Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors: Thirteenth Report to Congress

Thirteenth Report to Congress

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

---

This report was written and compiled by Gilbert Crouse and Annette Waters of the Office of Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, with assistance from Susan Hauan, Suzanne Macartney and Kendall Swenson.

---

"

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 thirteenth report on Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors provides indicators and risk factors through 2011 for most indicators, reflecting changes that have taken place since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996. As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act, the report focuses on benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps); and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

Use of welfare programs, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less reliant if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which families receive benefits from welfare programs might also be considered in assessing their degree of dependence. Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in defining and measuring dependence, a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed that: A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP (formerly food stamps) and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. Given data limitations, we are not able to identify which program benefits may be associated with recipient work activities. Thus, the definition of welfare dependence used in this report may characterize more individuals as welfare dependant than the Board had intended. We follow the Board’s proposal as closely as possible by adopting the following definition of possible welfare dependence among individuals in families¹ for use in this report:

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

This report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data for the TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) and SSI programs to provide updated measures through 2011 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. Based on these data, this report provides a number of key indicators of welfare recipiency, dependence and labor force attachment. Highlights from the thirteenth report include the following:

• In 2011, 5.2 percent of the total population received more than half of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI (see Indicator 1). While falling steadily between 1993 – 2000, the dependency rate began to increase after 2000, and increased more rapidly since 2007 with the beginning of the “Great Recession.” The rate peaked at 5.3 percent in 2010 in the immediate aftermath of the “Great Recession” and has declined slightly since. SNAP receipt constitutes a larger share of income among the welfare dependent population than does TANF or SSI.
• In 2011, 23.1 percent of the total population received or lived with a family member who received a benefit of any amount from TANF, SNAP, or SSI at some point during the year (see Table SUM 1). While falling steadily between 1993 – 2000, this annual recipiency rate began to increase after 2000, and increased more rapidly during and in the immediate aftermath of the “Great Recession.” The 2011 rate is slightly higher than the 2010 rate, reflecting increased participation in the SNAP and SSI programs.
• To a significant extent, these trends correlated with worsening economic conditions. The increase in SNAP recipiency between 2005 and 2011 reflects its intended responsiveness to economic changes, expanding to meet increased need when the economy is in recession. SNAP is an important support for working families – 63 percent of SNAP recipients are in families with labor force participants. Furthermore, SNAP receipt does not necessarily imply long term dependency, as over 60 percent of SNAP entrants remain on the program for a year or less. As the economy continues to improve, SNAP is projected to respond as designed, with fewer people needing the program. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections show that once the economy fully recovers, SNAP is expected to return to pre-recession levels as a share of the gross domestic product.²
• Trends in the annual recipiency rate across all three programs presented in this report are similar to the more well-known changes in TANF, SNAP, and SSI caseloads. For example, the percentage of individuals receiving TANF cash assistance fell dramatically and consistently over time from 5.4 percent to 1.5 percent between 1993 and 2011 (see Indicator 3). SNAP recipiency rates fell in the latter half of the 1990s from 10.4 percent in 1994 to 6.0 percent in 2000. By 2011, the SNAP recipiency rate had increased to 14.1 percent. Conversely, SSI recipiency rates were relatively flat between 1993 and 2011, fluctuating between 2.3 and 2.6 percent.
• Longitudinal measures show that program spells typically are short and long-term recipiency is rare. For example, approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells and over half of all SNAP spells lasted one year or less (see Indicator 7). Among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2008, over 70 percent received assistance in only one or two years during this period (see Indicator 9).

The report also includes data on a larger set of traditional risk factors associated with welfare receipt. They are organized into three categories: economic security measures, measures related to employment and barriers to employment, and measures of nonmarital childbearing.

The key economic security risk factors include and supplement measures of poverty and well-being that are useful to ensure that predictors of receipt 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:

• Since 2000 the poverty rate has increased to 15.0 percent of all individuals (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1).

The measures related to employment and barriers to employment may be useful since families must generally receive an adequate income from employment in order to avoid welfare programs without severe deprivation.

• The majority of mothers in the U.S. are in the labor force. Of particular note is the sharp increase in labor force participation rates for never-married mothers, rising from 52.5 percent in 1992 to a peak of 75.3 percent in 2002, and then gradually falling to 70.0 percent in 2011 (see Employment and Work-Related Risk Factor 8).
• In an average month in 2011, 59.0 percent of TANF recipients lived in families with at least one family member in the labor force. Comparable figures for SNAP and SSI recipients were 63.1 and 39.2 percent, respectively (see Indicator 2). Between 2005 and 2011³ there has been an increase in the percentage of recipients in families having at least one person in the labor force. Between 2005 and 2011, the percentage of recipients in families with at least one person in the labor force increased from 52.3 to 59.0 percent for TANF recipients, from 55.4 to 63.1 percent for SNAP recipients, and from 38.9 to 39.2 percent for SSI recipients.

Data on nonmarital births is provided since the lower family incomes of single parent families affects the need for and use of welfare programs. Historically a high percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients first became parents outside of marriage.

• In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women. Beginning in 1960, this percentage began to increase, reaching 32.6 percent by 1992. It remained steady for a few years, before rising to 40.7 percent in 2011 (see Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1).

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

---

¹ Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report.

² See Congressional Budget Office Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – May 2013 Baseline, May14, 2013.

³ See the 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Report online at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml for the 2005 numbers.

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. This 2014 report provides data on measures of welfare recipiency, dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence.

The purpose of this report is to address questions concerning the extent to which American families depend on income from welfare programs. Under the Welfare Indicators Act, HHS was directed to address the rate of welfare dependence, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, and predictors of welfare dependence. The Act further specified that analyses of means-tested assistance should include benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program),⁴ the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food Stamp Program).⁵ In this report we include information on cash assistance under the TANF and SSI programs and the cash value of food assistance benefits under SNAP. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 included provisions that would change (in most cases temporarily) some aspects of these three programs; these changes are discussed below.

This 2014 report, the thirteenth in the series, provides updated measures through 2011 for dependency measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Data are available through 2011 for the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) measures, and through 2008 for several of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) measures.

---

⁴ The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) repealed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and created a block grant program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in its place. The mandatory start date for TANF was July 1, 1997, but most states made the transition from AFDC before that date. Throughout the report we use AFDC/TANF to refer to cash assistance benefits received under these two programs.

⁵ The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) re-named the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of October 1, 2008. The name change had no effect on the type of benefits or how they are made available to eligible households.

Organization of Report

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the specific summary measure of welfare dependence proposed by a bipartisan Advisory Board⁶ and how this measure was adopted for use in this report series. It also discusses summary measures of poverty, following the Advisory Board’s recommendation that dependence measures not be assessed in isolation from other measures of economic well-being. The introduction concludes with a discussion of data sources used for the report.

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

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

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

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

(3) Finally, data on nonmarital births are important since historically a high proportion of welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage.

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 in Appendix A include the following:

• The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides monthly cash benefits and services to eligible families with children and is run directly by the states. Prior to 1996 welfare cash benefits were provided through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Data on cash benefits under the TANF and AFDC programs are provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1962 through June 1997, and TANF data from July 1997 through 2011.
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to individuals living in families or alone, provided their income and assets are below limits set in federal law. It reaches more poor people over the course of a year than any other means-tested public assistance program. Prior to October 1, 2008, these food assistance benefits were provided through the Food Stamp Program. Appendix A provides historical data on food stamp benefits from 1962 to 2011.
• 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 2011 are provided in Appendix A.

---

⁶ 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 based on the presence of benefits from AFDC/TANF, SNAP, or SSI during a given time period, dependence is a more complex concept. Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. The definition of dependence proposed by the Advisory Board for this purpose is as follows: A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from AFDC (which was replace by TANF), the Food Stamp Program (now SNAP), and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. In following the Board’s proposal, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals in families⁷ for use in this report:

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

​No definition of welfare dependence is without its limitations. The Advisory Board recognized that no single measure could capture fully all aspects of dependence and that their proposed measure should be examined in concert with other indicators of well-being. While the Board’s proposal would count unsubsidized and subsidized employment and work required to obtain benefits as work activities, existing data sources do not permit distinguishing between welfare income associated with work activities and non-work-related welfare benefits. As a result, the data shown in this report may overstate the incidence of dependence as conceptualized by the Advisory Board. In fiscal year 2011, work participation was mandatory for three of every five TANF adult recipients. Overall, 43.6 percent of all TANF adult recipients in 2011 participated in some type of work activity during the reporting month compared with 7 percent in 1992.⁸

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

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

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

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1993-2011

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

The “Great Recession,” that officially began in late 2007 and lasted through mid 2009, reversed declines in welfare recipiency experienced in the late 1990s and it exacerbated an upward trend in recipiency rates that began in 2001. As shown in Figure SUM 1, the dependency rate fell to a low of 3.0 percent in 2000 and the recipiency rate declined to 12.5 percent. Yet by 2011, these rates had risen to 5.2 percent for dependence and 23.1 percent for recipiency.

In 2011, as in previous years, general patterns in welfare receipt are apparent. Recipiency and dependency rates are higher for Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics of any race than they are for Non-Hispanic Whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence are also higher for young children than they are for adults, and they are higher for individuals in female-headed families than they are for those in married-couple families. However of note are the rising annual recipiency rates for the three programs combined across all demographic categories over a relatively short period of time, 2007 – 2011, and the magnitude of the increase. For example, for those living in married-couple families, welfare recipiency rates increased from 8.8 percent in 2007 to 14.6 percent in 2011, a 5.8 percentage point increase. And Hispanics of any race show an 11.8 percentage point increase in recipiency between 2007 and 2011. Adults 65 and older experienced smaller increases in welfare recipiency than did other demographic groups. Their welfare recipiency rate increased from 10.6 percent to 12.9 percent over the 2007 and 2011 period.

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

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years (part 1)

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years (part 2)

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

⁷ The unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report is “individuals” rather than families or households. Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals as the unit of analysis.

⁸ Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2011. This 43.6 percent includes subsidized employment and work preparation activities (including subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, work experience or community services). The earnings of those in unsubsidized employment would be correctly captured as income from work in national surveys. Any welfare benefits associated with work experience, community service programs or other work activities, however, would be counted as income from welfare in most national surveys, a classification incompatible with the Advisory Board’s proposed definition.

Measuring Economic Well-Being

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

Figure SUM 2a. Number Poor under 18 Years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959–2011

Rate (percent)
Number (millions)

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-239 and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/pov/toc.htm.

---

As shown in Figure Sum 2a, the child poverty rate for all persons under 18 is 21.9 percent (see Table ECON 1 for further details).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Welfare Benefits

On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA (Public Law 111-5) in response to the economic crisis, often referred to “the Great Recession”. The Recovery Act had three immediate goals: create new jobs and save existing ones, spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth, and foster levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. The Recovery Act intended to achieve these goals by providing $787 billion in: tax cuts and benefits for working families and businesses, funding for federal contracts, grants and loans⁹ and funding for entitlement programs. The SNAP, TANF, and SSI entitlements all were impacted by the ARRA legislation.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Households were eligible to receive SNAP benefits based on household income, assets, and certain basic expenses. ARRA increased benefits for all households and expanded program eligibility for jobless adults¹⁰. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the agency that administers SNAP at the Federal level, reported that in fiscal year 2008, the year prior to ARRA, an estimated 39 million people were eligible for SNAP benefits in a typical month but only 27 million (71 percent) actually took-up the program. By 2011, the participation rate had increased to 79 percent. According to SNAP administrative data, the SNAP caseload increased from 28.2 million participants in 2008 to 44.7 million in 2011, an increase of 59 percent. In an average month in fiscal year 2011 (ending September 30, 2011), SNAP provided benefits to 14.4 percent of the population. The average benefit was about $133.85 per person per month and the total Federal expenditure for the program was $75.7 billion.

ARRA increased SNAP benefit levels based on the number of qualifying people in the household. Maximum benefits increased by 13.6 percent, or $80 per month for a family of four¹¹. Because SNAP benefit amounts are based on household net income, the ARRA benefit increase was effectively a constant dollar increase for each household size. Therefore, the percentage increase was greater for households that had some net income and were therefore eligible for less than the maximum benefit. For example, prior to ARRA, a household of four with a monthly net income of $980 qualified for $294 in SNAP benefits—half the maximum benefit for a household of that size. Under ARRA, that household received $374 in SNAP benefits—an increase of 27.2 percent. Households with no income net of allowable deductions received the maximum SNAP benefit, $588 before ARRA, and $668 after ARRA for a household of four.

Figure SUM 2b. Number & Percent of Children Receiving SNAP (Food Stamps), 1980–2011

Rate (percent)
Number (millions)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011 and earlier reports, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/SNAPPartHH.htm ; U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html; calculations by ASPE.

---

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

The Recovery Act provided up to $5 billion in supplemental funding to the Emergency Contingency Fund (Emergency Fund), which is administered by the TANF Bureau¹². The funds were intended to provide additional revenue to States, territories, and tribes that had an increase in caseloads and basic assistance expenditures, or had an increase in expenditures related to short-term benefits or subsidized employment. The funds were awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, and were used in the same way that the annual Federal TANF block grants funds were spent, except a jurisdiction could not transfer the funds to other ACF block grant programs. States, tribes, and territories were eligible to receive the funds through September 30, 2010. Emergency Funds were reimbursed to these jurisdictions for 80 percent of the cost of increased spending in three areas: basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment for low-income parents and youth.

Subsidized employment could have been in the private sector, in non-profit organizations or in the public sector. Jurisdictions could have chosen to subsidize all or part of the wages of a subsidized employee, and determine the length of the subsidy period. The expenditures could have been for a newly-created job or to prevent a layoff in an existing job, so long as the jurisdiction ensured that it complied with requirements against the displacement of other workers, and ensured that the expenditures would provide a job opportunity that would not have otherwise existed to a needy parent or youth. A jurisdiction could have included employer costs for supervision and training in its costs for purposes of qualifying for 80 percent federal reimbursement per hour. This meant for example, that if a jurisdiction fully subsidized a $10 per hour wage, an employer share of $2.50 for supervision and training could be counted toward the jurisdiction’s costs without additional documentation, resulting in a total cost of $12.50, of which $10 (i.e. 80 percent) would be federally reimbursable. Fourteen states placed over 5,000 people each in subsidized jobs. Four of those states — California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Texas — each placed more than 25,000 people, accounting for over half of the national total. Nationwide, about half the placements were summer jobs for youth¹³.

Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI)

The ARRA provided a one-time payment of $250 to adult Social Security beneficiaries and SSI recipients, except those receiving Medicaid in care facilities. To receive the payment, the person had to be eligible for Social Security or SSI during the months of November 2008, December 2008 or January 2009.

The Recovery Act also provided a one-time payment to Veterans Affairs (VA) and Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) beneficiaries. The VA and RRB were responsible for paying individuals under their respective programs. However, if someone received Social Security and SSI, VA or RRB benefits, he or she would receive only one $250 payment.

---

⁹ http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

¹⁰ USDA, Economic Research Service, Report Number 116, “Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err116... and FNS Key Data, Nation Data Bank, Table 2, 2008 and 20011.

¹¹ http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/June11/features/foodsecuritysnap.htm

¹² Catalogue for Domestic Assistance, ARRA – Emergency Contingency Fund for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Program. https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=82b17b73ae63...

¹³ Subsidizing Employment Opportunities for Low-Income Families A Review of State Employment Programs Created Through the TANF Emergency Fund. OPRE Report 2011-38, December 2011.

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, SNAP, and SSI programs. Wherever possible, the current report includes updated estimates for indicators and risk factors through 2011.

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

For indicators and risk factors that capture the monthly dynamics of welfare receipt over time, we use the SIPP. The SIPP collects monthly survey data on income and program participation among individuals and families across the country in panels that last roughly three to four years. While the CPS collects data on the incidence of welfare program receipt and poverty in a given year, the SIPP allows us to present monthly data on how long individuals and families receive welfare assistance and how long they remain poor over a time span of several years. The current report includes updated estimates for most of the SIPP measures based on newly available data from the 2008 SIPP panel, spanning from 2008 to 2011.

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

The report also draws upon administrative data for the AFDC/TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs. These data are largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data are available with minimal time lags; for the current report, administrative data are generally available through fiscal year (FY) 2011. To the extent possible, TANF administrative data are reported in a consistent manner with data from the earlier AFDC program, as noted in the footnotes to the tables in Appendix A. Assistance under locally designed TANF programs encompasses a diverse set of cash and non-cash benefits designed to support families in making a transition to work, and so direct comparisons between AFDC receipt and TANF receipt should be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on AFDC and TANF receipt in national data sets such as the CPS, SIPP, and PSID.

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

Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence

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 simply welfare receipt.

As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested that families be considered dependent if more than 50 percent of their total income in a one-year period comes from cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Furthermore, this welfare income was not to be associated with work activities. Existing data from administrative records and national surveys, however, do not generally distinguish welfare benefits received in conjunction with work from benefits received without work. Thus, it was not possible to construct one single indicator of dependence that captured fully the Advisory Board’s recommendation; that is, one indicator based on the percentage of income from means-tested assistance only if this income is not associated with work activities. As discussed in Chapter I, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals in families¹⁴ for use in this report:

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

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

---

¹⁴ Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report.

Indicator Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDICATOR 1. Degree of Dependence

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2011

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

• Figure IND 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with varying degrees of total income that derived from means-tested assistance programs in 2011.
• The majority of persons (76.9 percent) lived in families that received no income from means-tested assistance programs in 2011.
• Twenty-three (23.1) percent of all persons lived in families that received means-tested assistance. Five (5.2) percent of persons lived in families that received more than half of their income from means-tested assistance programs. These persons would be considered welfare dependent under the definition of dependence used in this report.¹⁵
• Table IND 1a shows the percentage of persons in families with varying degrees of reliance on income from means-tested assistance programs by selected demographic characteristics. Among racial and ethnic groups, Non-Hispanic Blacks were more likely to be welfare dependent (12.3 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (3.3 percent) or Hispanics of any race (7.7 percent).
• Among age categories, children, particularly from birth to 5 years of age, were more likely to live in families that were welfare dependent than were persons age 16 and older.
• Among family types, persons living in female-headed families were more likely to be welfare dependent than those in other family categories.
• Table IND 1b shows trends in welfare dependence between 1993 and 2011. Welfare dependence was highest in 1993 at 5.9 percent. Welfare dependence declined between 1993 and 2000. After 2000, the downward trend in welfare dependence reversed, with dependence increasing from 3.0 percent in 2000 to 5.2 percent in 2011.

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2011

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2011

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status: 2011

(In percent)

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

• Figure IND 1b shows sources of income by poverty status in 2011. There is a clear association between poverty status and receiving income from means-tested assistance programs.
• Persons in families with incomes below the poverty line received 42.4 percent of their income from earnings and 37.8 percent from means-tested assistance programs. Persons in families with incomes at 200 percent or more of the poverty line received 85.7 percent of their income from earnings and 0.2 percent of their income from means-tested assistance programs.
• The percentage of family income that comes from earnings is inversely proportional to overall family income relative to the poverty line. For example, the percentage of income received from earnings for persons in families living in deep poverty (below 50 percent of the poverty line) was 21.2 percent compared to 42.4 percent for all poor persons in 2011.
• Table IND 1c shows sources of income by poverty status for various demographic groups. On average, persons in married-couple families and male heads of household receive higher proportions of their family income from earnings than do female heads of households.
• Table IND 1d shows the percentage of income from various sources across selected years. The percentage of income received from earnings for persons in families with incomes below the poverty line increased from 40.4 percent in 1995 to 49.5 percent in 2000. In 2011, the rate was 42.4 percent.
• Over the same time period, the percentage of income from means-tested programs among persons in poor families decreased from 41.3 percent in 1995 to 30.3 percent in 2000. In 2011, the rate was 37.8 percent.

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status and Selected Characteristics: 2011

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

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

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

¹⁵ For a discussion on defining welfare dependence, please see “Measuring Welfare Dependence” in Chapter I.

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

 

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program: 2011

(In percent)

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

• Figure IND 2 shows the percentage of recipients in families with labor force participants by program. In 2011, SSI recipients were more likely to live in families with no labor force participants (60.8 percent) than were TANF recipients (41.0 percent) or SNAP recipients (36.9 percent). Sixty-three (63.1) percent of SNAP recipients lived in families with someone in the labor force, including 34.3 percent in families with at least one full-time worker.
• Table IND 2a shows the percentage of recipients in families with labor force participants by program and demographic characteristics. Among all three programs, Hispanics were more likely to live in families with at least one full-time worker (31.7 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Blacks (13.9 percent) or Non-Hispanics Whites (22.7 percent).
• Among SNAP recipients, 46.3 percent of persons in married-couple families lived with at least one full-time worker compared to 27.6 percent of persons in female-headed families, and 40.8 percent of persons in male-headed families.
• Table IND 2b shows the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients living in families with labor force participants by year. The percentage of recipients living in families with at least one labor force participant increased from 43.0 percent in 1993 to 61.3 in 2001 and was 59.0 percent in 2011.

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program and Selected Characteristics: 2011

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1993-2011

	No One in LF	At Least One in LF, No One FT	At Least One FT Worker
1993	57.0	24.2	18.8
1994	54.8	24.8	20.4
1995	50.6	24.3	25.1
1996	50.1	25.6	24.3
1997	47.6	28.0	24.4
1998	44.3	25.8	29.9
1999	40.8	24.1	35.1
2000	41.2	24.1	34.7
2001	38.7	26.0	35.3
2002	39.8	25.8	34.3
2003	47.4	24.1	28.5
2004	48.0	23.8	28.1
2005	47.7	25.4	26.9
2006	46.6	21.2	32.2
2007	46.4	23.4	30.2
2008	45.6	27.2	27.2
2009	43.3	30.7	26.0
2010	43.5	31.4	25.1
2011	41.0	35.2	23.8

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994 - 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

INDICATOR 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance

 

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF: 1975-2011

(In percent)

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

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

---

• Figure IND 3a shows the percentage of the population who received income from the AFDC program or the TANF program by age group from 1975 to 2011.
• Table IND 3a shows the number and percentage of the population receiving AFDC/TANF by age between 1975 and 2011. In 1993, 5.4 percent of the population received income from AFDC. In 2011 the TANF recipiency rate was 1.5 percent, a sharp decline from pre-welfare reform levels.
• AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been higher and have had more pronounced changes over time for children than for adults.
• Between 1993 and 2011, AFDC/TANF receipt among children decreased from 13.9 percent to 4.6 percent, a recent increase from 4.1 percent in 2008.

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF by Age: 1970-2011

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

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

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by Age 1975-2011

(In percent)

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

Source: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2009, No. SNAP-09-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/200...), and unpublished data from the National Data Bank. Population denominators for the percents in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

---

• Figure IND 3b shows the percentage of the population who received food stamps/SNAP by age category from 1975 to 2011.
• In 1993, 10.4 percent of all persons received SNAP benefits, which declined steadily through 2000 and since then has risen to 14.1 percent in 2011.
• Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for adults ages 60 and over has always been lower than the rates of receipt for children and adults ages 18 – 59.
• The percentage of older adults receiving SNAP benefits remained close to or below 5.0 percent until 2010 and 2011 when it increased to 5.4 and 6.4 percent respectively.
• As with AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency rates have been higher over time for children than for adults. Between 1980 and 2011, the percentage of all children who received SNAP benefits was at least double that of the adult recipiency rate. Among adults ages 18- 59 years old, 11.4 percent received SNAP benefits compared to 26.9 percent of children under 18 in 2011.
• Table IND 3b shows the number and percentage of the population receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by age group from 1975 to 2011. While the levels are different, the trend in Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for children and adults 18 – 59 years of age are similar over the time period.

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP benefits: 1975-2011 (part 1)

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP benefits: 1975-2011 (part 2)

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

Source: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2009, No. SNAP-09-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/200...), and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank. Individual age groups do not sum exactly to total recipients. The population denominators for the percentage in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011

(In percent)

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

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy). Population denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

---

• Figure IND 3c shows the percentage of the population who received income assistance from the SSI program by age category from 1975 through 2011.
• Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP, overall recipiency rates for SSI show less variation over time. After decreasing from 1975 to the early 1980s, the proportion of the total population that received SSI increased from 1.7 percent in 1985 to 2.4 percent in 1994. The rate has stayed consistent since then increasing to 2.6 percent in 2011.
• Overall the SSI recipiency rate has increased from 2.0 percent in 1975 to 2.6 in 2011, and stayed consistently between 2.3 percent and 2.6 percent between 1993 and 2011.
• Table IND 3c shows the percentage of the population and number of persons receiving SSI by age group between 1975 and 2011.
• Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap, however, has narrowed as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has declined from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.0 percent in 2011.
• Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have higher recipiency rates than any other age group. The gap, however, has narrowed as the percentage of adults aged 65 and older receiving SSI has declined from 10.9 percent in 1975 to 5.0 percent in 2011.

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011 (part 1)

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2011 (part 2)

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

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011, (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy). Population denominators for the percents in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

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

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

(In percent)

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-partic..., and unpublished tabulations from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

• Figure IND 4 shows the participation rates in the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs for selected years. This indicator examines the average monthly number of participating families, households, or adults as a percentage of the estimated eligible population. It is a contrast to Indicator 3, which examines participants as an average monthly (December for SSI) percentage of the total population (recipiency rates).
• In 2011, 33.9 percent of families estimated as eligible for TANF assistance, 67.3 percent of households estimated as eligible for SSI are estimated to have received benefits in an average month. In 2011, 83.3 percent of households estimated as eligible for SNAP are estimated to have enrolled and received benefits in an average month.

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

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

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

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

---

• Between 1981 and 1996, participation rates in the AFDC program ranged from 76.7 percent (in 1987) to 85.7 percent (in 1992). From 1996 to 2011, participation rates in TANF have steadily declined.
• In 1996, 78.9 percent of eligible families participated in the AFDC/TANF program. By 2011, 33.9 percent of eligible families participated in the TANF program. ¹⁶,
• Since welfare reform there has been a sharp decline in the number of eligible families participating in the TANF program.¹⁷

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

Date	Eligible Households (millions)	Participating Households (millions)	Participation Rate (percent)
September 1976c	16.3	5.3	32.6
February 1978	14.0	5.3	37.8
August 1980	14.0	7.4	52.5
August 1982	14.5	7.5	51.5
August 1984	14.2	7.3	51.6
August 1986	15.3	7.1	46.5
August 1988	14.9	7.0	47.1
August 1990	14.5	8.0	54.9
August 1991	15.6	9.2	59.1
August 1992	16.6	10.2	61.6
August 1993	17.0	10.9	64.0
August 1994	17.0	11.0	64.6
September 1994 (revised)	15.3	10.7	69.6
September 1995	15.0	10.4	69.2
September 1996	15.3	9.9	65.1
September 1997	14.7	8.4	57.5
September 1998	14.0	7.6	54.2
September 1999	13.7	7.3	53.0
Fiscal Year 1999c	14.5	7.5	51.6
Fiscal Year 2000	14.2	7.1	50.2
Fiscal Year 2001	15.1	7.3	48.0
Fiscal Year 2002(a)	16.7	8.0	47.6
Fiscal Year 2002(b)	16.0	8.0	49.7
Fiscal Year 2003	17.1	8.9	52.1
Fiscal Year 2004	17.5	10.0	57.1
Fiscal Year 2005	17.7	10.7	60.6
Fiscal Year 2006	17.1	11.2	65.3
Fiscal Year 2007	17.5	11.4	65.5
Fiscal Year 2008	18.0	12.3	68.4
Fiscal Year 2009	20.3	14.7	72.2
Fiscal Year 2010(a)	22.7	17.7	78.0
Fiscal Year 2010(b)	22.6	17.4	77.0
Fiscal Year 2011	23.1	19.3	83.3

Note: SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility. SNAP caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in the methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. The estimates for previous years show higher estimates of eligibles and lower participation rates relative to the revised estimate for 1994 and estimates for subsequent years. The two estimates for 1999 are due to re-weighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining SNAP eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the estimates for FY 2000 – FY 2006. The FY 2010(b) and 2011 estimates are not based upon a revised methodologically consistent with prior estimates.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-partic...,.

---

• Table IND 4b shows the average monthly number and percentage of eligible households participating in FSP/SNAP for selected years. Since fiscal year 2002, the participation rate for SNAP has increased from 47.6 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 83.3 percent in fiscal year 2011.
• Between fiscal years 1999 and 2011 households eligible for the Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program increased from 14.5 to 23.1 million households (a 59.3 percent increase).
• Over the same period caseloads grew from 7.5 to 19.3 million households (by 157.3 rcent increase), with notable increases occurring since Fiscal Year 2008.
• During the mid to late 1990s, there was a 34.5 percent drop in SNAP caseloads, from a peak of 11 million households in 1994 to 7.2 million households in 2000. This decline in caseloads occurred during a time when both the eligible population and the program participation rates were generally decreasing. Beginning in 2002 these were both generally increasing.

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program by Selected Characteristics: 1993-2011

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

• Table IND 4c shows the average monthly number and percentage of eligible adult units participating in the SSI program by select demographic categories. After rising to 75.8 percent of adults estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2000, the SSI participation rate has decreased to 67.3 percent of those estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2011. This rate is substantially higher than recent TANF rates but is lower than the SNAP participation rate in 2011 (see Tables IND 4a and IND 4b).
• For aged adults in one-person units, the estimated SSI participation rate increased from 57.0 percent in 1993 to a high of 70.9 percent in 2000. The estimated SSI participation rate among aged one-person units was 67.3 percent in 2011.

---

¹⁶ Note that TANF is a flexible program with a flexible funding stream. As such, states provide substantial “non assistance” services and benefits that would not be included in the cash assistance caseload counts used to derive these participation rate estimates. Over the years families also may have received cash benefits or other services through general assistance and other solely state-funded programs that are separate from the TANF program and are not shown here.

¹⁷ As discussed in the note to Table IND 4a above, the model for estimating participation in the TANF cash assistance program does take into account benefits from separate state programs (SSPs) that are used to meet Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements.

INDICATOR 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, SNAP and SSI: 2011

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

---

• Figure IND 5 shows the percentage of those receiving benefits from TANF, SNAP, or SSI or a combination of benefits from these programs in 2011. Eighty-three (83.2) percent of all individuals received no benefits from means tested programs, while 16.8 percent did. Of those who received any benefits from the three programs, three-quarters (75.7 percent) of recipients received only SNAP benefits, 7.8 percent of recipients received both TANF and SNAP benefits, and 9.3 percent of recipients received SSI and SNAP.
• Table IND 5a shows the percentage of the population receiving assistance from TANF, SNAP, and SSI by demographic characteristics. About five (4.9) percent of children from birth to 5 years lived in families that received both TANF and SNAP.
• Among family categories, persons in female-headed families were more likely than those living in other types of families to receive support from multiple means-tested assistance programs. Among persons in female-headed families, 43.3 percent received support from any of the three programs, compared to 9.3 percent of those in married-couple families, and 23.8 percent of those in male-headed families.
• Table IND 5b shows the percentage of the population receiving assistance from multiple means-tested assistance programs between 1993 and 2011. Reliance on both TANF and SNAP has decreased over time. In 1993, 4.8 percent of the population received AFDC and food stamps. In 2011, the percent that received both TANF and SNAP decreased to 1.3 percent. In contrast reliance on SSI and SNAP has increased somewhat from 1.0 percent in 1993 to 1.6 percent of the population in 2011.

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2011

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2011

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

INDICATOR 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2010 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2009 by Race and Ethnicity

(In percent)

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

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

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

---

• Figure IND 6 shows the 2010 dependency status of persons who were welfare dependent in 2009 by race and ethnicity. Welfare dependence is defined as receiving more than half of one’s total family income in the year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI. For further discussion of defining welfare dependency, see Chapter I.
• Of recipients who received more than 50 percent of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI in 2010, approximately three-quarters across three racial and ethnic groups (73.4 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites, 76.9 percent of Non-Hispanic Blacks, and 77.0 percent of Hispanics) also were welfare dependent in 2009.
• Table IND 6a shows the 2010 dependency status of persons who were welfare dependent in 2009 by demographic groups. Substantial majorities within all groups who were dependent on welfare programs in 2009 remained so in 2010. Women and men ages 16 – 64 had comparable dependence rates.
• Table IND 6b shows the dependency status of all persons who received more than 50 percent of their family income from means-tested assistance programs in the previous year. Most recipients of means-tested assistance programs who derived more than half of their family income from welfare programs have been likely to do so from one year to the next.

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 2010 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2009 by Selected Characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDICATOR 7. Program Spell Duration

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

(In percent)

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011). For certain age categories, data are not available (NA) because of insufficient sample size. The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) re-named the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of October 1, 2008. The name change had no effect on the type of benefits or how they are made available to eligible households.

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

---

• Figure IND 7 shows the percentage of TANF, SNAP, and SSI spells by spell length categories for persons entering programs in the late 2000s. Between 2008 and 2011, very brief spells lasting four months or less accounted for 49.3 percent of TANF spells, 27.8 percent of SNAP spells, and 31.6 percent of SSI spells.
• Approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells (78.4 percent) and over half of SNAP and SSI spells (52.2 51.1 percent respectively) lasted one year or less.
• Table IND 7a shows the percentage of program spells for persons entering programs during the 2008 – 2011 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics. Among child recipients of TANF, most children experienced shorter spells of receipt rather than longer spells of receipt.
• For SNAP and SSI, the highest percentage of program spells longer than 20 months (44.1 and 52.7 percent respectively) were experienced by adults ages 65 and older.
• Table IND 7b shows how the percentage of program spells of varying lengths for persons entering programs during selected periods has changed. Spells of welfare receipt were shorter in the early 2000s than in the early 1990s. For instance, 12.6 percent of TANF spells for persons entering TANF between 2008 and 2011 lasted 20 months or longer as compared to 34.4 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994.

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

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011). Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

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

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

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. Program spells are defined as those starting during the 2004 SIPP panel (2004 – 2007).

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

INDICATOR 8. Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment

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

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

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

---

• Figure IND 8 shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment for persons entering the TANF program between 2008 and 2011 by length of spell.¹⁸
• Welfare spells with no family labor force attachment are measured as consecutive months that a person received TANF benefits and lived in a family with no labor force participants. Welfare spells with no family labor force attachment may end when a person leaves the TANF program or when a person remains on TANF but at least one person in the family enters the labor market.
• Fifty-four (53.5) percent of welfare spells with no family labor force attachment lasted four months or less as measured in the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
• Table IND 8a shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment by spell length for different demographic groups. The percentage of spells ending in four months or less was smaller for Non-Hispanic Whites (46.5 percent) than it was for Non-Hispanic Blacks (57.7 percent) and Hispanics (53.2 percent).

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

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011) for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each 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: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

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

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 – 1995	42.6	26.4	8.5	22.5
1996 – 1999	54.2	28.3	9.3	8.3
2001 – 2003	56.1	23.0	10.6	10.2
2004 – 2007	51.6	25.0	9.4	14.0
2008—2011	53.5	31.2	7.5	7.9

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011) for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force participants in each month.

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

---

• Table IND 8b shows the percentage of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment for persons entering the program during selected periods by spell length. In the late 2000s, 53.5 percent of TANF spells with no family labor force attachment ended within four months and 84.7 percent ended within a year.
• The percentage of spells with no family labor force attachment lasting more than 20 months was higher in the early 1990s than in the late 2000s (22.5 percent compared to 7.9 percent, respectively).

---

¹⁸ Indicators 7 and 8 provide similar information; however, the percentages of spell lengths differ because the two Indicators are computed differently. Indicator 7 shows spells for all recipients while Indicator 8 restricts welfare spells to recipients in families without any labor force participants. This difference results in a higher percentage of spells longer than 20 months in Indicator 7, where TANF employment may be combined, and compared to Indicator 8 where no one in the family may be in the labor force.

INDICATOR 9. Long Term Receipt

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure IND 10a. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2004 – 2006 Period

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

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2008.

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2004 panel.

---

• Figure IND 10a shows events associated with single mother TANF exits during the 2004 SIPP panel, 2004 - 2006. Welfare exits were most often associated with an increase in recipient earnings. Thirty (30.3) percent of welfare spells that ended during the 2004 to 2006 time period were associated with an increase in the recipient’s earnings. Almost thirteen (12.5) percent of welfare exits were associated with an increase in the earnings of other household members.
• Forty-six percent of welfare exits during the 2004 – 2006 time period were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed.
• Table IND 10a shows the events associated with welfare exits among single mother recipients for selected years. Increases in recipient earnings have always been the most common event associated with welfare exits, but exits associated with recipient earnings increases have decreased over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 54.8 percent of exits were associated with an increase in recipient earnings, yet for the 2004 - 2006 time period 30.3 percent were associated with increases in recipient earnings.

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

	Spell Ended 1993-1995	Spell Ended 1996-1999	Spell Ended 2001-2003	Spell Ended 2004-2006
Increase in own earnings	54.8	44.6	34.3	30.3
Increase in other household earnings	10.3	11.9	12.4	12.5
Became SSI recipient	1.6	5.9	5.1	4.4
Became recipient of other government benefits	2.2	2.6	2.9	0.4
Last child left or turned 19	5.6	2.4	1.6	3.1
Married	5.4	2.1	2.3	2.7
Increase in number of adults (not marriage)	17.6	12.4	12.8	13.4
Ended work limitation	3.0	10.9	8.8	5.2
Moved across state lines	2.4	1.4	2.8	4.3
None of above in recent past	24.0	31.1	37.3	46.0

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

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2008.

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

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

---

• Welfare exits associated with changes in household composition have also decreased over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 5.6 percent of welfare exits were related to the last child in a household leaving home or turning 19 years old as compared to 3.1 percent for the 2004 – 2006 time period.
• Welfare exits associated with marriage also declined over the two time periods. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 5.4 percent of exits were related to marriage, for the 2004 – 2006 time period, the rate was 2.7 percent.
• Forty-six percent of welfare exits were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed, which is nearly twice the level observed in the 1993-1995 period.

Figure IND 10b. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2004-2006 Period

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

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2008.

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2004 panel.

---

• Figure IND 10b shows the events associated with the beginning of TANF spells among single mother recipients in the 2004 – 2006 time period. A decrease in earnings was the most common event associated with welfare entries. For spells beginning between 2004 and 2006, 48.6 percent were associated with a decrease in the recipient’s earnings and 23.8 percent were associated with a decrease in the earnings of other household members.
• Changes in household composition also were associated with the beginning of welfare spells. Almost 23 (22.9) percent of welfare entries were associated with a new child joining the family while 18.1 percent of TANF entries were the result of a decrease in the number of adults in a household not due to divorce. Almost six (5.9) percent of TANF entries were associated with divorce or separation.
• Sixteen (15.9) percent of welfare entries were not associated with any of the events listed above within the time period observed.

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

	Spell Began 1993-1995	Spell Began 1996-1999	Spell Began 2001-2003	Spell Began 2004-2006
Recipients’ earnings decreased	57.1	52.6	50.3	48.6
Other household earnings decreased	24.0	21.0	20.1	23.8
Lost SSI benefits (own)	1.4	5.1	4.4	5.1
Lost other government benefits (own)	8.1	5.1	6.1	3.2
New child in family	22.0	17.1	20.5	22.9
Divorced/separated from spouse	8.7	6.7	4.3	5.9
Decrease in number of adults (not divorce)	19.2	17.6	15.4	18.1
Onset of work limitation	7.2	10.9	11.5	10.6
Moved across state lines	1.7	1.4	2.2	5.5
None of above in recent past	8.8	14.1	16.7	15.9

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

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2008.

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

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

---

• Table IND 10b shows the events associated with the beginning of welfare spells among single mother recipients by selected time periods.
• Decreases in a recipient’s earnings has been the most common event associated with welfare entries over time.
• For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 57.1 percent of AFDC spell entries were associated with a decrease in recipient earnings. The percentage was 48.6 percent for the 2004 – 2006 time period.
• A decrease in other household members’ earnings also was related to the beginning of welfare spells. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 24.0 percent of welfare entries were associated with a decrease in other household members’ earnings. For the 2004 – 2006 time period, 23.8 percent of welfare entries were associated with a decrease in other household members’ earnings.
• A new child in the family was the third consistently common reason for welfare spells entries. Adding a child to the family was associated with 22.9 percent of spells beginning during 2004-2006 and 22.0 percent of spells beginning in the 1993-1995 period.

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

The Welfare Indicators Act 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 receipt and dependence. Instead, it has identified a number of risk factors associated with welfare use. For the purposes of this report, the terms “predictors” and “risk factors” are used somewhat interchangeably.

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON)

The first group includes 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, if former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources, reductions in welfare caseloads may not lead to decreases in poverty.

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

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

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

The second grouping, labeled with the WORK prefix, includes seven factors related to employment and barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and employment and earnings for low-skilled workers, 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 for those with low education levels (WORK 2 and WORK 3). The economic condition of the low-skill labor market is a key predictor of the ability of men and women to support families without receiving means-tested assistance.

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

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be predictors of greater dependence. Substance abuse (WORK 5) and disabling conditions among children and adults (WORK 6) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work. In addition, debilitating health conditions and high medical expenditures can strain a family’s economic resources. The labor force participation of women with children (WORK 7) is also a predictor of dependence.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH)

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 1. Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age: 1959-2012

(In percent)

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/pov/toc.htm.

---

• Figure ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age from 1959 to 2012. The official poverty rate was 15.0 percent in 2012, an increase of 3.7 percentage points over the 2000 rate of 11.3 percent.
• All persons under 18 had a poverty rate of 21.8 percent in 2012. In all years after 1959, the child poverty rate was much higher than the overall poverty rate.
• Table ECON 1 shows the percentage of persons in poverty by age and family type for selected years. In 2012, the poverty rate for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) was 9.1 percent and the poverty rate for other adults (persons ages 18 to 64) was 13.7 percent.
• Related children from birth to age five have had the highest poverty rate among all age groups throughout the last four decades. In 2012, 24.4 percent of related children from birth to age 5 lived below the poverty line.
• The poverty rates for persons in both married-couple families and female-headed families have decreased since the 1960s. In 1959, 18.2 percent of persons in married-couple families and 49.4 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor. By 2012, 7.5 percent of persons in married-couple families and 33.9 percent of persons in female-headed families were poor.

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

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, 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, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level: 1975 - 2012

(In percent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

---

• Figure ECON 2 shows the percentage of the population below 50, 100, and 125 percent of the poverty level over time. The percentage of the population in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) was 6.6 percent in 2012, compared to an overall poverty rate of 15.0 percent.
• Less than five (4.8) percent of the population was “near-poor;” they had incomes at or above 100 percent but below 125 percent of the federal poverty level in 2012.
• Table ECON 2 shows the number and percentage of the population below 50, 75, and 125 percent of the poverty level for selected years. In general, the percentage of the population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level has followed a pattern that reflects the trend in the overall poverty rate.
• The percentage of people below 50 percent of the poverty level rose in the late 1970s and early 1980s to 5.9 percent, and then after falling, has risen past its 1993 peak of 6.2 percent. The rates for 100 percent and 125 percent of the poverty level followed a somewhat similar pattern with more pronounced peaks and valleys.
• Over the past three decades, the proportion of the poverty population in “deep poverty” has increased substantially. The percentage of the poverty population in deep poverty went from a low of 29.9 percent in 1975 to 43.9 percent in 2012.

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

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

Economic Security Risk Factor 3. Research Supplemental Poverty Measure

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures by Demographic Characteristics: 2011

(In percent)

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012.

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

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011" Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-244.

---

• Figure ECON 3 shows a comparison of the percentage of persons in poverty using the official poverty measure and the Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure by selected demographic characteristics.¹⁹
• The supplemental poverty measure yields poverty rates that are fairly similar to the official poverty measure overall. In 2011, 16.1 percent of all persons were poor under the supplemental poverty measure and 15.1 percent of all persons were poor under the official poverty measure.
• The supplemental and official poverty rates show some differences by age and other characteristics. In 2011, the supplemental poverty rate among children was 4.2 percentage points lower than the official rate, partly because it takes into account non-cash benefits that many children receive. Conversely, the supplemental poverty rate among the elderly in 2011 was 6.4 percentage points higher than the official rate, in part due to out-of-pocket health costs for these persons.
• Table ECON 3 provides greater detail on the supplemental and official poverty measure.

Table ECON 3. Percent of People in Poverty by Different Poverty Measures: 2010 and 2011

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012.

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

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

Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011" Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-244 and “The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2010”, Table 1, Current Population Reports, Series P60-241.

---

¹⁹ The U.S. Census Bureau developed the supplemental poverty measure based on the 2010 recommendations of an Interagency Technical Working Group, which drew on the earlier recommendations of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance.

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

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979-2011

(In percent)

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2011, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

---

• Figure ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population below the official poverty line with various means-tested transfers counted as income for the years 1979 to 2011. The official poverty rate – using the official income definition, which includes means-tested cash transfers (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition to pre-transfer cash income and social insurance cash transfers – was 15.0 percent in 2011. Without cash welfare, the 2011 poverty rate would be 15.8 percent.
• Adding non-cash, means-tested transfers to the official income definition has the effect of lowering the percentage of people with incomes below the official poverty line. Including the value of food and housing benefits in total income would reduce the poverty rate to 12.9 percent in 2011.
• When income is defined to include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the effect of federal taxes, the percentage of people below the official poverty line would decrease to 11.2 percent in 2011. Federal taxes and the EITC have had the net effect of reducing poverty rates following the EITC expansions in 1993 and 1995.
• Table ECON 4 shows the percentage of the population below the official poverty line with various means-tested transfers counted as income for selected years. The combined effect of means-tested cash transfers, food and housing benefits, the EITC, and federal taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2011 by 4.6 percentage points. Net reductions in poverty rates were smaller during the 1981 - 1982 recession, and higher in the mid-1990s, largely due to expansions in the EITC.

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

	Cash income plus all social insurance	Plus means-tested cash transfers (official poverty measure)	Plus food and housing benefits	Plus EITC and federal taxes	Reduction in poverty rate
1979	12.8	11.6	9.7	10	2.8
1983	16.0	15.2	13.7	14.7	1.3
1986	14.5	13.6	12.2	13.1	1.4
1989	13.8	12.8	11.2	11.8	2.0
1992	15.6	14.5	12.9	13.0	2.6
1995	14.9	13.8	12.0	11.5	3.4
1998	13.5	12.7	11.3	10.4	3.1
2000	12.0	11.3	10.1	9.5	2.5
2002	12.8	12.1	10.9	10.0	2.8
2005	13.3	12.6	11.2	10.3	3.0
2007	13.2	12.5	11.1	10.1	3.1
2008	13.9	13.2	11.7	10.1	3.8
2009	15.1	14.3	12.4	10.5	4.6
2010	15.8	15.1	13.0	11.3	5.0
2011	15.8	15.0	12.9	11.2	4.6

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2011, analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office.

Economic Security Risk Factor 5. Poverty Spells

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2011).

---

• Figure ECON 5 shows the percentage of poverty spells that are of various lengths for persons who became poor during the 2008 - 2011 period. Forty-three (43.2) percent of poverty spells that began between 2008 and 2011 ended within 4 months. Almost three-quarters (71.5 percent) of poverty spells during this period ended within one year while 18.4 percent of spells lasted more than 20 months.
• Table ECON 5a shows the percentage of poverty spells for persons entering poverty during the 2008 - 2011 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics.
• Among racial and ethnic groups, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites had short spells of poverty (45.6 percent) than Non-Hispanic Blacks (36.5 percent) or Hispanics of any race (42.1 percent). For poverty spells greater than 20 months, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks had long poverty spells (25.4 percent) compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (15.4 percent) and Hispanics of any race (20.1 percent).
• When examining long spells of poverty, greater than 20 months, by age group, children 0 - 5 years of age had the highest rate (23.6 percent) and men 16-64 years of age had the lowest rate (14.8 percent).

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

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2011).

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

	Spells <=4 Months	Spells 5-12 Months	Spells 13-20 Months	Spells >20 Months
1993 – 1995	47.3	28.1	8.9	15.7
1996 – 1999	51.3	29.0	8.3	11.4
2001 – 2003	49.2	27.7	7.7	15.5
2004 – 2007	47.8	26.7	12.2	13.4
2008 – 2011	43.2	28.3	10.1	18.4

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 6. Child Support

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

(Percent)

Note: Data are for mothers with custody.

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

---

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

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

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

Economic Security Risk Factor 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2011

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011.

---

• Figure ECON 7 shows the percentage of households that were food secure, had low food security, and had very low food security in 2011. The majority of U.S. households (85.1 percent) were food secure in 2011; that is, they had consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.
• Fifteen (14.9) percent of U.S. households experienced low food security, including 5.7 percent who were classified as having very low food security. Very low food security is defined as having reduced food intake and having normal eating patterns disrupted due to a lack of resources. After increasing significantly from 2007 to 2008, the percentage of households reporting low and very low food security has remained virtually unchanged from 2008 to 2011.
• Table ECON 7a shows the percentage of households classified by food security status and by selected demographic characteristics. Households with elderly were more food secure (91.6 percent) than were households with children under six (78.1 percent) or households with children under 18 (79.4 percent).
• There is a relationship between poverty and food security. Fifty-nine (58.9) percent of poor households were food secure compared to 62.4 percent of households below 130 percent of the poverty level, 65.5 percent of households below 185 percent of the poverty level, and 93.0 percent of households above 185 percent of the poverty level.
• Married-couple households with children were much less likely to experience food insecurity than female-headed households with children. Almost 14 percent (13.9) percent of married-couple households with children were food insecure in 2011 compared to 36.8 percent of female-headed households with children.
• Table ECON 7b shows the percentage of households classified by food security status between 1998 and 2011. The percentage of households with food insecurity (both low and very low food insecurity) has ranged from a low of 10.1 percent in 1999 to a high of 14.9 percent in 2011.

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected Characteristics: 2011

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources. Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed household categories.

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err108.... Data are from the Current Population Survey, Food Security Supplement.

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2011

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011.

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

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

(In percent)

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

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

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

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

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

(In percent)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Figure WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1980-2011

(In 2011 $)

Note: Data are adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Full-time workers usually work at least work 35 hours per week. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

---

• Figure WORK 3a shows the trend in median weekly wages in 2011 dollars of low-skilled women and men (those with less than four years of high school education) working full-time by race and ethnicity. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials into account.
• In 2011, White women with less than four years of high school education working full-time had median weekly earnings of $394 compared to $385 for similar Black women and $377 for similar Hispanic women of any race.
• Among men working full-time with less than four years of high school education, White men had median weekly earnings of $494, compared to $450 for Black men and $447 for Hispanic men of any race in 2011. There has been a narrowing of the median weekly earnings gap between White men and both Black men and Hispanic men over time.
• Table WORK 3a shows the detailed estimates of medium wages for low-skilled women and men working full time by race and ethnicity.
• Men who were working full-time and had less than four years of high school education have had consistently higher median weekly earnings than similar women, though men have experienced greater declines in median weekly earnings over time between 1980 and 2011.

Table WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with less than 4 Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1979-2011

Note: Full-time workers usually work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

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

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

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1980-2011

(In 2011 $)

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

---

• Figure WORK 3b shows the trend in median weekly wages in 2011 dollars for women and men with four years of high school education but no college who are working full-time by race and ethnicity. This measure of low skill is based only on educational attainment and does not take other skills based on work experience, training or other credentials into account.
• In 2011, White women with four years of high school education and no college who were working full-time had median weekly earnings of $572 compared to $493 for similar Black women and $501 for similar Hispanic women of any race. There has been relatively little change in these median weekly wages over time.
• Among men working full-time with four years of high school education and no college, median weekly earnings of White men were $745 compared to $598 for Black men and $606 for Hispanic men of any race. Median weekly earnings among men in all three racial and ethnic groups shown have declined over time since 1980.
• Throughout the 1980 – 2011 time period, there is a substantial and persistent gap between women and men’s wages. Men consistently earn higher median weekly wages than women, though the gap has narrowed over time.
• There also is a racial and ethnic gap in median weekly wages among full time workers who have four years of high school education but no college, where White persons earn more than Black persons and Hispanic persons of any race. Among women, this racial and ethnic wage gap has increased somewhat over time.

Table WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2011 Dollars): 1979-2011

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data adjusted to constant 2011 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

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

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

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Employment and Work-related Risk Factor 4. Educational Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2011

(In percent)

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2011,” Current Population Reports and earlier reports.

---

• Figure WORK 4 shows educational attainment for adults 25 years and older between 1960 and 2011. Table WORK 4 shows the corresponding point estimates for select years.
• The percentage of the population 25 years and older completing four or more years of college has increased greatly between 1960 and 2011 rising from 7.7 percent to 30.4 percent.
• The percentage of the population 25 years and older with some college but less than four years increased from 8.8 percent in 1960 to 26.4 percent in 2011.
• The percentage of the population 25 years and older without at least a high school education has declined over the past 50 years, from 59.0 percent in 1960 to 12.4 percent in 2011.
• The percentage of the population 25 years and older receiving a high school education (but no post secondary education) was 24.6 percent in 1960 and rose to 38.9 percent in 1988. Since 1988, this figure has fallen to 30.7 percent in 2011. Altogether 43.1 percent of adults 25 years and older had educational attainment of no more than a high school education in 2011.

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html and earlier reports.

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

Figure WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 2011

(In percent)

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2011.

---

• Figure WORK 5 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine, the percentage who used marijuana, and the percentage who abused alcohol by age group in 2011.
• Adults 18 to 25 years of age were more likely than older adults to report cocaine, marijuana, binge alcohol or heavy alcohol use in the prior month. For example, 19.0 percent reported using marijuana in the past month during 2011, compared with 10.2 percent of adults 26 to 34 years of age and 3.6 percent of adults 35 years and over.
• The percentage of adults reporting binge alcohol use was larger than the percentages for all other reported behaviors across all age groups shown.
• Table WORK 5 shows the percentage of adults who used cocaine or marijuana or abused alcohol from 1999 through 2011.
• Marijuana use has been trending upward across all age groups since 1999. Levels of cocaine use have remained fairly stable across all age groups over time. Since 1999, heavy alcohol use has decreased for adults ages 18 to 25 years, but increased for adults ages 26 to 34 years.

Table WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 1999-2011

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2000-2011.

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

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Selected Characteristics: 2011

(In percent)

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

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2011.

---

• Figure WORK 6 shows the percentage of non-elderly adults and children reporting an activity limitation by race and ethnicity in 2011. Non-elderly adults were more likely than children to have an activity limitation, 12.4 percent compared to 8.5 percent.
• Table WORK 6 shows the percentage of the non-elderly population reporting a disability by selected demographic characteristics. While non-elderly adults were more likely than children to report an activity limitation, a higher percentage of children (7.4 percent) than adults (6.0 percent) were actually recipients of disability program benefits in 2011.
• For both non-elderly adults and children, the percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks with an activity limitation was higher than the percentages for Non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics.
• Among adults ages 18 – 64, rates of work disability were lower for Hispanics (6.1 percent) than they were for Non-Hispanic Whites (10.0 percent) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (12.7 percent).

Table WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Selected Characteristics: 2011

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

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

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

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2011.

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

Figure WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2011

(In percent)

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

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2011 and earlier reports.

---

• Figure WORK 7 shows the labor force participation rates for mothers with children under 18 years of age by marital status between 1975 and 2011. In 2011, regardless of marital status, the majority of mothers in the U.S. were engaged in the labor force.
• Between 1975 and 2011, labor force participation rates for never-married mothers with children under 18 markedly increased—rising from 42.2 percent in 1975 to 70.0 percent in 2011.
• Historically, divorced, widowed and separated mothers have had the highest rates of labor force participation among mothers. In 1975, 62.8 percent of divorced, widowed or separated mothers were in the labor force, rising to 79.8 percent in 2011.
• The labor force participation rate of married mothers with children under 18 also has followed an upward trend increasing from 44.9 percent in 1975 to 69.1 percent in 2011.
• Table WORK 7 shows both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of mothers with children under 18 years of age between 1975 and 2011.
• The employment rate for all mothers increased over the time period up until 2000 and has since reached a plateau. In 2011, the employment rate for married mothers with a spouse present was 65.0 percent, the employment rate for divorced, widowed and separated mothers was 70.3 percent, and the employment rate for never- married mothers was 56.8 percent.

Table WORK 7. Employment Status of Women with Children under 18 Years of Age: 1975-2011

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

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, March 2011 and earlier reports.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 1. Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2011

(In percent)

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

---

• Figure BIRTH 1 shows the percentage of births that were nonmarital by age group from 1940 to 2011 and Table BIRTH 1 shows corresponding estimates for selected years. Changes in nonmarital births reflect changes in the rate at which unmarried women have children, the rate at which married women have children and the rate at which women marry. The percentage of children born outside of marriage to women of all ages has increased over the past 70 years. In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to unmarried women. In 2011, the percentage increased to 40.7 percent.
• Teen births, as shown in Figure BIRTH 1 and Table BIRTH 1, show nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births. In 1940, 14.0 percent of births to teens were nonmarital. While the percentage of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased since the mid-1960s, growth in the percentage slowed in the mid- to late- 1990s before rising to 88.6 percent in 2011.
• Over the past 15 years, the percentage of nonmarital births among all births to women 20 to 24 years of age increased by 40 percent from 45.6 percent in 1996 to 64.0 percent in 2011 This compares to an increase of 16.1 percent in the percentage of nonmarital births among teen births over the same period.
• Since 1994, the percentage of births that are nonmarital remains steady among Black teens and all Black women. Among White teens and all White women, the trend continues upward (see Table C-1 in Appendix C for nonmarital birth data by age and race).

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

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

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity:
1940-2011

(In percent)

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

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

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

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

---

• Figure BIRTH 2 shows the percentage of all births to unmarried teens 15 to 19 years of age by race and ethnicity, and Table BIRTH 2 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1940 and 2011. Unlike BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital teen births as a percentage of all teen births, BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as a percentage of births to all women. This percentage is affected by several factors: the age distribution of women, the marriage rate among teens, the birth rate among unmarried teens and the birth rate among all other women.
• The percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens declined over the last five years, from 8.2 in 2003 to 7.4 percent in 2011.
• Among Black women, the percentage of all births that were nonmarital teen births decreased to 13.1 percent in 2011. This was the lowest percentage since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
• Among White women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens decreased to 6.6 percent in 2011.
• Among Hispanic women, the percentage of all births that were to unmarried teens increased from a low of 9.8 percent in 1990 to a high of 12.1 percent in 1998; since 2008 the rate has been decreasing. The rate in 2011 was 10.4.

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

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

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 3. Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates

Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried
Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2011

(Rate per 1,000)

Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried
Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2011

(Rate per 1,000)

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

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

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

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

---

• Figures BIRTH 3a and 3b show births per thousand unmarried teens between the ages of 15 to 17 and 18 to 19 from 1960 to 2011. Table BIRTH 3 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1950 and 2011.
• The birth rate per thousand unmarried teens ages 15 to 17 decreased in 2011 for both Black and White teens. The rate for Black teens ages 15 to 17 has been cut by more than two-thirds from 79.9 per thousand in 1991 to 24.7 per thousand in 2011. The 2011 rate is lower than in any other year since 1969, the first year in which data on Black women were collected.
• The birth rates of unmarried teens in the older age group (18 and 19 years) showed a decrease in 2011. For Black teens ages 18 and 19, the birth rate fell from a high of 147.7 per thousand in 1991 to a low of 100.4 per thousand in 2003 before again decreasing to 77.4 births per thousand in 2011.
• Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried White teens in both age groups rose steadily for over four decades. For White teens 15 to 17 years of age, the birth rate increased from 4.4 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 23.9 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. Subsequently their rate has generally followed a downward trend to 13.4 per thousand. In 2011, for 18 to 19 year olds, the rate increased from 8.5 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 to 55.8 births per thousand unmarried teens in 1994. Until 2008 their rate fluctuated between 50 and 54 but by 2011 had declined to 43 per thousand.
• While birth rates among unmarried Black teens remain high compared to rates for unmarried White teens, the gap between Black and White teens narrowed during the 1990s and 2000s.

Table BIRTH 3. Births per Thousand Unmarried Teen Women by Age and Race: 1950-2011

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

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

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 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factor 4. Never-married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race and Ethnicity: 1982-2011

(In percent)

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

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, http://www.census.gov/hhesfamilies/data/cps2011.html..

---

• Figure BIRTH 4 shows the percentage of all children living in families with a never-married female head of household by race and ethnicity from 1982 to 2011. Table BIRTH 4 shows corresponding estimates for selected years between 1960 and 2011. The percentage of children living in families with never-married female heads increased from 4.6 percent in 1982 to 11.3 percent in 2011.
• The percentage of White children living in families headed by never-married women has increased more than fourfold over the past 25 years, from 1.6 percent in 1982 to 6.8 percent in 2011.
• Among Hispanics of all races, the percentage of children living with a never-married female head of household more than doubled over the past 25 years, from 5.7 percent in 1982 to 13.3 percent in 2011.
• The percentage of Black children living in families with a never-married female head of household has been higher than the percentages for other groups throughout the time period. In 2011, 36.2 percent of Black children lived in families with a never-married female head of household compared to 6.8 percent for White children and 13.3 percent for Hispanic children.

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

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

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

¹ 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). Some of the increase between 1981 and 1982 is a result of these changes.

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

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

Source of CPS data: U.S. Census Bureau, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, http://www.census.gov/hhesfamilies/data/cps2011.html..

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

Appendix A. Program Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), replaced AFDC, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months)²⁰ on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with federal funds, increasing work participation rate requirements that states must meet, and broad state flexibility on program design. Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.5 billion per year, slightly above FY 1995 federal expenditures for the four component programs. States also must meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail work participation rate requirements).

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

---

²⁰ Many states limit TANF assistance to less than the 60-month federal maximum.

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

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

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

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. For example, under TANF there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” (UP) program, as there was under AFDC. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. It also is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. The vast majority of families receiving “assistance”²¹ are, in fact, receiving cash payments.

Another data issue concerns the treatment of families who receive cash and other forms of assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded by MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. Under TANF, some states use SSP programs to serve specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families, families who have exhausted their time limits). From 1996-2005, such families were not subject to federal time limits. States did not have to include them in calculating of their work participation rates. As of October 2006, such families are included in the work participation rate calculation, but may still be excluded from the application of the federal time limits on receipt of assistance. Starting with the 2004 edition, this Indicators report adds recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals²² (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state). Native Americans served through state TANF and SSP programs are included in these caseload counts, but families served through TANF programs operated by Tribal governments are excluded. Expenditures for SSPs are shown in Table TANF 5.

---

²¹ States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, child care, transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, generally should not be counted as recipients of TANF “assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” primarily includes payments directed at ongoing basic needs. It includes payments when individuals are participating in community service and work experience (or other work activities) as a condition of receiving payments (e.g., workfare). In addition, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits when families are not employed. It excludes, however, such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figures TANF 1 and TANF 2, and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1 through 6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7)²³ and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 15). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a and IND 4a in Chapter II.

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

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

(In millions)

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; NBER has established December 2007 as the beginning month of the current recession. 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 December 2011.

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

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2011 Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in constant 2011 dollars with the weighted average maximum benefit in constant 2011 dollars since 1988 indicates that the primary cause of the decline in the average monthly benefit has been the erosion of the real value of the maximum benefit due to inflation. This is due to the fact that the current value of the maximum benefits has increased less than the cost of living in most states since the late1980s.

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

Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads: 1962-2011

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

¹ Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases.

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

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

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

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups: 1970-2011

Calendar Year1	Total Recipients in the States & DC (thousands)	Child Recipients in the States & DC (thousands)	Recipients as a Percent of Total Population2	Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population3	Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population2	Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty3
1970	8,303	6,104	4.0	32.7	8.7	58.5
1971	10,043	7,303	4.8	39.3	10.5	69.2
1972	10,736	7,766	5.1	43.9	11.2	75.5
1973	10,738	7,763	5.1	46.7	11.3	80.5
1974	10,621	7,637	5.0	45.4	11.2	75.2
1975	11,131	7,928	5.2	43.0	11.8	71.4
1976	11,098	7,850	5.1	44.4	11.8	76.4
1977	10,856	7,632	4.9	43.9	11.7	74.2
1978	10,387	7,270	4.7	42.4	11.2	73.2
1979	10,140	7,057	4.5	38.9	11.0	68.0
1980	10,599	7,295	4.7	36.2	11.5	63.2
1981	10,893	7,397	4.7	34.2	11.7	59.2
1982	10,161	6,767	4.4	29.5	10.8	49.6
1983	10,569	6,967	4.5	29.9	11.1	50.1
1984	10,643	7,017	4.5	31.6	11.2	52.3
1985	10,672	7,073	4.5	32.3	11.3	54.4
1986	10,850	7,206	4.5	33.5	11.5	56.0
1987	10,841	7,240	4.5	33.6	11.5	56.4
1988	10,728	7,201	4.4	33.8	11.4	57.8
1989	10,798	7,286	4.4	34.3	11.5	57.9
1990	11,497	7,781	4.6	34.2	12.1	57.9
1991	12,728	8,601	5.0	35.6	13.2	60.0
1992	13,571	9,189	5.3	35.7	13.8	60.1
1993	14,007	9,460	5.4	35.7	14.0	60.2
1994	13,970	9,448	5.3	36.7	13.8	61.8
1995	13,242	9,013	5.0	36.4	13.0	61.5
1996	12,156	8,355	4.5	33.3	11.9	57.8
1997	10,224	7,0774	3.7	28.7	10.0	50.1
1998	8,215	5,781	3.0	23.8	8.1	42.9
1999	6,709	4,836	2.4	20.5	6.7	39.4
2000	6,043	4,415	2.1	19.1	6.1	38.1
2001	5,631	4,140	2.0	17.1	5.7	35.3
2002	5,534	4,073	1.9	16.0	5.6	33.6
2003	5,424	4,024	1.9	15.1	5.5	31.3
2004	5,283	3,935	1.8	14.3	5.4	30.2
2005	4,975	3,726	1.7	13.5	5.1	28.9
2006	4,537	3,428	1.5	12.4	4.6	26.7
2007	4,038	3,093	1.3	10.8	4.2	23.2
2008	3,972	3,036	1.3	10.0	4.1	21.6
2009	4,331	3,268	1.4	9.9	4.4	21.2
2010	4,553	3,405	1.5	9.8	4.6	20.9
2011	4,512	3,378	1.4	9.8	4.6	20.9

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 and likewise for child recipients. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates.

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2011 [In thousands]

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://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_c...).

Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970 - 2011 [In millions of dollars]

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

¹ Constant dollar adjustments to 2011 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year price index.

² Includes expenditures for services.

³ Administrative expenditures only.

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

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

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending: 2000 – 2011 [In millions of dollars]

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services (available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2011).

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962 – 2011

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2011 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal-year price index.

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

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

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

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

Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families: Selected Years 1969 – 2011

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

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

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

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

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

⁵ Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

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

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Benefits by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2011 [In millions of dollars]

	1978	1986	1988	1990	1994	1998	2000	2005	2010	2011
United States	$10,621	$15,236	$16,663	$18,543	$22,798	$14,614	$11,180	$10,739	$10,785	$9,673
Alabama	$78	$68	$62	$62	$92	$44	$36	$47	$49	$54
Alaska	17	46	54	60	113	77	55	41	40	41
Arizona	30	79	103	138	266	145	107	160	105	87
Arkansas	51	48	53	57	57	26	34	18	16	16
California	1,813	3,574	4,091	4,955	6,088	4,128	3,643	3,504	3,971	3,741
Colorado	74	107	125	137	158	80	48	75	71	78
Connecticut	168	223	218	295	397	305	166	126	93	90
Delaware	28	25	24	29	40	24	20	19	13	27
Dist. of Columbia	91	77	76	84	126	97	72	66	53	67
Florida	145	261	318	418	806	357	234	184	187	172
Georgia	103	223	266	321	428	313	180	117	48	51
Hawaii	83	73	77	99	163	153	141	82	73	74
Idaho	21	19	19	20	30	6	3	7	6	5
Illinois	699	886	815	839	914	771	269	122	72	106
Indiana	118	148	167	170	228	104	87	113	92	72
Iowa	107	170	155	152	169	104	79	76	70	69
Kansas	73	91	97	105	123	41	43	65	50	56
Kentucky	122	104	143	179	198	147	104	105	130	105
Louisiana	97	162	182	188	168	103	58	51	41	83
Maine	51	84	80	101	108	80	73	90	98	102
Maryland	166	250	250	296	314	192	196	124	124	89
Massachusetts	476	471	558	630	730	442	336	332	337	337
Michigan	780	1,248	1,231	1,211	1,132	589	386	412	546	186
Minnesota	164	322	338	355	379	276	193	137	96	95
Mississippi	33	74	85	86	82	60	18	27	20	20
Missouri	152	209	215	228	287	180	139	125	113	98
Montana	15	37	41	40	49	30	21	20	18	17
Nebraska	38	62	56	59	62	41	41	54	35	31
Nevada	8	16	20	27	48	39	28	33	42	45
New Hampshire	21	20	21	32	62	39	32	35	44	43
New Jersey	489	509	459	451	531	372	222	441	266	235
New Mexico	32	51	56	61	144	104	113	75	96	81
New York	1,689	2,099	2,140	2,259	2,913	2,149	1,554	1,762	1,668	1,444
North Carolina	138	138	206	247	353	211	140	108	75	58
North Dakota	14	20	22	24	26	22	12	11	8	7
Ohio	441	804	805	877	1,016	546	368	316	506	440
Oklahoma	74	100	119	132	165	72	78	33	24	22
Oregon	148	120	128	145	197	141	34	105	208	168
Pennsylvania	726	389	747	798	935	523	573	407	202	189
Rhode Island	59	79	82	99	136	117	105	72	40	36
South Carolina	52	103	91	96	115	52	91	73	46	37
South Dakota	18	15	21	22	25	14	10	12	16	15
Tennessee	77	100	125	168	215	108	146	121	134	131
Texas	122	281	344	416	544	315	248	181	107	104
Utah	41	55	61	64	77	50	40	45	37	31
Vermont	21	40	40	48	65	47	39	36	17	17
Virginia	136	179	169	177	253	123	186	143	123	120
Washington	175	375	401	438	610	450	312	262	373	307
West Virginia	53	109	107	110	126	52	49	43	43	34
Wisconsin	260	444	506	440	425	145	7	115	130	128
Wyoming	6	16	19	19	21	7	9	7	11	14

Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance or contingency fund payments.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management Services, ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report; www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2011.

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs And 2011 Total Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA. [In millions of dollars]

State	FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA & JOBS 1	FY 2011 Family Assistance Grants & Supplemental 2	FY 2011 Contingency Fund Awards 3	FY 2011 Total Awards	Change from FY 1996 Level To FY 2011	Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
United States	$15,067	$16,518	$332	$16,850	$1,783	12
Alabama	$79.0	$100.7	—	$100.7	$21.7	27
Alaska	60.7	49.8	—	49.8	-10.9	-18
Arizona	200.6	216.0	10.0	226.0	25.3	13
Arkansas	54.3	60.8	2.8	63.7	9.4	17
California	3,545.6	3,659.4	—	3,659.4	113.8	3
Colorado	138.9	145.0	6.8	151.8	12.9	9
Connecticut	221.1	266.8	—	266.8	45.7	21
Delaware	30.2	32.3	1.6	33.9	3.7	12
Dist. of Columbia	77.1	92.6	4.6	97.2	20.1	26
Florida	504.7	602.3	—	602.3	97.6	19
Georgia	301.2	355.4	—	355.4	54.2	18
Hawaii	98.4	98.9	4.9	103.9	5.5	6
Idaho	31.3	32.7	—	32.7	1.4	5
Illinois	593.8	585.1	—	585.1	-8.8	-1
Indiana	121.4	206.8	—	206.8	85.4	70
Iowa	129.3	131.0	—	131.0	1.7	1
Kansas	86.9	101.9	5.1	107.0	20.1	23
Kentucky	171.6	181.3	—	181.3	9.6	6
Louisiana	122.4	175.2	—	175.2	52.9	43
Maine	73.2	78.1	—	78.1	4.9	7
Maryland	207.6	229.1	11.5	240.6	32.9	16
Massachusetts	372.0	459.4	23.0	482.3	110.3	30
Michigan	581.5	775.4	38.8	814.1	232.6	40
Minnesota	239.3	263.4	—	263.4	24.1	10
Mississippi	68.6	92.7	—	92.7	24.1	35
Missouri	207.9	217.1	—	217.1	9.2	4
Montana	39.2	38.8	—	38.8	-0.4	-1
Nebraska	56.2	57.5	—	57.5	1.3	2
Nevada	41.2	46.4	2.2	48.6	7.3	18
New Hampshire	36.0	38.5	—	38.5	2.5	7
New Jersey	353.4	404.0	20.2	424.2	70.9	20
New Mexico	129.9	114.9	5.5	120.4	-9.5	-7
New York	2,332.7	2,442.9	122.1	2,565.1	232.4	10
North Carolina	311.9	326.1	15.1	341.2	29.3	9
North Dakota	24.5	26.4	—	26.4	1.9	8
Ohio	564.5	728.0	—	728.0	163.5	29
Oklahoma	125.1	145.3	—	145.3	20.2	16
Oregon	146.4	166.8	8.3	175.1	28.7	20
Pennsylvania	780.1	719.5	—	719.5	-60.6	-8
Rhode Island	82.9	95.0	—	95.0	12.2	15
South Carolina	99.4	100.0	5.0	105.0	5.5	6
South Dakota	19.7	21.3	—	21.3	1.5	8
Tennessee	178.9	205.8	9.6	215.4	36.4	20
Texas	437.1	521.1	—	521.1	84.0	19
Utah	68.0	81.4	—	81.4	13.4	20
Vermont	42.4	47.4	—	47.4	5.0	12
Virginia	134.6	158.3	—	158.3	23.6	18
Washington	393.2	380.5	19.0	399.6	6.4	2
West Virginia	95.1	110.2	—	110.2	15.0	16
Wisconsin	241.6	314.5	15.7	330.2	88.7	37
Wyoming	14.4	18.5	—	18.5	4.1	28

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

² The FY 2011 Family Assistance Grants and Supplemental differs from the previous edition and does not include the Tribal Family Assistance Grants.

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

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

Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State: October 1989 to December 2011 Peak [In thousands]

State	Peak Caseload Oct‘89 to Dec‘11	Date Peak Occurred Oct’89 to Dec‘11	Sept’96 AFDC Caseload	Dec ‘11 TANF & SSP Caseload	Percent Decline f from Sept’96 to Dec‘11	Percent Decline from the Peak to Dec‘11
United States	5,098	Mar-94	4,346	1,904	56	63
Alabama	52.3	Mar-93	40.7	23.2	43	56
Alaska	13.4	Apr-94	12.3	3.7	70	72
Arizona	72.8	Dec-93	61.8	18.3	70	75
Arkansas	27.1	Mar-92	22.1	8.1	63	70
California	933.1	Mar-95	870.3	602.0	31	35
Colorado	43.7	Dec-93	33.6	11.9	64	73
Connecticut	61.9	Mar-95	57.1	16.5	71	73
Delaware	11.8	Apr-94	10.5	5.5	47	53
Dist. of Columbia	27.5	Apr-94	25.1	8.8	65	68
Florida	259.9	Nov-92	200.3	55.1	72	79
Georgia	142.8	Nov-93	120.9	19.9	84	86
Hawaii	23.4	Jun-97	21.9	10.0	54	57
Idaho	9.5	Mar-95	8.4	1.9	78	80
Illinois	243.1	Aug-94	217.8	28.5	87	88
Indiana	76.1	Sep-93	49.7	27.9	44	63
Iowa	40.7	Apr-94	31.1	20.9	33	49
Kansas	30.8	Aug-93	23.4	14.9	36	52
Kentucky	84.0	Mar-93	70.4	30.9	56	63
Louisiana	94.7	May-90	66.5	10.5	84	89
Maine	24.4	Aug-93	19.7	15.5	22	36
Maryland	81.8	May-95	68.9	25.3	63	69
Massachusetts	115.7	Aug-93	84.3	50.5	40	56
Michigan	233.6	Apr-91	167.5	66.2	60	72
Minnesota	66.2	Jun-92	57.2	24.8	57	63
Mississippi	61.8	Nov-91	45.2	11.8	74	81
Missouri	93.7	Mar-94	79.1	39.2	50	58
Montana	12.3	Mar-94	9.8	3.5	64	72
Nebraska	17.2	Mar-93	14.4	8.1	44	53
Nevada	16.3	Mar-95	13.2	10.8	18	34
New Hampshire	11.8	Apr-94	8.9	6.0	32	49
New Jersey	132.6	Nov-92	100.8	34.9	65	74
New Mexico	34.9	Nov-94	33.0	20.4	38	42
New York	463.7	Dec-94	412.7	157.6	62	66
North Carolina	134.1	Mar-94	107.5	22.9	79	83
North Dakota	6.6	Apr-93	4.7	1.8	61	72
Ohio	269.8	Mar-92	201.9	99.5	51	63
Oklahoma	51.3	Mar-93	35.3	9.0	75	83
Oregon	43.8	Apr-93	28.5	33.6	-18	23
Pennsylvania	212.5	Sep-94	180.1	59.9	67	72
Rhode Island	22.9	Apr-94	20.5	6.5	68	71
South Carolina	54.6	Jan-93	42.9	17.8	58	67
South Dakota	7.4	Apr-93	5.7	3.3	43	56
Tennessee	112.6	Nov-93	96.2	62.2	35	45
Texas	287.5	Dec-93	238.8	49.6	79	83
Utah	18.7	Mar-93	14.0	6.2	56	67
Vermont	10.3	Apr-92	8.7	3.3	62	68
Virginia	76.0	Apr-94	60.5	36.0	40	53
Washington	104.8	Feb-95	96.8	62.9	35	40
West Virginia	41.9	Apr-93	37.6	10.4	72	75
Wisconsin	82.9	Jan-92	49.9	26.2	48	68
Wyoming	7.1	Aug-92	4.3	0.3	93	96

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

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Division of Data Collection and Analysis; http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_c....

Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years [In thousands]

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

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

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

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

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html.

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

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

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

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2011 [In percent]

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

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state and age available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html.

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2011 [In thousands]

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://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_c...).

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

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

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

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

In addition to the regular SNAP program, the legislation authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, was funded under a federal block grant of $2.0 billion in 2011. Unless noted otherwise, SNAP caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior to 2004, editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to SNAP, to be consistent with data published by the USDA.)

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

Certain households are categorically eligible for SNAP and therefore not subject to income or asset limits. Households are categorically eligible if all of their members receive SSI, cash or in-kind TANF benefits, or General Assistance. States have options on which in-kind TANF programs confer categorical eligibility.

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

All nonexempt adult applicants for SNAP must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the SNAP office. Nondisabled adults living in households without children can receive benefits for three months only, unless they work or participate in work-related activities. This time limit can be waived for participants living in States or parts of States with high unemployment who apply for a waiver. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, were admitted as refugees or asylees, or have at least five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

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

SNAP Program Data

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

• Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 2 and Figure SNAP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on SNAP as discussed below;
• Table SNAP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the SNAP caseload; and
• Tables SNAP 4 through SNAP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the SNAP through fiscal year 2011.

SNAP Caseload Trends (Table SNAP 1). Average monthly SNAP participation was 44.7 million persons in fiscal year 2011, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.2 million participants and exceeds the previous peak of 27.5 million recipients in fiscal year 1994. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data trends in SNAP caseload, specifically, SNAP recipiency and participation rates.

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

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

The increase in SNAP participation from 2000 to 2005 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to five percent, eligibility was restored to many legal immigrants, states took advantage of opportunities to expand categorical eligibility to those receiving noncash TANF benefits and services and to liberalize the treatment of vehicles, and efforts were made to streamline program administration and improve access for vulnerable populations. In response to these changes and the 2007-2009 recession, by 2011 the SNAP participation rate (the percent of eligible households) is estimated to be 83.3 percent. Between 2000 and 2011, SNAP participation increased by 12.1 million households (see Table IND 4b). Part of this increase was associated with an increase in the number of eligible households and part was associated with an increased participation rate among those households that were eligible.

SNAP Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table SNAP 2, were more than $7 billion higher in 2011 than they were in 2010, reflecting the increase in participation during that period. The total federal program costs were $75.7 billion in 2011, $70.1 billion in 2010, $56.0 billion in 2009, $39.2 billion in 2008, and $36.1 billion in 2007 (after adjusting for inflation). The average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table SNAP 2, were $133.85 per person in 2011, $137.40 per person in 2010, $130.80 per person in 2009, $106.30 in 2008 and $104.50 in 2007 (after adjusting for inflation).

SNAP Household Characteristics. As shown in Table SNAP 3, the proportion of SNAP households with earnings has increased, from about 20 percent for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, to 31 percent in 2011. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 42 percent in 1990 to 8 percent in 2011, following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. A large percentage of all SNAP households have children, although the proportion has declined from over 60 percent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s to 47 percent in 2011. The majority (83 percent in 2011) of households have gross incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

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

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2011

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2011

(In millions)

Note: Total persons includes participants receiving assistance in Guam and the Virgin Islands. Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, published online at www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2011Characteristics.pdf and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank.

Table SNAP 1. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2011

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.

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

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

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2011Characteristics.pdf and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank, the House Ways and Means Committee, 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-245.

Table SNAP 2. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2011

Note: Total federal cost and the cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but does not include the funding for the Puerto Rico nutrition assistance grant from the last quarter of FY 1982 (when it replaced Puerto Rico’s food stamp program) to the present. (Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance grant was $778 million in 1983 and rose to $2.0 billion in 2009.)

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 2011 level were made using a CPI-U-RS 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.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data (available at online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm) and http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011_state_activity.pdf.

Table SNAP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp/SNAP Households: Selected Years 1980–2011

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

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

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

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

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

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households, Fiscal Year 2011, Report No. SNAP-12-CHAR (available online at www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/private/2011Characteristics.pdf and earlier reports.

Table SNAP 4. Value of Food Stamps/SNAP Issued by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2011

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2004 to 2008 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/17SNAPfyBEN$.htm) and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2011 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm) and unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table SNAP 6. Food Stamp/SNAP Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years [In percent]

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

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Office of Food and Nutrition Service, (2000 to 2010 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm and unpublished data from the National Data Bank; U.S. Census Bureau (population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness, or disability. 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 $674 for an individual and $1,011 for a married couple (if both are eligible) in fiscal year 2011. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

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

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

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

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

• Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 and Figure SSI 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program;
• Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload;
• Tables SSI 7 through SSI 9 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 20011.

SSI Caseload Trends (Tables SSI 1 and SSI 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 7 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. Between 2000 and 2011, the caseload increased from 6.6 to 8.1 million beneficiaries, an average annual growth rate of 1.9 percent. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2011, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind, and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adults ages 18-64, and adults ages 65 or older). See also Tables IND 3c and IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 1. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to a low of 1.2 million persons in December 2004 and has since remained essentially unchanged. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 6.9 million in December 2011. 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 over the next three years, but has been increasing since 2000, reaching a little under 1.3 million children in 2011.

Several factors have contributed to the growth of the Supplemental Security Income program. Expansions in disability eligibility (particularly for mentally impaired adults and for children), increased outreach, overall growth in immigration, and transfers from state programs were among the key factors identified in a 1995 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups – adults with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the Zebley case, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.²⁴

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). The total amount of federally administered SSI benefits has increased over the past six years from $42.9 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2005 to over $49.5 billion in 2011, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly federally administered benefits per person were $502 in 2011, down (0.8 percent) from 2005 inflation adjusted benefit level of $506. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics (Table SSI 6). Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI aged recipients has decreased from 44 percent in 1980 to under 15 percent in 2011. During the same period, the percentage of disabled recipients increased from 55 percent in 1980 to 85 percent in 2011.

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

---

²⁴ The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the IFA for children was initiated.

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011 Source:

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

(In millions)

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

Figure SSI 2. Percent SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

Figure SSI 2. Percent SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2011

(Percent)

 

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974 – 2011 [In thousands]

¹ Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.

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

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2009 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/).

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates by Age: 1974 – 2011

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

² For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-245.

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011," Current Population Reports, Series P60-245 (available online at www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3. Federally Administered SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974 – 2011 (1) [In millions of dollars]

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

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

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

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report and Annual Report of the SSI Program.

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly Federally Administered SSI Benefits: 1975 – 2011 (1) [In millions of dollars]

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

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

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

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2011 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/.

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments by Eligibility Category [In thousands]

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

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

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2010 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2011/).

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of SSI Recipients by Selected Characteristics: Selected Years 1980-2011

Note: Data are for December of the year.

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

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

Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2011 and prior years (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2012/).

Table SSI 7. Total Federally Administered SSI Payments by State: Calendar Year 2011 [In thousands]

State	Total Federal	Federal SSI	Federally administered state supplementation
Other: N. Mariana Islands	6,488	6,488	–
Total	$49,520,299	$45,999,647	$3,520,652
Alabama	1,008,827	1,008,827	–
Alaska	72,999	72,999	–
Arizona	669,673	669,673	–
Arkansas	623,208	623,208	–
California	8,950,632	6,432,284	2,518,348
Colorado	402,296	402,296	–
Connecticut	355,905	355,905	–
Delaware	93,873	92,916	957
District of Columbia	168,816	163,883	4,933
Florida	2,910,520	2,910,520	–
Georgia	1,383,616	1,383,616	–
Hawaii	159,996	143,169	16,827
Idaho	160,378	160,378	–
Illinois	1,676,216	1,676,216	–
Indiana	746,266	746,266	–
Iowa	272,792	267,241	5,551
Kansas	278,894	278,894	–
Kentucky	1,119,215	1,119,215	–
Louisiana	1,021,658	1,021,658	–
Maine	203,023	203,023	–
Maryland	689,306	689,306	–
Massachusetts	1,246,492	1,057,765	188,727
Michigan	1,657,124	1,636,653	20,471
Minnesota	535,030	535,030	–
Mississippi	710,070	710,070	–
Missouri	800,313	800,313	–
Montana	102,040	101,061	979
Nebraska	150,012	150,012	–
Nevada	258,900	252,584	6,316
New Hampshire	109,650	109,650	–
New Jersey	1,024,340	943,432	80,908
New Mexico	346,396	346,396	–
New York	4,496,907	3,870,446	626,461
North Carolina	1,269,939	1,269,939	–
North Dakota	43,831	43,831	–
Ohio	1,855,017	1,855,017	–
Oklahoma	554,446	554,446	–
Oregon	458,850	458,850	–
Pennsylvania	2,287,266	2,250,100	37,167
Rhode Island	192,026	189,397	2,629
South Carolina	653,845	653,845	–
South Dakota	76,633	76,633	–
Tennessee	1,054,028	1,054,028	–
Texas	3,485,804	3,485,804	–
Utah	169,551	169,465	86
Vermont	90,404	80,112	10,292
Virginia	857,338	857,338	–
Washington	904,784	904,784	–
West Virginia	477,142	477,142	–
Wisconsin	641,678	641,678	–
Wyoming	35,846	35,846	–

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

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2012 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 8. State Recipiency Rates for Federally Administered SSI Payments by Age: 1996 & 2011 [In percent]

Note: Recipiency rates for 2010 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2011 and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates as Percent of Population by State: Selected Years 1975 – 2011 [In Percent]

State	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996 2	2001 2	2006 2	2011 2
Total 1	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.9	2.5	2.3	2.4	2.6
Alabama	4.0	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.9	3.6	3.6	3.6
Alaska	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.8	1.2	1.4	1.7	1.8
Arizona	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.2	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.7
Arkansas	4.1	3.4	3.1	3.2	3.8	3.2	3.3	3.7
California	3.1	3.0	2.6	2.9	3.3	3.2	3.4	3.4
Colorado	1.4	1.0	0.9	1.1	1.5	1.2	1.2	1.3
Connecticut	0.8	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.7
Delaware	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.6	1.5	1.6	1.8
District of Columbia	2.2	2.4	2.5	2.7	3.7	3.5	3.7	4.2
Florida	1.9	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.7
Georgia	3.3	2.8	2.6	2.5	2.7	2.4	2.2	2.4
Hawaii	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.8
Idaho	1.1	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.8
Illinois	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.6	2.3	2.0	2.0	2.1
Indiana	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.6	1.5	1.6	1.9
Iowa	1.0	0.9	1.0	1.2	1.5	1.4	1.5	1.6
Kansas	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.5	1.4	1.4	1.6
Kentucky	2.8	2.6	2.7	3.1	4.4	4.3	4.3	4.4
Louisiana	3.9	3.2	2.9	3.2	4.2	3.7	3.7	3.9
Maine	2.3	1.9	1.9	1.9	2.2	2.3	2.5	2.7
Maryland	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.9
Massachusetts	2.3	2.2	1.9	2.0	2.7	2.6	2.7	3.0
Michigan	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.5	2.2	2.1	2.2	2.7
Minnesota	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.4	1.3	1.5	1.7
Mississippi	5.2	4.4	4.3	4.4	5.2	4.5	4.2	4.2
Missouri	2.1	1.7	1.6	1.7	2.2	2.0	2.1	2.3
Montana	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.3	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.8
Nebraska	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.3	1.2	1.3	1.4
Nevada	1.0	0.8	0.9	1.0	1.4	1.3	1.4	1.6
New Hampshire	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.4
New Jersey	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.4	1.8	1.7	1.8	2.0
New Mexico	2.3	1.9	1.8	2.1	2.7	2.6	2.8	3.0
New York	2.2	2.1	2.0	2.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.5
North Carolina	2.7	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.7	2.3	2.3	2.3
North Dakota	1.3	1.0	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.2
Ohio	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.4	2.3	2.1	2.2	2.6
Oklahoma	3.0	2.2	1.8	1.9	2.3	2.1	2.3	2.5
Oregon	1.1	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.5	1.6	1.7	2.0
Pennsylvania	1.2	1.4	1.4	1.6	2.2	2.4	2.6	2.9
Rhode Island	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.7	2.6	2.7	2.9	3.1
South Carolina	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.6	3.0	2.6	2.4	2.5
South Dakota	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.9	1.7	1.6	1.7
Tennessee	3.2	2.8	2.7	2.9	3.4	2.8	2.7	2.8
Texas	2.2	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.2	2.0	2.2	2.5
Utah	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.7	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0
Vermont	1.9	1.7	1.8	1.8	2.2	2.0	2.1	2.5
Virginia	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	2.0	1.8	1.8	1.9
Washington	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.7	1.7	1.9	2.1
West Virginia	2.4	2.1	2.2	2.6	3.8	4.1	4.3	4.4
Wisconsin	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.7	1.9
Wyoming	0.7	0.4	0.5	0.8	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.2

¹ The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively.

² For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that year. For 1994-2009 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2011, and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

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

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

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

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and SNAP alone, excluding SSI. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been much lower – only 3.2 percent – in 2011 if based on income from TANF and SNAP, as opposed to 5.2 percent when counting income from all three programs (TANF, SNAP, and SSI).

There also is significant variation across age groups in the programs upon which individuals are dependent. The elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and SNAP; whereas 2.3 percent of elderly persons are dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, very few, 0.5 percent, are dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and SNAP. In contrast, children are primarily dependent on TANF and SNAP.

Dependency on AFDC/TANF and SNAP receipt has generally declined since 1995 but there is a noteworthy uptick in 2008 given the great recession of 2007-2009. Dependency on SSI receipt alone has remained relatively stable overall as shown in Table B-2. The difference between the standard definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based on TANF and SNAP only) has varied over time. In 1995, over two-thirds (67.9 percent) of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition also were dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 2007, the proportion had dropped to 51.4 percent and has since increased to 61.5 percent in 2011.

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2011

Note: Income is measured as total family income.

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

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

Table B-2. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1995-2011

	TANF, SSI & SNAP	TANF & SNAP	SSI Only
1995	5.3	3.6	1.1
1998	3.8	2.1	1.3
1999	3.3	1.7	1.2
2000	3.0	1.5	1.2
2001	3.1	1.4	1.3
2002	3.2	1.5	1.3
2003	3.6	1.9	1.3
2004	3.7	2.0	1.3
2005	3.8	2.1	1.4
2006	3.7	1.9	1.4
2007	3.5	1.8	1.3
2008	4.0	2.1	1.4
2009	4.6	2.7	1.4
2010	5.3	3.2	1.4
2011	5.2	3.2	1.4

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

Appendix C. Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women within Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity: Selected Years 1940-2011

Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. In particular, the increases from 1993 to 1994 to a great extent reflect improvements in the completeness of reporting of nonmarital births in two states, Michigan and Texas.

¹ From 1940 to 1965, the percentage of births to unmarried Black women (shown in italics) includes all unmarried Non-white.

² Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for Hispanics have been available only since 1980, with 22 states reporting in 1980, representing 90 percent of the Hispanic population. Hispanic birth data were reported by 23 states and the District of Columbia in 1985; 48 states and the District of Columbia in 1990; 49 states and the District of Columbia in 1991 and 1992; and all 50 states and the District of Columbia since 1993.

³ Teens under 15 included in Total Teen but not shown separately.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1980,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 32, No. 6 Supplement; “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1985,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 11 Supplement; “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16); “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), and earlier reports. Additional calculations by ASPE staff.

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2011

	1960	1970	1980	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2011
United States	5	11	18	28	32	33	37	41	41
Alabama	11	14	22	30	34	34	36	42	42
Alaska	5	9	16	26	30	33	36	38	37
Arizona	NA	9	19	33	38	39	43	45	45
Arkansas	NA	13	20	29	33	36	40	45	45
California	NA	NA	21	32	32	33	36	41	40
Colorado	NA	9	13	21	25	25	27	24	24
Connecticut	NA	NA	18	27	31	29	32	37	38
Delaware	9	15	24	29	35	38	44	47	49
Dist of Columbia	20	38	56	65	66	60	56	55	54
Florida	9	14	23	32	36	38	43	48	48
Georgia	NA	NA	23	33	35	37	41	46	45
Hawaii	5	10	18	25	29	32	36	38	38
Idaho	NA	NA	8	17	20	22	23	27	27
Illinois	6	13	23	32	34	35	37	41	40
Indiana	4	8	16	26	32	35	40	43	43
Iowa	2	7	10	21	25	28	32	34	34
Kansas	3	7	12	22	26	29	34	38	37
Kentucky	5	8	15	24	29	31	36	41	42
Louisiana	9	15	23	37	42	46	48	53	53
Maine	3	7	14	23	28	31	35	41	42
Maryland	NA	NA	25	30	33	35	37	42	41
Massachusetts	NA	NA	16	25	26	27	30	35	35
Michigan	4	11	16	26	34	33	37	42	42
Minnesota	3	8	11	21	24	26	30	33	33
Mississippi	14	17	28	40	45	46	49	55	54
Missouri	6	11	18	29	32	35	38	40	40
Montana	NA	NA	13	24	26	31	35	36	37
Nebraska	NA	8	12	21	24	27	31	34	33
Nevada	4	11	13	25	42	36	41	44	44
New Hampshire	NA	6	11	17	22	25	27	33	35
New Jersey	4	10	21	24	28	29	31	35	36
New Mexico	NA	NA	16	35	43	46	51	52	51
New York	NA	NA	24	33	38	37	39	42	41
North Carolina	9	12	19	29	31	33	38	42	41
North Dakota	3	7	9	18	24	28	32	33	33
Ohio	4	NA	18	29	33	35	39	44	43
Oklahoma	NA	8	14	25	30	34	39	42	42
Oregon	3	7	15	26	29	30	33	36	36
Pennsylvania	4	10	18	29	32	33	37	42	42
Rhode Island	3	7	16	26	31	35	39	45	45
South Carolina	12	15	23	33	37	40	43	48	47
South Dakota	3	7	13	23	28	33	36	38	39
Tennessee	9	12	20	30	33	35	40	44	44
Texas	5	9	13	18	30	31	38	42	42
Utah	2	4	6	14	16	17	18	19	19
Vermont	NA	NA	14	20	25	28	32	39	40
Virginia	8	11	19	26	29	30	32	36	36
Washington	3	9	14	24	27	28	31	33	33
West Virginia	6	6	13	25	31	32	37	44	44
Wisconsin	3	8	14	24	27	29	32	37	37
Wyoming	2	7	8	20	26	29	33	34	35

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013 and earlier reports.

Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race and Ethnicity and State: 1994 and 2011

* Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1), June 28, 2013 and earlier reports.

Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by State: Selected Years 1960-2011 [Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State	1960	1970	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2011
United States	89	68	53	51	60	56	48	40	34	31
Alabama	104	90	68	64	71	69	61	50	44	41
Alaska	128	103	64	56	65	55	49	37	38	36
Arizona	112	79	65	67	76	74	68	58	42	39
Arkansas	116	93	75	73	80	72	66	59	53	51
California	103	69	53	53	71	67	47	39	32	29
Colorado	97	67	50	48	55	52	51	43	33	29
Connecticut	54	44	31	31	39	39	31	23	19	16
Delaware	100	73	51	51	55	55	48	44	31	29
Dist. of Columbia	132	116	62	72	93	85	53	63	45	43
Florida	117	86	59	58	69	60	51	42	32	30
Georgia	117	101	72	68	76	70	63	53	41	38
Hawaii	77	66	51	48	61	49	46	36	33	30
Idaho	102	66	59	47	51	49	43	38	33	28
Illinois	63	63	56	51	63	58	48	39	33	30
Indiana	100	75	57	52	59	57	49	43	37	35
Iowa	73	53	43	35	41	38	34	33	29	25
Kansas	94	65	57	52	56	52	46	41	39	35
Kentucky	108	86	72	63	68	62	55	49	46	44
Louisiana	113	84	76	72	74	70	62	49	48	45
Maine	93	65	47	42	43	34	29	24	21	21
Maryland	100	69	43	46	53	47	41	32	27	25
Massachusetts	51	40	28	29	35	33	26	22	17	15
Michigan	80	69	45	43	59	49	40	32	30	28
Minnesota	64	44	35	31	36	33	30	26	23	19
Mississippi	121	103	84	76	81	79	70	61	55	50
Missouri	99	72	58	54	63	55	49	42	37	35
Montana	97	62	48	44	48	42	37	35	35	29
Nebraska	82	54	45	40	42	38	38	34	31	27
Nevada	118	94	59	55	73	73	63	50	39	36
New Hampshire	76	55	34	32	33	30	23	18	16	14
New Jersey	58	50	35	34	41	38	32	23	20	19
New Mexico	127	79	72	73	78	74	66	62	53	49
New York	57	51	35	36	44	42	33	27	23	21
North Carolina	104	88	58	57	68	63	59	48	38	35
North Dakota	68	44	42	36	35	33	27	30	29	28
Ohio	84	65	52	50	58	53	46	39	34	32
Oklahoma	112	83	75	69	67	64	60	54	50	48
Oregon	88	58	51	43	55	50	43	33	28	26
Pennsylvania	67	53	41	40	45	41	34	30	27	25
Rhode Island	56	43	33	36	44	40	34	31	22	21
South Carolina	109	89	65	63	71	63	58	51	43	39
South Dakota	83	49	53	46	47	41	38	38	35	34
Tennessee	103	88	64	61	72	67	60	55	43	41
Texas	115	85	74	72	75	76	69	62	52	47
Utah	86	56	65	50	49	41	38	33	28	23
Vermont	74	54	39	36	34	28	23	19	18	17
Virginia	103	76	48	46	53	48	41	34	27	25
Washington	88	60	47	45	53	48	39	31	27	25
West Virginia	87	72	68	54	57	53	47	43	45	44
Wisconsin	64	46	40	39	43	38	35	30	26	23
Wyoming	112	71	79	59	56	48	42	43	39	35

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2011,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (1),June 28, 2013 and earlier reports available online at (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm).

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

* Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

‡ Rates not deemed to be reliable due to small number of births or number of women in the group.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Trends in Characteristics of Births by State: United States, 1990, 1995, 2000-2002,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (19), May 2004; and Declines in State Teen Birth Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin, NCHS Data Brief, No. 123, May 2013.

Appendix D. Technical Notes

Age Categories

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

Race and Ethnicity

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

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

Family Structure Categories

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

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

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

Annual and Monthly Measures

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

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

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

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

Unit of Analysis

The individual, rather than the family or household, is the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report. The individual’s dependency status, however, is based on total family income, taking into account means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family.²⁵ The introductory chapter of this report and our dependence indicators in Chapter II, for example, show the percentage of individuals that are dependent (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, and Indicator 6) according to annual total family income (including annual total family benefit receipt). This is similar to estimates of the number of individuals who are poor, which are based on the characteristics and total income of the family in which they live (see ECON 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).

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

Spells

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

Data Source for Dependency Measure

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

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

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

Figure D-1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987 – 2011

(In percent)

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year. Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. Dependency rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income and veterans’ pension benefits are included in means-tested assistance income for SIPP-based receipt and dependency estimates prior to 2001.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2007, analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model, and unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.