Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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

Https

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

Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress, 2002

Publication Date
Feb 28, 2002

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

"

Executive Summary

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare annual reports to Congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence. The 2002 Indicators of Welfare Dependence, the fifth annual report, provides welfare dependence indicators through 1999, reflecting changes that have taken place since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996. As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act, the report focuses on benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which families depend on welfare might also be considered in assessing their degree of dependence. Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in defining and measuring dependence, the bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed the following definition, as one measure to examine in concert with other key indicators of dependence and deprivation:

A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. Welfare dependence is the proportion of all families who are dependent on welfare.

The proposed definition is difficult to measure because of limitations with existing data collection efforts. Most importantly, the available data do not distinguish between cash benefits associated with work activities and non-work-related cash benefits. In addition, there are time lags in the availability of the national data from the detailed surveys that may be best suited to measure dependence. This 2002 report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data to provide updated measures through 1999 for several dependence indicators. Other measures are based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and other data sources. Drawing on these various data sources, this report provides a number of key indicators of welfare recipiency, dependence, and labor force attachment. Selected highlights from the many findings in the report include the following:

  • In 1999, 3.3 percent of the total population was dependent in the sense of receiving more than half of total family income from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). This rate has fallen considerably from the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996. Rates of dependence would be lower if they could be adjusted to exclude welfare income associated with work required to obtain benefits.
  • The drop in dependence parallels the more well-known drop in AFDC/TANF and food stamp caseloads. The percentage of individuals receiving AFDC/TANF, for example, fell from 4.7 percent to 2.1 percent between 1996 and 2000 (see Indicator 3). Food stamp recipiency rates dropped from 9.6 percent to 6.2 percent over the same time period. Recipiency rates for TANF and food stamps fell again between 1999 and 2000, suggesting that dependency rates will continue to fall in 2000 (though the data are not yet available).
  • In an average month in 1999, more than half (59 percent) of TANF recipients lived in families with at least one family member in the labor force. Comparable figures for food stamp and SSI recipients were 58 and 38 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2). Labor force participation, particularly full-time employment, increased considerably among AFDC/TANF families in the last several years.
  • Long-term dependence is relatively rare. Among individuals receiving AFDC at some point over the ten years ending in 1996, 14 percent were dependent on AFDC and food stamps for six or more years of that period (SSI income is excluded from this particular measure of dependency). This represents 1.7 percent of the total population. Another 40 percent of recipients were dependent for one to five of the ten years and 47 percent were not dependent in any year (see Indicator 9).

Since the causes of welfare receipt and dependence are not clearly known, the report also includes a larger set of risk factors associated with welfare receipt. The risk factors are loosely organized into three categories: economic security measures, measures related to employment and barriers to employment, and measures of nonmarital childbearing. The economic security risk factors include measures of poverty and deprivation that are important not only as predictors of dependence, but also as a supplement to the dependence indicators, ensuring that dependence measures are not assessed in isolation. It is important to examine whether decreases in dependency are accompanied by improvements in family economic status or by reductions in family material circumstances. The report includes data on the official poverty rate, one of the most common measures of deprivation:

  • As the dependency rate fell between 1996 and 1999, the poverty rate for all individuals fell also, from 13.7 percent in 1996 to 11.8 percent in 1999. The poverty rate fell again in 2000, declining to 11.3 percent, the lowest rate since 1979 (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1, Figure ECON 1a).

Finally, the report has three appendices that provide additional program data on major welfare programs, as well as alternative measures of dependence and additional data on non-marital births.

Chapter I: Introduction and Overview

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. This 2002 report, the fifth annual indicators report, gives updated data on the measures of welfare recipiency, dependency, and predictors of welfare dependence developed for previous reports. It reflects changes that have taken place since enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996.

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

The first annual report was produced under the oversight of a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators, which assisted the Secretary in defining welfare dependence, developing indicators of welfare dependence, and choosing appropriate data. Under the terms of the original authorizing legislation, the Advisory Board was terminated in October 1997, prior to the submission of the first annual report. Subsequent annual reports have provided updates for the measures developed for the first report. In recent years, the report has been shortened, in keeping with Congressional interest in a smaller set of indicators and predictors of dependency.

This 2002 report provides updated measures through 1999 for several dependency measures. It has become possible to update these measures annually because of a change made last year in the data source for several indicators, from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). Whereas the SIPP data have only been analyzed through 1995, the CPS data are available for more recent years, allowing examination of indicators and predictors of dependency since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996. Those measures that can be updated annually are presented at the front of each chapter, followed by the figures that are derived from data sources that are updated less frequently.

Organization of Report

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the specific summary measures of welfare dependence proposed by the Advisory Board. It also discusses summary measures of poverty, following the Board’s recommendation that dependence measures not be assessed in isolation from measures of deprivation. Analysis of both measures is important because changes in dependence measures could result either from increases in work activity and other factors that would raise family incomes, or from sanctions or other changes in welfare programs that would reduce welfare program participation but might not improve the material circumstances of these families. The introduction concludes with a discussion of data sources used for the report.

Chapter II of the report, Indicators of Dependence, presents eleven indicators of welfare dependence and recipiency. These indicators include dependence measures based on total income from all three programs — AFDC/TANF, SSI, and food stamps — as well as measures of recipiency for each of the three programs considered separately. The labor force participation among families receiving welfare and multiple receipt across programs are also shown. The second half of the chapter also includes longitudinal data on transitions on and off welfare programs and spells of dependence and recipiency.

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 in some way. These predictors are shown in three different groups:

  1. Economic security — including various measures of poverty, receipt of child support, food insecurity, and health insurance coverage — is important in predicting dependence in the sense that families with fewer economic resources are more likely to rely on welfare programs for their support.
  2. Measures of the work status and 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 non-marital births are important since a high proportion of long-term welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage, frequently as teenagers.

Additional data are presented in three appendices. Appendix A provides basic program data on each of the main welfare programs and their recipients; Appendix B shows how dependence is affected by the inclusion of benefits from the SSI program; and Appendix C includes additional data on non-marital childbearing. The main welfare programs included in Appendix A are:

  • The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the largest cash assistance program, provided monthly cash benefits to families with children, until its replacement by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is run directly by the states. Data on the AFDC and TANF programs are provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1977 through June 1997, and TANF data from July 1997 through 2000, or where available, 2001.
  • The Food Stamp Program provides monthly food stamp coupons to all individuals, whether they are living in families or alone, provided their income and assets are below limits set in Federal law. It reaches more poor people over the course of a year than any other means-tested public assistance program. Appendix A provides historical data from 1970 to 2000, or where available, 2001.
  • 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 2000 are provided in Appendix A.

Measuring Welfare Dependence

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

Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. 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 AFDC, food stamps and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. Welfare dependence is the proportion of all families who are dependent on welfare.

This measure is not without its limitations. The Advisory Board recognized that no single measure could fully capture all aspects of dependence and that the proposed measure should be examined in concert with other key indicators of dependence and deprivation. In addition, while the proposed definition 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 overstate the incidence of dependence (as defined above) because welfare income associated with work required to obtain benefits is classified as welfare and not as income from work. This issue may be growing in importance under the increased work requirements of the TANF program. In 2000, the percentage of welfare recipients who were working (including employment, work experience, and community service) reached an all-time high of 33 percent, compared to the 7 percent recorded in 1992.1

This proposed definition also represents an essentially arbitrary choice of a percentage (50 percent) of income from welfare beyond which families will be considered dependent. However, it is relatively easy to measure and to track over time, and is likely to be associated with any very large changes in total dependence, however defined. For example, dependence under this definition has declined as policy changes under welfare reform have moved more recipients into employment or work-related activities.

As shown in Figure SUM 1, 3.3 percent of the population would be considered “dependent” on welfare in 1999 under the above definition. This is about one-quarter of the percentage (13.3 percent) that lived in a family receiving at least some TANF, food stamp or SSI benefits during the year.

Figure SUM 1.Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-1999

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-1999

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

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Both dependency and recipiency rates fell between 1996 and 1999: dependence rates fell from 5.2 to 3.3 percent, while recipiency rates fell from 16.0 to 13.3 percent. The drop in recipiency rates is consistent with administrative data showing declining TANF and food stamp caseloads from 1996 to 1999. What is not apparent from administrative records, but is shown in these national survey data, is that the dependency rate also declined sharply between 1996 and 1999.

Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites, as shown in Table SUM 1, which shows these rates for various racial/ethnic and age categories. Recipiency and dependence also are higher for young children than for adults. However, both recipiency and dependency rates decreased across all racial/ethnic and age categories between 1996 and 1999.

Dependency on assistance also varies depending upon which programs are counted as “welfare programs.” Dependency would be much lower — 1.7 percent — if only AFDC/TANF and food stamp benefits were counted (as shown in Appendix B and as is done in some measures in this report). Whereas the inclusion or exclusion of individuals receiving only SSI benefits had a relatively small effect on dependence indicators several years ago, in 1999 over one-third of dependent individuals are dependent on SSI income only.

Another factor affecting dependence is the time period observed. The summary measures shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 focus on recipiency and dependency rates over a one-year time period. Long-term recipiency and dependency are more rare, as shown in the longitudinal measures in the second half of Chapter II. Indicator 9, for example, shows that among individuals receiving AFDC at some point over the ten years ending in 1996, 14 percent were dependent on AFDC and/or food stamps for six or more years (SSI income is excluded from this particular measure of dependency). This represents about 1.7 percent of the total population. Another 30 percent of recipients were dependent for one to five of the ten years, and 47 percent were not dependent in any year.

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-1999

 1996199719981999
Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, or SSI)
All Persons16.014.813.513.3
 
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White9.99.78.68.4
Non-Hispanic Black35.630.229.629.8
Hispanic32.028.024.523.4
 
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-528.225.122.421.5
Children Ages 6-1024.221.220.019.8
Children Ages 11-1521.119.417.017.3
 
Women Ages 16-6416.014.713.613.6
Men Ages 16-6411.711.110.09.6
Adults Age 65 and over10.310.29.910.0
     
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance)
All Persons5.24.53.83.3
 
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White2.62.52.11.8
Non-Hispanic Black13.811.410.59.1
Hispanic10.99.16.65.4
 
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-511.29.37.86.2
Children Ages 6-109.58.46.76.1
Children Ages 11-158.17.45.74.5
 
Women Ages 16-645.24.63.93.5
Men Ages 16-642.72.52.11.9
Adults Age 65 and over2.42.12.12.0

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

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


1 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 proposed definition

Measuring Deprivation

Changes in dependence may or may not be associated with changes in the level of deprivation, depending on the alternative sources of support found by families who might otherwise be dependent on welfare. To assess the social impacts of any change in dependence, changes in the level of poverty or deprivation also should be considered. This chapter focuses on the poverty rate, the most common measure of deprivation; additional measures of poverty and need are also included under the Economic Risk Factors found in Chapter III.

As shown in Figure SUM 2, poverty rates for all individuals have declined between 1996 and 2000, under both the official poverty rate and other measures that adjust income to take into account cash benefits, non-cash benefits and taxes. The three measures in the graph are based on analyzing three different concepts of income against the poverty threshold:

The bold line shows the official poverty rate, based on total cash income, including earned and unearned income. The official poverty rate was 11.3 percent in 2000.

The dotted line with unfilled circles shows what poverty would be if means-tested cash assistance (primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI) were excluded from cash income. This measure includes earnings and other private cash income, plus social security, workers’ compensation, and other social insurance programs, as income. Poverty under this measure would be higher than the official measure, or 12.0 percent in 2000.

The lowest line shows that poverty would be lower if the cash value of selected non-cash benefits (food and housing) and taxes, including refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), were counted as income.2 Under this definition, poverty rates in 2000 would be nearly two percentage points lower than the official measure, or 9.5 percent.

Figure SUM 2. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2000

Figure SUM 2.  Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2000

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by DHHS. See ECON 4 in Chapter III for underlying table and further notes.

Using any of the three alternative measures, poverty rates decreased between 1996 and 2000. Furthermore, a comparison of Figures SUM 1 and SUM 2 suggests that economic deprivation decreased at the same time as the large decline in caseloads and welfare dependence. Between 1996 and 2000, the “after non-cash benefits and taxes” measure of poverty fell by two percentage points, from 11.5 to 9.5 percent. Over the same time period, the dependence measure also declined, from 5.2 percent to 3.3 percent. The combined effect of welfare reform and the strong economy has been to reduce dependence on welfare at the same time as reducing poverty.


2 The effects of selected non-cash benefits (food and housing) and taxes are shown separately in Figure ECON 4 in Chapter III. Prior to 1993, taxes increased poverty. Since 1993, taxes, including the refunds through the Earned Income Tax Credit, have caused reductions in poverty.

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 on Income Dynamics (PSID), and administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI programs. Beginning with the 2001 report on dependence, there was a shift to using CPS rather than SIPP data for several indicators and predictors of welfare recipiency and dependence. This change was necessary because the Census Bureau has been unable to update the SIPP data analyses beyond the 1995 data presented in prior reports.

If it were not for the lags in data availability, the SIPP would be considered the most useful national survey for measuring welfare dependency. It was used most extensively in the first three annual dependence reports. Its strengths are its longitudinal design, system of monthly accounting, and detail concerning employment, income and participation in federal income-support and related programs. These features make the SIPP particularly effective for capturing the complexities of program dynamics and it continues to be an important source of data in this report, particularly for measures related to AFDC spell duration and transitions in and out of AFDC recipiency, dependency and poverty. More recent SIPP data will be available for next year’s report, allowing examination of program dynamics under the TANF program.

For measures of receipt, dependency, and poverty at a single point in time, however, the report primarily uses the Annual March Demographic Supplement to the CPS, which measures income and poverty over an annual accounting period. The CPS data are available on a more timely basis than the SIPP, and have been widely used to measure trends since the welfare reform legislation of 1996. However, because the CPS does not collect income in the same detail as the SIPP, it has been subject to criticism for underreporting of income, particularly welfare income. To address this concern, some of the indicators in this report are based on CPS data that have been analyzed by the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3), a microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Although its primary purpose is to simulate program eligibility and the impact of policy proposals, the TRIM model has also 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. Even with these adjustments, some measurement differences between the CPS/TRIM data and SIPP data remain.

As shown in Figure SUM 3, the overall measures of dependency and recipiency have not been greatly affected by the change in data sources. Both data sources show a decline in dependence between 1993 and 1995, from 5.9 to 5.1 percent under the SIPP data, and from 5.9 to 5.3 percent under the TRIM-adjusted CPS data. Still, readers are cautioned against comparing measures for 1987-1995 from the SIPP data in the first three annual reports with the measures for 1996-1999 from the TRIM-adjusted CPS data. In Chapter II, indicators using the CPS data have been analyzed for every year since 1993 (the first year for which TRIM-adjusted CPS data are available), providing a new time series of how the indicators are changing over time from a consistent data source.

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-1999

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-1999

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

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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 approximate three-year time period of the SIPP. The PSID has collected annual income data, including transfer income, since 1968, providing vital data for indicators of long-term welfare receipt, dependence, and deprivation. As with the SIPP data, there have been lags in obtaining updated PSID data. This 2002 report provides the first updated analysis of PSID data since the initial Indicators of Welfare Dependence report issued several years ago. The PSID data are now reported for the ten-year time period ending in 1996, as well as for two earlier ten-year time periods.

Finally, the report also draws upon administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI programs. These data are largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data are generally available with little time lags; these data are generally available through fiscal year 2000 (or, for some aggregate caseload statistics, fiscal year 2001). To the extent possible, TANF administrative data are reported in a consistent manner with data from the earlier AFDC program, as noted in the footnotes to the tables in Appendix A. The fact remains that assistance under locally designed TANF programs encompasses a diverse set of cash and non-cash benefits designed to support families in making a transition to work, and so direct comparisons between AFDC receipt and TANF receipt must be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on TANF receipt in national data sets such as the CPS and SIPP.

Most of the data sources allow analysis of the indicators and predictors of welfare dependence across several age and racial/ethnic categories. Where the data are available, statistics are shown for three racial/ethnic groups — non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics.3 In some instances, however, there are not sufficient data on individuals of Hispanic origin, and so the measures are shown for only two racial/ethnic categories.

Three other technical notes, and technical changes to two work-related predictors of dependence, concern the unit of analysis and the difference between annual and monthly measures. The individual, rather than the family or household, is the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report. The individual’s dependency status, however, is generally based on total family income, taking into account means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family. 4This chapter, for example, has reported the percentage of individuals that are dependent (in SUM 1) or poor (in SUM 2) according to annual total family income. Recipiency status is also based on total annual family income in some instances; in SUM 1, for example, recipients are individuals in families receiving assistance at some point in the year. In most other indicators, recipiency is measured as the direct receipt of a benefit by an individual in a month. The difference between an individual and a family measure of recipiency is largest in the SSI program, which provides benefits to individuals and couples, not to families.

There also are differences between monthly and annual observation of benefit receipt. For example, 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.

Finally, data sources for two work-related risk factors have been modified this year to allow for their annual update in future reports. The data source for WORK 6, dealing with alcohol and substance abuse among adults, is still the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). However, as a result of a change in methodology in the NHSDA, the data from 1999 and 2000 are not comparable to earlier data. Thus, while the 2002 report includes only the 1999 and 2000 data, this risk factor can be updated in the future. In addition, past versions of work-related risk factor WORK 7, which deals with disability in adults and children, have used unpublished data from a 1994 disability supplement to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). As this was a one-time supplement, this risk factor has not been updated since the first indicators report in 1997. The 2002 report uses data from the annual NHIS, specifically the 2000 survey, to provide similar data that will be updated in future reports; however, these data should not be compared with disability risk factors from previous reports.


3Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the totals but are not shown separately.

4Family is generally defined as following the broad Census Bureau definition of family — all persons residing together that are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Chapter II: Indicators of Dependence

Following the format of the previous annual reports to Congress, Chapter II presents summary data related to indicators of dependence. These indicators differ from other welfare statistics because of their emphasis on welfare dependence, rather than simple welfare receipt. As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested measuring dependence as the proportion of families with more than 50 percent of their total income in a one-year period coming from AFDC (now TANF), food stamps and/or SSI. Furthermore, this welfare income was not to be associated with work activities.

The indicators in Chapter II were selected to provide information about dependence, following, to the extent feasible, the definition of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board. 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 is, one indicator that measures both percentage of income from means-tested assistance and presence of work activities.

Instead, this chapter includes some indicators that focus on the percentage of recipients’ income from means-tested assistance, while other indicators focus on presence of work activities at the same time as welfare receipt. Still other indicators present summary data and characteristics on all recipients, not limited to those with more than 50 percent of total income from welfare programs or those without work activities.

Overall, the indicators of dependency were selected to reflect both the range and depth of dependence. This chapter focuses on recipients of three major means-tested cash and nutritional assistance programs: cash assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for elderly and disabled recipients, and the Food Stamp Program.

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

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

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

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

Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs. While means-tested public assistance programs are open to all that meet their requirements, not all eligible households participate in the programs. This indicator uses administrative data and microsimulation models to reflect “take up rates” — the number of families that actually participate in the programs as a percentage of those who are legally eligible.

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

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

Indicator 7: Dependence Spell Duration. Like Indicator 6, this indicator is concerned with dynamics of welfare receipt and welfare dependence. It shows the proportion of individuals with short, medium, and long spells, or episodes, of AFDC receipt. The focus is on individuals in AFDC families with no labor force participants.

Indicator 8: Program Spell Duration. One critical aspect of dependence is how long individuals receive means-tested assistance. Like Indicator 7, this indicator provides information on short, medium, and long spells of welfare receipt. It differs from Indicator 7 in looking at all recipients, regardless of attachment to the labor force, and in analyzing recipients of each of the three major means-tested programs — AFDC, food stamps, and SSI.

Indicator 9: Long-Term Dependency. This indicator uses data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) to examine dependency over three separate ten-year time periods. It measures dependency as individuals with more than 50 percent of their income from AFDC and food stamps, not counting SSI.

Indicator 10: 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 8, to examine the cumulative amount of time individuals receive assistance over a period of several years. The issue of long-term receipt is particularly important in light of time limits that have been enacted under state TANF programs.

Indicator 11: 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 AFDC.

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a.Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1999

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1999

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • About 3.3 percent of the total population in 1999 received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and SSI. As shown in Table IND1b, the percentage of families dependent on public assistance steadily decreased over the past several years.
  • A total of 13.3 percent of the overall population received at least one dollar in means-tested assistance in 1999. However, for over half of these individuals (7.7 percent of the total population), such assistance represented 25 percent or less of annual family income. The vast majority (87 percent) of the population received no means-tested assistance in 1999.
  • Very young children (birth to five years) were more likely than children of other ages to be in families receiving some amount of public assistance. As shown in Table IND 1a, 6 percent of very young children were dependent on public assistance in 1999.
  • In 1999, only one out of four of individuals receiving some public assistance reported that TANF, food stamps, and SSI accounted for more than half of their total family income. This number showed a decline in dependence since 1996, when nearly one in three individuals receiving public assistance were dependent on it.

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 1999

 0%>0% and <= 25%>25% and <= 50%>50% and <= 75%>75% and <= 100%Total > 50%
All Persons86.77.72.31.12.23.3

Non-Hispanic White

91.75.31.20.71.21.8

Non-Hispanic Black

70.214.56.23.06.19.1

Hispanic

76.613.54.51.93.55.4

Children Ages 0-5

78.511.34.02.33.96.2

Children Ages 6-10

80.29.93.82.53.66.1

Children Ages 11-15

82.79.33.61.82.74.4

Women Ages 16-64

86.57.92.21.22.33.5

Men Ages 16-64

90.46.41.40.61.41.9

Adults Age 65 and over

90.06.21.90.61.42.0

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

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-1999

 0%>0% and <= 25%>25% and <= 50%>50% and <= 75%>75% and <= 100%Total > 50%
199383.47.83.01.84.15.9
199482.88.43.11.84.05.8
199583.28.53.11.83.55.3
199684.07.83.11.93.35.2
199785.37.72.51.53.14.5
199886.57.32.51.32.53.8
199986.77.72.31.12.23.3

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

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Figure IND 1c.  Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 1999

Figure IND 1c.  Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 1999

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • Those in families with incomes below the poverty level received nearly half (49 percent) of their total family income from earnings and 30 percent of their total family income from means-tested assistance programs (AFDC/TANF, SSI, and food stamps) in 1999. In contrast, those with family incomes over 200 percent of the poverty level received the majority (85 percent) of their incomes from earnings and less than one percent of their income from means-tested assistance (a percentage so small as to not be visible in Figure IND 1c).
  • The percentage of family income received from earnings is inversely proportional to overall family income relative to the poverty line. For example, the percentage of income received from earnings for those living in deep poverty (below 50 percent of poverty) was only 30 percent, compared to 49 percent for all poor individuals in 1999.
  • On average, children were more likely than the elderly to live in families receiving a higher percentage of their income from means-tested assistance programs, as shown by Table IND 1c. The elderly received more income from other sources, such as Social Security benefits and private pensions.
  • The percentage of income received from earnings for families with incomes below the poverty level has increased over time, as shown in Table IND 1d. In 1995, poor families received 40 percent of their incomes from earnings; this percentage rose to 49 percent in 1999.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Age: 1999

 < 50% poverty<100% of poverty<200% of poverty200%+ of poverty

All Persons

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

53.129.89.70.2

Earnings

30.249.369.185.0

Other Income

16.620.821.214.7

Racial/Ethnic Categories

    

Non-Hispanic White

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

46.825.96.70.1

Earnings

30.045.965.484.2

Other Income

23.228.227.815.7

Non-Hispanic Black

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

62.041.116.70.5

Earnings

24.839.263.987.1

Other Income

13.219.819.412.4

Hispanic

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

49.725.29.90.6

Earnings

38.063.280.090.7

Other Income

12.311.610.18.7

Age Categories

    

Children Ages 0-5

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

61.133.511.80.3

Earnings

26.856.280.093.0

Other Income

12.210.38.26.8

Children Ages 6-10

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

60.033.911.40.2

Earnings

27.052.778.091.9

Other Income

13.013.310.78.0

Children Ages 11-15

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

56.631.710.80.2

Earnings

26.651.575.290.8

Other Income

16.816.813.99.0

Women Ages 16-64

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

49.831.610.70.2

Earnings

32.948.572.588.0

Other Income

17.319.916.911.8

Men Ages 16-64

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

40.423.77.60.2

Earnings

40.755.376.489.1

Other Income

19.021.016.110.7

Adults Age 65 and over

    

TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps

25.318.76.30.4

Earnings

2.64.910.534.1

Other Income

72.176.483.165.5

Note:  Total income is total annual family income, including the value of food stamps. 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.

Source:  March CPS data, 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 poverty200%+ of poverty
1995    
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps65.941.314.20.3
Earnings22.540.464.885.4
Other Income11.618.321.014.3
1998    
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps58.932.010.60.2
Earnings27.047.967.885.3
Other Income14.120.121.614.5
1999    
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps53.129.89.70.2
Earnings30.249.369.185.0
Other Income16.620.821.214.7

Note:  Total income is total annual family income, including the value of food stamps. 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.

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program: 1999

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program: 1999

  • In 1999, 59 percent of individuals who received TANF, 58 percent of individuals who received food stamps, and 39 percent of individuals who received SSI were in families with at least one person in the labor force, either part-time or full-time.
  • Over one-third of TANF and food stamp recipients lived in families with at least one full-time worker in 1999, while slightly less than one-fourth had a part-time labor force participant. In contrast, SSI recipients were more likely to live in families with no labor force participant.
  • As shown in Table IND 2a, among recipients of TANF, food stamps, and SSI, a larger percentage of children under age 6 were in families with at least one full-time worker than children ages 6 to 15.
  • The percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with at least one full-time worker increased from 24 percent in 1996 to 36 percent in 1999, as shown in Table IND 2b.

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program, Race/Ethnicity, and Age: 1999

 No one in LFAt least one in LF, 
No one FT
At least one FT worker
TANF
All Persons40.824.135.1
Non-Hispanic White36.726.137.2
Non-Hispanic Black47.927.124.9
Hispanic42.217.040.8

Children Ages 0-5

39.721.638.7
Children Ages 6-1047.124.628.3
Children Ages 11-1543.821.834.4
Women Ages 16-6440.125.634.3
Men Ages 16-6429.930.140.0
Adults Age 65 and over33.62.763.7
SSI
All Persons61.59.529.1
Non-Hispanic White68.07.824.2
Non-Hispanic Black61.912.225.9
Hispanic47.610.541.9
Children Ages 0-526.415.957.7
Children Ages 6-1036.220.043.8
Children Ages 11-1531.218.850.1
Women Ages 16-6468.79.421.9
Men Ages 16-6464.78.726.6
Adults Age 65 and over63.76.629.7
Food Stamps
All Persons42.522.535.0
Non-Hispanic White44.521.234.2
Non-Hispanic Black43.025.231.8
Hispanic39.018.842.3

Children Ages 0-5

34.922.842.3
Children Ages 6-1036.025.238.8
Children Ages 11-1536.623.140.4
Women Ages 16-6442.624.433.0
Men Ages 16-6440.822.836.4
Adults Age 65 and over88.46.25.4

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:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1993-1999

 No one in LFAt least one in LF, No one FTAt least one FT worker
199357.024.218.8
199454.824.820.4
199550.624.325.1
199650.125.624.3
199747.628.024.4
199844.325.829.9
199940.824.135.1

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 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:  March CPS data, 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, by Age: 1970-2000

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2000

Source:  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, (Available online at http://www.census.gov).

  • Although the survey data needed to examine overall welfare receipt and dependency are not yet available past 1999, administrative data for AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI provide measures of recipiency for each of these three programs through 2000, as shown in Figures IND 3a, IND 3b, and IND 3c. Additional administrative data are shown in Appendix A.
  • Just over 2 percent of the population received TANF in 2000. This is the lowest rate of AFDC/TANF receipt in the 30 years shown in Table IND 3a. The percentage of the total population receiving AFDC/TANF has dropped significantly since 1994, when it was at a 25-year high of over 5 percent.
  • AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been much higher over time for children than for adults, with the child recipiency rates also showing more pronounced changes over time. Between 1996 and 2000, the receipt of AFDC/TANF receipt among children was cut in half (from 12 to 6 percent), the most rapid decline in a generation.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2000

 Total RecipientsAdult RecipientsChild Recipients
Fiscal YearNumber
(thousands)

Percent

Number 
(thousands)

Percent

Number
(thousands)

Percent

19707,1883.51,8631.45,3257.6
19719,2814.52,5161.86,7659.7
197210,3454.92,8482.07,49710.8
197310,7605.12,9842.17,77611.3
197410,5915.02,9352.07,65611.3
197510,8545.03,0782.17,77611.6
197611,1715.13,2712.27,90011.9
197710,9335.03,2302.17,70311.8
197810,4854.73,1282.07,35711.4
197910,1464.53,0711.97,07511.0
198010,4224.63,2262.07,19611.3
198110,9794.83,4912.17,48811.8
198210,2334.43,3952.06,83810.9
198310,4674.53,5482.16,91911.1
198410,6774.53,6522.17,02511.2
198510,6304.53,5892.07,04111.2
198610,8104.53,6372.17,17311.4
198710,8784.53,6242.07,25411.5
198810,7344.43,5362.07,19811.4
198910,7414.43,5031.97,23811.4
199011,2634.53,6432.07,62011.9
199112,3914.94,0162.18,37512.9
199213,4235.34,3362.39,08713.7
199313,9435.44,5192.49,42414.1
199414,0335.44,5542.49,47914.0
199513,4795.14,3222.29,15713.4
199612,4774.73,9212.08,55612.4
199710,7854.03,1121.67,67311.0
19988,6603.22,5811.36,0788.7
19997,0842.61,9771.05,1077.3
20005,8912.11,5590.74,3316.0

Notes: See Appendix A, Tables TANF 2, TANF 12, and TANF 14, for more detailed data on recipiency rates, including recipiency rates by calendar year. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories. 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 is estimated using data from the Emergency TANF Data Report.

Source:  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, (Available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2000

Figure IND 3b.  Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2000

Source:  USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2000, and earlier reports, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, (Available online at http://www.census.gov).

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2000

 Total RecipientsAdult Recipients Age 60 and overAdult Recipients Ages 18-59Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Fiscal YearNumber
(thousands)
PercentNumber
(thousands)
PercentNumber
(thousands)
PercentNumber
(thousands)
Percent
197517,2178.0
197616,7337.79,12613.8
197715,5797.1
197814,5036.5
197915,9767.1
198019,2538.51,7414.97,1865.69,87615.5
198120,6549.01,8455.07,8116.09,80315.5
198220,4468.81,6414.47,8386.09,59115.3
198321,6679.31,6544.48,9606.710,91017.4
198420,7968.81,7584.58,5216.310,49216.8
198519,8478.31,7834.58,2586.19,90615.8
198619,3818.11,6314.17,8955.79,84415.7
198719,0727.91,5893.97,6845.59,77115.5
198818,6137.61,5003.77,5065.39,35114.8
198918,7787.61,5823.87,5605.39,42914.9
199020,0388.01,5113.68,0845.610,12715.8
199122,5999.01,5933.89,1906.411,95218.4
199225,3699.91,6873.910,5507.213,34920.2
199326,95210.51,8764.411,2147.614,19621.2
199427,43410.61,9524.511,5397.714,39121.2
199526,57910.11,8964.310,9627.313,86020.2
199625,4949.61,8924.310,7667.113,18919.1
199722,8208.51,8344.19,3856.111,84717.0
199819,7467.31,6373.77,7725.010,52415.1
199918,1466.71,6993.87,0904.59,35413.3
200017,1206.21,7023.76,6234.28,76512.4

Note:  See Appendix A, Tables FSP 1 and FSP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories.

Source:  USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2000, and earlier reports, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, (Available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2000

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2000

Source:  Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001 (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics), and U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, (Available online at http://www.census.gov).

  • Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and food stamps, which have been influenced by outside factors such as the economy and welfare reform, overall recipiency rates for SSI show less variation over time. After trending downward slightly from 1975 to the early 1980s, the proportion of the total population that receives SSI has risen from 1.7 percent in 1983 to 2.5 percent in 1996 and subsequently declined slightly to 2.3 percent. As shown in Table IND 3c, the total number of recipients has grown by 70Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and food stamps, which have be
  • Elderly adults (age 65 and older) have much higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap has narrowed, however, as the percentage of adults age 65 and older receiving SSI has been cut nearly in half, declining from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.7 percent in 2000.
  • The proportion of children receiving SSI increased gradually between 1975 and 1990, and grew more rapidly in the early-to-mid 1990s, reaching a high of 1.4 percent in 1996. The rate has since fallen slightly, with 1.2 percent of children receiving SSI in 2000.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2000

 Total RecipientsAdult Recipients Age 65 & overAdult Recipients Ages 18-64Child Recipients Ages 0-18
DateNumber
(thousands)
PercentNumber
(thousands)
PercentNumber
(thousands)
PercentNumber
(thousands)
Percent
Dec 19754,3142.02,50810.91,6991.31070.2
Dec 19764,2361.92,39710.21,7141.31250.2
Dec 19774,2381.92,3539.71,7381.31470.2
Dec 19784,2171.92,3049.31,7471.31660.3
Dec 19794,1501.82,2468.81,7271.31770.3
Dec 19804,1421.82,2218.61,7311.21900.3
Dec 19814,0191.72,1218.01,7031.21950.3
Dec 19823,8581.72,0117.41,6551.21920.3
Dec 19833,9011.72,0037.31,7001.21980.3
Dec 19844,0291.72,0377.21,7801.22120.3
Dec 19854,1381.72,0317.11,8791.32270.4
Dec 19864,2691.82,0186.92,0101.32410.4
Dec 19874,3851.82,0156.72,1191.42510.4
Dec 19884,4641.82,0066.62,2031.52550.4
Dec 19894,5931.92,0266.52,3021.52650.4
Dec 19904,8171.92,0596.52,4501.63090.5
Dec 19915,1182.02,0806.52,6421.73970.6
Dec 19925,5662.22,1006.52,9101.95560.8
Dec 19935,9842.32,1136.43,1482.07231.1
Dec 19946,2962.42,1196.33,3352.18411.2
Dec 19956,5142.52,1156.33,4822.29171.3
Dec 19966,6302.52,1106.23,5682.29551.4
Dec 19976,4952.42,0546.03,5622.28801.3
Dec 19986,5662.42,0335.93,6462.28871.3
Dec 19996,5572.42,0195.83,6912.28471.2
Dec 20006,6022.32,0115.73,7442.18471.2

Note:  December population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the Census Bureau's July 1 population estimates for the current and the following year (the December population estimates for the year 2000 are extrapolations of April 1, 2000 population figures). See Appendix A, Tables SSI 2, SSI 8, and SSI 9 for more detailed data on SSI recipiency rates. In this report the categories of children under 18 and adults 18-64 differ from those in previous editions where the category of children included a small number of dependents 18 and older who were students.

Source:  Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001 (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics), and U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, (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/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Programs: Selected Years

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

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

  • Whereas Indicator 3 examined participants as a percentage of the total population (recipiency rates), this indicator examines participating families or households as a percentage of the estimated eligible population (participation rates, also known as “take up” rates).
  • Participation rates for both AFDC/TANF and the Food Stamp Program fell significantly between 1995 and 1999, with the sharpest decline between 1996 and 1998.
  • Only 52 percent of the families estimated as eligible for TANF actually enrolled and received benefits in an average month in 1999. This was significantly lower than AFDC participation rates, which ranged from 77 percent to 86 percent between 1981 and 1996. The food stamp participation rate in 1999 was also 52 percent, its lowest level since 1990.
  • In contrast to the declines in AFDC/TANF and Food Stamp Program participation, the SSI participation rate rose by more than 9 percentage points between 1993 and 1999. In 1999, the SSI participation rate was 74 percent, well above the rates for the other two programs.
  • Simulations of the AFDC/TANF eligible population show relatively small changes in the number of families eligible for benefits between 1995 and 1998. These data suggest that the large caseload declines between 1995 and 1998 were largely a result of declining participation or “take up” rates among the eligible populations. Between 1998 and 1999, however, the eligible population dropped by roughly 600,000 families, to the lowest level since 1990.

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

 Eligible Families 
(in millions)
Participating Families 
(in millions)
Participation Rate
(percent)
19814.83.880.2
19834.73.777.7
19854.73.779.3
19874.93.876.7
19884.83.778.4
19894.53.883.6
19904.94.182.2
19925.64.885.7
19936.15.081.7
19946.15.082.6
1994 (revised)6.15.082.1
19955.74.884.3
19965.64.478.9
19975.53.767.5
1997 (adjusted)5.43.769.2
19985.53.155.8
19994.92.652.3

Notes: Participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) which uses CPS data to simulate AFDC/TANF eligibility and participation for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Most notably, since 1994, the model has been revised to more accurately estimate SSI participation among children, and since 1997 the model was adjusted to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. The numbers of eligible and participating families shown above 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.

Source: DHHS, Administration for Children and Families caseload tabulations, and unpublished data from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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

 Eligible Households
(in millions)
Participating Households 
(in millions)
Participation Rate 
(percent)
September 7616.35.333
February 7814.05.338
August 8014.07.452
August 8214.57.551
August 8414.27.352
August 8615.37.147
August 8814.97.047
August 9014.58.055
August 9115.69.259
August 9216.710.262
August 9317.010.964
August 94 (o)17.011.065
September 94 (r)15.510.769
September 9515.110.469
September 9615.59.964
September 9714.88.457
September 9814.27.654
September 9913.97.352

Note:  Eligible households estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Food Stamp Program. Caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Most notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate (and lower) estimates of eligible households. The original 1994 estimate and 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.

Source:  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1994 to 1999.

  • The proportion of eligible households who participated in the Food Stamp program fell from 64 percent in 1996 to 52 percent in 1999, a drop of 12 percentage points. This is the fourth year in a row that there has been a decline in Food Stamp participation rates.
  • In addition, there was a decline in the number of households eligible for the Food Stamp program, from 15.5 million in September 1996 to just under 14 million in September 1999. This decline was driven by new eligibility restrictions on aliens and able-bodied adults without dependent children, growth in the economy, changes in the TANF program, and other factors.
  • The significant drop in participating households, from just under 10 million households in September 1996 to 7.3 million households in September 1999, reflects the combined effect of a decline in the eligible population and lower participation rates.

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program, by Type: 1993-1999

 All Adult UnitsOne-Person UnitsMarried-Couple Units
AgedDisabled
199362.057.071.037.0
199465.058.473.043.9
199569.164.974.052.2
199666.660.473.546.7
199771.162.779.449.1
199870.763.677.948.1
199974.365.883.347.8

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

Source:  Unpublished data from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • In contrast to the declining participation rates for the AFDC/TANF and Food Stamp programs, the participation rate for adult units in the SSI Program has been increasing, from 62 percent in 1993, to 74 percent in 1999. Note, however, that some of the apparent growth between 1996 and 1997 may be due to a revision in estimating methodology, as noted above.
  • In 1999, as in past years, disabled adults in one-person units had a higher participation rate (83 percent) than both aged adults in one-person units (66 percent) and adults in married-couple units (48 percent).

Indicator 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, & SSI), Among Those Receiving Assistance: 1999

Figure IND 5.  Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, & SSI), Among Those Receiving Assistance: 1999

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

  • Of the 9 percent of the population in families receiving TANF, food stamps, or SSI benefits in an average month in 1998, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) received assistance from only one program. Most of these received food stamps or SSI benefits only. Another common pattern of benefit receipt, found in 24 percent of those with any receipt, was TANF and food stamps.
  • Children are more likely than others to live in families receiving TANF and/or food stamps. For example, 16 percent of children under six lived in families receiving any public assistance in an average month in 1999, and 6 percent of children under six lived in families receiving both TANF and food stamps, as shown in Table IND 5a.
  • The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from at least one program among AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI in an average month decreased during the mid-to-late 1990s (from 12 percent in 1996 to less than 9 percent in 1999), as shown in Table IND 5b. The decline was most dramatic for those families receiving a combination of AFDC/TANF and food stamps.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 1999

 

Any Receipt

One Program Only

Two Programs
TANFFSSSI

TANF & FS

FS & SSI
All Persons8.50.43.81.32.01.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White5.20.22.30.91.10.7
Non-Hispanic Black21.20.410.82.35.02.6
Hispanic13.81.45.72.03.61.1
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-516.01.17.40.66.20.6
Children Ages 6-1014.70.88.00.64.70.6
Children Ages 11-1512.40.76.50.74.00.5
 
Women Ages 16-648.00.33.61.11.91.0
Men Ages 16-644.80.22.31.10.50.7
Adults Age 65 and over7.60.01.93.50.02.2

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, SSI): 1993-1999

 Any ReceiptOne Program OnlyTwo Programs
AFDC/ TANFFSSSIAFDC/TANF & FSFS & SSI
199312.60.65.21.14.81.0
199412.80.55.31.24.61.1
199512.30.45.01.24.51.1
199612.00.35.31.24.01.1
199710.20.44.31.33.11.0
19989.00.43.91.42.40.9
19998.50.43.81.32.01.0

Note:  Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt based on full recipient unit. By definition, individuals may not 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 over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II).

Source:  March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 1995 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 1994, by Race/Ethnicity

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 1995 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 1994, by Race/Ethnicity

Source:  Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 panel.

  • Nearly four-fifths (79 percent) of all recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 1994 also received more than 50 percent of their total income from these same programs in 1995.
  • Of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from AFDC, food stamps and SSI in 1994, a larger percentage of non-Hispanic whites became “less dependent” in 1995 (received 50 percent or less of their total income from means-tested assistance programs) compared to Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks.
  • As shown in Table IND 6, a slightly larger percentage of women who received more than half of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 1994 remained “dependent” in 1995 compared to the same percentage for men (79 percent compared to 73 percent).

Table IND 6. Dependency Status in 1995 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 1994, by Race/Ethnicity and Age

Individuals Receiving more than 50% of Income from Assistance in 1994 Total (000's)Percentage of Persons Receiving
No Aid in 1995Up to 50% in 1995Over 50% in 1995
All Persons13,9862.718.878.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White4,8043.126.270.7
Non-Hispanic Black4,7102.319.278.5
Hispanic3,4182.911.685.5
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-53,1852.018.679.4
Children Ages 6-102,1020.617.881.6
Children Ages 11-151,7241.619.578.9
 
Men Ages 16-641,8662.518.772.6
Women Ages 16-644,4727.120.478.8
Adults Age 65 and over6364.617.977.5

Note:  Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC, food stamps, and SSI. While only affecting a small number of cases, general assistance income is included within AFDC 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. Because full calendar year data for 1995 were not available for all SIPP respondents, some transitions were based on twelve-month periods that did not correspond exactly to calendar years.

Source:  Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 panel.

Indicator 7. Dependence Spell Duration

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Source:  Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 panel.

  • Forty-three percent of AFDC spells for individuals in families with no one in the labor force ended within a year. This measure is for individuals entering AFDC in 1993-1995, prior to enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).
  • Over one-quarter (27 percent) of AFDC spells for individuals in families where no one participated in the labor force lasted four months or less.
  • As shown in Table IND 7, a smaller percentage of AFDC spells to children in families with no labor force participants ended in four months or less compared to their adult counterparts (25 percent compared to 31 percent).
  • Spells shown in Figure IND 7 are limited to spells of recipients in families without any labor force participation. Spell lengths are shorter in Figure IND 8, which shows spells for all recipients, including those in families with labor force participants. For example, whereas only half (50 percent) of spells shown in Figure IND 7 end in 20 months or less, over two-thirds (69 percent) of all AFDC spells last 20 months or less, as shown in Figure IND 8.

Table IND 7. Percentage of AFDC Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

 Spells <=4 monthsSpells <=12 monthsSpells <=20 monthsSpells >20 months
All Persons27.243.450.349.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White30.240.743.057.0
Non-Hispanic Black17.445.6N/AN/A
Hispanic33.2N/AN/AN/A
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-1524.741.949.150.9
Adults Ages 16-6430.645.851.948.1

Note:  Spell length categories are not mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. AFDC spells are defined as those spells starting during the 1993 SIPP panel for individuals in families with no labor force participants. For certain racial/ethnic categories, data are not available (N/A) due to insufficient sample size.

Source:  Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 panel.

Indicator 8. Program Spell Duration

Figure IND 8. Percentage of AFDC, Food Stamp, and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 8. Percentage of AFDC, Food Stamp, and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Source:  Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 Panel.

  • Between the years 1993 and 1995, short spells lasting 4 months or less accounted for 31 percent of AFDC spells, 24 percent of SSI spells, and 33 percent of food stamp spells.
  • Over one-half of all AFDC and food stamp spells lasted one year or less (56 percent and 60 percent, respectively). In contrast, only 32 percent of SSI spells ended within one year. The percentage of SSI spells that lasted more than 20 months is twice the percentage of AFDC and food stamp spells that lasted this long (see Table IND 5).
  • As shown in Table IND 8, for AFDC spells, a larger percentage of short spells (lasting 4 months or less) and a smaller percentage of long spells (lasting more than 20 months) occurred among non-Hispanic whites compared to non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics.
  • A larger percentage of AFDC and food stamp spells among adults ages 16 to 64 ended within 4 months compared to spells among children.
  • Short spells are less common among recipients in families without labor force participants, as shown previously in Figure and Table IND 7.

Table IND 8. Percentage of AFDC, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

 Spells <=4 monthsSpells <=12 monthsSpells <=20 monthsSpells >20 months
AFDC
All Recipients30.756.168.631.4

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 
Non-Hispanic White35.662.272.327.7
Non-Hispanic Black24.652.366.733.3
Hispanic30.852.563.436.6

Age Categories

 
Children Ages 0-1528.153.665.634.4
Adults Ages 16-6433.559.072.227.8
SSI    
All Recipients24.031.936.663.4

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 
Non-Hispanic White27.234.640.859.2
Non-Hispanic Black20.526.230.070.0
Hispanic20.032.2NANA
Age Categories
Adults Ages 16-6426.834.639.760.3

FOOD STAMPS

 
All Recipients33.159.970.030.0

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 
Non-Hispanic White34.362.171.528.5
Non-Hispanic Black28.453.464.935.1
Hispanic35.464.071.128.9

Age Categories

 
Children Ages 0-1529.856.567.033.0
Adults Ages 16-6435.963.072.827.2

Note:  Spell length categories are not mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. AFDC spells are defined as those starting during the 1993 SIPP Panel. For certain age and racial/etnic categories, data are not available (N/A) because of insufficient sample size. Data on SSI recipiency for children are not available (N/A).

Source:  Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 Panel.

Indicator 9. Long-term Dependency

Figure IND 9.Percentage of AFDC Recipients with More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC and Food Stamps Between 1987 and 1996, by Years of Dependency

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC Recipients with More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC and Food Stamps Between 1987 and 1996, by Years of Dependency

Source:  Unpublished data from the PSID, 1988-1997.

  • Almost half (47 percent) of all persons who received AFDC at some point in the ten-year period ending in 1996 were not dependent on welfare in any of these years. Specifically, they did not receive more than 50 percent of their income from AFDC and/or food stamps in any of the ten years (SSI receipt is excluded from this measure of dependency). This was also true for recipients in the two earlier ten-year time periods, as shown in Table IND 9.
  • About 14 percent of recipients in the most recent ten-year period were dependent (received more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC and food stamps) for more than five years between 1987 and 1996. The 14 percent of recipients who were dependent for six or more years represent 1.7 percent of the total population. In addition, 16 percent of AFDC recipients were dependent for three to five years, and 24 percent were dependent for one or two years.
  • As shown in Table IND 9, young children (ages 0-5 in 1987) are more likely to experience long-term dependency than other individuals. About one-fourth (26 percent) of such children receiving AFDC at least once between 1987 and 1996 were dependent on AFDC and food stamp income for six or more years. Another 45 percent were dependent for one to five years, and only 28 percent were not dependent in any year.

Table IND 9. Percentage of AFDC Recipients with More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC and Food Stamps Across Three Ten-Year Time Periods, by Years of Dependency, Race, and Age

Between 1967 and 1976:

 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5 in 1967
Years Dependent:AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
0 Years47.933.056.237.125.044.3
1-2 Years23.225.621.926.623.628.4
3-5 Years17.522.314.822.227.019.3
6-8 Years8.012.35.79.415.55.8
9-10 Years3.36.81.44.78.92.2

Between 1977 and 1986:

 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5 in 1977

Years Dependent:

AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
0 Years49.538.856.232.018.940
1-2 Years23.724.023.526.625.127.6
3-5 Years12.415.410.514.119.410.9
6-8 Years9.012.07.115.015.015.0
9-10 Years5.59.92.812.221.76.5

Between 1987 and 1996:

 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5 in 1987

Years Dependent:

AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
0 Years46.535.554.528.218.837.9
1-2 Years23.622.724.222.421.123.8
3-5 Years16.217.914.923.021.824.2
6-8 Years8.014.13.515.323.07.3
9-10 Years5.89.82.911.015.36.8

Note:  The base for the percentages consists of individuals receiving at least $1 of AFDC in any year in the ten-year period. Footnotes in previous reports erroneously defined the base for these percentages as individuals receiving at least $1 of AFDC in the first year of the ten-year period. The current table is based on the same methodology used to compute estimates for earlier reports. Child recipients are defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This measures years of dependency over the specified ten-year time periods and does not take into account years of dependency that may have occurred before or after the ten-year period.

Source:  Unpublished data from the PSID 1968-93 final release files and 1994-1997 unreleased preliminary data as of January, 2002.

Indicator 10. Long-term Receipt

Figure IND 10. Percentage of AFDC Recipients, by Years of Receipt Between 1987 and 1996

Figure IND 10.  Percentage of AFDC Recipients, by Years of Receipt Between 1987 and 1996

Source:  Unpublished data from the PSID, 1988-1997.

  • Among all persons receiving AFDC at some point in the ten-year period ending in 1996, about half (51 percent) received assistance for only one or two of these years. About one quarter (27 percent) received AFDC for three to five years, and close to one quarter (22 percent) received AFDC for more than five years.
  • As shown in Table IND 10, compared to non-black recipients, a large percentage of black recipients received AFDC for more than five years in all three ten-year time periods.
  • A larger percentage of child recipients experienced long-term receipt and a smaller percentage experienced short-term receipt in all three time periods relative to the percentages for all recipients, as shown in Table IND 10.
  • The percentage of AFDC recipients with long-term assistance (at least six years) is somewhat lower in the most recent ten-year time period — 22 percent — than in the earlier two time periods (28 and 26 percent).
  • Whereas nearly one-quarter (22 percent) of recipients received at least some AFDC for six or more years between 1987 and 1996 (as shown in Figure IND 10), only 14 percent of recipients received more than 50 percent of their income from AFDC and food stamps for six or more years over the same time period (as previously shown in Figure IND 9).

Table IND 10: Percentage of AFDC Recipients Across Three Ten-Year Time Periods by Years of Receipt, Race, and Age 

Between 1967 and 1976:

 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5 in 1967
Years received AFDC:AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
1-2 Years46.832.254.939.624.648.6
3-5 Years27.132.424.130.738.526.0
6-8 Years17.922.315.418.319.917.3
9-10 Years8.213.25.511.417.08.0

Between 1977 and 1986:

 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5 in 1967
Years received AFDC:AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
1-2 Years46.132.154.935.517.046.7
3-5 Years26.029.324.023.131.518.0
6-8 Years17.422.913.919.722.717.8
9-10 Years10.515.77.321.728.817.4

Between 1987 and 1996:

 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5 in 1967
Years received AFDC:AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
1-2 Years51.039.259.734.618.851.1
3-5 Years26.627.625.929.633.525.6
6-8 Years13.518.210.020.625.215.9
9-10 Years8.815.04.315.122.57.4

Note:  As in Table IND 9, the base for the percentages consists of individuals receiving at least $1 of AFDC in any year in the ten-year period. Footnotes in previous reports erroneously defined the base for these percentages as individuals receiving at least $1 of AFDC in the first year of the ten-year period. The current table is based on the same methodology used to compute estimates for earlier reports. Child recipients are defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This 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 the ten-year period.

Source:  Unpublished data from the PSID 1968-93 final release files and 1994-1997 unreleased preliminary data as of January, 2002.

Indicator 11. Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells

Table IND 11a. Percentage of First AFDC Spell Beginnings Associated with Specific Events: Selected Periods

 Spell Began
1973-19791980-19851986-1991
First birth to an unmarried, non-cohabiting mother27.920.922.2
First birth to a married and/or cohabiting mother13.317.411.3
Second (or higher order) birth19.918.215.2
Divorce/separation19.728.117.3
Mother's work hours decreased by >500 hours per year26.318.826.2
Other adults' work hours decreased by >500 hours, but no change in family structure34.827.921.6
Other adults' work hours decreased by >500 hours, and a change in family structure4.77.911.4
Householder acquired work limitation18.115.623.5
Other transfer income dropped by >$1,000 (in 1996$)4.56.54.1
Changed state of residence4.510.65.4

Note:  Events are defined to be neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. Work limitation is defined as a self-reported physical or nervous condition that limits the type of work or the amount of work the respondent can do.

Source:  Unpublished data from the PSID, 1974 – 1992.

  • Between 1986 and 1991, the most common events associated with the beginnings of a first AFDC spell were work-related: a decrease in mother’s work hours (26 percent), a decrease in work hours of another adult (22 percent), and acquisition of a work limitation (24 percent).
  • The percentage of first AFDC episode beginnings associated with a householder acquiring a work limitation was higher for spells that began between 1986 and 1991 (24 percent) than for spells that began between 1973 and 1979 (16 percent) or 1980 to 1985 (18 percent).
  • Between 1973 and 1979, first births to an unmarried, non-cohabiting mother were associated with 28 percent of first AFDC episodes. In contrast, such births were associated with 21 percent of first spells beginning between 1980 and 1985, and 22 percent of spells beginning between 1986 and 1991.

Table IND 11b. Percentage of First AFDC Spell Endings Associated with Specific Events: Selected Periods

 Spell Ended
1973-19791980-19851986-1991
Mother married or acquired cohabitor16.117.121.7
Children under 18 no longer present4.44.14.8
Mother's work hours increased by more than 500 hours per year15.425.027.1
Other adults' work hours increased by more than 500 hours, but no change in family structure21.816.816.7
Other adults' work hours increased by more than 500 hours, and a change in family structure6.510.35.8
Householder no longer reports work limitation13.019.215.8
Other transfer income increased by $1,000 or more (in 1996$)5.05.55.8
Changed state of residence5.911.05.9

Note:  Events are defined to be neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. Work limitation is defined as a self-reported physical or nervous condition that limits the type of work or the amount of work the respondent can do.

Source:  Unpublished data from the PSID, 1974-1992.

  • During the 1986 to 1991 time period, over one-fourth (27 percent) of first AFDC spell endings were associated with increases in mother’s work hours. The corresponding percentage was smaller for spells ending between 1973 and 1979 (15 percent).
  • In the period between 1973 and 1979, a greater percentage of spell endings was associated with an increase in work hours for other adults (22 percent) as compared to mothers (15 percent). In the more recent time period (1986 to 1991), a greater percentage of spell endings was associated with an increase in mother’s work hours (27 percent) compared to other adults (17 percent).

Chapter III: Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

The Welfare Indicators Act challenges the 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. Prior to the Act, welfare research had not established clear and definitive causes of welfare dependence. However, research has identified a number of risk factors associated with welfare utilization. For purposes of this report, the terms “predictors” and “risk factors” are used somewhat interchangeably.

Where the Advisory Board established under the Welfare Indicators Act recommended narrowing the focus of dependence indicators, it recommended an expansive view toward predictors and risk factors. The range of possible predictors is extremely wide, and until they are measured and analyzed over time as the PRWORA changes continue to be implemented, their value will not be fully known. 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.

For purposes of this report, 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 non-marital childbearing.

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON). The first group includes nine measures associated with economic security. This group encompasses six measures of poverty, as well as measures of child support receipt, food insecurity, and lack of health insurance. The tables and figures illustrating measures of economic security are labeled with the prefix ECON throughout this chapter.

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

Reductions in caseloads and dependence can reduce poverty, to the extent that such reductions are associated with greater work activity and higher economic resources for former welfare families. However, reductions in welfare caseloads can increase poverty and other deprivation measures, to the extent that former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources.

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); and the cumulative time spent in poverty over a decade (ECON 6).

This chapter also includes data on child support collections (ECON 7), which can play an important role in reducing dependence on government assistance and thus serve as a predictor of dependence. Household food insecurity (ECON 8) is an important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over time. Finally, health insurance (ECON 9) is both tied to the income level of the family, and may be a precursor to future health problems among both adults and children.

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK). The second grouping, labeled with the WORK prefix, includes nine factors related to employment and barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and the employment and earnings for low-skilled workers, as well as data on barriers to work. The latter category includes incidence of adult disabilities and children with chronic health conditions, adult substance abuse, levels of educational attainment and school drop-out rates, and child care costs.

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 levels 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 young adult men and women to support families without receiving means-tested assistance.

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

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be predictors of greater dependence. Substance abuse (WORK 6), disabling conditions (WORK 7), and chronic child health conditions (WORK 8) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work. In addition, debilitating health conditions and high medical expenditures can place a strain on a family’s economic resources.

Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH). The final group of risk factors addresses out-of-wedlock childbearing. The tables and figures in this subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix. This category includes long-term time trends in births to unmarried women (BIRTH 1), births to unmarried teens (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 high risk of dependence, 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 dependence discussion as researchers assess the effects of the major changes that have occurred in the laws governing public assistance programs.

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2000

Figure ECON 1.  Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2000

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2000,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-214 and data published online athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

  • The percentage of persons living in poverty fell to 11 percent in 2000, the lowest level since 1973.
  • While the poverty rate for children has declined along with the overall rate in the past several years, children, particularly young children, continue to have higher poverty rates than the overall population. For example, in 2000, the poverty rate for related children ages 0 to 5 was about 17 percent, compared to about 11 percent for the overall population.
  • The poverty rate for blacks declined by 6 percentage points between 1996 and 2000, from 28 percent to 22 percent, as shown in Table ECON 1. The gap between black and white poverty rates was at an historic low of 13 percentage points in 2000; the gap has narrowed by a third since the early 1990s, when it exceeded 21 percentage points. The poverty rate among Hispanics reached 21 percent in 2000, the lowest level recorded.
  • The poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) reached historic lows of less than 10 percent in 1999 and just over 10 percent in 2000. This was a lower poverty rate than the rate for children under 18 (16 percent) and slightly above adults ages 18-64 (9.4 percent).

Table ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: Selected Years

Calendar YearRelated ChildrenAll Persons
Ages 0-5Ages 6-17TotalUnder 1818 to 6465 & overWhiteBlackHispanic Origin
1959N/AN/A22.427.317.035.218.155.1N/A
1963N/AN/A19.523.1N/AN/A15.3N/AN/A
1966N/AN/A14.717.610.528.511.341.8N/A
196915.313.112.114.08.725.39.532.2N/A
197315.713.611.114.48.316.38.431.421.9
197617.715.111.816.09.015.09.131.124.7
197917.915.111.716.48.915.29.031.021.8
198020.316.813.018.310.115.710.232.525.7
198122.018.414.020.011.115.311.134.226.5
198223.320.415.021.912.014.612.035.629.9
198324.620.415.222.312.413.812.135.728.0
198423.419.714.421.511.712.411.533.828.4
198522.618.814.020.711.312.611.431.329.0
198621.618.813.620.510.812.411.031.127.3
198722.318.913.420.310.612.510.432.428.0
198821.817.513.019.510.512.010.131.326.7
198921.917.412.819.610.211.410.030.726.2
199023.018.213.520.610.712.210.731.928.1
199124.019.514.221.811.412.411.332.728.7
199225.719.414.822.311.912.911.933.429.6
199325.620.015.122.712.412.212.233.130.6
199424.519.514.521.811.911.711.730.630.7
199523.718.313.820.811.410.511.229.330.3
199622.718.313.720.511.410.811.228.429.4
199721.618.013.319.910.910.511.026.527.1
199820.617.112.718.910.510.510.526.125.6
199918.015.511.816.910.09.79.823.622.8
200016.915.111.316.29.410.29.422.121.2

Notes: Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race 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. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2000,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-214 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

Economic Security Risk Factor 2. Deep Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population Below 50 and 100 Percent of Poverty: 1975-2000

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population Below 50 and 100 Percent of Poverty: 1975-2000

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2000,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-214 and unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

  • Between 1996 and 2000, the percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level), decreased a full percentage point (from 5.4 percent in 1996 to 4.4 percent in 2000).
  • In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty threshold has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate, as shown in Figure ECON 2. The percentage of people below 50 percent of poverty rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s, then, after falling slightly, rose to a second peak in 1993. The overall poverty rate followed a somewhat similar pattern, with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
  • Over the past two decades, there has been an overall increase in the proportion of the poverty population in deep poverty and a decrease in the proportion between 50 and 100 percent of the poverty threshold. In 2000, 39 percent of poor persons had incomes that fell below 50 percent of the poverty level (4.4 percent out of 11.3 percent), whereas in 1976, only 28 percent of the poverty population was in deep poverty.

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

YearTotal PopulationBelow 50 percentBelow 75 percentBelow 100 percentBelow 125 percent
(thousands)Number
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
 PercentNumber
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
Percent 
1959176,600N/AN/AN/AN/A39,50022.454,90031.1
1961181,300N/AN/AN/AN/A39,60021.954,30030.0
1963187,300N/AN/AN/AN/A36,40019.550,80027.1
1965191,400N/AN/AN/AN/A33,20017.346,20024.1
1967195,700N/AN/AN/AN/A27,80014.239,20020.0
1969199,5009,6004.816,4008.224,10012.134,70017.4
1971204,600N/AN/AN/AN/A25,60012.536,50017.8
1973208,500N/AN/AN/AN/A23,00011.132,80015.8
1975210,9007,7003.715,4007.325,90012.337,10017.6
1976212,3007,0003.314,9007.025,00011.835,50016.7
1977213,9007,5003.515,0007.024,70011.635,70016.7
1978215,7007,7003.614,9006.924,50011.434,10015.8
1979222,9008,6003.816,3007.326,10011.736,60016.4
1980225,0009,8004.418,7008.329,30013.040,70018.1
1981227,20011,2004.920,7009.131,80014.043,80019.3
1982229,40012,8005.623,20010.134,40015.046,60020.3
1983231,70013,6005.923,60010.235,30015.247,00020.3
1984233,80012,8005.522,7009.733,70014.445,40019.4
1985236,60012,4005.222,2009.433,10013.644,20018.7
1986238,60012,7005.322,4009.432,40014.044,60018.7
1987241,00012,5005.221,7009.032,20013.443,10017.9
1988243,50012,7005.221,4008.831,70013.042,60017.5
1989246,00012,0004.920,7008.431,50012.842,60017.3
1990248,60012,9005.222,6009.133,60013.544,80018.0
1991251,20014,1005.624,4009.735,70014.247,50018.9
1992256,50015,5006.126,20010.238,00014.850,50019.7
1993259,30016,0006.227,20010.539,30015.151,90020.0
1994261,60015,4005.926,40010.138,10014.550,50019.3
1995263,70013,9005.324,5009.336,40013.848,80018.5
1996266,20014,4005.424,8009.336,50013.749,30018.5
1997268,50014,6005.424,2009.035,60013.347,80017.8
1998271,10013,9005.123,0008.534,50012.746,00017.0
1999273,50012,7004.621,6007.932,30011.844,30016.2
2000275,90012,2004.420,5007.431,10011.343,50015.8

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

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2000,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-214, unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty, and 1970 Census of Population, Volume 1, Social and Economic Characteristics, Table 259.

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Experimental Poverty Measures

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Age: 2000

Figure ECON 3.  Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Age: 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2001.

  • Four experimental measures of poverty developed by the Census Bureau in response to the recommendation of a 1995 panel of the National Academy of Sciences yield poverty rates that are similar to the official poverty measure overall, but differ by age and other characteristics.
  • Experimental measures generally show lower poverty rates among children than the official measure, partly because they take into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, experimental measures show higher rates of poverty among the elderly than the official measure, in part due to the inclusion of certain out-of-pocket health costs in these measures.
  • The percentage of all persons in poverty dropped steadily between 1996 and 2000 under each of the four experimental poverty measures, as well as under the official rate, as shown in Table ECON 3b.

Table ECON 3a. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2000

 Official Poverty MeasureNational Academy of SciencesDifferent Child Care MethodDifferent Equiv-alency ScaleNo Geographic Adjustment

All Persons

11.311.511.711.411.3
Racial/Ethnic Categories

White

9.410.010.210.09.9

Black

22.119.520.219.619.4

Hispanic Origin

21.221.822.321.419.9
Age Categories

Children Ages 0-17

16.214.315.114.014.2

Adults Ages 18-64

9.49.79.89.89.5

Adults Age 65 and over

10.214.514.114.614.6

Table ECON 3b. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990-2000

 YearOfficial Poverty MeasureNational Academy of SciencesDifferent Child Care MethodDifferent Equiv-
alency Scale
No Geographic Adjustment
199013.513.713.613.613.8
199114.214.514.314.414.6
199214.815.115.015.115.2
199315.115.815.715.815.8
199414.514.614.514.614.6
199513.813.813.813.813.9
199613.713.613.713.613.5
199713.313.313.313.313.3
199812.712.512.512.512.3
199911.811.711.811.811.7
200011.311.511.711.411.3

Note: Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. The National Academy of Sciences experimental poverty measure most closely implements changes recommended by a 1995 NAS panel, including: counting non-cash income as benefits; subtracting from income certain work-related, health, and child care expenses; and adjusting poverty thresholds for family size and geographic differences in housing costs. The other three measures are similar, except for the treatment of child care expenses (Different Child Care Method), the family size adjustment (Difference Equivalency Scale), and the geographic adjustment (No Geographic Adjustment).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 1991 to 2001; U.S. Census Bureau, “Selected Experimental Poverty Measures: 1990 to 1999”, available at www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/exppov/ suexxpov.html. Further explanations of each of the alternative poverty measures may be found in: U.S. Census Bureau “Experimental Poverty Measure: 1990 to 1997”, Current Population Reports, Series P60-205, June 1999.

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

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2000

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2000

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by DHHS.

  • The official definition of poverty – which includes means-tested cash assistance (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-tax cash income and social insurance – was 11.3 percent in 2000, as shown in the bold line in Figure ECON 4. Without cash welfare, the 2000 poverty rate would be 12.0 percent, as shown by the top line in the figure above.
  • Adding other, non-cash, public assistance benefits to this definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people who have incomes below the official poverty rate. Adding in the value of food and housing benefits reduces the poverty rate to 10.1 percent in 2000.
  • When income is defined as including benefits from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and federal taxes, the percentage of the total population in poverty decreases to 9.5 percent in 2000. Taxes have had a net effect of reducing poverty rates since the significant increases in the size of the EITC in 1993 and 1995.
  • The combined effect of means-tested cash assistance, food and housing benefits, EITC and taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2000 by 2.5 percentage points, as shown in Table ECON 4. Net reductions in poverty rates were somewhat lower during the recession of the early 1980s, and somewhat higher in the mid-1990s, following expansions in the EITC.

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

 197919831986198919931995199619982000
Cash Income Plus All Social Insurance12.816.014.513.716.314.914.813.512.0
  • Plus Means-Tested Cash Assistance
11.615.213.612.815.113.813.712.711.3
  • Plus Food and Housing Benefits
9.713.712.211.213.412.012.111.310.1
  • Plus EITC and Federal Taxes
10.014.713.111.713.311.511.510.49.5
Reduction in Poverty Rate2.81.31.42.03.03.43.33.12.5

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

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by DHHS.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 panel.

  • Nearly half (47 percent) of all poverty spells that began during the 1993 SIPP panel ended within 4 months and three-fourths ended within one year. Only 16 percent of all such spells were longer than 20 months.
  • Spells of poverty among adults age 65 and older tend to last longer than poverty spells among younger individuals. As shown in Table ECON 5, only 65 percent of poverty spells among adults age 65 and older ended within one year compared to 80 percent for women ages 16 to 64, 75 percent for men ages 16 to 64, and 73 percent for children ages 0 to 15.
  • A larger percentage of poverty spells among non-Hispanic blacks were longer than 20 months (23 percent) than was the case for spells among non-Hispanic whites (14 percent) and among Hispanics (15 percent).
  • In general, poverty spells between and 1993 and 1995 were shorter than spells of welfare receipt begun in the same time period, as can be seen by comparing Figure ECON 5 to Figure IND 8 in Chapter II. That is, there was more movement in and out of poverty than movement on and off welfare. For example, 75 percent of poverty spells lasted a year or less, whereas only 60 percent of food stamp spells and 56 percent of AFDC spells lasted a year or less.
  •  

Table ECON 5.Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

 Spells <=4 monthsSpells <=12 monthsSpells <=20 monthsSpells >20 months
All Persons47.375.484.315.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White47.378.886.313.7
Non-Hispanic Black39.964.176.723.3
Hispanic42.574.484.715.3
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-1543.873.082.217.8
Women Ages 16-6447.679.988.911.1
Men Ages 16-6451.675.284.215.8
Adults Age 65 and over40.765.473.027.0

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

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 panel.

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Long-term Poverty

Figure ECON 6. Percentage of Children Ages 0 to 5 in 1987 Living in Poverty Between 1987 and 1996, by Years in Poverty and Race

Figure ECON 6. Percentage of Children Ages 0 to 5 in 1987 Living in Poverty Between 1987 and 1996, by Years in Poverty and Race

Source: Unpublished data from the PSID, 1987-1996.

  • Among children who were ages 0 to 5 in 1987, two-thirds (66 percent) never lived in poverty for any year over the next ten years. Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) lived in poverty for one to five years and 10 percent were poor for six to ten years.
  • During the 1987-1996 period, one-third (33 percent) of black children experienced longer-term poverty of six to ten years, a percentage much higher than that for non-black children during the same ten-year period (5 percent). Similar patterns existed in the earlier two ten-year time periods, as shown in Table ECON 6.
  • For all three time periods, the percentages of all individuals who were poor for only one to two years were much larger than the percentages of all individuals who experienced longer-term poverty. For example, while 15 percent of all individuals were poor for only one to two years between 1987 and 1996, only 5 percent were poor for six to ten years during the same time period.
  • Long-term poverty of six or more years decreased for blacks more than for non-blacks across the three ten-year time periods. As shown in Table ECON 6, the percentage of persons experiencing long-term poverty decreased from 27 percent in the earliest period to 22 percent in the most recent period among blacks, but remained essentially unchanged for non-blacks. The percentage of black children experiencing long-term poverty was steady across the periods, while the percentage for non-black children increased Long-term poverty of six or more.

Table ECON 6: Percentage of Individuals Living in Poverty Across Three Ten-Year Time Periods, by Years in Poverty, Race, and Age

Between 1967 and 1976: All PersonsChildren 0-5 in 1967
Cumulative Years in Poverty:AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
0 Years75.337.380.270.026.776.5
1-2 Years13.118.912.314.419.813.6
3-5 Years6.216.65.09.120.57.4
6-8 Years3.515.81.93.515.81.8
9-10 Years1.911.50.72.917.90.7
Between 1977 and 1986:All PersonsChildren 0-5 in 1977

Cumulative Years in Poverty:

AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
0 Years77.946.382.273.736.780.0
1-2 Years11.615.711.011.916.711.0
3-5 Years5.314.54.15.612.54.4
6-8 Years3.414.01.95.116.53.2
9-10 Years1.99.50.83.717.61.3
Between 1987 and 1996:All PersonsChildren 0-5 in 1987

Cumulative Years in Poverty:

AllBlackNon-BlackAllBlackNon-Black
0 Years74.744.779.366.430.775.1
1-2 Years14.618.714.015.817.215.5
3-5 Years5.514.34.17.618.84.8
6-8 Years3.110.32.05.612.54.0
9-10 Years2.212.00.74.620.90.7

Note: The base for the percentages consists of individuals in the PSID family units for all the ten-year period. Child recipients are defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This measures years of poverty over the specified ten-year time periods and does not take into account years of poverty that may have occurred before or after the ten-year time period.

Source: Unpublished data from the PSID 1968-93 final release files and 1994-1997 unreleased preliminary data as of January, 2002.

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Child SUPPORT

Figure ECON 7. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2000

Figure ECON 7. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2000

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Preliminary Child Support Enforcement FY 1999 Data Report, 2000 (and earlier years), Washington, DC.

  • Collections paid through the Child Support Enforcement system (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) totaled $17.9 billion in 2000, nearly $2 billion more than in 1999. During the 1990s, child support collections grew rapidly, at an average rate of almost $1.1 billion a year.
  • Non-TANF collections as a percentage of overall collections by the IV-D program have rapidly increased in recent years. Non-TANF collections increased by nearly $1.6 billion between 1999 and 2000, while TANF collections increased by nearly $111 million. However, this 4.5 percent increase in TANF collections between 1999 and 2000 occurred despite the 15 percent drop in the number of TANF recipient families over the same time period.
  • The amount of TANF collections paid to AFDC/TANF families has decreased since FY 1996, when the first $50 of each month’s child support collection were “passed through” to families that were receiving cash benefits. The $50 pass-through was repealed by the 1996 welfare reform law, although a number of states have opted to pass through some or all of collections to the custodial TANF family, despite the loss of revenues to the state.
  • In 2000, nearly 79 percent of TANF collections (collections on behalf of TANF recipients and for past due support assigned to the state by former TANF recipients) was retained to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost of welfare benefits, as shown in Table ECON 7.

Table ECON 7. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2000 Total Collections (in millions)

Fiscal YearTotal CollectionsAFDC/TANF Collections 
Current DollarsConstant
'00 Dollars
Total Payments to AFDC/TANF FamiliesFederal & State Share of CollectionsNon-AFDC/TANF CollectionsTotal IV-D Administrative Expenditures
1978$1,047$2,701$472$13$459$575$312
19791,3333,15759712584736383
19801,4783,13960310593874466
19811,6293,15167112659958526
19821,7713,19878615771985612
19832,0243,510880158651,144691
19842,3783,9511,000179831,378723
19852,6944,3161,0901899011,604814
19863,2495,0701,2252759552,019941
19873,9175,9531,3492781,0702,5691,066
19884,6056,7351,4862891,1883,1281,171
19895,2417,3011,5933071,2863,6481,363
19906,0107,9761,7503341,4164,2601,606
19916,8868,6991,9843811,6034,9021,804
19927,9649,7652,2594351,8245,7051,995
19938,90710,6022,4164461,9716,4912,241
19949,85011,4222,5504572,0937,3002,556
199510,82712,2152,6894742,2158,1383,012
199612,02013,1942,8554802,3759,1653,049
199713,36414,2842,8431572,68510,5213,428
199814,34815,0902,6501522,49811,6983,585
199915,90116,4102,4821132,36813,6994,039
200017,85417,8542,5931652,04815,2614,526

Note: Not all states report current child support collections in all years. Constant dollar adjustments to the 2000 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index. Data for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 may not be exactly comparable to that of previous years due to changes in data reporting forms.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Collections: 2001 TANF Report to Congress (and earlier years), Washington, DC. 

Economic Security Risk Factor 8. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2000

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2000

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2000.

  • A large majority (90 percent) of American households was food secure in 2000 – that is, showed little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake.
  • Approximately 10 percent of households experienced food insecurity (not being able to afford enough food) at some level during the twelve months ending in September 2000. More than two-thirds of the food insecure households were without hunger, meaning that although food insecurity was evident in their concerns and in adjustments to household food management, little or no reduction in food intake was reported.
  • The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger in 2000 was estimated to be 3 percent. One or more members of these households experienced reduced food intake and hunger as a result of financial constraints.
  • Poor households have a higher rate of food insecurity (37 percent) than the 10 percent rate among the general population, as shown in Table ECON 8a. Only 5 percent of families with incomes at or above 185 percent of the poverty level showed evidence of food insecurity.
  • Changes in survey administration make it difficult to examine time trends in food security. In general, there was a downward trend in food insecurity from 1995-1999, followed by a slight upward tick in 2000. Higher food insecurity in even years may reflect the difference between data collection in the spring (odd years) and fall (even years).

Table ECON 8a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2000

 

Food Secure

Food Insecure TotalFood Insecure Without HungerFood Insecure With Hunger
All Households89.510.47.33.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White92.47.65.22.4
Non-Hispanic Black79.520.514.16.5
Hispanic78.621.416.54.8
Other Non-Hispanic90.59.56.72.8
Households, by Age
Households with Children Under 683.816.212.53.7
Households with Children Under 1882.417.613.93.7
Households with Elderly but No Children94.15.94.41.5
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.0063.236.824.012.7
Under 1.3067.033.022.110.9
Under 1.8572.727.318.78.6
1.85 and over95.44.63.41.2

Table ECON 8b.Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1995-2000

 

Food Secure

Food Insecure 
Total
Food Insecure 
Without Hunger
Food Insecure
With Hunger

Old Series

199589.710.36.43.9
199689.610.46.34.1
199791.38.75.63.1
199889.810.26.63.6
199991.38.75.92.8

New Series

199888.211.88.13.7
199989.910.17.13.0
200089.510.57.33.1

Note: Food secure households show little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake. Households classified as food insecure without hunger report food-related concerns, adjustments to household food management, and reduced variety and desirability of diet but report little or no reduction in food intake. Households classified as food insecure with hunger report reduced food intake and hunger. Because of changes in survey administration, food insecurity statistics in Table ECON 8b are shown in two separate series. The “new series” (1998-2000) provides the best estimates of food security for 1998 and 1999; in the “old series” (1995-1999), data for 1998 and 1999 were adjusted to be comparable to 1995-1997.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2000.

Economic Security Risk Factor 9. Lack of Health Insurance

Figure ECON 9. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2000

Figure ECON 9. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2000

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March 2001.

Table ECON 9. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income and Selected Characteristics: 2000

 All PersonsPoor Persons
All Persons14.029.5
Male14.932.3
Female13.127.5
Ethnic Origin
White12.931.0
Black18.524.5
Hispanic32.043.0
Education
No H.S. Diploma26.636.5
H.S. Graduate, no college16.433.4
College Graduate7.131.2
Age
Age 18 and under11.621.5
Ages 18-2427.346.6
Ages 25-3421.246.3
Ages 35-4415.542.1
Ages 45-6412.631.0
Age 65 and over0.72.4

Note: "Poor persons" are defined as those with total family incomes at or below the poverty rate. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Health Insurance Coverage: 2000,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-215, 2001.

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

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity: 2000

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity: 2000

Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

  • In 2000, 73 percent of the total population lived in families with at least one person working on a full-time, full-year basis, as shown in Table WORK 1a. Full-time full-year work was higher in 2000 than during the 1990s, as shown in Table WORK 1b.
  • Overall, 13 percent of the population lived in families with no labor force participants and 14 percent lived in families with part-time and/or part-year labor force participants in 2000.
  • Persons of Hispanic origin were less likely than non-Hispanic whites or non-Hispanic blacks to live in families with no one in the labor force in 1999 (9 percent compared to 14 and 15 percent, respectively).
  • Working-age women were more likely than working-age men to live in families with no one in the labor force (8 percent compared to 6 percent). Men were more likely than women to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year worker (82 percent compared to 78 percent).

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2000

 No one in LF During YearAt least one in LF 
No one FT/FY
At least one FT/FY worker
All Persons13.113.973.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White13.813.173.1
Non-Hispanic Black15.215.968.9
Hispanic8.816.075.2

Age Categories

Children Ages 0-54.814.880.4
Children Ages 6-104.913.781.4
Children Ages 11-154.612.383.0
Women Ages 16-647.614.677.9
Men Ages 16-645.712.681.7
Adults Age 65 and over64.515.520.0

Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1990-2000

 No one in LF During YearAt least one in LF
No one FT/FY
At least one FT/FY 
LF participant
199013.718.168.3
199114.318.767.0
199214.318.667.1
199314.218.667.3
199414.017.768.3
199513.817.069.2
199613.616.769.7
199713.516.370.2
199813.315.371.4
199913.114.672.3
200013.113.973.0

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

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

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2001

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2001

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

  • Between 1996 and 2001, employment rates of black and Hispanic women with a high school education or less rose significantly, to 67 percent and 61 percent, respectively. Low-skilled white women experienced less of an increase in employment over this time period but still had the highest employment level in 2001 (69 percent) among the three racial/ethnic groups.
  • Employment levels for white and Hispanic men with no more than a high school education have hovered close to 85 percent for close to two decades. In contrast, employment levels for low-skilled black men have varied over the same period. Between 1969 and 1984, employment rates for black men with no more than high school education fell by 20 percentage points. Since 1984, these rates have fluctuated, with the most recent five years showing a slight increase from 70 to 73 percent.
  • As shown in Figure and Table WORK 2, employment levels for black men with a high school education or less were 6 percentage points higher than those of similarly educated black women in 2001. In contrast, there was a 16-percentage point difference in employment levels of white men and white women with a high school education or less, and a 26-percentage point difference between similarly educated Hispanic men and Hispanic women.

Table WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2001

 Men  Women
WhiteBlackHispanicWhiteBlackHispanic
196992.889.9N/A55.865.8N/A
197092.189.2N/A56.164.9N/A
197290.986.1N/A55.259.4N/A
197391.184.3N/A55.658.1N/A
197688.278.886.258.357.249.7
197888.378.689.859.857.451.4
198088.678.589.462.358.755.0
198188.075.387.462.357.453.0
198287.374.487.962.357.752.1
198385.471.385.460.756.250.6
198484.869.984.661.455.350.8
198586.171.683.962.958.453.1
198685.774.584.163.759.452.4
198786.374.286.764.460.353.0
198886.673.985.665.859.954.0
198986.574.187.866.461.354.6
199086.674.086.267.260.955.8
199187.475.685.466.860.455.0
199286.273.985.066.560.754.6
199385.571.483.765.957.853.3
199484.471.183.566.159.952.2
199584.769.383.266.660.753.3
199685.570.283.367.059.753.9
199785.670.084.067.763.655.4
199885.371.885.067.766.156.9
199985.471.985.567.966.857.1
200085.072.286.468.968.358.8
200185.172.986.568.667.461.0

Note: All data reflect employment rates for March of the given year. White and Black includes those of Hispanic origin for all years. Hispanic was not available until 1975.

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

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

Figure WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2000 Dollars): Selected Years

Figure WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2000 Dollars): Selected Years

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

  • Mean weekly wages for full-time work by men with no more than a high school diploma have decreased in real terms for much of the past quarter century, with some recovery in the late 1990s. In 1970, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled men working full-time was $683 (in 2000 dollars); the comparable wage in 1995 was $617, a decrease of 10 percent.
  • In recent years, this pattern has changed; weekly wages for low-skilled men have risen, even after taking inflation into account. The mean weekly wage for low-skilled full-time workers was $650 in 2000 – a rise above the 1995 level, but still not as high as wages for this group in 1970 (in 2000 dollars).
  • The gap between mean weekly wages for white and black men with low education levels has narrowed significantly over time, but expanded slightly in 2000. In 1970, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled black men working full-time was $497 (in 2000 dollars), or 70 percent of the $706 average for white men. However, full-time working black men with no more than a high school education received 88 percent of the mean weekly wages of white men in 1999 ($573 compared to $654). In 2000, the wages of low-skilled black men were 85 percent of those of white men with a similar level of education ($565 compared to $667). The gap between mean weekly wages for white and black men with low education levels has narrowed significantly.

Table WORK 3: Mean Weekly Wages of Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High-School Education, by Race (2000 Dollars): Selected Years

 19701975198019851990199519961997199819992000
All Men$683$694$693$669$625$617$629$640$628$639$650
White Men$706$712$712$690$643$635$646$657$644$654$667
Black Men$497$547$539$524$516$509$529$530$536$573$565

Note: Full-time, full-year workers work at least 48 weeks per year and 35 hours per week. White and black include those of Hispanic origin for all years.

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2001

Figure WORK 4.  Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2001

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2001,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-157, February 2002, and earlier reports.

  • There has been a marked decline over the past forty years in the percentage of the population who has not earned a high school diploma. This percentage fell from 59 percent in 1960 to a little under 16 percent in 2001.
  • The percentage of the population receiving a high school education only (with no subsequent college) was 25 percent in 1960 and rose to 39 percent in 1988. Since then this figure has fallen to 33 percent, although some of this decline is a result of a change in the survey methodology in 1992 (see note to Table WORK 4).
  • Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of the population with some college (one to three years) doubled, from 9 percent to 18 percent. The apparent jump in 1992 is a result of a change in the survey methodology (see note to Table WORK 4), but the trend continued upward, reaching nearly 26 percent in 2001.
  • The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college more than tripled from 1960 to 2001, rising steadily from 8 percent to a little over 26 percent.

Table WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment: Selected Years

 Not a High School GraduateFinished High School, No CollegeOne to Three Years of CollegeFour or More Years of College
1940761455
1950672076
1960592598
1965513199
197045341011
197537361214
198031371517
198130381517
198229381518
198328381619
198427381619
198526381619
198625381719
198724391720
198824391720
198923381721
199022381821
199122391821
199221362221
199320352322
199419342422
199518342523
199618342524
199718342424
199817342524
199917332525
200016332526
200116332626

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

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2001,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-157, February 2002, and earlier reports.

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

  • With the exception of a small upward movement in 1988, the dropout rates for teens in grades 10 to 12 declined steadily from 1979 to 1991. From a low of 4 percent, the rate began rising to a peak of 5.7 percent in 1995. Following this upturn, the overall rate again declined to 4.6 percent in 1997; since then it has fluctuated, moving up to 5.0 percent in 1999 and then back down again to 4.8 percent in 2000.
  • Dropout rates among Hispanic and black teens have fluctuated considerably over time. Still, dropout rates are generally highest for Hispanic teens and lowest for white teens. In 2000, the dropout rate was 7.4 percent for Hispanic teens, compared to 6.1 percent for black teens and 4.1 percent for white teens.

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

 TotalNon-Hispanic WhiteNon-Hispanic BlackHispanic Origin
19726.15.39.511.2
19736.35.59.910.0
19746.75.811.69.9
19755.85.08.710.9
19765.95.67.47.3
19776.56.18.67.8
19786.75.810.212.3
19796.76.09.99.8
19806.15.28.211.7
19815.94.89.710.7
19825.54.77.89.2
19835.24.47.010.1
19845.14.45.711.1
19855.24.37.89.8
19864.73.75.411.9
19874.13.56.45.4
19884.84.25.910.4
19894.53.57.87.8
19904.03.35.07.9
19914.03.26.07.3
19924.43.75.08.2
19934.53.95.86.7
19945.34.26.610.0
19955.74.56.412.3
19965.04.16.79.0
19974.63.65.09.5
19984.83.95.29.4
19995.04.06.57.8
20004.84.16.17.4

Note: Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the total but are not shown separately. Beginning in 1987, the Bureau of the Census instituted new editing procedures for cases with missing data on school enrollment. Beginning in 1992, the data reflect new wording of the educational attainment item in the CPS.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 and earlier years (based on Current Population Survey data from the October supplement).

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

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2000

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2000

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

  • In 2000, young adults (ages 18 to 25) were more likely than older adults to report alcohol abuse, marijuana use, or cocaine use in the past month. About one in seven (14 percent) of adults 18 to 25 reported using marijuana in the past month during 2000, compared with 6 percent of adults 26 to 34 and 2 percent of adults 35 and older. Young adults were also significantly more likely to abuse alcohol than older adults.
  • The percentages of persons reporting binge alcohol use in 1999 and 2000 were significantly larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups, as shown in Table WORK 6.

Table WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 1999 & 2000

 19992000
Cocaine
Ages 18-251.71.4
Ages 26-341.20.8
Age 35 and Over0.40.3
Marijuana
Ages 18-2514.213.6
Ages 26-345.45.9
Age 35 and Over2.22.3
Binge Alcohol Use
Ages 18-2537.937.8
Ages 26-3429.330.3
Age 35 and Over16.016.4
Heavy Alcohol Use
Ages 18-2513.312.8
Ages 26-347.57.6
Age 35 and Over4.24.1

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. "Occasion" means at the same time or within a couple hours of each other. 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. Due to a change in NHSDA methodology in 1999, the 1999 and 2000 estimates cannot be compared to estimates from 1998 and earlier years for trend purposes.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 7. ADULT/CHILD Disability

Figure WORK 7.Percentage of the Total Population Reporting a Disability, by Age: 2000

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Total Population Reporting a Disability, by Age: 2000

Source: Provisional data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

  • In 2000, 12 percent of all Americans had an activity-limiting disability. In addition, activity-limiting disabilities were reported by 6 percent of children, 10 percent of adults under the age of 65, and 36 percent of elderly adults in 2000.
  • Among the non-elderly population, rates of activity limitation were very similar for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks in 2000 (9 percent and 10 percent, respectively), but lower for Hispanics (6 percent), as shown in Table WORK 7.
  • While adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children than adults were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2000 (5.5 percent compared to 3.8 percent), as shown in Table WORK 7.
  • Elderly adults were far more likely than adults under the age of 65 to have activity limitations, work disabilities, or long-term care needs in 2000.

Table WORK 7. Percentage of the Total Population Reporting a Disability, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2000

 Activity LimitationWork DisabilityLong-Term Care NeedsDisability Program Recipient
All Persons, All Ages11.9   
All Persons under 65 Years8.7   
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Persons under 65 Years)
Non-Hispanic White9.1   
Non-Hispanic Black9.7   
Hispanic5.9   
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-176.4N/AN/A5.5
Adults Ages 18-649.67.81.83.8
Adults Age 65 and over35.530.413.8N/A

Note: Alternative measures of disability (work disability, long-term care needs, and disability program recipient) are not available by race/ethnicity or across the entire population because different alternative measures are not applicable to certain age groups. Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see definition below); (2) long-term care needs (see definition below); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental, or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental, or emotional problems. Work disability is defined as limitations in or the inability to work as a result of a physical, mental or emotional health condition. Individuals are identified as having long-term care needs if they need the help of others in handling either personal care needs (eating, bathing, dressing, getting around the home) or routine needs (household chores, shopping, getting around for business or other purposes). Disability program recipients include persons covered by Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Special Education Services, Early Intervention Services, and/or disability pensions.

Source: Provisional data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 8. Children's Health Conditions

Figure WORK 8. Selected Chronic Health Conditions per 1,000 Children Ages 0 to 17: Selected Years

Figure WORK 8. Selected Chronic Health Conditions per 1,000 Children Ages 0 to 17: Selected Years

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Trends in the Well-Being of America’s Children and Youth: 1998. Table HC 2.5.

  • Respiratory conditions, especially chronic sinusitis and asthma, were the most prevalent chronic health conditions experienced in recent years by children.
  • Rates for asthma show some year-to-year variation, but were higher in the mid-1990s (62 to 75 children per thousand) than in the mid-1980s (43 to 53 children per thousand). Like rates for asthma, the prevalence of chronic sinusitis has both increased and showed considerable year-to-year variation.
  • In 1996, 26 children per thousand had a deformity or orthopedic impairment, down from a high of 36 children per thousand in 1987, as shown in Table WORK 8.
  • The rate for heart disease among children has ranged from a low of 18 cases per thousand in 1994 to a high of 24 cases per thousand in 1996, with no clear trend.

Table WORK 8. Selected Chronic Health Conditions per 1,000 Children Ages 0 to 17: Selected Years

 19841987199019921993199419951996
Respiratory Conditions
Chronic Bronchitis5062535459555457
Chronic Sinusitis4758576980657664
Asthma4353586372697562
Chronic Diseases of Tonsils or Adenoids3430232826231920
Impairments
Deformity or Orthopedic Impairment3536293329283026
Speech Impairment1619142120211816
Hearing Impairment2416211517181513
Visual Impairment9109107976
Other Conditions
Heart Disease2322191920181924
Anemia118101191275
Epilepsy74435545

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Trends in the Well-Being of America’s Children and Youth: 1998. Table HC 2.5. 

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 1. Births to Unmarried Women

Figure BIRTH 1. Births to Unmarried Women as a Percentage of All Births, by Age Group: 1940-2000

Figure BIRTH 1. Births to Unmarried Women as a Percentage of All Births, by Age Group: 1940-2000

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

  • The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past half-century, from 4 percent in 1940 to 33 percent in 2000. This increase reflects changes in several factors: the rate at which unmarried women have children, the rate at which married women have children, and the rate at which women marry.
  • The percentage of children born outside of marriage is especially high among teen women. Close to four-fifths (79 percent) of all births to teens took place outside of marriage in 2000.
  • After fifty years of growth, the percentage of unmarried births to all women has almost leveled off since 1994. Growth in the percentage of unmarried births to teen mothers has also slowed since 1994, but it is still rising (from 76 percent in 1994 to 79 percent in 2000).
  • Recently, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has leveled off 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 non-marital birth data by age and race).

Table BIRTH 1. Births to Unmarried Women as a Percentage of All Births, by Age Group: 1940-2000

 Under 1515-17 Years18-19 YearsAll TeensAll Women
194064.5N/AN/A14.03.8
194164.1N/AN/A14.23.8
194264.5N/AN/A13.23.4
194364.2N/AN/A13.43.3
194464.5N/AN/A15.73.8
194570.0N/AN/A18.24.3
194666.4N/AN/A15.73.8
194765.1N/AN/A13.03.6
194861.420.88.512.73.7
194961.821.18.612.93.7
195063.722.69.413.94.0
195162.921.89.113.53.9
195263.622.89.214.03.9
195364.022.39.614.14.1
195464.423.210.114.74.4
195566.323.210.314.94.5
195666.123.010.014.64.6
195766.123.19.814.54.7
195866.223.310.314.95.0
195967.924.210.615.45.2
196067.824.010.715.45.3
196169.725.311.316.25.6
196269.526.711.316.45.9
196371.128.212.518.06.3
196474.229.913.519.76.8
196578.532.815.321.67.7
196676.335.316.122.68.4
196780.337.718.025.09.0
196881.040.420.127.69.7
196979.341.321.128.710.0
197080.843.022.430.510.7
197182.144.523.231.811.3
197281.945.924.733.812.4
197384.846.725.635.013.0
197484.648.327.036.413.2
197587.051.429.839.314.2
197686.454.031.641.214.8
197788.256.634.443.815.5
197887.357.536.244.916.3
197988.860.038.146.917.1
198088.761.539.848.318.4
198189.263.341.449.918.9
198289.265.043.051.419.4
198390.467.545.754.120.3
198491.169.248.156.321.0
198591.870.950.758.722.0
198692.573.353.661.523.4
198792.975.856.064.024.5
198893.677.158.565.925.7
198992.477.760.467.227.1
199091.677.761.367.628.0
199191.378.763.269.329.5
199291.379.264.670.530.1
199391.379.966.171.831.0
199494.584.170.075.932.6
199593.583.769.875.632.2
199693.884.470.876.332.4
199795.786.772.578.232.4
199896.687.573.678.932.8
199996.587.774.079.033.0
200096.587.774.379.133.2

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 Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 2. Births to Unmarried Teens

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19, by Race: 1940-2000

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

  • In contrast to Figure BIRTH 1, which showed births to unmarried teens as a percentage of all teen births, Figure BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage rose from just under 2 percent in 1940 to just under 10 percent in 1994 and saw a modest decline in 1999 and 2000. It may be affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens, and the birth rate among all other women.
  • Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens trended upward among white women, from less than 1 percent in 1960 to nearly 8 percent in 2000.
  • Among black women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens varied greatly during the same period, rising sharply to a peak of 24 percent in 1975, and showing a gradual decline in most years since then. The rate fell to just under 19 percent in 2000, the lowest percentage since 1970. The sharp increase in the late 1960s and early 1970s reflects a large increase in non-marital births to black teenagers at a time when overall births to black women were declining.

Table BIRTH 2. Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 as a Percentage of All Births, by Race: 1940-2000

 All RacesWhiteBlack
19401.70.8N/A
19411.70.7N/A
19421.50.7N/A
19431.50.6N/A
19441.60.8N/A
19451.80.8N/A
19461.50.7N/A
19471.40.7N/A
19481.50.7N/A
19491.50.6N/A
19501.60.6N/A
19511.50.6N/A
19521.50.6N/A
19531.60.6N/A
19541.70.7N/A
19551.70.7N/A
19561.70.7N/A
19571.80.7N/A
19581.90.8N/A
19592.00.9N/A
19602.00.9N/A
19612.21.0N/A
19622.31.1N/A
19632.51.2N/A
19642.81.3N/A
19653.31.6N/A
19663.81.9N/A
19674.12.1N/A
19684.52.3N/A
19694.72.417.5
19705.12.618.8
19715.52.620.3
19726.23.022.6
19736.53.223.4
19746.73.323.9
19757.13.724.2
19767.13.823.8
19777.24.023.4
19787.24.022.7
19797.24.122.5
19807.34.422.2
19817.14.521.5
19827.14.521.2
19837.24.621.2
19847.14.620.7
19857.24.820.3
19867.55.120.1
19877.75.320.0
19888.05.620.3
19898.35.920.6
19908.46.120.4
19918.76.420.4
19928.76.520.2
19938.96.820.2
19949.77.521.1
19959.67.621.1
19969.67.720.9
19979.77.820.5
19989.77.919.9
19999.57.819.1
20009.37.718.9

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. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child. White and black include those of Hispanic origin for all years. Rates for 1981-1989 have been revised and differ, therefore, from rates published in Vital Statistics in the United States, Vol. 1, Natality, for 1991 and earlier years.

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 3. Unmarried Teen Birth Rates Within Age Groups

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2000

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2000

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2000

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2000

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

  • The birth rate per 1,000 unmarried teens fell between 1994 and 2000 for both black and white teens and for both younger (15 to 17 years) and older age groups (18 and 19 years). The rate for black teens 18 and 19, for example, fell from 142 per 1,000 to 117 per 1,000. Declines were larger among black teens than among white teens.
  • Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried white teens in both age groups rose steadily for nearly three decades (4 to 24 percent among 15 to 17 year-olds and 11 to 57 percent among 18 and 19 year-olds).
  • Among unmarried black teens in both age groups, birth rates varied greatly over the period, reaching peaks in both the early 1970s and early 1990s. Rates for both age groups were lower in 2000 than in 1969 (31 percent lower for 15 to 17 year-olds and 11 percent lower for 18 to 19 year-olds). While birth rates among unmarried black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried white teens, the gap been black and white teens narrowed considerably during the 1990s.

Table BIRTH 3. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teen Women Within Age Groups, by Race: 1960-2000

 Ages 15-17Ages 18 and 19
All RacesWhiteBlackAll RacesWhiteBlack
196011.14.4N/A24.311.4N/A
196111.74.6N/A24.612.1N/A
196210.74.1N/A23.811.7N/A
196310.94.5N/A25.813.0N/A
196411.64.9N/A26.513.6N/A
196512.55.0N/A25.813.9N/A
196613.15.4N/A25.614.1N/A
196713.85.6N/A27.615.3N/A
196814.76.2N/A29.616.6N/A
196915.26.672.030.816.6128.4
197017.17.577.932.917.6136.4
197117.57.480.731.715.8135.2
197218.58.082.830.915.1128.2
197318.78.481.230.414.9120.5
197418.88.878.631.215.3122.2
197519.39.676.832.516.5123.8
197619.09.773.532.116.9117.9
197719.810.573.034.618.7121.7
197819.110.368.835.119.3119.6
197919.910.871.037.221.0123.3
198020.612.068.839.024.1118.2
198120.912.665.939.024.6114.2
198221.513.166.339.625.3112.7
198322.013.666.840.726.4111.9
198421.913.766.542.527.9113.6
198522.414.566.845.931.2117.9
198622.814.967.048.033.5121.1
198724.516.269.948.934.5123.0
198826.417.673.551.536.8130.5
198928.719.378.956.040.2140.9
199029.620.478.860.744.9143.7
199130.921.880.465.749.6148.7
199230.421.678.067.351.5147.8
199330.622.176.866.952.4141.6
199432.024.175.170.156.4141.6
199530.523.668.667.655.4131.2
199629.022.764.065.954.1129.2
199728.222.460.665.253.6127.2
199827.021.856.564.253.5123.5
199925.521.051.563.353.3117.9
200024.420.049.962.953.2116.9

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. White and black include those of Hispanic origin for all years. Rates for 1981-1989 have been revised and differ, therefore, from rates published in Vital Statistics in the United States, Vol. 1, Natality, for 1991 and earlier years.

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

Non-marital Birth Risk Factor 4. Never-married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head, by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2001

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head, by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2001

Source of CPS data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “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, 537 various years, and ASPE tabulations of the 2001 CPS.

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

  • The percentage of children living in families with never-married female heads increased from under 5 percent in 1982 to nearly 10 percent in 2001.
  • The percentage of white children living in families headed by never-married women has continued to rise over the past twenty years, from less than 2 percent in 1982 to 5.5 percent in 2001.
  • Among Hispanics, the percentage of children living with never-married female heads more than doubled over the past sixteen years, going from less than 6 percent in 1982 to 12 percent in 1996. Since then it has fluctuated up and down by about one-half a percentage point.
  • The percentage of black children living in families headed by never-married women was much higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period. However, the percentage dropped nearly three percentage points in the past two years.

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

 Number of Children (in thousands)Percentage
All Races/ 
Ethnicities
WhiteBlackHispanicAll Races/ 
Ethnicities
WhiteBlackHispanic
1960221491730.40.12.2
19705271104420.80.25.2
19751,1662968641.80.59.9
19801,7455011,1932102.91.014.54.0
19822,7687931,9472914.61.622.75.7
19843,1319592,1093575.21.923.96.5
19863,6061,1742,3754515.92.326.67.2
19873,9851,3852,5245876.52.828.29.2
19884,3021,4822,7366007.03.030.49.2
19894,2901,4832,6955926.92.929.68.7
19904,3651,5272,7386057.03.029.68.7
19915,0401,7253,1766448.03.433.39.0
19925,4102,0163,1927578.43.933.110.3
19935,5112,0153,3178488.53.933.611.3
19946,0002,4123,3211,0839.04.532.912.0
19955,8622,3173,2551,0178.74.332.310.8
19966,3652,5633,5671,1619.44.834.412.0
19976,5982,7883,5751,2429.75.134.312.4
19986,7002,8503,6441,2549.85.235.112.2
19996,7592,8413,6521,3109.85.235.312.3
20006,5912,8813,4131,2569.55.332.911.4
20016,6363,0143,3821,3409.65.532.411.9

Note: Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons, and their spouses). Also excludes inmates of institutions; children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator. Based on Current Population Survey (CPS) except 1960, 1970, and 1980, which are based on decennial census data. Nonwhite data are shown for Black in 1960. In 1982, improved data collection and processing procedures helped to identify parent-child subfamilies. (See Current Population Reports, P-20, 399, Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1984.)

Source of CPS data: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “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, 537, various years, and ASPE tabulations of the 2001 CPS.

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

Appendix A: Program Data

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), the Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act. This chapter includes information on these three programs, derived primarily from administrative data reported by state and federal agencies instead of the national survey data presented in previous chapters. National caseloads and expenditure trend information on each of the three programs is included, as well as state-by-state trend tables on each program and information on the characteristics of participants in each program.

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

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

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

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

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

Data Issues Relating to the AFDC-TANF Transition

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

Because of the greatly expanded range of activities allowed under TANF, a substantial portion of TANF funds will be spent on activities other than cash payments to families. When tracking overall expenditure trends, the tables in this Appendix (e.g., Table TANF 3) include only those TANF funds spent on “cash and work-based assistance” and “administrative costs,” not on work activities, supportive services, or other allowable uses of funds. Spending on these other activities is detailed in Table TANF 5. Note that TANF administrative costs include funds spent administering all activities, not just cash and work-based assistance. (Administrative costs under AFDC had included a small amount of funds for administering AFDC child care programs; such programs, and the costs of administering them, have now been transferred to the Child Care and Development Fund as part of PRWORA).

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. One program change is that there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” program under TANF. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. Another change under TANF is that some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs; the TANF caseload figures do not include these families. Finally, it is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. At present, the vast majority of families receiving “assistance”1 are, in fact, receiving cash payments; however, this may change over time.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

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

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Figure TANF 1, Tables TANF 1-2). Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically during the past several years. In fiscal year 2000, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 6.0 million persons, 53 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in fiscal year 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1968. From the peak of 14.4 million in March 1994, the number of AFDC/TANF recipients dropped by 63 percent to 5.3 million in September 2001. Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the implementation of TANF. These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs.

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

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

In general, studies have found that both economic conditions and welfare reform policies have played important roles in the recent caseload decline. A review of a dozen studies concluded that roughly 15 to 30 percent of the caseload decline prior to 1996 was attributed by most studies to welfare policies under waivers to the AFDC rules with approximately 30 to 45 percent of the decline explained by economic conditions (Schoeni and Blank, 2000). A study by the Council of Economic Advisors (1999) of the post-PRWORA period finds that just over one-third of caseload decline can be explained by welfare reform policy, while 8 to 10 percent is due to the economy. In addition to general labor market conditions, the effects of economic policy post-1996 (namely increases in the minimum wage) explain another 10 to 16 percent of the caseload drop. In both periods, a large portion of the welfare decline is not explained by the examined variables. Possible factors that could account for this additional decline include the expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and changing cultural perceptions of welfare receipt.

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

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 shows that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, the average monthly benefit per recipient in 2000 was 75 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s. This level was $14 higher than in 1998, but still below the real value of benefits in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

AFDC/TANF Recipient Characteristics (Table TANF 7). With the dramatic declines in the welfare rolls since the implementation of TANF, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding how the composition of the caseload has changed. Two striking trends are the increases in the proportion of child-only cases and in employment among adult recipients.

One of the most dramatic trends is the recent jump in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 2000, 26 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1992, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was at an all-time high of 33 percent in FY 2000 (data not shown). Similar upward trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect positive effects of welfare-to-work programs, the strong economy, and the fact that, with larger earnings disregards, families with earnings do not exit welfare as rapidly. In addition, the increased employment of welfare recipients is consistent with broader trends in labor force participation among mothers with young children. Among single mothers with children under six and family income below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, for example, the employment rate increased from 35 percent in 1992 to 59 percent in 2000. In addition, employment rates for white, black, and Hispanic women ages 18 to 65 with no more than a high school education were at all-time highs in 1999, with some leveling off among white and black women in 2000 (as shown in WORK 2 in Chapter III).

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of child-only cases. Child only cases have climbed from 11.6 percent of the caseload in FY 1990 to 34.5 percent in FY 2000. This dramatic growth has been due to both the overall decline in the number of adult-present cases as well as an increase in the number of child-only cases. Child-only cases are generally not subject to the work requirements or time limits under TANF.

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

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

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8-14). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since 1993, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and June 2001 ranges from 93 percent (Wyoming) to 35 percent (Rhode Island). Seven states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as May 1995 (Maryland).

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic families” are single-parent families and “UP families” are two-parent cases receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. Last data point plotted is June 2001.

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

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

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

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data.

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

Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads, 1962 – 2000

Fiscal Year Average Monthly Number (In thousands)Children as a Percent of Total RecipientsAverage1Number of Children per Family
Total Families1Total RecipientsUnemployed Parent FamiliesUnemployed Parent RecipientsTotal Children
19629243,593492242,77877.33.0
19639503,834542912,89675.53.0
19649844,059603433,04375.03.1
19651,0374,323694003,24275.03.1
19661,0744,472623613,36975.33.1
19671,1414,718583403,56175.53.1
19681,3075,348673774,01175.03.1
19691,5386,147663614,59174.73.0
19701,9097,429784205,49474.02.9
19712,5329,5561437266,96372.92.8
19722,91810,6321346397,69872.42.6
19733,12411,0381205577,96572.22.5
19743,17010,845954347,82472.12.5
19753,35711,0671014517,92871.62.4
19763,57511,3391355938,15671.92.3
19773,59311,1081496597,81870.42.2
19783,53910,6631285677,47570.12.1
19793,49610,3111145067,19369.82.1
19803,64210,5971416127,32069.12.0
19813,87111,1602098817,61568.22.0
19823,56910,4312329766,97566.92.0
19833,65110,6592721,1447,05166.11.9
19843,72510,8662871,2227,15365.81.9
19853,69210,8132611,1317,16566.31.9
19863,74810,9972541,1027,30066.41.9
19873,78411,0652361,0357,38166.72.0
19883,74810,9202109297,32567.12.0
19893,77110,9341938567,37067.42.0
19903,97411,4602048997,75567.72.0
19914,37412,5922681,1488,51367.61.9
19924,76813,6253221,3489,22667.71.9
19934,98114,1433591,4899,56067.61.9
19945,04614,2263631,5109,61167.61.9
19954,87913,6593351,3849,28067.91.9
19964,54312,6453011,2418,67168.61.9
199723,93710,93527531,15837,781371.232.03
19983,2008,796179753 46,27371.32.0
19992,6747,188NANA5,31974.02.0
20002,2695,961NANA4,38573.61.9

Footnotes:

1Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.

2The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.

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

4Estimated based on the ratio of Unemployed Parent recipients to Unemployed Parent families in 1997.

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

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups, 1970 – 2000

Calendar Year1Total Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands)Child Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands)Recipients as a Percent of Total Population2Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population3Recipients as a Percent of Pretransfer Poverty Population4Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population2Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty3
19708,3036,1044.132.7NA8.858.5
197110,0437,3034.939.3NA10.569.2
197210,7367,7665.143.9NA11.275.5
197310,7387,7635.146.7NA11.380.5
197410,6217,6375.045.4NA11.375.2
197511,1317,9285.243.0NA11.871.4
197611,0987,8505.144.4NA11.876.4
197710,8567,6324.943.9NA11.774.2
197810,3877,2704.742.4NA11.273.2
197910,1407,0574.538.953.111.068.0
198010,5997,2954.736.249.211.463.2
198110,8937,3974.734.247.111.759.2
198210,1616,7674.429.540.610.849.6
198310,5696,9674.529.941.911.150.1
198410,6437,0174.531.643.611.252.3
198510,6727,0734.532.345.011.354.4
198610,8507,2064.533.546.611.556.0
198710,8417,2404.533.646.711.555.9
198810,7287,2014.433.847.711.457.8
198910,7987,2864.434.347.611.557.9
199011,4977,7814.634.247.112.157.9
199112,7288,6015.035.649.113.260.0
199213,5719,1895.335.750.813.960.1
199314,0079,4605.435.748.514.160.2
199413,9709,4485.436.750.013.961.8
199513,2419,0135.036.450.113.161.5
199612,1568,3554.633.346.412.157.8
199710,2247,340 53.828.740.710.552.0
19988,2215,7703.023.834.78.342.8
19996,7154,8412.520.831.06.940.0
20005,7004,1972.018.328.05.836.1

Footnotes:

1Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates.

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

3For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-210 and Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex, April 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000, Internet release date January 2, 2001.

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

5Average for January through June of 1997.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States: 2000, Current Population Reports, Series P60-214 and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration, 1970 – 2000 [In millions of dollars]

Fiscal YearFederal Funds
(Current Dollars)
State Funds
(Current Dollars) 
Total 
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Constant ’00 Dollars1)
BenefitsAdminis-
trative
BenefitsAdminis-
trative
BenefitsAdminis-
trative
BenefitsAdminis-
trative
1970$2,187$5722$1,895$309$4,082$8812$17,258$3,725
19713,0082712,4692545,47752522,1682,125
19723,61224032,9422416,554481325,616NA
1973..3,8653133,1382967,00361026,2882,290
19744,0713793,3003627,37174025,4852,559
19754,6255523,7875298,4121,08226,5093,410
19765,2585414,4185279,6761,06928,5433,154
19775,6265954,76258310,3881,17728,5253,232
19785,7246314,89861710,6211,24827,3623,215
19795,8256834,95466810,7791,35025,5353,198
19806,4487505,50872911,9561,47925,4623,150
19816,9288355,91781412,8451,64824,8743,191
19826,9228785,93487812,8571,75623,2633,177
19837,3329156,27591513,6071,83023,5473,167
19847,7078766,66482214,3711,69823,8542,818
19857,8178906,76388914,5801,77923,3612,850
19868,2399936,99696715,2351,96023,8073,063
19878,9141,0817,4091,05216,3232,13324,8043,241
19889,1251,1947,5381,15916,6632,35324,3253,435
19899,4331,2117,8071,20617,2402,41724,0183,367
199010,1491,3588,3901,30318,5392,66124,6033,532
199111,1651,3739,1911,30020,3562,67325,7163,377
199212,2581,4599,9931,37822,2502,83727,2813,479
199312,2701,51810,0161,43822,2862,95626,5263,518
199412,5121,68010,2851,62122,7973,30126,4343,828
199512,0191,77010,0141,75122,0323,52124,8553,973
199611,0651,6339,3461,63320,4113,26622,4043,585
199749,7481,2737,7991,09817,5472,37118,7552,534
19987,5181,2317,0961,02814,6142,25915,3702,376
19996,4751,4076,97588413,4492,29113,8802,364
20005,0961,5066,38689911,4812,40511,4812,405

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

Footnotes:

1Constant dollar adjustments to 2000 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.

2Includes expenditures for services.

3Administrative expenditures only.

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

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

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

Fiscal Year[1][2][3][4][5]
Single Parent1Unemployed ParentChild Support Collections2Net Benefits3
[1] + [2] minus [3]
Net Benefits
(1996 dollars)4
19703,85123104,08215,722
19714,99341205,40519,882
19725,97242206,39422,715
19736,45941406,87322,504
19746,88132407,20522,740
19757,79136208,15323,363
19768,8255252459,10524,469
19779,4206173959,64224,121
19789,6245654599,73022,870
19799,8655225849,80321,156
198010,84769359310,94721,186
198111,7691,07565912,18521,472
198211,6011,25677112,08619,879
198312,1361,47186512,74220,128
198412,7591,61298313,38820,264
198513,0241,55690113,67919,967
198613,6721,56395114,28420,335
198714,8071,5161,07015,25221,115
198815,2431,4201,19615,46620,569
198915,8891,3501,28615,95220,246
199017,0591,4801,41617,12320,702
199118,5291,8271,60318,75321,583
199220,1302,1211,82420,42622,816
199319,9882,2981,97120,31522,028
199420,3932,4042,09320,70421,871
199519,8202,2122,21519,81720,367
199618,4381,9732,37418,03718,037

Footnotes:

1Includes payments to two-parent families where one adult is incapacitated.

2Total AFDC collections (including collections on behalf of foster care children) less payments to AFDC families.

3Net AFDC benefits Gross benefits less those reimbursed by child support collections.

4Constant dollar adjustments to 1996 level were made using a CPI-U-XI fiscal year price index.

Note:Data are not available after 1996 because the TANF data reporting requirements do not require that caseload data be separated into single parent and unemployed parent components.

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

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending, Fiscal Years: 1997 to 2000 (Millions)

Fiscal YearCash & Work-Based AssistanceWork ActivitiesChild CareTrans-
portation
Adminis-
tration
SystemsTransitional ServicesOther ExpendituresTotal Expendi-
tures
Federal TANF Grants
19977,70846714872109086210,032
19987,518958252987247111,30611,279
19996,4751,2256041,070337171,59511,323
20005,0961,5151,4114601,2652402,49612,483
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF Program
19975,95531175270410199268,758
19986,879520890883138111,30110,623
19996,5415031,135743118231,33410,397
20005,7747431,7011268058190310,132
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in Separate State Programs
199769121110018210
199821631376128391
1999434262572200126865
200061114298130298975
Total Expenditures
199713,7317908771,57721191,80519,000
199814,6141,4811,2801,877385222,63522,294
199913,4491,7541,9951,835456403,05522,585
200011,4812,2723,1425942,0833213,69722,996

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

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments, 1962 – 2000

Fiscal Year Monthly Benefit per RecipientAverage Number of Persons per Family Monthly Benefit per Family
(not reduced by Child Support)
Weighted Average1Maximum Benefit (per 3-person Family)
Current Dollars2000 DollarsCurrent Dollars1999 DollarsCurrent Dollars2000 Dollars
1962$31$1633.9$121$634NANA
1963311614.0126650NANA
1964321624.1131670NANA
1965341694.2140705NANA
1966351724.2146716NANA
1967361734.1150716NANA
1968401824.1162746NANA
1969431924.0173766$1862$827
1970461943.91787531942822
1971481933.81807302012814
1972512013.61877322052803
1973531983.51877012132799
1974571963.41946702292791
1975631993.3209658243766
1976712093.2226665257757
1977782143.1241662271744
1978832143.0249644284732
1979872062.9257609301713
1980942002.9274583320682
1981961862.9277536326631
19821031862.9300543331598
19831061842.9311537336582
19841101832.9321534352584
19851121802.9329527369591
19861151802.9339529383599
19871231872.9359546393598
19881271862.9370541404590
19891311832.9381531412575
19901351792.9389516421559
19911351702.9388490425537
19921361672.9389477419513
19931311562.8373444414493
19941341552.8376437420482
19951341522.8376425418472
19961351482.8374410422463
199731361462.8379405420449
19981411482.7386406432454
19991591642.7426439452466
20001631632.6428428447447

Footnotes:

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

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

3The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2000 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.

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

Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families, Selected Years 1969 – 2000

 MayMayMarchFiscal year1
1969197519791983198819901992199619982000
Avg. Family Size (persons)4.03.23.03.03.02.92.92.82.82.6
Number of Child Recipients
   One26.637.942.343.442.542.242.543.942.444.2
   Two23.026.028.129.830.230.330.229.929.628.4
   Three17.716.115.615.215.815.815.515.015.715.3
   Four or More32.520.013.910.19.99.910.19.210.610.1
   UnknownNANANA1.51.71.40.71.31.82.0
Child-Only Families10.112.514.68.39.611.614.821.523.434.5
Families with Non-Recipients33.134.8NA36.936.837.738.949.9
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
   Since Most Recent Opening23.031.029.026.026.323.022.523.6
Presence of Assistance
   Living in Public Housing12.814.6NA10.09.69.69.28.8NA17.7
Participating in Food Stamp
   Or Donated Food Program52.975.175.183.084.685.687.389.383.579.9
Presence of Income
   With EarningsNA14.612.85.78.48.27.411.120.6423.64
   No Non-AFDC/TANF Income56.071.180.686.879.680.178.976.073.0471.64
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
   Employed7.06.611.322.826.4
   Unemployed45.049.2
   Not in Labor Force28.324.3
   Unknown4.0
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):3
   Full-time job8.210.48.71.52.22.52.24.7
   Part-time job6.35.75.43.44.24.24.25.4
Marital Status (percent of adults)
   Single52.565.3
   Married16.412.4
   Separated11.713.1
   Widowed0.70.7
   Divorced8.88.5
   Unknown9.9
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
   Incapacitated11.727.75.33.43.73.64.14.3
   Unemployed4.623.74.18.76.56.48.28.3
   Death5.523.72.21.81.81.61.61.6
   Divorce or Separation43.3248.344.738.534.632.930.024.3
   Absent, No Marriage Tie27.9231.037.844.351.954.053.158.6
   Absent, Other Reason3.5 24.05.91.41.61.92.02.4
   Unknown1.70.90.6

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

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

2Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

3For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only.

4Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients, not families, in 1998 and subsequent years.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: 2001 TANF Annual Report to Congress and earlier years.

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2000 [Millions of dollars]

 1978198219841986198819901994199619982000
United States$10,621$12,857$14,371$15,236$16,663$18,543$22,798$20,411$14,614$11,481
Alabama$78$72$74$68$62$62$92$75$44$37
Alaska1732374654601131077755
Arizona30496779103138266228145110
Arkansas51343948535757522631
California1,8132,7343,2073,5744,0914,9556,0885,9084,1284,021
Colorado74871071071251371581298048
Connecticut168210226223218295397323305166
Delaware28282825242940352420
Dist. of Columbia9186757776841261219772
Florida145207251261318418806680357234
Georgia103172149223266321428385313135
Guam3454351214UAUA
Hawaii838883737799163173153141
Idaho212021191920303063
Illinois699802845886815839914833771269
Indiana11813915314816717022815310487
Iowa10712715917015515216913110479
Kansas7381879197105123984143
Kentucky122123135104143179198191147104
Louisiana9712714516218218816813010370
Maine5159698480101108998073
Maryland166213229250250296314285192196
Massachusetts476468406471558630730560442237
Michigan7801,0641,2141,2481,2311,2111,132779589334
Minnesota164235287322338355379333276193
Mississippi33555874858682686021
Missouri152175196209215228287254180139
Montana15192737414049453021
Nebraska38495662565962544141
Nevada8121016202748483918
New Hampshire21251620213262503932
New Jersey489513485509459451531462372222
New Mexico324549515661144153104113
New York1,6891,6411,9162,0992,1402,2592,9132,9292,1491,832
North Carolina138143149138206247353300211140
North Dakota14141620222426212212
Ohio4416067258048058771,016763546368
Oklahoma7474851001191321651227265
Oregon14810010112012814519715514176
Pennsylvania726740724389747798935822523485
Puerto Rico2565383367727463UAUA
Rhode Island597071798299136125117100
South Carolina52767510391961151015227
South Dakota18171715212225221410
Tennessee777483100125168215190108137
Texas122118229281344416544496315264
Utah41475255616477645040
Vermont21384040404865564736
Virgin Islands23222344UAUA
Virginia136166165179169177253199123100
Washington175240294375401438610585450311
West Virginia5356751091071101261015249
Wisconsin26040651944450644042529114560
Wyoming6913161919211774

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid (see Table TANF 3) but does not include emergency assistance payments. UA denotes data unavailable.

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

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs and 2000 Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA [In millions]

StateFY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS1FY 2000 State Family Assistance Grant2Increase from FY 1996 LevelPercent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States$15,067$17,007$1,94013
Alabama$79.0$121.5$4354
Alaska60.765.758
Arizona200.6258.75829
Arkansas54.361.3713
California3,545.63,775.62306
Colorado138.9146.175
Connecticut221.1269.24822
Delaware30.233.9412
Dist of Columbia77.1112.63546
Florida504.7613.910922
Georgia301.2358.45719
Hawaii98.499.811
Idaho31.333.126
Illinois593.8626.6336
Indiana121.4215.69478
Iowa129.3132.733
Kansas86.9101.91517
Kentucky171.6181.3106
Louisiana122.4180.45847
Maine73.278.157
Maryland207.6229.12110
Massachusetts372.0469.99826
Michigan581.5797.921637
Minnesota239.3276.63716
Mississippi68.693.52536
Missouri207.9217.194
Montana39.245.1615
Nebraska56.258.023
Nevada41.248.9819
New Hampshire36.038.527
New Jersey353.4404.05114
New Mexico129.9132.732
New York2,332.72,450.91185
North Carolina311.9329.0175
North Dakota24.527.3311
Ohio564.5728.016429
Oklahoma125.1151.02621
Oregon146.4166.82014
Pennsylvania780.1743.7-36-5
Rhode Island82.997.51518
South Carolina99.4101.222
South Dakota19.721.8211
Tennessee178.9213.93520
Texas437.1541.610524
Utah68.085.91826
Vermont42.447.4512
Virginia134.6158.32418
Washington393.2413.9215
West Virginia95.1112.71818
Wisconsin241.6317.07531
Wyoming14.421.7751

Footnotes:

1Includes 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.

2The FY 2000 awards include State Family Assistance Grants, Supplemental Grants for Population Increases, Out of Wedlock Bonus and High Performance Bonus. Totals for AZ, CA, OK, OR, SD WI, and WY include funds for Tribes operating TANF within the State.

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

Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State, October 1989 to June 2001 Peak [In thousands]

State

Peak Caseload Oct '89 to June 2001Date Peak Occurred Oct '89 to June 2001August '96 CaseloadJune 2001 CaseloadPercent Decline August '96 to June 20011Percent Decline Peak to June 2001
United States5,098Mar-944,4092,0885359
Alabama52.3Mar-9341.018.05666
Alaska13.4Apr-9412.26.05155
Arizona72.8Dec-9362.433.44654
Arkansas27.1Mar-9222.112.14555
California933.1Mar-95880.4462.24750
Colorado43.7Dec-9334.510.76976
Connecticut61.9Mar-9557.325.45659
Delaware11.8Apr-9410.65.54853
Dist. Of Columbia27.5Apr-9425.416.13641
Florida259.9Nov-92200.956.17278
Georgia142.8Nov-93123.349.76065
Guam3.0Jun-002.23.0-320
Hawaii23.4Jun-9721.912.64246
Idaho9.5Mar-958.61.38586
Illinois243.1Aug-94220.358.97376
Indiana76.1Sep-9351.442.41844
Iowa40.7Apr-9431.620.43550
Kansas30.8Aug-9323.813.14557
Kentucky84.0Mar-9371.335.45058
Louisiana94.7May-9067.524.16475
Maine24.4Aug-9320.09.65261
Maryland81.8May-9570.727.46167
Massachusetts115.7Aug-9384.741.55164
Michigan233.6Apr-91170.072.15869
Minnesota66.2Jun-9257.739.23241
Mississippi61.8Nov-9146.415.96674
Missouri93.7Mar-9480.144.94452
Montana12.3Mar-9410.15.15059
Nebraska17.2Mar-9314.49.53444
Nevada16.3Mar-9513.77.74453
New Hampshire11.8Apr-949.15.73752
New Jersey132.6Nov-92101.744.45666
New Mexico34.9Nov-9433.418.24548
New York463.7Dec-94418.3221.84752
North Carolina134.1Mar-94110.141.36369
North Dakota6.6Apr-934.83.03654
Ohio269.8Mar-92204.282.26070
Oklahoma51.3Mar-9336.013.56274
Oregon43.8Apr-9329.919.23656
Pennsylvania212.5Sep-94186.381.55662
Puerto Rico61.7Jan-9249.925.64959
Rhode Island22.9Apr-9420.714.92835
South Carolina54.6Jan-9344.116.96269
South Dakota7.4Apr-935.82.75464
Tennessee112.6Nov-9397.259.93847
Texas287.5Dec-93243.5127.54856
Utah18.7Mar-9314.27.74659
Vermont10.3Apr-928.85.53746
Virgin Islands1.4Dec-951.40.75053
Virginia76.0Apr-9461.928.85362
Washington104.8Feb-9597.554.14548
West Virginia41.9Apr-9337.015.06064
Wisconsin82.9Jan-9251.918.16578
Wyoming7.1Aug-924.30.58993

Note:

1Negative values denote percent increase.

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

Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 –2000 [In thousands]

 19651970197519801985198919942000Percent Change
1989-941994-00
United States4,3237,41511,09410,59710,81310,93514,2265,96130-58
Alabama78123160180151129132562-57
Alaska5812151619382496-37
Arizona40517151721052018791-57
Arkansas30451018564706929-0-58
California5281,1481,3621,3871,6191,7632,6391,30850-50
Colorado4266967779971192922-76
Connecticut59831251391221061666656-60
Delaware122031322419271343-53
Dist. of Columbia2040103855848744755-37
Florida106204265256271327669153105-77
Georgia7119835422123926639312948-67
Guam1235647106746
Hawaii142547605143624445-28
Idaho10161921171723238-90
Illinois26236877767273563271225413-64
Indiana48731621571651472169947-54
Iowa446485104123981105313-52
Kansas365367686774873217-64
Kentucky811291591671601562088934-57
Louisiana10420223521323027724875-10-70
Maine193680605751642827-56
Maryland801312162121951762227326-67
Massachusetts9420834735023524230710127-67
Michigan1622536416856916406662074-69
Minnesota517612413515216418711614-38
Mississippi8311518617315517915934-11-79
Missouri10714026019919720326312530-53
Montana71322192228351326-63
Nebraska163038354441452410-47
Nevada51214121420381689-58
New Hampshire49262214133014139-54
New Jersey10428644045936729833513013-61
New Mexico3051615351591027274-29
New York5171,0521,2101,1001,1129791,25572428-42
North Carolina11112417019816620033310066-70
North Dakota811141312151698-47
Ohio1832665355136736296852459-64
Oklahoma73959789821031313527-73
Oregon31759910274871144231-63
Pennsylvania30342662762956152362023919-61
Puerto Rico20222323216817318518392-2-49
Rhode Island243852524442634550-28
South Carolina30521351531201071403730-73
South Dakota1116252016191971-65
Tennessee7612920116215519530015153-49
Texas9121439430836354078834246-57
Utah223334373844502214-55
Vermont51221232220281641-42
Virgin Islands1243434311-15
Virginia46871741661541461957334-63
Washington7110914315417821929215333-47
West Virginia116936977106109114325-72
Wisconsin457916121328824522638-8-83
Wyoming4577101416119-93

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2001 TANF Report to Congress.

Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2000 [In percent]

 19651970197519801985198919942000Percent Change
1989-941994-00
United States2.13.55.04.64.54.45.42.124-61
Alabama2.23.64.34.63.83.23.11.3-3-59
Alaska1.82.63.13.73.03.56.33.878-40
Arizona2.62.93.11.92.32.94.81.766-65
Arkansas1.52.34.73.72.83.02.81.1-5-61
California2.95.76.35.86.16.08.43.840-54
Colorado2.23.03.72.62.53.03.30.710-80
Connecticut2.12.74.14.53.83.25.11.957-62
Delaware2.43.65.45.43.92.93.91.633-58
Dist. of Columbia2.55.314.613.39.27.713.18.271-37
Florida1.83.03.12.62.42.64.81.085-80
Georgia1.64.37.04.04.04.15.61.635-72
Hawaii1.93.25.46.24.93.95.33.735-31
Idaho1.42.22.32.21.71.72.00.221-91
Illinois2.53.36.95.96.45.56.02.09-66
Indiana1.01.43.02.93.02.73.81.641-57
Iowa1.62.33.03.64.33.53.91.811-53
Kansas1.62.42.92.92.83.03.41.213-65
Kentucky2.54.04.64.64.34.25.42.228-60
Louisiana2.95.66.15.05.26.55.81.7-11-71
Maine1.93.67.55.44.94.25.22.225-58
Maryland2.23.35.25.04.43.74.41.419-69
Massachusetts1.83.76.06.14.04.05.11.627-69
Michigan2.02.97.07.47.66.96.92.10-70
Minnesota1.42.03.23.33.63.84.12.39-43
Mississippi3.65.27.86.96.06.96.01.2-14-80
Missouri2.43.05.44.03.94.05.02.225-55
Montana1.01.92.92.42.73.54.11.418-65
Nebraska1.12.02.52.22.82.62.81.47-50
Nevada1.22.42.31.51.41.82.60.848-70
New Hampshire0.71.23.12.41.41.22.71.1133-58
New Jersey1.54.06.06.24.93.94.21.510-63
New Mexico3.05.05.34.13.53.96.24.059-36
New York2.95.86.76.36.25.46.93.827-45
North Carolina2.22.43.13.42.63.14.71.254-74
North Dakota1.21.72.12.01.82.42.61.49-47
Ohio1.82.55.04.86.35.86.22.26-65
Oklahoma3.03.73.52.92.53.34.01.024-75
Oregon1.63.64.33.92.83.13.71.218-67
Pennsylvania2.63.65.35.34.84.45.11.917-62
Rhode Island2.74.05.55.54.54.26.34.351-32
South Carolina1.22.04.64.93.63.13.80.923-76
South Dakota1.62.43.62.92.32.72.60.9-3-66
Tennessee2.03.34.73.53.34.05.82.744-54
Texas0.91.93.12.12.23.24.31.634-62
Utah2.23.12.82.52.32.62.61.01-62
Vermont1.42.64.44.44.23.54.82.636-45
Virginia1.01.93.43.12.72.43.01.025-66
Washington2.43.24.03.74.04.65.52.618-53
West Virginia6.45.33.74.05.56.06.31.84-72
Wisconsin1.11.83.54.56.15.04.40.7-12-84
Wyoming1.11.51.81.42.03.03.40.215-93

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

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

Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients By State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2000 [In thousands]

 19651970197519801985198919942000Percent Change
1989-941994-00
United States3,2425,4837,9527,3207,1657,3709,6114,38530-54
Alabama62961191291059296434-55
Alaska469101013241590-38
Arizona3139543850741366385-53
Arkansas2334756245504920-0-59
California3918169439321,0701,1861,8041,00952-44
Colorado335068535366802222-73
Connecticut4362929782711114756-58
Delaware91523221613191041-44
Dist. of Columbia163175594338513533-32
Florida8516020018419123546312097-74
Georgia5415026116116618727410147-63
Guam1124435NA63NA
Hawaii101833403328412945-29
Idaho7111414111116236-88
Illinois20228356247349343248620012-59
Indiana36551191111111001456945-53
Iowa324659697763723513-51
Kansas284150494550592317-61
Kentucky58931131181071051376331-54
Louisiana7915717715616319518056-8-69
Maine142656403632401925-52
Maryland611001571451261171515328-65
Massachusetts711532422281521541977128-64
Michigan1191904544604414144391516-65
Minnesota39588991951051248118-35
Mississippi669314412811212911629-10-75
Missouri821061931351291341768831-50
Montana6101613151823928-62
Nebraska122328252928311810-43
Nevada49108914271189-58
New Hampshire37181598199130-51
New Jersey792093163182472052289711-57
New Mexico233945353441664764-28
New York38075986275972964881349326-39
North Carolina83941251411131362238763-61
North Dakota681098101156-50
Ohio13619837334842441145518011-60
Oklahoma557174655771902827-69
Oregon235267654958763030-60
Pennsylvania21730743043236934841718220-56
Puerto Rico16116617011811612612465-2-47
Rhode Island182737362828413150-25
South Carolina244010010984771022933-72
South Dakota812181511131463-59
Tennessee589915011510513320310053-51
Texas6816229222525637854926045-53
Utah162323242428331617-52
Vermont4814141412171039-41
Virgin Islands123233339-4
Virginia35661251161031001345234-61
Washington5076959711314118710532-44
West Virginia80654758646772217-70
Wisconsin346011614218116115333-5-78
Wyoming34557911122-91

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2001 TANF Report to Congress.

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2000 [In percent]

 19651970197519801985198919942000Percent Change
1989-941994-00
United States4.47.611.611.311.211.414.05.922-57
Alabama4.67.79.911.19.78.68.93.94-56
Alaska3.15.06.28.05.97.312.87.576-41
Arizona4.86.07.24.85.97.612.14.460-64
Arkansas3.15.210.99.37.17.97.72.9-3-62
California6.012.314.614.615.615.620.811.033-47
Colorado4.46.48.46.56.17.68.31.910-77
Connecticut4.46.19.811.810.89.514.25.549-61
Delaware4.77.512.313.410.28.110.55.530-48
Dist. of Columbia6.013.841.140.933.930.744.533.145-26
Florida4.37.68.47.87.68.414.13.268-78
Georgia3.29.115.59.810.110.814.64.735-68
Hawaii3.66.511.714.511.610.113.69.835-27
Idaho2.74.24.84.73.63.74.60.522-89
Illinois5.37.516.014.616.114.515.76.18-61
Indiana2.03.06.96.97.56.99.84.443-55
Iowa3.24.76.68.410.28.89.94.712-52
Kansas3.55.47.37.56.97.68.53.312-62
Kentucky4.98.310.210.910.510.914.16.429-54
Louisiana5.511.313.211.812.215.514.64.6-6-69
Maine3.97.716.412.511.710.413.16.526-50
Maryland4.67.311.912.411.410.212.04.018-67
Massachusetts3.88.114.215.311.211.413.94.722-66
Michigan3.75.815.016.717.716.917.45.93-66
Minnesota2.94.27.07.78.59.210.16.210-39
Mississippi7.011.117.315.714.017.115.33.7-10-76
Missouri5.26.913.29.99.810.212.96.126-52
Montana2.04.06.65.76.17.99.73.822-61
Nebraska2.34.45.85.56.86.57.03.98-45
Nevada2.55.25.43.83.95.07.12.040-71
New Hampshire1.42.66.95.83.73.16.63.0118-55
New Jersey3.48.814.116.013.511.311.74.73-60
New Mexico5.29.510.98.57.89.013.59.250-32
New York6.313.016.316.216.715.118.010.619-41
North Carolina4.45.37.28.57.18.512.64.249-67
North Dakota2.33.64.94.74.35.76.33.312-48
Ohio3.65.310.911.214.714.616.06.39-61
Oklahoma6.48.58.77.66.38.310.43.024-71
Oregon3.37.49.69.06.98.29.73.518-64
Pennsylvania5.58.012.313.812.912.414.46.216-57
Rhode Island5.99.113.314.712.612.117.512.244-30
South Carolina2.34.210.411.69.18.310.82.930-73
South Dakota3.15.08.27.15.76.76.62.7-1-59
Tennessee4.27.511.38.98.610.915.77.244-54
Texas1.74.17.15.25.47.910.44.432-58
Utah3.75.45.04.44.04.54.92.19-57
Vermont2.75.49.39.99.98.811.77.133-39
Virginia2.24.17.97.97.16.78.43.026-64
Washington4.76.58.58.59.711.513.36.916-48
West Virginia12.211.28.410.412.614.816.85.313-68
Wisconsin2.23.87.810.514.212.611.42.4-9-79
Wyoming2.13.24.13.44.16.68.10.724-91

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

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


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

Food Stamp Program

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

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

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

In addition to the regular Food Stamp Program, the Food Stamp Act authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, had an average of 1.1 million participants in 2000, funded under a federal block grant of $1.27 billion. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix include costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico. Prior to 1982, the regular Food Stamp Program operated in Puerto Rico, under modified eligibility and benefit rules.

The Food Stamp Program has financial, employment/training-related and “categorical” tests for eligibility. The basic food stamp beneficiary unit is the “household.” Generally, individuals living together constitute a single food stamp household if they customarily purchase food and prepare meals together. Members of the same household must apply together, and their income, expenses, and assets normally are aggregated in determining food stamp eligibility and benefits. Except for households composed entirely of TANF, SSI, or general assistance recipients (who generally are automatically eligible for food stamps), monthly cash income is the primary food stamp eligibility determinant. Unless exempt, adult applicants for food stamps must register for work, typically with the welfare agency or a state employment service office. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job if offered one and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the administering welfare agencies.

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

Recent Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Title IV and Subtitle A of title VIII of the PRWORA contain major and extensive revisions to the Food Stamp Program, including strong work requirements on able-bodied adults without dependent children, restricted benefits for legal immigrants, and a reduction in maximum benefits. These three provisions, and subsequent amendments, are discussed below; their impact on program participation and expenditures begins to appear in food stamp administrative data for 1997, with the fuller impact shown in data for 1998 and beyond.

First, a new work requirement was added for able-bodied adult food stamp recipients without dependents (ABAWDs). Unless exempt, ABAWDs between the ages of 18 and 50 are not eligible for benefits for more than 3 months in every 36-month period unless they are (1) working at least 20 hours a week; (2) participating in and complying with a work program for at least 20 hours a week; or (3) participating in and complying with a workfare program. Under the original legislation, the Department of Agriculture was authorized to waive application of the work requirement to any group of individuals at the request of the state agency, if a determination is made that the area where they reside has an unemployment rate over 10 percent or does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide them employment. The provision was further moderated under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which allowed states to exempt up to 15 percent of the ABAWD caseload (beyond those subject to waivers) and which increased funds for the food stamp employment and training program for the creation of job slots for able-bodied adults subject to time limits.

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

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

Recent regulatory and legislative changes have been made to increase access to food stamps among working poor families. Regulatory changes announced in July 1999 and expanded in November 2000 allow states to reduce reporting requirements and make it easier for working families to report income changes on a semiannual basis. Under the November 2000 regulations, states also have the option of providing a three-month transitional food stamp benefit to most families leaving TANF. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2001 (P.L. 106-387) provides states with the option of liberalizing the treatment of vehicle assets to align with the states’ TANF rules on vehicle eligibility. These changes were intended to address concerns that some of the decline in food stamp caseloads may be leaving poor families without nutritional assistance as they make the transition from welfare dependence to full self-sufficiency.

Food Stamp Program Data

The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Food Stamp Program, including information about the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico:

  • Tables FSP 1-2 and Figure FSP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the Food Stamp Program, as discussed below;
  • Table FSP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the food stamp caseload; and
  • Tables FSP 4-6 present some state-by-state trend data on the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2000.

Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Tables FSP 1-2). Average monthly food stamp participation (including participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant) has continued to fall from its peak of 28.9 million in an average month in 1994 to an average of 18.3 million persons in 2000. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population, food stamp recipiency is lower than at any point in the past twenty years. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data on the recent decline in food stamp recipiency and participation rates.

Considerable research has demonstrated that the Food Stamp Program is responsive to economic changes, with participation increasing in times of economic downturns and decreasing in times of economic growth (see Figure FSP 1). Economic conditions alone did not explain the caseload growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however. A congressionally mandated study in 1990 concluded that a variety of factors contributed to this caseload growth, including expansions in Medicaid eligibility and changes in immigration laws, particularly the legalization of undocumented aliens, as well as a rise in unemployment (McConnell, 1991). Longer spells of participation also contributed to the caseload increase, according to an analysis of longitudinal data from the Survey on Income and Program Participation (Gleason, 1998).

Economic conditions were a significant factor in explaining the drop in food stamp caseload since 1994, according to an Economic Research Service review of recent research (ERS, 2000). Several econometric models suggest that economic variables explain between 25 and 44 percent of the decline in caseload. The full effect of the economy may be even higher, to the extent that some of the unexplained variation in the models reflects local economic conditions not captured in state-level economic variables.

Policy changes, most notably the enactment of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, have also contributed to the recent decline in food stamp caseload. The most direct impact was the elimination of eligibility for most legal immigrants and for many childless adults aged 18-50. Participation for these two groups fell sharply between 1994 and 1998 (Genser, 1999). In addition, changes in TANF policy may have affected food stamp participation, although these effects are less certain. Many studies of families leaving TANF cash assistance have found that many of these families leave the Food Stamp Program as well, despite appearing eligible for food stamp benefits. Econometric studies of the effects of specific changes in TANF policy, however, have found that only a small share of the decline in state food stamp caseloads was associated with waivers to AFDC policies. Increased stigma about welfare use and unintentional diversion from the Food Stamp Program may be additional factors affecting food stamp participation. Finally, a study of trends in Food Stamp Program participation rates (USDA, 2000) found that the program is reaching a smaller percentage of eligible individuals in 1998 than it did during the three previous years.

Food Stamp Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table FSP 2, have declined in recent years, along with the decline in caseloads. In fiscal year 2000, total program costs (including Puerto Rico) were $18.4 billion, reaching their lowest levels since 1980, after adjusting for inflation. (Average monthly participation in fiscal year 2000 was 18.3 million). Average monthly benefits per person have also declined in recent years after adjusting for inflation. Benefits were $73 per person in fiscal year 2000, considerably lower than the $85 per person benefit (in constant dollars) paid in 1992, but higher than the $70 per person paid in 1987.

Food Stamp Household Characteristics. As shown in Table FSP 3, the proportion of food stamp households with earnings has increased, from about 20 percent for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, to 27 percent in 2000. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 42 percent in 1984 to 26 percent in 2000, following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. Over half of all food stamp households have children, although the proportion has declined somewhat from over 60 percent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s to 54 percent in 2000. The vast majority (89 percent) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps

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

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank.

Table FSP 1. Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads, Selected Years 1962 – 2000

Fiscal YearFood Stamp Participants1Participants as a Percent of:Child Participants As a Percent of:
Including Territories2 (in thousands)Excluding Territories (in thousands)Children Excld. Terr. (in thousands)Total Population3All Poor Persons3Pre-transfer Poverty Population4Total Child Population3Children in Poverty3
19626,5546,554NA3.517.0NANANA
19655,1665,166NA2.715.5NANANA
19708,2778,277NA4.132.6NANANA
197113,04213,042NA6.351.0NANANA
197214,10214,102NA6.757.7NANANA
197314,64114,641NA6.963.7NANANA
197414,78414,765NA6.963.2NANANA
1975518,30817,217NA8.066.2NANANA
197618,24016,7339,1267.766.7NA13.888.8
197717,01415,579NA7.162.7NANANA
197815,98814,503NA6.558.9NANANA
1979617,68215,976NA7.160.957.1NANA
198021,08219,2539,8768.565.560.715.585.6
198122,43020,6549,8039.064.660.815.578.4
198222,05520,3929,5918.859.056.315.370.3
198323,19521,66710,9109.361.158.517.478.4
198422,38420,79610,4928.861.758.516.878.2
198521,37919,8479,9068.360.056.615.876.1
198620,90919,3819,8448.159.956.215.776.5
198720,58319,0729,7717.959.255.615.575.4
198820,09518,6139,3517.658.655.214.875.1
198920,26618,7789,4297.659.655.614.974.9
199021,54720,03810,1278.059.755.715.875.4
199124,11522,59911,9529.063.359.318.483.3
199226,88625,36913,3499.966.764.020.287.3
199328,42226,95214,19610.568.663.821.290.3
199428,87927,43414,39110.572.166.821.294.1
199527,98926,57913,86010.173.067.620.294.5
199626,87225,49413,1899.669.864.619.191.2
199724,14822,82011,8478.564.159.917.083.9
199820,97019,74610,5247.357.353.815.178.1
199919,32518,1469,3546.756.352.513.377.2
200018,26717,1208,7656.155.051.712.175.3

1Total participants includes all participating states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico). The number of child participants includes only the participating states and D.C. (the territories are not included). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) which was largely replaced by the Food Stamp Program in 1975. The FFAP participants (as of December) for the seven years shown during the period from 1962 to 1974 were respectively: 6,411; 4,742; 3,977; 3,642; 3,002; 2,441; and 1,406 (all in thousands). From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand. The monthly average number of participants for 1970-76 is computed as an average from October of the prior calendar year to September, the span of the fiscal year since 1977.

2Participation figures in column 1 from 1982 on include enrollment in Puerto Rico’s Nutrition Assistance Program (averaging 1.1 to 1.5 million persons a month under the nutrition assistance grant and higher figures in earlier years under Food Stamps, as shown in Table FSP 5).

3Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only — the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population numbers used as denominators are the resident population — see Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106. For the persons living in poverty used as denominators, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-210.

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

5The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.

6The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank, the 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2000," Current Population Reports, Series P60-214 and earlier years.

Table FSP 2. Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures, Selected Years 1975 – 2000

Fiscal YearTotal Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration) Benefits2(Federal) 
[In millions]
Administration1Total Program Cost
[In millions]
Average Monthly Benefit per Person
Current Dollars
[In millions]
2000 Dollars3
[In millions]
Federal
[In millions]
State & Local
[In millions]
Current Dollars2000 Dollars3
1975$5,037$15,946$4,798$238$180$5,217$21.50$68.10
19765,64116,7185,2763652755,93423.5069.60
19775,46315,0725,0614023005,77524.0066.20
19785,54614,3545,1124343255,88325.7066.50
197946,96516,5776,4505153887,38829.9071.20
19809,22419,7368,7215033759,63334.2073.20
198111,30822,00010,63067850411,90639.4076.70
198211,11720,20910,40870955711,69739.0070.90
198312,70822,09411,93077861213,34343.0074.80
198412,44620,75511,475971580513,25142.7071.20
198512,57320,23911,5301,04387113,44445.0072.40
198612,51019,64111,3971,11393513,44545.5071.40
198712,51219,10211,3171,19599613,50845.8069.90
198813,28119,47811,9911,2901,08014,36149.8073.00
198913,90419,46012,5721,3321,10115,00551.8072.50
199016,50322,00415,0811,4221,17417,67758.9078.50
199119,79025,11818,2741,5161,24721,03763.9081.10
199223,53528,99221,8791,6561,37524,91068.6084.50
199324,73329,57623,0171,7161,57226,30568.0081.30
199425,58729,80623,7981,7891,64327,23069.0080.40
199525,77629,22023,8591,9171,74827,52471.3080.80
199625,52728,15223,5431,9841,84227,36973.2080.70
199722,75024,43020,6922,0581,90424,65471.3076.60
199820,22421,36918,0552,1691,98822,21271.1075.10
199919,04519,74716,9452,1001,87422,91972.2074.90
200018,41118,41116,2112,2001,96320,37472.8072.80

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

2Benefit costs include the Food Stamp Program and Puerto Rico's nutritional assistance program and are based on unpublished data from the USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank (see Table FSP 4).

3Constant dollar adjustments to 2000 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index.

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

5Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps.

Note: Total federal cost includes food stamps in Puerto Rico (1975-1981) and funding for Puerto Rico's nutrition assistance grant (1982-present). Average benefit figures, however, do not reflect the lower benefits in Puerto Rico under either the Food Stamp Program from 1975 to 1981 or its nutrition assistance program since 1982.

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data from the National Data Bank; and the 2000 Green Book.

Table FSP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, 1980 - 2000 [In percent]

 Year1
1980198419881990199219941996199819992000
With Gross Monthly Income:
  • Below the Federal Poverty Levels.
87939292929091908989
  • Between the Poverty Levels and 130 Percent of the Poverty Levels.
1068889891010
  • Above 130 Percent of Poverty
21***11111
With Earnings19192019212123262727
With Public Assistance Income265717273666967656363
  • With AFDC/TANF Income.
NA424243403837312726
  • With SSI Income
18182019192324283032
With Children60616161626160585654
  • And Female Heads of Household
NA475051515150474644
    • With No Spouse Present
NANA3937444343414038
With Elderly Members323221918151616182021
  • With Elderly Female Heads of Household3
NA161411911NANANANA
Average Household Size2.82.82.82.72.62.62.52.42.42.3

1Data 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.

2Public assistance income includes AFDC, SSI, and general assistance.

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

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2000 and earlier years.

Table FSP 4. Value of Food Stamps Issued by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1975 – 2000 [Millions of dollars]

State19751980198519901995199819992000
United States$4,798$8,721$11,530$15,081$23,859$18,055$16,945$16,211
Alabama$108$246$318$328$441$357$346$344
Alaska727252550504946
Arizona4597121239414253233240
Arkansas78122126155212206210206
California3745306399682,4732,0201,7961,639
Colorado487194156217157145127
Connecticut38596272169161150138
Delaware821222547343231
Dist. of Columbia3241404392858277
Florida2364213686091,307845813773
Georgia144264290382700538514489
Guam315181524343136
Hawaii26609381177178180166
Idaho1229364059474546
Illinois2593947138351,056844767777
Indiana64154242226382263255268
Iowa2954107109142109103100
Kansas13386496144838083
Kentucky138211332334413345337337
Louisiana149243365549629467463448
Maine366062631121008981
Maryland79140171203365282237199
Massachusetts104171173207315222205182
Michigan132263541663806588515457
Minnesota4362105165240181172165
Mississippi115199264352383254232226
Missouri85142212312488345348358
Montana1118314157525251
Nebraska1225445977686661
Nevada1115224191635657
New Hampshire1422152044303128
New Jersey136226260289506384346304
New Mexico498188117196144144140
New York2337269381,0862,0651,5051,4641,361
North Carolina139234237282495421435403
North Dakota59162532252625
Ohio2683826978611,017613535520
Oklahoma4073134186315231221208
Oregon5880142168254198190198
Pennsylvania1903735476611,006764704656
Puerto Rico3668287868941,0951,1661,1901,226
Rhode Island1931354282576159
South Carolina126181194240297264251249
South Dakota818263540373737
Tennessee126282280372554437425415
Texas3195147011,4292,2461,4251,2551,215
Utah1322407190757368
Vermont1018202246343432
Virgin Islands919231828222221
Virginia70158189247450307282263
Washington7190140229417308260241
West Virginia5787159192253224208185
Wisconsin3368148180220130124129
Wyoming36152128211919

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

Table FSP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1977 – 2000 [In thousands]

State

 Percent Change
197719811985198919941996199820001989-941994-00
United States17,01422,43021,37920,26628,87926,87220,97018,26742-33
Alabama31660558843654550942739625-27
Alaska113222264646423876-18
Arizona14021020626451242729625994-49
Arkansas21330525322728327425624724-13
California1,3451,6051,6151,7763,1553,1432,2591,83278-42
Colorado14717517021126824419115627-42
Connecticut17817514511422322319616596-26
Delaware265640305958463299-46
Dist. of Columbia9810172589193858155-11
Florida7289576306681,4741,371991882121-40
Georgia45965456748583079363255971-33
Guam22252013151825222146
Hawaii1081049978115130122118473
Idaho336459618280625834-29
Illinois9229841,1109901,1891,10592377920-34
Indiana19640540628551839031330082-42
Iowa10816320316819617714112316-37
Kansas6210811912819217211911750-39
Kentucky39451956044752248641240317-23
Louisiana4255746447257566705375004-34
Maine1011401148413613111510261-25
Maryland25534628724939037532321957-44
Massachusetts57943733731444237429323240-48
Michigan6359429858741,03193577260318-42
Minnesota15820222824531829522019630-38
Mississippi3335144954935114573292764-46
Missouri22137836240459355441142347-29
Montana274758567171625928-17
Nebraska40759492111102958220-26
Nevada1837324197977261134-37
New Hampshire4454282262534036182-41
New Jersey49360846435354554042534554-37
New Mexico11818315715124423517516962-31
New York1,6461,8511,8341,4632,1542,0991,6271,43947-33
North Carolina42860547439063063152848861-22
North Dakota152933394540343217-30
Ohio8039761,1331,0681,2451,04573461017-51
Oklahoma15820626326137635428825344-33
Oregon15323222821328628823823434-18
Pennsylvania8431,0711,0329161,2081,12490777732-36
Puerto Rico1,4721,8051,4801,4601,4101,3301,1811,109-3-21
Rhode Island798869579491727465-21
South Carolina28044337327238535833329542-23
South Dakota26464850534945436-20
Tennessee39267751850073563853849647-32
Texas8231,2261,2631,6342,7262,3721,6361,33367-51
Utah36657595128110928234-36
Vermont464844346556464190-37
Virgin Islands253432162031171623-21
Virginia24043236033354753839733665-39
Washington21227128132146847836429546-37
West Virginia19925227825932130026922724-29
Wisconsin17526936329133028319319313-41
Wyoming91527273433252225-34

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table FSP 6. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1977 – 2000 [In percent]

State

 Percent Change
197719811985198919941996199820001989-941994-00
United States7.19.08.37.610.59.67.36.139-42
Alabama8.415.414.810.812.911.99.88.919-31
Alaska2.77.74.14.87.67.66.96.060-22
Arizona5.87.56.57.312.39.66.35.069-59
Arkansas9.713.310.99.711.510.910.19.219-20
California6.06.66.16.110.19.96.95.466-47
Colorado5.55.95.36.57.36.44.83.614-51
Connecticut5.85.64.53.56.86.86.04.897-29
Delaware4.59.36.54.58.48.06.14.185-51
Dist. of Columbia14.515.911.49.416.017.216.414.171-12
Florida8.29.45.55.310.69.56.65.5100-48
Georgia8.811.79.57.611.810.88.36.856-42
Hawaii11.810.69.57.19.811.010.39.737-0
Idaho3.86.75.96.17.26.75.14.517-38
Illinois8.18.69.78.710.19.37.66.316-38
Indiana3.67.47.45.29.06.75.34.975-45
Iowa3.75.67.26.16.96.24.94.214-39
Kansas2.74.54.95.27.56.64.54.344-42
Kentucky11.014.215.212.113.712.310.510.013-27
Louisiana10.613.414.617.017.615.412.311.23-36
Maine9.212.49.86.911.010.69.28.059-27
Maryland6.18.16.55.37.87.46.34.149-47
Massachusetts10.17.65.75.27.36.14.83.640-50
Michigan6.910.210.89.410.89.67.96.114-44
Minnesota4.04.95.55.77.06.34.64.023-43
Mississippi13.520.319.119.119.216.912.09.70-49
Missouri4.57.77.27.911.210.37.67.642-33
Montana3.65.97.17.08.38.17.16.620-21
Nebraska2.64.75.95.96.86.25.74.817-30
Nevada2.74.43.43.66.66.04.13.083-55
New Hampshire5.15.82.82.05.44.63.32.9174-46
New Jersey6.78.26.14.66.96.85.24.151-41
New Mexico9.713.710.910.014.713.810.19.347-37
New York9.210.510.38.111.911.69.07.646-36
North Carolina7.510.27.65.98.98.67.06.050-32
North Dakota2.44.44.96.07.16.25.35.019-30
Ohio7.59.110.69.911.29.46.55.414-52
Oklahoma5.56.78.08.311.610.78.67.340-37
Oregon6.38.78.57.69.39.07.36.821-26
Pennsylvania7.19.08.87.710.09.37.66.330-37
Rhode Island8.39.37.25.79.49.27.37.166-25
South Carolina9.413.911.37.910.59.68.77.334-30
South Dakota3.86.66.97.27.36.66.25.72-23
Tennessee8.914.611.010.314.212.09.98.738-39
Texas6.28.37.89.714.812.58.36.453-57
Utah2.74.34.65.66.65.44.43.719-45
Vermont9.49.48.26.111.19.67.76.783-40
Virginia4.67.96.35.48.48.15.84.754-43
Washington5.66.46.46.88.88.66.45.030-43
West Virginia10.412.914.614.317.716.514.912.623-29
Wisconsin3.85.77.66.06.55.53.73.68-44
Wyoming2.13.05.46.07.26.95.34.520-37

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 A-18.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank and U.S. Bureau of the Census (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness or disability. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18, unmarried, and meet the applicable SSI disability or blindness, income and resource requirements. Individuals and married couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the Federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels, which were $532 for an individual and $789 for a married couple in fiscal year 2000. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

SSI law requires that SSI applicants file for all other money benefits for which they may be entitled. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed as the “program of last resort” — after evaluating all other income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.” (The Social Security Administration, which administers the SSI program, works with recipients and helps them get any other benefits for which they are eligible.) As of December 2000, 36 percent of all SSI recipients also received Social Security benefits; Social Security benefits are the single highest source of income for SSI recipients.

No individual could receive both SSI payments and AFDC benefits; if eligible for both, the individual was required 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. The PRWORA does not specifically prohibit an individual’s receipt of both TANF benefits and SSI; states have complete authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels.

With the exception of California, which converted food stamp benefits to cash that is included in the State supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive food stamps. If all household members receive SSI, they do not need to meet the Food Stamp Program financial eligibility standards to participate in the program because they are categorically eligible. If SSI beneficiaries live in households where other household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility standard of the Food Stamp Program to be eligible for food stamp benefits.

Recent Legislative Changes

Several legislative changes made in the 104th Congress are likely to affect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) participation and expenditures. Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, prohibits SSI eligibility to individuals whose drug addiction and/or alcoholism (DAA) is a contributing factor material to the finding of disability. This provision applied to individuals who filed for benefits on or after the date of enactment (March 29, 1996) and to individuals whose claims were finally adjudicated on or after the date of enactment. It applied to current beneficiaries on January 1, 1997.

The PRWORA made several changes designed to maintain the SSI program’s goal of providing benefits for severely disabled children while preventing children without serious impairments from receiving benefits. First, the act replaced the former law “comparable severity” test with a new definition of childhood disability based on a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Second, it discontinued use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) which authorized subjective judgment to determine children’s eligibility for SSI. Third, it eliminated references to “maladaptive behavior” in the Listings of Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function). The latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Current beneficiaries receiving benefits due to an IFA or maladaptive behavior listing received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might end when their case is redetermined. All those currently receiving benefits are subject to redetermination using the new eligibility criteria by February 28, 1998 (per P.L. 105-33, enacted August 5, 1997).

Title IV of PRWORA also made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for SSI benefits. Essentially, qualified aliens (including legal immigrants) are barred from SSI. Some of the restrictions were subsequently moderated, most notably by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which grandfathered immigrants who were receiving SSI at the time of enactment of the PRWORA.

Several provisions aimed at reducing SSI fraud and improving recovery of overpayments were enacted in 1999, as part of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P. L. 106-169). Other legislation enacted in 1999 provides additional work incentives for disabled beneficiaries of SSI.

SSI Program Data

The following set of tables and figures provide SSI program data:

  • Tables SSI-1 through SSI-5 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program;
  • Table SSI-6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload; and
  • Tables SSI 7-9 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2000.

From 1990 to 1995, the program increased from 4.8 million beneficiaries to 6.5 million beneficiaries, an average growth rate of over 6 percent per year. Since 1995, the number of beneficiaries has stabilized, fluctuating between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. In December 2000, there were nearly 6.6 million beneficiaries. Table SSI 1 presents information on the number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2000. In addition to data on the total number of SSI recipients, Table SSI 1 also shows recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adult age 18-64, and adult age 65 or older). See also Table IND 9a and Table IND 9b in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation rates.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 1. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to 1.3 million persons in December 2000. At the same time there has been a strong growth in disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 5.3 million in December 2000. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased dramatically, particularly during the 1990s, when the number of disabled children receiving SSI increased from 340,000 in December 1990 to 955,000 in December 1996. The number of disabled children fell in the next three years, and appeared to stabilize at 847,000 in 1999 and 2000. 1

Several factors have contributed to the growth of the Supplemental Security Income program. Expansions in disability eligibility (particularly for mentally impaired adults and for children), increased outreach, overall growth in immigration, and transfers from state programs were among the key factors identified in a 1995 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups – adults with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the Zebley case2, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.

To counteract this rapid growth, Congress enacted changes to the SSI program in 1996, as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), tightening eligibility requirements for disabled children applying to the program and reviewing eligibility of those already receiving SSI.

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age, 1974 – 2000

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age, 1974 – 2000

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics/ores_home.html).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments 1974 – 2000 [In thousands]

DateTotalEligibility CategoryType of Recipient
AgedBlind and DisabledChildrenAdults
TotalBlindDisabledAge 18-6465 or Older
Dec19743,9962,2861,710751,6367111,5032,422
Dec19754,3142,3072,007741,9331071,6992,508
Dec19764,2362,1482,088762,0121251,7142,397
Dec19774,2382,0512,187772,1091471,7382,353
Dec19784,2171,9682,249772,1721661,7472,304
Dec19794,1501,8722,278772,2011771,7272,246
Dec19804,1421,8082,334782,2561901,7312,221
Dec19814,0191,6782,341792,2621951,7032,121
Dec19823,8581,5492,309772,2311921,6552,011
Dec19833,9011,5152,386792,3071981,7002,003
Dec19844,0291,5302,499812,4192121,7802,037
Dec19854,1381,5042,634822,5512271,8792,031
Dec19864,2691,4732,796832,7132412,0102,018
Dec19874,3851,4552,930832,8462512,1192,015
Dec19884,4641,4333,030832,9482552,2032,006
Dec19894,5931,4393,154833,0712652,3022,026
Dec19904,8171,4543,363843,2793092,4502,059
Dec19915,1181,4653,654853,5693972,6422,080
Dec19925,5661,4714,095854,0105562,9102,100
Dec19935,9841,4754,509854,4247233,1482,113
Dec19946,2961,4664,830854,7458413,3352,119
Dec19956,5141,4465,068844,9849173,4822,115
Dec19966,6141,4135,201825,1199553,5682,090
Dec19976,4951,3625,133815,0528803,5622,054
Dec19986,5661,3325,234805,1548873,6462,033
Dec19996,5571,3085,249795,1698473,6912,019
Dec20006,6021,2895,312795,2348473,7442,011

1Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001, (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates, 1974 – 2000 [In percentages]

Date All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population1Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population1Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children1Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
All Persons 65 & Older1All Elderly Poor2Pretransfer Elderly Poor3
Dec 19741.91.20.110.878.5NA
Dec 19752.01.30.210.975.6NA
Dec 19761.91.30.210.272.4NA
Dec 19771.91.30.29.774.1NA
Dec 19781.91.30.39.371.5NA
Dec 19791.81.30.38.861.366.8
Dec 19801.81.20.38.657.564.7
Dec 19811.71.20.38.055.063.3
Dec 19821.71.20.37.453.662.3
Dec 19831.71.20.37.355.261.9
Dec 19841.71.20.37.261.266.3
Dec 19851.71.30.47.158.764.5
Dec 19861.81.30.46.957.963.4
Dec 19871.81.40.46.756.564.7
Dec 19881.81.50.46.657.664.3
Dec 19891.91.50.46.560.364.6
Dec 19901.91.60.56.556.363.3
Dec 19912.01.70.66.555.061.1
Dec 19922.21.90.86.553.559.8
Dec 19932.32.01.16.456.363.3
Dec 19942.42.11.26.457.965.6
Dec 19952.52.21.36.463.771.4
Dec 19962.52.21.46.261.069.3
Dec 19972.42.21.36.060.869.1
Dec 19982.42.21.35.960.069.1
Dec 19992.42.21.25.863.772.4
Dec 20002.32.11.25.759.866.9

1Population numbers used for the denominators are Census resident population estimates adjusted to the December date by averaging the July 1 population of the current year with the July 1 population of the following year; see Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106 and Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex, April 1, 1990 to July 1, 2000, Internet release date January 2, 2001 and the 2000 Decennial Census (Available online at http://www.census.gov).

2For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-214.

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

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

Source: 1994 Green Book and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2000," Current Population Reports, Series P60-214, and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Total, Federal, and State SSI Benefits and Administration, 1974 – 20001[In millions of dollars]

Calendar YearTotal BenefitsFederal PaymentsState Supplementation
20002DollarsCurrent DollarsTotalFederally AdministeredState Administered Administrative Costs
(fiscal year)
1974$17,405$5,246$3,833$1,413$1,264$149$285
197518,0115,8784,3141,5651,403162399
197617,5856,0664,5121,5541,388166500
197717,1826,3064,7031,6031,431172526
197816,7156,5524,8811,6711,491180539
197916,4647,0755,2791,7971,590207610
198016,6157,9415,8662,0741,848226668
198116,4238,5936,5182,0761,839237718
198216,1778,9816,9072,0741,798276779
198316,2599,4047,4231,9821,711270830
198417,19010,3728,2812,0911,792299864
198517,70111,0608,7772,2831,973311953
198618,98112,0819,4982,5832,2433401,022
198719,63212,95110,0292,9222,563359976
198820,06713,78610,7343,0522,671381975
198920,80314,98011,6063,3742,9554191,051
199021,86916,59912,8943,7053,2394661,075
199123,42118,52414,7653,7593,2315291,257
199227,28822,23318,2473,9863,4355501,538
199329,26424,55720,7223,8353,2705661,467
199430,06725,87722,1753,7013,1165851,775
199531,21727,62823,9193,7083,1185901,973
199631,60028,79225,2653,5272,9885391,949
199731,17029,05225,4573,5952,9136822,055
199831,92230,21626,4053,8123,0038082,304
199931,96230,92326,8054,1543,3018532,493
200031,56431,56427,2904,2743,3818932,401

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

2Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-X1 for calendar years.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001, (Data available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly SSI Benefit Payments, 1974 – 2000

Calendar YearTotal1Federal PaymentsState Supplementation
2000 DollarsCurrent DollarsTotalFederally AdministeredState Administered
1974$475$135$108$64$71$35
197533811292666945
1980321158133899176
1984349211187939393
19853492191939999102
1986365232202107108101
1987365242208117118110
1988365253219118118118
1989369267230126126127
1990368283244132131136
1991375297260125122143
1992402328292124121147
1993403337306112107150
199439333831010599152
1995397350322110103164
1996394359333108103145
19973983693429910286
1998402379350103104102
1999402388356111113105
2000393393360113114109

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

Note: The numerators for these averages are given in Table SSI 3 and the denominators are given in Table SSI 5. Averages were computed by DHHS. Data adjusted for inflation using the monthly values of the CPI-U-X1 index.

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001. 

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving SSI Payments by Type of Payment, 1974 – 2000 (in thousands)

DateTotalFederalState Supplementation
TotalFederally AdministeredState Administered
Jan 19743,2492,9561,8391,480358
Dec 19754,3603,8931,9871,684303
Dec 19804,1943,6821,9341,685249
Dec 19844,0943,6991,8751,607268
Dec 19854,2003,7991,9161,661255
Dec 19864,3473,9222,0031,723279
Dec 19874,4584,0192,0791,807272
Dec 19884,5414,0892,1551,885270
Dec 19894,6734,2062,2241,950275
Dec 19904,8884,4122,3442,058286
Dec 19915,2004,7302,5122,204308
Dec 19925,6475,2022,6842,372313
Dec 19936,0655,6362,8502,536314
Dec 19946,3775,9652,9502,628322
Dec 19956,5766,1942,8172,518300
Dec 19966,6776,3262,7322,421310
Dec 19976,5656,2123,0292,372657
Dec 19986,6496,2893,0722,412661
Dec 19996,6416,2753,1162,441675
Dec 20006,6856,3203,1642,481683

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001.

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients, by Age, Sex, Earnings/Income, and Citizenship: Selected Years, 1980-2000

 19801985199019921994199619982000
Total
Ages100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
  • under 18
5.55.56.410.013.414.413.512.8
  • 18-64
40.945.450.952.353.054.055.556.7
  • 65 or older
53.649.142.737.733.731.631.030.5
Sex
  • Male
34.435.237.239.041.341.941.341.5
  • Female
65.564.862.861.058.758.158.758.5
Selected Sources of Income
  • Earnings
3.23.84.74.44.24.44.54.4
  • Social Security
51.049.445.942.139.137.036.536.1
  • No other income
34.834.536.438.743.646.247.354.4
NoncitizensNA5.19.010.811.711.010.210.5

Eligibility Category

  • Aged
43.636.430.226.423.321.420.319.5
  • Blind
1.92.01.71.51.41.21.21.2
  • Disabled
54.561.768.172.075.477.478.579.3
Aged
Ages100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
  • 65-69
14.014.919.420.720.519.116.615.6
  • 70-79
51.545.641.342.544.347.049.450.0
  • 80 or older
34.539.539.236.835.133.934.134.5
Sex
  • Male
27.325.525.125.626.827.628.229.0
  • Female
72.674.574.974.473.272.471.871.0
NoncitizensNA9.719.425.430.029.527.428.5
Blind and Disabled
Ages100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
  • 18-64
80.277.780.082.083.483.883.983.8
  • 65 or older
19.822.320.018.016.616.216.116.2

Sex1

  • Male
39.840.842.443.941.841.441.044.5
  • Female
60.259.257.656.158.258.659.055.5
NoncitizensNA2.44.65.66.25.95.86.1
Children
Ages100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
  • Under 5
11.7NANA16.015.814.514.815.5
  • 5-9
20.9NANA26.928.528.129.828.5
  • 10-14
28.8NANA30.632.732.835.436.2
  • 15-17
21.7NANA15.717.318.419.919.8
  • 18-212
16.814.39.310.85.76.2

Sex

  • Male
NANANA62.063.063.463.363.8
  • Female
NANANA38.037.036.636.736.2

Note: Data are for December of the year.

1For 1980-1992 male-female classification reflects all blind and disabled, both children and adults; thereafter, it is based on adults only.

2In this table, students 18-21 are classified as children prior to 1998.

Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001 and prior years.

Table SSI 7. Total SSI Payments, Federal SSI Payments And State Supplementary Payments Calendar Year 2000 [In thousands]

State

Total Total FederalFederal SSIState Supplementation
Federally AdministeredState Administered
Total$31,564,439$30,671,725$27,290,248$3,381,451$892,740
Alabama659,218658,648658,648570
Alaska87,92736,71736,71751,210
Arizona355,324355,074355,074250
Arkansas332,628332,628332,628
California6,385,5536,385,5534,041,4172,344,136
Colorado302,774228,481228,48174,293
Connecticut303,230215,865215,86587,365
Delaware50,17250,17249,227945
District of Columbia92,67392,67389,3763,297
Florida1,648,7421,620,8661,620,862427,876
Georgia785,363785,363785,363
Hawaii103,603103,60390,87412,729
Idaho84,44476,06576,0658,379
Illinois1,202,9281,174,3361,174,33628,592
Indiana386,363381,786381,7864,577
Iowa174,581157,905155,2142,69116,676
Kansas151,084151,084151,084
Kentucky757,988740,790740,79017,198
Louisiana715,603715,106715,106497
Maine125,002115,902115,9029,100
Maryland407,041400,089400,08636,952
Massachusetts807,328807,328641,376165,952
Michigan1,083,155988,272960,70727,56594,883
Minnesota348,412271,952271,95276,460
Mississippi512,112512,112512,1111
Missouri496,340470,986470,98625,354
Montana57,33457,33456,523811
Nebraska91,36085,10585,1056,255
Nevada108,413108,413103,5564,857
New Hampshire60,67348,82548,82511,848
New Jersey672,255672,255593,62478,631
New Mexico193,487193,252193,252235
New York3,197,4663,197,4662,647,827549,639
North Carolina855,219731,568731,568123,651
North Dakota32,02229,79729,7972,225
Ohio1,114,0441,114,0441,114,0422
Oklahoma339,486302,057302,05737,429
Oregon248,551228,109228,10920,442
Pennsylvania1,367,0771,367,0771,237,548129,529
Rhode Island130,379130,379106,97623,403
South Carolina442,810428,933428,93313,877
South Dakota50,51648,36348,35852,153
Tennessee664,461664,461664,4592
Texas1,574,9451,574,9451,574,945
Utah87,07487,07487,02351
Vermont51,48751,48742,4789,009
Virginia555,450535,180535,18020,270
Washington484,655484,345456,10728,238310
West Virginia318,198318,198318,198
Wisconsin480,216357,084357,084123,132
Wyoming24,12523,44423,444681
Other: N. Mariana Islands3,1743,1743,174

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001.

Table SSI 8. SSI Recipiency Rates by State And Program Type for 1979 and 2000 [In percentages]

State

Total Recipiency RateRate for Adults 18-64Rate for Adults 65 & Over
19792000Percent Change
1979-00
19792000Percent Change
1979-00
19792000Percent Change
1979-00
Total1.92.3241.32.2759.05.7-37
Alabama3.63.611.83.38021.07.7-63
Alaska0.81.4820.51.415914.05.9-58
Arizona1.11.6440.91.5695.03.3-34
Arkansas3.53.2-91.92.95517.16.6-61
California3.03.262.12.52216.413.2-20
Colorado1.11.290.81.2566.73.3-51
Connecticut0.81.4870.61.51382.72.6-4
Delaware1.21.5260.91.4495.42.4-56
District of Columbia2.33.5541.93.1618.67.1-17
Florida1.82.4351.11.9676.24.7-24
Georgia2.92.4-161.92.11117.77.5-58
Hawaii1.11.7620.71.41037.65.5-27
Idaho0.81.4770.61.61503.82.1-44
Illinois1.12.0851.02.01114.33.8-11
Indiana0.81.4870.61.51463.31.8-46
Iowa0.91.4570.61.51423.51.8-49
Kansas0.91.3460.61.41223.51.9-45
Kentucky2.54.3691.84.515112.57.4-41
Louisiana3.43.7102.03.57220.18.4-58
Maine2.02.3181.42.6878.63.3-62
Maryland1.21.7480.91.5605.44.1-24
Massachusetts2.22.6161.32.610310.85.8-46
Michigan1.32.1671.12.31155.93.1-47
Minnesota0.81.3600.61.31363.72.6-30
Mississippi4.54.502.44.16926.011.4-56
Missouri1.82.0141.12.1917.93.1-61
Montana0.91.5690.71.71363.82.1-45
Nebraska0.91.2360.61.31033.41.8-47
Nevada0.81.3550.51.11085.93.3-44
New Hampshire0.60.9550.41.01272.51.3-49
New Jersey1.11.7490.91.5744.74.5-4
New Mexico2.02.6321.42.47512.47.1-43
New York2.13.3561.62.8768.39.09
North Carolina2.42.401.62.02713.66.0-56
North Dakota1.01.3310.61.31285.12.4-52
Ohio1.12.1891.02.31324.22.5-40
Oklahoma2.32.1-91.32.15811.64.2-64
Oregon0.91.5740.71.61293.32.6-21
Pennsylvania1.42.3641.12.41145.03.4-31
Rhode Island1.62.6641.12.61416.45.0-22
South Carolina2.72.701.82.43517.06.3-63
South Dakota1.11.7490.71.71365.03.1-38
Tennessee2.92.911.92.85014.86.2-58
Texas1.92.061.01.55812.77.8-39
Utah0.60.9640.51.0963.01.9-37
Vermont1.82.1191.32.2688.13.9-52
Virginia1.51.9271.01.6578.54.9-42
Washington1.21.7471.01.8844.83.6-25
West Virginia2.13.9831.94.51428.04.7-41
Wisconsin1.41.6111.01.6676.52.4-63
Wyoming0.41.21860.31.33482.71.6-42

Note: Recipiency rates for 2000 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the population in the respective age group as of the month of April; calculations by DHHS. The 1979 rates are based on the average number of recipients during the year.

Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years, 1975 – 2000 [In percentages]

State19751980198519901992199421996220002
Total12.01.81.71.92.12.42.52.3
Alabama4.03.43.33.33.43.83.93.6
Alaska0.80.80.70.80.91.11.21.4
Arizona1.21.11.01.21.41.71.71.6
Arkansas4.13.43.13.23.53.83.83.2
California3.13.02.62.93.13.23.33.2
Colorado1.41.00.91.11.31.51.51.2
Connecticut0.80.80.81.01.11.31.41.4
Delaware1.21.21.21.21.31.51.61.5
District of Columbia2.22.42.52.73.03.53.73.5
Florida1.91.81.61.71.92.32.42.4
Georgia3.32.82.62.52.62.82.72.4
Hawaii1.11.11.11.31.31.51.61.7
Idaho1.10.80.81.01.21.41.51.4
Illinois1.21.11.21.61.82.22.32.0
Indiana0.80.80.91.11.31.51.61.4

Iowa

1.00.91.01.21.31.41.51.4
Kansas1.10.90.91.01.11.41.51.3
Kentucky2.82.62.73.13.44.14.44.3
Louisiana3.93.22.93.23.54.14.23.7
Maine2.31.91.91.92.02.42.22.3
Maryland1.21.11.21.31.41.61.71.7
Massachusetts2.32.21.92.02.22.62.72.6
Michigan1.31.21.41.51.72.22.22.1
Minnesota1.00.80.80.91.11.31.41.3
Mississippi5.24.44.34.44.75.25.24.5
Missouri2.11.71.61.71.82.12.22.0
Montana1.10.90.91.31.41.61.61.5
Nebraska1.10.90.91.01.11.31.31.2
Nevada1.00.80.91.01.01.31.41.3
New Hampshire0.70.60.60.60.70.80.90.9
New Jersey1.11.21.21.41.51.81.81.7
New Mexico2.31.91.82.12.32.62.72.6
New York2.22.12.02.32.63.13.33.3
North Carolina2.72.42.22.22.42.62.72.4
North Dakota1.31.01.01.21.31.41.41.3
Ohio1.21.11.21.41.62.12.32.1
Oklahoma3.02.21.81.92.02.22.32.1
Oregon1.10.81.01.11.21.51.51.5
Pennsylvania1.21.41.41.61.82.12.22.3
Rhode Island1.71.61.61.71.92.32.62.6
South Carolina2.82.72.62.62.73.03.02.7
South Dakota1.31.21.21.51.61.81.91.7
Tennessee3.22.82.72.93.13.43.42.9
Texas2.21.81.61.71.92.12.22.0
Utah0.80.50.50.70.81.01.10.9
Vermont1.91.71.81.82.02.22.22.1
Virginia1.51.51.51.51.71.92.01.9
Washington1.51.11.11.31.41.61.71.7
West Virginia2.42.12.22.62.93.53.83.9
Wisconsin1.41.41.51.81.92.21.81.6
Wyoming0.70.40.50.80.91.21.21.2

1The 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.

2For 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 except for 2000 when the April 1 population figures are used. For 1994-2000 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin · Annual Statistical Supplement · 2001, and Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).


1Earlier editions of Indicators of Welfare Dependence included students 18-21 in the count of children and so reported about 50 thousand more disabled children.

2On February 20, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual functional assessment (or a residual functional capacity assessment) that applied to adults whose condition did not meet or equal a listing of medical impairments to determine eligibility should also be applied to children whose condition did not meet or equal the medical listing of impairments. The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the individual functional assessments for children were initiated.

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

As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-432), this annual report on Indicators of Welfare Dependence focuses on dependence on three programs: the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); the Food Stamp Program; and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The summary measure of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board includes income from all three programs in its definition:

A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC, food stamps and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities.

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and food stamps alone, excluding SSI. One indicator in this report, Indicator 9, measuring long-term dependence, is based on this alternative definition.

As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been only 1.7 percent in 1999 if based on income from TANF and food stamps, as opposed to 3.3 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, food stamps, and SSI). In general, about half of individuals who are dependent under the standard definition also are dependent under the alternative definition that considers TANF and food stamps alone.1 There is significant variation across the age groups, however. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and food stamps; whereas 2.1 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, very few, 0.2 percent, are dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and food stamps. In contrast, children are primarily dependent on TANF and food stamps.

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs, by Race and Age: 1999

 TANF, SSI, & Food StampsTANF & Food StampsSSI only
All Persons3.31.71.2
Racial Categories   
Non-Hispanic White1.80.80.8
Non-Hispanic Black9.14.92.8
Hispanic5.43.31.4
Age Categories   
Children Ages 0-56.24.41.0
Children Ages 6-106.14.21.0
Children Ages 11-154.52.80.8
Women Ages 16-643.51.71.3
Men Ages 16-641.90.71.0
Adults Age 65 and over2.00.21.6

Note: Income is measured as total family annual income.

Source: March CPS data, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.


1In the early- to mid-1990s, 70 to 75 percent of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition were also dependent under the alternative definition.

Appendix C: Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women Within Age Groups by Race: 1940-2000

YearWhiteBlack
Under
Age 15
Age
15 - 17
Age
18 - 19
All
Teens
All
Women
Under 
Age 15
Age
15 - 17
Age
18 - 19
All 
Teens
All
Women
194044.4NANA7.21.9NANANANANA
194144.9NANA7.01.9NANANANANA
194240.5NANA6.41.7NANANANANA
194345.2NANA6.51.6NANANANANA
194441.3NANA8.42.0NANANANANA
194550.7NANA10.02.4NANANANANA
194652.4NANA8.42.1NANANANANA
194745.1NANA6.61.8NANANANANA
194839.910.34.66.31.8NANANANANA
194940.410.04.56.11.7NANANANANA
195041.910.24.86.41.7NANANANANA
195134.99.74.45.91.6NANANANANA
195240.49.64.46.01.6NANANANANA
195343.19.64.56.11.7NANANANANA
195436.810.24.96.51.8NANANANANA
195542.110.24.96.61.9NANANANANA
195642.610.24.86.51.9NANANANANA
195741.510.44.76.52.0NANANANANA
195845.310.84.96.82.1NANANANANA
195946.711.45.27.22.2NANANANANA
196047.511.75.47.42.3NANANANANA
196149.912.46.07.92.5NANANANANA
196248.313.46.18.22.8NANANANANA
196350.315.17.09.43.1NANANANANA
196452.316.07.610.43.4NANANANANA
196557.317.39.111.74.0NANANANANA
196652.519.59.912.64.4NANANANANA
196761.621.011.214.24.9NANANANANA
196861.023.412.716.15.3NANANANANA
196957.024.012.916.65.591.772.148.360.034.9
197057.925.213.517.55.793.576.052.164.037.6
197160.525.213.217.45.695.079.656.068.140.5
197259.026.413.718.56.096.481.059.070.743.9
197365.227.614.319.66.496.482.660.472.145.7
197465.329.415.020.86.597.484.863.874.747.1
197571.033.017.223.57.398.487.467.677.848.8
197669.335.718.825.47.799.189.770.980.550.3
197772.838.921.027.88.298.890.674.682.651.7
197873.140.122.529.18.797.290.976.583.553.2
197975.042.424.330.89.499.492.978.985.754.7
198075.445.427.133.611.298.693.179.986.256.1
198176.548.028.735.511.898.993.981.387.256.9
198277.750.130.337.212.398.494.282.487.957.7
198379.953.132.739.812.998.595.184.489.459.2
198480.855.435.142.213.698.695.385.490.060.3
198582.458.038.245.314.798.895.686.290.661.2
198683.661.341.748.815.999.095.786.991.162.4
198784.664.644.451.816.999.196.187.691.763.4
198886.566.247.354.118.098.996.488.592.364.7
198984.767.249.555.719.298.496.189.092.359.2
199083.667.950.856.820.498.595.689.492.259.8
199175.569.753.259.021.898.195.789.892.560.3
199276.270.654.960.622.697.695.690.492.868.1
199383.271.757.262.723.698.195.790.893.168.7
199490.477.561.968.025.499.197.893.495.570.4
199588.877.462.168.025.399.197.793.295.369.9
199690.178.863.369.225.799.197.993.695.669.8
199792.281.665.371.425.899.498.393.895.869.2
199894.082.766.572.426.399.698.393.995.769.1
199993.983.267.372.926.799.598.393.795.668.8
200094.083.467.873.127.199.498.294.095.768.5

Notes: Births to unmarried women in the United States for 1940 – 1979 are estimated from data for registration areas in which marital status of the mother was reported; see sources below. Beginning in 1980, births to unmarried women in the United States are based on data from states reporting marital status directly and data from non-reporting states for which marital status was inferred from other information on the birth certificate; see sources below. Data for 1998 are preliminary.

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 2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50 (5), February 2002.

Files
Populations
Children