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, 2004

Publication Date
Apr 26, 2005

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Contributors to this report include Gil Crouse, Sarah Douglas, Susan Hauan, Julia Isaacs, and Kendall Swenson of the Office of Human Services Policy under the direction of Don Winstead, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

For on-line versions of this report (and previous annual reports) see the Office of Human Services Policy's web page on the Indicators Reports:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators-rtc/index.shtml

"

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 2004 Indicators of Welfare Dependence, the seventh annual report, provides welfare dependence indicators through 2001, 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, a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed the following definition, as one measure to examine in concert with other key indicators of dependence and well-being:

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.

This 2004 report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data to provide updated measures through 2001 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 report include the following:

  • In 2001, 3.1 percent of the total population was dependent in that they received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). While marginally higher than the 3.0 percent dependency rate measured in 2000, the 2001 rate is much lower than the 5.2 percent rate measured in 1996. Overall, 4.9 million fewer Americans were dependent on welfare in 2001 compared with 1996.
  • Although the 2002 dependency rate cannot yet be calculated, preliminary data suggest it may increase slightly to 3.2 percent.
  • The overall drop in dependence since 1996 parallels the more well-known drop in AFDC/TANF and food stamp caseloads. For example, the percentage of individuals receiving AFDC/TANF fell from 4.6 percent to 1.9 percent between 1996 and 2002 (see Indicator 3). Food stamp recipiency rates dropped from 9.5 percent to 6.6 percent over the same time period.
  • In an average month in 2001, more than half (61 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 56 and 37 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2). Labor force participation, particularly full-time employment, increased considerably among TANF families in the last several years.
  • Spells of AFDC/TANF receipt in the second half of the 1990s were shorter than spells of AFDC receipt in the early 1990s. Nearly half (47 percent) of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals entering the program between 1996 and 1999 lasted 4 months or less, compared to 30 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994 (See Indicator 8).
  • Longer-term welfare receipt was much less common during the 1990s compared to earlier decades. Less than 4 percent of those with some AFDC/TANF assistance between 1991 and 2000 received assistance in nine or ten years of the period, compared to 12 percent and 13 percent of AFDC recipients in the earlier two time periods (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 well-being that are important not only as potential predictors of dependence, but also as a supplement to the dependence indicators, ensuring that dependence measures are not assessed in isolation. As such, the report includes data on the official poverty rate, one of the most common measures of economic well-being:

  • As the dependency rate fell between 1996 and 2001, the poverty rate for all individuals fell also, from 13.7 percent in 1996 to 11.7 percent in 2001. In 2002, the poverty rate was slightly higher than in 2001 (12.1 percent), but was still lower than any year between 1980 and 1998 (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1, Figure ECON 1a).

Finally, the report has four appendices that provide additional data on major welfare programs, alternative measures of dependence and non-marital births, as well as background information on several data and technical issues.

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 2004 report, the seventh 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.

This 2004 report provides updated measures through 2001 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), with one preliminary estimate for 2002. Although more recent administrative data provide some information on recipiency through 2003, the survey data needed to examine overall welfare recipiency are not available past 2001 for the CPS-based measures, and are even less current for measures based on the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). This report presents analysis of PSID data through 2000 (IND 9 in Chapter II), an improvement over data through 1996 published in the previous two annual reports. These newly available PSID data allow for the examination of long-term recipiency since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996. As in the 2003 report, measures 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 measure of welfare dependence proposed by a bipartisan Advisory Board1 and adopted for use in this annual report series. It also discusses summary measures of poverty, following the Advisory Board’s recommendation that dependence measures not be assessed in isolation from other measures of economic well-being. The introduction concludes with a discussion of data sources used for the report.

Chapter II of the report, Indicators of Dependence, presents nine 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. Labor force participation among families receiving welfare and benefit receipt across multiple programs are also shown. The second half of the chapter includes longitudinal data on transitions on and off welfare programs and spells of dependence and recipiency. Newly updated for the current report, this section includes a measure of long-term program receipt of up to 10 years.

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

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

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

(3) Finally, data on non-marital births are important since a high proportion of longterm welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage, frequently as teenagers.

Additional data and technical notes are presented in four appendices. Appendix A provides basic program data on each of the main welfare programs and their recipients; Appendix B shows how dependence is affected by the inclusion of benefits from the SSI program; Appendix C includes additional data on non-marital childbearing; and Appendix D provides background information on several data and technical issues. 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 2002.
  • The Food Stamp Program provides monthly food stamp benefits to individuals 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 2002.
  • 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 2002 are provided in Appendix A.

1 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.

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 capture fully all aspects of dependence and that the proposed measure should be examined in concert with other indicators of well-being. 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 2002, over 33 percent of welfare recipients were working (including employment, work experience, and community service), compared to only 7 percent in 1992.2

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 declined as policy changes under welfare reform moved more recipients into employment.

As shown in Figure SUM 1, 3.1 percent of the population would be considered “dependent” on welfare in 2001 under the above definition. This is about one-quarter of the percentage (12.6 percent) that lived in a family receiving at least some TANF, food stamp or SSI benefits during the year. Preliminary data from 2002 suggest that the dependency rate may increase slightly between 2001 and 2002.3

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-2002

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-2002

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. The estimate for 2002 is preliminary

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


While dependency and recipiency rates increased slightly to 3.1 and 12.6 percent, respectively, the 2001 dependency and recipiency rates remain significantly lower than the 1996 rates of 5.2 and 16.0, respectively. The drop in recipiency rates is consistent with administrative data showing declining TANF caseloads from 1996 to 2001. What is not apparent from administrative records, but is shown in these national survey data, is that the dependency rate also declined sharply after 1996. While 13.74 million individuals were dependent in 1996, only 8.86 million were dependent in 2001 – representing a decline of 4.88 million people.

Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than for nonHispanic whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence also are higher for young children than for adults, and for individuals in female-headed families than for those in married-couple families. However, both recipiency and dependency rates are much lower for non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, children and individuals in female-headed families in 2001 compared to 1996.

Measures of welfare dependency also vary based upon which programs are counted as “welfare programs.” Dependency would be much lower – 1.4 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 2001 over two-fifths 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 measured on an annual basis. Note that this report no longer provides ten-year measures of long-term dependency (as distinct from long-term recipiency) due to a cutback in PSID data collection that precludes further update of these measures. Longitudinal measures of program receipt, however, show that program spells are typically short and long-term recipiency is more rare (see Chapter II). Indicator 9, for example, shows that among individuals receiving AFDC/TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2000, 18 percent received some welfare during six or more years. Another 31 percent were recipients in three to five years, and more than half (51 percent) received welfare in only one or two years.


2 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.

3 While TRIM-adjusted CPS data for 2002 are not yet available, non-adjusted estimates from the Annual March Demographic Supplement to the CPS indicate a slight increase in the level of dependence between 2001 and 2002.

Measuring Economic Well-Being

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

Poverty in 2002 remains much lower than in 1996, the year of passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The official poverty rate for 2002 was 12.1 percent, compared to 13.7 percent in 1996. This difference in the poverty rate indicates that 1.96 million fewer people are in poverty and 2.33 million fewer children are in families with incomes below poverty than in 1996. There was a small increase in the overall poverty rate between 2001 and 2002, but the poverty rate for children was essentially unchanged (see Table ECON 1 in Chapter III).

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1996-2001

 199619971998199920002001
Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, or SSI)
All Persons 16.014.813.513.312.512.6
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 9.99.78.68.48.28.2
Non-Hispanic Black 35.630.229.629.827.026.3
Hispanic 32.028.024.523.421.021.6
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-15 24.722.120.019.718.120.8
Women Ages 16-64 16.014.713.613.612.512.5
Men Ages 16-64 11.711.110.09.69.29.6
Adults Age 65 and over 10.310.29.910.010.49.6
Family Categories
Individuals in Married Couple Families 9.68.78.37.97.27.4
Individuals in Female-Headed Families 46.041.637.539.937.136.4
Individuals in Male-Headed Families 25.324.319.719.321.821.2
Unrelated Individuals 11.511.910.910.010.110.0
Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI)
All Persons 5.24.53.83.33.03.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White 2.62.52.11.81.91.8
Non-Hispanic Black 13.811.410.59.17.78.8
Hispanic 10.99.16.65.44.54.5
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-15 9.78.46.85.65.15.9
Women Ages 16-64 5.24.63.93.53.03.3
Men Ages 16-64 2.72.52.11.91.92.0
Adults Age 65 and over 2.42.12.12.02.11.9
Family Categories
Individuals in Married Couple Families1.71.41.11.00.91.0
Individuals in Female-Headed Families21.118.415.013.611.411.9
Individuals in Male-Headed Families5.45.64.23.04.44.0
Unrelated Individuals 4.24.24.23.43.83.8

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

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


Figure SUM 2. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2002

Figure SUM 2. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2002

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.


Figure SUM 2 shows poverty estimates under both the official poverty rate and two 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 solid line with filled squares shows the official poverty rate, based on total cash income, including earned and unearned income. The official poverty rate was 12.1 percent in 2002.

The dotted line shows what poverty would be if means-tested cash assistance (primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI) were excluded from cash income. Income in 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 12.8 percent in 2002.

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.4 Under this definition, poverty rates in 2002 would be at least two percentage points lower than the official measure, or 10.0 percent.


4 The effects of selected non-cash benefits (food and housing) are shown separately from the effect of taxes 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 of Income Dynamics (PSID), and administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI programs. Beginning with the 2001 report, 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 CPS data are updated annually, while SIPP updates are available much less frequently.

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 longitudinal design, system of monthly accounting, and detail concerning employment, income and participation in federal income-support and related programs, make the SIPP particularly effective for capturing the complexities of program dynamics. It continues to be an important source of data in this report, particularly for measures related to AFDC/TANF spell duration and transitions in and out of AFDC/TANF recipiency, dependency, and poverty.

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. As stated above, the CPS data are available on a timelier 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.

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 1996 and 1999, from 4.7 to 2.8 percent under the SIPP data, and from 5.2 to 3.3 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 1996-2001 from the TRIM-adjusted CPS data.

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-2001

Figure SUM 3. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987-2001

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 three- to fouryear time period of the SIPP. With annual data on program receipt since 1968, the PSID provides vital data for measuring longer-term welfare use over periods of up to 10 years. Because the PSID indicators cover time spans as long as a decade, they are updated less frequently than the CPS-based and SIPP-based measures. This 2004 report provides the first updated analysis of PSID data beyond 1996, allowing examination of longer-term welfare receipt under the TANF program. However, the updated analysis of PSID data is only provided for Indicator 9 (Indicator 10 in last year’s report). Reductions in the frequency and detail of data collection under the PSID have made it difficult to update indicators of long-term dependence (Indicator 9 in last year’s report) and of reasons for entrance and exit from first spells of AFDC receipt (Indicator 11 in last year’s report). Therefore, these indicators have been dropped from the report. A new measure of reasons for entrance and exit from AFDC/TANF is under development and will hopefully be published in next year’s report.

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 2002. 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.

For further technical information about the data presented in the report, specifically for information on race and ethnicity, unit of analysis, and annual versus monthly measures, please see Appendix D.

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 cash assistance through the AFDC (now TANF) program, food stamps and SSI benefits. Furthermore, this welfare income was not to be associated with work activities.

The indicators in Chapter II were selected to provide information about the range and depth of dependence as defined 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.

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, benefits under the Food Stamp Program, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for elderly and disabled recipients. For some indicators, summary data and characteristics are provided for all recipients, not just those defined as welfare dependent. While a number of indicators focus on the percentage of recipients’ income from means-tested assistance, other indicators focus on presence of work activities at the same time as welfare receipt.

Here is a brief summary of each of the nine 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 cash assistance, food stamps and/or SSI benefits, 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 meanstested 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 that use a combination of means-tested assistance and earnings from the labor force.

Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance. This indicator paints yet another picture of dependence by measuring 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 or TANF receipt. The focus is on individuals in AFDC/TANF 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/TANF, the Food Stamp Program, and SSI.

Indicator 9: Long-Term Receipt. Many individuals who leave welfare programs cycle back on after an absence of several months. Thus it is important to look beyond individual program spells, measured in Indicator 8, to examine the cumulative amount of time individuals receive assistance over a period of several years.

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2001

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2001

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


  • Only 3.1 percent of the total population in 2001 received more than half of their total family income from TANF, food stamps and SSI. As shown in Table IND 1b, the percentage of families dependent on public assistance has dropped by almost 50 percent since 1993, with most of the decline occurring since 1996. As noted in Chapter I, preliminary data suggest dependency may increase slightly but will still be near 3 percent in 2002.
  • Under 13 percent of the overall population received at least one dollar in means-tested assistance in 2001. However, for over half of these individuals (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 2001.
  • As shown in Table IND 1a, individuals living in female-headed families were much more likely to be dependent on assistance from means-tested programs compared to individuals in married-couple or male-headed families (11.9 percent compared to 1.0 and 4.0 percent respectively).
  • In 2001, one in four individuals receiving some public assistance reported that TANF, food stamps, and SSI accounted for more than half of their total family income. This number reflected 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: 2001

 0%0% and <= 25%25% and <= 50%50% and <= 75%75% and <= 100%Total 50%
All Persons87.47.32.21.02.13.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White91.85.11.30.51.31.8
Non-Hispanic Black73.712.25.33.05.88.8
Hispanic78.413.04.11.53.04.5
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-1581.99.53.51.93.25.1
Women Ages 16-6487.57.22.11.02.33.3
Men Ages 16-6490.46.21.40.51.52.0
Adults Age 65 and over90.45.81.90.61.31.9
Family Categories
Individuals in Married-Couple Families92.65.41.00.40.61.0
Individuals in Female-Headed Families63.616.48.04.47.511.9
Individuals in Male-Headed Families78.813.33.91.42.64.0
Unrelated Individuals90.05.01.20.43.43.8

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. Spouses are not present in the Female-Headed and Male-Headed family categories.

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

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


Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2001

 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
200087.57.32.21.02.03.0
200187.47.32.21.02.13.1

See above for note and source.


Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2001

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Annual Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status: 2001

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


  • Those in families with income below the poverty level received half (50 percent) of their total family income from earnings and 29 percent of their total family income from meanstested assistance programs (TANF, SSI, and food stamps) in 2001. In contrast, those with family income over 200 percent of the poverty level received the majority (87 percent) of their income from earnings and less than one percent of their income from means-tested assistance (a percentage so small, it is not visible in Figure IND 1b).
  • 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 32 percent, compared to 50 percent for all poor individuals in 2001.
  • 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 income 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 income from earnings; this percentage rose to 50 percent in 2001. Over the same time period, there was a decline in the percentage of income from means-tested programs among poor families from 41 percent to 29 percent.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Annual Family Income from Various Sources, by Poverty Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Age: 2001

 < 50% Poverty<100% of Poverty<200% of Poverty200% + of PovertyAll Individuals
All Persons
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps53.028.69.10.21.0
Earnings31.649.969.387.185.5
Other Income15.421.521.612.713.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps51.825.86.80.10.5
Earnings28.145.364.286.284.9
Other Income20.028.829.013.714.6
Non-Hispanic Black
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps61.138.915.60.53.3
Earnings23.540.665.088.984.4
Other Income15.320.619.410.612.3
Hispanic
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps42.923.18.70.62.6
Earnings46.764.281.392.389.6
Other Income10.412.710.07.17.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-5
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps60.132.111.00.21.8
Earnings28.857.480.794.692.5
Other Income11.110.68.35.25.6
Children Ages 6-10
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps59.532.410.90.11.6
Earnings27.153.778.693.791.6
Other Income13.413.910.56.26.8
Children Ages 11-15
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps58.230.79.90.11.3
Earnings29.353.277.792.590.7
Other Income12.516.112.57.48.0
Women Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps49.930.19.80.20.9
Earnings32.649.173.389.788.4
Other Income17.620.816.810.110.7
Men Ages 16-64
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps40.623.37.60.20.6
Earnings43.255.977.090.990.1
Other Income16.220.715.48.99.3
Adults Age 65 and over
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps20.018.95.70.31.0
Earnings10.25.99.436.132.6
Other Income69.875.184.963.666.4

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of food stamps. Other income is non means-tested, nonearnings income such as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest, and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive.

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

Source: 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
1999
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps53.129.89.70.2
Earnings30.249.369.185.0
Other Income16.620.821.214.7
2000
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps54.330.39.80.2
Earnings30.549.568.786.7
Other Income15.220.321.513.0
2001
TANF, SSI, and Food Stamps53.028.69.10.2
Earnings31.649.969.387.1
Other Income15.421.521.612.7

See above for note and source.

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

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants in that Month, by Program: 2001

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants in that Month, by Program: 2001

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


  • In 2001, 61 percent of individuals who received TANF, 56 percent of individuals who received food stamps, and 37 percent of individuals who received SSI were in families with at least one person in the labor force, either part-time or full-time.
  • About one-third of TANF and food stamp recipients lived in families with at least one fulltime worker in 2001, while approximately one-quarter had only 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, young children (under age six) in households receiving TANF, food stamps, and SSI were more likely to live with at least one full-time worker than were older children (ages 11-15) in such recipient households.
  • The percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with at least one full-time worker increased from 19 percent in 1993 to 35 percent in 2001, as shown in Table IND 2b.

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Program, Race/Ethnicity, and Age: 2001

 No One in LFAt Least One in LF, No One FTAt Least One FT Worker
TANFAll Persons38.726.035.3
Non-Hispanic White35.925.838.3
Non-Hispanic Black44.127.328.6
Hispanic37.724.038.3
Children Ages 0-538.123.238.7
Children Ages 6-1041.026.432.6
Children Ages 11-1539.627.532.9
Women Ages 16-6440.126.133.8
Men Ages 16-6430.130.439.5
Adults Age 65 and over66.316.517.2
FOOD STAMPSAll Persons   
 44.023.232.8
Non-Hispanic White46.723.529.8
Non-Hispanic Black43.724.032.3
Hispanic39.120.840.1
Children Ages 0-534.424.141.5
Children Ages 6-1034.825.040.2
Children Ages 11-1538.425.735.9
Women Ages 16-6445.724.230.2
Men Ages 16-6443.624.432.0
Adults Age 65 and over88.96.44.7
SSIAll Persons63.58.727.8
Non-Hispanic White69.78.122.3
Non-Hispanic Black62.710.327.0
Hispanic52.28.839.0
Children Ages 0-532.114.053.9
Children Ages 6-1031.917.550.5
Children Ages 11-1535.514.150.4
Women Ages 16-6472.88.918.2
Men Ages 16-6464.18.027.9
Adults Age 65 and over65.96.627.5

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

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

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


Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants 1993-2001

 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
200041.224.134.7
200138.726.035.3

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: 1970-2002

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age: 1970-2002

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 (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • Although the survey data needed to examine overall welfare receipt and dependency are not yet available past 2001, administrative data for recipiency measures of AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI are available through 2002, as shown in Figures IND 3a, IND 3b, and IND 3c. Additional administrative data are shown in Appendix A.
  • Just under 2 percent of the population received TANF in 2002. This is the lowest rate of AFDC/TANF receipt in the past 30 years, as 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 1993 and 2002, AFDC/TANF receipt among children was cut by more than half (from 14 to under 6 percent), the most rapid decline in a generation.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF, by Age 1970-2002

 

Fiscal YearTotal RecipientsAdult RecipientsChild Recipients
Number (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)PercentNumber (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
199112,3914.94,0162.18,37512.8
199213,4235.24,3362.39,08713.7
199313,9435.44,5192.39,42413.9
199414,0335.34,5542.39,47913.8
199513,4795.14,3222.29,15713.2
199612,4774.63,9212.08,55612.2
199710,7794.03,1061.57,67310.8
19988,6533.12,5811.36,0788.5
19997,0682.51,9731.05,0967.1
20006,2182.21,6400.84,5796.3
20015,6742.01,4600.74,2155.8
20025,5721.91,4190.74,1525.7

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 are estimated using data from the National Emergency TANF Data Files and thereafter using the National TANF Data Files.

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 (available online at http://www.census.gov).


Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2002

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age: 1975-2002

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2001, and earlier reports, and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).


  • The food stamp recipiency rate increased to 6.6 percent in 2002, above the two previous years’ rate of 6.1 percent – the lowest rate since the Food Stamp program became available nationwide. The 2002 recipiency rate is still significantly below the peak of 10.4 percent experienced in 1993 and 1994.
  • As with AFDC/TANF, food stamp recipiency rates have been much higher over time for children than for adults. Between 1980 and 2002, the percentage of all children who received food stamps was between two and one-half to three times that for all adults ages 18 to 59.
  • Similar trends in food stamps recipiency – largely reflecting changes in the rate of unemployment and programmatic changes – existed across all age groups over time, as shown in Table IND 3b. The percentages of individuals receiving food stamps within all age groups declined from 1984 through 1988, rose in the early 1990s until reaching a peak in 1994, and then declined through 2000 followed by a slight increase in 2002.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps, by Age 1975-2002

Fiscal YearTotal RecipientsAdult Recipients Age 60 and overAdult Recipients Ages 18-59Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Number (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)Percent
197516,3207.6
197617,0337.89,12613.8
197715,6047.1
197814,4056.5
197915,9427.1
198019,2538.51,7414.97,1865.69,87615.5
198120,6549.01,8455.07,8116.09,80315.5
198221,7549.41,6414.47,8386.09,59115.3
198321,6689.31,6544.48,9606.710,91017.4
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
199020,0208.01,5113.68,0845.610,12715.8
199122,5998.91,5933.89,1906.311,95218.3
199225,3699.91,6873.910,5507.213,34920.1
199326,95210.41,8764.311,2147.514,19621.0
199427,43310.42,3675.413,3848.914,39121.0
199526,57910.01,9204.411,1057.313,86020.0
199625,4949.51,8914.310,7697.013,18918.8
199722,8208.41,8314.19,3736.011,84716.7
199819,7457.21,6353.67,7604.910,52414.7
199918,1466.51,6963.77,0794.49,33213.0
200017,1206.11,7003.76,6124.08,74312.1
200117,2626.11,6583.66,7784.18,81912.1
200219,0036.61,6843.67,6254.59,68813.3

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. From 1975 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp program in 1975. From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2001, and earlier reports and U.S. Bureau of the Census (available online at http://www.census.gov).


Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2002

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2002

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement 2003 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics) and U.S. Bureau of the Census (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 1985 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 66 percent over the same period, from 4.1 million in 1985 to 6.8 million people in 2002.
  • Elderly adults (aged 65 and older) have much higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap has narrowed, however, as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has been cut nearly in half, declining from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.6 percent in 2002.
  • 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, with 1.2 percent of children receiving SSI in 2002.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI, by Age: 1975-2002

Total RecipientsTotal RecipientsAdult Recipients Age 65 & overAdult Recipients Ages 18-64Child Recipients Ages 0-18
Number (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
Dec 20016,6882.31,9955.63,8112.18821.2
Dec 20026,7882.31,9955.63,8782.19151.2

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. 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 2003 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/statistics), and U.S. Bureau of the Census (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 YearsFigure 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).
  • Only 48 percent of the families estimated as eligible for TANF cash assistance actually enrolled and received benefits in an average month in 2001. This is significantly lower than AFDC participation rates, which ranged from 77 percent to 86 percent between 1981 and 1996. See Table IND 4a for further information.
  • The food stamp participation rate edged up slightly between 2000 and 2001, from 53 to 54 percent. The participation rate is still much lower than the 1994 rate of 70 percent. See Table IND 4b for further discussion.
  • After rising steadily over the past several years, the SSI participation rate appears to have dropped nearly 6 percentage points between 2000 and 2001. At 70 percent it still is much higher than recent TANF and Food Stamp participation rates. See Table IND 4c for details by age and disability status.
Table IND 4a. Number and Percentage of Eligible Families Participating in AFDC/TANF Selected Years
 
Calendar YearEligible Families(in millions)Participating Families(in millions)Participation Rate(percent)
19814.783.8480.2
19834.753.6977.7
19854.673.7079.3
19874.923.7876.7
19884.783.7578.4
19894.543.8083.6
19904.934.0682.2
19925.644.8385.7
19936.145.0181.7
1994 (revised)6.135.0382.1
19955.694.8084.3
19965.624.4378.9
1997 (adjusted)5.413.7469.2
1998 (adjusted)5.473.0555.8
19995.072.6552.3
20004.442.3051.8
20014.562.1948.0

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 in 1997 and 1998 the model was adjusted to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. In contrast to past editions, this table now includes families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs. Note that families subject to full-family sanctions are counted as nonparticipating eligible families due to modeling limitations. Also, the numbers of eligible and participating families include the territories and pregnant women without children, even though these two small groups are excluded from the TRIM model. The numbers shown here implicitly assume that participation rates for the territories and for pregnant women with no other children are the same as for all other eligibles.

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


  • Between 2000 and 2001, eligibility for the TANF program increased slightly from 4.44 to 4.56 million families. This eligibility increase is primarily due to changes in the economy and/or population rather than changes in TANF eligibility rules.
  • Despite the small increase in TANF eligibility in 2001, caseloads continued to fall, resulting in a drop in the participation rate for the sixth consecutive year.
  • Participating families includes families receiving TANF cash assistance only. Families who receive services and benefits other than cash assistance are not included in the participation rate.
Table IND 4b. Number and Percentage of Eligible Households Participating in the Food Stamp Program: Selected Years
 
Date
Eligible Households (in millions)
Participating Households (in millions)
Participation Rate (percent)
September 7616.35.332.6
February 7814.05.337.8
August 8014.07.452.5
August 8214.57.551.5
August 8414.27.351.6
August 8615.37.146.5
August 8814.97.047.1
August 9014.58.054.9
August 9115.69.259.1
August 9216.710.261.6
August 9317.010.964.0
September 94 (revised)15.310.769.6
September 9515.010.469.2
September 9615.39.965.1
September 9714.78.457.5
September 9814.07.654.2
September 9913.67.353.7
September 0013.57.152.9
September 0113.97.554.0

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: 1999 to 2001, July 2003.


  • Between September 2000 and September 2001, there was a small increase in households eligible for the Food Stamp Program (from 13.5 to 13.9 million households). Caseloads grew at a slightly higher rate over the same year. The net effect was a small increase in the measured participation rate, from 53 to 54 percent.
  • Over the longer run, there has been a significant drop in food stamp caseloads, from over 10 million in 1992 through 1995, to 7.5 million in 2001. This decline in caseloads occurred during a time when both the eligible population and the program participation rates were generally decreasing. These longer-term decreases are considerably larger than the small increases experienced in 2001.
Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program, by Type 1993-2001
 
 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
200075.870.982.349.9
200169.764.475.945.7

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–for example, 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.


  • There was an apparent drop in the SSI participation rate among adult units between 2000 and 2001, from 76 to 70 percent. This decline occurred across aged one-person units, disabled one-person units, and married-couple units that are either aged or disabled and it is due to a significant increase in the estimated eligible population of these groups. There have not been similar increases in the participating populations, perhaps due to lags between application and enrollment.
  • The increase in the eligible population reflects a rise in the number of aged individuals, an increase in disabilities as reported on labor-market surveys (which may partially reflect tougher economic times), and a higher percentage of aged and disabled persons falling below the SSI eligibility limits. Some of the increase in the eligible population may be due to changes in the Current Population Survey (i.e., reweighting to reflect 2000 Census-based weights).
  • In 2001, as in past years, disabled adults in one-person units had a higher participation rate (76 percent) than both aged adults in one-person units (64 percent) and adults in married-couple units (46 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: 2001

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), Among Those Receiving Assistance: 2001

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


  • Of the 8 percent of the population in families receiving TANF, food stamps, or SSI benefits in an average month in 2001, about two-thirds (68 percent) received assistance from only one program. Most of these families received food stamps or SSI benefits only. However, other common patterns include food stamp and TANF receipt (19 percent) and food stamp and SSI receipt (12 percent).
  • Children are more likely than other age groups 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 2001, and 5 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 13 percent in 1994 to 8 percent in 2001), as shown in Table IND 5b.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (TANF, Food Stamps, SSI), by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2001

 Any ReceiptOne Program OnlyTwo Programs
TANFFSSSITANF & FSFS & SSI
All Persons8.10.33.91.41.51.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White5.20.12.41.01.00.7
Non-Hispanic Black19.40.310.72.53.62.3
Hispanic12.40.95.72.22.61.0
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-515.70.88.70.75.10.5
Children Ages 6-1013.80.68.00.73.80.6
Children Ages 11-1511.30.66.30.83.00.7
Women Ages 16-647.50.23.61.11.51.1
Men Ages 16-645.00.12.41.40.50.7
Adults Age 65 and over7.70.01.83.70.02.1

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

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

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


Table IND 5b. Percentage of Population Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs (AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, SSI): 1993-2001

 Any ReceiptOne Program OnlyTwo Programs
AFDC/ TANFFSSSI
AFDC/TANF
& FS
FS & 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
20008.10.23.81.41.71.0
20018.10.33.91.41.51.0

See above for note and source.

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 1999 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 1998, by Race/Ethnicity

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 1999 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 1998, by Race/Ethnicity

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.


  • Recipients of means-tested assistance were more likely to move out of dependency in the late 1990s than in the early 1990s. Three-tenths (30 percent) of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 1998 transitioned out of this dependency status in 1999. The comparable transition rate was only 20 percent between 1993 and 1994, as shown in Table IND 6b.
  • Of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total income from AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and/or SSI in 1998, there was little difference among racial and ethnic categories in dependency transitions between 1998 and 1999. Past SIPP panels (data not shown) had found more movement among non-Hispanic whites than among non-Hispanic blacks.
  • As shown in Table IND 6a, a slightly larger percentage of women who received more than half of their total income from means-tested assistance programs in 1998 remained “dependent” in 1999 compared to the same group of men (71 percent compared to 66 percent).

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 1999 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means Tested Assistance in 1998, by Race/Ethnicity and Age

Individuals Receiving more than 50% of Income from Assistance in 1998Total (000's)Percentage of Persons Receiving
No Aid in 1999
Up to 50% in 1999
Over 50% in 1999
All Persons8,1632.927.170.0
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White2,6574.325.870.0
Non-Hispanic Black2,9252.027.870.1
Hispanic1,8952.026.371.7
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-51,2713.629.766.6
Children Ages 6-101,0562.127.470.6
Children Ages 11-159982.929.068.1
Women Ages 16-642,8473.725.570.8
Men Ages 16-641,3372.731.665.7
Adults Age 65 and over6540.016.483.6

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, food stamps, and SSI. While only affecting a small number of cases, general assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in families with more than 50 percent of total annual family income from these means-tested programs. Because full calendar year data for 1997-1998 were not available for all SIPP respondents, some transitions were based on twelve-month periods that did not correspond exactly to calendar years.

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

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.


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

 Total (000’s)Percentage of Persons Receiving
No Aid in Second Year
Up to 50% in Second YearOver 50% in Second Year
Transitions from:
1993 to 199414,8101.618.679.8
1994 to 199513,9862.718.878.5
1997 to 19989,6723.128.868.1
1998 to 19998,1632.927.170.0

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

Indicator 7. Dependence Spell Duration

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 7. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.


  • In the late 1990s over two-fifths (41 percent) of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals in families with no one in the labor force ended within four months and over two-thirds (68 percent) ended within a year. These spells are measured for individuals entering AFDC/TANF between 1996 and 1999, during early implementation of the TANF program.
  • Spells were much longer for families entering AFDC between 1993 and 1995, as shown in Figure IND 7 and Table IND 7b. Half (50 percent) of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals in families where no one participated in the labor force lasted more than 20 months in the 1993 SIPP panel, compared with only 19 percent of that length in the 1996 SIPP panel.
  • As shown in Table IND 7a, the percentage of AFDC/TANF spells ending in four months or less was similar across racial/ethnic categories, ranging from 38 percent among non-Hispanic whites to 44 percent among non-Hispanic blacks.
  • Spells shown in Figure IND 7 are limited to spells of recipients in families without any labor force participation. Spell lengths are slightly shorter in Figure IND 8, which shows spells for all recipients, including those in families with labor force participants. For example, whereas 81 percent of spells between 1996 and 1999 shown in Figure IND 7 end in 20 months or less, 87 percent of all AFDC/TANF spells during this same time period last 20 months or less, as shown in Figure IND 8.
Table IND 7a. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age
 
 Spells <=4 MonthsSpells 5-12 MonthsSpells 13-20 MonthsSpells >20 Months
All Persons40.527.513.318.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White38.435.8NANA
Non-Hispanic Black44.122.411.521.9
Hispanic39.623.2NANA
Age Categories
Ages 0-15 Years38.925.012.923.2
Ages 16-64 Years42.231.4NANA

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 1996 SIPP panel for individuals in families with no labor force participants. For certain racial/ethnic and age categories, data are not available (N/A) due to insufficient sample size.

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

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.


Table Ind 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Spells of Individuals in Families with No Labor Force Participants for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels

 Spells <=4 MonthsSpells 5-12 MonthsSpells 13-20 MonthsSpells >20 Months
1993 Panel All Persons27.216.26.949.7
1996 Panel All Persons40.527.513.318.7

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

Indicator 8. Program Spell Duration

Figure IND 8. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell

Figure IND 8. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp, and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spel

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 Panel.


  • Between the years 1996 and 1999, short spells lasting 4 months or less accounted for about 47 percent of AFDC/TANF spells, 43 percent of food stamp spells, and 34 percent of SSI spells.
  • Approximately three-fourths of all AFDC/TANF and food stamp spells lasted one year or less (76 percent and 71 percent, respectively). In contrast, only 53 percent of SSI spells ended within one year.
  • As shown in Table IND 8a, for TANF/AFDC spells, a smaller percentage of long spells (lasting more than 20 months) occurred among non-Hispanic whites compared to non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics.
  • Spells of welfare receipt were shorter in the second half of the 1990s than in the early 1990s, as shown in Table IND 8b. For example, only 13 percent of AFDC/TANF spells for individuals entering AFDC/TANF between 1996 and 1999 lasted 20 months or longer, compared with 34 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994.
  • Short spells are less common among recipients in families without labor force participants, as shown previously in Figure and Table IND 7.
  • Length of TANF receipt varies across states, as shown in Appendix Table TANF 17, which shows an alternative measure of length of TANF receipt, using state administrative data.

Table IND 8a. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

 Spells <=4 MonthsSpells 5-12 MonthsSpells 13-20 MonthsSpells >20 Months
AFDC/TANFAll Recipients46.629.211.512.7
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White47.433.010.78.9
Non-Hispanic Black45.228.313.612.9
Hispanic46.325.410.517.9
Age Categories
Ages 0-5 Years41.833.210.814.2
Ages 6 to 10 Years49.424.69.017.0
Ages 11 to 15 Years42.525.6N/AN/A
Ages 16 to 64 Years48.630.712.08.7
65 Years and OlderN/AN/AN/AN/A
FOOD STAMPSAll Recipients43.127.79.319.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White46.527.59.416.7
Non-Hispanic Black38.628.59.123.9
Hispanic41.728.58.121.8
Age Categories
Ages 0 to 5 years36.531.48.623.5
Ages 6 to 10 years40.627.39.122.9
Ages 11-1540.430.310.019.3
Ages 16-6446.226.79.617.6
65 Years and Older31.726.86.934.7
SSIAll Recipients34.119.29.137.6
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White36.818.77.836.7
Non-Hispanic Black34.819.79.536.0
Hispanic27.122.49.840.7
Age Categories
Ages 0-10N/AN/AN/AN/A
Ages 11-1530.9N/AN/AN/A
Ages 16-6437.120.18.634.2
65 Years and Older22.116.711.949.3

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/TANF spells are defined as those starting during the 1996 SIPP Panel. For certain age categories, data are not available (N/A) because of insufficient sample size.

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

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 Panel.


Table IND 8b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp and SSI Spells for Individuals Entering Programs During the 1992, 1993, and 1996 SIPP Panels

 Spells <=4 MonthsSpells 5-12 MonthsSpells 13-20 MonthsSpells >20 Months
1992 Panel
AFDC30.424.710.534.4
Food Stamps33.424.910.231.5
SSI25.78.94.860.6
1993 Panel
AFDC30.725.412.531.4
Food Stamps33.126.810.130.0
SSI24.07.94.763.4
1996 Panel
AFDC/TANF46.629.211.512.7
Food Stamps43.127.79.319.8
SSI34.119.29.137.6

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1992, 1993, and 1996 Panels.

Indicator 9. Long-term Receipt

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients, by Years of Receipt Between 1991 and 2000
Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients, by Years of Receipt Between 1991 and 2000
Source: Unpublished data from the PSID public release data files, 1992-2001.

  • Among all persons receiving AFDC/TANF at some point in the ten-year period ending in 2000, about half (51 percent) received assistance in only one or two of these years. Less than one third (31 percent) received AFDC/TANF in three to five years, and less than one fifth (18 percent) received AFDC/TANF during more than five of the ten years.
  • A larger percentage of child recipients experienced long-term receipt (some receipt in at least six of the ten years) 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 9.
  • Longer-term welfare receipt was much less common during the 1990s compared to earlier decades. Less than 4 percent of those with some AFDC/TANF assistance between 1991 and 2000 received at least one assistance payment in nine or ten years of the period, compared to 12 percent and 13 percent of AFDC recipients in the earlier two time periods.
  • In the two ten-year time periods between 1971-1990, there was a large percentage difference in short-term AFDC receipt between all black and non-black recipients. In the ten-year period ending in 2000, this percentage difference was much smaller, with 49 percent of blacks and 53 percent of non-blacks receiving AFDC/TANF in only one or two years.

Table IND 9: Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients Across Three Ten-Year Time Periods by Years of Receipt, Race, and Age

All Races:
 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5
 1971-19801981-19901991-20001971-1980  1981-19901991-2000
Years received AFDC/TANF:
1-2 Years44.044.850.936.3 36.1 37.9
3-5 Years30.126.530.928.1 24.1 33.9
6-8 Years12.516.414.517.9  20.523.3
9-10 Years13.312.23.817.7  19.44.9
Black:
 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5
1971-19801981-19901991-20001971-1980  1981-19901991-2000
Years received AFDC/TANF:
1-2 Years30.835.848.624.2  26.937.7
3-5 Years31.928.424.228.4 25.7 28.2
6-8 Years18.617.5NA24.7 18.7NA
9-10 Years18.718.4NA22.8  28.7NA
Non-Black:
 All RecipientsChild Recipients 0-5
1971-19801981-19901991-20001971-1980  1981-19901991-2000
Years received AFDC/TANF:
1-2 Years51.051.352.645.0  43.038.2
3-5 Years29.225.236.027.8  22.938.7
6-8 Years9.415.7NA13.1  21.8NA
9-10 Years10.57.9NA14.1 12.3 NA

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

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the estimates for non-black persons but are not shown separately. Data are not available (NA) separately by race for longer periods of cumulative receipt (6 or more years) in the most recent 10-year period.

Source: Unpublished data from the PSID public release data files, 1992-2001.

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

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

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON). The first group includes eight measures associated with economic security. This group encompasses five 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). A ten-year measure of poverty (ECON 6 in last year’s report) has been dropped due to reductions in the frequency and detail of data collection under the PSID.

This chapter also includes data on child support collections (ECON 6), which can play an important role in reducing dependence on government assistance and thus serve as a predictor of dependence. Household food insecurity (ECON 7) is an important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over time. Finally, health insurance (ECON 8) is tied to the income level of the family, and may be a precursor to future health problems among adults and children.

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

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) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 7) 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 welfare reform.

Economic Security Risk Factors

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2002

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty, by Age: 1959-2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.


  • The official poverty rate was 12.1 percent in 2002, an increase over the rate of 11.7 percent in 2001. Even so, the percentage of persons living in poverty in 2002 was below the poverty rates experienced in most of the 1980s and 1990s.
  • Children under 18 had a poverty rate of 16.7 percent in 2002, statistically unchanged from 2001. As in past years, the child poverty rate is considerably higher than the overall poverty rate.
  • The poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 10.4 percent in 2002, an increase over the 2001 rate. This was a lower poverty rate than the rate for children under 18 (16.7 percent) and statistically indistinguishable from that of adults ages 18-64.
  • Poverty rates by race are affected by a change in the questionnaire that allows individuals to report one or more races. The poverty rate for individuals reporting black race alone was 24.1 percent, as shown in Table ECON 1; the rate for those reporting black alone or in combination with other races was 23.9 percent (data not shown). Under either measurement, the gap between black and white poverty rates was close to 14 percentage points, slightly higher than the historic low of 13 percentage points in 2000 and 2001; but significantly lower than the early 1990s, when it exceeded 21 percentage points.

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

Calendar YearRelated ChildrenAll PersonsWhiteBlackHispanic Origin
Ages 0-5Ages 6-17TotalUnder 1818 to 6465 & over
1959NANA22.427.317.035.218.155.1NA
1963NANA19.523.1NANA15.3NANA
1966NANA14.717.610.528.511.341.8NA
196915.313.112.114.08.725.39.532.2NA
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
198722.318.313.420.310.612.510.432.428.0
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
199918.015.511.917.110.19.79.823.622.7
200017.814.711.316.29.69.99.522.521.5
200118.214.611.716.310.110.19.922.721.4
200218.515.212.116.710.610.410.224.121.8

Notes: 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.

In this table, race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. For example, the poverty rate of 10.2 percent shown for Whites in 2002 is for “White Alone including Hispanic.” Though not shown, the rate for “White Alone or in Combination with other races” was 10.3 percent and for “White Alone, Non-Hispanic” the rate was 8 percent. American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately, due to small sample size.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 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 Level 1975-2002
Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population Below 50 and 100 Percent of Poverty Level 1975-2002
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

  • The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 4.9 percent in 2002, compared to an overall poverty rate of 12.1 percent.
  • 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, but 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. From a low of 28 percent of the poverty population in 1976, this population rose to nearly 41 percent in 2002.
  • The total number of poor people in 2002 was 34.6 million, as shown in Table ECON 2. While higher than the previous year, this number was 4.7 million lower than the peak of 39.3 million in 1993.

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

YearTotal Population (thousands)Below 50 percentBelow 75 percentBelow 100 percentBelow 125 percent
Number (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)PercentNumber (thousands)Percent
1959176,600NANANANA39,50022.454,90031.1
1961181,300NANANANA39,60021.954,30030.0
1963187,300NANANANA36,40019.550,80027.1
1965191,400NANANANA33,20017.346,20024.1
1967195,700NANANANA27,80014.239,20020.0
1969199,5009,6004.816,4008.224,10012.134,70017.4
1971204,600NANANANA25,60012.536,50017.8
1973208,500NANANANA23,00011.132,80015.8
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
1999276,20012,9004.721,8007.932,80011.945,00016.3
2000278,90012,6004.520,5007.431,10011.343,50015.8
2001281,50013,4004.822,0007.832,90011.745,30016.1
2002285,30014,1004.923,1008.134,60012.147,10016.5

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: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, unpublished tables available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html, 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: 2002

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Age: 2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.


  • Three 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.
  • All three alternative measures shown in Figure Econ 3 take into account geographic adjustments (GA) in housing costs; the measures can also be calculated with no geographic adjustment (NGA), as shown in Tables ECON 3a and 3b. See note to Table ECON 3a.
Table ECON 3a. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002
 
 OfficialAlt1 MSI-NGAAlt2 MIT-NGAAlt3 CMB-NGAAlt1 MSI-GAAlt2 MIT-GAAlt3 CMB-GA
All Persons12.112.413.013.012.312.812.9
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White8.08.99.29.48.48.58.8
Non-Hispanic Black24.121.222.222.320.621.121.3
Hispanic21.821.0922.722.223.325.424.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-1716.713.815.314.713.915.214.6
Adults Ages 18-6410.610.811.611.310.811.511.3
Adults Age 65 and over10.416.714.417.616.013.416.9

Note: These experimental poverty measures implement 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 three alternative measures are similar, except that each account for out-of-pocket medical expenses differently. For the first alternative (“MOOP subtracted from income” or MSI), medical out-of-pocket expenses (MOOP) are subtracted from income. The second alternative, (“MOOP in the threshold” or MIT) increases the poverty thresholds to take MOOP expenses into account. The third measure, CMB for combined methods, combines attributes of the previous two measures. Each of the three measures is calculated with and without accounting for geographic adjustments (GA and NGA). These experimental measures are different from those reported in last year’s report because the Census Bureau changed its methodology based on research conducted to refine the NAS panel’s experimental methods.

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf, and unpublished CPS data from the U.S. Census Bureau.


Table ECON 3b. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using Various Experimental Poverty Measures 1999-2002

 1999200020012002
Official Measure11.911.311.712.1
No Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds
Medical costs alternative 1 (MSI-NGA)12.212.112.412.4
Medical costs alternative 2 (MIT-NGA)12.812.712.813.0
Medical costs alternative 3 (CMB-NGA)12.912.813.013.0
Geographic Adjustment of Thresholds
Medical costs alternative 1 (MSI-GA)12.112.012.312.3
Medical costs alternative 2 (MIT-GA)12.712.512.712.8
Medical costs alternative 3 (CMB-GA)12.812.612.912.9 

See above for note and source.

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: 1979-2002

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population in Poverty with Various Means-Tested Benefits Added to Total Cash Income: 1979-2002

Source: Congressional Budget Office tabulations of March CPS data. Additional calculations by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  • 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 12.1 percent in 2002, as shown in the bold line with empty boxes in Figure ECON 4. Without cash welfare, the 2002 poverty rate would be 12.8 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 10.9 percent in 2002.
  • 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 10.0 percent in 2002. 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 2002 by 2.8 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, largely due to 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

 197919831986198919921995199820002002
Cash Income Plus All Social Insurance12.816.014.513.815.614.913.512.012.8
Plus Means-Tested Cash Assistance11.615.213.612.814.513.812.711.312.1
Plus Food and Housing Benefits9.713.712.211.212.912.011.310.110.9
Plus EITC and Federal Taxes10.014.713.111.813.011.510.49.510.0
Reduction in Poverty Rate2.81.31.42.02.63.43.12.52.8

Note: The four measures of income 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.


  • About half of all poverty spells that began during the 1996 SIPP panel ended within four months, and 80 percent ended within one year. Only 11 percent of all such spells were longer than 20 months.
  • Spells of poverty that began between 1993 and 1995 were slightly longer; 47 percent ended within four months and 16 percent were longer than 20 months.
  • Poverty spells among adults age 65 and older were more likely to last longer than 20 months (17 percent) than spells among other age groups, as shown in Table ECON 5a.

Table ECON 5a. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1996 SIPP Panel, by Length of Spell, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

 Spells <=4 MonthsSpells 5-12 MonthsSpells 13-20 MonthsSpells >20 Months
All Persons51.329.08.311.4
Racial/Ethnic Categories51.329.08.311.4
Non-Hispanic White54.628.17.69.7
Non-Hispanic Black45.527.710.116.7
Hispanic46.832.98.611.7
Age Categories
Ages 0 to 5 Years46.829.610.812.9
Ages 6 to 10 Years47.129.79.214.0
Ages 11 to 15 Years49.530.97.911.7
Women Ages 16-64 years50.729.38.511.5
Men Ages 16-64 Years55.728.97.08.4
Adults Age 65 Years and Older51.123.87.717.4

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.

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

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1996 panel.


Table ECON 5b Percentage of Poverty Spells for Individuals Entering Poverty During the 1993 and 1996 SIPP Panels, by Length of Spell and Year

 Spells <=4 MonthsSpells 5-12 MonthsSpells 13-20 MonthsSpells >20 Months
1993 Panel All Persons47.328.18.915.7
1996 Panel All Persons51.329.08.311.4

Source: Unpublished data from the SIPP, 1993 and 1996 panels.

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child SUPPORT

Figure ECON 6. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002
Figure ECON 6. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Collections: 2003 TANF Report to Congress (and earlier years), Washington, DC.

  • Collections paid through the Child Support Enforcement system (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) totaled $20.1 billion in 2002, over $1 billion more than in 2001. Since 1990, child support collections grew rapidly, at an average rate of almost $1.1 billion a year.
  • In recent years, non-TANF collections have generally increased as a percentage of overall collections by the IV-D program. (Non-TANF collections include collections paid to former TANF families and families with no contact with the welfare system.) However, between 2001 and 2002, the $878 million growth in non-TANF collections was smaller in percentage terms than $302 million growth in TANF collections (5 percent compared to over 11 percent).
  • A number of states have opted to pass through some or all of collections to the custodial TANF family, even though the 1996 welfare reform repealed the former requirement for a $50 “pass-through” to families. In recent years, the amount of TANF collections paid to TANF families has been difficult to track because of changes in data reporting forms. Available data suggest these payments declined in fiscal years 1997-2000, with a 100 percent increase shown in fiscal year 2001 and a 122 percent increase in 2002, as shown in Table ECON 6.
  • Almost 75 percent of TANF collections (collections on behalf of TANF recipients and for past due support assigned to the state by former TANF recipients) were retained in 2002 to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost of welfare benefits.
Table ECON 6. Total, Non-AFDC/TANF, and AFDC/TANF Title IV-D Child Support Collections: 1978-2002
 
'
Fiscal YearTotal Collections (in millions)Total IV-D Administrative Expenditures
TotalAFDC/TANF CollectionsNon-AFDC/TANF Collections
Current DollarsConstant '02 DollarsTotalPayments to AFDC/TANF FamiliesFederal & State Share of Collections
1978$1,047$2,829$472$13$459$575$312
19791,3333,30759712584736383
19801,4783,28860310593874466
19811,6293,30067112659958526
19821,7713,34978615771985612
19832,0243,676880158651,144691
19842,3784,1381,000179831,378723
19852,6944,5201,0901899011,604814
19863,2495,3111,2252759552,019941
19873,9176,2351,3492781,0702,5691,066
19884,6057,0541,4862891,1883,1281,171
19895,2417,6471,5933071,2863,6481,363
19906,0108,3541,7503341,4164,2601,606
19916,8869,1111,9843811,6034,9021,804
19927,96410,2282,2594351,8245,7051,995
19938,90711,1042,4164461,9716,4912,241
19949,85011,9632,5504572,0937,3002,556
199510,82712,7942,6894742,2158,1383,012
199612,02013,8202,8554802,3759,1653,049
199713,36414,9612,8431572,68510,5213,428
199814,34815,8052,6501522,49811,6983,585
199915,90117,1892,4821132,36813,4214,039
200017,85418,7012,5931652,42815,2614,526
200118,95819,2372,5923322,25916,3664,835
200220,13720,1372,8937372,15617,2445,183

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. Due to changes in data reporting forms, data for fiscal years 1999 and thereafter relating to the Federal and State Share of TANF collections include assistance reimbursement for former TANF families and may not be exactly comparable to that of previous years. The total collection of payments to AFDC/TANF families can also include payments made to Medicaid only recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Collections: 2003 TANF Report to Congress (and earlier years), Washington, DC.

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2002

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2002
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002.


  • A large majority (89 percent) of American households was food secure in 2002 – that is, showed little or no evidence of concern about food supply or reduction in food intake.
  • The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger in 2002 was estimated to be 3.5 percent. During the twelve months ending in December 2002, one or more members of these households experienced reduced food intake and hunger as a result of financial constraints. Food insecurity would be lower measured over a monthly basis.
  • An additional 7.6 percent of households experienced food insecurity, but were without hunger, during the twelve months ending in December 2002. Although these households showed signs of food insecurity in their concerns and in adjustments to household food management, little or no reduction in food intake was reported.
  • Poor households have a higher rate of food insecurity with hunger (14.3 percent) than the 3.5 percent rate among the general population, as shown in Table ECON 7a. Only 1.5 percent of families with incomes at or above 185 percent of the poverty level showed evidence of food insecurity with hunger.

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2002

 Food SecureFood Insecure Total
Food Insecure
Without Hunger
Food Insecure
With Hunger
All Households88.911.17.63.5
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White92.08.05.32.6
Non-Hispanic Black78.022.014.87.2
Hispanic78.321.716.05.7
Households, by Age
Households with Children Under 682.217.814.43.4
Households with Children Under 1883.516.512.73.8
Households with Elderly93.76.34.41.9
Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio
Under 1.0061.938.123.814.3
Under 1.3066.333.721.612.1
Under 1.8570.829.219.59.7
1.85 and over94.95.13.61.5

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 recurring reductions in food intake or hunger by one or more persons in the household

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002.


Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2002

 Food SecureFood Insecure Total
Food Insecure Without Hunger
Food Insecure With Hunger
199888.211.88.13.7
199989.910.17.13.0
200089.510.57.33.1
200189.310.77.43.3
200288.911.17.63.5

See above for note and source.

Economic Security Risk Factor 8. Lack of Health Insurance

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2002

Figure ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income: 2002

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-223 (March 2003 Current Population Survey). Online: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-223.pdf

  • Poor persons were twice as likely as all persons to be without health insurance in 2002 (30 percent compared to 15 percent). While the ratio varied across categories, persons with family income at or below the poverty line were more likely to be without health insurance regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, or age.
  • Hispanics were the ethnic group least likely to have health insurance in 2002, among both the general population and those with incomes below the poverty line. While white individuals in general were more likely to have insurance than black individuals, poor black individuals were more likely to have insurance than poor white individuals.
  • Among all persons, the amount of education was inversely related to health insurance coverage. However, among poor persons, educational attainment made little difference as to whether individuals had health insurance.
  • As shown in Table ECON 8, nearly half of poor people ages 25 to 34 are without health insurance. Among the general population, individuals ages 18 to 24 are the most likely to be without health insurance.

Table ECON 8. Percentage of Persons without Health Insurance, by Income and Selected Characteristics: 2002

 All PersonsPoor Persons
All Persons15.230.4
Male16.733.3
Female13.928.1
White14.231.4
Black20.226.4
Hispanic32.442.8
No High School Diploma28.037.9
High School Graduate, No College18.836.4
College Graduate8.432.3
Age 18 and under11.620.1
Ages 18-2429.643.9
Ages 25-3424.948.6
Ages 35-4417.746.0
Ages 45-6413.533.1
Age 65 and over0.81.9

Note: "Poor persons" are defined as those with total family incomes at or below the poverty rate.

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

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-223 (March 2003 Current Population Survey). Online: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-223.pdf

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors

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: 2002
Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity: 2002
Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.

  • In 2002, 71 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. The percent of full-time full-year workers was slightly lower than in 2001, although still higher than during most of the 1990s, as shown in Table WORK 1b.
  • Overall, 14 percent of the population lived in families with no labor force participants and 15 percent lived in families with part-time and/or part-year labor force participants in 2002.
  • 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 2002 (10 percent compared to 15 and 17 percent, respectively).
  • Working-age women in 2002 were more likely than working-age men to live in families with no one in the labor force (9 percent compared to 7 percent), as shown in Table Work 1a. Men were more likely than women to live in families with at least one full-time, full-year worker (80 percent compared to 76 percent).

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

 
No One in LF
During Year
At Least One in LF
No One FT/FY
At Least One
FT/FY Worker
All Persons14.214.771.1
Racial/Ethnic Categories
Non-Hispanic White15.013.971.1
Non-Hispanic Black17.318.064.7
Hispanic9.715.474.9
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-55.516.278.3
Children Ages 6-105.914.879.3
Children Ages 11-155.913.680.5
Women Ages 16-648.815.575.7
Men Ages 16-646.813.779.5
Adults Age 65 and over65.514.320.2

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.

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations of March CPS data.


Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Individuals in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1990-2002

 
No One in LF
During Year
At Least One in LF
No One FT/FY
At Least One
FT/FY Worker
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
200113.914.371.7
200214.214.771.1

See above for note and source.

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: 1969-2002

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2002

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.


  • Employment rates for women with a high school education or less continued to drop in 2002, following several years of rising employment, particularly among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women. Low-skilled non-Hispanic white women continued to have the highest employment level (70 percent in 2002) among the three racial/ethnic groups.
  • Employment levels for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic men with no more than a high school education have remained close to 85 percent for nearly to two decades. In contrast, employment levels for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men have varied over the same period. Between 1968 and 1983, employment rates for non-Hispanic black men with no more than high school education fell by 20 percentage points. Since 2000, these rates have fallen by more than 5 percentage points.
  • As shown in Figure and Table WORK 2, employment levels for non-Hispanic black men with a high school education or less were 3 percentage points higher than those of similarly educated non-Hispanic black women in 2002. In contrast, there was a 13 percentage point difference in employment levels of non-Hispanic white men and women with a high school education or less, and a 28 percentage point difference between similarly educated Hispanic men and women.

Table WORK 2. Percentage of All Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who Were Employed: 1969-2002

 MenWomen
Non-Hispanic WhiteNon-Hispanic BlackHispanicNon-Hispanic WhiteNon-Hispanic BlackHispanic
196892.889.9N/A55.865.8N/A
196992.189.2N/A56.164.9N/A
197190.986.1N/A55.259.4N/A
197291.184.3N/A55.658.1N/A
197588.278.886.258.357.249.7
197788.378.189.261.457.652.2
197988.578.789.462.958.955.0
198088.075.286.864.157.653.7
198187.474.587.664.057.553.0
198285.671.185.362.756.651.1
198384.870.285.263.555.351.7
198486.571.983.965.058.954.0
198586.174.683.966.059.452.9
198686.474.386.566.861.054.0
198786.773.985.667.359.954.0
198886.374.087.868.061.454.6
198987.775.386.668.861.155.8
199087.775.685.468.560.755.0
199186.473.985.068.361.054.6
199285.771.583.767.857.853.3
199384.671.283.568.660.052.2
199485.069.183.269.060.953.3
199585.970.183.369.660.153.9
199685.970.384.070.264.155.4
199785.372.085.069.966.656.9
199885.371.885.570.467.157.1
199984.572.086.471.468.458.8
200084.772.786.470.667.761.0
200183.469.985.569.864.859.2
200282.567.385.169.564.457.5

Note: All data include both full and partial year employment for the given calendar year.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Hispanic origin 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 Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2002 Dollars): Selected Years

Figure WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2002 Dollars): Selected Years

Source: ASPE tabulations of March CPS data.


  • Women’s average weekly wages were lower than those of low-skilled men, across all race groups. In 2002, non-Hispanic white women had the highest average weekly wages among low-skilled women working full-time, full-year ($529). This level is a 15 percent increase over non-Hispanic white women’s 1980 average weekly wages ($459 inflation adjusted). Non-Hispanic black women and Hispanic women’s weekly wages increased at slower rate than non-Hispanic white women since 1980 (12 percent and 3 percent, respectively).
  • For men, the gap between mean weekly wages for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black men with low education levels has narrowed over time. In 1980, the mean weekly wage for low-skilled non-Hispanic black men working full-time was $564 (in 2002 dollars), or 74 percent of the $758 average for non-Hispanic white men. However, full-time working non-Hispanic black men with no more than a high school education received 78 percent of the mean weekly wages of non-Hispanic white men in 2002 ($578 compared to $745).
  • Over the past fifteen years, both Hispanic women and men’s wages have lagged behind non-Hispanic whites and blacks among low-skilled full-time workers. In 2002, Hispanic women’s wages were 24 percent lower than non-Hispanic white women and 14 percent lower than non-Hispanic black women. Hispanic men had higher weekly wages than women but still trailed non-Hispanic white men by 29 percent and non-Hispanic black men by 8 percent.

Table WORK 3. Mean Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time, Full-Year with No More than a High School Education, by Race (2002 Dollars): Selected Years

 WomenMen
Non-Hispanic WhiteNon-Hispanic BlackHispanicNon-Hispanic WhiteNon-Hispanic BlackHispanic
1980459419392758564572
1981448405397747556562
1982455414397734542542
1983461418398733528554
1984464433404748526558
1985477433397741549547
1986483434419759551532
1987489451404754560528
1988488434402748586531
1989483454411730545512
1990482442387698539497
1991476430386685537478
1992483432400691526489
1993478417387675517474
1994485430389684529469
1995487428376704534469
1996490451388721555466
1997497424397732556502
1998516430400716561498
1999494431392734599495
2000511435382753593505
2001520458400747574509
2002529471404745578531

Note: Full-time, full-year workers work at least 48 weeks per year and 35 hours per week.

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

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: 1960-2002
Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Age 25 and Over, by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2002
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-169, March 2003, and earlier reports.

  • There has been a marked decline over the past 40 years in the percentage of the population that has not received a high school education. This percentage fell from 59 percent in 1960 to 16 percent in 2002.
  • 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 32 percent in 2002, 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 25 percent in 2002.
  • The percentage of the population completing four or more years of college has more than tripled from 1960 to 2002, rising steadily from 8 percent to 27 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
200216322527

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

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Educational Attainment in the United States: March 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series PPL-169, March 2003, 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 4.0 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 non-Hispanic black teens have fluctuated considerably over this period. Still, dropout rates are generally highest for Hispanic teens and lowest for non-Hispanic white teens. In 2000, the dropout rate was 7.4 percent for Hispanic teens, compared to 6.1 percent for non-Hispanic black teens and 4.1 percent for non-Hispanic 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
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: 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.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity 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.

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: 2002

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 2002

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.


  • In 2002, 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. More than one in six (17 percent) of adults 18 to 25 reported using marijuana in the past month during 2002, compared with 8 percent of adults 26 to 34 and 3 percent of adults 35 and older. Young adults were also significantly more likely to abuse alcohol than older adults.
  • The percentage of persons reporting binge alcohol use was significantly larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups, as shown in Table WORK 6.
  • Among all adult age categories, the use of cocaine, marijuana and alcohol abuse increased in 2002 to the highest level in 4 years, as shown in Table Work 6.
Table WORK 6. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol, by Age: 1999 - 2002
 
 1999200020012002
Cocaine
Ages 18-251.71.41.92.0
Ages 26-341.20.81.11.2
Age 35 and Over0.40.30.50.6
Marijuana
Ages 18-2514.213.616.017.3
Ages 26-345.45.96.87.7
Age 35 and Over2.22.32.43.1
Binge Alcohol Use
Ages 18-2537.937.838.740.9
Ages 26-3429.330.330.133.1
Age 35 and Over16.016.416.218.6
Heavy Alcohol Use
Ages 18-2513.312.813.614.9
Ages 26-347.57.67.89.0
Age 35 and Over4.24.14.25.2

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.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 7. Adult and Child Disability

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Age and Race/Ethnicity: 2002

Figure WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Age and Race/Ethnicity: 2002

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey.


  • In 2002, non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 11.4 percent compared to 7.5 percent.
  • While non-elderly 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 2002 (6.2 percent compared to 4.6 percent), as shown in Table WORK 7.
  • Among both non-elderly adults and children, rates of activity limitation were somewhat similar for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks in 2002, but lower for Hispanics, as shown in Table WORK 7.

Table WORK 7. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability, by Race/Ethnicity and Age: 2002

 Activity LimitationWork DisabilityLong-Term Care NeedsDisability Program Recipient
All Persons
Adults Ages 18-6411.48.52.14.6
Children Ages 0-177.5NANA6.2
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)
Non-Hispanic White11.98.92.14.4
Non-Hispanic Black13.710.22.97.7
Hispanic7.95.81.63.8
Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)
Non-Hispanic White7.7NANA6.4
Non-Hispanic Black9.4NANA7.9
Hispanic5.9NANA5.0

Note: 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.

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

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey.

Non-Marital Birth Risk Factors

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

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: 1940-2002

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: 1940-2002

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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.


  • The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past six decades, from 3.8 percent in 1940 to 34.0 percent in 2002. 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 and women ages 20-24. Four-fifths (80 percent) of all births to teens and a little over half (52 percent) to women ages 20-24 took place outside of marriage in 2002.
  • Since 1994, the upward growth in percentage of unmarried births to all women has begun to level off. The growth in percentage of unmarried births to teen mothers also has slowed since 1994, although it is still rising (from 76 percent in 1994 to 80 percent in 2002). The steepest growth since 1994 is among the 20 to 24 year old age group, where the percentage of births to unmarried women has increased from 45 to 52 percent.
  • 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. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women, by Age Group: Selected Years

YearUnder 1515-17 Years18-19 YearsAll Teens20-24 YearsAll Women
194064.5N/AN/A14.03.43.8
194570.0N/AN/A18.24.74.3
195063.722.69.413.93.74.0
195566.323.210.314.94.34.5
196067.824.010.715.44.85.3
196578.532.815.321.66.87.7
197080.843.022.430.58.910.7
197587.051.429.839.312.314.2
198088.761.539.848.319.318.4
198189.263.341.449.920.418.9
198289.265.043.051.421.319.4
198390.467.545.754.122.920.3
198491.169.248.156.324.521.0
198591.870.950.758.726.322.0
198692.573.353.661.528.723.4
198792.976.255.864.030.824.5
198893.677.158.565.932.925.7
198992.477.760.467.235.127.1
199091.677.761.367.636.928.0
199191.378.763.269.339.429.5
199291.379.264.670.540.730.1
199391.379.966.171.842.231.0
199494.584.170.075.944.932.6
199593.583.769.875.644.732.2
199693.884.470.876.345.632.4
199795.786.772.578.246.632.4
199896.687.573.678.947.732.8
199996.587.774.079.048.533.0
200096.587.774.379.149.533.2
200196.387.874.679.250.433.5
200297.088.575.880.251.634.0

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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

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 and Ethnicity 1940-2002
Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19, by Race and Ethnicity 1940-2002
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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

  • In contrast to the earlier 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 fell in the last four years, from 9.7 to 8.5 percent, reversing a long upward trend since 1940. This rate 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.
  • The percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens has also dropped among white women over the past four years, declining to 7.2 percent in 2002. This drop is in contrast to the long upward trend, from less than 1 percent in 1960 to nearly 8 percent in 1998.
  • Among black women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens fell to 16.7 percent in 2002, the lowest percentage since 1969. This rate has varied greatly since 1940, rising sharply to a peak of 24 percent in 1975, and showing a gradual decline in most years since then. The sharp increase in the late 1960s and early 1970s reflects a 30 percent rise in non-marital teen births among black women concurrent with a 6 percent decline in total black births from 1969 to 1975.
Table BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19, by Race and Ethnicity: Selected Years
 
YearAll RacesWhiteBlackHispanic
19401.70.8N/AN/A
19451.80.8N/AN/A
19501.60.6N/AN/A
19551.70.7N/AN/A
19602.00.9N/AN/A
19653.31.6N/AN/A
19705.12.618.8N/A
19757.13.724.2N/A
19807.34.422.2N/A
19817.14.521.5N/A
19827.14.521.2N/A
19837.24.621.2N/A
19847.14.620.7N/A
19857.24.820.3N/A
19867.55.120.1N/A
19877.75.320.0N/A
19888.05.620.3N/A
19898.35.920.6N/A
19908.46.120.49.8
19918.76.420.410.3
19928.76.520.210.3
19938.96.820.210.6
19949.77.521.112.1
19959.67.621.111.7
19969.67.720.911.5
19979.77.820.511.9
19989.77.919.912.1
19999.57.819.111.9
20009.17.618.311.6
20018.77.317.511.0
20028.57.216.710.8

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.

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

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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

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: 1960-2002
Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17, by Race: 1960-2002
 
Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2002
Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19, by Race: 1960-2002
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

  • The birth rate per 1,000 unmarried teens fell again in 2002 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 ages 18 and 19, for example, fell from 140 per thousand in 1994 to 104 per thousand in 2002. 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 (from 4 to 24 percent among 15 to 17 year-olds and from 11 to 56 percent among 18 and 19 year-olds).
  • The birth rate among unmarried black teens in both age groups was lower in 2002 than it has been in over four decades. 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: 1950-2002

YearAges 15 to17Ages 18 and 19
All RacesWhiteBlackAll RacesWhiteBlack
19509.93.4N/A18.38.5N/A
195511.13.9N/A23.610.3N/A
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
199130.821.779.965.449.4147.6
199230.221.577.366.751.1146.2
199330.321.976.066.151.9139.7
199431.723.974.069.155.7139.2
199530.123.367.566.554.6128.7
199628.522.362.864.953.4126.8
199727.722.059.263.952.8124.5
199826.521.555.263.753.0121.0
199925.020.750.162.452.8115.3
200023.919.748.362.253.1115.0
200122.018.143.860.652.1110.2
200220.817.539.958.651.0104.1

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. Rates for 1990-1999 have been revised on the basis of intercensal population estimates benchmarked to the 2000 decennial census and differ from earlier editions of this report.

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.

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: 1982-2003
Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head, by Race/Ethnicity: 1982-2003
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 CPS for 2003.
 
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 10 percent in 2003.
  • 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 5.6 percent in 2003.
  • Among Hispanics, the percentage of children living with never-married female heads more than doubled over the past twenty 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, at 33 percent in 2003 it is two percentage points below its peak in 1999.

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

YearNumber of Children (in thousands)Percentage
All RacesWhiteBlackHispanicAll RacesWhiteBlackHispanic
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
19996,7362,8263,6431,2979.85.235.312.2
20006,5912,8813,4131,2569.55.332.911.4
20016,6363,0143,3821,3409.65.532.411.9
20026,8723,0483,5731,4009.95.633.411.5
20037,0083,0283,4541,49710.05.633.311.9

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. 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.)

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single-race only. Persons who reported more than one race, such as “White and Asian,” are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders also are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Nonwhite data are shown for Black in 1960.

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 CPS for 2003.

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.

Appendices

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 and information on the characteristics of program participants.

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Legislative Action

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

In February 2002, President Bush proposed a plan, Working Toward Independence, to strengthen welfare reform, in order to help families remaining on welfare and other low-income families move toward self-sufficiency. The House of Representatives passed bills incorporating the key elements of the President’s plan in both the 107th Congress (H.R. 4737) and the 108th Congress (H.R. 4). As of the end of 2003, a Senate version of TANF reauthorization was reported out of committee, but not yet taken up on the floor of the Senate. Final enactment of TANF reauthorization is expected in 2004.

Data Issues Relating to the AFDC-TANF Transition

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

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

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

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

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figure TANF 1 and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1-6). 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 1-3). Welfare caseloads have stabilized over the past few years after declining dramatically during the 1990s. In fiscal year 2002, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.65 million persons, down 1.9 percent from FY 2001. Moreover, this was 55 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 61.6 percent to 5.5 million in March 2003.2 Over three-fourths of the reduction in the caseload since March 1994 has occurred following the implementation of TANF. These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs. As shown in Figure TANF 1, AFDC caseloads generally tended to increase in times of economic recession and decline in times of economic growth. The recent decline, however, has far outstripped that experienced in any previous period.

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

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

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

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 show that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, by 2001 the average monthly benefit per recipient had declined to 64 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.

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

One of the most dramatic trends is the recent jump in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 2002, 25 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 over 33 percent in FY 2002 (data not shown). Similar upward trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect positive effects of welfare-to-work programs, the strong economy, and the fact that, with larger earnings disregards, families with earnings do not exit welfare as rapidly. In addition, the increased employment of welfare recipients is consistent with broader trends in labor force participation. (For example, see Table Work 2 in Chapter III for trends in employment rates for women with no more than a high school education).

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of cases without an adult recipient. Such cases occur when the adults are ineligible (because they are a caretaker relative, SSI parent, immigrant parent, or sanctioned parent). Families with no adults in the assistance unit have climbed from 11.6 percent of the caseload in FY 1990 to 39.0 percent in FY 2002. Not counting cases with a sanctioned parent, 36.6 percent of the caseload was child-only in 2002. This dramatic growth has been due to an increase in the number of child-only cases during the early 1990s, followed by a decline in the number of adult-present cases. Even though child-only cases are generally not subject to the work requirements or time limits under TANF, the number of cases without an adult in the assistance unit has fallen by about 180,000 since 1996.

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

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

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8-17). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since 1993, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and March 2003 ranges from 94 percent (Wyoming) to 26 percent (Indiana). Six states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as June 1997 (Hawaii).

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

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic families” are single-parent families and “UP families” are 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. Beginning in 2000, Total families includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is March 2003.

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 plus unpublished data and Sixth TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2004.


Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads, 1962 – 2002

Fiscal YearAverage Monthly Number (In thousands)Children as a Percent of Total RecipientsAverage1 Number of Children per Family
Total Familie1Total RecipientsUnemployed Parent FamiliesUnemployed Parent RecipientsTotal Children
1962.......….9243,593482242,77877.33.0
1963...........9503,834542912,89675.53.0
1964...........9844,059603433,04375.03.1
1965...........1,0374,323694003,24275.03.1
1966...........1,0744,472623613,36975.33.1
1967...........1,1414,718583403,56075.53.1
1968...........1,3105,349673774,01375.03.1
1969...........1,5396,146663604,59174.73.0
1970...........1,9067,415784205,48474.02.9
1971...........2,5319,5571437266,96372.92.8
1972...........2,91810,6321346397,69872.42.6
1973...........3,12311,0381205577,96772.22.6
1974...........3,17010,845934347,82572.22.5
1975...........3,35711,0671004517,95271.92.4
1976...........3,57511,3861355938,05470.72.3
1977...........3,59311,1301496597,84670.52.2
1978...........3,53910,6721285677,49270.22.1
1979...........3,49610,3181145077,19769.82.1
1980...........3,64210,5971416127,32069.12.0
1981...........3,87111,1602098817,61568.22.0
1982...........3,56910,4312329766,97566.92.0
1983...........3,65110,6592721,1447,05166.11.9
1984...........3,72510,8662871,2227,15365.81.9
1985...........3,69210,8132611,1317,16566.31.9
1986...........3,74810,9972541,1027,30066.41.9
1987...........3,78411,0652361,0357,38166.72.0
1988...........3,74810,9202109297,32567.12.0
1989...........3,77110,9341938567,37067.42.0
1990...........3,97411,4602048997,75567.72.0
1991...........4,37412,5922681,1488,51367.61.9
1992...........4,76813,6253221,3489,22667.71.9
1993...........4,98114,1433591,4899,56067.61.9
1994...........5,04614,2263631,5109,61167.61.9
1995...........4,87113,6603351,3849,28067.91.9
1996...........4,54312,6452931,2418,67268.61.9
19972.........3,93710,93527531,15837,781371.232.03
1998...........3,2008,79017975446,27371.42.0
1999...........2,6747,188NANA5,31974.02.0
2000...........2,3566,324NANA4,59872.72.0
2001...........2,2005,761NANA4,22773.31.9
2002...........2,1945,654NANA4,14973.01.9
Note: Beginning in 2000, all caseload numbers include SSP families.
1 Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.
3 Based on data from the old AFDC reporting system which was available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year.
4 Estimated based on the ratio of Unemployed Parent recipients to Unemployed Parent families in 1997.
 
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, (Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/).

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups, 1970 – 2002

Calendar
Year 1
Total Recipients in the States & DC(in thousands)Child Recipients in the States & DC(in thousands)Recipients as a Percent of Total Populatio2Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Populatio3Recipients 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
199213,5719,1895.335.750.813.860.1
199314,0079,4605.435.748.514.060.2
199413,9709,4485.336.750.013.861.8
199513,2429,0135.036.450.113.061.5
199612,1568,3554.533.346.411.957.8
199710,2247,077 53.728.740.710.050.1
19988,2155,7813.023.834.78.142.9
19996,7094,8362.420.530.96.739.4
20006,0434,4062.119.129.76.138.0
20015,6334,1382.017.126.85.735.3
20025,5294,0481.916.025.45.633.4
1 Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates. From 2000 onward, total recipients includes SSP recipients as well as TANF recipients. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates.
2 Population numbers used as denominators are resident population. See Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106
3 For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).
4 The pretransfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families with related children under 18 years of age whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.
5 Estimated based on the ratio of children recipients to total recipients for January through June of 1997.
 
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002," Current Population Reports, Series P60-222, and earlier years, (Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients, 2000 – 2002

(In thousands)

Fiscal YearTANFSSPTotal
 Families
20002,265912,355
20012,117822,200
20022,0651282,194
 All Recipients
20005,9433806,324
20015,4233385,761
20025,1495055,654
 Child Recipients
20004,3702284,598
20014,0252024,227
20023,8413084,149

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

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


Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration, 1970 – 2002
[In millions of dollars]
 
Fiscal Year
Federal Funds
(Current Dollars)
State Funds
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Current Dollars)
Total
(Constant 2002 Dollars1)
BenefitsAdministrativeBenefitsAdministrativeBenefitsAdministrativeBenefitsAdministrative
1970$2,187$572 2$1,895$309$4,082$881 218,0763,901
19713,0082712,4692545,47752523,2192,226
19723,612240 32,9422416,554481 326,831NA
19733,8653133,1382967,00361027,5352,398
19744,0713793,3003627,37174026,6942,680
19754,6255523,7875298,4121,08227,7663,571
19765,2585414,4185279,6761,06929,8973,303
19775,6265954,76258310,3881,17729,8783,385
19785,7246314,89861710,6211,24828,6593,368
19795,8256834,95466810,7791,35026,7463,350
19806,4487505,50872911,9561,47926,6703,299
19816,9288355,91781412,8451,64826,0543,343
19826,9228785,93487812,8571,75624,3663,328
19837,3329156,27591513,6071,83024,6643,317
19847,7078766,66482214,3711,69824,9852,952
19857,8178906,76388914,5801,77924,4692,986
19868,2399936,99696715,2351,96024,9363,208
19878,9141,0817,4091,05216,3232,13325,9803,395
19889,1251,1947,5381,15916,6632,35325,4793,598
19899,4331,2117,8071,20617,2402,41725,1573,527
199010,1491,3588,3901,30318,5392,66125,7703,699
199111,1651,3739,1911,30020,3562,67326,9363,537
199212,2581,4599,9931,37822,2502,83728,5753,644
199312,2701,51810,0161,43822,2862,95627,7843,685
199412,5121,68010,2851,62122,7973,30127,6874,009
199512,0191,77010,0141,75122,0323,52126,0334,161
199611,0651,6339,3461,63320,4113,26623,4673,755
199749,7481,2737,7991,09817,5472,37119,6442,654
19987,5181,2317,0961,02814,6142,25916,0982,489
19996,4751,4076,97588413,4492,29114,5382,476
20005,4441,5705,7361,03211,1802,30211,7112,726
20014,7721,5985,3901,04210,1632,63910,3132,678
20024,5541,6334,8549839,4082,6179,4082,617
Note: Benefits do not include emergency assistance payments and have not been reduced by child support collections. Foster care payments are included from 1971 to 1980. State funds for benefits include benefits under Separate State Programs. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of certifying AFDC households for food stamps is shown in the food stamp program’s appropriation under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Administrative costs include: Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, Child Care administration (through 1996), SAVE and other State and local administrative expenditures.
1 Constant dollar adjustments to 2002 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year price index.
2 Includes expenditures for services.
3 Administrative expenditures only.
4 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of 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 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending Fiscal Years 1997 to 2002
(Millions)
 
 Cash & Work-Based AssistanceWork ActivitiesChild CareTransportationAdministrationSystemsTransitional ServicesOther ExpendituresTotal Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
19977,708467 14 872109086210,032
19987,168763  25293822461,13610,487
19996,4751,225  6041,070337171,59511,323
20005,4441,606  1,5534961,3282422,71513,384
20014,7721,983  1,5835221,3752234,32514,782
20024,5542,121 1,572 339  1,3392944,36814,588
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF Program
19975,955311  75270410199268,758
19986,879520  890883138111,30110,623
19996,541503 1,135 743118231,33410,397
20005,432884  1,893150921921,17010,541
20014,887685 1,730 113920831,1959,613
20023,994582  1,860221877661,5549,154
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in Separate State Programs
19976912  1110018210
1998216137 6128391
199943426  2572200126865
200030511  7317190431856
200150328  34203814991,125
200286024  722441-.56521,673
Total Expenditures
199713,731790 877 1,57721191,80519,000
199814,2641,286  1,2801,828362172,46521,502
199913,4491,754  1,9951,835456403,05522,585
200011,1802,501 3,519 6632,2673354,31624,781
200110,1632,696  3,3476552,3333066,01925,520
20029,4082,727 3,504 5842,2583596,57425,414

Note: Administration and Systems, shown separately here in Table TANF 5, can be combined to show total administrative costs, as in Table TANF 3.

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


Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments, 1962 – 2002

Fiscal YearMonthly Benefit per RecipientAverage Number of Persons per Family
Monthly Benefit
per Family
(not reduced by Child Support)
Weighted Average1
Maximum Benefit
(per 3-person Family)
Current
Dollars
2002
Dollars
Current
Dollars
2002
Dollars
Current
Dollars
2002
Dollars
1962$31$1713.9$121$664NANA
1963311694.0126681NANA
1964321704.1131701NANA
1965341774.2140738NANA
1966351804.2146750NANA
1967361814.1150750NANA
1968401914.1162782NANA
1969432014.0173803$186 2$867
1970462033.9178789194 2861
1971482023.8180764201 2852
1972512103.6187766205 2841
1973532083.5187735213 2837
1974572053.4194702229 2828
1975632093.3209689243802
1976712193.2226697257793
1977782243.1241693271780
1978832243.0249675284767
1979872162.9257638301746
1980942102.9274610320714
1981961952.9277561326661
19821031952.9300569331626
19831061932.9311563336609
19841101922.9321559352611
19851121892.9329552369619
19861151892.9339555383627
19871231962.9359572393626
19881271942.9370567404618
19891311922.9381556412602
19901351872.9389540421585
19911351782.9388513425562
19921361752.9389499419538
19931311642.8373465414517
19941341622.8376457420505
19951341592.8376445418494
19961351552.8374430422485
199731301462.8362405420470
19981301442.7358394432476
19991331442.7357386452489
20001331402.6349366453475
20011371392.6351356456463
20021431432.5355355454454
Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2002 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal-year price index.
1 The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC families.
2 Estimated based on the weighted average benefit for a 4-person family.
3 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.
 
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 – 2002

 May1969  May 1975March 1979
Fiscal year1
1983198819921996200020012002
Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.03.23.03.03.02.92.82.62.62.5
Number of Child Recipients
One 26.637.942.343.442.542.543.944.244.847.0
Two 23.026.028.129.830.230.229.928.428.528.0
Three 17.716.115.615.215.815.515.015.314.814.2
Four or More 32.520.013.910.19.910.19.210.19.98.9
Unknown NANANA1.51.70.71.32.02.01.9
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit 10.112.514.68.39.614.821.534.537.139.0
Child-Only Families32.735.336.6
Families with Non-Recipients 33.134.8NA36.936.838.949.9
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
Since Most Recent Opening 23.031.029.026.026.322.523.6
Presence of Assistance
Living in Public Housing 12.814.6NA10.09.69.28.817.720.019.2
Participating in Food Stamp or Donated Food Program 52.975.175.183.084.687.389.379.980.980.1
Presence of Income
With Earnings NA14.612.85.78.47.411.123.6324.3321.83
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income 56.071.180.686.879.678.976.071.6370.3372.83
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed 6.611.326.426.725.3
Unemployed 49.247.547.2
Not in Labor Force 24.325.827.5
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):4
Full-time job 8.210.48.71.52.22.24.7
Part-time job 6.35.75.43.44.24.25.4
Marital Status (percent of adults)
Single 65.366.966.6
Married 12.411.711.5
Separated 13.112.513.0
Widowed 0.70.80.7
Divorced 8.58.28.2
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
Incapacitated 11.757.75.33.43.74.14.3
Unemployed 4.653.74.18.76.58.28.3
Death 5.553.72.21.81.81.61.6
Divorce or Separation 43.3548.344.738.534.630.024.3
Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9531.037.844.351.953.158.6
Absent, Other Reason 3.554.05.91.41.62.02.4
Unknown 1.70.90.6
Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise.
1 Percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii.
2 In this report, child-only families are those families with no adult in the assistance unit excluding those where there is no adult in the assistance unit as a result of the parent being sanctioned for non-compliance.
3 Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients, not families, in 1998 and subsequent years.
4 For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only.
5 Calculated on the basis of total number of families.
 
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: 2003 TANF Annual Report to Congress and earlier years.

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2002

[Millions of dollars]
 
 1978198419861988199019941996199820002002
Alabama$78$74$68$62$62$92$75$44$36$33
Alaska1737465460113107775555
Arizona306779103138266228145107130
Arkansas51394853575752263426
California1,8133,2073,5744,0914,9556,0885,9084,1283,6432,608
Colorado74107107125137158129804853
Connecticut168226223218295397323305166128
Delaware28282524294035242019
Dist. of Columbia9175777684126121977267
Florida145251261318418806680357234256
Georgia103149223266321428385313180109
Guam354351214NANANA
Hawaii838373779916317315314185
Idaho21211919203030635
Illinois699845886815839914833771269146
Indiana11815314816717022815310487146
Iowa1071591701551521691311047976
Kansas7387919710512398414350
Kentucky122135104143179198191147104101
Louisiana971451621821881681301035867
Maine5169848010110899807366
Maryland166229250250296314285192196227
Massachusetts476406471558630730560442336279
Michigan7801,2141,2481,2311,2111,132779589386326
Minnesota164287322338355379333276193184
Mississippi33587485868268601837
Missouri152196209215228287254180139148
Montana15273741404945302131
Nebraska38566256596254414152
Nevada8101620274848392848
New Hampshire21162021326250393229
New Jersey489485509459451531462372222194
New Mexico324951566114415310411382
New York1,6891,9162,0992,1402,2592,9132,9292,1491,5541,465
North Carolina138149138206247353300211140139
North Dakota14162022242621221210
Ohio4417258048058771,016763546368336
Oklahoma7485100119132165122727845
Oregon1481011201281451971551413469
Pennsylvania726724389747798935822523573338
Puerto Rico25383367727463NANANA
Rhode Island597179829913612511710589
South Carolina52751039196115101529135
South Dakota18171521222522141011
Tennessee7783100125168215190108146132
Texas122229281344416544496315248203
Utah41525561647764504041
Vermont21404040486556473938
Virgin Islands2222344NANANA
Virginia136165179169177253199123186101
Washington175294375401438610585450312295
West Virginia5375109107110126101524971
Wisconsin2605194445064404252911457126
Wyoming6131619192117792
United States$10,621$14,371$15,236$16,663$18,543$22,798$20,411$14,614$11,180$9,408

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance payments. NA denotes data not available.

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


Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs And 2002 Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA
[In millions]
 
StateFY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS1FY 2002 State Family Assistance Grant2
Increase from
FY 1996 Level
Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
Alabama$79.0$124.2$45.257
Alaska60.760.3-0.4-1
Arizona200.6228.728.014
Arkansas54.362.98.616
California3,545.63,739.8194.35
Colorado138.9169.430.522
Connecticut221.1280.159.127
Delaware30.232.32.17
Dist of Columbia77.1117.139.952
Florida504.7622.7118.023
Georgia301.2368.066.822
Hawaii98.4103.95.56
Idaho31.335.03.712
Illinois593.8585.1-8.8-1
Indiana121.4217.195.879
Iowa129.3138.18.87
Kansas86.9101.915.017
Kentucky171.6190.418.711
Louisiana122.4189.266.855
Maine73.278.14.97
Maryland207.6229.121.510
Massachusetts372.0459.487.323
Michigan581.5795.2213.737
Minnesota239.3270.230.813
Mississippi68.695.827.240
Missouri207.9227.920.010
Montana39.246.47.218
Nebraska56.258.42.24
Nevada41.249.98.721
New Hampshire36.039.02.98
New Jersey353.4404.050.714
New Mexico129.9121.9-8.0-6
New York2,332.72,442.9110.25
North Carolina311.9338.326.58
North Dakota24.527.73.213
Ohio564.5728.0163.529
Oklahoma125.1147.622.518
Oregon146.4166.820.414
Pennsylvania780.1719.5-60.6-8
Rhode Island82.999.816.920
South Carolina99.4100.00.51
South Dakota19.722.02.312
Tennessee178.9213.134.219
Texas437.1583.1146.033
Utah68.088.220.230
Vermont42.449.77.417
Virginia134.6158.323.618
Washington393.2411.418.35
West Virginia95.1115.720.522
Wisconsin241.6331.089.437
Wyoming14.419.65.236
United States$15,067$17,004$1,93713
1 Includes Administration and FAMIS but excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant. The 1996 figures have been revised since earlier versions of this report, to reflect upward revisions in states' reports of expenditures on the JOBS program.
2 The FY 2002 awards include State Family Assistance Grants, Supplemental Grants for Population Increases, Out of Wedlock Bonus and High Performance Bonus.
 
Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services.

Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State, October 1989 to March 2003 Peak
[In thousands]
State
Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to
Mar ’03
Date Peak Occurred
Oct ’89 to Mar ’03
Sept ’96 Caseload
Mar ’03 TANF
& SSP Caseload
Percent Decline 1 Sept ’96 to Mar ’03Percent Decline Peak to Mar ’03
Alabama52.3Mar-9340.719.55263
Alaska13.4Apr-9412.35.65558
Arizona72.8Dec-9361.848.32234
Arkansas27.1Mar-9222.110.95160
California933.1Mar-95870.3496.64347
Colorado43.7Dec-9333.614.25867
Connecticut61.9Mar-9557.124.75760
Delaware11.8Apr-9410.55.74551
Dist. of Columbia27.5Apr-9425.116.83339
Florida259.9Nov-92200.358.57177
Georgia142.8Nov-93120.956.05461
Guam3.1Oct-012.33.1-360
Hawaii23.4Jun-9721.913.53942
Idaho9.5Mar-958.41.87981
Illinois243.1Aug-94217.837.48385
Indiana76.1Sep-9349.756.3-1326
Iowa40.7Apr-9431.122.72744
Kansas30.8Aug-9323.415.43450
Kentucky84.0Mar-9370.434.85159
Louisiana94.7May-9066.522.26777
Maine24.4Aug-9319.710.34858
Maryland81.8May-9568.928.95865
Massachusetts115.7Aug-9384.349.14258
Michigan233.6Apr-91167.576.55467
Minnesota66.2Jun-9257.242.12636
Mississippi61.8Nov-9145.219.55768
Missouri93.7Mar-9479.144.44453
Montana12.3Mar-949.86.43448
Nebraska17.2Mar-9314.411.91731
Nevada16.3Mar-9513.211.31431
New Hampshire11.8Apr-948.96.23148
New Jersey132.6Nov-92100.844.25667
New Mexico34.9Nov-9433.016.35153
New York463.7Dec-94412.7196.25258
North Carolina134.1Mar-94107.540.36270
North Dakota6.6Apr-934.73.42748
Ohio269.8Mar-92201.984.05869
Oklahoma51.3Mar-9335.314.75871
Oregon43.8Apr-9328.519.13356
Pennsylvania212.5Sep-94180.180.35562
Puerto Rico61.7Jan-9249.519.06269
Rhode Island22.9Apr-9420.514.72836
South Carolina54.6Jan-9342.919.45564
South Dakota7.4Apr-935.72.85162
Tennessee112.6Nov-9396.270.42738
Texas287.5Dec-93238.8140.34151
Utah18.7Mar-9314.08.73853
Vermont10.3Apr-928.75.33948
Virgin Islands1.4Dec-951.30.56668
Virginia76.0Apr-9460.532.34757
Washington104.8Feb-9596.861.23742
West Virginia41.9Apr-9337.615.95862
Wisconsin82.9Jan-9249.921.05875
Wyoming7.1Aug-924.30.49194
United States5,098Mar-944,3462,1815057

1Negative values denote percent increase.

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


Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State, Selected Fiscal Years
[In thousands]
 
 19651970198019851990199419962002Percent Change
1990-961996-02
Alabama7812318015113013210544-19-59
Alaska5815162038361879-51
Arizona405151721242011729438-45
Arkansas3045856471695828-19-52
California5281,1481,3871,6191,9022,6392,6261,38238-47
Colorado426677791021199931-4-68
Connecticut59831391221201661625735-65
Delaware122032242127231310-45
Dist. of Columbia204085584974704344-39
Florida10620425627137066956113252-77
Georgia7119822123929339335313120-63
Guam1256478119137
Hawaii142560514462675052-25
Idaho10162117172323238-90
Illinois2623686727356367126551353-79
Indiana4873157165154216148150-41
Iowa4464104123981108955-9-38
Kansas3653686777876836-11-48
Kentucky8112916716017520817578-0-56
Louisiana10420221323028224823661-16-74
Maine1936605756645631-0-45
Maryland801312121951862222047110-65
Massachusetts94208350235263307237108-10-54
Michigan162253685691655666527202-20-62
Minnesota51761351521711871711130-34
Mississippi8311517315517915912940-28-69
Missouri10714019919721126323213010-44
Montana7131922293531168-47
Nebraska1630354443454030-7-24
Nevada51212142338383266-15
New Hampshire4922141630241448-40
New Jersey104286459367309335288110-7-62
New Mexico30515351571021014777-53
New York5171,0521,1001,1129811,2551,18453021-55
North Carolina1111241981662233332789124-67
North Dakota81113121616138-14-38
Ohio183266513673632685546191-14-65
Oklahoma7395898211213110537-6-65
Oregon317510274891148741-2-53
Pennsylvania3034266295615216205442114-61
Puerto Rico20222316817319018315567-18-56
Rhode Island243852444663584427-25
South Carolina3052153120111140119537-55
South Dakota111620161919167-14-59
Tennessee7612916215521130026016823-35
Texas9121430836361178868436012-47
Utah2233373845504020-11-50
Vermont51223222228251415-44
Virgin Islands1234345255-53
Virginia4687166154151195162717-56
Washington7110915417822829227415620-43
West Virginia11693771061111149542-14-56
Wisconsin457921328823722617047-28-73
Wyoming457101416131-9-93
United States4,3237,41510,59710,81311,46014,22612,6455,65410-55

Note: Recipients in 2002 include SSP recipients.

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


Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years
[In percent]
 
 19651970198019851990199419962002Percent Change
1990-961996-02
Alabama2.23.64.63.83.23.12.41.0-24-60
Alaska1.82.63.73.03.76.35.92.763-54
Arizona2.62.91.92.33.44.73.71.711-54
Arkansas1.52.33.72.83.02.82.31.0-25-55
California2.95.75.86.16.38.48.23.929-52
Colorado2.23.02.62.53.13.22.50.7-19-72
Connecticut2.12.74.53.83.65.04.81.633-66
Delaware2.43.65.43.93.23.83.21.6-0-49
Dist. of Columbia2.55.313.39.28.112.612.37.652-38
Florida1.83.02.62.42.84.73.80.833-79
Georgia1.64.34.04.04.55.54.71.54-68
Hawaii1.93.26.24.93.95.25.54.040-27
Idaho1.42.22.21.71.62.01.90.216-91
Illinois2.53.35.96.45.66.05.41.1-2-80
Indiana1.01.42.93.02.83.72.52.4-9-3
Iowa1.62.33.64.33.53.93.11.9-12-40
Kansas1.62.42.92.83.13.42.61.3-16-50
Kentucky2.54.04.64.34.75.44.51.9-6-57
Louisiana2.95.65.05.26.75.75.41.4-20-75
Maine1.93.65.44.94.55.24.52.4-2-47
Maryland2.23.35.04.43.94.44.01.33-67
Massachusetts1.83.76.14.04.45.03.81.7-12-56
Michigan2.02.97.47.67.06.95.42.0-23-63
Minnesota1.42.03.33.63.94.13.62.2-7-38
Mississippi3.65.26.96.06.95.94.71.4-32-70
Missouri2.43.04.03.94.14.94.32.34-46
Montana1.01.92.42.73.64.03.51.8-3-49
Nebraska1.12.02.22.82.72.82.41.7-12-27
Nevada1.22.41.51.41.92.52.31.522-34
New Hampshire0.71.22.41.41.52.72.11.140-45
New Jersey1.54.06.24.94.04.23.51.3-11-64
New Mexico3.05.04.13.53.86.15.82.653-56
New York2.95.86.36.25.46.86.42.817-57
North Carolina2.22.43.42.63.44.63.71.110-70
North Dakota1.21.72.01.82.42.62.11.3-15-36
Ohio1.82.54.86.35.86.14.91.7-17-66
Oklahoma3.03.72.92.53.64.03.11.1-12-66
Oregon1.63.63.92.83.13.72.71.2-14-57
Pennsylvania2.63.65.34.84.45.14.41.72-62
Rhode Island2.74.05.54.54.66.25.74.125-29
South Carolina1.22.04.93.63.23.83.11.2-1-61
South Dakota1.62.42.92.32.72.62.20.9-19-60
Tennessee2.03.33.53.34.35.74.82.911-39
Texas0.91.92.12.23.64.23.51.7-1-53
Utah2.23.12.52.32.62.52.00.9-25-55
Vermont1.42.64.44.23.94.84.32.310-46
Virginia1.01.93.12.72.43.02.41.0-1-60
Washington2.43.23.74.04.75.44.92.66-48
West Virginia6.45.34.05.56.26.35.22.3-16-56
Wisconsin1.11.84.56.14.84.43.30.9-33-74
Wyoming1.11.51.42.03.13.42.60.2-16-94
United States2.13.54.64.54.55.34.61.93-58
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

[In thousands]

 19651970198019851990199419962002Percent Change
1990-961996-02
Alabama629612910593967934-14-57
Alaska4610101324231276-49
Arizona31393850871361187036-40
Arkansas2334624551494221-18-51
California3918169321,0701,2941,8041,8051,04339-42
Colorado3350535369806823-2-66
Connecticut43629782811111084233-62
Delaware9152216141916109-38
Dist. of Columbia163159433451483240-34
Florida8516018419126446339510449-74
Georgia5415016116620627425110122-60
Guam1144356087-100
Hawaii101840332941443351-26
Idaho7111411111616241-88
Illinois2022834734934364864561075-76
Indiana3655111111105145104105-11
Iowa3246697764725936-7-39
Kansas2841494552594825-8-47
Kentucky5893118107117137120573-52
Louisiana7915715616319918016248-19-70
Maine14264036354035210-41
Maryland611001451261241511405213-63
Massachusetts7115322815216819715377-9-50
Michigan119190460441427439354149-17-58
Minnesota39589195110124116785-32
Mississippi66931281121291169630-25-68
Missouri821061351291391761629216-43
Montana61013151923211110-47
Nebraska1223252929312821-5-24
Nevada49891627272371-16
New Hampshire371591119161048-37
New Jersey7920931824721322819582-8-58
New Mexico233935343766653475-48
New York38075975972965881377137117-52
North Carolina83941411131522231917026-63
North Dakota6898101196-12-34
Ohio136198348424414455382142-8-63
Oklahoma5571655777907428-4-62
Oregon23526549607660300-50
Pennsylvania2173074323693454173681557-58
Puerto Rico16116611811613012410547-19-55
Rhode Island182736283041393029-24
South Carolina24401098480102893912-57
South Dakota81215111314125-11-55
Tennessee589911510514420318112126-33
Texas6816222525642854948426913-44
Utah1623242431332714-11-47
Vermont481414141716915-42
Virgin Islands1223234252-52
Virginia35661161031041341145110-55
Washington50769711314818717710820-39
West Virginia8065586468726228-10-54
Wisconsin346014218115815312338-22-69
Wyoming345791191-4-92
United States3,2425,4837,3207,1657,7559,6118,6724,14912-52

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

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


Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2002
[In percent]
 
 19651970198019851990199419962002Percent Change
1990-961996-02
Alabama4.67.711.19.78.88.97.33.3-17-55
Alaska3.15.08.05.97.412.812.46.267-50
Arizona4.86.04.85.98.612.19.74.712-51
Arkansas3.15.29.37.18.27.76.43.0-23-53
California6.012.314.615.616.220.820.311.025-46
Colorado4.46.46.56.17.88.36.82.0-13-70
Connecticut4.46.111.810.810.814.213.74.827-65
Delaware4.77.513.410.28.710.58.95.12-43
Dist. of Columbia6.013.840.933.930.744.544.128.144-36
Florida4.37.67.87.68.814.111.62.631-77
Georgia3.29.19.810.111.814.612.84.49-66
Hawaii3.66.514.511.610.513.614.511.039-24
Idaho2.74.24.73.63.64.64.60.527-88
Illinois5.37.514.616.114.815.714.43.3-3-77
Indiana2.03.06.97.57.39.87.06.5-5-6
Iowa3.24.78.410.28.89.98.25.1-8-37
Kansas3.55.47.56.97.98.57.03.6-12-48
Kentucky4.98.310.910.512.414.112.46.1-0-51
Louisiana5.511.311.812.216.514.613.34.0-20-70
Maine3.97.712.511.711.513.111.87.43-37
Maryland4.67.312.411.410.612.011.13.85-66
Massachusetts3.88.115.311.212.413.910.65.2-15-51
Michigan3.75.816.717.717.417.413.95.8-20-59
Minnesota2.94.27.78.59.410.19.36.1-0-35
Mississippi7.011.115.714.017.615.312.74.0-28-68
Missouri5.26.99.99.810.612.911.66.410-45
Montana2.04.05.76.18.49.78.95.06-44
Nebraska2.34.45.56.86.87.06.14.7-10-23
Nevada2.55.23.83.95.07.16.53.929-40
New Hampshire1.42.65.83.73.96.65.43.240-41
New Jersey3.48.816.013.511.711.79.93.8-16-61
New Mexico5.29.58.57.88.313.513.16.759-49
New York6.313.016.216.715.418.017.08.011-53
North Carolina4.45.38.57.19.312.610.43.412-68
North Dakota2.33.64.74.36.06.35.44.0-10-25
Ohio3.65.311.214.714.916.013.44.9-10-63
Oklahoma6.48.57.66.39.110.48.53.1-7-63
Oregon3.37.49.06.98.19.77.43.5-8-53
Pennsylvania5.58.013.812.912.314.412.85.44-58
Rhode Island5.99.114.712.613.417.516.512.523-24
South Carolina2.34.211.69.18.710.89.43.88-59
South Dakota3.15.07.15.76.76.65.92.8-12-53
Tennessee4.27.58.98.611.815.713.78.716-37
Texas1.74.15.25.48.710.48.84.41-51
Utah3.75.44.44.04.94.94.02.0-19-49
Vermont2.75.49.99.99.511.710.86.513-40
Virginia2.24.17.97.16.88.47.02.93-59
Washington4.76.58.59.711.313.312.47.19-43
West Virginia12.211.210.412.615.716.814.67.2-7-51
Wisconsin2.23.810.514.212.111.49.12.8-25-69
Wyoming2.13.23.44.17.08.16.80.6-2-92
United States4.47.611.311.211.914.012.45.64-55

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

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


Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients, 2002
(In thousands)
 
 FamiliesAll RecipientsChild Recipients
TANFSSPTotalTANFSSPTotalTANFSSPTotal
Alabama18.00.218.242.80.943.634.00.534.5
Alaska6.06.017.617.611.911.9
Arizona40.140.194.394.370.370.3
Arkansas12.012.027.727.720.620.6
California462.350.6512.91,160.9220.61,381.5911.5131.01,042.5
Colorado12.112.131.531.523.323.3
Connecticut23.70.924.753.23.456.637.83.741.5
Delaware5.50.15.612.40.512.99.40.39.7
Dist. of16.20.316.542.20.943.031.40.632.0
Florida59.02.161.1123.28.4131.799.54.3103.8
Georgia53.70.654.2128.22.3130.599.51.2100.8
Guam3.13.110.810.80.0
Hawaii11.14.715.930.519.449.921.311.232.5
Idaho1.41.42.42.42.02.0
Illinois48.10.748.8133.71.3135.0106.90.5107.3
Indiana49.32.551.8138.911.2150.199.16.4105.4
Iowa20.21.521.753.41.555.035.935.9
Kansas14.014.035.835.825.325.3
Kentucky34.934.977.777.757.457.4
Louisiana23.723.760.760.748.548.5
Maine9.71.711.426.04.530.517.83.020.8
Maryland27.12.129.364.96.571.448.14.252.3
Massachusetts47.30.147.4108.10.3108.476.50.276.7
Michigan74.374.3201.7201.7148.8148.8
Minnesota35.93.939.794.618.0112.668.110.378.4
Mississippi17.617.640.440.430.530.5
Missouri45.04.149.1118.811.0129.784.48.192.5
Montana5.85.816.416.410.810.8
Nebraska10.31.011.325.54.429.918.52.420.9
Nevada11.01.012.027.64.432.120.52.523.0
New Hampshire6.06.014.514.59.99.9
New Jersey42.01.743.7103.17.2110.377.64.081.6
New Mexico17.017.047.347.333.733.7
New York170.433.9204.4412.5117.0529.5292.877.9370.7
North Carolina42.90.042.991.10.191.270.20.170.3
North Dakota3.23.28.38.36.06.0
Ohio84.084.0191.0191.0142.0142.0
Oklahoma14.814.836.936.928.328.3
Oregon17.917.940.940.930.230.2
Pennsylvania80.680.6210.5210.5155.0155.0
Puerto Rico23.423.467.467.447.447.4
Rhode Island14.41.215.639.04.643.527.12.629.7
South Carolina21.521.553.353.338.538.5
South Dakota2.92.96.66.65.45.4
Tennessee63.01.064.0164.63.7168.3118.82.2121.0
Texas129.96.6136.5331.428.5359.9253.115.5268.6
Utah7.80.17.819.90.220.114.30.114.4
Vermont5.10.35.413.40.814.28.60.59.1
Virgin Islands0.60.62.32.31.71.7
Virginia30.10.930.967.33.570.849.11.950.9
Washington54.24.258.4137.818.4156.195.711.8107.6
West Virginia15.915.941.641.628.228.2
Wisconsin19.00.419.445.21.546.836.71.037.7
Wyoming0.50.00.50.80.00.80.70.00.7
U.S. Total2,0651282,1945,1495055,6543,8413084,149

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

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


Table TANF 16. Recipients with Earnings in Current and Following Quarters, Fiscal Year 2001

StateAdult TANF Recipients (Thousands)Percentage with EarningsPercentage without Earnings
TotalWith Earnings inFollowing QuarterTotalWith Earnings inFollowing Quarter
Alabama10.739746122
Alaska6.736596427
Arizona24.540736020
Arkansas8.845765527
California287.943835714
Colorado8.438696223
Connecticut19.946785421
Delaware3.646745424
Dist. of Columbia12.637736317
Florida36.042795823
Georgia31.333626719
Hawaii12.643855713
Idaho0.647795330
Illinois46.444815619
Indiana37.550805022
 21.651784924
Kansas12.252774827
Kentucky25.726697425
Louisiana17.136636423
Maine9.846795420
Maryland20.837716320
Massachusetts34.628687216
Michigan61.236686419
Minnesota41.048775221
Mississippi10.236706421
Missouri40.051794925
Montana6.040716023
Nebraska8.353784726
Nevada6.248765221
New Hampshire5.140756020
New Jersey34.032766819
New Mexico20.844765621
New YorkNANANANANA
North Carolina28.043725725
North Dakota2.846805421
Ohio65.544765622
Oklahoma9.948755226
Oregon11.730717016
Pennsylvania69.729717119
Rhode Island14.239796116
South Carolina14.547745324
South Dakota1.630747019
Tennessee48.949775121
Texas109.041775920
Utah6.641755921
Vermont6.242775819
Virginia20.747795324
Washington54.241755920
West Virginia15.335746517
Wisconsin8.339726123
Wyoming0.339656127
All Reporting States1,41041775919

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

Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.


Table TANF 17. Patterns of TANF Receipt, Fiscal Year 2001

State
Adult TANF
Recipients in Qtr(t)
(Thousands)
Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients Also Receiving Benefits in Following Quarters
Qtr(t+1)Qtr(t+2)Qtr(t+3)Qtr(t+4)
Alabama10.775554337
Alaska6.776625448
Arizona24.574554743
Arkansas8.871503932
California287.983726458
Colorado8.472534337
Connecticut19.982675546
Delaware3.676584842
Dist. of Columbia12.689797063
Florida36.056372925
Georgia31.375574741
Hawaii12.684716254
Idaho0.64619118
Illinois46.480655343
Indiana37.585746762
 21.675585043
Kansas12.272534439
Kentucky25.778615042
Louisiana17.172534133
Maine9.878635549
Maryland20.881665648
Massachusetts34.679665854
Michigan61.276625448
Minnesota41.076605043
Mississippi10.274564640
Missouri40.082696054
Montana6.074595248
Nebraska8.372575046
Nevada6.270493630
New Hampshire5.177625246
New Jersey34.080665650
New Mexico20.869514337
New YorkNANANANANA
North Carolina28.070514033
North Dakota2.876615449
Ohio65.570514135
Oklahoma9.970504035
Oregon11.775584843
Pennsylvania69.779655651
Rhode Island14.287777065
South Carolina14.573524235
South Dakota1.667484036
Tennessee48.984726560
Texas109.076584740
Utah6.671514033
Vermont6.279645549
Virginia20.777615144
Washington54.275595044
West Virginia15.378615245
Wisconsin8.373554641
Wyoming0.351231411
All Reporting States1,41078635447
Note: “Adult TANF Recipients in Qtr(t)" is unduplicated roster of adults who received TANF benefits at any time during a quarter, averaged over four quarters in fiscal year. Data are not available for New York, which did not participate in the High Performance Bonus. This table examines length of receipt for all recipients receiving TANF in the selected quarter, in contrast to Table IND 8 in Chapter II, which looked at new entrants to AFDC/TANF. Another difference is that in this table, a recipient is counted as a recipient each quarter in which there is at least one month of receipt, even if the recipient has a gap of non-receipt for several months.
 
Source: Unpublished ACF calculations of High Performance Bonus data.

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

2 These values are slightly smaller than the usually cited figures on caseload decline, because these figures include recipients in SSPs, who are usually omitted from TANF caseload statistics.

Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program (FSP), 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, FSP 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, was funded under a federal block grant of over $1.3 billion in 2002. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to the Food Stamp Program, to be consistent with FSP data published by the USDA.)

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

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for households composed entirely of TANF, SSI, or General Assistance recipients, gross income cannot exceed 130 percent of poverty. After certain amounts are deducted for living expenses, working expenses, dependent care expenses, excess shelter expenses, child support payment, and - for elderly/disabled households - medical expenses, net income cannot exceed 100 percent of poverty. Households also must not have more than $2,000 in cash, savings, stocks and bonds, and certain vehicles (households with an elderly or disabled member can have up to $3,000 in countable assets).

All nonexempt adult applicants for food stamps must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the FSP office. Nondisabled adults living in households with children can receive benefits for three months only, unless they work or participate in work-related activities. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, or have five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

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

Recent Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Title IV and subtitle A of title VIII of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) contain major and extensive revisions to the Food Stamp Program, including strong work requirements on able-bodied adults without dependent children, restricted eligibility of legal immigrants, and a reduction in maximum benefits. These three provisions, and subsequent amendments, are discussed below; their impact on program participation and expenditures begins to appear in food stamp administrative data for 1997, with the fuller impact shown in data for 1998 and beyond.

First, a work requirement was added for able-bodied adult food stamp recipients without dependents (ABAWDs). Unless exempt, ABAWDs between the ages of 18 and 59 are not eligible for benefits for more than 3 months in every 36-month period unless they are (1) working at least 20 hours a week; (2) participating in and complying with a work program for at least 20 hours a week; or (3) participating in and complying with a workfare program. Under the original legislation, the Department of Agriculture was authorized to waive application of the work requirement to any group of individuals at the request of the state agency, if a determination is made that the area where they reside has an unemployment rate over 10 percent or does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide them employment. The provision was further moderated under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which allowed states to exempt up to 15 percent of the ABAWD caseload (beyond those subject to waivers) and which increased funds for the food stamp employment and training program for the creation of job slots for able-bodied adults subject to time limits.

Separately, title IV of PRWORA made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for food stamp benefits. As first enacted, most qualified aliens, including legal immigrants (illegal aliens were already ineligible) were barred from receiving food stamps until citizenship. Subsequently, the Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-185) restored food stamp eligibility to certain groups of qualified aliens who were legally residing in the United States before passage of PRWORA on August 22, 1996 and were over 65 years of age on that date or were under age 18 or disabled.

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

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

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 - also known as the Farm Bill - reauthorized the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007. This law brought a number of significant changes to the program, including some which supercede earlier changes made through PRWORA and subsequent FSP legislation and regulations. Specifically, the Farm Bill restores food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants who have lived in the country five years and to legal immigrants receiving disability benefits, regardless of entry date. Children of legal immigrants are also eligible for food stamps regardless of entry date. Effective in fiscal year 2004, the requirement that income and resources of an immigrant’s sponsor be counted in determining the eligibility and benefit amounts for immigrant children is eliminated. Each provision became effective at different times, but all restorations were in effect by October 1, 2003.

The Farm Bill also increased the asset limit from $2,000 to $3,000 for households with a disabled member, making it consistent with the limit for households with elderly, and replaced the fixed standard deduction with a deduction that varies according to household size and is indexed to cost-of-living increases, in recognition of the higher expenses larger households incur. For households in the 48 contiguous states and DC, Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands, the deduction is set at 8.31 percent of the applicable net income limit based on household size. (Households in Guam will receive a slightly higher deduction.) No household receives an amount less than the previous fixed standard deduction or more than the standard deduction for a household of six.

Other Farm Bill changes include the authorization of $5 million per year for education and outreach grants to help inform the low-income public of their eligibility for food stamps, and increased flexibility for states in spending Employment and Training program funds to promote work. States also are now allowed to extend from three months to up to five months the period of time households may receive transitional food stamp benefits when they lose TANF cash assistance. Benefits are equal to the amount the household received prior to termination of TANF with adjustments in income for the loss of TANF. This change helps individuals moving off cash assistance to make the transition from welfare to work.

The Farm Bill also implemented a number of administrative reforms and program simplifications, including:

  • changing the quality control system so that only those states with persistently high error rates will face liabilities;
  • awarding bonuses to states that improve the quality and accuracy of their service;
  • allowing states to exclude certain types of income and resources not counted under TANF or Medicaid, such as educational assistance, when determining food stamp eligibility;
  • allowing states to deem child support payments as income exclusions rather than deductions as an incentive for parents to pay child support;
  • allowing states to simplify the standard utility allowance (SUA) if the state elects to use the SUA rather than actual utility costs for all households, thus reducing administrative burden, costs and errors;
  • permitting states to use a standard deduction from income of $143 per month for homeless households with some shelter expenses;
  • allowing states to extend simplified reporting procedures to all households, not just households with earnings;
  • eliminating the requirement that the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system be cost-neutral to the federal government to help support the EBT conversion process;
  • allowing USDA to use alternative methods for issuing food stamp benefits during times of disaster when use of EBT is impractical;
  • requiring food stamp applications be made available through the Internet; and
  • combining Puerto Rico and American Samoa’s block grants into one grant and indexing both with inflation.

Food Stamp Program Data

The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Food Stamp Program:

  • 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 demogaphic characteristics of the food stamp caseload; and
  • Tables FSP 4-6 present some state-by-state trend data for the FSP through fiscal year 2002.

Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Table FSP 1). Average monthly food stamp participation was 19.1 million persons in fiscal year 2002, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.1 million participants. It is, however, far below the peak of 27.5 million recipients in fiscal year 1994. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population, food stamp recipiency in 2000 was lower than at any point in the previous twenty years. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data trends in food stamp caseload, specifically, 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. Studies suggest that a variety of factors contributed to this caseload growth, including a weak economy and higher rates of unemployment, expansions in Medicaid eligibility, the legalization of 3 million undocumented immigrants, and longer participation spells (McConnell, 1991; Gleason, 1998).

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

The increase in FSP participation from 2000 to 2002 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to six percent, states took advantage of opportunities to expand categorical eligibility to those receiving in-kind TANF benefits and liberalize the treatment of vehicles, and the Food and Nutrition Service was encouraging states to conduct outreach efforts.

Food Stamp Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table FSP 2, were considerably higher in 2002 than 2001, reflecting the increase in participation during that period as well as an increase in average benefits. Total federal program costs were $20.7 billion in 2002; the comparable 2001 cost was $18.1 billion (after adjusting for inflation). Average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table FSP 2, were $79.60 per person in fiscal year 2002, up from $74.80 in 2001. This increase in benefits reverses a six-year decline in average monthly benefits adjusted to 2002 dollars.

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 28 percent in 2002. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 43 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2002, 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 2002. The vast majority (88 percent) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962 – 2002

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962 – 2002

Note: Shaded areas are periods of recession as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank.


Table FSP 1. Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads, Selected Years: 1962 – 2002

Fiscal YearFood Stamp ParticipantsParticipants as a Percent of:Child Participants as a Percent of:
Including Territories1
(in thousands)
Excluding Territories
(in thousands)
Children Excld. Terr.
(in thousands)
Total Population2All Poor Persons2Pre-transfer Poverty Population3Total Child Population2Children in Poverty2
19626,5546,554NA3.517.0NANANA
19655,1675,167NA2.715.6NANANA
19708,3178,317NA4.132.7NANANA
197113,01013,010NA6.350.9NANANA
197214,11114,111NA6.757.7NANANA
197314,60714,607NA6.963.6NANANA
197414,28814,288NA6.761.1NANANA
1975 417,15216,320NA7.663.1NANANA
197618,62817,0339,1267.868.2NA13.888.8
197717,16115,604NA7.163.1NANANA
197816,07714,405NA6.558.8NANANA
1979 517,75815,942NA7.161.157.1NANA
198021,17319,2539,8768.565.860.715.585.6
198122,51820,6559,8039.064.660.815.578.4
198221,80820,3929,5918.859.356.315.370.3
198321,72720,09510,9108.661.458.517.478.4
198420,85420,79610,4928.861.758.516.878.2
198519,89919,8479,9068.360.056.615.775.3
198619,42919,3819,8448.159.956.215.776.5
198719,11319,0729,7717.959.255.615.576.1
198818,64518,6139,3517.658.655.214.875.1
198918,80618,7789,4297.659.655.614.974.9
199020,04920,02010,1278.059.655.715.875.4
199122,62522,59911,9528.963.359.318.383.3
199225,40625,37013,3499.966.764.020.187.3
199326,98226,95214,19610.468.663.821.090.3
199427,46827,43314,39110.472.166.821.094.1
199526,61926,57913,86010.073.067.620.094.5
199625,54225,49413,1899.569.864.618.891.2
199722,85822,82011,8478.464.159.916.783.9
199819,78819,74510,5247.257.353.814.778.1
199918,18318,1469,3326.556.352.513.076.0
200017,13917,1018,7436.155.051.612.175.5
200117,31317,2778,8196.152.649.212.175.2
200219,09419,0579,6886.655.052.113.379.8

1 Total participants includes all participating states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 —a separate Nutrition Assistance Grant for Puerto Rico was begun in July 1982). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the FSP in 1975. The FFAP participants (as of December) for the seven years shown during the period from 1962 to 1974 were respectively: 6,411; 4,742; 3,977; 3,642; 3,002; 2,441; and 1,406 (all in thousands). From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand.
2 Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only — the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population numbers used as denominators are the resident population — see Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106. For the persons living in poverty used as denominators, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-210.
3 The pretransfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families or living alone whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the appropriate poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations.
4 The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.
5 The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased- in basis.
Source: 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: 2002,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and earlier years.


Table FSP 2. Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures, Selected Years: 1975 – 2002

Fiscal YearTotal Federal Cost
(Benefits + Administration)
Benefitsh (Federal)
[In millions]
Administration1Total Program Cost
[In millions]
Average Monthly Benefit per Person
Current Dollars
[In millions]
2002 Dollars2
[In millions]
Federal
[In millions]
State & Local
[In millions]
Current Dollars2002 Dollars2
1975$4,619$15,245$4,386$233$175$4,794$21.30$70.30
19765,68517,5675,3263592705,95523.9073.80
19775,46115,7075,0673942955,75624.8071.30
19785,52014,8945,1393812855,80526.6071.80
197936,94017,2196,4804603887,32830.5075.70
19809,20620,5378,7214863759,58134.5077.00
198111,22522,76910,63059550411,72939.5080.10
198210,83720,53710,20862855711,39439.2074.30
198311,84721,47411,15269561212,45943.0077.90
1984411,57920,13110,696883580512,38442.7074.20
198511,70319,64110,74496087112,57445.0075.50
198611,63819,04910,6051,03393512,57345.5074.50
198711,60418,47010,5001,10499612,60045.9073.10
198812,31618,83211,1491,1681,08013,39649.8076.10
198912,93218,87111,7011,2321,10114,03351.8075.60
199015,49121,53414,1871,3051,17416,66558.9081.90
199118,76924,83617,3391,4301,24720,01663.9084.60
199222,46228,84820,9061,5571,37523,83768.6088.10
199323,65329,48822,0061,6471,57225,22568.0084.80
199424,49029,74422,7461,7441,64326,13369.0083.80
199524,62029,09122,7641,8561,74826,36871.3084.30
199624,32727,97022,4411,8861,84226,16973.2084.20
199721,48724,05519,5501,9371,90423,39171.3079.80
199818,89320,81216,8892,0041,98820,88171.1078.30
199917,69819,13115,7551,9431,87419,57272.2078.00
200017,02917,83714,9522,0772,00019,02972.6076.00
200117,80018,06315,5472,2532,17019,97074.8075.90
200220,68620,68618,2572,4292,34023,02679.6079.60

1 Amounts include the federal share of state administrative and employment and training costs and certain direct federal administrative costs. They do not generally include approximately $60 million in food stamp- related federal administrative costs budgeted under a separate appropriation account (although estimates prior to 1989 do include estimates of food stamp related federal administrative expenses paid out of other Agriculture Department accounts). State and local costs are estimated based on the known federal shares and represent an estimate of all administrative expenses of participating states.
2 Constant dollar adjustments to 2002 level were made using a CPI-U-X1 fiscal year average price index.
3 The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased - in basis.
4 Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps.
Note: Total federal cost includes food stamps in Puerto Rico (1975-1982). This table differs from the versions published in previous years in that it does not include the costs of the Family Food Assistance Program in the period from 1975 to 1983. The cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but (for consistency with the reporting of the Food and Nutrition Service) the total expenditures for benefits does not include the funding for the Puerto Rico nutrition assistance grant from the last quarter of FY 1982 when it replaced Puerto Rico’s food stamp program to the present (Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance grant was $778 million in 1983 and rose to over $1.3 billion in 2002. )
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 – 2002
[In percent]

 Year1
1980198419881990199219941996199820002002
With Gross Monthly Income:
Below the Federal Poverty Levels87939292929091908988
Between the Poverty Levels and
130 Percent of the Poverty
Levels
1068889891011
Above 130 Percent of Poverty21***11111
 
With Earnings19192019212123262728
 
With Public Assistance Income265717273666967656356
With AFDC/TANF IncomeNA424243403837312621
With SSI Income18182019192324283229
 
With Children60616161626160585454
And Female Heads of
Household
NA475051515150474444
With No Spouse PresentNANA3937444343413837
 
With Elderly Members323221918151616182119
With Elderly Female Heads of
Household3
NA161411911NANANANA
 
Average Household Size2.82.82.82.72.62.62.52.42.32.3

1 Data were gathered in August in the years 1980-84 and during the summer in the years from 1986 to 1994. Reports from 1995 to the present are based on fiscal year averages.
2 Public assistance income includes AFDC/TANF, SSI, and general assistance.
3 Elderly members and heads of household include those of age 60 or older.
* Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2002 and earlier years.


Table FSP 4. Value of Food Stamps Issued by State, Selected Fiscal Years 1975 – 2002
[Millions of dollars]

State19751980198519901995199820002002
Alabama$103$246$318$328$441$357$344$417
Alaska627252550504659
Arizona4197121239414253240386
Arkansas78122126155212206206265
California3615306399682,4732,0201,6391,707
Colorado447194156217157127165
Connecticut36596272169161138146
Delaware621222547343139
Dist. of Columbia3141404392857776
Florida2074213686091,307845771878
Georgia129264290382700538489621
Guam215181524343652
Hawaii23609381177178166152
Idaho1129364059474662
Illinois2383947138351,056844746923
Indiana58154242226382263268408
Iowa2854107109142109100129
Kansas123864961448383113
Kentucky135211332334413345337410
Louisiana148243365549629467448587
Maine316062631121008197
Maryland76140171203365282199215
Massachusetts75171173207315222182209
Michigan124263541663806588457645
Minnesota4062105165240181165201
Mississippi110199264352383254226298
Missouri82142212312488345358477
Montana1118314157525158
Nebraska1125445977686174
Nevada1015224191635796
New Hampshire1122152044302835
New Jersey125226260289506384304314
New Mexico488188117196144140154
New York2097269381,0862,0651,5051,3611,479
North Carolina122234237282495421403536
North Dakota59162532252531
Ohio2533826978611,017613520726
Oklahoma3873134186315231208288
Oregon5680142168254198198319
Pennsylvania1753735476611,006764656700
Rhode Island1831354282575964
South Carolina121181194240297264249352
South Dakota818263540373745
Tennessee115282280372554437415552
Texas3145147011,4292,2461,4251,2151,522
Utah1222407190756880
Vermont918202246343234
Virgin Islands619231828222117
Virginia63158189247450307263305
Washington7090140229417308241318
West Virginia5687159192253224185198
Wisconsin2968148180220130129197
Wyoming36152128211922
United States$4,386$8,721$10,744$14,186$22,764$16,889$14,952$18,257

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include amounts for Puerto Rico of $366 and $828 million respectively.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.


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

State19751980198519901996200020012002Percent Change
90-9696-02
Alabama36558358845450939641144412-13
Alaska152922254638384684-0
Arizona14319620631742725929137935-11
Arkansas267301253235274247256284174
California1,4551,4931,6151,9553,1431,8321,6681,71061-46
Colorado15016317022124415615417810-27
Connecticut15517014513322316515716967-24
Delaware265240335832324074-31
Dist. of Columbia12210372629381737449-20
Florida6479126307811,37188288798575-28
Georgia49862756753679355957464648-19
Guam6222012182223245039
Hawaii75102997713011810810669-18
Idaho396159598058607036-12
Illinois9269031,1101,0131,1057608258869-20
Indiana392353406311390300347411255
Iowa1151412031701771231261414-21
Kansas589011914217211712414021-18
Kentucky4724685604584864034134506-7
Louisiana510569644727670500518588-8-12
Maine1261391149413110210411139-15
Maryland26132428725537521920822847-39
Massachusetts3654533373473742322192438-35
Michigan6198139859179356036417502-20
Minnesota16717122826329519619821712-26
Mississippi376496495499457276298325-8-29
Missouri30033536243155442345451528-7
Montana384358577159626325-10
Nebraska496694951028281887-13
Nevada3232325097616997940
New Hampshire445028315336364173-22
New Jersey49060546438254034531832042-41
New Mexico15718515715723516916317049-27
New York1,2911,7591,8341,5482,0991,4391,3541,34736-36
North Carolina46658247441963148849457451-9
North Dakota19253339403238372-8
Ohio8548651,1331,0891,045610641735-4-30
Oklahoma17120926326735425327131733-10
Oregon2011972282162882342843593325
Pennsylvania8489801,0329521,12477774876718-32
Rhode Island868769649174717242-21
South Carolina410426373299358295316379206
South Dakota3343485049434548-3-2
Tennessee39762451852763849652259821-6
Texas1,1331,1671,2631,8802,3721,3331,3611,55426-34
Utah4654759911082809011-18
Vermont444644385641394047-29
Virgin Islands163432183116131275-59
Virginia25738436034653833633235255-34
Washington25324828134047829530935041-27
West Virginia24220927826230022722123614-21
Wisconsin148215363286283193216262-1-7
Wyoming101427283322232417-29
United States17,19221,08219,89920,06725,54217,13917,31319,09427-25

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include recipients in Puerto Rico of 810 thousand and 1.86 million respectively.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank.


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

State19751980198519901996200020012002Percent Change
90-9696-02
Alabama9.914.914.811.211.88.99.29.95-16
Alaska4.07.14.14.57.66.06.07.267-6
Arizona6.37.16.58.69.35.05.56.98-26
Arkansas12.413.110.910.010.69.29.510.57-2
California6.86.36.16.59.85.44.84.950-50
Colorado5.85.65.36.76.23.63.54.0-7-36
Connecticut5.05.54.54.06.74.84.64.965-27
Delaware4.58.76.55.07.84.14.04.957-37
Dist. of Columbia17.216.111.410.316.214.112.813.058-20
Florida7.69.35.56.09.25.55.45.954-36
Georgia9.811.49.58.210.66.86.87.528-29
Hawaii8.410.69.56.910.89.78.88.557-21
Idaho4.66.45.95.86.64.54.55.215-21
Illinois8.27.99.78.89.16.16.67.03-23
Indiana7.36.47.45.66.64.95.76.7181
Iowa4.04.87.26.16.24.24.34.80-22
Kansas2.53.84.95.76.64.34.65.215-21
Kentucky13.612.815.212.412.410.010.111.0-0-11
Louisiana13.113.514.617.215.211.211.613.1-12-14
Maine11.812.39.87.610.58.08.18.638-18
Maryland6.37.76.55.37.34.13.94.238-43
Massachusetts6.37.95.75.86.03.63.43.85-38
Michigan6.88.810.89.89.66.16.47.5-3-22
Minnesota4.24.25.56.06.34.04.04.34-31
Mississippi15.719.619.119.416.69.710.411.3-14-32
Missouri6.26.87.28.410.27.68.19.121-11
Montana5.15.57.17.18.06.66.87.013-13
Nebraska3.24.25.96.06.14.84.75.12-16
Nevada5.24.03.44.15.83.03.34.542-23
New Hampshire5.35.42.82.74.52.92.83.264-28
New Jersey6.78.26.14.96.64.13.73.735-44
New Mexico13.514.110.910.313.49.38.99.230-31
New York7.210.010.38.611.37.67.17.031-38
North Carolina8.49.97.66.38.46.06.06.934-18
North Dakota2.93.94.96.16.15.05.95.8-0-5
Ohio7.98.010.610.09.35.45.66.4-7-31
Oklahoma6.26.98.08.510.67.37.89.125-14
Oregon8.67.58.57.68.96.88.210.21715
Pennsylvania7.18.38.88.09.26.36.16.215-32
Rhode Island9.29.17.26.48.97.16.76.740-24
South Carolina14.113.611.38.59.47.37.89.210-2
South Dakota4.86.26.97.26.65.75.96.3-9-5
Tennessee9.313.611.010.811.88.79.110.39-12
Texas9.08.17.811.012.36.46.47.111-42
Utah3.73.74.65.75.33.73.53.9-7-27
Vermont9.18.98.26.89.56.76.36.540-32
Virginia5.17.26.35.68.04.74.64.843-39
Washington7.06.06.46.98.65.05.15.824-33
West Virginia13.110.714.614.616.412.612.313.113-20
Wisconsin3.24.67.65.85.43.64.04.8-7-11
Wyoming2.73.05.46.26.84.54.64.78-30
United States7.68.58.38.09.56.16.16.618-30

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of food stamp recipients in each state during the particular fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerator is from Table FSP 5.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, unpublished data from the National Data Bank and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness or disability. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18 and meet the applicable SSI disability or blindness, income and resource requirements. Individuals and married couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the Federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels of $552 for an individual and $829 for a married couple in fiscal year 2003. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the SSI program. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed as the “program of last resort.” Therefore, SSA helps recipients obtain any other public assistance that they are eligible to receive before providing SSI benefits. After evaluating all other income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.” As of December 2001, 36 percent of all SSI recipients also received Social Security retirement or survivor benefits, which are the single greatest source of income for SSI recipients.

Prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), no individual could receive both SSI payments and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. If eligible for both, the individual had to choose which benefit to receive. Generally, the AFDC agency encouraged individuals to file for SSI and, once the SSI payments had started, the individual was removed from the AFDC filing unit. Since states have the authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels under PRWORA, individuals are not prohibited from receiving both TANF benefits and SSI.

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

Legislative Changes

Several legislative changes made in the 104th Congress affected SSI participation and expenditures. Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, prohibited 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.

PRWORA made several changes designed to maintain the SSI program’s goal of limiting benefits to severely disabled children. First, the act replaced the former “comparable severity” test with a new definition of disability specifically for children, based on a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that result in “marked and severe functional limitations.” Second, SSA discontinued use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) which it had implemented in 1991 following the Supreme Court’s decision inSullivanv.Zebley, 493 U.S. 521(1990)(3).1Third references to “maladaptive behaviors” in certain sections of the Listing of Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function) were eliminated. The latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Beneficiaries who were receiving benefits due to an IFA or under the Listings because of limitations resulting from maladaptive behaviors received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might end when their case was redetermined. Additional provisions of the PRWORA with impact on enrollment are the requirement that eligibility be redetermined when beneficiaries reach age 18, using the adult disability standard; that “continuing disability reviews” be done for children; and that children who were eligible due to low birth weight have their eligibility redetermined at age one.

Title IV of PRWORA also made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for SSI benefits. Some of the restrictions were subsequently moderated, most notably by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which “grandfathered” immigrants who were receiving SSI at the time of enactment of the PRWORA. Those immigrants who entered the U.S. after August 22, 1996, may be eligible to receive SSI after having been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

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

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

  • Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program.
  • Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload.
  • Tables SSI 7 and SSI 8 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2002.

SSI Caseload Trends(Tables SSI 1-2 and Figure SSI 1). From 1990 to 1995, the number of SSI beneficiaries increased from 4.8 million to 6.5 million, an average growth rate of over 6 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. In December 2002, there were 6.8 million beneficiaries. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2002, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adult age 18-64, and adult age 65 or older). See also Table IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation rates.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 2. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to less than 1.3 million persons in December 2002. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 5.5 million in December 2002. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased dramatically, particularly during the 1990s, when the number of disabled children receiving SSI increased from 309,000 in December 1990 to 955,000 in December 1996. The number of disabled children fell in the next three years, stabilized at 847,000 in 1999 and 2000, and rose to 915,000 in 2002.

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 theZebleycase, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.2

SSI Expenditures.While administrative costs increased by about 1 percent, the total amount paid out in SSI benefits increased from $33.6 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2001 to $34.6 billion in 2002, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly benefits per person were $415 in 2002, up slightly from 2001 inflation adjusted benefit level of $413. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics.Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI recipients aged 65 or older has decreased dramatically, from 54 percent in 1980 to 29 percent in 2002.

Figure SSI 1.SSI Recipients by Age, 1974– 2002
Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age, 1974 – 2002
Source:Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003(Data available online athttp://www.ssa.gov/statistics).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments 1974– 2002
[In thousands]

Date Total Eligibility Category Type of Recipient
Aged Blind and Disabled Children Adults
Total Blind Disabled Age 18-64 65 or Older
Dec 1974 3,996 2,286 1,710 75 1,636 711 1,503 2,422
Dec 1975 4,314 2,307 2,007 74 1,933 107 1,699 2,508
Dec 1976 4,236 2,148 2,088 76 2,012 125 1,714 2,397
Dec 1977 4,238 2,051 2,187 77 2,109 147 1,738 2,353
Dec 1978 4,217 1,968 2,249 77 2,172 166 1,747 2,304
Dec 1979 4,150 1,872 2,278 77 2,201 177 1,727 2,246
Dec 1980 4,142 1,808 2,334 78 2,256 190 1,731 2,221
Dec 1981 4,019 1,678 2,341 79 2,262 195 1,703 2,121
Dec 1982 3,858 1,549 2,309 77 2,231 192 1,655 2,011
Dec 1983 3,901 1,515 2,386 79 2,307 198 1,700 2,003
Dec 1984 4,029 1,530 2,499 81 2,419 212 1,780 2,037
Dec 1985 4,138 1,504 2,634 82 2,551 227 1,879 2,031
Dec 1986 4,269 1,473 2,796 83 2,713 241 2,010 2,018
Dec 1987 4,385 1,455 2,930 83 2,846 251 2,119 2,015
Dec 1988 4,464 1,433 3,030 83 2,948 255 2,203 2,006
Dec 1989 4,593 1,439 3,154 83 3,071 265 2,302 2,026
Dec 1990 4,817 1,454 3,363 84 3,279 309 2,450 2,059
Dec 1991 5,118 1,465 3,654 85 3,569 397 2,642 2,080
Dec 1992 5,566 1,471 4,095 85 4,010 556 2,910 2,100
Dec 1993 5,984 1,475 4,509 85 4,424 723 3,148 2,113
Dec 1994 6,296 1,466 4,830 85 4,745 841 3,335 2,119
Dec 1995 6,514 1,446 5,068 84 4,984 917 3,482 2,115
Dec 1996 6,614 1,413 5,201 82 5,119 955 3,568 2,090
Dec 1997 6,495 1,362 5,133 81 5,052 880 3,562 2,054
Dec 1998 6,566 1,332 5,234 80 5,154 887 3,646 2,033
Dec 1999 6,557 1,308 5,249 79 5,169 847 3,691 2,019
Dec 2000 6,602 1,289 5,312 79 5,234 847 3,744 2,011
Dec 2001 6,688 1,264 5,424 78 5,346 882 3,811 1,995
Dec 2002 6,788 1,252 5,537 78 5,537 915 3,878 1,995

1Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.
Source:Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003(Data available online athttp://www.ssa.gov/statistics).


Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates, 1974– 2002
[In percent]

Date All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population1 Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population1 Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children1 Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
All Persons 65 & Older1 All Elderly Poor2 Pretransfer Elderly Poor3
Dec 1974 1.9 1.2 0.1 10.8 78.5 NA
Dec 1975 2.0 1.3 0.2 10.9 75.6 NA
Dec 1976 1.9 1.3 0.2 10.2 72.4 NA
Dec 1977 1.9 1.3 0.2 9.7 74.1 NA
Dec 1978 1.9 1.3 0.3 9.3 71.5 NA
Dec 1979 1.8 1.3 0.3 8.8 61.3 66.8
Dec 1980 1.8 1.2 0.3 8.6 57.5 64.7
Dec 1981 1.7 1.2 0.3 8.0 55.0 63.3
Dec 1982 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.4 53.6 62.3
Dec 1983 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.3 55.2 61.9
Dec 1984 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.2 61.2 66.3
Dec 1985 1.7 1.3 0.4 7.1 58.7 64.5
Dec 1986 1.8 1.3 0.4 6.9 57.9 63.4
Dec 1987 1.8 1.4 0.4 6.7 56.5 64.7
Dec 1988 1.8 1.5 0.4 6.6 57.6 64.3
Dec 1989 1.9 1.5 0.4 6.5 60.3 64.6
Dec 1990 1.9 1.6 0.5 6.5 56.3 63.3
Dec 1991 2.0 1.7 0.6 6.5 55.0 61.1
Dec 1992 2.2 1.9 0.8 6.4 53.5 59.8
Dec 1993 2.3 2.0 1.1 6.4 56.3 63.3
Dec 1994 2.4 2.1 1.2 6.3 57.9 65.6
Dec 1995 2.4 2.2 1.3 6.2 63.7 71.4
Dec 1996 2.4 2.2 1.4 6.1 61.0 69.3
Dec 1997 2.4 2.2 1.2 6.0 60.8 69.1
Dec 1998 2.4 2.2 1.2 5.9 60.0 69.1
Dec 1999 2.3 2.2 1.2 5.8 62.6 72.4
Dec 2000 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.7 60.5 66.9
Dec 2001 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.6 58.4 67.6
Dec 2002 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.6 55.8 64.5

1Population numbers used for the denominators are Census Bureau resident population estimates adjusted to the December date by averaging the July 1 population of the current year with the July 1 population of the following year (resident population estimates by age are available online athttp://www.census.gov).
2For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, seeCurrent Population Reports, Series P60-222.
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 Bookand U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Poverty in the United States: 2002”Current Population Reports, Series P60-222 and earlier years, (Available online athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).


Table SSI 3. Total, Federal, and State SSI Benefits and Administration, 1974– 20021
[In millions of dollars]

Calendar
Year
Total Benefits Federal
Payments
State Supplementation Administrative Costs
(fiscal year)
2002 2 Dollars Current Dollars Total Federally
Administered
State
Administered
1974 $8,183 $5,246 $3,833 $1,413 $1,264 $149 $285
1975 18,817 5,878 4,314 1,565 1,403 162 399
1976 18,372 6,066 4,512 1,554 1,388 166 500
1977 17,950 6,306 4,703 1,603 1,431 172 526
1978 17,462 6,552 4,881 1,671 1,491 180 539
1979 17,200 7,075 5,279 1,797 1,590 207 610
1980 17,358 7,941 5,866 2,074 1,848 226 668
1981 17,157 8,593 6,518 2,076 1,839 237 718
1982 16,900 8,981 6,907 2,074 1,798 276 779
1983 16,986 9,404 7,423 1,982 1,711 270 830
1984 17,958 10,372 8,281 2,091 1,792 299 864
1985 18,492 11,060 8,777 2,283 1,973 311 953
1986 19,830 12,081 9,498 2,583 2,243 340 1,022
1987 20,510 12,951 10,029 2,922 2,563 359 976
1988 20,965 13,786 10,734 3,052 2,671 381 975
1989 21,733 14,980 11,606 3,374 2,955 419 1,051
1990 22,847 16,599 12,894 3,705 3,239 466 1,075
1991 24,468 18,524 14,765 3,759 3,231 529 1,257
1992 28,508 22,233 18,247 3,986 3,435 550 1,538
1993 30,573 24,557 20,722 3,835 3,270 566 1,467
1994 31,412 25,877 22,175 3,701 3,116 585 1,775
1995 32,613 27,628 23,919 3,708 3,118 590 1,973
1996 33,013 28,792 25,265 3,527 2,988 539 1,949
1997 32,564 29,052 25,457 3,595 2,913 682 2,055
1998 33,349 30,216 26,405 3,812 3,003 808 2,304
1999 33,392 30,923 26,805 4,154 3,301 853 2,493
2000 32,976 31,564 27,290 4,274 3,381 893 2,401
2001 33,584 33,061 28,706 4,355 3,460 895 2,498
2002 34,567 34,567 29,899 4,668 3,820 848 2,522

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· 2003, (Data available online at http://wwwssagov/statistics).


Table SSI 4. Average Monthly SSI Benefit Payments, 1974– 2002

Calendar
Year
Total1 Federal
Payments
State Supplementation
2002
Dollars
Current
Dollars
Total Federally
Administered
State
Administered
1974 $466 $135 $108 $64 $71 $35
1975 360 112 92 66 69 45
1976 357 118 99 68 71 50
1977 349 123 104 69 72 53
1978 341 128 108 72 74 56
1979 341 140 119 77 79 67
1980 345 158 133 89 91 76
1981 352 176 151 92 94 79
1982 360 191 166 96 97 93
1983 358 198 172 91 92 89
1984 366 211 187 93 93 93
1985 367 219 193 99 99 102
1986 380 232 202 107 108 101
1987 383 242 208 117 118 110
1988 385 253 219 118 118 118
1989 388 267 230 126 126 127
1990 389 283 244 132 131 136
1991 392 297 260 125 122 143
1992 421 328 292 124 121 147
1993 420 337 306 112 107 150
1994 411 338 310 105 99 152
1995 413 350 322 110 103 164
1996 412 359 333 108 103 145
1997 413 369 342 99 102 86
1998 418 379 350 103 104 102
1999 419 388 356 111 113 105
2000 411 393 360 113 114 109
2001 413 407 373 113 114 108
2002 415 415 383 129 129 128

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 a calendar-year average CPI-U-X1 index.
Source:Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003.


Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving SSI Payments by Type of Payment, 1974– 2002
(In thousands)

Date Total Federal State Supplementation
Total Federally Administered State Administered
Jan 1974 3,249 2,956 1,839 1,480 358
Dec 1975 4,360 3,893 1,987 1,684 303
Dec 1980 4,194 3,682 1,934 1,685 249
Dec 1984 4,094 3,699 1,875 1,607 268
Dec 1985 4,200 3,799 1,916 1,661 255
Dec 1986 4,347 3,922 2,003 1,723 279
Dec 1987 4,458 4,019 2,079 1,807 272
Dec 1988 4,541 4,089 2,155 1,885 270
Dec 1989 4,673 4,206 2,224 1,950 275
Dec 1990 4,888 4,412 2,344 2,058 286
Dec 1991 5,200 4,730 2,512 2,204 308
Dec 1992 5,647 5,202 2,684 2,372 313
Dec 1993 6,065 5,636 2,850 2,536 314
Dec 1994 6,377 5,965 2,950 2,628 322
Dec 1995 6,576 6,194 2,817 2,518 300
Dec 1996 6,677 6,326 2,732 2,421 310
Dec 1997 6,565 6,212 3,029 2,372 657
Dec 1998 6,649 6,289 3,072 2,412 661
Dec 1999 6,641 6,275 3,116 2,441 675
Dec 2000 6,685 6,320 3,164 2,481 683
Dec 2001 6,776 6,410 3,209 2,520 689
Dec 2002 6,940 6,505 3,014 2,462 553

Source:Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003.


Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients, by Age, Sex, Earnings/Income,and Citizenship: Selected Years, 1980-2002

  1980 1985 1990 1992 1994 1997 2000 2002
  Total
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
under 18 5.5 5.5 6.4 10.0 13.4 13.5 12.8 13.5
18-64 40.9 45.4 50.9 52.3 53.0 54.8 56.7 57.2
65 or older 53.6 49.1 42.7 37.7 33.7 31.6 30.5 29.3
Sex
Male 34.4 35.2 37.2 39.0 41.3 41.3 41.5 42.0
Female 65.5 64.8 62.8 61.0 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.0
Selected Sources of Income
Earnings 3.2 3.8 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.1
Social Security 51.0 49.4 45.9 42.1 39.1 37.1 36.1 35.5
No other income 34.8 34.5 36.4 38.7 43.6 46.5 54.4 55.1
Noncitizens NA 5.1 9.0 10.8 11.7 10.0 10.5 10.4
Eligibility Category
Aged 43.6 36.4 30.2 26.4 23.3 21.0 19.5 18.4
Blind 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1
Disabled 54.5 61.7 68.1 72.0 75.4 77.8 79.3 80.4
  Aged
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
65-69 14.0 14.9 19.4 20.7 20.5 17.6 15.6 15.3
70-79 51.5 45.6 41.3 42.5 44.3 48.4 50.0 49.1
80 or older 34.5 39.5 39.2 36.8 35.1 34.0 34.5 35.7
Sex
Male 27.3 25.5 25.1 25.6 26.8 27.8 29.0 29.9
Female 72.6 74.5 74.9 74.4 73.2 72.2 71.0 70.1
Noncitizens NA 9.7 19.4 25.4 30.0 27.0 28.5 29.2
  Blind and Disabled
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
18-64 80.2 77.7 80.0 82.0 83.4 83.6 83.8 83.8
65 or older 19.8 22.3 20.0 18.0 16.6 16.4 16.2 16.1
Sex1
Male 39.8 40.8 42.4 43.9 41.8 41.1 44.5 44.8
Female 60.2 59.2 57.6 56.1 58.2 58.9 55.5 55.2
Noncitizens NA 2.4 4.6 5.6 6.2 5.5 6.1 7.2
  Children
Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under 5 11.7 NA NA 16.0 15.8 15.8 15.5 16.1
5-9 20.9 NA NA 26.9 28.5 30.2 28.5 26.8
10-14 28.8 NA NA 30.6 32.7 34.6 36.2 36.9
15-17 21.7 NA NA 15.7 17.3 19.4 19.8 20.2
18-212 16.8 14.3 9.3 10.8 5.7
Sex
Male NA NA NA 62.0 63.0 62.9 63.8 64.3
Female NA NA NA 38.0 37.0 37.1 36.2 35.7

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.
Note:Data are for December of the year.
Source:Social Security Administration,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003and prior years.


Table SSI 7. Total SSI Payments, Federal SSI Payments and State Supplementary Payments,Calendar Year 2002
(In thousands)

State Total Total Federal Federal SSI State Supplementation
Federally Administered State Administered
Total $34,566,844 $33,720,491 $29,898,765 $3,820,234 $847,845
Alabama 730,105 729,691 729,691 414
Alaska 99,520 43,872 43,872 55,648
Arizona 406,848 406,474 406,474 374
Arkansas 354,418 354,418 354,412 6
California 7,230,494 7,230,494 4,460,666 2,769,828
Colorado 331,543 243,234 243,234 88,309
Connecticut 319,446 236,055 236,055 83,391
Delaware 56,374 56,374 55,350 1,024
District of Columbia 102,083 102,082 98,518 3,564
Florida 1,824,115 1,814,407 1,814,392 15 9,707
Georgia 854,414 854,414 854,411 3
Hawaii 110,657 110,658 98,495 12,163
Idaho 94,024 86,514 86,514 7,510
Illinois 1,275,885 1,246,787 1,246,787 29,098
Indiana 427,283 423,503 423,503 3,780
Iowa 191,069 175,290 172,391 2,899 15,779
Kansas 164,412 164,412 164,412
Kentucky 821,504 802,898 802,898 18,606
Louisiana 761,420 760,944 760,944 476
Maine 138,104 130,762 130,762 7,342
Maryland 442,285 434,761 434,752 9 7,524
Massachusetts 849,101 849,101 683,294 165,807
Michigan 1,097,109 1,065,066 1,039,390 25,676 32,043
Minnesota 389,321 303,434 303,424 10 85,888
Mississippi 542,847 542,847 542,845 2
Missouri 541,328 515,040 515,040 26,288
Montana 62,959 62,959 62,136 823
Nebraska 99,177 92,870 92,870 6,307
Nevada 132,907 132,908 127,780 5,128
New Hampshire 67,382 55,785 55,785 11,597
New Jersey 721,272 721,272 640,486 80,786
New Mexico 217,053 216,882 216,882 171
New York 3,407,767 3,407,767 2,849,925 557,842
North Carolina 937,938 797,987 797,987 139,951
North Dakota 33,716 31,784 31,784 1,932
Ohio 1,189,946 1,189,946 1,189,936 10
Oklahoma 365,295 327,859 327,859 37,436
Oregon 282,957 262,681 262,681 20,276
Pennsylvania 1,550,661 1,550,660 1,406,743 143,917
Rhode Island 146,253 146,253 121,290 24,963
South Carolina 465,841 454,062 454,062 11,779
South Dakota 54,751 52,251 52,246 5 2,501
Tennessee 705,106 705,106 705,106 0.286
Texas 1,799,263 1,797,304 1,797,304 1,959
Utah 97,817 97,816 97,756 60
Vermont 55,462 55,462 46,161 9,301
Virginia 593,731 574,659 574,659 19,072
Washington 539,989 539,761 523,340 16,421 228
West Virginia 348,553 348,553 348,553
Wisconsin 508,120 386,334 386,334 121,786
Wyoming 25,353 24,680 24,680 673
Other: N. Mariana Islands 3,358 3,358 3,358

Source:Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003.


Table SSI 8. SSI Recipiency Rates by State And Program Type for 1979 and 2002
[In percent]

State Total Recipiency Rate Rate for Adults 18-64 Rate for Adults 65 & Over
1979 2002 Percent Change 1979-02 1979 2002 Percent Change 1979-02 1979 2002 Percent Change 1979-02
Alabama 3.6 3.6 1 1.8 3.5 91 21.0 6.9 -67
Alaska 0.8 1.5 95 0.5 1.5 178 14.0 6.0 -57
Arizona 1.1 1.6 44 0.9 1.6 80 5.0 3.2 -36
Arkansas 3.5 3.1 -11 1.9 3.0 60 17.1 5.8 -66
California 3.0 3.2 6 2.1 2.5 22 16.4 13.3 -19
Colorado 1.1 1.2 9 0.8 1.1 43 6.7 3.2 -52
Connecticut 0.8 1.5 100 0.6 1.5 138 2.7 2.6 -4
Delaware 1.2 1.6 34 0.9 1.4 49 5.4 2.3 -58
District of Columbia 2.3 3.5 54 1.9 3.1 61 8.6 6.7 -22
Florida 1.8 2.4 35 1.1 1.9 67 6.2 4.8 -23
Georgia 2.9 2.3 -20 1.9 2.1 11 17.7 6.8 -62
Hawaii 1.1 1.7 62 0.7 1.5 117 7.6 5.1 -33
Idaho 0.8 1.4 77 0.6 1.6 150 3.8 2.0 -47
Illinois 1.1 2.0 85 1.0 2.0 111 4.3 3.8 -11
Indiana 0.8 1.5 100 0.6 1.6 162 3.3 1.7 -49
Iowa 0.9 1.4 57 0.6 1.6 158 3.5 1.7 -51
Kansas 0.9 1.4 57 0.6 1.4 122 3.5 1.9 -45
Kentucky 2.5 4.3 69 1.8 4.4 146 12.5 7.0 -44
Louisiana 3.4 3.7 10 2.0 3.5 72 20.1 7.8 -61
Maine 2.0 2.4 23 1.4 2.7 94 8.6 3.1 -64
Maryland 1.2 1.6 39 0.9 1.5 60 5.4 4.0 -26
Massachusetts 2.2 2.6 16 1.3 2.5 95 10.8 5.6 -48
Michigan 1.3 2.1 67 1.1 2.3 115 5.9 3.0 -49
Minnesota 0.8 1.3 60 0.6 1.3 136 3.7 2.6 -30
Mississippi 4.5 4.4 -2 2.4 4.0 65 26.0 10.3 -60
Missouri 1.8 2.0 14 1.1 2.1 91 7.9 2.9 -63
Montana 0.9 1.6 80 0.7 1.7 136 3.8 2.0 -47
Nebraska 0.9 1.3 48 0.6 1.3 103 3.4 1.7 -50
Nevada 0.8 1.3 55 0.5 1.2 126 5.9 3.3 -44
New Hampshire 0.6 1.0 72 0.4 1.1 150 2.5 1.2 -53
New Jersey 1.1 1.7 49 0.9 1.4 63 4.7 4.5 -4
New Mexico 2.0 2.6 32 1.4 2.4 75 12.4 6.9 -44
New York 2.1 3.3 56 1.6 2.8 76 8.3 9.0 9
North Carolina 2.4 2.3 -4 1.6 2.0 27 13.6 5.4 -60
North Dakota 1.0 1.3 31 0.6 1.3 128 5.1 2.2 -56
Ohio 1.1 2.1 89 1.0 2.3 132 4.2 2.4 -42
Oklahoma 2.3 2.1 -9 1.3 2.1 58 11.6 3.8 -67
Oregon 0.9 1.6 86 0.7 1.7 143 3.3 2.8 -15
Pennsylvania 1.4 2.4 71 1.1 2.5 123 5.0 3.4 -31
Rhode Island 1.6 2.7 70 1.1 2.6 141 6.4 4.9 -24
South Carolina 2.7 2.6 -3 1.8 2.3 29 17.0 5.6 -67
South Dakota 1.1 1.7 49 0.7 1.6 122 5.0 3.0 -40
Tennessee 2.9 2.8 -2 1.9 2.7 44 14.8 5.5 -63
Texas 1.9 2.0 6 1.0 1.6 68 12.7 7.5 -41
Utah 0.6 0.9 64 0.5 1.0 96 3.0 1.9 -37
Vermont 1.8 2.1 19 1.3 2.1 60 8.1 3.6 -55
Virginia 1.5 1.8 20 1.0 1.6 57 8.5 4.6 -46
Washington 1.2 1.7 47 1.0 1.8 84 4.8 3.6 -25
West Virginia 2.1 4.1 92 1.9 4.7 153 8.0 4.6 -42
Wisconsin 1.4 1.6 11 1.0 1.6 67 6.5 2.3 -65
Wyoming 0.4 1.1 162 0.3 1.2 314 2.7 1.6 -42
Total 1.9 2.4 30 1.3 2.2 75 9.0 5.6 -38

Note:Recipiency rates for 2002 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS. The 1979 rates are based on the average number of recipients during the year.
Source:Social Security Administration,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003and U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online athttp://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).


Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates by State, Selected Fiscal Years, 1975– 2002
[In percent]

State 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 19942 19962 20022
Alabama 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.6
Alaska 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.5
Arizona 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.6
Arkansas 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.1
California 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.2
Colorado 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2
Connecticut 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5
Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6
District of Columbia 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.5
Florida 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.4
Georgia 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.3
Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7
Idaho 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4
Illinois 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.0
Indiana 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5
Iowa 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4
Kansas 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4
Kentucky 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.3
Louisiana 3.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.2 3.7
Maine 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.4
Maryland 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6
Massachusetts 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.6
Michigan 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.1
Minnesota 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3
Mississippi 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.2 4.4
Missouri 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.0
Montana 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6
Nebraska 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3
Nevada 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3
New Hampshire 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
New Jersey 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7
New Mexico 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.6
New York 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.3
North Carolina 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.3
North Dakota 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3
Ohio 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.1
Oklahoma 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.1
Oregon 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.4
Rhode Island 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.7
South Carolina 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.6
South Dakota 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7
Tennessee 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.8
Texas 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.0
Utah 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9
Vermont 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1
Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.8
Washington 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7
West Virginia 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.8 4.1
Wisconsin 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.8 1.6
Wyoming 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1
Total1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.4

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. For 1994-2002 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.
Source:Social Security Administration,Social Security Bulletin· Annual Statistical Supplement· 2003, and Bureau of the Census, (Resident population by state available online athttp://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/)


1In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the IFA (or a residual functional capacity assessment) that applied to adults whose condition did not meet or equal a listing of medical impairments to determine eligibility should also be applied to children whose condition did not meet or equal the medical listing of impairments.

2The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the IFA for children was initiated.

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. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been only 1.4 percent in 2001 if based on income from TANF and food stamps, as opposed to 3.1 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, food stamps, and SSI). In other words, less than half of individuals who are dependent under the standard definition also are dependent under the alternative definition that considers TANF and food stamps alone.1There is significant variation across the age groups, however. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and food stamps; whereas 1.9 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, very few, 0.1 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: 2001
 

 TANF, SSI, & Food StampsTANF & Food StampsSSI Only
All Persons3.11.41.3
Non-Hispanic White1.80.80.8
Non-Hispanic Black8.84.33.3
Hispanic4.52.11.8
Age Categories
Children Ages 0-55.94.11.2
Children Ages 6-105.43.21.2
Children Ages 11-154.42.31.2
Women Ages 16-643.31.41.5
Men Ages 16-642.00.71.1
Adults Age 65 and Over1.90.11.6

Note: Income is measures as total family income. Hispanic may be of any race.
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.

Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women Within Age Groups by Race, 1940-2002

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
200194.083.468.573.427.799.698.594.095.868.4
200294.884.570.174.928.599.698.694.195.968.2

Note:> 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.
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 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports>, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003.


Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2002

State196019701980199019921994199620002002
Alabama111422303334343435
Alaska5916262729313334
ArizonaNA919333638393940
ArkansasNA1320293133343637
CaliforniaNANA21323436313333
ColoradoNA913212425252527
ConnecticutNANA18272930312929
Delaware91524293335353841
Dist of Columbia203856656769666057
Florida91423323436363839
GeorgiaNANA23333536353738
Hawaii51018252628303234
IdahoNANA8171819212222
Illinois61323323334343535
Indiana4816262932323536
Iowa2710212425262829
Kansas3712222426272931
Kentucky5815242628303133
Louisiana91523374043434647
Maine3714232528293133
MarylandNANA25303034343535
MassachusettsNANA16252627252727
Michigan41116262735343334
Minnesota3811212324252627
Mississippi141728404345454647
Missouri61118293233333535
MontanaNANA13242626283133
NebraskaNA812212325252729
Nevada41113253335433637
New HampshireNA611171922232525
New Jersey41021242628282929
New MexicoNANA16353942424647
New YorkNANA24333538403736
North Carolina91219293132323335
North Dakota379182323252829
Ohio4NA18293233333535
OklahomaNA814252830313436
Oregon3715262729303031
Pennsylvania41018293233323333
Rhode Island3716263032333536
South Carolina121523333537374040
South Dakota3713232728303335
Tennessee91220303333333536
Texas5913181729303132
Utah246141516161717
VermontNANA14202325262832
Virginia81119262829293030
Washington3914242526272829
West Virginia6613252830313233
Wisconsin3814242627272930
Wyoming278202427272930
United States51118283033323334

Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports>, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/p ubd/vsus/1963/1963.htm>).


Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race/Ethnicity and State, 1994 – 2002

StateAll racesWhiteBlackHispanic
TotalNon-Hispanic
1994200219942002199420021994200219942002
Alabama35351620161971681925
Alaska29342124212339432941
Arizona38403538252565625152
Arkansas33372028202774763137
California36333634232063634642
Colorado25272326181857544441
Connecticut31292425181670666561
Delaware35412332222874705056
Dist. of Columbia6957152610880775958
Florida36392632242869673440
Georgia36381825182168662343
Hawaii28341617151720194444
Idaho19221821171940332536
Illinois34352327182179773843
Indiana32362632263078764250
Iowa25292328232775743741
Kansas26312228212666683943
Kentucky28332329232973732544
Louisiana43472127212772753033
Maine28332833283347342336
Maryland34351924182164593945
Massachusetts27272324191963596262
Michigan35342426232579744242
Minnesota24272124202173584651
Mississippi45471824182475762142
Missouri33352429242879763445
Montana26332028202728§3041
Nebraska25292126202374663942
Nevada35373135272870704444
New Hampshire22252225212434433736
New Jersey28291924131467644853
New Mexico42473744232761574954
New York38362930191870666160
North Carolina32351825172068662948
North Dakota23291924192324362640
Ohio33352529252878755050
Oklahoma30362331232970703142
Oregon29312831272871613542
Pennsylvania33332527232479756361
Rhode Island32362832242669635859
South Carolina37401925192367722843
South Dakota28352026202621383349
Tennessee33362127212575732646
Texas29322430182263623136
Utah16171516131345473738
Vermont253225322532335934§
Virginia29301922182064623840
Washington26292428232555533542
West Virginia30332932293276722235
Wisconsin27302124202282824646
Wyoming28302629252746524543
United States333425292123706843

44

§> Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision; based on fewer than 20 births in the numerator. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.
Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2002, ” National Vital Statistics Reports>, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/vsus/1963/1963.htm.>).


Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, By State: Selected Years 1960-2002
[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State196019701975198019851990199520002002
Alabama1049078686471696155
Alaska12810360645665554940
Arizona1127967656776746861
Arkansas1169384757380726660
California1036952535371674741
Colorado976751504855525147
Connecticut544432313139393126
Delaware1007349515155554846
Dist. of Columbia13211673627293855369
Florida1178664595869605145
Georgia11710178726876706356
Hawaii776652514861494638
Idaho1026659594751494339
Illinois636356565163584842
Indiana1007564575259574945
Iowa735346433541383433
Kansas946557575256524643
Kentucky1088678726368625551
Louisiana1138479767274706258
Maine936555474243342925
Maryland1006946434653474135
Massachusetts514031282935332623
Michigan806952454359494035
Minnesota644436353136333028
Mississippi12110392847681797065
Missouri997259585463554944
Montana976254484448423736
Nebraska825445454042383837
Nevada1189460595573736354
New Hampshire765541343233302320
New Jersey585037353441383227
New Mexico1277967727378746662
New York575138353644423330
North Carolina1048872585768635952
North Dakota684443423635332727
Ohio846556525058534640
Oklahoma1128376756967646058
Oregon885848514355504337
Pennsylvania675344414045413432
Rhode Island564335333644403436
South Carolina1098973656371635853
South Dakota834951534647413838
Tennessee1038874646172676054
Texas1158574747275766964
Utah865654655049413837
Vermont745443393634282324
Virginia1037653484653484138
Washington886046474553483933
West Virginia877273685457534746
Wisconsin644641403943383532
Wyoming1127168795956484240
United States896856535160564843

Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (10), December 2003 >and earlierreport>available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/vsus/1963/1963.htm>.)


Table C-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years, By Race, Ethnicity, and State: Selected Years 1994-1999
[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

StateAll racesWhiteBlackHispanic
TotalNon-Hispanic
1994199919941999199419991994199919941999
Alabama72.262.855.152.554.850.8108.183.271.8136.2
Alaska55.241.844.529.843.429.079.366.7§57.6
Arizona78.769.677.369.749.239.699.774.9136.3125.4
Arkansas76.368.164.159.963.157.4120.296.5118.4121.2
California71.350.776.655.238.125.289.258.4118.483.4
Colorado54.348.452.047.638.229.996.667.4109.3116.3
Connecticut40.333.333.029.120.116.193.667.1125.0114.4
Delaware60.254.343.040.438.435.7115.499.8§116.6
Dist. of Columbia114.783.516.923.215.3§138.5127.896.7§
Florida64.453.551.545.346.939.5113.183.568.262.5
Georgia71.765.154.155.851.549.3106.984.4133.8154.5
Hawaii53.543.833.016.929.814.7§31.0107.798.2
Idaho46.643.746.243.440.638.2§§117.891.9
Illinois62.851.146.240.334.327.5139.1105.2112.6102.2
Indiana57.951.651.846.750.844.6115.397.282.299.6
Iowa39.735.837.533.936.231.8117.495.596.9106.6
Kansas53.547.448.744.044.938.3116.497.6106.9108.3
Kentucky64.556.460.453.860.353.2113.585.3§112.1
Louisiana74.762.849.245.349.645.6115.389.749.333.8
Maine35.529.835.029.535.029.4§§§§
Maryland49.742.632.429.031.526.689.373.062.059.2
Massachusetts37.228.732.625.423.517.990.568.0132.9101.9
Michigan52.140.539.732.937.830.4110.279.885.388.2
Minnesota34.430.028.624.026.921.0132.3109.998.9137.5
Mississippi83.072.556.653.356.753.0114.495.0§61.8
Missouri59.049.649.143.148.742.0123.192.065.487.7
Montana41.235.134.729.734.028.8§§§§
Nebraska42.837.037.932.934.528.6119.397.5110.697.2
Nevada73.664.171.163.955.445.3111.381.6138.3112.7
New Hampshire30.124.030.124.329.623.5§§§§
New Jersey39.332.827.225.316.513.599.772.681.176.6
New Mexico77.467.476.268.643.737.766.450.4102.491.8
New York45.837.039.832.526.420.573.059.381.173.7
North Carolina66.359.552.350.550.043.098.580.2159.6219.0
North Dakota34.627.729.222.928.722.5§§§§
Ohio55.046.046.139.645.238.6116.188.683.676.0
Oklahoma65.960.559.055.957.152.0105.582.987.1107.6
Oregon50.746.549.846.243.838.7101.664.5136.8119.3
Pennsylvania43.836.234.029.230.525.5118.193.6129.3114.0
Rhode Island47.738.241.334.231.725.7120.466.2136.8115.4
South Carolina66.560.850.349.249.946.992.180.568.4128.8
South Dakota42.837.633.027.532.327.0§§§§
Tennessee71.062.758.855.458.553.7119.890.679.5136.1
Texas77.670.175.771.347.741.9100.476.0113.6107.4
Utah42.740.242.039.638.633.0§§96.9118.8
Vermont33.025.733.225.933.426.1§§§§
Virginia50.742.740.733.738.831.187.973.879.473.6
Washington48.240.147.239.340.532.680.960.7125.898.0
West Virginia54.347.953.747.253.847.180.771.7§§
Wisconsin38.835.728.827.326.524.2142.3122.992.6110.7
Wyoming48.240.447.639.645.437.4§§74.965.0
United States58.949.651.144.640.434.0104.581.0107.793.4

§> Rates not calculated for states with less than 20 births to women in a given age and racial/ethnic group or if there were less than 1,000 women in the age and racial/ethnic group. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.
Source:> National Center for Health Statistics, “Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000,” National Vital Statistics Reports,> Vol. 49 (10), September 2001.

Technical Notes

Age Categories

Most of the indicators are shown by age categories, generally children ages 0-15, adults 16-64, and adults 65 and older. Youth 17 and 18 years of age are often classified with adults because they are considered potential members of the labor force in many labor force statistics. Many of the risk factors, however, use published data that define “children” to include all individuals less than 18 years of age.

Annual and Monthly Measures

There are differences between monthly and annual observation of benefit receipt. The measures of annual recipiency (that is, any receipt over the course of a year) shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 are higher than the more traditional measures of recipiency in an average month, as shown in several other indicators.

Note that annual measures are for calendar years except where explicitly noted as fiscal years.

Family Structure Categories

For the primary measure of dependency in this 2004 report, estimates are provided for individual persons by family structure (see SUM1 and IND1). For these measures, the entire population is subdivided into the following four groups:

  • individuals in married-couple families
  • individuals in female-headed families, no spouse present
  • individuals in male-headed families, no spouse present
  • unrelated individuals.

Race and Ethnicity

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 white, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the totals for all persons but are not shown under separate race categories. In some instances, however, data are shown for “Whites” and “Blacks,” rather than for “Non-Hispanic Whites” and “Non-Hispanic Blacks;” in such cases these racial categories include individuals of Hispanic Origin. Footnotes to the tables provide further documentation of issues related to race and ethnicity.

Estimates based on 2002 CPS data are affected by a change in the CPS questionnaire that allows individuals to report one or more races (see ECON 1, ECON 9, WORK 1, WORK 2, and WORK 3). This change was implemented to comply with the 1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. In 2000, the Office of Management and Budget published guidelines for implementing these new standards. To accommodate the race categories under the new standards, CPS estimates for racial/ethnic categories beginning in 2002 are for persons who are non-Hispanic white (and no other race), non-Hispanic black (and no other race) and Hispanic (of any race). Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category.

Spells

Spells of dependency (Indicator 7) and recipiency (Indicator 8) are limited to those spells that begin during the SIPP panel of observation. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. If an individual has 2 or more spells of dependency or receipt, each is counted separately in the analysis.

Unit of Analysis

The individual, rather than the family or household, is the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report. The individual’s dependency status, however, is generally based on total family income, taking into account means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family.1 This 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.


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

Files
Populations
Children