Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF): Size and Characteristics of the Cash
Assistance Caseload
Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy
January 22, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43187
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 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 FY2012, 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 FY2012. 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; 51.1% of all TANF cash assistance families in FY2012
had one child. Cash assistance families also frequently have young children; 58.1% in FY2012
had a pre-school-aged child. The majority of the cash assistance caseload has also been composed
of racial and ethnic minorities. By FY2012, the largest racial/ethnic group of TANF cash
assistance children was Hispanic. In that year, of all TANF assistance child recipients, 35.0%
were Hispanic, 31.2% were African-American, and 26.2% 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. In FY2012, 36.4% of all families
receiving TANF cash assistance 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 FY2012 ................................................................. 4
TANF Families by Category...................................................................................................... 6
Characteristics of TANF Families, By Family Category: FY2012............................................ 9
Number of Children .......................................................................................................... 10
Age of Children ................................................................................................................. 11
Race and Ethnicity of Child Recipients ............................................................................ 11
Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 12
TANF Families with Employed Adults ................................................................................... 13
TANF Policies for “Nontraditional” Cash Assistance Families?............................................. 13
Figures
Figure 1. Number of Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance, 1959-2013 .................... 4
Figure 2. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance, by Category, Selected Years
FY1988 to FY2012 ....................................................................................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Summary Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance Families, Selected
Years FY1988 to FY2012 ............................................................................................................. 5
Table 2. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Number of
Child Recipients, FY2012 .......................................................................................................... 10
Table 3. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Age of
Youngest Child, FY2012 ............................................................................................................ 11
Table 4. TANF Child Recipients, by Family Category and Race/Ethnicity, FY2012.................... 12
Table A-1. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category,
Selected Years FY1988 to FY2012 ............................................................................................. 15
Table A-2. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload by Family Category and State, FY2012 ................. 16
Table A-3. Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to All Children and Poor Children by
Race/Ethnicity, Selected Years ................................................................................................... 18
Appendixes
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 15
Congressional Research Service
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 18
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 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 28.6% of all
TANF funding in FY2012.2 Additionally, many of the families that received TANF cash
assistance in FY2012 represented family types that were not the focus of debate in 1996, and are
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 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 FY2012, 36.4% 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 FY2012, 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 Overview, 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 FY2012 and earlier years, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/ofa/resource-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
Assistance Caseload
January 29, 2016
(R43187)
Jump to Main Text of Report
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 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 FY2013, 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 to 2.2 million families in FY2001 and 1.7 million families in FY2013. 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; 51.0% of all TANF cash assistance families in FY2013 had one child. Cash assistance families also frequently have young children; 56.6% in FY2013 had a pre-school-aged child. The majority of the cash assistance caseload has also been composed of racial and ethnic minorities. By FY2013, the largest racial/ethnic group of TANF cash assistance children was Hispanic. In that year, of all TANF assistance child recipients, 36.3% were Hispanic, 29.9% were African American, and 25.8% 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. In FY2013, 38.1% of all families receiving TANF cash assistance 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.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (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 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 broad-based 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 27.6% of all TANF funding in FY2013.2 Additionally, many of the families that received TANF cash assistance in FY2013 represented family types that were not the focus of debate in 1996, and are 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 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 FY2013, 38.1% of families receiving TANF were composed of children in families cared for by adults who themselves were not recipients of TANF or did not come under TANF work rules.
This report examines the TANF cash assistance caseload,3 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 FY2013, using data that states are required to report to the federal government. 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 In Focus IF10036, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant, by [author name scrubbed]. 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 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 1974, children surpassed the elderly as the age group with the highest poverty rate.7 Poverty rates for children in families headed by a single mother were particularly high—and over time an increasing share of children were being raised in such families. 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.8 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.9
"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.
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
earlytoearly- to-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 2013. 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 Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
3
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
smaller than the two earlier periods of caseload growth.
Figure 1. Number of Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance, 1959-2013
(Families in millions)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
Notes: Shaded areas represent recessionary periods. Families receiving TANF cash assistance since October 1,
1999 1999, include families receiving cash assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable
toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement (MOE).
Trends in Caseload Characteristics:
FY1988 to FY2012
Trends in Caseload Characteristics: FY1988 to FY2013
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
FY2012.9FY2013.10 The most dramatic change in caseload characteristics is the
growth in the share of families with no adult recipients. In
FY2012, 36.4FY2013, 38.1% 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
FY2012, 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
“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
families had no adult recipient; in contrast, in FY1988 only 9.8% of all cash assistance families 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 characteristics of the caseload include the following:
•
Most families receiving assistance are small
. . The average number of recipients
in a family stood at 2.5 recipients per family in
FY2012FY2013. In that year, just over
half (51.
10%) of all families had only one child.
•
The vast majority of adult recipients are women
. In FY2013, 85.7. In FY2012, 85.9% of adult
recipients were women. As discussed, family cash assistance has historically
been provided to families with children headed by a single mother. The
FY2012
FY2013 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 FY2013, 56.6In FY2012, 58.1% of all families
had a child under the age of six, with 12.
10% 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
FY2012. In
FY2012FY2013. In FY2013, the share of child recipients who were Hispanic was
35.036.3%, compared
with
31.229.9% who were African
- American, and
26.225.8% 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 FY2012
1988
Number of Families (millions)
1994
2001
2006
2012
3.748
5.046
2.202
1.957
1.876
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.5
Male
14.1%
11.2%
13.2%
13.8%
14.1%
Female
85.9
88.8
86.8
86.2
85.9
None
9.8
17.2
35.8
44.6
36.4
One
81.1
74.5
57.6
49.8
57.4
Average Number of Recipients in family
(adults and children)
Gender of Adult Recipients
Number of Adult Recipientsa
Congressional Research Service
5
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
1988
Two or More
1994
2001
2006
2012
9.1
8.3
6.6
5.6
6.2
One
43.2
43.5
45.1
50.1
51.1
Two
30.7
30.7
29.2
28.0
27.7
Three
16.1
16.0
15.2
13.7
13.2
Four or More
10.1
9.8
10.5
8.1
8.0
Infant
NA
11.2
12.7
13.2
12.1
One through five
NA
51.5
40.5
40.2
46.0
Six through 12
NA
26.4
32.1
29.1
26.5
13 and Older
NA
10.9
14.7
17.5
15.3
White Non-Hispanic
41.7
40.6
32.6
37.5
34.2
African-American Non-Hispanic
37.0
33.8
35.6
35.6
32.5
Hispanic
15.2
18.7
23.3
20.7
26.5
Other and Multi-racial
4.3
5.0
7.6
5.3
5.9
Unknown
1.8
1.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
White Non-Hispanic
33.8
33.0
25.7
28.7
26.2
African-American Non-Hispanic
41.3
37.9
38.8
36.1
31.2
Hispanic
17.4
21.2
27.4
28.6
35.0
Other and Multi-racial
4.3
5.0
6.9
5.6
5.6
Unknown
3.2
2.9
1.1
1.0
1.9
Number of Child Recipients
Age of Youngest Child
Race/Ethnicity of Adult Recipients
Race/Ethnicity of Child Recipients
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control
(QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: FY2001 through FY2012 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs)
with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. NA denotes not
available.
a.
For FY2012, includes non-recipient parents who are “work-eligible.” These include non-recipient parents
who have been time-limited 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.
Congressional Research Service
6
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
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:
•
Families with TANF adult(s), not employed. This group dominated the cash
assistance caseload in FY1988, but by FY2012 represented less than half of all
cash assistance families.
•
Selected Years FY1988 to FY2013
1988
|
1994
|
2001
|
2006
|
2013
|
|
Number of Families (in millions)
|
3.748
|
5.046
|
2.202
|
1.957
|
1.749
|
|
Average Number of Recipient in Family (Adults and Children)
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
2.6
|
2.4
|
2.5
|
|
Average Number of Child Recipients
|
1.8
|
1.9
|
1.9
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
Sex of Adult Recipients
|
|
Male
|
11.2%
|
12.7%
|
13.2%
|
13.8%
|
14.3%
|
|
Female
|
88.8
|
87.3
|
86.8
|
86.2
|
85.7
|
Number of Adult Recipients
|
|
None
|
9.8
|
17.2
|
35.8
|
44.6
|
38.1
|
|
One
|
81.1
|
74.5
|
57.6
|
49.8
|
56.1
|
|
Two or More
|
9.1
|
8.3
|
6.6
|
5.6
|
5.9
|
Number of Child Recipients
|
|
One
|
43.2
|
43.5
|
45.1
|
50.1
|
51.0
|
|
Two
|
30.7
|
30.7
|
29.2
|
28.0
|
28.2
|
|
Three
|
16.1
|
16.0
|
15.2
|
13.7
|
13.1
|
|
Four or More
|
10.1
|
9.8
|
10.5
|
8.1
|
7.7
|
Age of Youngest Child
|
|
Infant
|
NA
|
11.2
|
12.7
|
13.2
|
12.0
|
|
One through Five
|
NA
|
51.5
|
40.5
|
40.2
|
44.6
|
|
Six through Twelve
|
NA
|
26.4
|
32.1
|
29.1
|
28.2
|
|
Thirteen and Older
|
NA
|
10.9
|
14.7
|
17.5
|
15.2
|
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
|
31.3
|
|
Hispanic
|
15.2
|
18.7
|
23.3
|
20.7
|
28.5
|
|
Other and Multi-racial
|
4.3
|
5.0
|
7.6
|
5.3
|
5.9
|
|
Unknown
|
1.8
|
1.9
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
1.1
|
Race Ethnicity of Child Recipients
|
|
White Non-Hispanic
|
33.8
|
33.0
|
25.7
|
28.7
|
25.8
|
|
African-American Non-Hispanic
|
41.3
|
37.9
|
38.8
|
36.1
|
29.9
|
|
Hispanic
|
17.4
|
21.2
|
27.4
|
28.6
|
36.3
|
|
Other and Multi-racial
|
4.3
|
5.0
|
6.9
|
5.6
|
5.9
|
|
Unknown
|
3.2
|
2.9
|
1.1
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: FY2001 through FY2013 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. NA denotes not available.
a.
For FY2013, includes non-recipient parents who are "work-eligible." These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited 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 over the FY1988 to FY2013 period 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:
Families with TANF adult(s), not employed. This group dominated the cash assistance caseload in FY1988, but by FY2013 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)SSI) recipient
. . These families are
usually headed by a parent or couple who receives 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
statefundedstate-funded 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
childrenchildren) in the care of a nonparent, caretaker
relative. 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
11The 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.
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
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
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
'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. In contrast, the total number of families in the
child-only category declined by a comparatively small amount, from 869,000 per month in
FY1994 to 789,000 in FY2001, a decline of
109%. 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
FY2012FY2013 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. In
FY2012 FY2013, 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 (
45.244.7%). Another
18.417.3% 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 groups of
“ "child-only
”" families are shaded in blue.) The largest of the
“"child-only
”
" categories represents children with nonparent relative caretakers (
12.4%).
However, the13.4%). The other two major categories of
"child-only
" families
are where the parent is an ineligible
noncitizen (
10.811.2% of the total caseload) and child-only families where the parent
is an SSI recipient (
9.1% of the total caseload) are nearly as large.
Congressional Research Service
8
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
8.9% of the total caseload).
Figure 2. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance, by Category, Selected
Years FY1988 to
FY2012
FY2013
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control
(QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and
FY2012FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: FY2001 through
FY2012FY2013 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs)
with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For
FY2012FY2013, TANF
families with an adult recipient include those families with
“"work-eligible
”" non-recipient parents. These include
non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive
a reduced benefit. For FY2001 and FY2006, such families cannot be identified and are classified as
“"child-only
”
" families. For a tabular display of this information, see Table A-1
.
.
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 TANF families by category and state in
FY2012FY2013, see Table A-2
.
.
Characteristics of TANF Families, By Family Category:
FY2012
FY2013
The different categories of TANF families reflect different circumstances that either led or
contributed to their remaining on the assistance rolls. 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
”
" 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
's analysis.
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 categorieswith adult(s) who are not employed. 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
FY2012, about 24FY2013, 20.7% of families with an ineligible noncitizen parent reported
earnings. earnings. (This percentage is not shown on the table.) Though the noncitizen parent is not in the assistance unit receiving benefits, the parent
’s
'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 Two-thirds of TANF child-only families with caretaker relatives were reported as single
child cases in
FY2012. This might partially reflect some state practices in considering each child
its own “case” (and hence family) for children cared for by nonparent relatives.
FY2013.
Table 2. Families Receiving TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category and Number
of Child Recipients,
FY2012
FY2013
(As a percent of all families in the category)
Number of Child Recipients
One
Two
Three
Four or
More
Totals
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
51.1
27.9
13.1
7.8
100.0
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
44.6
30.6
15.6
9.3
100.0
Child-Only/SSI Parent(s)
58.5
25.4
10.0
6.1
100.0
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)
31.8
33.7
20.0
14.5
100.0
Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative(s)
67.2
21.4
8.0
3.4
100.0
Totals
51.1
27.7
13.2
8.0
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures
countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient
include those families with “work-eligible” non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have
been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
Congressional Research Service
10
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
Age 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 FY2012, 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
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 FY2012, close to one-fifth (18.0%) of TANF families with an adult who was not
employed 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 FY2012, nearly one-third (32.2%) of TANF child-only families headed by an
SSI parent had a teenager as their youngest child. In FY2012, 29.3% of families with children
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, FY2012
(As a percent of all families in the category)
Infant
Age 1
Age 2
to Age
5
Age 6
to Age
12
Age 13
and
Older
Totals
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
18.0
15.7
34.0
21.9
10.4
100.0
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
10.9
15.3
41.7
22.3
9.8
100.0
5.6
7.0
23.1
32.1
32.2
100.0
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)
10.0
13.1
38.7
28.5
9.6
100.0
Child-Only/Caretaker Relative(s)
2.2
4.1
24.2
40.2
29.3
100.0
12.1
12.7
33.4
26.5
15.3
100.0
Child-Only/SSI Parent(s)
Totals
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures
countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient
include those families with “work-eligible” non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have
been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
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—35.0% of all child recipients in
FY2012. There are differences in the racial/ethnic make-up of child recipients by family category.
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.
Congressional Research Service
11
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
Hispanic children make up most of children with ineligible noncitizen parents. The table also
shows that the largest group of children in child-only families cared for by 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 (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 African-American 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, FY2012
(As a percent of all children in the family category)
White,
NonHispanic
AfricanAmerican,
NonHispanic
Hispanic
Other or
Multiracial
Unknown
Totals
Family with Adult(s)/Not
Employed
26.2%
35.6%
29.8%
6.0%
2.4%
100.0%
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
31.1
32.0
27.9
6.8
2.3
100.0
Child-Only/SSI Parent(s)
29.1
45.5
16.9
6.8
1.7
100.0
1.6
3.2
92.3
1.9
1.0
100.0
Child-Only/Caretaker(s)
42.0
34.4
17.0
5.5
1.1
100.0
Totals
26.2
31.2
35.0
5.6
1.9
100.0
Child-Only/Noncitizen
Parent(s)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures
countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient
include those families with “work-eligible” non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have
been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
Considerations
One
|
Two
|
Three
|
Four or More
|
Totals
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
|
50.1%
|
28.4%
|
13.3%
|
8.1%
|
100.0%
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
|
45.7
|
30.0
|
15.3
|
9.0
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, SSI Parent(s)
|
56.5
|
26.3
|
10.4
|
6.8
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, Noncitizen Parents
|
31.9
|
35.9
|
20.3
|
11.9
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, Caretaker Relatives
|
67.7
|
22.5
|
6.8
|
3.0
|
100.0
|
|
Totals
|
51.0
|
28.2
|
13.1
|
7.7
|
100.0
|
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
Age 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 FY2013, 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 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 FY2013, close to one-fifth (18.2%) of TANF families with an adult who was not employed 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 FY2013, 30.5% of TANF child-only families headed by an SSI parent had a teenager as their youngest child. In FY2013, 28.9% of families with children 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, FY2013
(As a percent of all families in the category)
Infant
|
Age 1
|
Ages 2 through 5
|
Ages 6 through 12
|
Age 13 and Older
|
Total
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
|
18.2%
|
13.9%
|
35.0%
|
22.7%
|
10.3%
|
100.0%
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
|
12.0
|
14.1
|
41.6
|
23.8
|
8.5
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, SSI Parent(s)
|
5.7
|
6.7
|
23.9
|
33.3
|
30.5
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, Noncitizen Parents
|
8.2
|
10.4
|
38.4
|
32.5
|
10.5
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, Caretaker Relatives
|
2.3
|
3.8
|
23.3
|
41.7
|
28.9
|
100.0
|
|
Totals
|
12.0
|
11.2
|
33.4
|
28.2
|
15.2
|
100.0
|
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
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—36.3% of all child recipients in FY2013. There are differences in the racial/ethnic make-up of child recipients by family category.
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.
Hispanic children make up most of children with ineligible noncitizen parents. The table also shows that the largest group of children in child-only families cared for by nonparent relatives is non-Hispanic white. Historically, children in families receiving cash assistance that 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 (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 African American declined. This reflected a decline in the number of African American children who were cared for by nonparent relatives in the overall population.12
Table 4. TANF Child Recipients, by Family Category and Race/Ethnicity, FY2013
(As a percent of all children in the family category)
White/Non-Hispanic
|
African-American/ Non-Hispanic
|
Hispanic
|
Other or Multi-racial
|
Unknown
|
Totals
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
|
24.9%
|
34.2%
|
32.2%
|
6.3%
|
2.4%
|
100.0%
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
|
30.7
|
29.7
|
29.5
|
7.5
|
2.6
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, SSI Parent(s)
|
30.1
|
44.1
|
17.6
|
6.1
|
2.1
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, Noncitizen Parents
|
2.1
|
3.0
|
91.5
|
2.4
|
1.0
|
100.0
|
|
Child-Only, Caretaker Relatives
|
42.2
|
33.3
|
17.4
|
5.7
|
1.4
|
100.0
|
|
Totals
|
25.8
|
29.9
|
36.3
|
5.9
|
2.0
|
100.0
|
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
Considerations
TANF was created in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193
), the culmination of), 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.
In 2015
In 2016, the TANF law turns
1920 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
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
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.
97 million families in
FY2012FY2013 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.
TANF Families with Employed Adults
TANF cash assistance families with an adult reported as working represented
18.417.3% of the cash
assistance caseload in
FY2012—FY2013—more than 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.
They also sometimes represent families in "earnings supplement" programs, which provide a TANF benefit (sometimes a small TANF benefit) to working parents who left traditional TANF cash assistance when they worked and/or received food assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). There was some 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’. A series of welfare reform experiments showed that, without earnings supplements through continued assistance for working families, welfare-to-work initiatives tended to increase work and decrease receipt of welfare, but not increase family income. The experiments that showed increased family income were those that provided continued welfare assistance to families with earnings. 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.
TANF Policies for “Nontraditional” Cash Assistance 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
12
For a discussion of the EITC, see CRS Report R43805, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview, by
Gene Falk 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.
Congressional Research Service
13
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
would otherwise be eligible for federal foster care assistance under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act.15
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.16 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.17
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: whether TANF assistance to relative
caregivers might be an inadequate replacement for foster care, and whether low rates of TANF
receipt among potentially eligible families headed by SSI parents or ineligible immigrant parents
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.18
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.19 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.20
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
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
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.
19
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.
20
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
Appendix.
Table A-1. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category,
Selected Years FY1988 to FY2012
1988
1994
2001
2006
2012
Monthly Average Number of Families
Total Families
3,747,952
5,046,263
2,202,356
1,957,402
1,875,778
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
3,136,566
3,798,997
992,445
825,490
847,613
243,573
378,620
420,794
259,001
344,558
Child-Only/SSI Parent(s)
59,988
171,391
171,951
176,670
170,154
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)
47,566
184,397
125,900
153,445
203,203
188,598
328,290
255,984
261,944
232,328
71,661
184,567
235,282
280,851
77,923
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
Child-Only/ Caretaker Relatives(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
45.2
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
6.5
7.5
19.1
13.2
18.4
Child-Only/SSI Parent(s)
1.6
3.4
7.8
9.0
9.1
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)
1.3
3.7
5.7
7.8
10.8
Child-Only/ Caretaker Relative(s)
5.0
6.5
11.6
13.4
12.4
Child-Only/Other
1.9
3.7
10.7
14.3
4.2
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control
(QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: FY2001 through FY2012 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs)
with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For FY2012, TANF
families with an adult recipient include those families with “work-eligible” non-recipient parents. These include
non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive
a reduced benefit. For FY2001 and FY2006, such families cannot be identified and are classified as “child-only”
families.
(...continued)
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
15
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
Table A-2. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload by Family Category and State, FY2012
Family
with
Adult(s),
Not
Employed
Family
with
Adult(s),
Employed
Alabama
40.8%
23.1%
Alaska
49.7
25.3
Arizona
15.8
Arkansas
ChildOnly, SSI
Parent(s)
Other
Child
Only
Totals
1.1%
21.3%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0
0.9
24.1
0.0
100.0
46.0
0.0
8.5
0.2
29.5
100.0
45.0
18.2
13.6
2.0
21.2
0.0
100.0
California
50.8
16.3
5.6
21.8
4.9
0.8
100.0
Colorado
43.2
24.6
0.0
0.9
24.5
6.9
100.0
Connecticut
42.1
16.7
11.7
3.1
24.6
2.0
100.0
Delaware
31.5
11.5
6.1
6.5
43.7
0.7
100.0
District of
Columbia
52.1
11.4
14.5
8.5
13.6
0.0
100.0
Florida
25.6
4.1
9.8
6.1
53.5
0.9
100.0
Georgia
20.6
2.8
14.6
2.7
57.0
2.3
100.0
Hawaii
38.2
38.3
7.4
0.3
1.4
14.4
100.0
Idaho
10.3
0.7
0.0
2.0
86.3
0.8
100.0
Illinois
45.9
12.1
16.4
4.3
19.7
1.8
100.0
Indiana
33.0
15.9
12.6
9.2
22.7
6.6
100.0
Iowa
45.6
26.0
8.1
4.1
15.8
0.4
100.0
Kansas
42.3
25.9
10.7
4.8
15.9
0.5
100.0
Kentucky
29.0
10.5
15.6
1.1
43.6
0.1
100.0
Louisiana
26.7
7.5
19.0
0.4
38.3
8.1
100.0
Maine
43.0
44.4
8.0
0.1
4.0
0.5
100.0
Maryland
50.7
9.9
8.7
0.0
0.9
29.8
100.0
Massachusetts
48.5
26.4
12.3
5.6
7.1
0.2
100.0
Michigan
48.6
19.5
18.7
2.7
10.4
0.2
100.0
Minnesota
33.4
22.4
17.7
8.5
17.7
0.2
100.0
Mississippi
48.8
11.6
18.8
0.5
20.0
0.2
100.0
Missouri
64.7
14.3
8.9
2.1
9.5
0.6
100.0
Montana
41.4
18.6
0.0
0.3
37.3
2.4
100.0
Nebraska
25.9
23.6
11.2
16.4
17.6
5.4
100.0
Nevada
34.0
21.5
7.9
21.7
14.7
0.2
100.0
New Hampshire
34.4
40.1
6.9
0.9
17.1
0.5
100.0
New Jersey
68.1
8.7
7.1
6.9
9.2
0.0
100.0
New Mexico
47.7
15.4
8.7
17.3
10.8
0.1
100.0
Congressional Research Service
13.7%
ChildOnly,
Noncitizen
Parent(s)
ChildOnly,
Nonparent
Caretaker(s)
16
TANF: Size and Characteristics of the Cash Assistance Caseload
Family
with
Adult(s),
Not
Employed
Family
with
Adult(s),
Employed
ChildOnly, SSI
Parent(s)
ChildOnly,
Noncitizen
Parent(s)
ChildOnly,
Nonparent
Caretaker(s)
Other
Child
Only
Totals
New York
43.2
22.2
11.3
11.2
8.3
3.9
100.0
North Carolina
24.6
5.2
12.0
10.8
46.1
1.3
100.0
North Dakota
42.7
27.7
7.5
0.2
22.0
0.1
100.0
Ohio
25.5
37.3
11.0
2.5
1.0
22.7
100.0
Oklahoma
37.8
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
59.6
100.0
Oregon
55.1
31.1
4.8
5.3
3.6
0.1
100.0
Pennsylvania
56.9
15.5
15.7
1.3
9.6
1.0
100.0
Rhode Island
58.6
11.0
16.0
0.0
6.4
8.0
100.0
South Carolina
45.5
14.7
11.3
1.7
26.7
0.1
100.0
South Dakota
26.2
5.7
8.8
0.5
58.5
0.3
100.0
Tennessee
48.7
19.9
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.0
100.0
Texas
26.4
9.1
7.9
31.5
16.6
8.4
100.0
Utah
31.6
16.8
9.3
9.3
32.9
0.2
100.0
Vermont
36.8
23.4
20.0
0.2
19.5
0.0
100.0
Virginia
44.7
20.2
9.2
3.6
0.5
21.8
100.0
Washington
55.6
9.2
6.6
10.7
15.4
2.6
100.0
West Virginia
38.1
10.9
15.3
0.0
18.8
16.9
100.0
Wisonsin
44.4
12.8
25.0
0.0
17.8
0.0
100.0
Wyoming
30.5
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.1
100.0
Guam
51.0
1.6
0.0
44.9
1.2
1.3
100.0
Puerto Rico
90.4
1.4
0.0
0.9
7.1
0.2
100.0
Virgin Islands
86.3
2.0
3.6
0.0
7.2
0.8
100.0
Total
45.2
18.4
9.1
10.8
12.4
4.2
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2012 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures
countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient
include those families with “work-eligible” non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have
been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
Congressional Research Service
17
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
2012
Percent of All Children
White/Non-Hispanic
5.6%
6.9%
2.5%
2.4%
2.3%
African-American/Non-Hispanic
31.1
33.5
14.9
11.7
10.3
Hispanic
18.2
21.0
9.2
6.7
6.2
Percent of Poor Children
White/Non-Hispanic
50.7
55.3
26.2
24.1
18.4
African-American/Non-Hispanic
71.4
76.7
49.9
35.2
26.8
Hispanic
48.4
50.6
32.7
24.8
19.6
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 2013; the FY1988
and FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control Data Files; and the FY2001,
FY2006, and FY2012 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
18
families who find work while on the rolls.
The welfare reform experiments discussed above were conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since then, there have been expansions of earnings supplements and aid to working families through refundable tax credits (the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit), subsidized child care, and expanded health insurance coverage. 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.
TANF Policies for "Nontraditional" Cash Assistance 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.13
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.14 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.15
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: whether TANF assistance to relative caregivers might be an inadequate replacement for foster care, and whether low rates of TANF receipt among potentially eligible families headed by SSI parents or ineligible immigrant parents 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.16
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.17 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.18
Table A-1. Families Receiving AFDC/TANF Cash Assistance by Family Category, Selected Years FY1988 to FY2013
1988
|
1994
|
2001
|
2006
|
2013
|
|
Monthly Average Number of Families
|
|
Total Families
|
3,747,952
|
5,046,263
|
2,202,356
|
1,957,402
|
1,749,424
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
|
3,136,566
|
3,798,997
|
992,445
|
825,490
|
781,473
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
|
243,573
|
378,620
|
420,794
|
259,001
|
302,079
|
|
Child-Only/SSI Parents(s)
|
59,988
|
171,391
|
171,951
|
176,670
|
156,215
|
|
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)
|
47,566
|
184,397
|
125,900
|
153,445
|
196,103
|
|
Child-Only/Caretaker Relative
|
188,598
|
328,290
|
255,984
|
261,944
|
234,499
|
|
Child-Only/Other
|
71,661
|
184,567
|
235,282
|
280,851
|
79,054
|
|
Percentage of Total Cash Assistance Families
|
|
Total Families
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Not Employed
|
83.7
|
75.3
|
45.1
|
42.2
|
44.7
|
|
Family with Adult(s)/Employed
|
6.5
|
7.5
|
19.1
|
13.2
|
17.3
|
|
Child-Only/SSI Parents(s)
|
1.6
|
3.4
|
7.8
|
9.0
|
8.9
|
|
Child-Only/Noncitizen Parent(s)
|
1.3
|
3.7
|
5.7
|
7.8
|
11.2
|
|
Child-Only/Caretaker Relative
|
5.0
|
6.5
|
11.6
|
13.4
|
13.4
|
|
Child-Only/Other
|
1.9
|
3.7
|
10.7
|
14.3
|
4.5
|
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY1988 and FY1994 AFDC Quality Control (QC) data files and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: FY2001 through FY2013 data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. For FY2013, TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit. For FY2001 and FY2006, such families cannot be identified and are classified as "child-only" families.
Table A-2. TANF Cash Assistance Caseload by Family Category and State, FY2013
|
State
|
Family with Adult(s), Not Employed
|
Family with Adult(s), Employed
|
Child-Only, SSI Parent(s)
|
Child-Only, Noncitizen Parent(s)
|
Child-Only, Non-parent Caretaker(s)
|
Other Child Only
|
Totals
|
|
Alabama
|
39.8%
|
22.8%
|
14.1%
|
1.3%
|
22.0%
|
0.0%
|
100.0%
|
|
Alaska
|
50.3
|
24.7
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
24.0
|
0.1
|
100.0
|
|
Arizona
|
51.2
|
10.5
|
0.0
|
6.9
|
0.1
|
31.4
|
100.0
|
|
Arkansas
|
43.6
|
18.8
|
14.9
|
3.5
|
19.2
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
California
|
51.9
|
14.8
|
4.3
|
21.9
|
6.0
|
1.1
|
100.0
|
|
Colorado
|
41.0
|
29.7
|
0.0
|
1.9
|
22.8
|
4.7
|
100.0
|
|
Connecticut
|
43.7
|
16.6
|
11.0
|
2.1
|
24.9
|
1.7
|
100.0
|
|
Delaware
|
28.7
|
10.6
|
6.2
|
6.4
|
47.4
|
0.7
|
100.0
|
|
District of Columbia
|
52.4
|
13.0
|
15.2
|
7.6
|
11.8
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
Florida
|
26.8
|
3.8
|
10.3
|
6.0
|
52.5
|
0.6
|
100.0
|
|
Georgia
|
21.9
|
3.1
|
14.0
|
2.6
|
56.2
|
2.2
|
100.0
|
|
Hawaii
|
39.2
|
37.0
|
7.2
|
0.3
|
1.5
|
14.9
|
100.0
|
|
Idaho
|
9.2
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
1.5
|
88.6
|
0.2
|
100.0
|
|
Illinois
|
20.5
|
18.7
|
23.7
|
5.1
|
29.5
|
2.5
|
100.0
|
|
Indiana
|
25.0
|
11.6
|
15.7
|
10.8
|
29.4
|
7.5
|
100.0
|
|
Iowa
|
44.7
|
25.1
|
8.6
|
3.9
|
17.3
|
0.4
|
100.0
|
|
Kansas
|
37.6
|
23.8
|
11.2
|
5.7
|
21.4
|
0.4
|
100.0
|
|
Kentucky
|
27.7
|
11.7
|
14.5
|
1.3
|
44.7
|
0.1
|
100.0
|
|
Louisiana
|
24.6
|
6.4
|
19.8
|
0.4
|
40.0
|
8.8
|
100.0
|
|
Maine
|
17.6
|
73.9
|
5.0
|
0.1
|
2.6
|
0.8
|
100.0
|
|
Maryland
|
48.2
|
9.9
|
9.0
|
0.0
|
0.9
|
32.0
|
100.0
|
|
Massachussets
|
44.0
|
33.0
|
10.6
|
5.3
|
7.1
|
0.1
|
100.0
|
|
Michigan
|
37.1
|
20.4
|
23.7
|
3.1
|
15.3
|
0.5
|
100.0
|
|
Minnesota
|
32.6
|
22.2
|
18.0
|
8.5
|
18.6
|
0.2
|
100.0
|
|
Mississippi
|
46.9
|
9.9
|
20.7
|
0.5
|
21.5
|
0.5
|
100.0
|
|
Missouri
|
63.7
|
15.2
|
9.1
|
2.1
|
9.3
|
0.7
|
100.0
|
|
Montana
|
44.9
|
14.7
|
5.1
|
0.1
|
31.7
|
3.4
|
100.0
|
|
Nebraska
|
25.1
|
21.2
|
12.4
|
17.4
|
20.1
|
3.8
|
100.0
|
|
Nevada
|
33.7
|
23.7
|
8.8
|
18.6
|
14.9
|
0.3
|
100.0
|
|
New Hampshire
|
31.0
|
48.2
|
0.8
|
0.9
|
18.9
|
0.1
|
100.0
|
|
New Jersey
|
67.5
|
8.8
|
7.2
|
7.3
|
9.2
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
New Mexico
|
45.3
|
14.6
|
8.4
|
18.4
|
12.9
|
0.5
|
100.0
|
|
New York
|
43.0
|
23.0
|
11.0
|
11.4
|
8.1
|
3.4
|
100.0
|
|
North Carolina
|
25.5
|
4.4
|
13.1
|
10.3
|
46.7
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
North Dakota
|
38.2
|
26.0
|
8.8
|
0.3
|
26.5
|
0.2
|
100.0
|
|
Ohio
|
27.0
|
7.2
|
17.9
|
4.6
|
1.2
|
42.0
|
100.0
|
|
Oklahoma
|
34.2
|
2.2
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
63.6
|
100.0
|
|
Oregon
|
49.1
|
39.1
|
4.1
|
4.4
|
3.2
|
0.1
|
100.0
|
|
Pennslyvania
|
57.4
|
15.5
|
15.5
|
1.1
|
10.0
|
0.5
|
100.0
|
|
Rhode Island
|
57.9
|
11.2
|
16.1
|
0.0
|
6.5
|
8.2
|
100.0
|
|
South Carolina
|
35.5
|
11.2
|
14.6
|
2.6
|
35.9
|
0.3
|
100.0
|
|
South Dakota
|
24.2
|
5.1
|
8.1
|
0.4
|
62.1
|
0.2
|
100.0
|
|
Tennessee
|
45.8
|
18.8
|
0.1
|
1.2
|
34.2
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
Texas
|
24.3
|
8.1
|
8.5
|
32.0
|
17.0
|
10.2
|
100.0
|
|
Utah
|
29.2
|
13.9
|
10.2
|
8.7
|
37.2
|
0.9
|
100.0
|
|
Vermont
|
38.5
|
23.5
|
18.5
|
0.2
|
19.3
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
Virginia
|
42.4
|
21.6
|
9.4
|
3.7
|
0.5
|
22.4
|
100.0
|
|
Washington
|
55.1
|
9.8
|
7.3
|
8.7
|
16.5
|
2.7
|
100.0
|
|
West Virginia
|
37.2
|
9.3
|
14.6
|
0.0
|
20.4
|
18.5
|
100.0
|
|
Wisonsin
|
43.1
|
15.0
|
24.2
|
0.0
|
17.7
|
0.0
|
100.0
|
|
Wyoming
|
34.7
|
3.7
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
60.2
|
0.5
|
100.0
|
|
Guam
|
41.7
|
1.9
|
0.0
|
54.6
|
1.5
|
0.4
|
100.0
|
|
Puerto Rico
|
90.3
|
1.5
|
0.0
|
0.7
|
7.4
|
0.2
|
100.0
|
|
Virgin Islands
|
86.6
|
2.8
|
2.7
|
0.0
|
6.9
|
1.2
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
44.7
|
17.3
|
8.9
|
11.2
|
13.4
|
4.5
|
100.0
|
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Notes: Data include families receiving assistance from separate state programs (SSPs) with expenditures countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. TANF families with an adult recipient include those families with "work-eligible" non-recipient parents. These include non-recipient parents who have been time-limited or sanctioned off the rolls, but the family continues to receive a reduced benefit.
Table A-3. Ratio of TANF Child Recipients to All Children and Poor Children by Race/Ethnicity, Selected Years
1988
|
1994
|
2001
|
2006
|
2013
|
|
Percentage of All Children
|
|
White/Non-Hispanic
|
5.6%
|
6.9%
|
2.5%
|
2.4%
|
2.1%
|
|
African American/Non-Hispanic
|
31.1
|
33.5
|
14.9
|
11.7
|
9.2
|
|
Hispanic
|
18.2
|
21.0
|
9.2
|
6.7
|
6.3
|
|
Percentage of Poor Children
|
|
White/Non-Hispanic
|
50.7
|
55.3
|
26.2
|
24.1
|
19.6
|
|
African American/Non-Hispanic
|
71.4
|
76.7
|
49.9
|
35.2
|
23.7
|
|
Hispanic
|
48.4
|
50.6
|
32.7
|
24.8
|
20.8
|
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 2014; the FY1988 and FY1994 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Quality Control Data Files; and the FY2001, FY2006, and FY2013 TANF National Data Files.
Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Social Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Acknowledgments
[author name scrubbed] 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.
Footnotes
| 1.
|
CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 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.
|
See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2013.
|
| 4.
|
For HHS tabulations of the TANF national data files for FY2013 and earlier years, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource-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.
|
| 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.
|
This is based on the Census Bureau's categorization of people by age: under 18, age 18 to 64, and age 65 and older. See Carmen DeNavas-Walt and Bernadette D. Proctor, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-252, September, 2015.
|
| 8.
|
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.
|
| 9.
|
For a discussion of this research, see CRS Report R42767, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare-to-Work Revisited, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 10.
|
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 FY2013, 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 "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.
|
| 11.
|
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.
|
| 12.
|
See information on living arrangements of children at http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/children.html.
|
| 13.
|
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 [author name scrubbed].
|
| 14.
|
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.
|
| 15.
|
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.
|
| 16.
|
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.
|
| 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.
|
| 18.
|
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.
|