Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid (see Table TANF 3) but does not include emergency assistance payments. NA denotes data not available.
Monthly Benefit per Recipient
Average Number of Persons per Family
Monthly Benefit per Family (not reduced by Child Support)
Weighted Average 1 Maximum Benefit (per 3-person Family)
(1) Single Parent 1
(2) Unemployed Parent
(3) Child Support Collections 2
(4) Net Benefits 3 (1) + (2) minus (3)
(5) Net Benefits ( 1996 dollars) 4
> 1 Includes payments to two-parent families where one adult is incapacitated.
Calendar Year 1
Total Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands)
Child Recipients in the States & DC (in thousands)
Recipients as a Percent of Total Population 2
Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population 3
Recipients as a Percentof Pretransfer Poverty Population 4
Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Po
Average Monthly Number(In thousands)
Children asAverage 1
Total Families 1
Unemployed Parent Families
Unemployed Parent Recipients
a Percent of Total Recipients
Number of Children per Family
Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 plus unpublished data and Fifth TANF Annual Report to Congress, 2003.
AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8-14). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since 1993, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and September 2002 ranges from 94 percent (Wyoming) t
AFDC/TANF Recipient Characteristics (Table TANF 7). With the dramatic declines in the welfare rolls since the implementation of TANF, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding how the composition of the caseload has changed. Two striking trends are the increases in the proportion of child-only cases and in employment among adult recip
AFDC/TANF Expenditures (Tables TANF 3-6 and Figure TANF 2). Tables TANF 3, 4 and 5 show trends in expenditures on AFDC and TANF. Table TANF 3 tracks both programs, breaking out the costs of benefits and administrative expenses. It also shows the division between federal and state spending. Table TANF 4 breaks out the benefits paid under the sing
AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Figure TANF 1, Tables TANF 1-2). Welfare caseloads have declined dramatically during the past several years. In fiscal year 2001, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 5.4 million persons, 57 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in fiscal year 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfar
The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figure TANF 1 and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1-6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7) and
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.
Legislative authority for the TANF block grant program expired September 2002. In February 2002, President Bush proposed a plan, Working Toward Independence, to strengthen welfare reform, in order to help families remaining on welfare and other low-income families move toward self-sufficiency. In May 2002, the House of Representatives passed HR 47