³² In the 15 years following the NAS report, researchers at the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and elsewhere experimented with implementing and refining these recommendations. In 2011, the Census Bureau began formally releasing estimates of poverty levels under the SPM based on the results of this exploratory research, as well as recommendations produced under an Interagency Technical Working Group in 2010.^33²

The official poverty measure continues to serve as a benchmark for program eligibility and remains the official source of poverty statistics for the U.S. The SPM does not replace the official poverty measure but it is a critical tool for understanding the impact of the social safety net for those struggling to meet basic needs.

³⁰ USDA food plans were: Liberal, Moderate, Low-cost, and Economy. The economy food plan was intended for “temporary or emergency use when funds are low.” For detail see “The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official U.S. Poverty Measure” by Gordon M. Fisher. 1992.

³¹ The poverty thresholds were calculated separately for farm and non-farm families until 1980.

³² Citro, Constance F.and Robert T. Michael. (Eds.) 1995. Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

³³ U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Observations from the Interagency Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure. Available at www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/

Files

FINAL Fourteenth Report - FINAL 9 22 15.pdf (pdf, 3.14 MB)

Topics

Caseload Trends & Dynamics | Data Policy | Key Indicators | Welfare, Welfare Reform, & TANF | Poverty Measures

Product Type

Report to Congress

Program

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Supplemental Security Income (SSI) | Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)