< Back to Current Version

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload

Changes from August 21, 2013 to August 5, 2014

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Assistance Caseload Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy August 21, 20135, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43187 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress TANF: TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Summary The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant provides states, territories, and Indian tribes with federal grants for benefits and services intended to ameliorate the effects, and and address the root causes, of child poverty. It was created in the 1996 welfare reform law, and is most associated with policies such as time limits and work requirements that sought to address concerns about “welfare dependency” of single mothers who received cash assistance. This report examines the characteristics of the TANF cash assistance caseload in FY2010FY2011, and compares it with selected post-welfare reform years (FY2001 and FY2006) and pre-welfare reform years (FY1988 and FY1994). The size of the caseload first increased, from 3.7 million families per month in FY1988 to 5.0 million families per month in FY1994, and then declined dramatically to 2.2 million families in FY2001 and 1.9 million families in FY2010FY2011. Over this period, some of the characteristics of the TANF cash assistance caseload have remained fairly stable, and other characteristics have changed. Most cash assistance families are small; 51.72% of all TANF cash assistance families in FY2010FY2011 had one child. Cash assistance families also frequently have young children; 57.9% in FY201058.5% in FY2011 had a pre-school-aged child. The majority of the cash assistance caseload has also been composed of racial and ethnic minorities. By FY2010FY2011, the largest racial/ethnic group of TANF cash assistance children was Hispanic. In that year, of all TANF assistance child recipients, 34.14% were Hispanic, 31.732.5% were African-American, and 27.125.5% were non-Hispanic white. The growth in Hispanic children as a percent of all TANF assistance children is due entirely to their population growth—not an increase in the rate at which Hispanic children receive TANF. Additionally, the majority of adult recipients today, as in the past, are women—specifically, single mothers. However, the share of the caseload comprised of families with an adult recipient has declined substantially in the post-welfare reform period. Almost 4 out of 10 families receiving TANF cash assistance in FY2010FY2011 represented “child-only” families, in which benefits are paid on behalf of the child in the family but the adult caretaker is ineligible for TANF. The three main components of the “child-only” caseload are (1) families with a disabled parent receiving federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI); (2) families with an ineligible, immigrant parent but with eligible citizen children; and (3) families with children being cared for by a nonparent relative, such as a grandparent, aunt, or uncle. Each of the three categories of families differs in their characteristics from TANF cash assistance families with an adult recipient; there are also differences in characteristics among families in the three major “child-only” categories. TANF policies generally date back to the 1996 welfare law and the welfare reform debates of the 1980s and 1990s, and do not necessarily address the current composition of the cash assistance caseload. The major performance measure used to evaluate TANF is the work participation rate, a measure not relevant to TANF “child-only” families. Many of TANF’s child-only families are affected by social policies other than TANF (i.e., federal disability, immigration, and child protection policies). However, these families are also affected by TANF, and there are currently no federal rules for assessing how TANF funds are used to improve their well-being. Options that have been raised include requiring states to provide more information to the federal government and public on benefits and services afforded to “child-only” families. Congress could also either establish performance goals and measures, or, alternatively, require states to establish such goals and measures for “child-only” families. Congressional Research Service TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Brief History of Cash Assistance ............................................................................................... 2 Trends in the Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance ................................................. 3 Trends in Caseload Characteristics: FY1988 to FY2010FY2011 ................................................................. 4 TANF Families by Category...................................................................................................... 76 Characteristics of TANF Families, By Family Category: FY2010FY2011............................................ 109 Number of Children .......................................................................................................... 1110 Age of Children ................................................................................................................. 1210 Race and Ethnicity of Child Recipients ............................................................................ 1211 Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 13 Non-TANF Policies Affecting “Non-Traditional” Cash Assistance Families12 TANF Families with Employed Adults ......................... 14 TANF Families with Employed Adults ............................................................................. 1413 TANF “Child-Only“ Families ............................................................................................... 15... 13 Coordination Between TANF and Other Programs Affecting TANF Cash Assistance Families Assistance Families .................................................................................................................... 15............ 14 TANF Policies for “Nontraditional” Welfare Families? .......................................................... 1614 Figures Figure 1. Number of Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance: 1959-2012 .......2013 ................................... 4 Figure 2. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance, byBy Category:, Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2010FY2011 ....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Families Receiving Cash Assistance by Family Category: FY2010 .............................. 10 Tables Table 1. Summary Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance Families: Selected Years FY1988 to FY2010 ........................ FY2011 ................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Number of Child Recipients: FY2010FY2011 .......................................................................................................... 1110 Table 3. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Age of Youngest Child: FY2010 FY2011................................................................................................. 1211 Table 4. TANF Child Recipients: by Family Category and Race/Ethnicity: FY2010FY2011 ................... 1312 Table A-1. Families Receiving Cash Assistance by Family Category: Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2010FY2011 ..................................................................................................................... 1716 Table A-2. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload By Family Category and State: FY2010FY2011 ................. 1816 Table A-3. Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to All Children and Poor Children by Race/Ethnicity, Selected Years ................................................................................................... 21 Congressional Research Service TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload19 Appendixes Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 1716 Congressional Research Service TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 2119 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 2119 Congressional Research Service TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Introduction The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant provides states, territories, and Indian tribes with federal grants for benefits and services intended to ameliorate the effects, and and address the root causes, of child poverty. TANF funds can be used in any manner a state can reasonably calculate helps it achieve the goals of (1) providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits through work, job preparation, and marriage; (3) preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock births; and (4) encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Thus, TANF truly is a broadbased block grant with broad discretion for the states to spend funds to meet federal goals. TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law and is typically thought of as the federal program that helps states fund their cash assistance programs for needy families with children. Moreover, TANF is also most associated with the 1996 welfare reform policies imposing work requirements and time limits on families receiving assistance. Most of TANF’s federal rules and requirements relate to families receiving assistance.1 TANF’s performance is measured on state welfare-to-work efforts, with states assessed based on numerical work participation standards. However, basic assistance—what many call “cash welfare”—accounted for only 3028.8% of all TANF funding in FY2010FY2011.2 Additionally, many of the families that received TANF cash assistance in FY2010FY2011 represented familiesfamily types that were not the focus of debate in 1996, and are not not subject to TANF work requirements and time limits. These are families with children cared for by adults who are not themselves recipients of TANF: disabled parents receiving Supplemental Supplemental Security Income (SSI); immigrant parents who are ineligible for TANF assistance but have citizen children who are eligible; and nonparent relative caregivers, such as grandparents, aunts, and uncles. In FY2010, almost 4 in 10FY2011, 37.4% of families receiving TANF were composed of children in families cared for by adults who themselves were not recipients of TANF. This report examines the TANF cash assistance caseload3, focusing on how the composition and characteristics of families receiving assistance have changed over time. It first provides a brief history of cash assistance for needy families with children, discussing how policy became focused on moving the predominately single parents who headed these families from welfare to work. It then traces the changes in the caseload composition since the 1996 welfare reform law, from a caseload dominated by unemployed single parents to a diverse caseload that had different routes to the benefit rolls as well as different circumstances on the rolls. It provides detail on caseload characteristics in FY2010FY2011, using data that states are required to report to the federal government. 1 CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk. 2 For a discussion of the implications of a large share of TANF funding for “noncash benefits and services,” see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, 13-431, May 2013, pp. 25-26, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654614.pdf. 3 Technically, some families discussed in this report may receive their “assistance” in forms other than cash. “Assistance” as used in TANF denotes ongoing benefits to families in order to meet basic needs. In addition to cash, it might include benefits paid in vouchers. It might also include transportation or child care assistance for nonworking families. A very small portion (0. 2%) of TANF assistance families are not reported in receipt of cash assistance. However, to distinguish families receiving ongoing benefits to meet basic needs from the wide range of TANF benefits and services, this report uses the common term “cash assistance” as synonymous with the more technical term “assistance.” Congressional Research Service 1 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload The report is intended to complement tabulations of these data already released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).4 This report does not describe TANF rules or provide current statistics on the TANF caseload or expenditures. For an overview of TANF, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An Introduction, by Gene Falk. It also does not describe individuals and families who receive TANF benefits and services other than cash assistance. Federal law does not require states to report on their numbers or characteristics. Brief History of Cash Assistance The modern form of assistance for needy families with children has its origins in the early-1900s “mothers’ pension programs,” established by state and local governments. These programs provided economic aid to needy families headed by a mother so that children could be cared for in homes rather than in institutions. Federal involvement in funding these programs dates back to the Great Depression, and the creation of the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. ADC provided grants to states to help them aid families with “dependent children,” who were deprived of the economic support of one parent because of his death, absence, or incapacitation. The legislative history of the 1935 act explicitly stated that the purpose of ADC payments was to permit mothers to stay at home, rather than work: The very phrases “ mothers’ aid “ and “ mothers’ pensions “ place an emphasis equivalent to misconstruction of the intention of these laws. These are not primarily aids to mothers but defense measures for children. They are designed to release from the wage-earning role the person whose natural function is to give her children the physical and affectionate guardianship necessary not alone to keep them from falling into social misfortune, but more affirmatively to rear them into citizens capable of contributing to society.5 Over time, a combination of changes in social policy and changes in economic and social circumstances made cash assistance to needy families (often called “welfare”) among the most controversial of federal programs. The Social Security Act was amended to provide social insurance protection for families headed by widows (survivors’ benefits, added in 1939) and those with disabled members (disability benefits, added in 1956). This left families headed by a single mother with the father alive, but absent, as the primary group aided by ADC, later renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The cash assistance caseload also became increasingly nonwhite. States were first given the option to aid two-parent families beginning in 1961, but were not required to extend such aid until the enactment of the Family Support Act in 1988. Even with the extension of aid to two-parent families, this group never became a large part of the caseload, and most adult TANF cash assistance recipients continue to be single mothers. The issue of whether lone mothers should work was also much debated. The intent of ADC to allow single mothers to stay home and raise their children was often met with resistance at the state and local level. It was also contrary to the reality that low-income women, particularly 4 For HHS tabulations of the TANF national data files for FY2010FY2011 and earlier years, see http://archivewww.acf.hhs.gov/ programs/ofa/character/index.htmlresource-library/search?area[2377]=2377&topic[2353]=2353. 5 See the Report of the Committee on Economic Security to the President, transmitted to the President on January 15, 1935. Congressional Research Service 2 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload women of color, were sometimes expected to, and often did, work.6 Further, the increase in women’s labor force participation in the second half of the 20th Century—particularly among married white women—eroded support for payments that permitted mothers to remain at home and out of the workforce. Beginning in 1967, federal policy changes were made to encourage, and then require, work among AFDC mothers. In the 1980s, there was increasing attention to “welfare dependency.” Research at that time showed that while many mothers were on cash assistance for a short period of time, a substantial minority of mothers remained on the rolls for long periods of time.7 Additionally, experimentation on “welfare-to-work” initiatives found that requiring participation in work or job preparation activities could effectively move single mothers off the benefit rolls and into jobs.8 “Welfare reform,” aiming to replace AFDC with new programs and policies for needy families with children, was debated over a period of four decades (the 1960s through the 1990s). These debates culminated in a number of changes in providing aid to low-income families with children in the mid-1990s, creating a system of expanded aid to working families (e.g., increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit and funding for child care subsidies) and the creation of TANF, which established time limits and revamped work requirements for the cash assistance programs for needy families with children. Most TANF policy today reflects the history of cash aid to needy families with children headed by a single mother and the policy debates of the 1980s and earlyto-mid 1990s. Some things remain the same from that period—children remain the age group most likely to be poor, and children living with single mothers have very high poverty rates. However, some things are very different from the period when TANF was created, including the size and composition of the cash assistance caseload. Trends in the Number of Families Receiving Cash Assistance Figure 1 shows the trend in the average monthly number of families receiving cash assistance from TANF and its predecessor program (AFDC, ADC) from 1959 through 20122013. The figure shows two distinct periods of rapid caseload growth. The first occurred from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. The second followed a period of relative stability in the caseload (around 3.5 million families) and occurred from 1989 to 1994. Following 1994, the caseload declined. It declined rapidly in the late 1990s, with continuing declines, albeit at a slower rate, from 2001 to 2008. The caseload increased again from 2008 through 2010 coincident with the economic slump associated with the 2007-2009 recession. That latest period of caseload increase was far less rapid and much smaller than the two earlier periods of caseload growth. 6 Historically, nonwhite women had a higher labor force participation rate than did white women. This especially held true for married women. For documentation of the increase in women’s labor force participation by marital status and race, see Claudia Golden, “The Evolution of the Female Labor Force,” in Understanding the Gender Gap, An Economic History of American Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 10-57. For a discussion of nonfinancial restrictions to cash assistance, including those related to work, in the earlier years of ADC, see Winifred Bell, Aid to Dependent Children (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965). 7 See Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood, Transitions from Welfare to Work, Urban Systems and Engineering Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1983; and David T. Ellwood, Targeting “Would-Be” Long-Term Recipients of AFDC, Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, 1986. 8 For a discussion of this research, see CRS Report R42767, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare-to-Work Revisited , by Shannon Bopp and Gene Falk. Congressional Research Service 3 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Figure 1. Number of Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance: 1959-2013 (Families in millions) Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based onCash Assistance: 1959-2012 Number of Families, in Millions March 1994: 5.1 million 5 4 3 December 2011: 1.9 million 2 Sept. 2012: 1.8 million July 2008: 1.7 million 1 Jul-11 Jul-09 Jul-07 Jul-05 Jul-03 Jul-01 Jul-99 Jul-97 Jul-95 Jul-93 Jul-91 Jul-89 Jul-87 Jul-85 Jul-83 Jul-81 Jul-79 Jul-77 Jul-75 Jul-73 Jul-71 Jul-69 Jul-67 Jul-65 Jul-63 Jul-61 Jul-59 0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), with data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notes: Number of families receiving cash assistance includes families receiving ADC (renamed AFDC in 1962); familiesShaded areas represent recessionary periods. Families receiving TANF cash assistance; and, since October 1, 1999, 1999 include families receiving cash assistance from form separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement (MOE) (MOE) requirement. Trends in Caseload Characteristics: FY1988 to FY2010FY2011 The increases in the cash assistance caseload from 1989 to 1994, and its decline thereafter, were also associated with changes in the character of the caseload. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the family cash assistance caseload for selected years: FY1988, FY1994, FY2001, FY2006, and FY2010FY2011.9 The most dramatic change in caseload characteristics is the 9 growth in the share of families with no adult recipients. In FY2011, 37.4% of TANF assistance families had no adult recipient; in contrast, in FY1988 only 9.8% of all cash assistance families 9 Caseload characteristic data in this report are based on information states are required to report to HHS under their AFDC and TANF programs. Efforts were made to make the data comparable across the years, but some changes in reporting as well as other program requirements affect the comparability of the data. The major difference is that for FY2010FY2011, TANF families “with an adult recipient” include those families where the adult has been time-limited or sanctioned but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit. These are technically “child-only” cases, because the adult does not receive a benefit. However, since FY2007 such families have been subject to TANF work participation standards and thus the policy affecting them is more comparable to that of a family with an adult recipient than a (continued...) Congressional Research Service 4 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload growth in the share of families with no adult recipients. In FY2010, 38.9% of TANF assistance families had no adult recipient; in contrast, in FY1988 only 9.8% of all cash assistance families “child-only” family. For years before FY2007, these families were not subject to work participation standards and are classified together with other “child-only” families. The data to identify them separately prior to FY2007 are not comparable to data for FY2007 and subsequent years. Congressional Research Service 4 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload had no adult recipient. These are families with ineligible adults (sometimes parents, sometimes other relatives) but whose children are eligible and receive benefits. Some other notable trends in the characteristics of the caseload include the following: • Most families receiving assistance are small. The average number of recipients in a family declined from 2.9 in FY1988 to 2.4 in FY2010. Some of this is attributable to the increasing number of “child-only” families. In FY2010, just over half (51.7stood at 2.5 recipients per family in FY2011. In that year, just over half (51.2%) of all families had only one child. • The vast majority of adult recipients are women. In FY2010, 85FY2011, 84.7% of adult recipients were women. As discussed, family cash assistance has historically been provided to families with children headed by a single mother. The FY2010FY2011 percentage is lower than in previous years examined in the table. Men slowly increased as a share of the caseload over time, but still remain a relatively small share of the total adult caseload. • The families tend to have young children. In FY2010, 57.9FY2011, 58.5% of all families had a child under the age of six, with 1312.7% of all families having an infant. Over time, both the share of the caseload with infants and the share with teenagers have increased. • The majority of the caseload is racial or ethnic minorities. This was the case for all years shown in the table. Examining the racial/ethnic makeup of children, Hispanic children became the largest group of recipient children by FY2010. In FY2010FY2011. In FY2011, the share of child recipients who were Hispanic was 34.14%, compared with 31.732.5% who were African-American, and 27.125.5% who were non-Hispanic white. The share of the child caseload that is Hispanic has grown over time. This reflects their growth as a share of all children in the general population and of all poor children. The incidence of TANF cash assistance receipt among Hispanic children and poor Hispanic children—like that of children in other racial and ethnic groups—has actually declined over time (see Table A-3). Table 1. Summary Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance Families: Selected Years FY1988 to FY2010FY2011 1988 1994 2001 2006 20102011 Number of families (Average monthly number, in millionsFamilies (Average Monthly Number, In Millions) 3.748 5.046 2.202 1.957 1.910921 Average number of recipients in family (adults and children) 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 (...continued) “child-only” family. For years before FY2007, these families were not subject to work participation standards and are classified together with other “child-only” families. The data to identify them separately prior to FY2007 are not comparable to data for FY2007 and subsequent years. Congressional Research Service 5 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload 1988 1994 2001 2006 2010 Gender of adult recipients (adults and children) 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 Male 11.2% 12.7% 13.2% 13.8% 14.815.3% Female 88.8 87.3 86.8 86.2 85.284.7 17.2% 35.8% 44.6% 38.9% 81.137.4% 74.5 57.6 49.8 54.6 9.1 8.3 6.6 5.6 6.7 One 44.1% 44.8% 46.2% 51.3% 51.7% Two 30.2 30.0 28.6 27.4 27.7 Three 15.8 15.6 14.9 13.4 13.1 9.9 9.6 10.3 8.0 7.6 Number of adult recipients a None 9.8% One Two or More Number of child recipients Four or More Age of youngest child Infant NA 11.2% 13.2% 13.7% 13.7% One to five NA 51.4 40.7 40.6 44.2 Six through 12 NA 26.3 31.7 28.6 26.3 13 and older NA 10.9 14.3 17.1 15.7 Race/ethnicity of adult recipients White Non-Hispanic 41.7% 40.6% 32.6% 37.5% 35.6% African-American (Non-Hispanic) 31.1 33.8 35.6 35.6 32.3 Hispanic 10.5 18.7 23.3 20.7 25.1 2.8 5.0 7.6 5.3 6.0 White Non-Hispanic 33.8% 33.0% 25.7% 28.7% 27.1% African-American/Non-Hispanic 41.3 37.9 38.8 36.1 31.7 Hispanic 17.4 21.2 27.4 28.6 34.1 4.3 5.0 6.9 5.6 4.8 Other Race/ethnicity of child recipients Other Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2010 TANF National Data Files. Notes: FY2001 to FY2010 data include families receiving assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. a. For FY2010, includes non-recipient parents who are “work-eligible”; that is, parents who have been timelimited and sanctioned, with their families continuing to receive a reduced benefit. Congressional Research Service 6 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload 55.9 Gender of adult recipients Number of adult recipientsa None 9.8% One 81.1 Congressional Research Service 5 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload 1988 Two or More 1994 2001 2006 2011 9.1 8.3 6.6 5.6 6.7 One 43.2% 43.5% 45.1% 50.1% 51.2% Two 30.7 30.7 29.2 28.0 27.9 Three 16.1 16.0 15.2 13.7 12.9 Four or More 10.1 9.8 10.5 8.1 8.0 Number of child recipients Age of Youngest Child Infant NA 11.2% 12.7% 13.2% 12.7% One to five NA 51.5 40.5 40.2 45.8 Six through 12 NA 26.4 32.1 29.1 26.0 13 and older NA 10.9 14.7 17.5 15.4 Race/Ethnicity of Adult Recipients White Non-Hispanic 41.7% 40.6% 32.6% 37.5% 33.2% African-American Non-Hispanic 37.0 33.8 35.6 35.6 33.9 Hispanic 15.2 18.7 23.3 20.7 25.9 6.1 6.9 8.5 6.2 7.0 White Non-Hispanic 33.8% 33.0% 25.7% 28.7% 25.5% African-American Non-Hispanic 41.3 37.9 38.8 36.1 32.5 Hispanic 17.4 21.2 27.4 28.6 34.4 7.4 7.9 8.0 6.6 7.6 Other or Unknown Race/Ethnicity of Child Recipients Other or Unkown Source: Congressional Research Service tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2011 TANF National Data Files. Notes: FY2001, FY2006, and FY2011 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requriement. a. For FY2011, includes non-recipient parents who are “work-eligible”; that is, parents who have been timelimited or sanctioned, with their families continuing to receive a reduced benefit. TANF Families by Category The increase in the share of TANF families with no adult recipient represents a major change in the character of the caseload. This section focuses on that change, classifying TANF families by the circumstances of the adults in the household. The classification in this report divides the TANF assistance caseload into six categories. There are two main categories of families where there is an adult recipient or an adult who is considered “work-eligible” and hence represent the traditional concerns of cash assistance policies: Congressional Research Service 6 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload • Families with TANF adults(s), not employed. This group dominated the cash assistance caseload in FY1988, but by FY2010FY2011 represented less than half of all cash assistance families. • Families with TANF adult(s), employed. These are families with adult recipients or work-eligible parents, and at least one of these adults is employed. However, their employment is at low enough wages, or has been of short enough duration, that their family remains eligible for TANF cash assistance. The remaining four categories shown in the figure are considered “child-only” families. In these families, the adults caring for the children are not considered TANF cash assistance recipients themselves, but they receive benefits on behalf of the children. There are three main categories of “child-only” families: • Parent is a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient. These families are usually headed by a parent or couple who receivereceives Supplemental Security Income. In general, they receive SSI on the basis of disability, meeting the federal law’s criterion of being “unable to perform substantial gainful activity in the economy.” SSI is paid only to individuals and couples and there is no federal funding for extra benefits if they have children. Therefore, states use TANF funds to provide benefits for children of SSI parents. • Parent is an ineligible noncitizen. Federal law makes certain noncitizens ineligible for federally funded benefits. States have the option to use state funds to aid federally ineligible noncitizens who are lawfully present in the United States. Unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for either federally or statefunded TANF aid. However, there is a class of families known as “mixed status” families, with parents who are immigrants and children who are citizens because they were born in the United States. In these families, the children may be eligible for TANF regardless of the immigration status of their parents. • Child (or children) in the care of a nonparent relative. The first statutory goal of TANF is to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives. If a nonparent relative cares for a child for whom they are not legally responsible financially, they can receive financial assistance from the state on behalf of the child. Some of these children are living with nonparent relatives because they have been removed from the home of their parents due to abuse or neglect. However, some are in these homes for other reasons.10 10 For a more detailed look at the relationship between TANF families headed by a relative caregiver and the child (continued...) Congressional Research Service 7 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload The additional “child-only” category comprises families where the parent is in the home but for reasons other than those listed above is not a recipient or work-eligible adult or the family lives in a state that fails to provide information on non-recipient adults in the household. Figure 2 shows the change in both the size and composition of the cash assistance caseload. As noted previously, from FY1988 to FY1994 the number of families receiving assistance increased from 3.7 million to 5.0 million per month, a 35% increase. In terms of numbers, the majority of 10 For a more detailed look at the relationship between TANF families headed by a relative caregiver and the child welfare system, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data Sharing Could Improve Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2, October 2011, http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/ 585649.pdf. Congressional Research Service 7 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload that caseload growth was attributable to families with an adult recipient. However, also important in this period was the emergence of the “child-only” categories. In FY1988, the “child-only” categories represented about 10% of the overall caseload, a share that grew to 17% in FY1994. From FY1994 to FY2001, the cash welfare caseload declined rapidly, from 5.0 million families to 2.2 million families per month, a 56% decline. Over this period of time, the TANF caseload’s character changed dramatically. The number of families with an adult recipient and no employment fell from a monthly average of close to 3.8 million to less than 1 million (992,000). This represented a 74% decline in this population, substantially greater than the overall caseload decline. It was this group that was most closely identified with welfare dependency during the welfare reform debates of the 1980s and 1990s, and is the focus of current welfare-to-work policies. In contrast, the total number of families in the child-only category declined by a comparatively comparatively small amount, from 869,000 per month in FY1994 to 789,000 in FY2001, a decline of 10%. Thus, “child-only” families—a population not discussed much during the welfare reform debates of the 1980s and 1990s—became a greater share of the overall caseload. The FY2001 to FY2006FY2011 period also saw some declines in the overall caseload and continued changes in its composition, but the changes were far less dramatic than in the late 1990s. Childonly cases grew slightly as a share of the caseload through FY2006. By FY2010, the 2007-2009 recession had resulted in an increase in the number of “traditional” cash assistance families. However, this increase was not enough to substantially change the composition of the TANF cash assistance caseload overall. (...continued) welfare system, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data Sharing Could Improve Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2, October 2011, http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/ 585649.pdf. Congressional Research Service 8 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Figure 2. Families Receiving Cash Assistance, by Category: Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2010 (Families in millions) 6 5 Family with an Adult/Not Employed 4 Family with an Adult/Employed Child-Only/Caretaker Relative 3 Child-Only/Ineligible Immigrant Parent Child-Only/SSI Parent 2 Child-Only/Other 1 0 1988 1994 2001 2006 2010In FY2011, the TANF cash assistance caseload was very diverse. • Families with an adult recipient or work-eligible individual who was unemployed—the group that welfare-to-work policies have traditionally focused on—represented less than half of the caseload (47.4%). Another 15.2% of the caseload reflected families with employed adult recipients or work-eligible parents. • The figure shows the three main groups of “child-only” families. The largest of the “child-only” categories represents children with nonparent relative caretakers (13.1%). However, the categories of child-only families where the parent is an ineligible noncitizen (11.1% of the total caseload) and child-only families where the parent is an SSI recipient (8.9% of the total caseload) are nearly as large. Congressional Research Service 8 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Figure 2. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance, By Category, Selected Years FY1988 to FY2011 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2010 TANF National Data Files. Notes: FY2001 to FY2010 data include families receiving cash assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement.FY2011 TANF National Data Files. Notes: : For FY2011, TANF families “with an adult recipient” include those families where the adult has been time-limited or sanctioned but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit. These are technically “child-onlychildonly” cases, because the adult does not receive a benefit. However, since FY2007 such families are subject to TANF work participation standards and thus the policy affecting them is more comparable to that of a family with an adult recipient than a “child-only” family. For years before FY2007, these families were not subject to work participation standards and are included in the “Child-Only/Other” category. Figure 3 shows the composition of the TANF cash assistance caseload in FY2010 by family category. The caseload was very diverse. Families with an adult recipient or work-eligible individual who was unemployed—the group that welfare-to-work policies have traditionally focused on—represented less than half of the caseload (46%). Another 15% of the caseload reflected families with employed adult recipients or work-eligible parents. The figure shows the three main groups of “child-only” families. The largest of the “child-only” categories represents children with nonparent relative caretakers (13%). However, the categories of child-only families where the parent is an ineligible noncitizen (11% of the total caseload) and Congressional Research Service 9 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload child-only families where the parent is an SSI recipient (10% of the total caseload) are nearly as large. Figure 3. Families Receiving Cash Assistance by Family Category: FY2010 Child-Only/Other 5% Child-Only/SSI Parent 10% ChildOnly/Ineligible Immigrant Parent 11% ChildOnly/Caretaker Relative 13% Family with an Adult/Not Employed 46% Family with an Adult/Employed 15% Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2010 TANF National Data Files. Notes: The cash assistance caseload includes families receiving cash assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement included in the “Child-Only/Other” category. The composition of the TANF cash assistance caseload by family categories varies substantially by state. The variation reflects differences among states in both their demographic characteristics and policies. For families categorizedTANF families by category and state in FY2011, see Table A-2. Characteristics of TANF Families, By Family Category: FY2010FY2011 The different categories of TANF families reflect different circumstances that either led or contributed to their remaining on the assistance rolls. TANF policies differ between the categories of families with adults and work-eligible parents and the child-only categories. Additionally, differences in the typical characteristics across the family categories highlight the diversity of the cash assistance caseload. This section will focus on the five major categories of TANF families: (1) families with an adult recipient who is not employed; (2) families with an adult recipient, employed; (3) “child-only” Congressional Research Service 10 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload families with an SSI parent; (4) “child-only” families with a nonparent, relative caretaker; and (5) “child-only families” with an ineligible immigrant parent. The data for the “child-only/other” category are missing important information for identifying these families’ characteristics, and thus are not included in this section’s analysis. Congressional Research Service 9 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Number of Children TANF families tend to be small, with the most typical family having only one child. However, there are some differences in family size among the different categories of families. Table 2 shows TANF families by number of children and family size. Families with an employed adult tend to be slightly larger than those in other family categories. This is because TANF cash assistance eligibility thresholds and benefit amounts are higher for larger families; thus, larger families with earnings are more likely than smaller families with earnings to retain eligibility for TANF assistance. TANF families with ineligible noncitizen parents are also somewhat larger than the average TANF family. In FY2010FY2011, about 2526% of families with an ineligible noncitizen parent reported earnings. Though the noncitizen parent is not in the assistance unit receiving benefits, the parent’s earnings are typically deemed available to the family and count in determining both eligibility and benefits. Like other families with earnings, larger families with earnings are more likely to retain eligibility for benefits than are smaller families. More than two-thirds of TANF child-only families with caretaker relatives were reported as single child cases in FY2010FY2011. This might partially reflect some state practices in considering each child its own “case” (and hence family) for children cared for by nonparent relatives. Table 2. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Number of Child Recipients: FY2010FY2011 (As a percent of all families in the category) Number of Child Recipients Family Category One Two Three Four or More With TANF Adult(s)/ Not Employed 50.2% 28.09% 27.8% 13.9% 7.83% 8.1% With TANF Adults(s)/Adult(s) Employed 42.943.5 30.95 15.7 10.42 Child-Only/SSI Parent 55.756.5 26.9 10.7 6.75.9 Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent 33.1 36.0 19.4 11.50 35.8 17.8 13.4 Child-Only/Caretaker Relative 67.56 22.12 7.5 2.9 Totals 50.8 28.2 13.3 7.73 2.9 Total 51.2 27.9 12.9 8.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2010FY2011 TANF National Data files. Notes: The TANF cash assistance caseload includes families receiving cash assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Congressional Research Service 11 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Age of Children ManyAge of Children The majority of TANF families have young children. However, the age of the youngest child in the family also varies by family category. Table 3 shows TANF families by family category and age of the youngest child. Families with an adult who is not employed are the focus of TANF welfare-to-work policies. These families often have pre-school children. In FY2010FY2011, two-thirds of TANF families with an adult who was not employed had a pre-school child (under the age of 6). Some of these families can be exempted Congressional Research Service 10 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload from TANF work requirements. For example, TANF law allows single parents with a child under the age of 1 to be exempted from work and disregarded from the TANF work participation standards. In FY2010, one-fifthFY2011, close to one-fifth (18.3%) of these families had an infant (under the age of 1). In contrast, “child-only” families headed by an SSI parent or a nonparent relative tended to have older children. In FY2010, more thanFY2011, nearly one-third (34.131.2%) of TANF child-only families headed by an an SSI parent had a teenager as their youngest child. About 3 in 10In FY2011, 31.5% of families with children cared cared for by a nonparent relative had a teen as their youngest child. Table 3. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Age of Youngest Child: FY2010FY2011 (As a percent of all families in the category) Family Category InfantInfant Age 1 Age 2 to Age 5 Age 1 Age 6 to Age 12 Age 13 and Older With TANF Adult(s)/ Unemployed 20.218.3% 16.7% 31.4% 21.1% 10.72% 34.3% 21.0% With TANF Adult(s)/Employed 14.3 16.3 38.0 22.3 9.1 6.2 6.5 21.0 32.1 34.1 Child-Only/ Noncitizen Parent 10.8 14.3 41.0 26.5 7.4 Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative 2.3 4.4 22.8 41.2 29.3 13.7 13.3 31.0 26.3 15.7 Child-Only/ SSI Parent Totals Adults(s)/Employed 12.6 16.5 40.2 22.5 8.2 5.8 7.5 22.1 33.3 31.2 Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent 11.6 12.9 39.3 26.4 9.8 Child-Only/Caretaker Relative 1.9 4.5 22.6 39.5 31.5 12.7 13.2 32.7 26.0 15.4 Child-Only/SSI Parent Totals 10.2% Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the FY2010FY2011 TANF National Data Files. Notes: FY2010 data includeThe TANF cash assistance caseload includes families receiving cash assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Race and Ethnicity of Child Recipients The majority of the TANF cash assistance caseload is composed of racial and ethnic minorities. Among child recipients, the largest group is Hispanic children—34.14% of all child recipients— primarily because they are the vast majority of children in families with noncitizen parents in FY2011. There are differences in the racial/ethnic make-up of child recipients by family category. Congressional Research Service 12 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Table 4 shows children receiving TANF cash assistance, by the category of their family and their race/ethnicity. African-American children represent the largest group of children in two family categories that include TANF adults, as well as in child-only families with SSI parents. As noted, Hispanic children make up the largest share of children with ineligible noncitizen parents. The The table also shows that the largest group of children in child-only families cared for by nonparent nonparent relatives is non-Hispanic white. Historically, children in families receiving cash assistance who are cared for by nonparent relatives have been more likely to be African-American than other racial/ethnic groups. As late as FY2001, African-American children accounted for a majority majority (52.6%) of all children in TANF child-only families cared for by a nonparent relative. However, throughout the 2000s, the share of TANF children in such families who were AfricanAmerican African-American Congressional Research Service 11 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload declined. This reflected a decline in the number of African-American children who were cared for by nonparent relatives in the overall population.11 Table 4. TANF Child Recipients: by Family Category and Race/Ethnicity: FY2010FY2011 (As a percent of all children in the family category) Family Category White/ NonHispanic AfricanAmerican/ NonHispanic Hispanic Other or Multi-racial Unknown With TANF Adult(s)/ Not Employed 28.2% 35.9% 26.8% 4.6% 4.5% With TANF Adult(s)/ Employed 29.5 31.6 28.5 6.4 4.1 Child-Only/ SSI Parent 29.9 44.0 17.3 6.2 2.6 Child-Only/ Noncitizen Parent 1.4 3.0 86.1 1.1 8.3 Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative 39.3 37.5 17.0 4.8 1.4 Total 26.3 31.3 33.4 4.6 4.4 Hispanic Other or MultiRacial Unknown 36.8% 28.1% 5.9% 2.3% 25.8 34.5 30.3 7.5 1.9 30.1 45.7 15.8 6.7 1.7 Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent 2.2 3.6 90.8 2.2 1.2 Child-Only/Caretaker Relative 39.6 36.4 17.3 5.5 1.2 Totals 25.5 32.5 34.4 5.7 1.9 White/NonHispanic AfricanAmerican/NonHispanic With TANF Adult(s)/Not Employed 27.0% With TANF Adults(s)/Employed Child-Only/SSI Parent Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the FY2010FY2011 TANF National Data Files. Notes: Includes families receiving cash assistance from Separate State Programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Considerations TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), culminating decades of debate over the roles of low-income, single mothers in the home and in the workforce. The policies created within TANF reflect a primary outcome of that debate; that is, the expectation that single mothers should work to support their families, with TANF being at most temporary assistance rather than a long-term support they would depend on for themselves and their children. 11 See information on living arrangements of children at http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/children.html. Congressional Research Service 13 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload In 2013In 2014, the TANF law will be 17turns 18 years old, with most policies the same as when the block grant was created. However, much has changed since 1996. States have used TANF as a broad-based block grant to fund a wide range of benefits and services addressing conditions and causes of economic and social disadvantage of children, in addition to providing cash assistance or traditional “welfare.” Additionally, both the size and the composition of the TANF cash assistance caseload have changed markedly since welfare reform legislation was debated in the mid-1990s. The caseload is much smaller—1.9 million families in FY2010FY2011 versus 5.0 million families in FY1994. The type of family receiving assistance that was the focus of the welfare reform debates—families with an unemployed adult recipient, which accounted for three out of four families pre-reform—now accounts for less than half of all families on the rolls. Therefore, the majority of the caseload today represents families with characteristics that are different from those who are the focus of current TANF welfare-to-work policies. Non-TANF Policies Affecting “Non-Traditional” Cash Assistance Families Despite the changes since 1996, most TANF policy discussions continue to be focused on issues that have been the historical concern of welfare policy—particularly issues relating to work standards to get adult recipients who are not employed engaged in activities or working. Less attention has been paid to the other components of the caseload. One challenge in addressing the “nontraditional” cash assistance families—those with an employed adult or families with only recipient children—is that these families are affected to a large extent by policies in programs or laws other than TANF.11 See information on living arrangements of children at http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/children.html. Congressional Research Service 12 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload TANF Families with Employed Adults TANF cash assistance families with an adult reported as working represented 15% of the cash assistance caseload in FY2010FY2011—double the 7.5% share in FY1994. These often are families either in transition from welfare to work or are families with very low earnings. There was some attention to transitional benefits during the welfare reform debates, but it was mostly focused on policies outside of the cash welfare system such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC),12 Transitional Medicaid,13 and child care.14 TANF’s work participation standards give states credit for providing cash assistance to families with earnings, so that states have the incentive to provide at least some earnings supplements to families who find work while on the rolls. However, little attention has been paid to how cash assistance to working families fits together with other earnings supplements, such as the EITC, to achieve TANF goals. Unlike EITC, which is paid through once-a-year federal income tax refunds, ongoing TANF benefits for families with earnings provide month-to-month income support. 12 For a discussion of the EITC, see CRS Report RL31768, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview, by Christine Scott. 13 For a discussion of transitional Medicaid, see CRS Report RL31698, Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by April Grady. 14 For a discussion of the child care block grant, which helps states subsidize child care for low-income families, including TANF families with earnings, see CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch. Congressional Research Service 14 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload TANF “Child-Only“ Families Many of the “child-only” TANF assistance families are affected not only by TANF policy, but other social policies as well. • The child welfare system (child protective services, foster care, guardianship) could be involved with some of the children who are in the care of nonparent relatives because of, or risk of, abuse or neglect. • Families with ineligible noncitizen parents are affected by immigration policies. • Families with disabled parents who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are affected by disability determination and redetermination policies. Congress has focused on relative caregiving through child welfare legislation, specifically creating a program to help states reimburse kin who take legal guardianship of children who would otherwise be eligible for federal foster care assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.15 The 113th Congress is also considering immigration reform legislation.16 Coordination Between TANF and Other Programs Affecting TANF Cash 12 For a discussion of the EITC, see CRS Report RL31768, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview, by Christine Scott and Margot L. Crandall-Hollick. 13 For a discussion of transitional Medicaid, see CRS Report RL31698, Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Under Medicaid, by April Grady. 14 For a discussion of the child care block grant, which helps states subsidize child care for low-income families, including TANF families with earnings, see CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch. 15 CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus. Congressional Research Service 13 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Coordination Between TANF and Other Programs Affecting TANF Cash Assistance Families Congress has shown interest in promoting coordination between TANF and other federal and state programs serving TANF families, including the “non-traditional” families. This has especially been true in terms of coordinating information between TANF and child welfare programs.1716 P.L. 112-96 requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop standards of data reporting to facilitate the sharing of information between TANF and other programs. Earlier legislation (P.L. 112-34) added similar language to facilitate data sharing between child welfare and other programs. In addition, a May 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report said Congress could opt to require states to include in TANF state plans how they will coordinate services between TANF and child welfare programs. 1817 Congress has also shown interest in the past in helping families navigate benefits and services available to low-income families with workers, which would include TANF families with earnings. For example, the Senate Finance Committee-reported version of H.R. 4737 in the 107th Congress would have required that states assess the work support aid for which families are eligible, and include in a plan for that family a section describing the work supports for which the 15 CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus. 16 Some families have citizen children but also authorized or unauthorized immigrant parents. For a discussion of unauthorized immigrants’ access to federal benefit programs, generally, see CRS Report RL34500, Unauthorized Aliens’ Access to Federal Benefits: Policy and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 17 For example, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, TANF and Child Welfare Programs. Increased Data Sharing Could Improve Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2, October 2011. 18 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, GAO-13-431, May 2013, p. 15, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654614.pdf. Note that child welfare services state plans require coordination between services and assistance provided under the plan and those provided under TANF. However, there is no reciprocal requirement in the TANF plan requiring coordination with child welfare agencies. Congressional Research Service 15 TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload family may be eligible these work supports (including food assistance, medical assistance, the EITC, and workforce investment services).1918 TANF Policies for “Nontraditional” Welfare Families? Questions remain about whether and what policies within TANF should apply to “child-only” families. A 2012 report on “child-only” families from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, funded by HHS, raised concerns about each major group: thatwhether TANF assistance to relative caregivers might be an inadequate replacement for foster care, and thatwhether low rates of TANF receipt receipt among potentially eligible families headed by SSI parents or ineligible immigrant parents might might not be assuring a minimal standard of living for children in these families. The report did recommend that “explicit attention” be given to each component of the TANF caseload, including separate attention to each of the three major groups of “child-only” families.2019 The May 2013 GAO report said a potential option to better understand TANF’s role in helping its “child-only” families would be to require states to provide additional information to the federal government about the status and needs of “child-only” families.21 This information could be provided, for example, in TANF state plans. Congress could also establish—or require states to establish—goals and performance measures related to the well-being of children in “child-only” families. Congress could also require that annual reporting by states to HHS include a statement about how the goals related to “child-only” families are being met, and report on such performance measures that relate to these goals.22 19 16 For example, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, TANF and Child Welfare Programs. Increased Data Sharing Could Improve Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2, October 2011. 17 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, GAO-13-431, May 2013, p. 15, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654614.pdf. Note that child welfare services state plans require coordination between services and assistance provided under the plan and those provided under TANF. However, there is no reciprocal requirement in the TANF plan requiring coordination with child welfare agencies. 18 See Section 201 of H.R. 4737 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee. The plan described is an Individual Responsibility Plan (IRP). Under current law, states may (but are not required to) develop an IRP for a family. IRPs generally outline the obligations of recipients of TANF assistance, as well as the services the state intends to provide to that family. H.R. 4737 as reported by the Senate Finance Committee would have required that states develop IRPs for TANF families with adult recipients. 2019 Jane Mauldon, Richard Speiglman, and Christina Sogar, et al., TANF Child-Only Cases: Who Are They? What Policies Affect Them? What is Being Done?, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, December 11, 2012. This project was funded by HHS, but the opinions expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the department. 21 Congressional Research Service 14 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload government about the status and needs of “child-only” families.20 This information could be provided, for example, in TANF state plans. Congress could also establish—or require states to establish—goals and performance measures related to the well-being of children in “child-only” families. Congress could also require that annual reporting by states to HHS include a statement about how the goals related to “child-only” families are being met, and report on such performance measures that relate to these goals.21 20 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, GAO-13-431, May 2013, p. 15, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654614.pdf. 2221 Performance measurement would require data to assess the effectiveness of state strategies. For example, if Congress sought to assess state programs for “child-only” families on the basis of their economic circumstances (e.g., poverty), information would be needed on the income of members of their households. However, an examination of the financial well-being of TANF households was omitted from this report because of concerns about data quality. The financial circumstances of TANF “child-only” families were not estimated because of concerns that the information on income of some adults in households with such families was not accurately reported. Congress could require additional reporting by states that would help it better understand the financial circumstances of each component of the TANF caseload, including detailed reporting on all adults in households where a TANF benefit is paid on behalf of a child. Congressional Research Service 1615 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Appendix. Table A-1. Families Receiving Cash Assistance by Family Category: Selected Years, FY1988 to FY2010FY2011 (Monthly average number of families) Category 1988 1994 2001 2006 20102011 Total Families 3,747,952 5,046,263 2,202,356 1,957,402 1,909,841921,433 Family with an Adult/Adult(s)/ Not Employed 3,136,566 3,798,997 992,445 825,490 879,922 Family with an Adult/Employed911,530 243,573 378,620 420,794 259,001 287,146 Child-Only/Caretaker Relative 188,598 328,290 255,984 261,944 254,088 Child-Only/Ineligible Immigrant Parent 47,566 184,397 125,900 153,445 217,487 Child-Only/SSI Parent 59,988 171,391 171,951 176,670 181,852 Child-Only/Other 71,661 184,567 235,282 280,851 89,346 Total291,137 Child-Only/SSI Parent(s) 59,988 171,391 171,951 176,670 171,470 Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s) 47,566 184,397 125,900 153,445 213,281 188,598 328,290 255,984 261,944 252,458 71,661 184,567 235,282 280,851 81,558 Family with Adult(s)/Employed Child-Only/Nonparent Caretaker(s) Child-Only/Other As a Percent of Total Cash Assistance Families Total Families 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 83.7 75.3 45.1 42.2 46.147.4 Family with an AdultAdult(s)/Employed 6.5 7.5 19.1 13.2 15.0 Child-Only/Caretaker Relative 5.0 6.5 11.6 13.4 13.3 Child-Only/Ineligible Immigrant Parent2 Child-Only/SSI Parent(s) 1.6 3.4 7.8 9.0 8.9 Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s) 1.3 3.7 5.7 7.8 11.41 Child-Only/SSI Parent 1.6 3.4 7.8 9.0 9.5Nonparent Caretaker(s) 5.0 6.5 11.6 13.4 13.1 Child-Only/Other 1.9 3.7 10.7 14.3 4.72 Family with an Adult/Adult(s)/ Not Employed Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control Data Files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2010FY2011 TANF National Data Files. Notes: For FY2010FY2011, TANF families “with an adult recipient” include those families where the adult has been time-limited or sanctioned but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit. These are technically “childonly” cases, because the adult does not receive a benefit. However, since FY2007 such families are subject to TANF work participation standards and thus the policy affecting them is more comparable to that of a family with an adult recipient than a “child-only” family. For years before FY2007, these families were not subject to work participation standards and are included in the “Child-Only/Other” category. Congressional Research Service 17 Table A-2. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload By Family Category and State: FY2010 Family Category State Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working Adult Recipient or WorkEligible Parent/Working Child-Only/ SSI Parent Child-Only/ Noncitizen Parent Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative Child-Only/ Other Total Alabama 40.8% 19.2% 14.9% 1.9% 23.2% 0.1% 100.0% Alaska 49.2 24.0 0.0 1.2 25.6 0.0 100.0 Arizona 42.7 7.5 0.0 17.8 0.1 32.0 100.0 Arkansas 45.1 16.2 14.9 2.7 21.1 0.0 100.0 California 47.3 16.7 6.1 22.3 6.9 0.8 100.0 Colorado 44.5 15.4 0.0 7.6 27.1 5.4 100.0 Connecticut 42.5 14.6 12.2 3.4 25.7 1.6 100.0 Delaware 36.1 12.9 6.1 4.5 39.9 0.6 100.0 District of Columbia 62.6 11.3 8.8 4.9 12.5 0.0 100.0 Florida 30.4 3.7 9.4 5.8 50.3 0.4 100.0 Georgia 16.0 2.0 17.5 2.6 59.9 2.0 100.0 Hawaii 35.4 38.3 7.3 0.3 1.6 17.0 100.0 Idaho 10.1 1.1 0.0 1.6 87.0 0.4 100.0 Illinois 28.2 5.3 26.7 5.4 32.2 2.3 100.0 Indiana 54.6 19.2 9.1 6.0 10.4 0.7 100.0 Iowa 51.5 23.7 6.7 3.7 13.8 0.6 100.0 Kansas 47.8 25.3 9.0 4.3 13.6 0.1 100.0 Kentucky 32.4 9.9 16.6 1.0 29.9 10.2 100.0 Louisiana 23.1 7.3 20.3 0.0 46.1 3.1 100.0 CRS-18 Family Category State Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working Adult Recipient or WorkEligible Parent/Working Child-Only/ SSI Parent Child-Only/ Noncitizen Parent Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative Child-Only/ Other Total Maine 62.5 23.0 8.5 0.1 4.8 1.0 100.0 Maryland 52.9 7.9 7.2 0.0 0.6 31.5 100.0 Massachusetts 53.9 14.2 14.3 7.0 10.2 0.5 100.0 Michigan 55.8 15.7 15.2 2.0 11.0 0.4 100.0 Minnesota 37.2 16.8 18.3 9.1 18.6 0.1 100.0 Mississippi 45.5 10.6 22.1 0.3 21.4 0.1 100.0 Missouri 64.7 13.4 8.9 2.2 10.2 0.7 100.0 Montana 44.1 22.5 0.0 0.3 30.5 2.7 100.0 Nebraska 31.8 23.9 11.1 16.0 15.2 2.0 100.0 Nevada 32.1 26.6 7.6 19.1 14.6 0.1 100.0 New Hampshire 48.5 13.4 16.1 1.3 19.7 1.0 100.0 New Jersey 67.0 7.6 7.5 6.3 11.5 0.0 100.0 New Mexico 51.9 15.7 6.9 16.0 9.3 0.3 100.0 New York 42.2 20.3 12.4 12.3 8.6 4.2 100.0 North Carolina 25.7 5.4 12.2 11.8 43.3 1.7 100.0 North Dakota 45.5 30.1 6.2 0.1 18.0 0.1 100.0 Ohio 45.6 10.1 12.7 2.3 0.9 28.5 100.0 Oklahoma 39.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.5 100.0 Oregon 62.6 10.7 6.1 12.5 5.5 2.7 100.0 Pennsylvania 38.2 21.8 22.1 1.8 14.4 1.8 100.0 Rhode Island 53.6 13.1 16.1 0.0 5.8 11.4 100.0 CRS-19 Family Category State Adult Recipient or Work-Eligible Parent/Not Working Adult Recipient or WorkEligible Parent/Working South Carolina 61.2 17.6 6.4 0.6 14.1 0.1 100.0 South Dakota 27.3 5.8 8.4 0.4 57.8 0.3 100.0 Tennessee 50.4 20.1 0.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 100.0 Texas 25.6 10.3 9.2 30.9 17.4 6.7 100.0 Utah 48.7 10.9 6.8 7.1 25.2 1.2 100.0 Vermont 40.9 18.7 20.8 0.1 19.5 0.0 100.0 Virginia 46.7 21.0 10.4 3.1 0.2 18.7 100.0 Washington 52.4 14.3 5.5 11.5 14.8 1.6 100.0 West Virginia 44.1 8.0 17.7 0.1 15.2 14.9 100.0 Wisconsin 39.0 9.6 26.3 0.0 25.1 0.0 100.0 Wyoming 32.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.8 100.0 Guam 86.3 3.3 0.0 8.6 0.0 1.8 100.0 Puerto Rico 85.4 2.3 0.0 0.4 8.9 3.0 100.0 Virgin Islands 86.7 3.3 1.4 0.9 7.4 0.2 100.0 Total 46.1 15.0 9.5 11.4 13.3 4.7 100.0 Child-Only/ SSI Parent Child-Only/ Noncitizen Parent Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2010 TANF National Data File. CRS-20 Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative Child-Only/ Other Total TANF: Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Table A-3. Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to All Children and Poor Children by Race/Ethnicity, Selected Years 1988 1994 2001 2006 2010 Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to All Children White Non-Hispanic 5.6% 6.9% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% African-American Non-Hispanic 31.1 33.5 14.9 11.7 10.7 Hispanic (of any race) 18.2 21.0 9.2 6.7 6.6 Other 12.2 19.7 7.2 3.6 2.3 Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to Poor Children White Non-Hispanic 50.7 55.3 26.2 24.1 19.0 African-American Non-Hispanic 71.4 76.7 49.9 35.2 27.6 Hispanic 48.4 50.6 32.7 24.8 19.4 Other 45.4 86.0 45.0 21.2 12.0 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on tabulations from the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplements to the Current Population Survey of March 1989, 1995, 2002, 2006, and 2011; the FY1988 and FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control Data Files; and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2010FY2011 With TANF Adult(s)/Not Employed With TANF Adult(s)/Employed Alabama 42.0% 23.9% Alaska 46.6 25.3 Arizona 47.6 Arkansas 43.9 State Congressional Research Service ChildOnly/SSI Parent(s) ChildOnly/Noncitizen Parent ChildOnly/Caretaker Relative ChildOnly/Other 1.3% 19.0% 0.0% 0.0 1.1 26.8 0.1 12.8 0.0 10.6 0.2 28.9 17.5 14.8 3.0 20.7 0.1 13.7% 16 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload State With TANF Adult(s)/Not Employed With TANF Adult(s)/Employed ChildOnly/SSI Parent(s) ChildOnly/Noncitizen Parent ChildOnly/Caretaker Relative ChildOnly/Other California 50.3 16.7 4.9 20.7 6.7 0.7 Colorado 42.5 17.4 0.0 8.3 26.4 5.4 Connecticut 40.8 15.0 12.1 3.4 27.3 1.6 Delaware 36.3 11.3 5.8 6.0 39.7 0.8 District of Columbia 64.6 9.0 10.4 6.4 9.6 0.0 Florida 28.2 3.7 9.6 6.2 51.3 1.1 Georgia 17.1 2.3 15.9 3.2 59.2 2.3 Hawaii 36.9 37.9 7.0 0.4 1.5 16.3 Idaho 10.2 0.6 0.0 2.0 86.9 0.4 Illinois 40.9 9.1 20.1 4.5 23.6 1.9 Indiana 50.5 16.3 7.7 6.8 14.5 4.3 Iowa 47.7 25.9 7.5 3.6 14.8 0.6 Kansas 48.0 25.4 9.4 4.8 12.0 0.4 Kentucky 30.9 9.4 16.1 1.2 42.3 0.2 Louisiana 27.9 8.3 19.6 0.2 38.5 5.6 Maine 61.6 24.2 8.9 0.1 4.4 0.8 Maryland 53.1 8.9 8.0 0.0 0.7 29.3 Massachusetts 60.9 5.6 15.6 8.2 9.5 0.3 Michigan 54.7 18.1 12.2 5.0 9.9 0.2 Minnesota 34.6 22.6 16.8 8.5 17.3 0.2 Mississippi 48.7 10.1 21.5 0.5 18.8 0.4 Missouri 66.5 12.0 8.6 2.3 10.0 0.6 Montana 43.4 18.9 0.0 0.3 34.6 2.8 Nebraska 28.7 25.2 9.9 14.8 16.8 4.6 Nevada 31.5 23.5 8.1 21.3 15.3 0.3 New Hampshire 47.2 13.4 17.2 1.0 19.7 1.5 New Jersey 68.0 8.6 7.6 6.0 9.8 0.0 New Mexico 52.2 13.9 7.1 17.1 9.5 0.2 New York 42.0 20.7 12.2 12.0 9.4 3.7 Congressional Research Service 17 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload With TANF Adult(s)/Not Employed State With TANF Adult(s)/Employed ChildOnly/SSI Parent(s) ChildOnly/Noncitizen Parent ChildOnly/Caretaker Relative ChildOnly/Other North Carolina 24.3 4.9 13.1 10.5 45.4 1.9 North Dakota 43.7 29.7 7.1 0.1 19.3 0.2 Ohio 43.4 10.3 13.0 2.4 1.0 29.9 Oklahoma 40.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.2 Oregon 66.1 10.8 6.1 10.2 4.3 2.6 Pennsylvania 45.8 20.9 18.2 1.7 12.1 1.3 Rhode Island 55.4 10.4 17.0 0.0 7.0 10.3 South Carolina 69.9 19.0 2.5 0.9 7.7 0.1 South Dakota 28.3 5.3 9.2 0.8 56.2 0.3 Tennessee 50.9 20.1 0.0 0.1 28.8 0.0 Texas 25.3 11.1 8.9 29.7 17.8 7.3 Utah 38.5 16.1 6.9 8.8 29.4 0.3 Vermont 38.2 21.4 21.1 0.0 19.2 0.0 Virginia 43.6 22.1 9.6 4.3 0.5 19.9 Washington 50.8 10.2 6.6 13.4 16.7 2.3 West Virginia 43.8 10.3 16.5 0.0 16.0 13.5 Wisconsin 45.3 12.6 24.4 0.0 17.7 0.1 Wyoming 28.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.2 Guam 47.1 1.8 0.0 48.4 0.1 2.7 Puerto Rico 89.3 1.6 0.0 0.8 8.2 0.2 Virgin Islands 84.8 2.3 2.9 0.2 6.0 3.8 Totals 47.4 15.2 8.9 11.1 13.1 4.2 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2011 TANF National Data File. Congressional Research Service 18 TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload Table A-3. Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to All Children and Poor Children by Race/Ethnicity, Selected Years 1988 1994 2001 2006 2011 Percent of All Children White/Non-Hispanic 5.6% 6.9% 2.5% 2.4% 2.2% African-American/Non-Hispanic 31.1 33.5 14.9 11.7 11.0 Hispanic 18.2 21.0 9.2 6.7 6.7 Other 12.2 31.0 8.4 4.2 3.7 Percent of Poor Children White/Non-Hispanic 50.7 55.3 26.2 24.1 18.1 African-American/Non-Hispanic 71.4 76.7 49.9 35.2 28.5 Hispanic 48.4 50.6 32.7 24.8 19.7 Other 45.4 86.0 45.0 21.2 14.6 Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on tabulations from the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplements to the Current Population Survey of March 1989, 1995, 2002, 2006, and 2012; the FY1988 and FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control Data Files; and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2011 TANF National Data Files. Author Contact Information Gene Falk Specialist in Social Policy gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344 Acknowledgments Emilie Stoltzfus of the Domestic Social Policy Division contributed to this report, helping with the discussion of the history of cash assistance, as well as the discussion of the relationship between TANF cash assistance and child welfare programs. CRS Graphics Specialist Amber Wilhelm created the figures in this report. Congressional Research Service 2119