Order Code RL30797
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Trends in Welfare, Work and the Economic
Well-Being of Female-Headed Families
with Children: 1987- 2000
Updated December 21, 2001
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Trends in Welfare, Work and the Economic Well-Being
of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987 - 2000
Summary
Welfare reform legislation, signed into law in 1996 as the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193), replaced the
61 year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, a federal
entitlement program for low-income families with children. In place of AFDC, the
law created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, a federal
block grant program providing resources to the states. TANF eliminated the federal
entitlement to assistance that existed under AFDC and gave states increased flexibility
to run programs to assist needy families with children. A major purpose of TANF is
to end dependence of needy families on government assistance by promoting job
preparation, work, and marriage.
This report examines trends in welfare, work and economic well-being of female-
headed families with children, the principal group affected by the replacement of
AFDC with TANF. The report presents analysis of 14 years of U.S. Census Bureau
Current Population Survey (CPS) data, the principal source of information for U.S.
family income and poverty statistics. The beginning of the analysis period precedes
the Family Support Act of 1988, the last major nationwide welfare reform law passed
by Congress before TANF. The analysis spans the run-up in welfare caseloads that
began in 1989 and the historic caseload declines that have followed since reaching an
all-time high in early 1994. Over the period studied, a variety of economic,
demographic, and public policy and program changes, besides TANF, are likely to
have affected welfare, work and the economic well-being of single-mother families.
This report does not attempt to untangle these possible effects.
The analysis shows that there has been a dramatic transformation with regard to
welfare, work and poverty status of single mothers over the past 14 years. Many of
these changes began before the passage and implementation of TANF, but have
continued, perhaps to an even greater extent, since. The analysis shows that single
mothers are more likely to be working in recent than in past years, and that they are
less likely to receive cash welfare or to be poor. However, reductions in poverty have
not been as large as the large declines in welfare and the increased rates of work that
have occurred. The analysis indicates that welfare receipt rates among poor families
headed by single mothers have dropped considerably. Among single mothers whose
incomes place them in the bottom fifth of all such mothers, income from earnings
supplemented by the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has grown markedly since
1993, but not until 2000 have these gains been sufficient to offset losses in cash
welfare and food stamps that have occurred in each year since 1994. The report
suggests that full-time full-year work may be necessary, but not sufficient, to raise
single mothers’ family incomes above poverty. U.S. income support policy will
continue to be challenged to promote economic self-support through work and to
reduce poverty and welfare dependency among families headed by single mothers.
This may be especially true given the weakened state of the current economy.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Single Mothers’ Employment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Welfare Receipt Among Single Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Poor Single Mothers’ Work and Welfare Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Single Mothers’ Poverty Status . . 12
Effect of Earnings and Other Nonwelfare Cash Income on Poverty . . . . . 14
Effect of Cash Welfare on Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Effect on Poverty of Counting Selected Income Sources Not Included
in the “Official” Poverty Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Effect of Food Stamps on Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Effect of the EITC and Taxes on Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Effect of Unrelated Household Member’s Income on Poverty . . . . . . 16
Degree of Poverty Among Poor Single Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sources and Level of Income Among Lower-Income Single Mothers . . . . 18
Conclusions and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A: Cash Welfare Under-reporting
on the CPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix B: Family Income to Poverty Ratios–Cutoffs for Income Quintiles . 27
Appendix C: Support Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
List of Figures
Figure 1. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt,
1987-2000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. Welfare, Work and Poverty Status Among
Single Mothers, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 3. Employment Rates of Single and Married Mothers,
by Age of Youngest Child, March 1998 to March 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 4. Single Mothers: Cash Welfare Recipiency Rates,
1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 5. Cash Welfare Recipiency Rates Among Single-Mother
Families, by Pre-transfer Income*Poverty Status, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 6. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates Among Single Mothers,
by Household Income Relative to Household Low-Income
Threshold, 1987to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 7. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status
During the Year, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

---

Figure 8. Effects of Earnings, Transfers and Taxes on Family
Poverty and Household Low-Income Status of Single
Mothers, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 9. Poverty Gap*Percentiles Based on Cash Income for
Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 10. Poverty Gap*Percentiles Based on Net After-Tax Cash
Income (including the EITC) and the Value of Food Stamps, for
Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 11. Bottom Income Quintile of Single-Mother Families:
Average Annual Income by Source, 1987 to 2000
(in 2000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 12. Second Income Quintile*of Single-Mother Families:
Annual Average Income by Source, 1987 to 2000
(in 2000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 13. Working Single Mothers’ Job Attachment,
by Welfare and Poverty Status: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 14. Median Hourly Wage*of Working Single Mothers in
March 2001, by Welfare and Poverty Status in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 15A-1. AFDC/TANF Cases: CPS versus Administrative
Caseload Counts (Annual Monthly Average), 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 16B-1. Income to Poverty Percentiles of Mother-Only Families,
Based on Ranking of Families by Family Cash Income Relative to
Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 17B-2. Income to Poverty Percentiles of Mother-Only Families
Based on Ranking Families After-Tax Income Plus Food Stamps
Relative to Family Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 1999 . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 18B-3. Income to Poverty Percentiles of Mother-Only Families
Based on Families Ranked by Household After-Tax Income Plus
Food Stamps Relative to Household Poverty Income Thresholds,
1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
List of Tables
Figure A-1. Support Table 1. AFDC/TANF Cases: CPS versus
Administrative Caseload Counts, Annual Monthly Average,
1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure B-1 Support Table 2. Income Poverty Percentiles of
Mother-Only Families Based Families Ranked by Cash
Income Relative to Family Poverty Income Thresholds,
1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure B-2. Support Table 3 Income to Poverty Percentiles of
Mother-Only Families Based on Families Ranked by
Family After-Tax Income Plus Food Stamps Relative to
Family Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure B-3. Support Table 4. Income to Poverty Percentiles
of Mother-Only Families Based on Families Ranked by
Household After-Tax Income Plus Food Stamps Relative to
Household Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 1. Support Table 5. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash
Welfare Receipt, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 2. Support Table 6. Welfare, Work and Poverty Status Among
Single Mothers, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

---

Figure 3. Support Table 7. Employment Rates in March of Single
Mothers and Married Mothers by Age of Youngest Child,
March 1988 to March 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figures 4. and 5. Support Table 8. Single-Mother Family Cash Welfare
Recipiency Rates, by Pre-Transfer Income Poverty Status*, 1987 to 2000 33
Figure 6. Support Table 9. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates Among
Single-Mother Families, by Household Income Relative to
Poverty, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 7. Support Table 10. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status
During the Year, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 8. Support Table 11. Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on
Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status on Single Mothers,
1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 9. Support Table 12. Poverty Gap Percentiles* Based on Cash
Income for Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 10. Support Table 13. Poverty Gap Percentiles* Based on Cash
Income, Food Stamps, and Net Taxes Including the EITC for Poor
Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 11. Support Table 14. Bottom Income Quintiles of Single Mother
Families: Average Annual Income by Source, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 12. Support Table 15. Second Income Quintile of Single Mother
Families: Average Annual Income by Source, 1987 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . 39

---

Trends in Welfare, Work and the Economic
Well-Being of Female-Headed Families
with Children: 1987 - 2000
Introduction
Welfare reform legislation, signed into law in 1996, as the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193),
replaced the 61 year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program,
a federal entitlement program to low-income families with children. In place of
AFDC, the law created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, a federal block grant program to states. The AFDC program principally
assisted low-income single-parent families, mostly headed by women. Federal law
established the rules by which families might be determined eligible for assistance
under AFDC, although states set their own benefit standards. TANF eliminated the
federal entitlement to assistance that existed under AFDC, and gave states increased
flexibility to design programs to assist needy families with children. A major purpose
of TANF is to end dependence of needy families on government assistance by
promoting job preparation, work, and marriage. Among its provisions, the federal
welfare reform law imposes a maximum 5-year lifetime limit on receipt of federally-
funded assistance (states may impose shorter limits than the federal maximum), and
work participation requirements. A variety of groups are monitoring state programs
under TANF, and the possible effects on vulnerable populations of TANF and other
welfare policy changes enacted in PRWORA.
This report examines trends in welfare, work and economic well-being of female-
headed families with children, the principal group affected by the replacement of
AFDC with TANF. The report presents data from Congressional Research Service
(CRS) analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census March Current Population Survey
(CPS), the principal source of information for U.S. family income and poverty
statistics. The analysis is based on CPS data collected from March 1988 to March
2001. The earliest year’s data precedes the passage of the Family Support Act of
1988 (P.L. 00-485), the last major nationwide reform to the AFDC program prior to
its repeal under TANF. The data series begins before the most recent run-up in cash
welfare caseloads that occurred under AFDC in the late-1980s and early 1990s,
continues through the period in which caseloads peaked (March 1994), and follows
through to 2000 when caseloads were still falling.
Over the period examined in this report, a variety of economic and demographic
factors, and policy interventions are generally thought to have affected cash welfare
caseloads. Increased numbers of single-mother families, especially never-married
mothers who are prone to poverty and receipt of welfare, as well as the economic
recession (July 1990 to March 1991) are generally thought to have contributed to the

---

CRS-2
increase in the AFDC caseload from mid-1989 to March 1994.1 The 10-year long
economic expansion (from March 1991 to March 2001), the longest in U.S. history,
presented a most favorable economic climate to provide jobs to mothers who
otherwise might rely on welfare, and is considered to have contributed to declines in
welfare caseloads. CPS data are not yet available to capture possible effects of the
economic recession that began in March 2001, so from these data it is too early to tell
how severely the recent economic decline will impact families headed by single
mothers.
A variety of welfare policy interventions are likely to have affected welfare
caseloads by conditioning benefits on new behavioral requirements. For example, the
1988 Family Support Act extended work requirements (which could include work
preparation activities, such as education and training) from mothers with child as
young as 6 to mothers with a child as young as 3. (Under the law, states had the
option of extending work requirements to mothers with a child as young as 1.) In the
years immediately preceding passage of the 1996 welfare law, states experimented
with changes to welfare policy under waiver authority granted to the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).2 Among the features of state
programs tested under waiver authority granted by the Secretary were efforts to
strengthen work requirements, experiments requiring a “work first” approach rather
than “training first, followed by work”, time limits, strengthened sanctions for
noncompliance with welfare rules, and capping of welfare benefits for a new baby
conceived or born while a mother was receiving welfare. After the passage of the
1996 welfare reform law, many states adopted these and many other approaches first
tried under welfare waivers.
In addition, a number of other policy interventions are generally thought to have
promoted work compared to welfare over the period examined in this report.
Expanded eligibility and funding for child care has helped made work possible for
mothers who otherwise might have difficulty finding child care. For example, the
1988 Family Support Act expanded eligibility for child care assistance in the form of
transitional child care assistance for families working their way off AFDC. In 1990,
federally funded child care assistance was extended to low-income families deemed
to be at risk of receiving welfare under the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG).3 Expansions to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 1990 (phased-in
1991 and 1992) and in 1993 (phased-in 1994 through 1996) expanded the credit’s
“work bonus” to families with children, amounting to as much as 40 cents on each
1See for example, CRS Report 93-7, Demographic Trends Affecting Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) Caseload Growth, by Thomas Gabe; and, Peskin, Janice.
Forecasting AFDC Caseloads, with an Emphasis on Economic Factors. Congressional
Budget Office Staff Memorandum, July 1993.
2Section 1115 of the Social Security Act grants the Secretary authority to waive compliance
of states with certain sections of the Social Security Act for state experiments or
demonstrations which the Secretary judges to promote specific objectives of the Act.
3See: CRS Report RL30785, The Child Care and Development Block Grant: Background
and Funding, by Alice Butler and Melinda Gish.

---

CRS-3
dollar earned for a low-income family with two children.4 Over the period examined
in this report, the minimum wage was increased 4 times.5 Additionally, most states
allowed inflation to substantially erode the real value of welfare benefits over this
period, diminishing the value of welfare relative to work.6 Furthermore, since the
passage of TANF, most states have increased financial work incentives for families
receiving cash assistance by allowing families to keep more of their cash welfare
benefit as their earnings increase.7
Untangling the effects of demographic factors, the economy, welfare policy and
other policy interventions on single-mothers’ work behavior, welfare receipt, income,
and poverty status, is beyond the scope of this report. Others have attempted to
parcel out these effects with mixed success and differing conclusions as to the relative
impacts of each.8 In contrast to these efforts, this report is intended to simply
describe changes in single mothers’ welfare, work, income and poverty status that
have occurred over the past 14 years. The analysis which follows relies on data from
the U.S. Bureau of the Census March CPS data. Over the period examined, the
March CPS data provides a comparatively consistent approach for assessing changes
in the economic status of single-mothers and their families. The March CPS asks
questions about family composition in March, family members’ labor force and
4For a description of the EITC, see: CRS Report RL30991, The Earned Income Tax Credit:
Current Issues and Benefit Amounts, by Melinda Gish. For an analysis of the possible effects
of the EITC on welfare receipt and mothers’ work, see: Meyer, Bruce D., and Dan T.
Rosenbaum. Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single
Mothers. NBER Working Paper No. 7363, September 1999. (Hereafter cited as Meyer and
Rosenbaum. Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit)
5The federal minimum wage increased from $3.35 per hour to $3.80 per hour, effective April
1990, to $4.25 per hour, effective April 1991, to $4.75 per hour, effective October 1996, and
$5.15 per hour, effective September 1997. For an analysis of possible effects of minimum
wage increases on welfare participation, see: Turner, Mark. The Effects of Minimum Wages
on Welfare Recipiency. Paper presented at the National Association for Welfare Research
and Statistics, August 1998.
6Maximum TANF benefits available for a family of three in the median state in January 2000
were nearly 22% below the maximum level available to a family under AFDC in January
1987, after adjusting for the effects of price inflation. In only one state, Hawaii, were TANF
benefits in January 2000 equal to the January 1987 AFDC benefit level, and in one state, New
Mexico, higher, after adjusting for price inflation. In all other states, maximum price
adjusted TANF benefits were lower in January 2000 than January 1987 AFDC benefits.
7For a discussion of changes in work incentives under TANF compared to AFDC see: CRS
Report RL30579, Welfare Reform: Financial Eligibility Rules and Cash Assistance Amounts
under TANF, by Craig Abbey.
8See, for example: Council of Economic Advisors. Technical Report: Explaining the Decline
in Welfare Receipt, 1993-1996.” A Report by the Council of Economic Advisers,
Washington, D.C. April 1997; Ziliak, James P., Figlio, David N., Davis, Elizabeth E., and
Connolly, Laura S. “Accounting for the Decline in AFDC Caseloads, Welfare Reform or the
Economy? The Journal of Human Resources, v. XXXV, no. 3, p. 570-586. Moffitt, Robert
A. The Effect of Pre-PRWORA Waivers on AFDC Caseloads and Female Earnings, Income,
and Labor Force Behavior, in Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform. Danziger, Sheldon
(ed.), Kalamazoo, Mich. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1999.

---

CRS-4
employment status in the month, and retrospective accounting of income and labor
force participation during the prior year. The data presented in this report capture
family composition from March 1988 to March 2001, and family income and poverty
status from 1987 to 2000, providing a representative cross-section of families headed
by single mothers in each year.9
Overview
CPS data show an increase in cash welfare receipt (AFDC, TANF, or other
assistance) among single mothers during the late 1980s and early 1990s and a
decrease in the mid-to-late 1990s. The CPS data generally correspond to the caseload
rise and fall documented by administrative program data, but underestimates the
caseload statistics to some extent.10 Figure 1 shows that the total number of single
mothers increased from 8.4 million in 1989, to about 9.9 million in 1993, an increase
of 1.5 million, or 17%. From 1993 to 1998, the number of single mothers has
remained fairly stable, between 9.8 and a peak 10.1 million (in 1996). Since 1998, the
number of single mothers has dropped from 9.9 million to 9.4 million, in 2000.
The number of single mothers in families reporting receipt of cash welfare on the
CPS increased from 2.5 million in 1989, to 3.4 million in 1993, an increase of
900,000, or 36% over the 4-year period. Since 1993, the number of single mothers
reporting cash welfare has fallen to 1.2 million in 2000, (a two-thirds decline) (the
bottom-shaded portion in Figure 1).11 Over the same period, the number of poor
single mothers who reported receiving no cash welfare increased by 378,000, from
1.721 million in 1993 to 2.1 million in 2000 (the middle-shaded area in Figure 1).
Figure 2 provides an overview of single mothers’ welfare, work and poverty
status from 1987 to 2000. The figure shows that since 1993, the share of single
mothers who worked at some time during the year has increased markedly and that
the share who received cash welfare (AFDC and, post-1996 TANF) has declined
significantly, as has the share who are poor under the official poverty definition.12 The
figure illustrates that while both cash welfare recipiency rates and poverty rates for
single mothers have fallen, single mothers’ welfare recipiency rates have fallen faster
than poverty rates.
9 Unlike longitudinal surveys, the CPS does not follow the same families from year to year.
Longitudinal surveys allow for the study of how individual families’ circumstances change
over time.
10See Appendix A, which compares CPS estimates to AFDC/TANF caseload counts.
11Administrative caseload statistics show the caseload as peaking in March 1994, with nearly
5.1 million cases. By June 2001, the caseload had dropped to 2.1 million cases; a 59%
decline from its March 1994 peak.
12The “official” U.S. Census Bureau definition counts cash, pre-tax, income against poverty
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. In 2000, for example, a single mother
with one child would be considered poor if her income were below $11,869, and if she had two
children, below $13,874.

---

CRS-5
Figure 1. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt,
1987-2000
Number (in millions)
10
9
8
7
Neither poor nor receiving cash
welfare
6
5
Poor, but not receiving cash
4
welfare
3
2
Receiving cash welfare,
including those who are not
1
poor
0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of
U.S. Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Figure 2 shows that during the 1987 to 1993 period, the share of single mothers
who worked at any time during the year hovered just below 70% in most years; since
1993, the share working has increased each year, reaching 84% in 2000. During the
1987 to 1993 period, roughly one-out-of-three single mothers received cash welfare.
In 1993, the most recent peak year of welfare receipt on the CPS, about 35% of single
mothers received cash welfare; since then the cash welfare receipt rate has declined
each year, falling to 12.5% in 2000–about one-third the 1993 rate. The figure shows
that the poverty rate among single mothers which from 1987 to 1993 ranged from
44% to 45% (except in 1989), has fallen from about 45% in 1993 to about 31% in
2000–about two-thirds the 1993 rate.

---

CRS-6
Figure 2. Welfare, Work and Poverty Status Among
Single Mothers, 1987 to 2000
Percent
Percent
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
Single mothers who worked at
80%
any time during the year
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
Poverty rate
40%
40%
*
*
*
*
*
*
Received cash
welfare
30%
*
*
*
30%
*during the year
Received cash welfare but
*
20%
did not work during year
*
20%
*
*
10%
10%
Worked and received cash
welfare during year
0%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of
U.S. Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Single Mothers’ Employment Rates
While welfare receipt has declined, dramatic gains in single mothers’ employment
have occurred since 1993. Figure 3 shows employment rates of single and married
mothers by age of youngest child in March, from 1988 to 2001. The chart shows that
gaps that had existed between single and married mothers’ employment have virtually
been eliminated in recent years, with single mothers now being more likely than their
married counterparts to be working.
The increase in employment among single mothers with young children has been
most dramatic. Among mothers with a child under the age of 3, their employment
rate increased from a recent low of 35.1% in March 1993 to a high of 59.1% in
March 2000, a 24 percentage point increase over the period. Their employment rate
dropped slightly to 56.1% in March 2001. Single mothers with a youngest child age
3-5 also experienced marked employment gains over the mid-to-late 1990s. Their
employment rate grew from a recent low of 54.1% in March 1992, to 74.4% by
March 2001, a 20.3 percentage point increase over the period. In March 2001, the
employment rate of single mothers with a youngest child age 3-5 surpassed that of
their married counterparts by 9.7 percentage points. Single mothers whose youngest

---

CRS-7
child was of school age (age 6-17) had employment rates about equal to those of their
married counterparts over the 1988-2001 period.
Figure 3. Employment Rates of Single and Married Mothers,
by Age of Youngest Child, March 1998 to March 2001
Percent employed
Percent employed
100%
100%
95%
90%
90%
85%
80%
80%
Age 6 to 17
75%
70%
Age 3 to 5 70%
65%
60%
60%
Under age 3
55%
50%
50%
45%
40%
40%
35%
30%
30%
Married mothers
25%
Single mothers
20%
20%
15%
10%
10%
5%
0%
0%
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
The healthy economy, combined with a transformed welfare system,
improvements to the EITC, and increases in the minimum wage, are among factors
thought to have encouraged work among single mothers in recent years. TANF, and
the AFDC waivers that preceded it, transformed cash assistance from a needs-based
entitlement to a program of temporary assistance, encouraging work and personal
responsibility. Imposition of work requirements, time limits, and sanctions, and in
most states, more generous earnings disregards, all serve to encourage work, either
in lieu of welfare or, for a temporary period, in conjunction with welfare. The EITC,
which is conditioned on earnings, is thought to encourage work among most groups,
especially single parents who were not working, or who were marginally attached to
the labor market. Increases in the EITC, passed by Congress in 1993 and phased in
between 1994 and 1996, have increased the financial incentive for single mothers to
work.13 Other factors, such as increased funding for child care subsidies, may also
have contributed to making work possible for more single mothers.
13Meyer and Rosenbaum, (Hereafter cited as Meyer and Rosenbaum. Welfare, the Earned
Income Tax Credit), attribute 60% of the increase in single mothers weekly and annual
employment between 1984 and 1996 to the EITC.

---

CRS-8
Welfare Receipt Among Single Mothers
Figure 4 shows that cash welfare recipiency rates among single mothers overall,
and among poor single mothers based on their pre-transfer income (i.e., cash income
excluding cash welfare), remained fairly steady during the 1987-93 period, but have
fallen considerably since. Among single mothers overall, about one-third received
cash welfare during the late-1980s and early 1990s, with a low of about 30% in 1989
and a peak of about 35% in 1993. Cash welfare recipiency rates among single
mothers began to fall after 1993, falling to 12.5% in 2000 – about a two-thirds drop
in the rate from 7 years earlier.
Figure 4. Single Mothers: Cash Welfare Recipiency Rates,
1987 to 2000
Percent
Percent
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
Cash welfare recipiency rate among
single mothers with pre-transfer
60%
income* below poverty
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
Cash welfare recipiency rate
20%
all single mothers
10%
10%
0%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S.
Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Pre-transfer income is cash income other than cash welfare payments.
Recent declines in cash welfare recipiency rates have not simply been due to
diminished need for assistance, as recipiency rates have fallen even among mothers
who would appear to be in economic need, based on their pre-transfer income relative
to poverty. For example, Figure 4 shows that among single mothers who were poor
based on their pre-transfer cash income, the share who received cash welfare generally
hovered around 63% over the 1987-93 period. Since 1993, the cash welfare
recipiency rate among single mothers with pre-transfer income below poverty has
fallen each year, reaching a low of 31% in 2000.

---

CRS-9
Figure 5 shows cash welfare recipiency rates in greater detail by families’ level
of financial need, as measured by families’ levels of pre-transfer income relative to
poverty. The figure shows that cash welfare recipiency rates have fallen considerably
in recent years even among single mothers who might be considered especially needy
by having very low levels of pre-transfer income relative to poverty. For example, the
top line of Figure 5 shows that nearly 90% of single mothers with no pre-transfer
income reported receiving cash assistance from 1987 to 1990. However, since 1990,
the reported rate of cash welfare recipiency among this group drifted downwards, to
77% in 1996, and afterwards fell abruptly, to about 52% by 2000. Similarly, for
single mothers with very low pre-transfer income relative to poverty (below 25% of
poverty), and for families with pre-transfer incomes between 25 and 50% of poverty,
cash welfare recipiency rates also show dramatic declines after 1996: for the former
group from 72% in 1996 to 44% in 2000, and for the latter group from 60% in 1995
to 37% in 2000.
Figure 5. Cash Welfare Recipiency Rates Among Single-Mother
Families, by Pre-transfer Income*Poverty Status, 1987 to 2000
Percent receiving cash welfare
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
$0 in pre-transfer income
50%
Pre-transfer income > $0
40%
but below 25% of poverty
Pre-transfer income between 25% and
50% of poverty
30%
20%
Pre-transfer income between
50% and 100% of poverty
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S.
Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Cash income excluding cash welfare relative to poverty.
Likewise, food stamp recipiency rates among low-income households have also
fallen in recent years, although the declines have not been as dramatic as the declines
in cash welfare recipiency rates shown above. Figure 6 shows that in 1994, 71% of
single-mother families with household income below 130% of poverty (the Food
Stamp Program’s gross income qualifying limit) reported receiving food stamp
benefits; by 2000 the share had fallen to about 50%. Among those with household
incomes below 50% of the low-household income threshold, in 1994, 80% reported

---

CRS-10
food stamp receipt; in 1999 just 63% reported food stamp receipt. The food stamp
recipiency rate for this group increased slightly in 2000, to 66%.
Figure 6. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates Among Single Mothers,
by Household Income Relative to Household Low-Income
Threshold, 1987to 2000
Food stamp recipiency rate
100%
90%
80%
Household income as a % of
70%
low-income threshold:
Less than 50%
60%
50%
Less than 130%
50% to less than 130%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S.
Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
To at least some extent, the declining cash welfare and food stamp recipiency
rates shown in Figures 4 through 6 are likely due to increased under-reporting of
welfare receipt on the CPS. Worsened reporting of cash welfare on the CPS makes
it difficult to gauge how much of the drop in welfare receipt among female-headed
families with children represents eligible families who do not receive assistance rather
than families who do not report actual welfare aid on the CPS. See Appendix A for
a brief analysis of the possible extent of under-reporting of cash welfare on the CPS.

---

CRS-11
Poor Single Mothers’ Work and Welfare Status
Although poverty rates among single mothers have declined in recent years, there
is a greater likelihood today, than in years past that a poor single mother will be
working, rather than receiving welfare. As shown above, poor single mothers are less
likely to be receiving cash welfare in recent than in earlier years (Figures 4 and 5).
Similarly, like all single mothers, poor single mothers are also now more likely to be
working than not. Changes in poor mothers’ participation in work and welfare status
first became evident in the early-to-mid 1990s, with rates of employment increasing
after 1992 and rates of welfare receipt declining after 1993 (see Figure 7, 2 darkest
lines). A crossover point was reached between 1995 and 1996, when the chances that
a poor single mother would be working exceeded the chances that she would be
receiving welfare.
Figure 7. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status
During the Year, 1987 to 2000
Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
Worked during year
60%
50%
Worked during year,
did not receive cash welfare
40%
30%
Received cash welfare
during year
20%
Received cash welfare
and worked during year
10%
Neither worked, nor
Received cash welfare during year,
received cash welfare
did not work
during the year
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of
U.S. Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Figure 7 shows that the share of poor single mothers who received cash welfare
at any time during the year fell from just over 60% in the 1987-93 period, to about
28% in 2000 – a decline of over two-thirds. The rate of decline in welfare receipt
among poor single mothers has been greatest since 1996, a period coinciding with the
passage and implementation of national welfare reform legislation. Similarly, the
share of poor single mothers who were working at any time during the year increased

---

CRS-12
from around 44% in 1992, to about 64% in 1999 and 2000, regardless of whether
they were receiving cash welfare.
The share of poor single mothers who relied on cash welfare without working
dropped from a peak of 43% in 1991, to about 14% in 2000 (a two-thirds drop from
the 1991 rate). The share of poor single mothers who worked without relying on cash
welfare has increased from a recent low of about 25% in 1993, to 50% in 2000
(double the 1993 rate). The share of poor single mothers who combined work and
welfare over the year which had remained relatively constant over the prior 13 years,
at around 20%, fell to about 13% in 2000. While the share of poor mothers who
worked remained unchanged between 1999 and 2000, the share of working poor
mothers receiving cash welfare declined.
The share of poor single mothers who reported that they neither worked nor
received cash welfare during the year (the dashed line in Figure 7) has increased from
a low of about 12% in 1991 to around 22% in 2000. This surprising combination may
reflect a mix of circumstances, including income or support from other sources such
as family members, support from unrelated household members (which is not included
in the official poverty measure), and other means of support from outside the
household not captured on the CPS. It may also reflect income reporting problems
on the CPS, especially with regard to welfare income.14 Finally, welfare diversion and
sanction policies may have contributed to the increased number of poor mothers
neither working nor receiving welfare.
Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on
Single Mothers’ Poverty Status
As shown earlier, in Figure 2, single mothers’ poverty status has improved since
1993. Changes in the economy and changes in welfare policy and other programs,
such as the EITC, have both direct and indirect effects on income and poverty.
However, the official U.S. poverty measure counts only family cash income
(excluding capital gains and lump sum or one-time payments) against a family’s
poverty threshold (which varies by family size and composition) to determine whether
a family is counted as poor. The definition does not include the value of in-kind
benefits, such as food stamps, school lunches, or public housing subsidies, nor does
it include the effects of taxes or tax credits such as the EITC. Inclusion of in-kind
benefits and the EITC provides a more comprehensive income definition than the
official definition. Additionally, other unrelated household members may contribute
to the family’s economic well-being, but determining the extent to which resources
are shared among unrelated household members is often difficult.
Figure 8 shows the effects of income from these other sources on poverty
among all single mothers. Components of family income are sequentially added and
measured against families’ poverty thresholds, as one moves from the top line of the
chart to subsequent lines below:
14See Appendix A on CPS under-reporting.

---

CRS-13
! Line 1: The top line shows the percent of single mothers who would be
counted as poor if only family earnings were counted against the poverty line.
! Line 2: The second line down includes other sources of cash income, in
addition to earnings, that were already counted above (e.g., social security
payments, unemployment compensation, workers compensation, interest and
dividends, inter-family transfers). However, this line does not include cash
welfare.
! Line 3: The third line down adds cash welfare to the other sources already
mentioned, and with those sources, represents the income definition used in the
official poverty measure.
Figure 8. Effects of Earnings, Transfers and Taxes on Family
Poverty and Household Low-Income Status of Single
Mothers, 1987 to 2000
Percent poor
60%
55%
50%
45%
Poor based on:
40%
Earned income only
+ +
35%
+ + + + +
+
+ cash income other than cash welfare
30%
+ +
+ cash welfare (Official Poverty Definition)
+
+ food stamps
+
25%
+
+ EITC less FICA and income taxes
Household Income Below Low-Income Threshold:
20%
+Household cash + food stamps + EITC less FICA and
income taxes
15%
10%
5%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S.
Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Lines 4 through 6 include food stamps, taxes (including the effects of the EITC)
and income of other unrelated household members that are not included under the
“official” U.S. Bureau of the Census poverty definition:
! Line 4: The fourth line down shows the market value of food stamps when
added to cash income and compared to the family poverty threshold.
! Line 5: The fifth line down shows the effect of adding the value of the EITC,
less federal and state income taxes and payroll taxes, to line 4.
! Line 6: The bottom (dashed) line shows the effects of counting all income in
the household in which the single mother lives, not just that of her related

---

CRS-14
family members, and comparing it to an unofficial “household low-income
threshold.” The household low-income threshold used here applies family
poverty income thresholds, which are based on family size and composition,
to households, based on household size and composition. It must be noted
that official poverty measurement is based on a family concept, which assumes
that family members share income and economies of scale that result from
shared living arrangements. It is generally agreed among researchers that
assumptions regarding income sharing and shared economies of scale among
related family members, who have ties based on blood, marriage, and adoption,
do not apply to the same extent among unrelated household members.
Consequently, these estimates of household low-income status likely overstate
the effect of household income on reducing poverty among families headed by
single mothers.
In viewing Figure 8, note that the trend in earnings is the principal factor
affecting the declining trend in poverty, whereas the other income sources, with the
exception of the EITC, affect the level of poverty, more than its trend over time.
Evidence of this effect is that most lines in the chart, with the exception of the EITC,
roughly run parallel to the ones above.
Effect of Earnings and Other Nonwelfare Cash Income on
Poverty
Figure 8 shows that between 1993 and 2000, single mothers’ poverty, based on
family earnings alone, fell from 56.2% to 40.1% (line 1). Adding other cash income,
except cash welfare, to family earnings (line 2), reduces poverty in 1993 from 56.2%
to 47.4%, and in 2000 from 40.1% to 32.1%.
Effect of Cash Welfare on Poverty
When added to other income, cash welfare benefits have only a small impact on
the poverty rate, as these benefits generally are not sufficient, even when combined
with other cash income, to lift families above the federal poverty threshold. In the
vast majority of states the level of earnings or other cash income at which states’ cash
welfare benefits under TANF become unavailable for a family are well below the
poverty line for example. In January 2000, in only 10 states could a single mother
with two children have earnings above the poverty line and still continue to receive
TANF cash assistance.15 Consequently, cash welfare benefits have little impact on the
poverty rate. The addition of cash welfare (line 3, representing the official income
definition for measuring poverty) reduces poverty only slightly: from 47.4% (line 2)
to 45.2% (line 3) in 1993, and from 32.1% to 30.9% in 2000. Nonetheless, cash
welfare benefits can have a significant impact on the level of poor families’ incomes,
affecting the degree to which their incomes fall below the poverty income standard.
This impact is not captured by changes in the poverty rate as shown above in Figure
8.
15 See: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. 2000 Green
Book. Table 7-13 (Breakeven Points), p. 398-400. Washington, D.C. Oct. 6, 2000.

---

CRS-15
Effect on Poverty of Counting Selected Income Sources Not
Included in the “Official” Poverty Measure
The following three measures include income from sources not included under
the “official” U.S. Bureau of the Census poverty definition (i.e., food stamps, taxes
(including the effects of the EITC) and income of other unrelated household members.
Effect of Food Stamps on Poverty. The fourth line from the top in Figure
8 shows the effect on the poverty rate of single mothers by counting the value of food
stamps. The line shows that food stamps reduce the poverty rate of single mothers
from about 2 to 3 percentage points over the period. The anti-poverty effectiveness
of food stamps seems to have lessened somewhat in recent years. In 1995, food
stamps reduced the poverty rate from 40.2% (its official measure) to 36.9%, a 3.3
percentage point (8.1%) reduction in poverty. In 2000, food stamps reduced the
poverty rate from its official rate of 30.9%, to 29.3%, a 1.6 percentage point (5.2%)
reduction.
Effect of the EITC and Taxes on Poverty. As noted above, the net effect
of the EITC16 (after counting the effect of reductions in income from federal and state
income taxes and FICA taxes) (line 5), when added to total family cash income and
food stamps (line 4), causes a divergence in trend from the lines above. This is
especially notable after 1993. A major expansion of the EITC, passed by Congress
in 1993 and phased in between 1994 and 1996, increased the amount of the EITC
work bonus families might receive. The anti-poverty effectiveness of the EITC was
approximately three times greater in 2000 than in 1993. In 1993, the EITC reduced
the poverty rate (counting food stamps) among single mothers from 42.7% (line 4),
to 40.7% (line 5), a 2.0 percentage point (4.6%) reduction. In 2000, the EITC
reduced poverty from 29.3% to 24.2%, a 5.1 percentage point (17.4%) reduction.
As receipt of the EITC is conditioned on earnings, the growing impact of the
EITC in part reflects the rise in work rates among single mothers. Among those who
are working and poor (before counting the EITC), the EITC helps lift the income of
some above the poverty line. Although the EITC expansion provided additional
income to low-income families who were already working, it may also have helped
induce increased employment among family heads with low to moderate earnings
potential, and thus contributed to the decline in poverty based on earned income only
that has occurred since 1993 (shown as the top line in the chart).
Note too, that to the extent that changes in cash welfare programs in recent years
have encouraged work (such as work requirements and increased earnings
disregards), these changes may have had an indirect effect on poverty by increasing
earnings and, through earnings, making the EITC available to a greater number of
families.
16Note that the value of the EITC on the CPS is based on Census Bureau imputations, rather
than actual reported tax credits. Also, the EITC is different from most sources of income, as
most families receive the EITC as a lump sum refund.

---

CRS-16
Effect of Unrelated Household Member’s Income on Poverty. The
household low-income line (bottom line) shows that if all household members’
income were shared equally among household members, the poverty rate among
single mothers would drop by at most 3 to 4 percentage points over the 1987 to 2000
period. Adding other non-family members’ income, and counting them as though they
were family members who shared income equally, reduced the post in-kind transfer,
post-tax, poverty rate in 1993 from 40.7% to 36.8%; in 2000 the post-in-kind
transfer, post-tax, poverty rate would have dropped from 24.2% to 20.3%. Again,
this is most likely an overstatement of the possible effect that shared household living
arrangements might have on single mothers’ poverty status, because of uncertainty
about the extent to which such income is actually shared.
Degree of Poverty Among Poor Single Mothers
As noted above, the poverty rate measures only the percent of families whose
incomes fall below their respective poverty thresholds, based on family size and
composition. Although the poverty rate provides an overall indication of the level of
need in the population, it does not measure the extent of need among poor families.
Figures 9 and 10 show two different measures of the “poverty gap” among poor
families headed by single mothers–that is, the degree to which poor families incomes
fall below the poverty income level. In these figures the poverty gap is depicted as
family income as a percent of poverty among poor families. Figure 9 is based on the
cash income poverty measure, whereas Figure 10 is based on cash income plus the
value of food assistance and taxes (including the EITC). Note that the families
depicted in Ffigure 10 are a subset of those included in Figure 9, as they are families
who remain poor after considering food stamps and taxes (including the EITC)–the
effects of which are not counted in Figure 9. In each figure the extent of poverty
among poor families is depicted at various percentiles, based on families’ ranked by
family income as a percent of poverty.
Figures 9 and 10 show that the median family income as a percent of need (i.e.,
poverty) among poor families has remained relatively steady over the past 14 years.
Based on “official” cash income, for purposes of measuring poverty, the median
family income as a percent of need among poor families headed by single mothers has
ranged from a low of 48%, in 1988 and 1992, to as high as 55% of poverty in 2000
(Figure 9). Looking at just the subset of single-mother families who were poor based
on a more comprehensive income definition that includes food stamps and taxes
(including the EITC), the median family income as a percent of need was somewhat
higher over the period, ranging from a high of 65% of poverty, as recently as 1995,
to a low of 62% of poverty, in 1998 and 1999, and 63% in 2000 (Figure 10).
Both Figures 9 and 10 show recent declines in income relative to poverty for the
poorest families headed by single mothers. For example, Figure 9, shows that for the
bottom 5th of poor single mothers, family income relative to poverty fell from a recent
high of 28% of poverty in 1996, to a low of 22% of poverty the following year. Since
1997 the income of the poorest 5th of families head by single mothers has increased
only slightly, to about 24% of poverty in 2000. Looking at the subset of single-
mother families that were poor based on the more comprehensive income definition

---

CRS-17
(cash, food stamps, and taxes (including the EITC)), the bottom 5th have seen a
decline in relative economic well-being from a high of 43% of poverty, in 1994, to a
low of 30% of poverty in 2000 (Figure 10).
Figure 9. Poverty Gap*Percentiles Based on Cash Income for
Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000
Income as a percent of poverty
100%
90%
Top 20 percent
80%
70%
Top 40 percent
60%
Median (50th Percentile)
50%
Bottom 40 percent
40%
30%
Bottom 20 percent
20%
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source:
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census
Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Poor families' cash income as a percent of families' poverty thresholds.
Figure 10. Poverty Gap*Percentiles Based on Net After-Tax Cash
Income (including the EITC) and the Value of Food Stamps, for
Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000
Income as a percent of poverty
100%
90%
Top 20 percent
80%
70%
Top 40 percent
Median (50th Percentile)
60%
Bottom 40 percent
50%
40%
30%
Bottom 20 percent
20%
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S.
Census Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Poor families' based on cash after-tax income and the market value of food stamps as a percent of families' poverty thresholds.

---

CRS-18
Sources and Level of Income Among Lower-Income Single
Mothers
The composition and level of income among the single-mother families at the
bottom of the income distribution has changed markedly in recent years, reflecting
increased earnings supplemented by increased EITC and reductions in cash welfare
and food stamps. For single mothers in the bottom fifth (bottom quintile), increased
earnings and EITC had not been sufficient, until 2000, to offset losses in cash welfare
and food stamps that had occurred since 1994, the previous peak income year for this
group. Families in the bottom 20% to 40% (second quintile) also received less cash
welfare and food stamps and increased earnings supplemented by the EITC in recent
years. Total income for this group reached a new high in 2000.
Figures 11 and 12 examine sources of income among the bottom quintile
(bottom 20%) and the second lowest quintile (bottom 20% to 40%) of single-mother
families, respectively, based on their pre-tax cash income relative to poverty. The
income to poverty ratios demarcating the break points at which a family qualifies as
being in the bottom and second from the bottom quintiles are shown in Appendix B.
The charts show the average annual income, in 2000 dollars, from the following
sources: cash public assistance (AFDC, TANF, and General Assistance (GA));
Supplemental Security Income (SSI); food stamps (market value); child support and
alimony; other cash income other than earnings; net earnings (earnings net of the
employee share of FICA payroll taxes and any federal or state income taxes); and the
EITC. The employee share of FICA payroll taxes, and any federal or state income tax
payments are also shown as negative values. Note that these estimates are based on
year-to-year income comparisons of cross-sectional survey data, rather than a
comparison of incomes for the same families over time.
Figure 11 shows declining reliance on cash welfare and food stamps since 1994,
and increased reliance on earnings, supplemented by the EITC, among families headed
by single mothers in the bottom income quintile. However, not until 2000 have
increased earnings, supplemented by the EITC, been sufficient to offset the losses in
income from cash welfare and food stamps. In 2000, increased earnings and EITC
helped to raise average total income of single mother families in the bottom income
quintile to $7,944, eclipsing the previous high of $7,332 in 1994.
Average cash welfare and food stamp benefits reported by single mothers in the
bottom quintile have fallen since 1994. In 1994, combined average AFDC and
General Assistance benefits were $2,605 for this population; by 2000 combined
TANF and General Assistance had fallen to $1,005, 39% of their 1994 value.
Similarly, in 1994, average food stamp benefits amounted to $2,538; by 2000 they had
fallen to $1,461, 58% of their 1994 value. In spite of increased earnings,
supplemented by increased EITC benefits, earnings gains were insufficient to offset
reduced cash welfare and food stamp aid until 2000.
The growing importance of the EITC as an earnings supplement, can be
illustrated by comparing the average EITC as a share of average earnings shown in
Figure 11. Legislative expansions to the EITC in 1990 (phased in between 1991 and
1992) and in 1993 (phased in from 1994 through 1996) expanded the credit’s “work

---

CRS-19
bonus” to families with children, amounting to a supplement of as much as 40 cents
on each dollar earned. In 1990, the average EITC depicted in Figure 11 amounted
to about 13% of average earnings of mothers in the bottom income quintile. By 1993,
the EITC “work bonus” increased to 18% of earnings, and then doubled to 37% of
earnings by 1996, once legislative expansions had completely phased in. In 2000, the
average EITC ($1,039) received by families headed by single mothers in the bottom
income quintile slightly exceeds the average cash assistance ($1,005) families in this
income category receive. In addition to providing needed income to low-income
working families, the EITC has also likely encouraged work and increased earnings.
Figure 11. Bottom Income Quintile of Single-Mother Families:
Average Annual Income by Source, 1987 to 2000
(in 2000 dollars)
$7,944Total (Net) Income
Net Income
$8,000
$7,332 $7,287 $7,245
$1,039
$7,009
EITC
$281
$6,800
$423
$7,000
$543
$6,735 $6,725
$6,612 $6,554
$104
$6,523
$6,412
$6,261
$6,262
$1,012
$804
$110
$115
$115
$480
$657
$826
$121
$118
$118
$1,274
$6,000
$826
$882
$722
$681
$1,463
$393
$708
$416
$984
$292
$1,265
$257
$326
$2,856Earnings(net of taxes)
$232
$466
$162
$457
$460
$190
$379
$1,690 $2,161
$5,000
$222
$366
$204
$223
$296
$427
$215
$330
$622
$267
$2,306
$2,538
$4,000
$2,224 $2,434
$601
$2,175
$2,269
$2,321
$2,193
$624
$568 Other income
$2,002
$226
$2,151
$351
$528 Child support/alimony
$2,027
$3,000
$108
$93
$93
$101
$245
$1,792
$84
$157
$151
$287
$241
$1,547 $1,461Food Stamps
$2,000
$209
$283
$2,808
$309
$2,492 $2,622 $2,781 $2,736 $2,380 $2,503 $2,605 $2,355
$487 SSI
$2,091
$1,000
$1,864
$1,478 $1,214
AFDC, TANF, GA
$1,005
$0
Taxes
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Quintiles based on ranking of ratios of family cash, pre-tax income, relative to poverty. Taxes include federal
and state income taxes and FICA taxes.
Figure 12 is similar to Figure 11, but shows average income by source for the
second quintile of single-mother families, ranked by their income relative to poverty.
The chart shows comparatively large gains in average total income from 1993 to
1995, due largely to increased earnings and EITC. Over this period, average total net
income increased from $11,941 to $15,123, a gain of nearly 27%. With the exception
of 1996, average earnings for single mothers in the second quintile continued to grow;
however, earnings and the EITC were insufficient to offset declines in cash assistance

---

CRS-20
and food stamps in 1996 and 1997. From 1995 to 1997, combined earnings and
EITC gains ($833 offset only 62% of the loss in combined cash assistance and food
stamp benefits ($1,350) over the period.
By 2000, average total income among single mothers in the second quintile
reached a new high. In 2000, earnings in combination with the EITC more than offset
the loss in combined cash assistance and food stamps that occurred over the 1995 to
2000 period. Over the period, the gain in average net earnings, in combination with
EITC ($5,133), more than offset the $2,970 loss in combined cash assistance and food
stamps. By 2000, average net earnings ($10,690) accounted for 60% of these
families’ incomes ($17,692) and cash assistance ($679) accounted for just under 4%.
In contrast, in 1987, earnings accounted for about 28% of this group’s income
($3,524 in earnings out of a total net income of $12,587) and cash assistance ($4,356)
comprised about 35%. In 2000, average total income for families in the second
quintile ($17,692) was 41% above that in 1987 ($12,587).
Figure 12. Second Income Quintile*of Single-Mother Families:
Annual Average Income by Source, 1987 to 2000
(in 2000 dollars)
Net Income
$18,000
$17,692 Total (Net) Income
$17,000
$2,399
$16,074
EITC
$16,000
$15,123
$15,325
$15,000
$2,324
$14,407
$1,535 $13,967
$2,179
$14,000
$1,948
$12,864
$13,076
$1,627
$13,000
$12,587
$12,752
$494
$388
$12,133
$483
$12,253
$1,120
$12,000
$11,838 $11,941
$402
$575
$570
$562
$11,000
$5,868
$3,524
$10,000
$3,486 $4,489 $4,215 $3,721
$10,690 Earnings (net of taxes)
$3,368 $4,426
$3,609
$5,536 $6,285 $7,680 $8,991
$9,000
$8,000
$1,692 $1,548 $1,479 $1,498 $1,439
$1,512
$7,000
$417
$1,444
$1,495 $1,853
$367
$475
$474
$399
$466
$6,000
$529
$1,710
$1,712
$595
$1,711
$622
$1,481 $1,798 $1,883
$1,807
$1,688
$5,000
$498
$1,809
$636
$453
$1,698
$1,731
$1,737
$574
$4,000
$470
$481
$766
$705
$1,557
$463
$1,463
$1,830 Other income
$824
$558
$3,000
$953
$1,286
$719
$814
$1,076
Child support/alimony
$4,356
$863
$4,167
$2,000
$3,873 $3,812 $3,754
$778
$781
$3,414 $3,521 $2,918
$869
$644
Food Stamps
$2,556
$774
$2,181
$1,000
$1,657
$589
SSI
$1,233
$928
$679
AFDC, TANF, GA
$0
Taxes
-$1,000
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census
Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Quintiles based on ranking of ratios of family cash, pre-tax income, relative to poverty. Taxes include
federal and state income taxes and FICA taxes.

---

CRS-21
Conclusions and Policy Implications
CRS analysis of 14 years of U.S. Census Bureau CPS data shows a dramatic
transformation in single mothers’ welfare, work, and poverty status over the period.
CPS data generally follow the upsurge in the AFDC caseload evidenced by
administrative/program statistics that occurred in the late-1980s and early 1990s, and
the historic declines that followed. Increases in the number of families headed by
single mothers during the late-1980s and early 1990s are likely to have contributed
to the rapid growth in cash welfare caseloads under the AFDC program that occurred
over the period. The number of single mothers increased from about 8.2 million in
1987 to a peak of just over 10 million in 1996; falling to about 9.4 million in 2000.
Welfare caseloads have dropped dramatically since their most recent peak in March
1994. Economic conditions certainly contributed to the welfare caseload increase
that began in the late 1980s and the historic declines since 1994. A number of policy
interventions have helped to increase the economic returns to work and to encourage
work over welfare. Increases to the EITC and the minimum wage, and erosion of
most states’ welfare benefit levels due to inflation, have helped to increase the
economic returns to work compared to welfare in recent years. States’ extension of
work requirements to mothers with younger children, increased welfare sanction
authority, and adoption of time-limits on welfare receipt, first experimented with
under AFDC waiver authority, and now widely adopted by states under TANF, have
helped to transform the welfare system from an entitlement program to a program that
emphasizes self-support, primarily through work, and personal responsibility.
The CPS data shows that single mothers are considerably more likely to be
working, and less likely to be poor or receiving welfare in most recent than in earlier
years (Figure 2). Although many of these changes precede passage of the 1996
welfare law, reductions in welfare receipt have since been especially large. Since
1996, poor single mothers are more likely to work during the year than to receive
welfare (Figure 7). However, reductions in poverty among single mothers have not
been as large as the concurrent declines in cash welfare receipt and increased work
among single mothers in recent years. Moreover, CPS data indicate that welfare
receipt rates among very poor families based on their pre-transfer (i.e., other than
welfare) income have dropped considerably in recent years (Figure 5).
Among single-mother families whose incomes are lowest (the bottom 20% of
single-mothers based on family income relative to poverty), income from earnings has
grown markedly since 1993 (Figure 10). However, not until 2000 have earnings
gains, supplemented by the EITC, been sufficient to offset the losses in cash welfare
and food stamp benefits that have occurred since 1994 for this group, so as to
increase their total income.
The CPS data show that although welfare receipt and poverty among single
mothers has declined in recent years, mothers receiving welfare are now more likely
to be working, and poor mothers are now less likely to be receiving welfare and more
likely to be working than in past years. Prospects of single mothers working their
way off welfare and out of poverty hinge in large part on their finding full-time, stable
employment at a sufficient wage.

---

CRS-22
CPS data show that most single mothers work full-time schedules (35 or more
hours per week) when they work (See Figure 13). Among single mothers who
combined welfare and work during the year, 57% worked full-time schedules. In
comparison, 64% of working single mothers who were poor but did not receive
welfare worked full-time schedules. Poor single mothers not receiving cash welfare
were also more likely to have worked full-year (50 to 52 weeks) (45%) than their
counterparts who received cash welfare (29%).
Figure 13. Working Single Mothers’ Job Attachment,
by Welfare and Poverty Status: 2000
Percent
100%
4.5%
7.2%
Part-time, part-year
Part-time, part-year
7.7%
90%
19.3%
Part-time, full-year
Part-time, part-year
10.5%
Part-time, full-year
34%
11.2%
80%
Part-time, part-year
Full-time, part-year
16.4%
16.5%
Full-time, part-year
70%
Part-time, full-year
9.1%
60%
Part-time, full-year
50%
28.8%
Full-time, part-year
40%
37.8%
76.7%
Full-time, part-year
Full-time, full-year
65.9%
30%
Full-time, full-year
20%
35.4%
Full-time, full-year
10%
19.1%
Full-time, full-year
0%
Worked and received
Poor, received
Near poor
Income above
cash welfare
no cash welfare
(100% - 150% of poverty)
150% of poverty
during year
no cash welfare
no cash welfare
Welfare and poverty status
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
March 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
One policy challenge to reduce poverty and welfare dependency among single
mothers may be to assist mothers in moving to full-time, full-year work. However,
full-time full-year work is likely necessary, but not sufficient, for some single mothers
to have incomes above poverty and not rely on cash welfare. Nearly one-fifth (19%)
of single mothers who combined work and welfare worked full-time, full-year and
35% of poor single mothers who did not receive welfare worked full-time full-year.
(See Figure 13). For these mothers, full-time attachment to a job was insufficient to
move them off of welfare or out of poverty. Single mothers with incomes somewhat
above poverty (100% to 150% of poverty) were nearly twice as likely to have worked
full-time full-year (66%) than working poor mothers not receiving welfare (35%) and
over three-times as likely as mothers who combined work and welfare during the year
(19%).

---

CRS-23
In March 2001, most working single mothers who are poor or receive cash
welfare earned more than the federal statutory minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.
Figure 14 shows that in March 2001, there was no difference in the median hourly
earnings of single mothers who received welfare during the prior year ($8.00 per
hour), and those who were poor but did not receive welfare.17 Median hourly
earnings of working single mothers with incomes just above poverty, $8.10 per hour,
were not much different than working mothers who were poor or received cash
welfare. Although there is not much difference in the median hourly wage of near
poor single mothers, poor single mothers, and mothers who received welfare, near
poor single mothers are substantially more likely to work full-time, full-year than their
counterparts who received cash welfare or were poor. Clearly, full-time full-year
work lessens the chances that a single mother and her children will be poor or receive
cash welfare, but does not completely eliminate those chances. Among single mothers
who did not work full-time full-year, 58% were poor or received cash welfare in
2000, compared to only 13% who worked full-time full-year (not shown in figures).
17The CPS asks questions about hourly wage rates of hourly workers for only about one
fourth of the CPS sample who are leaving the survey–a group technically referred to as the
“outgoing rotation group.” (The CPS interviews households for 8 months. After 4 months of
interviews, a household leaves the survey for 4 months, and afterwards is interviewed for an
additional 4 months, after which the household leaves the survey permanently. In March,
selected questions, such as hourly wage rates, are asked only of households who have been
in the survey for 4 or 8 months, and will be leaving the survey in the following month (either
temporarily or permanently)). The estimates of hourly earnings shown in Figure 14 are based
on hourly wages of hourly workers, and for other workers, estimated hourly earnings based
on reported gross weekly earnings divided by usual hours worked.

---

CRS-24
Figure 14. Median Hourly Wage*of Working Single Mothers in
March 2001, by Welfare and Poverty Status in 2000
Percent
$15.00
$14.00
$13.00
$12.00
$11.00
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$12.00
$5.00
$4.00
$8.00
$8.00
$8.10
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Worked and received
Poor, received
Near poor
Income above
cash welfare
no cash welfare
(100% - 150% of poverty)
150% of poverty
during year
no cash welfare
no cash welfare
Welfare and poverty status
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau March 2001
Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
* Hourly wage for hourly wage workers, and estimated hourly wage equivalent, based on reported gross weekly earnings
divided by usual weekly hours worked, for CPS outgoing rotation group (approximately 1/4th of CPS sample).
Absent significant increases in single mothers’ job attachment or hourly earnings,
income supports in the form of child support, earnings supplements, such as the
EITC, food, housing, and medical assistance, as well as cash welfare, are likely to
continue to play important roles in addressing the needs of single-mother families. A
challenge for these and other approaches will be to reduce basic unmet need and at
the same time promote economic self-sufficiency. Income support may become all
the more important given the weakened state of the current economy.

---

CRS-25
Appendix A: Cash Welfare Under-reporting
on the CPS
A comparison of AFDC/TANF administrative statistics and CPS-estimated
caseload counts suggests that the CPS undercounts actual cases and that the CPS
undercount has worsened in recent years. Figure A-1 shows that from 1987 to 1991,
the CPS accounted for roughly 80% of the AFDC administrative caseload count, but
in 2000 the CPS was capturing only about 60%.18 Worsened reporting of cash
welfare on the CPS makes it difficult to gauge how much of the drop in welfare
receipt among single mothers represents eligible families who do not receive
assistance, rather than families who do not report actual welfare aid on the CPS.
Figure 15A-1. AFDC/TANF Cases: CPS versus Administrative
Caseload Counts (Annual Monthly Average), 1987 to 2000
Number (in millions)
Percent
5.0
100%
4.5
90%
Administrative count (left axis)
4.0
80%
3.5
70%
3.0
60%
CPS as a percent of
administrative count
(right axis)
2.5
50%
2.0
40%
CPS count (left axis)
1.5
30%
1.0
20%
0.5
10%
0.0
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data and Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) caseload data.
18The CPS estimates are for all adults reporting receipt of AFDC or TANF during the year,
converted to an estimate of an annual monthly average, based on the number of months over
the year recipients reported receiving assistance. For a detailed discussion of cash welfare
under-reporting on the CPS and other surveys see: Bavier, Richard. Accounting for
increases in failure to report AFDC/TANF receipt. Unpublished manuscript. Washington,
D.C. Office of Management and Budget. 2000.

---

CRS-26
Figure A-1. Support Table 1. AFDC/TANF Cases: CPS versus
Administrative Caseload Counts, Annual Monthly Average,
1987 to 2000
(numbers in millions)
Persons reporting
AFDC and TANF
AFDC or TANF
cases based on
CPS as a percent of
Year
receipt on the CPSa administrative datab
administrative total
1987
3.039
3.719
81.7
1988
3.056
3.691
82.8
1989
2.901
3.738
77.6
1990
3.226
3.995
80.8
1991
3.554
4.434
80.2
1992
3.596
4.765
75.5
1993
3.844
4.949
77.7
1994
3.551
4.974
71.4
1995
3.193
4.741
67.3
1996
3.022
4.387
68.9
1997
2.355
3.690
63.8
1998
1.892
3.000
63.1
1999
1.464
2.496
58.7
2000
1.320
2.186
60.4
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on U.S. Bureau of
the Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) AFDC and TANF caseload data.
aEstimated average monthly number based on number of months CPS respondents
indicated they received AFDC or TANF during the year.
bAverage monthly number of AFDC cases in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia.

---

CRS-27
Appendix B: Family Income to Poverty
Ratios–Cutoffs for Income Quintiles
Figure B-1 shows the income relative to poverty cutoffs for defining the first
and second income quintiles depicted in Figures 11 and 12. The dark lines represent
the level of family cash income (i.e., the income definition for measuring poverty
under the official U.S. Bureau of the Census poverty definition) as a percent of
poverty which defines the bottom fifth and bottom two-fifths of single-mother
families, ranked by family relative to poverty. The lighter-shaded lines show other
income percentiles relative to poverty. The figure shows, for example that the bottom
fifth of single-mother families ranked by official cash income relative to poverty had
family income below 42% of poverty in 1992; by 2000, the relative income of the
bottom fifth (20th percentile) of single-mother families increased to having family
income below 70% of the poverty line. Similarly, the second-fifth (between the 20th
and 40th percentiles) of single-mother families had family income above 42% of
poverty but below 85% of poverty in 1992; by 2000, the second-fifth of single mother
families had family incomes above 70% of poverty but below 126% of poverty. The
figure shows that the bottom 10% of single-mother families has shown only slight
improvement in family income relative to poverty over the 14 year period, ranging
from a low of 27% of poverty in 1992, to a high of 37% of poverty in 2000.
Figure 16B-1. Income to Poverty Percentiles of Mother-Only
Families, Based on Ranking of Families by Family Cash Income
Relative to Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 2000
Income as a percent of poverty
200%
190%
180%
170%
160%
50th percentile
150%
140%
130%
40th percentile
120%
110%
Poverty Line
100%
30th percentile
90%
80%
70%
20th percentile
60%
50%
40%
10th percentile
30%
20%
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census
Bureau March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-28
Figures B-2 and B-3 are similar to Figure B-1, but depict single-mother
families’ income rankings based on alternative definitions of income relative to
poverty. Figure B-2, for example, ranks families based on family after-tax income
(including the EITC) plus food stamps, whereas Figure B-3 ranks families based on
household after-tax income plus food stamps, relative to a household poverty income
threshold based on household size and composition. In both cases, Figures B-2 and
B-3 show comparatively better income position relative to poverty than does Figure
B-1, which uses the official poverty income definition. For example, in 2000, the
bottom fifth of single-mother families had incomes below 70% of poverty under the
official poverty income definition, shown in Figure B-1. When taxes, including the
EITC, and food stamps are considered the bottom fifth of single-mother families had
incomes below 89% of poverty (shown in Figure B-2), and if household after-tax
income and food stamps are counted against a revised household poverty threshold,
the bottom 20% of single-mother families have incomes below poverty (100% of the
poverty threshold) (shown in Figure B-3). Although the alternate income definitions
also result in improved income standing relative to poverty for the bottom 10% of
single-mother families compared to the official poverty income measure, the trend in
relative economic well-being for this group is only slightly improved in 2000
compared to its 1992 low under these alternative measures.
Figure 17B-2. Income to Poverty Percentiles of Mother-Only
Families
Based on Ranking Families After-Tax Income Plus Food Stamps
Relative to Family Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 1999
Income as a percent of poverty
200%
190%
180%
170%
160%
50th percentile
150%
140%
40th percentile
130%
120%
30th percentile
110%
Poverty Line
100%
90%
20th percentile
80%
70%
60%
10th percentile
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-29
Figure 18B-3. Income to Poverty Percentiles of Mother-Only Families
Based on Families Ranked by Household After-Tax Income Plus
Food Stamps Relative to Household Poverty Income Thresholds,
1987 to 2000
Income as a percent of poverty
200%
190%
180%
170%
50th percentile
160%
150%
40th percentile
140%
130%
120%
30th percentile
110%
Poverty Line
100%
20th percentile
90%
80%
70%
10th percentile
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source:
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Figure B-1 Support Table 2. Income Poverty Percentiles of
Mother-Only Families Based Families Ranked by Cash
Income Relative to Family Poverty Income Thresholds,
1987 to 2000
Income as a percent of poverty defined at each percentile
Year
10th%tile
20th%tile
30th%tile
40th%tile
50th%tile
1987
29.3
46.7
65.6
87.2
116.5
1988
27.8
44.5
65.0
86.2
121.7
1989
29.6
49.3
69.5
94.2
126.8
1990
29.6
47.3
66.5
88.8
120.7
1991
27.3
44.9
63.4
85.3
114.2
1992
26.5
42.5
62.0
84.7
113.5
1993
28.2
44.4
61.0
84.2
114.6
1994
30.1
48.2
67.9
91.8
122.9
1995
31.9
53.2
74.3
99.8
130.0
1996
31.9
50.6
72.8
100.5
130.0
1997
29.3
51.4
73.9
100.2
130.3
1998
29.5
54.5
82.0
106.9
138.3
1999
32.1
61.0
87.2
119.0
148.0
2000
37.2
70.5
96.7
125.7
155.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the
Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-30
Figure B-2. Support Table 3 Income to Poverty Percentiles of
Mother-Only Families Based on Families Ranked by
Family After-Tax Income Plus Food Stamps Relative to
Family Poverty Income Thresholds,
1987 to 1999
Income as a percent of poverty defined at each percentile
Year
10th %tile
20th %tile
30th %tile
40th %tile
50th %tile
1987
47.2
65.3
80.6
97.5
119.3
1988
43.8
61.8
79.6
97.1
123.7
1989
47.4
66.2
83.5
102.7
127.8
1990
46.7
65.1
81.7
100.2
122.8
1991
46.9
64.5
80.1
97.6
121.3
1992
43.8
61.5
78.4
98.7
121.7
1993
45.7
62.9
78.7
98.2
122.4
1994
50.0
68.2
85.8
108.8
132.6
1995
51.5
72.6
93.3
117.4
139.1
1996
51.8
71.3
92.2
118.1
139.6
1997
45.4
71.4
94.3
117.7
139.7
1998
48.2
75.0
101.1
124.6
148.1
1999
50.1
80.1
105.9
131.2
153.7
2000
55.3
89.4
112.6
135.7
157.8
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the
Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Figure B-3. Support Table 4. Income to Poverty Percentiles
of Mother-Only Families Based on Families Ranked by
Household After-Tax Income Plus Food Stamps Relative to
Household Poverty Income Thresholds, 1987 to 1999
Income as a percent of poverty defined at each percentile
Year
10th %tile 20th %tile
30th %tile
40th %tile
50th %tile
1987
51.1
69.3
85.6
104.5
130.1
1988
49.1
67.5
85.0
105.1
132.2
1989
52.1
71.9
89.1
111.9
138.3
1990
52.8
70.2
87.8
108.7
134.0
1991
52.3
70.1
86.3
108.2
134.7
1992
49.4
67.6
86.3
108.1
132.7
1993
50.9
68.7
84.9
107.6
132.6
1994
54.5
74.0
94.7
119.9
143.6
1995
57.2
79.7
102.4
126.7
149.8
1996
57.2
78.7
102.0
126.3
149.8
1997
54.0
79.4
104.4
128.7
152.3
1998
56.4
83.2
109.8
135.3
160.2
1999
58.6
90.2
117.1
143.0
168.9
2000
65.4
99.5
122.8
148.6
171.4
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the
Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-31
Appendix C: Support Tables
Figure 1. Support Table 5. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash
Welfare Receipt, 1987 to 2000
(in thousands)
Number of
Poor but not
Neither poor nor
mother only
Number receiving
receiving
receiving
Year
families
AFDC/TANF
AFDC/TANF
AFDC/TANF
1987
8,193
2,719
1,399
4,076
1988
8,321
2,737
1,380
4,204
1989
8,400
2,537
1,452
4,411
1990
8,745
2,901
1,456
4,387
1991
9,031
3,101
1,554
4,375
1992
9,567
3,300
1,691
4,575
1993
9,860
3,439
1,722
4,700
1994
9,837
3,166
1,754
4,916
1995
9,887
2,862
1,818
5,207
1996
10,052
2,669
1,946
5,437
1997
9,874
2,225
2,211
5,438
1998
9,881
1,872
2,253
5,756
1999
9,741
1,543
2,216
5,981
2000
9,425
1,174
2,100
6,151
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the
Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Figure 2. Support Table 6. Welfare, Work and Poverty Status
Among Single Mothers, 1987 to 2000
Percent who received AFDC/TANF during the
year
Percent who
Percent poor
worked during
(“official
Did not work
Worked
Year
year
definition”)
Total
during year
during year
1987
67.3
44.7
33.2
21.8
11.4
1988
68.9
43.9
32.9
21.1
11.8
1989
70.1
41.7
30.2
20.1
10.1
1990
69.8
43.7
33.2
20.9
12.3
1991
68.7
45.4
34.3
22.0
12.3
1992
67.2
45.4
34.5
22.2
12.3
1993
68.1
45.2
34.9
21.8
13.1
1994
71.4
42.7
32.2
18.8
13.4
1995
73.0
40.2
28.9
16.5
12.4
1996
75.1
39.8
26.6
14.6
12.0
1997
77.3
40.0
22.5
11.4
11.1
1998
79.6
37.3
18.9
8.2
10.7
1999
82.0
34.0
15.8
6.5
9.3
2000
83.4
30.9
12.5
5.6
6.9
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the
Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-32
Figure 3. Support Table 7. Employment Rates in March of Single
Mothers and Married Mothers by Age of Youngest Child,
March 1988 to March 2001
(percent of single mothers employed in March)
Single mothers
Married mothers
With a
With a
Youngest
child
Youngest
Youngest
Youngest
child
child
Youngest
Youngest
under
child under child age 3 child age
under
under age child age
child age
Year
age 18
age 3
to 5
6 to 17
age 18
3
3 to 5
6 to 17
1988
57.4
35.1
52.9
69.1
61.8
50.7
58.1
69.6
1989
58.2
37.9
53.1
70.0
63.0
51.4
60.8
70.6
1990
60.3
38.0
61.0
70.9
63.4
52.7
60.9
70.8
1991
58.1
36.6
55.7
70.2
63.1
52.7
60.5
70.5
1992
57.3
35.2
54.1
69.8
63.9
53.1
59.4
71.9
1993
57.3
35.1
54.8
70.1
63.9
53.2
59.4
71.9
1994
58.0
37.7
55.2
69.3
65.5
56.0
61.2
72.6
1995
61.1
43.1
58.5
70.5
67.1
57.4
63.9
73.4
1996
63.5
44.7
60.4
72.9
67.6
58.2
63.3
74.2
1997
65.6
51.5
64.3
72.0
68.5
58.3
64.4
75.2
1998
68.8
54.8
63.7
76.4
67.9
58.3
64.1
74.2
1999
70.7
55.8
69.8
77.1
67.9
57.0
63.1
75.1
2000
72.8
59.1
72.7
78.5
68.4
56.8
66.0
75.0
2001
73.0
56.1
74.4
79.8
68.5
57.1
64.7
75.4
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau March
1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-33
Figures 4. and 5. Support Table 8. Single-Mother Family Cash Welfare Recipiency Rates,
by Pre-Transfer Income Poverty Status*, 1987 to 2000
Single-mother families with pre-transfer income below poverty
Pre-transfer income from
Pre-transfer income from
Pre-transfer income below
25% to below 50% of
50% to below 100% of
All single-mother families
Total
0$ in pre-transfer income
25% of poverty
poverty
poverty
AFDC/TANF
Number
AFDC/TANF
AFDC/TANF
Number
AFDC/TANF
Number
AFDC/TANF
AFDC/TANF
Number
recipiency rate
(in
recipiency rate
Number
recipiency rate
(in
recipiency rate
(in
recipiency rate
Number
recipiency rate
Year
(in 1,000s)
(percent)
1,000s)
(percent)
(in 1,000s)
(percent)
1,000s)
(percent)
1,000s)
(percent)
(in 1,000s)
(percent)
1987
8,193
33.2
3,820
63.4
1,020
88.7
1,003
77.0
609
59.9
1,179
31.8
1988
8,321
32.9
3,816
63.8
1,055
89.5
970
73.8
723
53.3
1,064
36.8
1989
8,400
30.2
3,672
60.5
1,022
85.7
871
72.8
593
55.6
1,183
32.2
1990
8,745
33.2
4,029
63.8
1,142
88.4
909
75.1
677
60.4
1,294
35.9
1991
9,031
34.3
4,276
63.6
1,215
87.3
973
79.2
689
63.6
1,391
32.4
1992
9,567
34.5
4,536
62.7
1,159
85.2
1,102
73.5
819
56.4
1,450
40.1
1993
9,860
34.9
4,679
63.2
1,104
84.7
1,180
78.3
909
60.0
1,477
37.3
1994
9,837
32.2
4,474
60.8
961
82.0
1,058
75.2
835
61.0
1,618
38.7
1995
9,887
28.9
4,181
56.5
753
80.3
941
73.2
862
59.7
1,625
34.2
1996
10,052
26.6
4,168
53.3
776
76.6
838
71.9
994
52.2
1,560
32.4
1997
9,874
22.5
4,119
46.3
685
68.4
846
62.6
843
46.2
1,736
30.0
1998
9,881
18.9
3,834
41.2
554
61.3
778
55.7
806
45.1
1,682
26.2
1999
9,741
15.8
3,443
35.6
378
56.5
711
46.0
736
37.9
1,617
25.2
2000
9,425
12.5
3,019
30.6
350
51.8
482
43.8
651
36.5
1,536
19.2
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census March 1988 to March 2001 Current
Population Survey (CPS) data.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
* Family poverty status based on cash income other than cash welfare.

---

CRS-34
Figure 6. Support Table 9. Food Stamp Recipiency Rates Among
Single-Mother Families, by Household Income Relative to
Poverty, 1987 to 2000
Household income below 130% of poverty
Household income
All single-mother
Household income less
from 50% to below
families
Total
than 50% of poverty
130% of poverty
Food stamp
Food stamp
Food stamp
Food stamp
Number
recipiency
Number
recipiency
Number
recipiency
Number
recipiency
Year
(in 1,000s)
rate
(in 1,000s)
rate
(in 1,000s)
rate
(in 1,000s)
rate
1987
8,193
35.8
4,063
65.7
1,595
76.1
2,469
59.0
1988
8,321
36.3
4,121
65.7
1,706
75.1
2,414
59.0
1989
8,400
33.9
3,917
63.7
1,466
76.9
2,451
55.8
1990
8,745
37.1
4,265
68.4
1,651
79.4
2,614
61.4
1991
9,031
39.1
4,472
68.8
1,736
79.9
2,736
61.7
1992
9,567
41.1
4,756
70.9
1,970
79.8
2,787
64.5
1993
9,860
42.5
4,990
70.8
1,955
80.7
3,034
64.4
1994
9,837
40.2
4,673
70.9
1,786
80.3
2,887
65.1
1995
9,887
37.2
4,494
66.5
1,539
77.3
2,955
60.9
1996
10,052
35.8
4,545
65.0
1,633
76.8
2,912
58.4
1997
9,874
32.4
4,392
61.5
1,642
73.1
2,750
54.6
1998
9,881
29.8
4,193
56.7
1,491
69.5
2,703
49.6
1999
9,741
24.9
3,746
51.5
1,274
63.3
2,472
45.4
2000
9,425
22.3
3,420
49.8
1,013
66.3
2,407
42.9
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the
Census March 1988 to March 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

---

CRS-35
Figure 7. Support Table 10. Poor Single Mothers: Work and
Welfare Status During the Year, 1987 to 2000
Percent
Received
cash
Worked but
Neither
Number
Received welfare but Combined Worked
did not
worked, nor
of poor
cash
did not
work and
at any
receive cash
received
single
welfare
work
welfare
time
welfare at any
welfare
mothers
during
during
over the
during
time during
during the
Year
(in 1,000s)
year
year
year
the year
the year
year
1987
3,661
61.8
43.3
18.5
42.2
23.7
14.5
1988
3,650
62.2
43.0
19.2
43.5
24.3
13.5
1989
3,506
58.6
42.7
15.9
43.1
27.2
14.2
1990
3,821
61.9
41.4
20.5
46.0
25.5
12.6
1991
4,101
62.1
43.3
18.8
44.3
25.5
12.5
1992
4,339
61.0
42.1
18.9
43.6
24.7
14.3
1993
4,456
61.4
41.5
19.8
44.3
24.5
14.1
1994
4,203
58.3
37.8
20.5
47.3
26.8
14.9
1995
3,971
54.2
34.2
20.0
49.7
29.7
16.1
1996
4,005
51.4
31.1
20.3
52.6
32.2
16.4
1997
3,946
44.0
24.5
19.5
57.8
38.3
17.7
1998
3,685
38.9
19.2
19.7
60.4
40.7
20.4
1999
3,314
33.1
15.4
17.8
64.3
46.5
20.3
2000
2,911
27.9
14.4
13.5
63.8
50.3
21.9
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census
March 1988 to March 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

---

CRS-36
Figure 8. Support Table 11. Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and
Taxes on Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status on
Single Mothers, 1987 to 2000
Percent poor based on:
Preceding
Preceding
Preceding
Preceding Preceding column
column +:
column +:
column +:
column +:
+:
family cash
household cash
Family family cash
welfare
family EITC
income
earned
income
(“official
less FICA
+ food stamps
income
other than
poverty
family food and income + EITC less FICA
Year
only
welfare
income”)
stamps
taxes
and income taxes
1987
53.9
46.6
44.7
42.3
41.1
38.2
1988
53.8
45.9
43.9
42.2
41.3
37.9
1989
52.2
43.7
41.7
39.7
39.2
35.5
1990
53.8
46.1
43.7
41.5
39.9
36.1
1991
55.2
47.4
45.4
42.8
41.3
37.0
1992
55.3
47.4
45.4
42.5
40.6
36.5
1993
56.2
47.4
45.2
42.7
40.7
36.8
1994
53.9
45.5
42.7
39.8
36.5
32.1
1995
51.0
42.3
40.2
36.9
32.5
29.2
1996
49.8
41.5
39.8
37.1
32.9
29.3
1997
50.6
41.7
40.0
37.7
32.6
28.3
1998
47.9
38.8
37.3
35.2
29.7
26.2
1999
43.6
35.3
34.0
32.2
27.5
23.6
2000
40.1
32.1
30.9
29.3
24.2
20.3
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Figure 9. Support Table 12. Poverty Gap Percentiles* Based on
Cash Income for
Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000
Median
Year
Bottom 20%
Bottom 40%
(50th percentile)
Top 40%
Top 20%
1987
27.2
43.4
51.1
60.0
78.2
1988
26.1
40.7
48.1
57.1
74.9
1989
25.6
42.1
50.9
58.9
77.1
1990
27.4
43.0
50.0
58.9
76.1
1991
25.6
42.5
50.5
58.6
75.2
1992
24.2
39.3
48.0
56.6
75.1
1993
26.2
41.0
49.0
56.7
73.6
1994
27.6
43.8
50.7
58.7
76.3
1995
27.7
45.8
53.3
60.3
79.7
1996
27.7
43.5
50.5
58.9
77.7
1997
22.3
42.9
51.3
60.7
78.6
1998
22.6
42.5
51.5
60.3
81.2
1999
23.4
43.1
52.8
62.0
80.1
2000
23.5
45.5
54.8
66.3
82.9
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS).
*Poor families’ cash income as a percent of families’ poverty thresholds.

---

CRS-37
Figure 10. Support Table 13. Poverty Gap Percentiles* Based on
Cash Income, Food Stamps, and Net Taxes Including the EITC for
Poor Single-Mother Families, 1987 to 2000
Median
Year
Bottom 20%
Bottom 40%
(50th percentile)
Top 40%
Top 20%
1987
43.1
59.1
66.1
72.7
85.4
1988
37.7
55.9
63.8
71.1
85.0
1989
40.1
58.6
65.4
72.3
85.4
1990
41.1
58.9
65.1
71.3
84.8
1991
42.6
59.3
65.6
72.1
84.8
1992
38.6
56.0
61.9
68.6
83.0
1993
40.5
56.7
63.4
69.6
82.6
1994
42.7
59.0
65.1
71.1
84.3
1995
40.3
58.5
65.2
71.4
85.0
1996
41.2
58.0
64.0
70.8
84.3
1997
34.7
54.3
62.8
70.3
85.0
1998
30.7
53.9
61.5
68.4
84.6
1999
31.3
53.1
61.6
70.0
84.8
2000
30.2
54.0
62.6
70.2
86.8
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census
March 1988 to 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS).
*Poor families’ cash income as a percent of families’ poverty thresholds.

---

CRS-38
Figure 11. Support Table 14. Bottom Income Quintiles of Single Mother Families:
Average Annual Income by Source, 1987 to 2000
(in 2000 dollars)
Federal and
AFDC,
Food
Child
Family
state income
TANF,
Supplemental
stamps
support
earnings
Total
taxes and
General
Security Income
(market
and
Other
(net of
income net of
Year
FICA taxes
Assistance
(SSI)
value)
alimony
income
taxes)
EITC
taxes
1987
-$81
$2,808
$108
$2,306
$232
$416
$907
$104
$6,800
1988
-$87
$2,492
$84
$2,002
$215
$366
$1,071
$118
$6,261
1989
-$73
$2,622
$101
$2,175
$222
$466
$899
$110
$6,523
1990
-$77
$2,781
$93
$2,224
$190
$326
$960
$115
$6,612
1991
-$63
$2,736
$93
$2,434
$162
$292
$785
$115
$6,554
1992
-$61
$2,380
$151
$2,321
$204
$379
$769
$118
$6,262
1993
-$61
$2,503
$157
$2,269
$223
$457
$742
$121
$6,412
1994
-$86
$2,605
$245
$2,538
$257
$393
$1,099
$281
$7,332
1995
-$105
$2,355
$287
$2,193
$296
$460
$1,379
$423
$7,287
1996
-$126
$2,091
$241
$2,151
$330
$427
$1,589
$543
$7,245
1997
-$108
$1,864
$209
$2,027
$267
$622
$1,373
$480
$6,735
1998
-$150
$1,478
$283
$1,792
$226
$601
$1,840
$657
$6,725
1999
-$189
$1,214
$309
$1,547
$351
$624
$2,350
$804
$7,009
2000
-$258
$1,005
$487
$1,461
$528
$568
$3,113
$1,039
$7,944
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population
Survey (CPS) data.
* Quintiles based on ranking of ratios of family cash pre-tax income relative to poverty. Taxes include federal and state income taxes and FICA taxes.

---

CRS-39
Figure 12. Support Table 15. Second Income Quintile of Single Mother Families: Average
Annual Income by Source, 1987 to 2000
(in 2000 dollars)
Federal and
AFDC,
state income
TANF,
Supplemental Food stamps
Child
Family
Total
taxes and
General
Security
(market
support and
Other
earnings (net
income net of
Year
FICA taxes
Assistance
Income (SSI)
value)
alimony
income
of taxes)
EITC
taxes
1987
-$293
$4,356
$498
$1,712
$417
$1,692
$3,524
$388
$12,578
1988
-$300
$4,167
$453
$1,711
$367
$1,548
$3,486
$402
$12,133
1989
-$389
$3,873
$574
$1,418
$475
$1,479
$4,489
$494
$12,864
1990
-$395
$3,813
$470
$1,798
$474
$1,498
$4,215
$483
$12,752
1991
-$327
$3,754
$481
$1,883
$399
$1,439
$3,721
$575
$12,253
1992
-$319
$3,414
$463
$1,809
$529
$1,444
$3,609
$570
$11,838
1993
-$296
$3,521
$705
$1,807
$466
$1,512
$3,368
$562
$11,941
1994
-$392
$2,918
$824
$1,698
$595
$1,495
$4,426
$1,120
$13,076
1995
-$553
$2,256
$953
$1,737
$622
$1,853
$5,868
$1,535
$15,123
1996
-$516
$2,181
$814
$1,463
$636
$1,710
$5,536
$1,627
$13,967
1997
-$557
$1,657
$778
$1,286
$766
$1,688
$6,285
$1,948
$14,407
1998
-$702
$1,233
$869
$1,076
$558
$1,731
$7,680
$2,179
$15,325
1999
-$845
$928
$774
$781
$719
$1,557
$8,991
$2,324
$16,074
2000
-$1,201
$679
$589
$644
$863
$1,830
$10,690
$2,399
$17,692
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates based on analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census March 1988 to 2001 Current Population
Survey (CPS) data.
* Quintiles based on ranking of ratios of family cash pre-tax income relative to poverty. Taxes include federal and state income taxes and FICA taxes.

---