[Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book)]
[Program Descriptions]
[Section 8. Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Related Programs (Title IV-A)]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[1996 Green Book] SECTION 8. AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND RELATED PROGRAMS (TITLE IV-A) *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 changed this program; see appendix L for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
Overview
Basic Federal Rules
Treatment of Income and Resources
Unearned Income
Earned Income and Disregards
Resources
Accounting Period and Monthly Reporting
The AFDC Unemployed Parents Program
Interaction Between AFDC and Other Programs
Medicaid
Food Stamps
Earned Income Credit (EIC)
Child Support Enforcement
SSI and Social Security
Other Benefit Programs
Participation in Multiple Means-Tested Programs
Spending for Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons of Limited
Income
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training Program
Purpose and Administration
Assessment, Employability Plan, Case Management, and
Orientation
JOBS Activities
Participation Requirements
Targeting of JOBS Funds
Funding of JOBS and Supportive Services
Indian Tribes and JOBS
Supportive and Transitional Services
Welfare-to-Work Efforts: Some Assessments
Title IV-A Emergency Assistance
Waivers From Federal AFDC Law--Section 1115 Demonstration
Projects
Child Care for Families at Risk of AFDC Receipt
AFDC Benefit Levels and Trends
Maximum Benefits (State AFDC Guarantees)
Need and Payment Standards
Trends in Benefits
Income Eligibility Limits
AFDC Benefits for Special Needs
Federal and State Funding of AFDC Benefit Payments and
Administrative Costs
AFDC Caseload Data
Characteristics of AFDC Families
National Data About AFDC Families
State Data About AFDC Families
The AFDC Quality Control System
Description of AFDC Quality Control System
Quality Control and JOBS Performance Standards
Recent Quality Control Statistics
Welfare Dynamics
Exits and Returns to AFDC
Endings and Beginnings of AFDC Spells
Length of Time on Welfare and Turnover Within the AFDC
Caseload
Relationship of Personal Characteristics to Duration of AFDC
Welfare Dependency
Intergenerational Transmission of AFDC Receipt
Adolescent and Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing and Use of AFDC
Trends Over Time
First Births to Unmarried Women
Links to AFDC Use
Legislative History
References
OVERVIEW
Aid to Dependent Children was established by the Social
Security Act of 1935 as a cash grant program to enable States
to aid needy children without fathers. Later renamed Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the program provides
cash welfare payments for needy children who have been deprived
of parental support or care because their father or mother is
absent from the home continuously, is incapacitated, is
deceased or is unemployed. AFDC benefits also are paid to the
child's needy caretaker relative (usually the mother) and, in
some States, may be paid to another person in the home who is
deemed essential to the child's well-being. All 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
operate an AFDC Program. Although 1988 legislation allowed
American Samoa to participate in the AFDC Program, as of April
1996 it had not chosen to do so.
States define ``need,'' set their own benefit levels,
establish (within Federal limitations) income and resource
limits, and administer the program or supervise its
administration. States are entitled to unlimited Federal funds
for reimbursement of benefit payments, at ``matching'' rates
known as Medicaid matching rates, which are inversely related
to State per capita income. States must provide aid to all
persons who are in classes eligible under Federal law and whose
income and resources are within State-set limits. Thus, an
individual's entitlement to AFDC varies from State to State.
Federal funds currently pay from 50 to about 78 percent of AFDC
benefit costs in a State (55 percent on average) and 50 percent
of administrative costs in all States.
As Table 8-1 indicates, AFDC enrollment and benefit outlays
in fiscal year 1994 rose to all-time high levels. That year a
monthly average of 14.2 million persons (9.6 million children)
in 5 million families received benefits totaling $22.8 billion.
However, in fiscal year 1995 enrollment dropped by 0.6 million
persons (0.3 million children), average family benefits rose
only $1.00 monthly, and total benefit outlays fell by $0.8
billion.
Table 8-1 summarizes AFDC enrollment and spending trends
from 1970 to 1995. In that quarter-century period, the number
of AFDC families more than doubled, from 1.9 million to 4.9
million, but, because family size shrank, the number of
recipients rose only 83 percent. The proportion of the U.S.
population enrolled in AFDC increased from 3.6 percent in
fiscal year 1970 to 5.5 percent in 1993 and 1994, a 53 percent
rise. In the same period the share of families with children
served by AFDC more than doubled, from 6.6 percent to 14.8
percent. Measured in constant value (1995) dollars, AFDC
benefit expenditures increased 35 percent, from $16.4 billion
in 1970 to $22 billion in 1995. Administrative costs remained
almost the same in both years, after adjusting for inflation,
at $3.5 billion. AFDC administrative costs were 22 percent of
benefit payments in 1970, when they included some services, and
16 percent in 1995. The average monthly family benefit measured
in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47
percent drop.
BASIC FEDERAL RULES
AFDC is a voluntary program for States, but participating
States must submit plans for approval. They must operate the
program statewide and apply their need standards uniformly
within the State or locality to all families in similar
circumstances. States may adopt separate urban and rural
benefit schedules and may vary benefits by region, with
differences usually reflecting shelter costs. States are at
liberty to pay as much in benefits as they choose, or as
little, with one exception. Medicaid law forbids them to reduce
AFDC payment standards below those of May 1, 1988 (or, if
higher, those of July 1, 1987).
Eligibility for AFDC ends on a child's 18th birthday, or at
State option upon a child's 19th birthday if the child is a
full-time student in a secondary or technical school and may
reasonably be expected to complete the program before reaching
age 19.
Since October 1, 1990, State AFDC Programs have been
required to offer AFDC to children in two-parent families who
are needy because of the unemployment of one of their parents
(AFDC-UP). Eligibility for AFDC-UP is limited to families whose
principal wage earner is unemployed but has a history of work.
States that did not have an Unemployed Parent Program as of
September 26, 1988 may limit benefits under the AFDC-UP Program
to as few as 6 months in any 13-month period.
TABLE 8-1.--SUMMARY OF KEY AFDC PROGRAM ELEMENTS, SELECTED YEARS 1970-95
[In dollars, \1\ except for caseload numbers and enrollment percentages]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Program element --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total AFDC
Benefit expenditures (millions) \2\ 4,082 8,153 11,540 14,580 16,663 18,539 20,356 22,240 22,286 22,797 22,032
In 1995 dollars............... 16,350 23,829 21,839 20,707 21,562 21,809 22,795 24,172 23,513 23,432 22,032
Federal share (millions)........... 2,187 4,488 6,224 7,817 9,125 10,149 11,165 12,252 12,270 12,511 12,018
In 1995 dollars (millions)..... 8,460 13,117 11,779 11,102 11,808 11,939 12,503 13,316 12,945 12,859 12,018
Administrative cost (millions)..... \3\881 1,082 1,479 1,779 2,353 2,661 2,673 2,764 2,956 3,282 3,524
In 1995 dollars................ 3,529 3,162 2,799 2,527 3,045 3,130 2,993 3,004 3,119 3,373 3,524
Federal share (millions)........... \3\572 552 750 890 1,194 1,358 1,373 1,422 1,518 1,670 1,770
In 1995 dollars................ 2,291 1,613 1,419 1,264 1,545 1,598 1,538 1,546 1,602 1,716 1,770
Average monthly numbers
(thousands): \4\
Families....................... 1,909 3,269 3,574 3,692 3,748 3,974 4,375 4,769 4,981 5,046 4,869
Recipients..................... 7,429 10,960 10,497 10,813 10,920 11,460 12,595 13,625 14,144 14,226 13,619
Children....................... 5,494 7,821 7,220 7,165 7,326 7,755 8,515 9,225 9,539 9,590 9,275
Average family size................ 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8
Average monthly benefit per family. 178 208 269 329 370 389 388 389 373 376 377
In 1995 dollars............... 713 608 509 467 479 458 434 423 394 386 377
Percent of families with children
enrolled \5\...................... 6.6 10.9 11.5 11.9 11.7 12.3 13.5 14.6 15.0 14.8 NA
Percent of population enrolled..... 3.6 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.2
AFDC-Basic and AFDC-UP
Benefit expenditures (in millions
of 1995 dollars):
AFDC-Basic..................... 15,424 22,771 20,528 18,498 19,725 20,068 20,749 21,869 21,088 20,961 19,820
AFDC-UP........................ 925 1,058 1,312 2,210 1,838 1,741 2,046 2,303 2,425 2,471 2,212
Average monthly number of families
(thousands):
AFDC-Basic..................... 1,831 3,168 3,433 3,431 3,538 3,770 4,107 4,447 4,622 4,683 4,534
AFDC-UP........................ 78 101 141 261 210 204 268 322 359 363 335
Average monthly benefit per family
(in 1995 dollars):
AFDC-Basic..................... 702 599 498 449 465 444 421 410 380 373 364
AFDC-UP........................ 988 873 775 706 729 711 636 596 563 567 550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current dollars and constant value (1995) dollars. The latter were adjusted for inflation on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Consumers (CPI-U).
\2\ AFDC benefit expenditures have not been reduced by child support enforcement collections. Data are from table 8-22, but (unlike that table) exclude
foster care payments made in 1975 and 1980.
\3\ Includes expenditures for services.
\4\ AFDC enrollment data are from table 8-25, but (unlike that table) exclude foster care recipients for 1975 and 1980.
\5\ Based on the number of U.S. families with children under age 18.
NA--Not available.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table prepared by the
Congressional Research Service.
The Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-485)
substantially revised the work and training requirements of the
AFDC Program. Since October 1, 1990, States have been required
to have a Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)
Program. This program, which replaced the Work Incentive (WIN)
and WIN Demonstration Programs, seeks to help needy families
avoid long-term welfare use. The JOBS Program must include
specified educational activities. States are required to enroll
able-bodied persons whose youngest child is at least age 3,
provided State resources are available.
Families receiving AFDC are automatically eligible for
Medicaid. The Family Support Act also requires that States
provide transitional Medicaid benefits of up to 12 months for
those who lose AFDC eligibility as a result of increased hours
of, or increased income from, employment or as a result of the
loss of earnings disregards (special treatment of earned income
by which some income is ignored for the purpose of computing
AFDC eligibility and benefits).
The Family Support Act requires that States guarantee child
care found necessary for an individual's employment or
participation in education or training activities approved by
the State, and requires that transitional child care of up to
12 months be provided for families who lose AFDC eligibility as
a result of increased hours of, or increased income from,
employment or as a result of the loss of earnings disregards.
The law provides unlimited matching funds for this child care.
In addition, the AFDC statute entitles States to capped
matching funds for child care for families that need child care
in order to work and that, without child care, would be at risk
of becoming eligible for AFDC.
Finally, Federal law requires AFDC mothers (and
applicants), as a condition of AFDC eligibility, to assign
their child support rights to the State and to cooperate with
welfare officials in establishing the paternity of a child and
in obtaining support payments from the father.
TREATMENT OF INCOME AND RESOURCES
Federal AFDC law requires that all income received by an
AFDC recipient or applicant be counted against the AFDC grant
except income explicitly excluded by definition or deduction.
Moreover, AFDC law requires that certain persons be considered
part of the AFDC assistance unit and that part of the income of
certain other persons be counted in determining the AFDC
eligibility status and benefit amount.
In 1981, Congress required that a portion of the income of
a stepparent be counted in determining AFDC eligibility and
benefit amounts. However, in a few States (seven as of April
1996), all stepparents must assume the legal responsibility of
a natural or adoptive parent. In these States, all of the
stepparent's income must be counted in determining the AFDC
eligibility status and/or benefit amount of the children and
spouse.
In 1984, a standard definition of the AFDC assistance unit
was established for the first time. Under this requirement, the
parent(s) of a dependent child and any dependent brothers or
sisters who are in the home are to be included in the AFDC
unit, with eligibility and benefits based on the income and
circumstances of this family unit. SSI recipients,
stepsiblings, and children receiving foster care maintenance
payments or adoption assistance are not counted as part of the
AFDC unit. In addition, if a minor who is living in the same
home as her parents applies for aid as the parent of a needy
child, a portion of the income of the minor's parents is to be
counted as available to the filing unit.
The law also requires that income from a nonrecurring lump
sum payment that exceeds the monthly AFDC need standard be
taken into account in determining AFDC eligibility and/or
benefit amount. Lump sum payments in excess of the State's need
standard--for the given family size--render a family ineligible
for AFDC for a period of time equal to the lump sum payment
divided by the State's monthly need standard.
Unearned Income
States are required by Federal law to disregard certain
income in determining the eligibility and benefits of families
applying for or receiving AFDC. Unearned income not counted by
the AFDC Program includes the following: the first $50 of
current monthly child support payments received by the family;
any student financial assistance provided under the Higher
Education Act; the value of Department of Agriculture donated
foods; benefits from child nutrition programs or nutrition
programs for the elderly; payments to VISTA workers; some
payments to certain Indian tribes; any amounts paid by a State
welfare agency from State-only funds to meet the needs of AFDC
children if the payments are made under a statutorily-
established State program that has been continuously in effect
since before January 1, 1979; payments for supporting services
or reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses made to volunteers
serving as foster grandparents, senior health aides, or senior
companions; and Agent Orange settlement payments.
Earned Income and Disregards
States are required by Federal law to disregard certain
earned income when determining the amount of benefits to which
a recipient family is entitled. States must disregard all the
earned income of each dependent child receiving AFDC who is a
student (full or part time) at a school, college, university,
or vocational training course and not a full-time employee.
States may disregard all or part of the earned income of a
dependent child who is a full-time student and an applicant for
AFDC if the child's earnings are excluded in determining the
family's total income. States may disregard, for up to 6
months, earnings derived from Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA) Programs by a dependent child applying for or receiving
AFDC.
With respect to self-employment, ``earned income'' is
defined by Federal regulations as the ``total profit from a
business enterprise, farming, etc., resulting from a comparison
of the gross receipts with the business expenses, i.e.,
expenses directly related to producing the goods or services
and without which the goods or services could not be
produced.'' However, under AFDC regulations, items such as
depreciation, personal business and entertainment expenses,
personal transportation, purchase of capital equipment and
payments on the principal of loans for capital assets or
durable goods are not considered business expenses.
Before OBRA 1981, in order to provide a financial incentive
for recipients to seek and maintain employment, Federal law
required the deduction of an initial $30 in monthly earnings
plus one-third of remaining earnings, plus work expenses (child
care costs, payroll taxes, transportation, and similar expenses
reasonably attributable to the earning of income). Under this
rule, a person did not lose AFDC eligibility until monthly
gross earnings equaled 150 percent of the AFDC payment
standard, plus $30, plus 150 percent of work expenses. When
making an initial determination of eligibility, however, only
work expenses were disregarded.
Amendments in OBRA 1981 standardized and limited the
disregard for work expenses to $75 per month, capped the child
care disregard at $160 per child per month, specified that the
HHS Secretary could lower these sums for part-time work, and
changed the order of disregards. The $30 plus one-third
disregard was limited to a period of 4 consecutive months;
recipients who left AFDC and then returned could not again
qualify for this disregard for 12 months. States were
prohibited from paying AFDC to any family with a gross income
above 150 percent of the State's standard of need and were
required to assume that working AFDC recipients received a
monthly earned income credit (EIC), if they appeared eligible
for it and regardless of when or if they actually claimed the
credit. The standard $75 expense disregard and child care
disregard were applied before the one-third (this lowered the
point at which counted earnings ended eligibility). Previously,
the EIC was counted only when received; most AFDC recipients
did not receive the EIC on a monthly basis. Taken together,
these changes substantially reduced the amount of earnings a
recipient could have and remain eligible for an AFDC payment.
In 1984, Congress further revised these disregards. The
gross income limit was increased to 185 percent from 150
percent of the State standard of need, the work expense
disregard of $75 per month was applied to both full- and part-
time workers, and the $30 disregard--originally a part of $30
and one-third--was extended for an additional 8 months beyond
the 4-month limit. The 1984 legislation also returned to prior
law policy with respect to the earned income credit: it was to
be counted only when actually received.
The Family Support Act of 1988 further revised the
treatment of earned income effective October 1, 1989. The work
expense disregard is now $90 per month, the maximum child care
expense allowance is $175 per month per child ($200 for
children under age 2), and the child care disregard is
calculated after other disregard provisions have been applied.
Furthermore, States are now required to disregard the earned
income credit in determining eligibility for and benefits under
the AFDC Program.
Table 8-2 illustrates the impact of the 1981, 1984, and
1988 changes on benefits payable to a mother with 2 children
working full time at a low wage. The table also shows how gross
earnings limits were reduced by the changes in treatment of
earnings. Two AFDC benefit standards are illustrated: $600
represents the AFDC payment standard for a family of three in a
high benefit State and $400 is slightly above the payment
standard for a three-person family in the median benefit State
(January 1996 data).
As the table shows, before the 1981 law, a mother would not
work her way totally off AFDC until gross earnings reached
$1,185 per month in the high benefit State ($600 payment
standard) and $885 per month in the near-median benefit State
($400 payment standard). The corresponding limits today, after
1 year on a job, are $790 and $590, respectively.
The table also shows the growth in the earned income credit
(EIC) over this period, from $32 to $232 monthly for a worker
(with two children) earning $581. In some States, the rise in
the EIC equals the cut in AFDC benefits caused by the less
generous treatment of earnings.
Several States use a method of paying AFDC that allows
working families to retain a greater portion of their AFDC
grant as earnings increase. This method of payment, commonly
referred to as ``fill-the-gap,'' provides greater financial
incentives for families to work than the standard payment
method. Under the standard payment method, the AFDC grant is
determined by subtracting countable income (e.g., earnings less
disregards) from the State's payment standard. Most States set
payment standards below their need standards--the amount the
State recognizes as essential for a family's needs. Further,
several States have maximum benefits below the payment
standard. (To compare State need standards and maximum benefits
for a typical AFDC family of three with each other and with
payment standards, see tables 8-12 and 8-17, respectively.)
Some States having AFDC payment standards below their need
standard allow families to fill part or all of the gap between
the payment and need standard with earnings, before reducing
the AFDC grant. Other States set a maximum payment below the
payment standard, allowing families to ``fill-the-gap'' only up
to the payment standard. Most States with AFDC payment
standards below their need standard do not use a fill-the-gap
policy--they begin to reduce the AFDC grant dollar for dollar
for earnings in excess of the standard earnings disregards. In
January 1994, 10 States were using some form of ``fill-the-
gap'': Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Georgia, Utah, South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, and Maine.
Working mothers in these States have higher net income at
equivalent earnings than mothers living in States with similar
AFDC payment levels that do not use a ``fill-the-gap'' payment
method (Gabe and Falk, 1995).
TABLE 8-2.--CALCULATION OF MONTHLY AFDC BENEFITS AND ELIGIBILITY LIMITS FOR A WORKER WITH LOW EARNINGS UNDER PRE-OBRA, OBRA, DEFRA, AND CURRENT LAW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBRA (1981) DEFRA (1984) Current AFDC
Pre-OBRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1979) First 4 After 4 First 4 After 4 After 12 First 4 After 4 After 12
months months months months months months months months
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
Gross earnings..................................... 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581
Earned income credit \1\........................... 32 32 32 41 41 41 232 232 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross income................................... 613 613 613 622 622 622 813 813 813
==================================================================================================
Disregards: \2\
Initial disregards \3\............................. -30 -105 -75 -105 -105 -75 -120 -120 -90
One-third of rest.................................. -184 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) -154 (\4\) (\4\)
Child care......................................... -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100
One-third of rest.................................. (\4\) -136 (\4\) -125 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\)
Other expenses..................................... \5\-70 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\)
Earned income credit \6\........................... -32 (\4\) (\4\) -41 -41 -41 -232 -232 -232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total disregards............................... -416 -341 -175 -371 -246 -216 -606 -452 -422
==================================================================================================
Net countable income........................... 197 272 438 251 376 406 207 361 391
AFDC benefits:
$600 payment standard.............................. 403 328 162 349 224 194 393 239 209
$400 payment standard \7\.......................... 203 128 0 149 24 0 193 39 \8\ 0
Eligibility limits \9\ (in earnings):
$600 payment standard.............................. 1,185 \10\ 1,10
5 \10\ 775 1,105 805 775 1,170 820 790
$400 payment standard.............................. 885 \10\ 805 \10\ 575 805 605 575 870 620 590
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--OBRA = Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; DEFRA = Deficit Reduction Act of 1984.
\1\ Earned income credit amounts reflect credit rates in effect for a tax filer with two children in 1979, 1981, 1984, and 1996 (current law). Until
1991, the rate was the same for one or more children.
\2\ Initial disregards, one-third disregards, child care and other expense disregards are based on gross earnings and subtracted from them. In 1981
column only, gross earnings include the EIC.
\3\ Pre-OBRA: $30 disregard. OBRA: Standard work expense deduction of $75 plus $30 in first 4 months. DEFRA: Standard work expense deduction of $75 plus
$30 disregard in first 12 months. FSA: Standard work expense deduction of $90 plus $30 disregard in first 12 months.
\4\ Not applicable. Note: In columns 2 and 4 (1st 4 months, OBRA and DEFRA) there is a one-third residual disregard, but not until after deduction of
child care costs (as shown).
\5\ Itemized work expenses (including payroll deductions and transportation) are assumed to be $70.
\6\ EIC disregard applied in all years shown except 1981.
\7\ Slightly above the payment standard for a family of three in the median State, January 1996.
\8\ To receive an AFDC check, the benefit amount must equal at least $10. (Here the calculated benefit would be $9.)
\9\ Except in 1979, earnings limits for payment of an actual benefit would be lower than shown ($15 less monthly, first 4 months of a job, and $10 less
monthly thereafter) because of the rule enacted in 1981 against paying a benefit amount below $10.
\10\ Including EIC, treated as counted earnings in 1981.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Resources
Allowable resources are limited, by Public Law 97-35, to
$1,000 (or a lower amount set by the State) in equity value
(i.e., market value minus any encumbrances) per family,
excluding the home and one automobile if the family member's
ownership interest does not exceed a limit chosen by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. In addition, States
must disregard from countable resources burial plots and (up to
$1,500) funeral agreements for each member of the assistance
unit. Also, for a limited time, States must exclude real
property the family is making a ``good faith'' effort to sell,
but only if the family agrees to repay benefits. HHS
regulations set $1,500 as the outer limit (in equity value) for
an automobile (Indiana and Louisiana have lower limits) and
permit States to exclude from countable resources ``basic items
essential to day to day living,'' such as clothing and
furniture. Previous regulations permitted States to adopt a
counted resource limit as high as $2,000 per family member, and
to treat the home and auto as counted resources.
Neither law nor Federal regulations mention capital
equipment as being exempt from the resource requirement, but
the compilation of State AFDC plans indicates that about half
of the States exclude from countable resources farm machinery,
livestock, and tools and equipment essential to employment,
livelihood, or income.
Accounting Period and Monthly Reporting
AFDC eligibility and benefits are determined monthly.
Public Law 97-35 required States to determine eligibility on
the basis of the family's circumstances in the current month.
Payment amounts were to be determined ``retrospectively''--on
the basis of the family's countable income and resources in the
preceding month (or, at the discretion of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, in the second preceding month). In
addition, States were to require recipients to provide monthly
reports on income, family composition, and resources. However,
a State could adopt less frequent reporting for specified
categories of families if it demonstrated that this would be
cost-beneficial.
In 1984, Public Law 98-369 revised these rules.
Retrospective budgeting was made mandatory only for families
that file a monthly report. Monthly reporting was required for
families with earned income or a recent work history and
whenever cost effective.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 gave States
the option of specifying which categories of AFDC families, if
any, must file monthly (or less frequent) reports and permitted
them to apply retrospective budgeting to those required to file
periodic reports. Effective in fiscal year 1994, Public Law
103-432 gave States the option to apply retrospective budgeting
to categories of their choice. Regulations require States that
specify retrospective budgeting to provide a monthly reporting
form plus a stamped, self-addressed envelope, to recipients who
have earnings.
THE AFDC UNEMPLOYED PARENTS PROGRAM
The original Social Security Act permitted States to give
AFDC only to needy children in one-parent homes unless the
second parent was incapacitated. Then, as now, most AFDC
children lived in fatherless homes. For the first 25 years of
the program, if a father lost his job and his family became
needy, State AFDC Programs were forbidden to help the family so
long as the father lived at home. In 1961, as an antirecession
measure, the law was changed so that families with jobless
fathers at home could qualify for AFDC. Since May of that year
States were permitted to give AFDC to needy children of
unemployed parents. This program is known as AFDC for
Unemployed Parents--AFDC-UP.
In 1988, the Family Support Act required all States,
effective October 1, 1990, to provide AFDC to two-parent
families who are needy because of the unemployment of the
principal wage earner. (As a result of a 1994 amendment (Public
Law 103-432), the requirement does not take effect for American
Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands until funding
ceilings for AFDC benefits in these areas are removed.) The
two-parent program reverts to optional status for all States
after September 30, 1998.
The 29 jurisdictions (including Guam and Washington, DC)
that had an AFDC-UP Program as of September 26, 1988, were
required to continue operating the program without any time
limit on eligibility. Other States have the option to impose a
time limit. In exercising this option, a State may not deny
AFDC to a family unless the family has received AFDC under the
Unemployed Parents Program in at least 6 of the preceding 12
months. As of February 1996, the following 12 States have time
limits on eligibility: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, and Wyoming.
AFDC-UP families, like other AFDC families, are
automatically eligible for Medicaid. The Family Support Act of
1988 requires States that time-limit AFDC-UP benefits to
provide Medicaid to all members of the family without any time
limitation.
When AFDC-UP began, States were allowed to define
``unemployment.'' Some States included in the program families
in which the principal wage earner worked as many as 35 hours a
week. Since 1971, Federal regulations have specified that an
AFDC parent must work fewer than 100 hours in a month to be
classified as unemployed, unless hours are of a temporary
nature for intermittent work and the individual met the 100-
hour rule in the two preceding months and is expected to meet
it the following month. The Family Support Act of 1988 required
the DHHS Secretary to enter into agreements with up to eight
States for demonstrations to test a definition of unemployment
less restrictive than the present 100-hour rule and authorized
projects with no limitation on hours worked. Resulting projects
in California, Wisconsin, and Utah set no limit on hours worked
by AFDC-UP recipients and based eligibility on income alone. As
of February 1996, evaluations of these demonstrations were not
completed.
However, additional experiments with AFDC-UP rules are
underway. As of late 1995, 22 States had received Federal
waivers, and another 6 had applications pending, to test
elimination of the 100-hour rule. Some of these end the hour
limit for applicants as well as AFDC-UP recipients.
Attachment to the labor force is one condition of
eligibility for AFDC-UP. The principal earner must: (1) have 6
or more quarters of work in any 13-calendar-quarter period
ending within 1 year before application for assistance; or (2)
have received or been eligible to receive unemployment
compensation within 1 year before application. A quarter of
work is a quarter in which an individual earns at least $50 or
participated in the JOBS Program. At State option, attendance
in elementary or secondary school, vocational or technical
training, or participation in JTPA, may be substituted for up
to 4 of the 6 required quarters of work. Some States have
waivers to test ending the work history rule, as well as the
100-hour rule.
INTERACTION BETWEEN AFDC AND OTHER PROGRAMS
Medicaid
States must provide Medicaid to families receiving cash
assistance under AFDC. Beginning in 1986, Congress extended
Medicaid coverage, at regular Federal matching rates, to groups
of women and children not enrolled in AFDC. The most important
of these groups include (1) pregnant women, and children up to
age 6, with family incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty
level; (2) children born on or after October 1, 1983, with
family incomes below the Federal poverty level (this provision
is phased in to cover all children up to age 19 by the year
2002); and (3) certain persons whose family income and
resources are below the AFDC standards but who fail to qualify
for AFDC for other reasons, such as family structure (these
include first-time pregnant women). In addition, States have
the option to provide coverage to pregnant women and infants
under age 1 with incomes that do not exceed 185 percent of the
Federal poverty level.
When families lose AFDC eligibility, Medicaid eligibility
also frequently ends, except under income circumstances
outlined above, or if the family qualifies for transitional
Medicaid benefits established under the Family Support Act of
1988. This act requires States to extend Medicaid coverage for
12 months to families who lose AFDC eligibility because of
earnings. During the first 6 months of coverage, the States
must provide each family the same Medicaid coverage that the
family had while receiving AFDC. States are not permitted to
impose premiums for this coverage, but States do have a
Medicaid ``wraparound'' option. Under this option, States may
use Medicaid funds to pay a family's expenses for premiums,
deductibles and coinsurance for any health care coverage
offered by the employer of the caretaker relative. The employer
coverage would then be treated by the Medicaid Program as a
third party liability.
During the second 6 months of coverage, the States have a
number of options. First, they may limit the scope of the
Medicaid coverage to acute care benefits, dropping nursing home
coverage and other nonacute benefits. Second, States may impose
a monthly premium on families with incomes, less necessary
child care expenses, in excess of 100 percent of the Federal
poverty level. The monthly premium on these families could not
exceed 3 percent of gross income. Premiums would be determined
on the basis of quarterly reports from families on earnings and
child care costs. Third, States have the option of offering
families the choice of (1) basic Medicaid coverage (either the
same as offered to cash assistance beneficiaries or the more
limited acute care package) or (2) one or more types of
alternative coverage. These alternative coverages could include
enrollment in an employer group health plan, a State employee
plan, a State health plan for the uninsured, or a health
maintenance organization. Families would always have a choice
of staying with their basic Medicaid coverage, although they
could not elect both the basic Medicaid and one of the
alternative coverages. With respect to the basic Medicaid
coverage, States would have the same ``Medicaid wraparound''
option as during the first 6-month period. In general,
transitional coverage would terminate if a family no longer had
a child, failed to report earnings on a quarterly basis, failed
to pay any required premium, or fraudulently obtained cash
assistance benefits.
States are required to provide full Medicaid coverage to
all members of AFDC-UP families even in months when cash
benefits are not paid because of a State-established time limit
(described above).
In the mid-1980s, some States sought to cover more pregnant
women and children under the Medicaid Program. However, they
did not want to raise AFDC income eligibility levels in order
to cover them under both programs. Congress gave States the
option of extending Medicaid to pregnant women and children
with incomes below the poverty lines but above AFDC limits.
Congress later made this coverage mandatory. To prevent States
from reducing AFDC benefits (because the targeted populations
would receive Medicaid irrespective of the AFDC Program),
Public Law 100-360 prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human
Services from approving a State's Medicaid plan if the State
reduced its AFDC payment levels below those in effect on May 1,
1988 and prohibited reimbursement for Medicaid to certain
pregnant women and children if a State reduced AFDC payment
levels below those in effect on July 1, 1987.
Food Stamps
Most AFDC families are also eligible for and participate in
the Food Stamp Program, which provides an important in-kind
supplement to the cash assistance paid under AFDC. Although the
law permits State AFDC Programs to count as income the value of
a family's food stamps to the extent that this duplicates the
amount for food in the State's maximum payment schedule, no
State does so. However, the Food Stamp Program does consider
AFDC payments to be countable income and it reduces the food
stamp benefit by about 30 cents for each extra AFDC dollar. At
the same time, when AFDC payments decline, food stamps are
increased by about 30 cents per lost AFDC dollar. Thus, if an
AFDC recipient is penalized by one dollar for violating a
program rule, food stamps reduce the net loss to 70 cents. The
interaction between AFDC and the Food Stamp Program has
important financial implications for a State that desires to
increase the income of its AFDC recipients. The State must
increase AFDC by $1.43 to obtain an effective $1 increase in
the recipient's total income ($1.00/0.7 = $1.43).
Earned Income Credit (EIC)
Parents with modest earnings, including AFDC parents who
leave welfare because of work, are eligible for a cash
supplement from the U.S. Treasury in the form of an earned
income credit (EIC). For tax year 1996, the maximum credit for
a tax filer with one child is $2,152, received for earnings
between $6,330 and $11,610. For two or more children the
maximum credit is $3,556, received for earnings between $8,890
and $11,610. At higher levels credits are phased out, and they
end at adjusted gross income of $25,078 (one child) and $28,495
(two or more children). EIC is a refundable credit; persons
with income below the taxation threshold receive the credit as
a direct payment from the U.S. Treasury. In fact, about 85
percent of the $25 billion the Federal Government expects to
spend on the EIC in 1996 will be refunded.
Federal law requires that EIC be ignored as income in
determining eligibility and benefit amount in the programs of
AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
or some housing programs. (Lump sum EIC payments must be
ignored as assets for 1 year by food stamps and for 2 months by
the other programs.)
Table 8-3 and chart 8-1 illustrate the interaction of AFDC
with food stamps, Medicaid, and the earned income credit (EIC)
for a mother with two children at various earning levels. The
example assumes the family lives in Pennsylvania. Calculations
are made after the mother has been working for 4 months and has
lost the disregard of one-third of ``residual'' earnings (those
remaining after subtraction of a $120 standard allowance).
Child Support Enforcement
As a condition of eligibility for aid, Federal law requires
AFDC families (and applicants) to assign their support rights
to the State and to cooperate with the State in establishing
the paternity of a child born outside of marriage and in
obtaining support payments. Families receiving AFDC benefits
automatically qualify (free of charge) for CSE services, and
their cases are referred to the State child support agency. The
provision requiring the AFDC applicant or recipient to assign
to the State her rights to support covers both current support
amounts and any accrued arrears, and lasts as long as the
family receives AFDC. When the family no longer receives AFDC,
the mother or caretaker relative regains her right to collect
support, but if there are arrears, the State may claim those
arrears up to the amount paid out as AFDC benefits.
Child support payments made on behalf of a child receiving
AFDC are paid to the child support agency rather than directly
to the family. If the child support collection is insufficient
to disqualify the family from receiving AFDC payments, the
family receives its full monthly AFDC grant plus, pursuant to
the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, the first $50 of the child
support payment made in the child's behalf for that month. This
$50 is disregarded in AFDC benefit calculations. In several
States where the need standard exceeds the maximum payment,
additional amounts of child support are disregarded (see
below). The remainder of the monthly child support payment is
distributed to reimburse the State and Federal Governments in
proportion to their assistance to the family.
TABLE 8-3.--EARNINGS AND BENEFITS FOR A MOTHER WITH TWO CHILDREN WITH DAY CARE EXPENSES AFTER 4 MONTHS ON JOB, JANUARY 1996--(PENNSYLVANIA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes
Food ------------------------------ Work ``Disposable''
Earnings EIC AFDC \1\ stamps \2\ Medicaid Social Federal State expenses \4\ income
Security income \3\ income
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0..................................... $0 $5,052 $2,722 Yes.................. $0 $0 $0 $0 \5\ $7,774
2,000.................................. 800 4,892 2,410 Yes.................. 153 0 0 600 \5\ 9,349
4,000.................................. 1,600 3,292 2,530 Yes.................. 306 0 0 1,200 \5\ 9,916
5,000.................................. 2,000 2,492 2,590 Yes.................. 383 0 0 1,500 \5\ 10,199
6,000.................................. 2,400 1,692 2,650 Yes.................. 459 0 0 1,800 \5\ 10,483
7,000.................................. 2,800 892 2,710 Yes.................. 536 0 0 2,100 \5\ 10,766
8,000.................................. 3,200 0 2,798 Yes \6\.............. 612 0 0 2,400 \5\ 10,986
9,000.................................. 3,556 0 2,618 Yes \7\.............. 689 0 0 2,700 \5\ 11,785
10,000................................. 3,556 0 2,438 No \7\............... 765 0 0 3,000 12,229
15,000................................. 2,842 0 1,538 No \8\............... 1,148 0 420 4,200 13,612
20,000................................. 1,789 0 0 No................... 1,530 0 560 5,200 14,499
30,000................................. 0 0 0 No................... 2,295 1,628 840 5,400 19,837
50,000................................. 0 0 0 No................... 3,825 5,187 1,400 5,400 34,188
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes these deductions: $120 monthly standard allowance (which would drop to $90 after 1 year on the job) and child care costs equal to 20 percent
of earnings, up to maximum of $350 for two children.
\2\ Assumes these deductions: 20 percent of earnings, $134 monthly standard deduction and child care costs equal to 20 percent of wages, up to maximum
of $320 for two children.
\3\ Head of household rates in effect for 1996. The dependent care tax credit reduces tax liability at earnings of $15,000 and above.
\4\ Assumed to equal 10 percent of earnings up to maximum of $100 monthly, plus child care costs equal to 20 percent of earnings up to a maximum of $350
for two children.
\5\ In addition, the benefits from Medicaid could be added, but are not, since the extent to which they increase disposable income is uncertain.
\6\ Family would qualify for Medicaid because the mother, by law, would be deemed still an AFDC recipient, even though no AFDC would be paid; her
calculated benefit would be below the minimum amount ($10 monthly) payable.
\7\ Family would qualify for Medicaid for 12 months after leaving AFDC under the 1988 Family Support Act. State must offer Medicaid to all children up
to age 6 whose family income is not above 133 percent of the Federal poverty guideline (ceiling of $17,290 for a family of three in 1996) and to
children over age 6 born after September 30, 1983 (up to age 10\1/3\ in January 1996), whose family income is below the poverty guideline ($12,600 for
a family of three).
\8\ After losing her Medicaid transitional benefits, to regain eligibility, mother must spend down on medical expenses to State's medically needy income
limit ($5,604 in August 1995).
Source: Congressional Research Service.
If the family's income, including the child support
payment, is sufficient to make the family ineligible for AFDC
payments, the family's AFDC benefits are ended, and future
child support payments are paid from the noncustodial parent to
the family, usually through an intermediary such as the local
child support agency or office of the court clerk.
CHART 8-1. DISPOSABLE INCOME AT VARIOUS WAGE LEVELS, MOTHER OF THREE,
PENNSYLVANIA (1996)
Note.--Net wages equal earnings minus taxes and assumed work
expenses other than child care costs. Food stamps, AFDC, and the
dependent care tax credit take account of child care costs.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Before 1975, when the new child support law requiring child
support payments to be made to the child support agency rather
than the AFDC family took effect, AFDC families in States with
fill-the-gap policies (discussed above) were permitted to use
some or all of their child support or other income to fill the
gap between the State's payment standard and need standard.
Section 402(a)(28) of the Social Security Act requires States
that had a fill-the-gap policy in 1975 and that currently have
such a policy to add to the AFDC benefit all or part of the
child support collection (the amount which would have caused no
reduction in the AFDC benefit if it had been paid directly to
the family).
Information obtained from HHS indicates that eight States
that had fill-the-gap policies in July 1975 still had them in
February 1996 and thus must follow the benefit calculation
rules of section 402(a)(28). They are: Alaska, Georgia, Maine,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Another 12 jurisdictions which had fill-the-gap policies in
July 1975, no longer have them.
SSI and Social Security
In AFDC, Social Security benefits are treated as unearned
income and thus AFDC benefits are reduced by $1 for each $1 of
Social Security benefits. Under 1984 law, Social Security
survivor benefits received by one AFDC child are counted as
income available to other members of the family. Supplemental
Security Income
benefits received by a member of the family are treated
differently. The Supplemental Security Income recipient
(whether a child or an adult) is not regarded as a part of the
AFDC unit. Thus, his needs are not taken into account in
determining the AFDC benefit level. At the same time, all
income and resources of the Supplemental Security Income
recipient are ignored in determining the AFDC benefit.
Other Benefit Programs
AFDC enrollment qualifies children for free school meals
(if their school has a meal program). Mothers enrolled in AFDC
automatically meet income standards for benefits from the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC). AFDC recipients also are eligible for help from
the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). States may grant
automatic eligibility for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) to AFDC families. Not all AFDC families
receive benefits from these programs (see tables 16-1, 16-2,
and 16-3).
Some AFDC families receive housing subsidies (which reduce
the family's rent to 30 percent of countable income). Thus, if
a family's AFDC benefit rises (or falls), its public housing or
section 8 housing subsidy generally declines (or rises) by 30
cents per dollar of the AFDC change. Although the law permits
AFDC State Programs to count a family's housing subsidy as
income to the extent that it duplicates the amount for housing
in the AFDC maximum payment schedule, all but four States
ignore housing subsidies (October 1990 data). If the AFDC grant
includes a sum designated for actual housing costs, the family
in subsidized housing must pay that amount as rent even if it
exceeds 30 percent of countable income.
Participation in Multiple Means-Tested Programs
In 1994, according to the Census Bureau (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1995), 4.819 million households included a member who
received AFDC (or State/local General Assistance (GA)). These
cash welfare benefits averaged $3,995 per household ($333
monthly). Noncash need-tested benefits received by members of
some of these households were:
--Food stamps, average household value $2,251 (received by
84.5 percent of AFDC households);
--Free or reduced-price school lunches, average value $622
(53.8 percent of the households);
--Housing assistance, average value $2,645 (29.7 percent of
the households);
--Supplemental Security Income (SSI) cash aid, average
household value $4,983, (16.7 percent of the
households); and
--Medicaid, average ``fungible'' value $1,886 (97.5 percent
of the households). The Census Bureau calculates the
fungible value of Medicaid by counting Medicaid
benefits to the extent that they free up resources that
could have been spent on medical care.
The Census Bureau also reports that in 1994, 67.5 million
persons, 25.8 percent of the population, lived in households in
which a member received means-tested cash aid (excluding EIC
payments) or noncash aid. By form of aid, they numbered: cash
welfare (AFDC, GA, or Supplemental Security Income) 27 million
persons, 10.3 percent of the population; food stamps, 29.2
million persons, 11.2 percent; Medicaid, 42.9 million persons,
16.4 percent; public or subsidized housing, 11.7 million
persons, 4.5 percent.
CRS calculations (Burke, 1995) of Census data indicate that
7.5 million families with children were poor in 1993 before
receiving cash aid from AFDC, general assistance, or the earned
income credit (EIC)--4.6 million with a female householder and
2.9 million with a male householder (these numbers include
unrelated subfamilies). Some means-tested aid went to all but 5
percent of the female-headed families and 8 percent of the
male-present families. For male-present families, EIC was the
dominant form of aid. In all, 67 percent of male-present
families who were poor before transfers received the EIC; for
27 percent it was the only aid. Among female-headed families
who were poor before transfers, 38 percent received the EIC;
for 9 percent it was the only aid. A combination of AFDC or GA
cash, food stamps, and Medicaid went to 24 percent of female-
headed families and 11 percent of male-present families.
Spending for Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons of Limited Income
More than 80 benefit programs provide cash and noncash aid
that is directed primarily to persons who meet a test of low
income. In fiscal year 1994 they cost almost $345 billion, of
which Federal funds paid $246 billion. Section 18 lists these
programs and shows how spending for them has grown since fiscal
year 1968, in both current and inflation-adjusted dollars. It
displays Federal and State-local expenditures separately and by
form of benefit (medical aid, cash, food, housing, etc.). The
section also shows changes over the last quarter century in the
share of the Federal budget used for each form of income-tested
aid. Again, not all families on AFDC receive benefits from
these other means-tested programs.
JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND BASIC SKILLS (JOBS) TRAINING PROGRAM
The Family Support Act of 1988 established a new
employment, education and training program for recipients of
AFDC. This new program, called the Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills (JOBS) Training Program, replaced the Work Incentive
(WIN) Program.
Purpose and Administration
The purpose of the JOBS Program is to assure that needy
families with children obtain the education, training and
employment that will help them avoid long-term welfare
dependence. Each State is required to have a JOBS Program,
under a State plan approved by the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). States were required to
implement the program no later than October 1, 1990. No later
than October 1, 1992, the program had to be available in every
subdivision of the State where it was feasible to operate the
program. According to the DHHS publication, ``Characteristics
of State Plans for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
[JOBS] Training Program: 1995-96 Edition,'' 12 States have
found it infeasible to operate JOBS in all political
subdivisions. Nine of these States (Alaska, Colorado, Florida,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, and West
Virginia) meet a regulatory standard by offering a complete
JOBS Program in all Metropolitan Statistical Areas and in
political subdivisions with 75 percent of AFDC adults and a
minimal program in areas where 95 percent of adults live. The
other three States without a statewide program are Idaho, New
Mexico, and Texas, which make JOBS available in certain
counties and political subdivisions described in their plans.
The JOBS Program is administered at the Federal level by
the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in HHS, and
at the State level by the State welfare agency. The State
welfare agency may offer services and activities directly,
through Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) administrative
entities, through State and local educational agencies, and
through other public agencies or private organizations
(including community-based organizations).
Assessment, Employability Plan, Case Management, and Orientation
The State must make an initial assessment of the education,
child care and other supportive service needs as well as the
skills, prior work experience, and employability of each JOBS
participant. On the basis of this assessment, the State must
develop an employability plan for the participant. The State
agency may require the participant to enter into an agreement
with the State that specifies the participant's obligations
under the program and the activities and services to be
provided by the State. Table 8-4, based on JOBS State plans,
shows that six States chose to require such an agreement
(January 1994 data).
The State agency may assign a case manager to each
participant and the participant's family. The case manager must
be responsible for assisting the family to obtain needed
services to ensure effective participation in the JOBS Program.
Table 8-4 shows that only two States--Iowa and Oklahoma--chose
not to assign a case manager.
Information about the JOBS Program and supportive services
must be provided to applicants and recipients by the State
agency. For example, the agency must inform AFDC applicants and
recipients of the opportunities for which they are eligible,
the obligations of the State agency, and the rights,
responsibilities and obligations of participants. The agency
must also provide detailed information about day care services
and must inform applicants and recipients of all other
supportive services, including transitional health care
benefits (see below).
TABLE 8-4.--SUMMARY OF JOBS PROGRAMS FROM STATE PLANS, JANUARY 1994 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemption from Allow
Optional participation if postsecondary Assign case Require agency
State Name of program components child under age-- education? Any manager? participant
\2\ limits? contract?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ JOBS................ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
exp., JS, other
ed. & training.
Alaska......................... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 30 Yes............... No
exp., JS, other consecutive
ed. & training. months limit.
Arizona........................ JOBS................ Atl. work exp., 1................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
OJT, CWEP, JS,
other ed. &
training.
Arkansas....................... Project Success..... Alt. work exp., 1................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
JS, OJT.
California..................... GAIN................ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... Yes
CWEP, JS, alt.
work exp..
Colorado....................... New Directions...... OJT, work supp., 1................. Yes; 24 month Yes............... No
CWEP, JS. limit.
Connecticut.................... JOBS................ OJT, JS, alt. work 2................. Yes; 2 years; 3 Yes............... No
exp.. years for
certified
programs.
Delaware....................... First Step.......... OJT, CWEP, JS..... .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
District of Columbia........... ARC................. OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
exp., JS, other
ed. & training.
Florida........................ Project Independence OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; 4 year limit. Yes............... No
CWEP, alt. work
exp., JS.
Georgia........................ PEACH............... OJT, CWEP, alt. .................. Yes; 28 month Yes............... No
work exp., JS, limit.
work supp..
Guam........................... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS..... .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
Hawaii......................... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS, .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
other ed. &
training.
Idaho.......................... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 4 year limit. Yes............... No
exp., JS, other
ed. & training.
Illinois....................... Project Chance...... OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; no limits.... Yes............... No
CWEP, alt. work
exp., JS, other
ed. & training.
Indiana........................ IMPACT: JOBS........ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; 24 months.... Yes............... No
alt. work exp.,
CWEP, JS, other
ed. & training.
Iowa........................... Promise JOBS........ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 30 month No................ No
exp., JS, other limit for 2 year
training. degree program;
40 month limit
for 3 or 4 year
programs.
Kansas......................... Kan Work in 23 OJT, CWEP, JS, .................. Yes; up to BA/BS.. Yes............... No
counties; minimal alt. work exp..
JOBS in balance of
State.
Kentucky....................... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, alt. .................. Yes; limited to 6 Yes............... No
work exp., JS. semesters for 2
and 3 year
programs; 8
semesters for 4
year programs.
Louisiana...................... Project Independence OJT, CWEP, JS..... 1................. Yes; 4 year limit. Yes............... No
Maine.......................... ASPIRE/JOBS......... OJT, CWEP, JS, .................. Yes; limited to 6 Yes............... Yes
other ed. & semesters for AA
training, other degree, 12
training.. semesters for BA
degree.
Maryland....................... Project Independence OJT, alt. work .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
exp., JS, work
supp., other ed.
& training.
Massachusetts.................. Mass JOBS........... OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; limited to 3 Yes............... No
JS, alt. work years for 2-year
exp.. degree, voc-tech
programs; 6 years
for 4-year
programs.
Michigan....................... MOST................ OJT, work supp, 1................. No................ Yes............... No
CWEP, JS, other
ed..
Minnesota...................... Project STRIDE...... OJT, work supp, .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
CWEP alt. work
exp., JS, other
training.
Mississippi.................... JOBS................ Alt. work exp., JS .................. Yes; 5 year limit, Yes............... No
3 year vocational.
Missouri....................... FUTURES............. OJT, CWEP, JS, .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
work supp., alt.
work exp.
Montana........................ JOBS................ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes............... Yes............... Yes
JS, CWEP, alt.
work exp.
Nebraska....................... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, alt. 1................. Yes............... Yes............... No
work exp., JS.
Nevada......................... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS, .................. No................ Yes............... No
alt. work exp..
New Hampshire.................. JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS..... .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
New Jersey..................... REACH............... OJT, work supp, 2................. Yes............... Yes............... No
CWEP, JS, other
ed. & training.
New Mexico..................... Project Forward..... OJT, CWEP, alt. .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
work exp., JS,
other ed. &
training.
New York....................... JOBS................ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes, 2 year limit. Yes............... No
CWEP, JS, other
ed. & training.
North Carolina................. JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS..... .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
North Dakota................... JOBS................ OJT, CWEP, JS, .................. Yes; 45 months.... Yes............... No
work supp., alt.
work exp..
Ohio........................... JOBS................ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
CWEP, alt. work
exp., JS.
Oklahoma....................... Education, Training OJT, work supp., 1................. Yes; 5 year limit. No................ No
and Employment. alt. work exp.,
JS, other ed. &
training.
Oregon......................... JOBS................ OJT, work supp., 1................. No................ Yes............... No
CWEP, alt. work
exp., JS, other
training.
Pennsylvania................... New Directions...... OJT, CWEP, alt. .................. Yes............... Yes............... No
work exp., JS,
other ed. &
training.
Puerto Rico.................... PASOS............... OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 2 years...... Yes............... No
exp., work supp.,
JS, other ed. &
training.
Rhode Island................... Pathways to CWEP, work supp., .................. Yes; 24 month Yes............... No
Independence. OJT, JS, alt. limit.
work exp..
South Carolina................. Work Support Program OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 4 year limit. Yes............... No
exp., JS, other
ed. & training.
South Dakota................... FIND................ OJT, JS, alt. work 1................. Yes; 4 year limit. Yes............... No
exp..
Tennessee...................... JOBS/WORK........... OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 4 year limit. Yes............... No
exp., JS.
Texas.......................... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
exp., JS.
Utah........................... JOBS................ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; with limits.. Yes............... Yes
exp. (WEAT), JS.
Vermont........................ Reach Up............ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; 3 year limit Yes............... No
CWEP, JS. for AA
certificate, 5
years for BA
degree.
Virgin Islands................. JOBS/HOPE........... OJT, CWEP, work 2................. Yes; with limits.. Yes............... Yes
supp., JS.
Virginia....................... JOBS................ OJT, work supp., .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
alt. work exp.,
JS, other ed. &
training.
Washington..................... JOBS/FIP............ OJT, alt. work .................. Yes; with limits Yes............... No
exp., CWEP, work (BA/BS).
supp., JS.
West Virginia.................. JOBS................ CWEP, OJT, JS, .................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
alt. work exp..
Wisconsin...................... JOBS................ CWEP, OJT, work 2................. Yes; 2 year limit. Yes............... No
supp., JS, alt.
work exp..
Wyoming........................ Wyoming OJT, alt. work 1................. Yes; 4 year limit Yes............... Yes
Opportunities for exp, JS. for AA &
Work (WOW) Program. vocational; 6
year limit for BA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information based on State JOBS Plan, filed for the biennium beginning October 1, 1994.
\2\ Unless otherwise noted, State follows basic statutory approach and exempts the parent of a child under age 3.
Note.--Optional components can include Job Search (JS), Alternative Work Experience, On-the-Job Training (OJT), Community Work Experience Program
(CWEP), Work Supplementation, Other Education, and other activities.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
JOBS Activities
A range of services and activities must be offered by each
State under the JOBS Program; however, States are not required
to operate the JOBS Program uniformly throughout the State. The
four mandatory services a State must offer are: (1) education
activities, including high school or equivalent education,
basic and remedial education to achieve a basic literacy level,
and education for individuals with limited English proficiency;
(2) job skills training; (3) job readiness activities; and (4)
job development and job placement. Supportive services also are
required.
In addition to these required activities, States must offer
two of the following four optional activities: (1) group and
individual job search; (2) on-the-job training; (3) work
supplementation; and (4) community work experience (CWEP) or
any other work experience program approved by the Secretary. In
addition, States may offer postsecondary education to JOBS
participants and other State-determined education, employment,
and training activities approved by the Secretary. All
jurisdictions but three (Michigan, Nevada, and Oregon) offer
postsecondary education under JOBS. Table 8-4 shows which
activities the individual States are offering, as of January
1994.
A complete JOBS Program contains the four mandatory
components above and at least two of the four optional
components. A minimal program includes high school or
equivalent education, one of the optional components, and
information and referral to available non-JOBS employment
services.
When a parent aged 20 or over who lacks a high school
diploma (or equivalent) is required to participate in JOBS, the
State agency must include education services in her
employability plan unless the individual demonstrates a basic
literacy level or the plan identifies a long-term employment
goal that does not require a high school diploma.
Following is a more detailed discussion of the Federal
requirements for job search, CWEP, and work supplementation
programs.
Job search
States may require AFDC applicants and recipients to
participate in a job search program beginning at the time of
application. States may require up to 8 weeks of job search for
applicants and up to 8 weeks of job search for AFDC recipients
each year. Thus, in the first year, up to 16 weeks of job
search may be required; up to 8 weeks per year may be required
thereafter. A person may not be required to undertake
additional job search activities unless job search is used in
combination with some other education, training or employment
activity that is designed to improve the individual's prospects
for employment. In no event may a State require a person to
participate in more than 3 weeks of job search before it
conducts an employability assessment for that individual.
Finally, job search cannot be treated for any purpose as a JOBS
activity if a person has participated in job search for 4 out
of the preceding 12 months.
Community work experience
The purpose of a CWEP Program is to provide experience and
training for individuals not otherwise able to obtain
employment. CWEP Programs must be designed to improve the
employability of participants through actual work experience
and training and to enable CWEP participants to move into
regular employment. CWEP Programs must be limited to projects
that serve a useful, public purpose in fields such as health,
social service, environmental protection, education, urban and
rural development and redevelopment, welfare, recreation,
public facilities, public safety or day care.
A State electing to operate a CWEP Program must ensure that
a CWEP participant is not required to work more hours than the
number derived by dividing the total AFDC benefit by the
Federal minimum wage (or, if greater, the State minimum wage).
Any AFDC benefit amount for which the State receives
reimbursement through child support collection cannot be taken
into account in making this calculation.
After 9 months in a CWEP position, an individual cannot be
required to continue in that assignment unless the maximum
number of hours of required work is calculated on the basis of
the rate of pay for individuals employed in the same or similar
occupations by the same employer at the same site.
At the conclusion of each CWEP assignment, but, in any
event, after each 6 months of CWEP participation, the State
agency must provide a reassessment, and revision, as
appropriate, of the individual's employability plan.
Work supplementation
A work supplementation program permits a State to
``divert'' all or part of a family's AFDC grant to an employer
to cover all or part of wages paid to the recipient. Recipients
may be placed in jobs offered by private as well as nonprofit
employers. Under JOBS, States may make work supplementation
either mandatory or voluntary, and States are required to
provide Medicaid to work supplementation participants.
States operating a work supplementation program may adjust
the level of their AFDC standard of need in order to carry out
the program, and need standards may vary among areas of the
State. Need standards may also vary among recipient categories,
to the extent that the State determines the variation to be
appropriate on the basis of the ability of the recipient to
participate in the work supplementation program. States are
able to make further adjustments to amounts paid to different
categories of work supplementation participants in order to
offset increases in benefits from non-AFDC means-tested
programs.
States also are permitted to reduce or eliminate the amount
of earned income disregards for work supplementation families.
On the other hand, States may offer them the $30 plus one-third
earned income disregard for up to 9 months, 5 months longer
than is allowed for other AFDC earners.
Federal funding under the program is limited for each
participant to the aggregate of 9 months' worth of the maximum
AFDC grant that the participant family would have received if
it had no income and were not participating in the work
supplementation program.
Participation Requirements
Exemptions
To the extent resources are available, a State must require
nonexempt AFDC recipients to participate in the JOBS Program.
Exempt applicants and recipients may participate on a voluntary
basis. Exempt are persons who are: (1) ill, incapacitated, or
of advanced age; (2) needed in the home because of the illness
or incapacity of another family member (who need not be a
member of the AFDC unit); (3) the parent or other relative of a
child under age 3 who is personally providing care for the
child (or, if provided in the State plan, any age that is less
than 3 but not less than 1); (4) employed 30 or more hours a
week; (5) a child under age 16 or attending, full time, an
elementary, secondary or vocational school; (6) a woman who is
in at least the second trimester of pregnancy; or (7) residing
in an area where the program is not available. Table 8-4 shows
that 40 jurisdictions exempt the parents of a child under 3;
four lower the age threshold to age 2 (Connecticut, New Jersey,
the Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin); and ten lower the threshold
to age 1 (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming). In
fiscal year 1994, 40.5 percent of AFDC families had a child
below age 3, and 12.6 percent had a child below age 1
(including 1.8 percent who were unborn).
Special provisions
The 1988 law conditions some participation rules on
provision of child care. In general, the parent of a child
under age 6 (but older than the age for an exemption) who is
personally providing care for the child may be required to
participate only if child care is guaranteed and required
participation is limited to a maximum of 20 hours per week. In
the case of an AFDC-UP family, the exemption relating to age of
child applies to only one parent, unless child care is
guaranteed.
JOBS imposes a special educational requirement for high
school dropouts. To the extent the JOBS Program is available
and State resources permit, a State must require a custodial
parent under age 20 who has not completed high school (or the
equivalent) to participate in an educational activity. Even
though such a parent is providing care for a child under 6
years of age, the State agency may require her to participate
in the educational activity on a full-time basis, if the State
guarantees child care. Alternative work or training activities
may be provided if the parent fails to make progress in an
educational activity, or if an educational assessment
determines that participation in an educational activity is
inappropriate. Participation in alternative activities is
limited to 20 hours per week.
If an individual is attending school or a course of
vocational training at least half time at the time she would
otherwise begin to participate in the JOBS Program, and if she
is making satisfactory progress, the attendance may meet her
JOBS participation requirement, but the costs of the school or
training are not eligible for Federal reimbursement.
The law forbids a State to require a JOBS participant to
accept a job that would result in a net loss of cash income
unless the State makes a supplementary payment. Only one
jurisdiction, the Virgin Islands, has chosen to make
supplementary AFDC payments to those who otherwise would lose
income by taking a job.
Minimum participation standards
Certain minimum participation standards were established
for fiscal years 1990-95 for the overall AFDC caseload (and for
fiscal years 1994-98 for the unemployed-parent caseload). The
minimum participation rates for the overall caseload were 7
percent (of the nonexempt caseload) in fiscal years 1990-91, 11
percent in fiscal years 1992-93, 15 percent in fiscal year
1994, and 20 percent in fiscal year 1995 (none thereafter).
Special participation rules apply to the unemployed-parent
caseload. At least one parent in each AFDC-UP family must
participate at least 16 hours a week in a work activity.
However, in low-benefit States, fewer than 16 hours of weekly
CWEP participation are required since work hours calculated at
the minimum wage cannot exceed the number needed to yield the
family's AFDC benefit. Participation must be in work
supplementation, community work experience or other work
experience program, on-the-job training, or a State-designed
work program approved by the Secretary. Except for Florida,
Georgia, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands (which has not
implemented AFDC-UP), all State JOBS plans treat unsubsidized
employment as a countable activity for AFDC-UP families. The
percentage of AFDC-UP families required to meet this work rule
was 40 percent in fiscal year 1994, 50 percent in fiscal year
1995, and 60 percent in fiscal year 1996, and is scheduled to
rise to 75 percent in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 and
to end thereafter. A State may substitute participation in an
educational program in the case of an AFDC-UP parent under age
25 who has not completed high school.
The prescribed penalty for failing to meet the general
participation rate is a reduction in the Federal matching rate,
but the penalty can be waived under certain conditions and, to
date, always has been.
Definition of JOBS participant
The law does not define ``participant,'' but Federal
regulations require that JOBS participation rates be measured
by a 20-hour-per-week standard. The welfare agency is to count
as participants the largest number of persons whose combined
and averaged hours in specified JOBS activities equal or exceed
20 per week. Creditable activities include any component of the
State's JOBS plan except job development and job placement.
Persons who enter a job are counted as participants only if
they engaged in a JOBS activity (or received job development
and placement services) during the month of job entry or the
preceding month.
Targeting of JOBS Funds
As described in detail later, Federal matching for JOBS
Program costs is available as a capped entitlement. The JOBS
Program includes incentives for States to target funds toward
certain populations. States face a reduced Federal match unless
55 percent of JOBS funds is spent on the following populations:
(1) families in which the custodial parent is under age 24 and
has not completed high school or has little or no work
experience in the preceding year; (2) families in which the
youngest child is within 2 years of being ineligible for
assistance because of age; (3) families that have received
assistance for 36 or more months during the preceding 60-month
period; and (4) applicants who have received AFDC for any 36 of
the 60 months immediately preceding application. Wyoming
targets an alternate group--households in which a member has
received AFDC in 24-35 of the last 60 months. Volunteers must
be given first consideration within target groups.
Funding of JOBS and Supportive Services
Federal matching for JOBS Program costs is available as a
capped entitlement limited to $1 billion annually in fiscal
year 1996 and thereafter. (Authorized for previous years were
these sums: $600 million in fiscal year 1989, $800 million in
fiscal year 1990, $1 billion in fiscal year 1991, 1992 and
1993, $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1994, and $1.3 billion in
fiscal year 1995.) The Federal match is 90 percent for
expenditures up to the amount allotted to the States for the
WIN Program in fiscal year 1987. Of additional amounts, the
Federal match is at the Medicaid rate (between roughly 50 and
78 percent), but with a minimum Federal match of 60 percent for
nonadministrative costs and for personnel costs for full-time
staff working on the JOBS Program. The match for other
administrative costs is 50 percent. The law provides for a
reduction in the JOBS Federal match rate to 50 percent unless
(1) 55 percent of funds are spent on target populations listed
above, and (2) the States meet participation rate requirements.
The entitlement cap for JOBS is allocated as follows: States
receive an amount equal to their WIN allotment for fiscal year
1987 ($126 million across all States) and the remainder is
allocated on the basis of each State's relative number of adult
AFDC recipients. Federal program funds may not be used to
supplant non-Federal funds for existing services and
activities, and States must spend on JOBS, from State/local
funds, at least as much as they did for comparable activities
in fiscal year 1986.
Child care during participation in JOBS and for employment
is reimbursed as a separate, open-ended entitlement at the
Medicaid matching rate. Transportation and other work-related
expenses are reimbursed at a rate of 50 percent and are among
expenditures subject to the JOBS entitlement cap.
Table 8-5 provides information on fiscal year 1995 Federal
allocations to the States for the JOBS Program, along with
information on the amount of these funds States have expended
and obligated. Authorized for JOBS was $1.3 billion; the
Federal share of JOBS expenditures claimed by States as of
March 29, 1996, however, was $875 million (only two-thirds of
available Federal funds). Thirteen jurisdictions claimed all
JOBS funds allocated to them after deduction of amounts set
aside for Indians: (Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South
Dakota, Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin). As of March 29, 1996,
States had obligated another $137 million in fiscal year 1995
Federal JOBS funds; they have until September 30, 1996 to claim
these funds for actual expenditures. The table also includes
information on federally reimbursed expenditures for child
care. For AFDC/JOBS and transitional child care, States claimed
Federal reimbursement of $700 million in fiscal year 1994, and
$893 million in fiscal year 1995.
Indian Tribes and JOBS
More than 80 Indian tribes and Alaska Native Organizations
in 24 States conduct their own JOBS Programs. These programs,
which are 100 percent federally funded, need not meet
participation rules of the regular JOBS Program. Allocation of
JOBS funds for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Organizations is
based on the percentage of AFDC adult recipients within the
State who live in their service area, and their grants are
subtracted from the State's allocation. In fiscal year 1995,
0.7 percent of authorized JOBS funds ($9.3 million) was set
aside for them. (The list of tribal JOBS grantees is now
closed; the deadline for tribes to conduct their own programs
was 6 months after enactment of the JOBS Program in 1988.)
Supportive and Transitional Services
State agencies must guarantee child care for a recipient if
the care is necessary for the individual to work. In addition,
the State must guarantee child care for education and training
activities, including participation in the JOBS Program, if the
State approves the activity and determines that the individual
is participating satisfactorily. The State agency must also
guarantee child care that is needed for an individual's
employment in any case in which a family has ceased to receive
AFDC assistance as a result of increased hours of, or increased
income from, employment or as a result of the loss of earnings
disregards. Transitional child care is limited to a period of
12 months after the last month for which the family actually
received AFDC assistance. Unlimited Federal matching funds, at
Medicaid matching rates, are provided for AFDC/JOBS child care
and transitional child care. (AFDC child care assistance
programs are described in more detail in section 10.)
The State must provide payment or reimbursement for
necessary transportation and other work-related expenses,
including other work-related supportive services that the State
determines are necessary to enable an individual to participate
in JOBS. Federal matching is 50 percent, subject to the overall
JOBS funding cap (see ``Funding'' above). There is no Federal
limit on reimbursable expenses for an individual.
TABLE 8-5.--FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE JOBS PROGRAM BY STATE, 1993-95
[By fiscal year; in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOBS total Indian set- Awarded to Total obligated Total Title IV-A Child Care:
States authoriz. aside 1995 States ------------------------------------ expended -----------------------
1995 \1\ \2\ 1995 \3\ 1995 \5\ 1994 \5\ 1993 \5\ 1995 \4\ 1995 \6\ 1994 \6\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... 10.4 0.0 10.1 10.1 9.5 9.3 9.0 12.0 11.8
Alaska...................................... 4.0 1.4 2.5 4.0 3.3 1.8 2.5 2.7 1.9
American Samoa.............................. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .......... 0.0 0.0 0.0
Arizona..................................... 17.3 2.6 12.7 15.3 11.2 5.8 11.5 15.1 11.0
Arkansas.................................... 5.8 0.0 5.8 5.8 5.1 5.0 3.9 2.4 1.5
California.................................. 228.9 0.7 137.7 138.4 133.2 96.8 110.3 44.7 30.3
Colorado.................................... 12.2 0.0 10.8 10.8 8.0 6.7 10.5 6.0 5.7
Connecticut................................. 15.7 0.0 10.1 10.1 7.6 6.1 10.0 15.3 10.6
Delaware.................................... 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.7 4.4 3.4
District of Columbia........................ 7.0 0.0 5.5 5.5 4.7 4.7 5.4 4.0 3.2
Florida..................................... 54.3 0.0 18.9 18.9 17.5 15.9 15.7 29.0 22.0
Georgia..................................... 32.2 0.0 32.2 32.2 20.7 10.3 23.6 36.3 33.9
Guam........................................ 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Hawaii...................................... 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 4.7 4.1 6.0 3.6 1.7
Idaho....................................... 3.0 (\6\) 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.9 1.3 1.4
Illinois.................................... 63.6 0.0 44.0 44.0 30.9 25.9 35.4 43.4 22.0
Indiana..................................... 19.6 0.0 15.1 15.1 11.2 8.1 12.3 21.1 15.1
Iowa........................................ 11.2 0.0 11.2 11.2 8.7 5.9 11.2 5.4 3.4
Kansas...................................... 8.0 (\6\) 8.0 8.0 6.8 6.4 8.0 6.2 6.8
Kentucky.................................... 19.3 0.0 16.4 16.4 15.3 13.7 10.4 12.5 12.6
Louisiana................................... 18.3 0.0 18.3 18.3 16.6 16.5 18.3 11.7 10.7
Maine....................................... 6.8 (\6\) 4.0 4.0 3.1 3.7 5.8 1.7 1.3
Maryland.................................... 20.4 0.0 13.7 13.7 16.0 14.1 10.7 17.7 17.5
Massachusetts............................... 32.0 0.0 21.7 21.7 20.5 20.5 23.0 38.7 31.8
Michigan.................................... 66.6 0.2 66.4 66.6 59.4 35.2 50.3 21.2 9.0
Minnesota................................... 18.5 1.1 14.1 15.2 14.7 11.7 15.1 18.0 16.6
Mississippi................................. 11.9 (\6\) 11.8 11.9 11.0 10.8 11.6 5.1 3.9
Missouri.................................... 23.8 0.0 14.3 14.3 11.6 9.8 15.2 18.8 15.0
Montana..................................... 3.7 0.5 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.2
Nebraska.................................... 4.1 0.1 3.7 3.8 2.5 2.7 2.8 7.9 8.7
Nevada...................................... 3.2 (\6\) 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.0
New Hampshire............................... 3.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.3 3.1
New Jersey.................................. 32.1 0.0 30.4 30.4 26.6 21.0 32.1 18.0 10.6
New Mexico.................................. 9.6 0.1 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.1 3.3 6.2
New York.................................... 122.8 (\6\) 119.7 119.8 98.5 85.2 93.6 82.3 44.1
North Carolina.............................. 29.7 0.1 27.7 27.8 20.7 17.7 27.7 62.2 53.4
North Dakota................................ 1.8 0.5 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.8
Ohio........................................ 65.2 0.0 62.8 62.8 52.0 58.6 53.1 52.9 44.6
Oklahoma.................................... 11.2 0.2 8.3 8.5 7.6 6.7 7.1 21.2 17.8
Oregon...................................... 13.2 0.1 13.1 13.2 11.9 11.4 13.1 16.0 14.9
Pennsylvania................................ 57.1 0.0 56.5 56.5 48.0 34.7 43.1 42.9 32.8
Puerto Rico................................. 15.6 0.0 13.0 13.0 11.1 9.6 11.0 0.0 0.0
Rhode Island................................ 6.2 0.0 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.8 4.3 5.6 4.9
South Carolina.............................. 10.4 0.0 5.8 5.8 5.0 5.4 6.8 5.4 3.3
South Dakota................................ 1.9 0.5 1.3 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2
Tennessee................................... 25.7 0.0 10.7 10.7 5.8 7.8 12.5 35.3 30.2
Texas....................................... 62.9 0.0 41.7 41.7 35.6 37.2 35.9 42.6 40.1
Utah........................................ 5.3 0.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.5 5.0 9.6 9.8
Vermont..................................... 3.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.6 3.3
Virgin Islands.............................. 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Virginia.................................... 17.1 0.0 11.4 11.4 10.8 9.1 11.1 13.7 11.5
Washington.................................. 31.6 0.6 16.4 17.0 18.2 23.9 21.8 35.8 30.4
West Virginia............................... 12.5 0.0 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.8 8.6 7.0 5.3
Wisconsin................................... 28.2 0.4 27.8 28.2 26.1 20.4 27.8 18.7 12.1
Wyoming..................................... 1.7 0.1 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.9 2.0 2.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................ 1,300.0 9.3 1,002.4 1,011.8 873.0 738.8 875.0 892.9 699.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ JOBS--total authorization: Total Federal funds available for the JOBS Program for fiscal year 1995.
\2\ Indian set-aside: Ratio of adult recipients in a tribal service area to the State's total of adult recipients multiplied by the State's total
allocation.
\3\ Excludes the Indian set-aside.
\4\ Federal share of expenditures claimed by States for the JOBS Program.
\5\ Total obligated: The amount of funds obligated by the State by September 30, 1995, 1994 and 1993. For example, if a contract is signed by the State
to provide services based on a set fee, the amount owed for those services is an obligation. That obligation becomes an expenditure only when the
invoice for the services is actually paid.
\6\ Federal share of expenditures claimed by States for AFDC and Transitional Child Care.
Note.--Data as of March 29, 1996 and based on best available data reported by States.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Table 8-6 displays the percentage of JOBS allocations,
after Indian set-asides, claimed by each jurisdiction in fiscal
years 1989-94. In fiscal years 1991-92, 10 jurisdictions used
all available JOBS funds; in fiscal years 1993-94, 20
jurisdictions did so. Florida, New Mexico, and Tennessee used
less than 50 percent of their fiscal year 1994 allocations.
TABLE 8-6.--JOBS GRANT AS A PERCENT OF JOBS CEILING BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1989-94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
State -----------------------------------------------------------
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 0.00 12.86 47.28 80.35 100.00 100.00
Alaska.............................................. 0.00 0.00 99.96 91.92 100.00 100.00
Arizona............................................. 0.00 0.00 78.37 53.38 63.17 70.88
Arkansas............................................ 88.97 92.64 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.99
California.......................................... 100.00 93.34 72.34 64.70 87.22 75.01
Colorado............................................ 0.00 40.68 57.31 58.47 73.94 73.35
Connecticut......................................... 100.00 99.03 96.56 71.33 59.68 58.20
Delaware............................................ 0.00 98.79 98.50 100.00 96.91 100.00
District of Columbia................................ 0.00 49.15 71.06 71.49 91.46 85.18
Florida............................................. 0.00 84.91 49.67 46.95 44.64 36.05
Georgia............................................. 40.28 70.55 53.07 48.07 65.84 74.22
Guam................................................ 0.00 0.00 100.00 83.63 88.12 70.33
Hawaii.............................................. 0.00 0.00 91.06 88.97 100.00 100.00
Idaho............................................... 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Illinois............................................ 0.00 33.29 45.94 39.96 52.76 59.43
Indiana............................................. 0.00 0.00 72.13 48.71 67.19 67.11
Iowa................................................ 77.36 79.76 71.21 61.24 71.48 100.00
Kansas.............................................. 0.00 84.21 61.81 73.15 100.00 96.32
Kentucky............................................ 0.00 0.00 90.47 76.92 83.94 84.19
Louisiana........................................... 0.00 0.00 86.60 75.96 100.00 100.00
Maine............................................... 0.00 0.00 86.58 48.48 66.75 51.00
Maryland............................................ 100.00 91.27 99.47 100.00 84.34 91.59
Masssachusetts...................................... 100.00 99.11 85.67 80.63 84.04 71.01
Michigan............................................ 76.35 73.59 45.00 45.58 100.00 100.00
Minnesota........................................... 100.00 89.66 76.52 66.09 86.57 88.74
Mississippi......................................... 0.00 0.00 46.97 27.88 100.00 100.00
Missouri............................................ 0.00 24.87 34.44 31.60 53.22 55.69
Montana............................................. 0.00 16.29 83.53 99.99 100.00 78.92
Nebraska............................................ 0.00 99.33 57.73 99.25 95.45 67.78
Nevada.............................................. 18.86 74.60 29.78 58.06 68.16 51.22
New Hampshire....................................... 0.00 87.11 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
New Jersey.......................................... 100.00 99.05 100.00 89.23 100.00 93.99
New Mexico.......................................... 0.00 38.45 49.84 23.82 23.64 25.76
New York............................................ 0.00 0.00 77.83 92.06 100.00 100.00
North Carolina...................................... 0.00 0.00 77.02 76.10 84.82 81.51
North Dakota........................................ 0.00 35.07 100.00 100.00 96.43 100.00
Ohio................................................ 82.51 90.63 74.06 82.64 79.56 88.31
Oklahoma............................................ 50.26 84.30 83.58 65.27 100.00 75.41
Oregon.............................................. 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Pennsylvania........................................ 0.00 71.15 65.80 82.25 94.11 100.00
Puerto Rico......................................... 0.00 0.00 28.63 59.16 88.83 81.53
Rhode Island........................................ 100.00 99.10 98.09 84.22 88.15 98.63
South Carolina...................................... 0.00 75.12 67.08 40.72 56.18 52.45
South Dakota........................................ 0.00 86.97 67.93 97.19 100.00 100.00
Tennessee........................................... 0.00 0.00 20.34 38.54 27.23 27.24
Texas............................................... 0.00 0.00 57.22 55.55 81.80 67.86
Utah................................................ 0.00 98.11 75.59 82.39 100.00 100.00
Vermont............................................. 0.00 0.00 84.48 60.79 100.00 100.00
Virgin Islands...................................... 0.00 48.98 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Virginia............................................ 0.00 0.00 82.43 73.28 59.36 73.59
Washington.......................................... 0.00 0.00 43.88 60.54 83.36 66.94
West Virginia....................................... 0.00 56.95 68.62 82.39 92.63 79.97
Wisconsin........................................... 100.00 98.89 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Wyoming............................................. 0.00 23.86 100.00 100.00 96.80 100.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
States at the JOBS Cap.............................. 8 0 10 10 20 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service based on data from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS). JOBS data are as of May 19, 1995.
Table 8-7 shows the average monthly number of JOBS
participants reported by each State during fiscal year 1994 and
their percentage distribution by program component. Overall, a
monthly average of 579,213 persons were active JOBS
participants, but about one-fourth were not ``countable'' for
purposes of calculating official participation rates (see table
8-9). The U.S. distribution:
--Educational activities--42.7 percent of participants (23.9
percent in high school, GED, remedial education, or
English as a second language; 18.8 percent in higher
education).
--Training--15.8 percent (8 percent in vocational training;
7.8 percent in job skills training).
--Assessment and employability plan--12.5 percent.
--Job entry (in survey month or preceding month)--10.6
percent.
--Job search--5.5 percent.
--Job readiness--5.2 percent.
--Community Work Experience Program (CWEP), work
supplementation, and on-the-job training--4.3 percent.
--Job development--0.8 percent.
--Other--2.7 percent.
Compared with fiscal year 1992, the percentages of JOBS
participants engaged in education and job entry rose
significantly while those in job search declined appreciably.
State variations were large. For instance, the share of
participants in higher education ranged from 3.7 percent in
Oregon to 44.4 percent in New Hampshire. Those in job entry
ranged from 1 percent in the District of Columbia and Oklahoma
to above 30 percent in Utah, Massachusetts, and Oregon.
Although 21 States placed no one in CWEP, more than 15 percent
of JOBS participants in Hawaii and West Virginia were in CWEP.
TABLE 8-7.--AVERAGE MONTHLY PERCENTAGE OF JOBS PARTICIPANTS BY STATE AND COMPONENT, FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Self
Total Job school Assigned init. Vocational Job Job Job Assess Job Work
State participants entry and other higher higher training skills readiness develop emp. search OJT supp. CWEP Other
\4\ ed. ed. training plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................... 6,848 7.7 40.3 10.7 8.5 0.0 8.8 1.3 0.1 12.4 6.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.3
Alaska \1\........................................ ............ ...... ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....
Arizona........................................... 3,318 12.3 26.5 4.0 9.2 2.5 5.8 3.5 0.2 14.5 11.4 0.2 0.0 9.0 0.9
Arkansas.......................................... 7,827 5.6 28.3 6.7 5.0 1.0 0.7 9.3 0.0 29.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6
California........................................ 70,529 9.9 35.1 7.5 5.5 5.0 2.9 8.0 0.6 16.6 2.8 1.0 0.0 4.6 0.5
Colorado.......................................... 5,342 8.9 21.6 12.5 10.2 0.0 12.0 4.3 0.1 12.6 7.5 0.2 1.9 8.2 0.0
Connecticut....................................... 5,700 4.7 33.4 12.2 12.5 15.1 5.5 3.3 2.6 2.7 4.3 2.7 0.0 1.0 0.0
Delaware.......................................... 997 6.1 20.5 0.4 13.5 1.9 6.1 0.1 0.4 33.3 5.0 0.1 0.0 7.2 5.2
District of Columbia.............................. 1,344 1.0 53.8 9.1 17.8 0.7 0.0 9.2 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Florida........................................... 21,173 21.6 28.4 0.4 0.0 29.1 2.1 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Georgia........................................... 13,396 21.3 30.9 14.0 8.0 0.8 1.7 4.8 0.2 8.0 0.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 5.3
Guam \2\.......................................... ............ ...... ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....
Hawaii............................................ 1,339 7.9 22.1 31.0 3.2 0.4 3.1 8.4 0.0 2.6 1.8 0.1 0.0 18.2 1.2
Idaho............................................. 998 12.5 19.4 3.6 9.5 7.7 10.8 7.7 0.0 9.6 6.8 0.1 0.0 11.9 0.1
Illinois.......................................... 25,946 3.1 18.7 20.2 0.5 0.5 12.6 5.8 0.0 6.5 12.4 0.4 0.0 1.2 18.2
Indiana........................................... 7,589 8.4 23.4 19.5 11.8 7.3 4.2 5.7 0.3 8.5 4.1 0.1 0.6 6.0 0.0
Iowa.............................................. 9,276 23.8 11.4 17.1 3.4 1.4 2.0 2.9 0.0 32.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5
Kansas............................................ 7,168 12.6 18.0 27.4 12.1 2.1 2.5 2.5 1.9 7.4 4.1 1.0 0.0 6.5 1.8
Kentucky \3\...................................... ............ ...... ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....
Louisiana......................................... 8,190 8.9 40.3 2.5 4.1 9.2 15.0 2.7 0.0 10.0 3.6 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.0
Maine............................................. 3,457 15.7 19.5 13.2 3.2 1.0 6.1 8.8 0.3 8.6 16.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 5.8
Maryland.......................................... 8,436 7.4 14.9 4.3 7.8 1.6 14.7 12.6 6.0 16.5 3.9 0.2 0.5 0.0 9.6
Massachusetts..................................... 16,752 35.9 13.5 6.1 5.8 9.3 13.8 2.9 0.1 1.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Michigan.......................................... 48,774 10.2 19.1 0.1 16.1 11.7 2.4 2.8 2.2 27.3 5.3 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.0
Minnesota......................................... 6,003 9.1 16.1 20.8 0.0 0.0 33.6 4.0 0.0 0.9 11.3 0.2 0.3 3.8 0.0
Mississippi....................................... 4,241 2.7 43.6 17.9 2.1 2.9 10.3 2.2 0.3 4.8 3.6 0.3 0.1 1.9 7.2
Missouri.......................................... 5,813 4.0 18.9 7.2 22.1 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 12.9 3.5 0.0 0.1 11.7 1.4
Montana........................................... 4,478 28.7 9.3 16.7 6.7 0.0 5.3 6.4 0.0 1.5 11.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 14.2
Nebraska.......................................... 5,685 0.8 28.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 5.5 9.5 0.0 9.5 22.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 4.7
Nevada............................................ 738 13.8 25.5 3.1 4.5 11.4 4.2 5.8 1.2 13.6 11.7 0.1 0.0 5.3 0.0
New Hampshire..................................... 1,688 2.0 23.3 42.4 2.0 0.5 3.7 12.9 0.0 1.7 7.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.3
New Jersey........................................ 12,660 9.0 40.4 17.3 0.0 18.3 5.0 6.0 0.1 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
New Mexico........................................ 7,623 5.6 21.7 34.4 3.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 11.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 7.0
New York.......................................... 45,924 3.0 25.5 4.5 16.0 35.3 3.3 3.5 0.7 0.9 2.5 0.1 0.9 3.9 0.0
North Carolina.................................... 10,623 6.1 25.1 0.0 20.8 0.0 20.1 8.2 0.0 16.0 1.3 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.0
North Dakota...................................... 1,599 17.1 9.1 13.6 17.3 6.5 10.4 16.6 0.0 4.1 2.2 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.6
Ohio.............................................. 48,808 8.3 18.0 18.8 5.8 0.0 2.2 0.7 1.2 24.0 3.5 0.0 0.1 13.4 4.0
Oklahoma.......................................... 4,706 1.1 31.6 18.3 17.0 4.7 1.9 4.4 0.4 0.2 10.3 0.7 0.0 0.6 8.9
Oregon............................................ 2,264 31.0 13.3 0.1 3.6 0.1 6.9 7.4 0.0 10.2 22.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.8
Pennsylvania...................................... 36,495 5.4 12.6 3.2 9.1 10.4 42.0 6.3 0.0 3.4 2.3 0.2 0.0 4.1 1.0
Puerto Rico....................................... 6,919 9.5 21.23 14.6 9.7 4.7 26.6 0.4 0.1 7.9 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.1
Rhode Island \3\.................................. ............ ...... ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....
South Carolina.................................... 7,423 13.4 25.2 6.8 2.2 0.6 8.7 1.5 5.8 8.8 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8
South Dakota...................................... 1,361 22.3 10.6 5.0 32.7 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 9.5 11.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.1
Tennessee......................................... 6,106 3.9 30.7 23.0 8.9 1.5 6.5 4.7 0.4 11.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 7.9
Texas............................................. 22,376 13.0 24.2 6.7 7.4 6.4 1.6 7.1 0.0 25.6 7.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Utah.............................................. 7,117 38.7 8.4 10.4 1.2 0.0 9.5 2.3 0.0 15.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9
Vermont........................................... 2,143 8.6 10.0 29.4 1.1 0.0 6.3 3.8 0.0 5.7 21.2 0.2 0.1 13.4 0.0
Virgin Islands \1\................................ ............ ...... ......... ........ ........ .......... ........ ......... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....
Virginia.......................................... 7,260 7.4 23.9 19.0 4.1 1.3 7.8 3.6 6.5 6.5 10.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 9.2
Washington........................................ 20,687 6.4 26.7 27.8 10.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.2 19.2 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1
West Virginia..................................... 9,422 20.5 32.0 9.6 1.2 12.6 0.0 2.9 0.4 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 17.2 0.0
Wisconsin......................................... 13,578 15.1 14.6 8.1 17.6 0.0 3.7 3.5 1.8 8.2 15.8 0.5 2.3 4.9 3.7
Wyoming........................................... 1,074 6.9 36.2 3.5 0.0 6.7 5.1 12.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total.................................. 579,213 10.6 23.9 10.6 8.2 8.0 7.8 5.2 0.8 12.5 5.5 0.5 0.2 3.6 2.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reported sample data did not meet sampling requirements for ACF-108.
\2\ Data not reported.
\3\ Data reported in prior year format.
\4\ Includes high school, GED, remedial education, and English as a second language.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Table 8-8 summarizes State reports on JOBS expenditures, by
program component/activity. It indicates that $74.2 million
(Federal and State funds) was spent monthly, on average, on
program components. (This total excludes supportive services,
administrative costs, and expenses that cannot be attributed to
a component activity.) Educational activities, consisting of
high school and related education, postsecondary education, and
self-initiated education, accounted for 33.1 percent of the
total ($24.6 million); assessment/employability plans, 23
percent ($17.1 million); job skills training, plus on-the-job
training and self-initiated training, 14.9 percent ($11.1
million); job readiness, 9.3 percent ($6.9 million); job
search, 7.8 percent ($5.8 million); job placement/development,
4.5 percent ($3.3 million); CWEP, 2.9 percent ($2.2 million);
work supplementation, 0.4 percent ($0.3 million); and other, 4
percent ($3 million). There was wide variation among States in
the distribution of reported JOBS expenditures by program
component.
Table 8-9 examines States' effort in fiscal year 1994
regarding JOBS participation. It shows that nationwide, 44
percent of AFDC adult recipients were classified as required to
participate in JOBS (nonexempt from JOBS). Among the States the
percentage of mandatory participants ranged from 19 percent in
Arizona to 71 percent in Colorado.
As noted above, the 1994 minimum JOBS participation
standard was 15 percent of nonexempt adults (roughly equivalent
to 7 percent of all adults that year). Column 6 of the table
gives a rough approximation of participation rates achieved by
States in 1994; official calculations are more exacting. The
table indicates a U.S. participation rate of 21.6 percent, but
shows wide variations among States. To date, although some
States have failed to meet participation standards, none has
been penalized by a reduced matching rate. The HHS Secretary
has waived this penalty, as permitted by law if a State has
made a good faith effort to meet the standard and has submitted
a plan for improvement.
A May 1993 report by the General Accounting Office (Welfare
to Work. JOBS Participation Rate Data Unreliable for Assessing
States' Performance, GAO/HRD No. 93-73) concluded that JOBS
participation rates, calculated on the basis of data provided
by States, were not accurate or comparably derived across
States. The report recommended that HHS review reporting
requirements with the aim of making them less complex and
burdensome and increase oversight of States' development of
participation rate data. In November 1993, the Department
issued new guidelines on JOBS participant data collection that
it said were intended ``to standardize the collection of data
about sampled JOBS participants and their families and to
support uniformity in reporting this data.''
TABLE 8-8.--PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF JOBS COMPONENT/ACTIVITY EXPENDITURES (STATE AND FEDERAL), \1\ FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assess./ Job Self- Self- Total
State employ. Education Job Job Post Job OJT Work CWEP Other dvpmnt/ initiated initiated component
plan skills readiness secondary search supp. placemnt education training expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... 26.0 38.5 8.8 4.8 3.6 6.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.2 1.9 1.7 $1,049,290
Alaska................................................ 6.7 11.5 3.0 33.1 5.6 7.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.1 3.8 1.3 174,035
Arizona............................................... 4.2 77.2 14.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 212,948
Arkansas.............................................. 31.4 25.1 1.7 9.6 1.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 607,658
California............................................ 27.0 27.7 11.2 10.9 0.0 10.4 0.3 0.2 4.8 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 11,182,176
Colorado.............................................. 24.7 13.8 7.6 5.6 19.9 8.6 3.3 1.8 8.2 0.0 3.8 2.6 0.3 857,419
Connecticut........................................... 71.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 574,151
Delaware.............................................. 23.2 32.7 5.1 0.0 5.2 16.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.3 0.0 8.2 2.5 229,800
District of Columbia.................................. 12.6 38.3 10.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.8 8.1 1.2 5.8 330,992
Florida............................................... 40.0 28.5 3.0 9.7 2.7 8.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.1 5.2 0.5 0.2 738,500
Georgia............................................... 33.3 25.4 1.2 8.5 3.9 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 3.9 0.8 2.5 897,580
Hawaii................................................ 12.4 14.8 3.7 5.7 51.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 7.9 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 109,896
Idaho................................................. 50.7 15.1 0.3 13.6 0.2 9.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 300,753
Illinois.............................................. 9.0 27.0 15.5 4.1 29.6 4.2 0.0 0.3 1.3 8.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 3,483,504
Indiana............................................... 27.0 14.9 21.5 7.1 7.7 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.9 14.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 458,493
Iowa.................................................. 32.0 8.7 16.0 2.0 21.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.2 6.5 2.5 1.7 1,152,507
Kansas................................................ 35.4 64.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 132,672
Kentucky.............................................. 22.9 48.5 3.4 5.8 1.5 2.4 0.4 0.0 9.9 3.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 644,905
Louisiana............................................. 13.3 50.5 15.5 5.1 1.4 3.6 0.1 0.0 1.7 7.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1,290,690
Maine................................................. 50.8 3.1 5.0 6.0 2.9 14.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 1.1 1.0 328,683
Maryland.............................................. 30.7 19.4 15.6 13.4 1.7 3.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1,386,015
Massachusetts......................................... 40.4 21.5 25.0 3.1 3.1 6.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,874,212
Michigan.............................................. 7.3 0.0 74.1 6.3 0.0 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 1,261,919
Minnesota............................................. 13.2 20.0 24.3 7.4 16.5 16.1 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,202,183
Mississippi........................................... 17.7 46.9 5.2 3.5 7.5 3.1 3.7 10.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 1,269,152
Missouri.............................................. 50.5 6.3 14.5 6.4 1.3 5.4 0.1 0.0 5.2 2.1 3.1 3.1 2.0 838,400
Montana............................................... 23.1 10.8 6.5 14.7 7.3 20.1 1.0 0.0 12.3 0.0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 209,253
Nebraska.............................................. 11.2 20.4 2.3 21.4 8.7 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 293,947
Nevada................................................ 26.7 24.8 10.9 5.0 0.0 9.9 0.8 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.4 139,739
New Hampshire......................................... 1.7 14.3 5.2 28.7 28.7 10.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 255,090
New Jersey............................................ 11.0 35.8 24.4 12.6 0.0 9.2 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 1,775,151
New Mexico............................................ 6.4 27.8 15.0 6.4 18.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.0 0.0 3.7 3.5 149,881
New York.............................................. 27.5 31.1 10.1 7.6 5.7 2.1 0.8 0.5 3.2 0.0 7.8 1.2 2.3 9,335,314
North Carolina........................................ 7.8 30.6 22.2 11.3 9.8 1.5 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.0 4.2 3.7 5.0 2,117,021
North Dakota.......................................... 19.1 5.0 7.1 21.6 8.9 20.5 1.4 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.0 12.7 0.0 75,450
Ohio.................................................. 17.8 12.4 5.6 11.2 7.7 16.1 0.2 0.3 7.6 14.9 5.0 1.3 0.0 7,113,369
Oklahoma.............................................. 8.8 16.7 6.7 2.1 5.6 6.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 34.7 11.6 4.2 1.5 132,376
Oregon................................................ 7.9 25.7 6.4 23.1 0.0 26.2 0.6 0.0 2.2 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 991,675
Pennsylvania.......................................... 6.7 24.6 34.5 12.0 9.6 2.1 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 4,400,002
Rhode Island.......................................... 6.7 28.7 20.8 7.0 19.5 13.5 0.0 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 530,792
South Carolina........................................ 18.5 32.5 8.7 5.8 3.6 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 6.6 1.4 0.4 626,942
South Dakota.......................................... 63.6 2.8 1.4 2.1 4.0 14.9 4.3 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 86,474
Tennessee............................................. 13.1 37.1 5.9 4.2 20.9 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 6.2 9.3 603,282
Texas................................................. 19.8 30.1 1.5 12.2 6.1 7.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 6.9 5.6 6.6 4,617,137
Utah.................................................. 26.1 10.5 12.7 11.6 5.7 25.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 443,930
Vermont............................................... 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,111
Virginia.............................................. 19.9 27.3 10.9 8.5 10.0 9.5 0.4 0.9 0.0 11.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 1,230,827
Washington............................................ 32.6 16.5 6.7 12.3 14.7 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 1.5 3.7 1.9 1,535,242
West Virginia......................................... 25.7 33.0 2.1 23.9 3.4 1.2 1.1 0.0 8.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 846,072
Wisconsin............................................. 30.9 12.1 7.7 9.1 7.7 16.4 1.7 1.9 5.8 2.1 3.2 1.5 0.1 2,352,236
Wyoming............................................... 2.1 13.2 8.0 3.4 14.5 17.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 14.9 1.8 190,262
Guam.................................................. 82.7 6.4 3.3 2.5 3.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20,854
Puerto Rico........................................... 93.9 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 514,973
Virgin Islands........................................ 78.1 2.2 1.6 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16,891
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States................................... 23.0 24.9 13.0 9.3 6.9 7.8 0.7 0.4 2.9 4.0 4.5 1.3 1.2 74,172,451
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These expenditures include: (1) actual administrative expenditures associated with program components/activities and supportive services (excluding child care) and (2) actual program costs
(excluding supportive services program costs).
Source: Office of Family Assistance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-9.--JOBS PARTICIPATION BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1994
[Data based on monthly averages from October 1993 to September 1994]
Total adult recipients Total JOBS participants Countable JOBS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of AFDC participants, as
State adults mandatory a percent of
AFDC JOBS mandatories Active \1\ Countable for JOBS mandatories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... 36,268 9,109 6,848 5,663 25.1 62.2
Alaska................................ 13,937 3,772 NA 890 27.1 23.6
Arizona............................... 64,872 12,205 3,318 2,105 18.8 17.3
Arkansas.............................. 19,851 4,603 7,827 904 23.2 19.6
California \2\........................ 835,137 355,476 70,529 67,389 42.6 19.0
Colorado.............................. 38,692 27,306 5,342 4,158 70.6 15.2
Connecticut........................... 54,565 30,532 5,700 6,308 56.0 20.7
Delaware.............................. 8,939 3,515 997 676 39.3 19.2
District of Columbia.................. 23,140 11,084 1,344 1,094 47.9 9.9
Florida............................... 206,855 40,346 21,173 12,476 19.5 30.9
Georgia............................... 119,004 49,463 13,396 10,899 41.6 22.0
Guam.................................. 2,186 563 NR 13 25.7 2.3
Hawaii................................ 20,918 7,799 1,339 1,186 37.3 15.2
Idaho................................. 7,587 1,884 998 735 24.8 39.0
Illinois.............................. 226,450 125,136 25,946 24,940 55.3 19.9
Indiana............................... 70,941 28,532 7,578 6,498 40.2 22.8
Iowa.................................. 38,734 15,017 9,276 2,398 38.8 16.0
Kansas................................ 27,949 16,524 7,168 5,971 59.1 36.1
Kentucky.............................. 71,343 41,946 9,359 8,441 58.8 20.1
Louisiana............................. 68,466 27,471 8,190 6,313 40.1 23.0
Maine................................. 24,231 13,441 3,464 3,117 55.5 23.2
Maryland.............................. 71,165 28,476 8,387 5,172 40.0 18.2
Massachusetts......................... 109,769 55,044 16,752 9,205 50.1 16.7
Michigan.............................. 227,013 144,657 48,774 30,253 63.7 20.9
Minnesota............................. 62,959 22,291 6,003 4,274 35.4 19.2
Mississippi........................... 43,027 20,872 4,241 3,726 48.5 17.9
Missouri.............................. 87,066 33,345 5,813 5,803 38.3 17.4
Montana............................... 12,132 6,322 4,478 1,790 52.1 28.3
Nebraska.............................. 14,310 6,441 5,685 4,928 45.0 76.5
Nevada................................ 11,317 4,156 738 722 36.7 17.4
New Hampshire......................... 10,986 4,459 1,688 1,847 40.6 41.4
New Jersey............................ 107,878 66,134 12,660 11,761 61.3 17.8
New Mexico............................ 35,951 11,792 7,623 3,268 32.8 27.7
New York.............................. 441,745 201,818 45,970 39,240 45.7 19.4
North Carolina........................ 109,976 45,209 10,661 9,018 41.1 19.9
North Dakota.......................... 5,632 2,023 1,599 579 35.9 28.6
Ohio.................................. 229,644 104,796 48,808 30,112 45.6 28.7
Oklahoma.............................. 41,042 18,038 4,706 1,551 44.0 8.6
Oregon................................ 38,103 21,579 2,264 6,489 56.6 30.1
Pennsylvania.......................... 202,799 98,880 36,495 18,865 48.8 19.1
Puerto Rico........................... 58,415 24,465 6,919 3,314 41.9 13.5
Rhode Island.......................... 21,452 15,017 3,863 2,474 70.0 16.5
South Carolina........................ 37,513 9,826 7,417 2,858 26.2 29.1
South Dakota.......................... 5,475 2,759 1,361 1,577 50.4 57.2
Tennessee............................. 96,471 21,497 6,106 5,071 22.3 23.6
Texas................................. 238,039 79,055 22,376 13,644 33.2 17.3
Utah.................................. 16,743 11,516 7,117 5,825 68.8 50.6
Vermont............................... 10,624 5,338 2,143 804 50.2 15.1
Virginia.............................. 60,539 23,223 7,260 4,529 38.4 19.5
Virgin Islands........................ 1,006 597 667 138 59.4 23.0
Washington............................ 104,810 37,263 20,687 13,899 35.6 37.3
West Virginia......................... 42,481 20,596 9,422 5,804 48.5 28.2
Wisconsin............................. 95,863 38,983 13,588 12,364 40.7 31.7
Wyoming............................... 5,275 2,735 1,074 1,419 51.8 51.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 4,637,281 2,014,924 593,137 434,492 43.5 21.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals represent the average number of monthly participants in the sample universe.
\2\ State received approval to use a sample to estimate the number of AFDC recipients required to participate in JOBS for fiscal year 1993.
NA--Data is not available.
NR--Data not reported.
Note.--Table is based on the best available data reported by States.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Welfare-to-Work Efforts: Some Assessments
JOBS Programs differ. The Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation (MDRC) has identified and analyzed two basic
approaches: the labor force attachment approach (LFA) and the
human capital development (HCD) approach. The LFA approach used
job search, short-term education or training and other services
to move parents quickly into jobs, and the HCD approach
encouraged people to postpone work so as to build skills. Among
2-year findings of impacts at three sites: The LFA approach
increased the number employed by 24 percent, reduced the number
still on AFDC by 16 percent, and increased earnings by 26
percent. Even so, 57 percent of the LFA treatment group
remained on AFDC, and the group's earnings averaged only $285
monthly. Of the LFA control group, 68 percent remained on AFDC,
and the group's earnings averaged $226. MDRC said the HCD
approach failed to produce consistent gains in earnings or
employment, but achieved AFDC savings of 14 percent (Freedman &
Friedlander, 1995). However, MDRC also said that the 2-year
followup period was not long enough to capture full effects of
lengthy basic education or training activities.
A survey made by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
concluded that county JOBS Programs nationwide lack a strong
employment focus. GAO surveyed a nationally representative
random sample of 453 county JOBS administrators and visited
programs in four States. Most of the administrators reported
that fewer than one-half of their job-ready participants had
become employed and that little use was made of subsidized jobs
or work experience programs (U.S. General Accounting Office,
1995).
Another study of JOBS implementation concluded that the
program holds promise for further development of ``meaningful
welfare employment programs'' across the country and that it
would best be served by incremental changes, not dramatic
reform. The study urged more funding for services, including
child care (Hagen and Lurie, 1994).
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report examined the
types of jobs likely to be available to welfare recipients and
concluded that some AFDC recipients who found work might still
be poor (especially if the job were part time), even with
supplementation of the EIC. For AFDC recipients to be able to
compete for higher paying jobs, their productivity would have
to be raised. However, experience with the Job Training
Partnership Act Title II-A Training Program suggests that
training alone might not be sufficient to enable the mothers to
earn their way out of poverty (Levine, 1994).
TITLE IV-A EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
The Social Security Act offers States 50 percent Federal
matching funds for emergency assistance (EA) to families with
children if the aid is needed to avoid destitution of a child
or to provide living arrangements in a home for him. The law
makes unlimited EA funds available, but only for aid furnished
for a period not in excess of 30 days in any 12-month period.
From the program's beginning in fiscal year 1969, regulations
have interpreted this to allow funding for EA that is
authorized by the State during one period of 30 consecutive
days in any 12 consecutive months. The rules explicitly allow
funding to meet needs that arose before the 30-day
authorization period, such as past-due rent, or needs that
extend beyond it.
State EA plans must specify eligibility conditions, which
may be more liberal than those for AFDC, and must specify which
emergency conditions they will meet and what services they will
provide. The law allows EA for migrant families and for those
excluded from AFDC because they live with both parents and
neither is disabled or unemployed. In the mid-1970s, court
suits challenged States' rights to restrict the kinds of
emergencies for which EA could be paid, and some States dropped
the program; but on June 6, 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court (Quern
v. Mandley, 436 U.S. 725) held that States could limit EA
eligibility more narrowly than the outer bounds set in the
Social Security Act.
Before 1980, fewer than half the States operated EA
Programs and total expenditures averaged only about $50 million
annually. In the 1980s the number of State programs rose to
about 27, and expenditures averaged $170 million yearly. By
1990, 32 jurisdictions offered EA; by 1995, the total was 51
(all but Alaska, which dropped the program in 1975, and
Mississippi and Guam, which never offered it). In the 1990s EA
spending exploded, soaring from $378 million in 1990 to $1.6
billion in 1994 and (preliminary figure based on State claims)
$3.2 billion in 1995. In 1995, as shown in table 8-10, almost
two-thirds of all EA expenditures were made by three States:
New York, 39 percent of the total; California, 15 percent; and
Pennsylvania, 12 percent. Table 8-11 presents the growth in
total EA expenditures for selected fiscal years 1970-95. It
shows that in the last 10 years, EA spending multiplied 20
times.
EA funds have been used to aid families affected by natural
disasters, such as floods, fires, and storms, and other crises
threatening family or living arrangements. Other qualifying
causes for EA specified by various States include: eviction,
potential eviction, or foreclosure; homelessness; utility
shutoff or loss of heating energy supply or equipment; civil
disorders or crimes of violence; child or spousal abuse; loss
of employment or strike; health hazards/risks to health and
safety; emergency medical needs; and illness, accident, or
injury. Beginning around 1993, some States began using EA funds
for child protection, family preservation, juvenile justice,
and mental health.
The recent surge in EA spending occurred after more States
joined the program and some started using EA funds for the new,
nontraditional purposes stated above. Services provided under
these new categories include: prevention of child abuse, family
reunification, counseling and referral, parenting education,
case management, in-home family services, homemaker support,
legal referrals, crisis intervention, and employment counseling
(Solomon-Fears, 1995).
On September 12, 1995, HHS gave notice to States that,
effective January 1, 1996, it would rescind earlier approval of
State plans that defined emergencies to include children in the
juvenile justice system. The Department said a number of States
had defined emergency situations to include children who were
removed from home as a result of delinquent behavior or who
were otherwise determined to be in need of State supervision
because of their behavior. It said these States were using
State or county-operated correctional facilities or group homes
and claiming Federal matching for benefits and services such as
room and board, counseling, and psychiatric evaluations. HHS
said States covering these services must delete them from their
State plans, effective January 1, 1996, stating: ``We believe
that costs for services provided to children in the juvenile
justice system . . . bear no . . . `valid relationship' to the
context or purpose of the EA Program and, therefore, do not
qualify for Federal matching under it.''
As noted before, the law places a 30-day limit on
furnishing EA, but regulations allow EA that is authorized
during a 30-day period. As of July 1995, according to HHS, 25
jurisdictions authorize EA payments for 12 months. Another 14
States authorize payments for longer than 1 month. Concerns
over use of EA funds for placement of homeless families in
``welfare hotels,'' sometimes for many months, led HHS in
September 1987 to issue a proposed rule (Federal Register,
December 14, 1987, p. 47420) to establish an ``unambiguous''
time limit on use of EA funds. The proposal would have allowed
EA matching funds only for aid furnished for one period of 30
consecutive days, or less, in 12 consecutive months ``to meet
the actual expenses of needs in existence during that period
which arose from an emergency or unusual crisis situation, and
which continue to exist until aid is furnished.'' It also
proposed to forbid States from varying shelter allowances in
the AFDC need standard, either as a basic or special need,
according to the type of living accommodation occupied (for
example: apartment or house versus hotel/motel, temporary
shelter, permanent housing aid). However, Congress in December
1987 placed a moratorium on implementation of these regulations
until October 1, 1988 and subsequently extended the moratorium
three times, until October 1, 1991. After expiration of the
moratorium, HHS Secretary Sullivan in February 1992 submitted
draft legislation to revise EA. It would have authorized use of
Federal EA funds to meet needs for one 30-day period within 12
months, plus payment for up to 3 months' arrearages for shelter
and utilities to prevent eviction or utility cutoffs, or, if
the family were homeless, for the first month's shelter cost
and security deposit for permanent housing. Congress took no
action on this proposal.
TABLE 8-10.--CASELOAD AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, FISCAL YEARS 1993-95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload Total fiscal year expenditures Average monthly
--------------------------------- \2\ (dollars in thousands) payment/family
State ---------------------
1993 1994 1995 \1\ ---------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 \3\ 1994 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... 0 0 0 0 $7,525 $14,871 0 0
Alaska.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona......................................................... 191 114 150 $3,675 13,541 23,396 $9,870 $12,998
Arkansas........................................................ 0 0 0 2,557 3,103 6,167 0 0
California...................................................... 0 9,116 13,898 0 292,035 486,231 2,670 2,915
Colorado........................................................ 0 0 1,505 24 25,799 65,500 0 3,627
Connecticut..................................................... 0 0 0 0 19,076 117,689 0 0
Delaware........................................................ 112 141 134 419 555 21,602 328 13,434
District of Columbia............................................ 1,499 805 358 21,276 16,085 8,912 1,665 2,074
Florida......................................................... 921 1,860 2,967 3,884 11,300 58,329 506 1,638
Georgia......................................................... 1,454 1,436 732 9,529 14,784 17,195 858 1,958
Guam............................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii.......................................................... 25 0 0 371 723 6,446 0 0
Idaho........................................................... 0 0 0 0 4,647 7,695 0 0
Illinois........................................................ 1,177 1,263 4,380 4,152 23,378 111,147 1,543 2,115
Indiana......................................................... 0 0 0 0 60,115 33,021 0 0
Iowa............................................................ 435 421 415 1,759 1,758 16,506 348 3,314
Kansas.......................................................... 218 177 331 637 12,122 23,782 5,713 5,987
Kentucky........................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 2,231 0 0
Louisiana....................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 6,260 0 0
Maine........................................................... 347 326 344 749 738 1,689 188 409
Maryland........................................................ 2,169 2,141 2,063 7,156 10,194 17,425 397 704
Massachusetts................................................... 4,058 2,025 1,765 45,676 48,524 44,464 1,997 2,099
Michigan........................................................ 1,490 1,135 1,100 23,767 18,313 22,697 1,344 1,719
Minnesota....................................................... 1,913 1,883 1,927 11,268 15,229 25,037 674 1,083
Mississippi..................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Missouri........................................................ 0 0 1,687 2,418 15,085 31,634 0 1,563
Montana......................................................... 39 33 19 227 386 3,331 980 14,610
Nebraska........................................................ 172 151 154 1,396 912 20,203 505 10,932
Nevada.......................................................... 19 174 1,597 117 675 16,060 323 838
New Hampshire................................................... 329 389 189 1,214 1,568 2,247 336 991
New Jersey...................................................... 8,678 7,909 6,225 53,268 41,230 66,242 434 887
New Mexico...................................................... 0 0 0 0 2 1,386 0 0
New York........................................................ 14,750 15,911 12,526 542,806 837,710 1,232,551 4,387 8,200
North Carolina.................................................. 2,293 3,211 5,407 5,464 7,977 79,481 207 1,225
North Dakota.................................................... 445 549 1,028 1,335 3,004 9,906 456 803
Ohio............................................................ 3,921 3,641 2,715 8,600 7,709 16,174 176 496
Oklahoma........................................................ 2,205 574 2 3,591 1,027 4,729 149 197,042
Oregon.......................................................... 1,567 1,583 1,527 4,763 9,007 19,340 474 1,055
Pennsylvania.................................................... 702 801 622 5,157 5,749 390,088 598 52,263
Puerto Rico..................................................... 489 491 190 192 171 246 29 108
Rhode Island.................................................... 0 0 269 0 2,011 15,763 0 4,883
South Carolina.................................................. 0 0 0 545 774 9,204 0 0
South Dakota.................................................... 63 227 199 359 1,803 2,965 662 1,242
Tennessee....................................................... 0 0 0 8,424 1,913 43,850 0 0
Texas........................................................... 0 0 10,937 0 3,529 17,170 0 131
Utah............................................................ 120 120 182 320 506 13,541 351 6,200
Vermont......................................................... 298 267 184 1,450 963 3,828 301 1,734
Virgin Islands.................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia........................................................ 43 39 34 42 72 56 155 137
Washington...................................................... 610 594 533 3,087 5,816 34,998 815 5,472
West Virginia................................................... 1,194 1,160 1,079 1,819 5,545 4,607 398 356
Wisconsin....................................................... 818 778 418 3,174 3,356 3,366 359 671
Wyoming......................................................... 217 231 242 2,001 5,216 4,249 1,886 1,463
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 54,979 61,675 80,034 788,668 1,563,262 3,185,510 2,112 3,386
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
\2\ Represents total expenditures claimed by States and may include prior year claims; may also include amounts deferred or under the ACF.
\3\ Revised data as of July 12, 1996.
Note.--Based on best available data reported by States.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-11.--TOTAL FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES UNDER THE EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1970-95 \1\
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970....................................................... $14
1975....................................................... 70
1980....................................................... 109
1985....................................................... 157
1986....................................................... 175
1987....................................................... 203
1988....................................................... 256
1989....................................................... 310
1990....................................................... 378
1991....................................................... 306
1992....................................................... 627
1993....................................................... 789
1994....................................................... 1,563
1995....................................................... 3,252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents total expenditures claimed by States and may include
prior year claims. May also include amounts deferred or under review
by the Administration for Children and Families.
Source: Administration of Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
WAIVERS FROM FEDERAL AFDC LAW--SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Since 1962, Section 1115 of the Social Security Act has
authorized the Secretary of HHS (and the predecessor Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare) to waive specified
requirements of the Act in order to enable a State to carry out
any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that the
Secretary judges likely to assist in promoting the objectives
of AFDC. The Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations all
adopted a liberal policy of granting waivers for State reforms.
President Reagan created an interagency group (the Low Income
Opportunity Advisory Board) to facilitate action on waiver
requests; President Bush stressed State innovations in his
welfare reform strategy and required that demonstrations not
increase annual Federal costs and that they provide for
rigorous evaluation. President Clinton accelerated the waiver
process and relaxed the cost neutrality rule by applying it
over the life of the demonstration instead of each year.
Between January 1, 1992, and August 15, 1995, 35 States
received 53 waivers to test AFDC changes (Neisner, 1995). By
May, 1996, the Clinton administration had approved 61 waivers
in 38 States. However, several waivers had been disapproved and
other waivers had been modified at administration request. Most
waiver requests reflect one or more of these assumptions about
present AFDC rules: that they discourage work and encourage
long-term enrollment; that they discourage marriage and
encourage out-of-wedlock births; and that they fail to promote
personal responsibility.
According to an HHS compilation, by mid-February 1996, all
but 10 States (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee), the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
had approval to test departures from specified provisions of
AFDC. Many projects have required multiple waivers. Some States
have received approval to operate some or all demonstration
components statewide; but many waivers are limited to selected
areas. AFDC waiver projects can be classified broadly as
restricting or liberalizing some elements of the program.
Examples of the former include:
--Place time limit on benefit duration (24 States);
--Tighten work requirements (31 States);
--Link benefits to school attendance/performance (26 States);
--Limit benefits for additional children (14 States);
--Reduce benefits based on relocation (2 States);
--Require fingerprinting as a condition of eligibility (1
State).
Major waiver provisions that liberalize some terms of the
program include:
--Treat earnings more generously (30 States);
--Expand eligibility for 2-parent (unemployed) families (25
States);
--Increase resource limit (28 States);
--Increase vehicle asset limit (25 States);
--Expand transitional medical and child care benefits (21
States).
CHILD CARE FOR FAMILIES AT RISK OF AFDC RECEIPT
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 established a
new matching grant child care program, known as the ``At-Risk''
Program, for services to low-income, non-AFDC families that (1)
need such care in order to work and (2) would otherwise be at
risk of becoming eligible for AFDC.
The law authorizes $300 million annually in entitlement
funding for this program, allocated to States on the basis of
their share of the child population. Rules relating to Federal
matching rates, reimbursement, standards and fee schedules are
the same as the rules for child care for AFDC families, except
that all child care providers that receive at-risk funds must
be licensed, regulated, or registered.
The At-Risk Program is described in more detail in section
10.
AFDC BENEFIT LEVELS AND TRENDS
Each State establishes a ``need standard'' (the income the
State decides is essential for basic consumption items) and a
``payment standard,'' which in most States is below the need
standard. Benefits generally are computed by subtracting
countable (``net'') income from the State's payment standard.
In a dozen States, actual maximum benefits are below payment
standards.
Maximum Benefits (State AFDC Guarantees)
Maximum payments are made to those with no countable
income. They vary sharply among the States, as shown by tables
8-12 and 8-13. In January 1996, maximum benefits for AFDC
families of three within the 48 contiguous States ranged from
$120 in Mississippi to $703 in Suffolk County, New York. Under
the assumptions of table 8-12, the Mississippi family would
qualify for $313 in food stamps (maximum allotment) and the
Suffolk County, New York family for $232 in food stamps.
Resulting combined benefits of $433 in Mississippi and $935 in
New York equaled 40 percent and 86 percent respectively, of the
1996 poverty guidelines. (Poverty guidelines and food stamp
allotments and allowable deductions are uniform in the
contiguous States, but higher in Alaska and Hawaii). In the
median State, ranked by AFDC benefit levels, maximum combined
benefits were $699 ($389 in AFDC cash and $310 in food stamps),
65 percent of the poverty guidelines.
The food stamp benefits shown in table 8-12 were calculated
by deducting from the family's AFDC benefits (its only cash
income) a standard allowance and an allowance for excess
shelter costs. If the family qualified only for the standard
deduction, its monthly food stamp benefits would be cut by
about $74 ($128 in Alaska and $105 in Hawaii). Food Stamp
Program data show that most AFDC families do qualify for a
deduction of some shelter costs in calculating their countable
income.
Table 8-13 shows how maximum AFDC benefits rise with family
size, by State. In the median State, benefits increase from
$215 for a one-person family to $389 for three persons (average
size) and to $578 for six. One-person units are expectant
mothers in the last trimester of pregnancy (about two-thirds of
the States make them eligible) and children living with a
nonneedy relative or otherwise ineligible relative. The
incremental benefit rise for a second child (going from two-
person to three-person family) is $77 monthly in the median
State.
Need and Payment Standards
To receive AFDC payments, a family must pass two income
tests: first, a gross income test, and second, a counted
(``net'') income test. The gross income test is 185 percent of
the State's need standard for the relevant family size; and it
applies to both applicants and enrollees. This test was
increased by Congress from 150 percent of the need standard by
Public Law 98-369 in 1984. No one with gross income that
exceeds 185 percent of the need standard can receive AFDC. For
applicants, the net income test is 100 percent of the need
standard and determines whether the family is deemed to be in
``need'' (see table 8-12).
However, to be eligible for an actual payment, the family's
net income also must be below the State's payment standard,
which in 30 jurisdictions is below the need standard. For
example, New Hampshire's need standard for a family of three is
$2,034 monthly, but its payment standard is $550. Further, a
$10 minimum payment rule imposed by Public Law 97-35 requires
that counted income be at least $10 below the payment standard
for an actual payment to be made. Finally, in a dozen States
actual maximum benefits are below payment standards. (Payment
standards are presented later in table 8-17).
TABLE 8-12.--GROSS INCOME LIMIT, NEED STANDARD, AND MAXIMUM MONTHLY POTENTIAL BENEFITS, AFDC AND FOOD STAMPS, ONE-PARENT FAMILY OF THREE PERSONS, \1\
JANUARY 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross
income Combined AFDC benefits
limit 100 Maximum benefits as a as a percent
State (185 percent AFDC Food stamp Combined percent of of 1996
percent of grant \2\ benefit \3\ benefits 1996 poverty poverty
of need ``need'' guidelines \4\ guidelines \4\
standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................... $1,245 $673 $164 $313 $477 44 15
Alaska........................................................... 1,902 1,028 923 321 1,244 92 68
Arizona.......................................................... 1,783 964 347 313 660 61 32
Arkansas......................................................... 1,304 705 204 313 517 48 19
California....................................................... 1,351 730 607 245 852 79 56
Colorado......................................................... 779 421 421 301 722 67 39
Connecticut...................................................... 1,613 872 636 236 872 81 59
Delaware......................................................... 625 338 338 313 651 60 31
District of Columbia............................................. 1,317 712 420 301 721 67 39
Florida.......................................................... 1,943 1,050 303 313 616 57 28
Georgia.......................................................... 784 424 280 313 593 55 26
Guam............................................................. 611 330 330 461 791 73 31
Hawaii........................................................... 2,109 1,140 712 471 1,183 95 57
Idaho............................................................ 1,833 991 317 313 630 58 29
Illinois......................................................... 1,782 963 \5\ 377 313 690 64 35
Indiana.......................................................... 592 320 288 313 601 56 27
Iowa............................................................. 1,571 849 426 299 725 67 39
Kansas........................................................... 794 429 \5\ 429 313 742 69 40
Kentucky......................................................... 973 526 262 313 575 53 24
Louisiana........................................................ 1,217 658 190 313 503 47 18
Maine............................................................ 1,023 553 418 301 719 66 39
Maryland......................................................... 956 517 \5\ 373 313 686 63 34
Massachusetts.................................................... 1,045 565 565 257 822 76 52
Michigan:
(Washtenaw Co.)................................................ 1,086 587 489 280 769 71 45
(Wayne Co.).................................................... 1,019 551 459 289 748 69 42
Minnesota........................................................ 984 532 532 267 799 74 49
Mississippi...................................................... 681 368 120 313 433 40 11
Missouri......................................................... 1,565 846 292 313 605 56 27
Montana.......................................................... 1,001 541 425 299 724 67 39
Nebraska......................................................... 673 364 364 313 677 63 34
Nevada........................................................... 1,293 699 348 313 661 61 32
New Hampshire.................................................... 3,763 2,034 550 262 812 75 51
New Jersey....................................................... 1,822 985 \5\ 424 307 731 68 39
New Mexico....................................................... 720 389 389 310 699 65 36
New York:
(New York City)................................................ 1,067 577 \5\ 577 270 847 78 53
(Suffolk Co.).................................................. 1,301 703 \5\ 703 232 935 86 65
North Carolina................................................... 1,006 544 272 313 585 54 25
North Dakota..................................................... 797 431 431 298 729 67 40
Ohio............................................................. 1,709 924 \5\ 341 313 654 60 32
Oklahoma......................................................... 1,193 645 307 313 620 57 28
Oregon........................................................... 851 460 \5\ 460 313 773 71 43
Pennsylvania..................................................... 1,136 614 421 301 722 67 39
Puerto Rico...................................................... 666 360 180 NA 180 NA 17
Rhode Island..................................................... 1,025 554 \5\ 554 299 853 79 51
South Carolina................................................... 969 524 200 313 513 47 18
South Dakota..................................................... 938 507 430 298 728 67 40
Tennessee........................................................ 1,079 583 185 313 498 46 17
Texas............................................................ 1,389 751 188 313 501 46 17
Utah............................................................. 1,051 568 426 299 725 67 39
Vermont.......................................................... 2,124 1,148 650 232 882 82 60
Virgin Islands................................................... 555 300 240 402 642 59 22
Virginia......................................................... 727 393 354 313 667 62 33
Washington....................................................... 2,316 1,252 \5\ 546 289 835 77 50
West Virginia.................................................... 1,833 991 253 313 566 52 23
Wisconsin........................................................ 1,197 647 517 272 789 73 48
Wyoming.......................................................... 1,247 674 360 313 673 62 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median AFDC State............................................ 720 389 389 310 699 65 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In most States these benefit amounts apply also to two-parent families of three (where the second parent is incapacitated or unemployed). Some,
however, increase benefits for such families.
\2\ In States with area differentials, figure shown is for area with highest benefit.
\3\ Food stamp benefits are based on maximum AFDC benefits shown and assume deductions of $381 monthly ($134 standard household deduction plus $247
maximum allowable deduction for excess shelter cost) in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. In the remaining four jurisdictions
these maximum allowable food stamp deductions are assumed: Alaska, $658, Hawaii, $542; Guam, $569; and Virgin Islands, $300. If only the standard
deduction were assumed, food stamp benefits would drop by about $74 monthly in most of the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. Maximum
food stamp benefits from October 1995 through September 1996 are $313 for a family of three except in these four jurisdictions, where they are as
follows: (urban) Alaska, $401; Hawaii, $522; Guam, $461; and Virgin Islands, $402.
\4\ This column is based on the 1996 poverty guideline for a family of three persons in the 48 contiguous States, $12,980, converted to a monthly rate
of $1,082. For Alaska, the guideline is $16,220; for Hawaii, $14,930.
\5\ In these States part of the AFDC cash payment has been designated as energy aid and is disregarded by the State in calculating food stamp benefits.
Illinois disregards $18. Kansas disregards $57. Maryland disregards $43. New Jersey disregards $25. New York disregards $53. Ohio disregards $14.
Oregon disregards $118. Rhode Island disregards $127.85. Washington disregards $86.
NA--Not available.
Note.--Puerto Rico does not have a food stamp program; instead a cash nutritional assistance payment is given to recipients.
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service from information provided by a telephone survey of the States.
TABLE 8-13.--MAXIMUM AFDC BENEFITS BY FAMILY SIZE, JANUARY 1996 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three- Four- Five-
State One-person Two-person person person person Six-person
family family family family family family
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $111 $137 $164 $194 $225 $252
Alaska \2\.............................. 514 821 923 1,025 1,127 1,229
Arizona \3\............................. 204 275 347 418 489 561
Arkansas................................ 81 162 204 247 286 331
California.............................. 299 490 607 723 824 926
Colorado \2\ \16\....................... 253 331 421 510 605 697
Connecticut \4\......................... 402 513 636 741 835 935
Delaware \16\........................... 201 270 338 407 475 544
District of Columbia.................... 265 330 420 513 591 695
Florida \3\............................. 180 241 303 364 426 487
Georgia................................. 155 235 280 330 378 410
Guam \16\............................... 151 258 330 417 497 592
Hawaii.................................. 418 565 712 859 1,006 1,153
Idaho................................... 205 251 317 382 448 513
Illinois \2\ \5\........................ 212 278 377 414 485 545
Indiana \2\............................. 139 229 288 346 405 463
Iowa.................................... 183 361 426 495 548 610
Kansas \6\ \16\......................... 267 352 429 497 558 619
Kentucky................................ 186 225 262 328 383 432
Louisiana \7\........................... 72 138 190 234 277 316
Maine \2\............................... 198 312 418 526 632 739
Maryland................................ 165 292 373 450 521 573
Massachusetts \3\ \16\.................. 383 474 565 651 741 832
Michigan: \2\ \8\
(Washtenaw County).................... 305 401 489 593 689 822
(Wayne County)........................ 276 371 459 563 659 792
Minnesota \2\ \16\...................... 250 437 532 621 697 773
Mississippi............................. 60 96 120 144 168 192
Missouri................................ 136 234 292 342 388 431
Montana \3\............................. 252 338 425 511 597 684
Nebraska \16\........................... 222 293 364 435 506 577
Nevada.................................. 229 288 348 408 468 527
New Hampshire........................... 414 481 550 613 673 754
New Jersey.............................. 162 322 424 488 522 616
New Mexico \16\......................... 231 310 389 469 548 627
New York: \9\ \16\
(New York City)....................... 352 468 577 687 800 884
(Suffolk Co.)......................... 446 576 703 824 949 1,038
North Carolina.......................... 181 236 272 297 324 349
North Dakota \2\ \16\................... 223 333 431 517 591 653
Ohio.................................... 203 279 341 421 493 549
Oklahoma \2\............................ 190 238 307 380 445 509
Oregon \2\ \16\......................... 310 395 460 565 660 755
Pennsylvania \10\....................... 215 330 421 514 607 687
Puerto Rico \14\........................ 132 156 180 204 228 252
Rhode Island \16\....................... 327 449 554 632 710 800
South Carolina.......................... 118 159 200 241 281 322
South Dakota............................ 304 380 430 478 528 578
Tennessee............................... 95 142 185 226 264 305
Texas \2\............................... 78 163 188 226 251 288
Utah.................................... 246 342 426 498 567 625
Vermont \11\............................ 449 553 656 738 827 884
Virgin Islands.......................... 120 180 240 300 360 420
Virginia \12\........................... 220 294 354 410 488 518
Washington.............................. 349 440 546 642 740 841
West Virginia........................... 149 201 253 312 360 413
Wisconsin \13\.......................... 248 440 517 617 708 766
Wyoming \3\............................. 195 320 360 390 450 510
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Median State \15\................. 215 312 389 469 522 578
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum benefit paid for a family of given size with no countable income. One-person units are children with
an ineligible caretaker or pregnant women without a child. Families of two or more persons include one needy
adult caretaker.
\2\ Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas
also have a children-only schedule.
\3\ Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Montana, and Wyoming have two payment schedules, one that includes shelter
expenses and one that does not.
\4\ Connecticut has three rent regions. Data shown are for rent region A, which has the highest rents.
\5\ Illinois divides itself into three distinct areas with regard to payment schedules. Data shown are from the
Cook County area, which includes Chicago.
\6\ Kansas has five different area standards. The figures shown are from area five, which has the highest
benefits.
\7\ Louisiana has a payment schedule for urban areas, from which our data were taken, and one for rural areas.
\8\ Michigan has varied shelter maximums. Shown are benefits for Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) and Wayne County
(Detroit).
\9\ New York has payment schedules for each social service district. Shown are the Suffolk County and New York
City amounts.
\10\ Pennsylvania has four regions. The figures in the table are from region one, which has the highest
benefits.
\11\ Vermont has a base amount plus a housing maximum (including utilities) that depends on whether the
recipient lives inside or outside Chittenden County. The largest amount paid to a recipient with no other
countable income equals 60.6 percent of the base amount plus 60.6 percent of the housing allowance. The table
assumes that the recipient lives in Chittenden County, for which the maximum allowed for shelter is $400 per
month.
\12\ Virginia has three payment schedules. The figures shown are from area 3, which has the highest benefits.
\13\ Wisconsin has two regions--urban and rural. Our data were taken from the payment standard for urban areas.
\14\ Effective July 1, 1991 the need standard in Puerto Rico includes a shelter allowance (of up to $200). The
maximum amount paid to a family with no other countable income is 50 percent of the base need standard plus 50
percent of the shelter allowance.
\15\ Among the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
\16\ These States pay 100 percent of the need standard.
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service on the basis of a telephone survey of the States.
Trends in Benefits
Tables 8-14 and 8-15 show the changes in AFDC need
standards and maximum benefits for a three-person family, by
State, for selected years from 1970 to 1996. In current
dollars, the need standard of the median AFDC State rose in the
quarter-century from $232 to $645, and the maximum benefit,
from $184 to $389. However, measured in constant value (1996)
dollars, the need standard declined by 30 percent, and the
maximum benefit by 51 percent. Thus, the ratio of maximum
benefits to need standard in the median State has decreased,
from 84 percent in 1975 to 68 percent in 1990 and 60 percent in
1996. For some States, the shrinkage in this ratio has been
dramatic. For example, the maximum benefit of Texas ($148)
represented 75 percent of its need standard in 1970 ($198);
today that ratio is 25 percent ($188/$751). Table 8-15 shows
that maximum benefits in five States fell 60 percent or more in
real value from 1970 to 1996 (Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Jersey,
Texas, and Virginia).
In six States (Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and Washington) need standards now exceed $1,000 per
month for a three-person family. In all but one of these States
1996 need standards surpass their 1970 levels in real value.
However, maximum benefits paid by all of these States fall
short of their 1970 levels, in real terms. On average they are
36 percent lower.
AFDC benefit trends over time have been affected by the
availability of food stamps, which are 100 percent federally
funded. As was shown in table 8-12, food stamp benefits for a
family of three add $310 to the AFDC maximum benefit of $389 in
the median AFDC State. By themselves, AFDC benefits fall 64
percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines; addition of food
stamps reduces this gap to 35 percent. Moreover, combined AFDC-
food stamp benefits in most States exceed AFDC need standards.
Over the years, food stamp benefits have risen to offset
part of the decline in the real value of AFDC benefits. Even
so, combined AFDC-food stamp benefits for a three-person family
without countable income on average dropped from $962 (1996
dollars) in July 1972, when food stamps operated under uniform
national rules, to $699 (1996 dollars) in January 1996. This 27
percent drop was almost wholly due to shrinkage in AFDC benefit
levels. Food stamp maximum benefits were virtually unchanged in
real terms, since they were adjusted for food price inflation
in all years except 1982 and 1993.
Table 8-16 presents trends in AFDC average benefits for
selected years from 1970 to 1995. Average benefits per family,
measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $704 in 1970 to $377 in
1995 (a drop of 46 percent). However, because average family
size shrank, average benefits per person fell much less
sharply, from $182 to $135 in 1995 dollars (a drop of 26
percent).
TABLE 8-14.--AFDC NEED STANDARD FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY BY STATE, SELECTED YEARS 1970-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
July July July July January January January January January January change in
State 1970 \1\ 1975 1980 1985 1988 1990 \2\ 1992 \2\ 1994 \2\ 1995 \2\ 1996 \2\ real value
1970-96 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................... $184 $180 $192 $384 $384 $578 $637 $673 $673 $673 -8
Alaska..................................... 350 350 457 719 779 846 924 975 1,022 1,028 -26
Arizona.................................... 212 233 233 233 621 621 928 964 964 964 15
Arkansas................................... 149 245 234 234 695 705 705 705 705 705 20
California................................. 351 316 480 587 633 694 694 715 715 730 -47
Colorado................................... 193 217 290 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 -45
Connecticut................................ 283 346 475 569 601 649 680 680 872 872 -22
Delaware................................... 245 245 266 287 319 333 338 338 338 338 -65
District of Columbia....................... 229 286 394 654 712 712 712 712 712 712 -21
Florida.................................... 189 195 195 400 775 838 928 991 991 1,050 40
Georgia.................................... 177 193 193 366 366 414 424 424 424 424 -39
Guam....................................... NA 0 261 265 265 330 330 330 330 330 NA
Hawaii..................................... 226 428 468 468 515 964 1,067 1,140 1,140 1,140 27
Idaho...................................... 238 345 371 554 554 554 554 991 991 991 5
Illinois................................... 232 261 288 657 713 777 844 890 936 963 5
Indiana.................................... 272 307 307 307 320 320 320 320 320 320 -70
Iowa....................................... 247 309 360 497 497 497 849 849 849 849 -13
Kansas..................................... 243 321 345 391 409 409 422 429 429 429 -55
Kentucky................................... 208 185 188 197 207 526 526 526 526 526 -36
Louisiana.................................. 172 164 402 579 632 658 658 658 658 658 -3
Maine...................................... 277 277 415 510 573 652 573 553 553 553 -50
Maryland................................... 249 259 270 455 497 548 522 507 517 517 -48
Massachusetts.............................. 268 259 379 439 510 539 539 579 579 565 -47
Michigan (Washtenaw Co.)................... NA NA NA 592 576 611 587 587 587 587 NA
Michigan (Wayne Co.)....................... 219 333 425 557 540 575 551 551 551 551 -36
Minnesota.................................. 256 330 417 528 532 532 532 532 532 532 -48
Mississippi................................ 202 241 220 286 368 368 368 368 368 368 -54
Missouri................................... 285 325 312 312 312 312 312 846 846 846 -25
Montana.................................... 221 201 259 428 434 434 478 511 530 541 -38
Nebraska................................... 281 279 310 350 350 364 364 364 364 364 -67
Nevada..................................... 269 279 285 285 550 550 620 699 699 699 -34
New Hampshire.............................. 262 308 346 389 486 506 516 1,648 1,674 2,034 96
New Jersey................................. 302 310 360 404 424 424 424 985 985 985 -18
New Mexico................................. 167 197 220 258 264 264 324 357 381 389 -41
New York (New York City)................... 279 332 394 474 539 577 577 577 577 577 -48
New York (Suffolk Co.)..................... NA NA NA 579 665 703 703 703 703 703 NA
North Carolina............................. 168 183 192 492 532 544 544 544 544 544 -18
North Dakota............................... 232 283 334 371 371 386 401 409 431 431 -53
Ohio....................................... 207 346 346 652 685 739 817 879 901 924 13
Oklahoma................................... 179 217 282 471 471 471 471 471 645 645 -9
Oregon..................................... 229 369 282 386 412 432 460 460 460 460 -49
Pennsylvania............................... 265 296 332 614 614 614 614 614 614 614 -41
Puerto Rico................................ 180 108 102 180 180 180 360 360 360 360 -49
Rhode Island............................... 229 278 340 409 503 543 554 554 554 554 -39
South Carolina............................. 162 178 187 187 388 419 440 440 440 524 -18
South Dakota............................... 264 289 321 329 366 377 404 491 507 507 -51
Tennessee.................................. 179 179 179 339 353 387 426 426 500 583 -18
Texas...................................... 198 155 155 494 574 574 574 574 751 751 -4
Utah....................................... 223 327 480 693 693 516 537 552 568 568 -36
Vermont.................................... 287 402 670 883 889 973 1,112 1,124 1,148 1,173 3
Virgin Islands............................. NA 131 209 209 209 300 300 300 300 300 NA
Virgina.................................... 240 298 344 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 -59
Washington................................. 258 315 458 777 835 907 1,014 1,158 1,178 1,252 23
West Virginia.............................. 220 275 275 497 497 497 497 497 991 991 14
Wisconsin.................................. 214 383 522 628 647 647 647 647 647 647 -24
Wyoming.................................... 246 240 315 360 360 360 674 674 674 674 -31
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median State \4\....................... 232 279 321 401 503 539 544 579 645 645 -30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data on three-person families were not published or reported before 1975. Thus, the 1970 data were derived by reducing the reported four-person need
standard by the proportional difference between three- and four-person AFDC need standards as shown in the July 1975 DHEW reports.
\2\ CRS survey data.
\3\ Real percentage change, calculated assuming a January 1996 CPI-U value of 154.4 relative to the July 1970 value of 39.0.
\4\ Among 50 States and the District of Columbia.
NA--Not available.
Source: Table compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the Department of Health and Human Services and CRS.
TABLE 8-15.--AFDC MAXIMUM BENEFIT FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY BY STATE, SELECTED YEARS 1970-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
State change in
July July July July January January January January January real value,
1970 \1\ 1975 1980 1985 1990 \2\ 1992 \2\ 1994 \2\ 1995 \2\ 1996 \2\ 1970-96
\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. $65 $108 $118 $118 $118 $149 $164 $164 $164 -36
Alaska.............................................. 328 350 457 719 846 924 923 923 923 -29
Arizona............................................. 138 163 202 233 293 334 347 347 347 -36
Arkansas............................................ 89 125 161 192 204 204 204 204 204 -42
California.......................................... 186 293 473 587 694 663 607 607 607 -18
Colorado............................................ 193 217 290 346 356 356 356 356 421 -45
Connecticut......................................... 283 346 475 569 649 680 680 680 636 -43
Delaware............................................ 160 221 266 287 333 338 338 338 338 -47
District of Columbia................................ 195 243 286 327 409 409 420 420 420 -46
Florida............................................. 114 144 195 240 294 303 303 303 303 -33
Georgia............................................. 107 123 164 223 273 280 280 280 280 -34
Hawaii.............................................. 226 428 468 468 602 666 712 712 712 -20
Idaho............................................... 211 300 323 304 317 315 317 317 317 -62
Illinois............................................ 232 261 288 341 367 367 367 377 377 -59
Indiana............................................. 120 200 255 256 288 288 288 288 288 -39
Iowa................................................ 201 294 360 360 410 426 426 426 426 -46
Kansas.............................................. 222 321 345 391 409 422 429 429 429 -51
Kentucky............................................ 147 185 188 197 228 228 228 228 262 -55
Louisiana........................................... 88 128 152 190 190 190 190 190 190 -45
Maine............................................... 135 176 280 370 453 453 418 418 418 -22
Maryland............................................ 162 200 270 329 396 377 366 373 373 -42
Massachusetts....................................... 268 259 379 432 539 539 579 579 565 -47
Michigan (Washtenaw Co.)............................ NA NA NA 447 546 489 489 489 489 NA
Michigan (Wayne Co.)................................ 219 333 425 417 516 459 459 459 459 -47
Minnesota........................................... 256 330 417 528 532 532 532 532 532 -48
Mississippi......................................... 56 48 96 96 120 120 120 120 120 -46
Missouri............................................ 104 120 248 274 289 292 292 292 292 -29
Montana............................................. 202 201 259 354 359 390 401 416 425 -47
Nebraska............................................ 171 210 310 350 364 364 364 364 364 -46
Nevada.............................................. 121 195 262 285 330 372 348 348 348 -27
New Hampshire....................................... 262 308 346 389 506 516 550 550 550 -47
New Jersey.......................................... 302 310 360 404 424 424 424 424 424 -65
New Mexico.......................................... 149 169 220 258 264 324 357 381 389 -34
New York (Suffolk Co.).............................. NA NA NA 579 703 703 703 703 703 NA
New York (New York City)............................ 279 332 394 474 577 577 577 577 577 -48
North Carolina...................................... 145 183 192 246 272 272 272 272 272 -53
North Dakota........................................ 213 283 334 371 386 401 409 431 431 -49
Ohio................................................ 161 204 263 290 334 334 341 341 341 -47
Oklahoma............................................ 152 217 282 282 325 341 324 324 307 -49
Oregon.............................................. 184 337 282 386 432 460 460 460 460 -37
Pennsylvania........................................ 265 296 332 364 421 421 421 421 421 -60
Puerto Rico......................................... 43 43 44 90 90 180 180 180 180 6
Rhode Island........................................ 229 278 340 409 543 554 554 554 554 -39
South Carolina...................................... 85 96 129 187 206 210 200 200 200 -41
South Dakota........................................ 264 289 321 329 377 404 417 430 430 -59
Tennessee........................................... 112 115 122 153 184 185 185 185 185 -58
Texas............................................... 148 116 116 167 184 184 184 188 188 -68
Utah................................................ 175 252 360 376 387 402 414 426 426 -39
Vermont............................................. 267 322 492 583 662 673 638 650 656 -38
Virginia............................................ 225 268 310 354 354 354 354 354 354 -60
Washington.......................................... 258 315 458 476 501 531 546 546 546 -47
West Virginia....................................... 114 206 206 249 249 249 249 253 253 -44
Wisconsin........................................... 184 342 444 533 517 517 517 517 517 -29
Wyoming............................................. 213 235 315 360 360 360 360 360 360 -57
Guam................................................ NA NA 261 265 330 330 330 330 330 NA
Virgin Islands...................................... NA 131 209 171 240 240 240 240 240 NA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median State \4\................................ 184 235 288 332 364 372 366 377 389 -51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data on three-person families were not published or reported before 1975. Thus, the 1970 data were derived by reducing the reported four-person
maximum benefit amount by the proportional difference between three- and four-person AFDC maximum benefit as shown in the July 1975 DHEW reports.
\2\ CRS survey data.
\3\ Real percentage change, calculated assuming a January 1996 CPI-U value of 154.4 relative to the July 1970 value of 39.0.
\4\ Among 50 States and the District of Columbia.
NA--Not available.
Source: Table compiled by Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CRS.
TABLE 8-16.--HISTORIC TRENDS IN AVERAGE PAYMENT PER RECIPIENT AND PER FAMILY AND MAXIMUM AND MEDIAN BENEFITS FOR
A FAMILY OF FOUR, SELECTED YEARS 1970-95 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
AFDC payments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970 1975 1980 1985 1987 1989 1991 1992 1993 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average monthly benefit per
family......................... $178 $210 $274 $331 $359 $381 $388 $389 $373 $377
In 1995 dollars \2\......... 704 601 518 470 484 471 434 423 394 377
Average monthly benefit per
person......................... 46 63 94 113 123 131 135 136 131 135
In 1995 dollars \2\......... 182 180 178 160 166 162 151 148 138 135
Median State benefit in July for
a family unit of four with no
income \1\..................... 221 264 350 399 420 432 435 435 435 435
In 1995 dollars \2\......... 874 756 662 566 566 534 487 473 459 435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Among 50 States and the District of Columbia.
\2\ The constant dollar numbers were calculated using the CPI-U.
Note.--AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support enforcement collections.
Source: Family Support Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Congressional
Research Service.
Income Eligibility Limits
Table 8-17 presents, by State, the earnings levels at which
AFDC eligibility for a family of three ends. As the table
shows, when a mother with two children works her way off AFDC,
after 1 year on the job, her earnings (seventh column of table)
will be below the poverty guideline, and in all but six States,
below full-time minimum earnings. In all States, the mother
remains eligible for another cash supplement to low wages, the
earned income credit (EIC). EIC would add 40 percent to monthly
earnings below $740 and lesser amounts to higher earnings.
Examples, Maryland, EIC of $185 added to earnings of $463;
Maine, $257 added to earnings of $643; Alaska, $265 added to
earnings of $1,118.
The table also shows that the earnings limits (sometimes
called breakevens) are much lower after 1 year on a job than
during the first 4 months of a job. This is because Federal law
requires States to count against the AFDC grant all but $90 in
monthly earnings after 1 year on the job; that is, $90 in
earnings is disregarded. In contrast, for a new worker, the
required disregard is $120 monthly plus one-third of remaining
earnings. (Also disregarded in both cases are actual child care
expenses, but the table assumes that the worker does not have
to pay for child care.) Note: Table 8-17 is based on regular
AFDC rules. Some States have been granted waivers to test more
generous treatment of earnings. Earnings limits would be higher
for families in these demonstrations.
AFDC Benefits for Special Needs
In general, the AFDC need standard provides for basic
consumption items such as food, clothing, shelter, fuel and
utilities, personal care items, and household supplies that are
essential to recipients. The need standard may also provide for
special (recurrent or nonrecurrent) needs, such as special
dietary requirements, pregnancy allowance, training and/or
educational expenses, and expenses caused by catastrophe or
eviction.
``Special needs,'' which may be recurring or nonrecurring,
are usually defined as needs that are recognized by the State
as essential for some persons but not for all, and thus must be
determined on an individual basis. They are part of the total
``need standard'' used to measure AFDC eligibility and
determine benefits for those families for whom such special
needs items are appropriate. Federal funds pay at least 50
percent of each State's AFDC benefit expenditures, including
funds spent on special need items. As noted before, the average
Federal reimbursement across all States is about 55 percent.
Maximum AFDC benefit amount information elsewhere in this
section does not take into account payments for special needs
of particular individuals.
TABLE 8-17.--EARNINGS LEVELS AT WHICH AFDC ELIGIBILITY ENDS FOR A FAMILY OF THREE BY STATE AND PERIOD OF RECEIPT, JANUARY 1996 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First 4 months After 12 months
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
185 Eligibility level as a Eligibility level as a
State percent of Payment Maximum Effective percent of-- Effective percent of--
``need'' standard benefit eligibility ------------------------ eligibility -----------------------
standard level \2\ Poverty Minimum level \2\ \3\ Poverty Minimum
guidelines wage guidelines wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $1,245 $164 $164 $366 34 50 $254 23 34
Alaska.................................. 1,902 1,028 923 1,662 123 226 1,118 83 152
Arizona................................. 1,783 347 347 641 59 87 437 40 59
Arkansas................................ 1,304 204 204 426 39 58 294 27 40
California.............................. 1,351 730 607 1,215 112 165 820 76 111
Colorado................................ 779 421 421 752 69 102 511 47 69
Connecticut............................. 1,613 872 636 1,428 132 194 962 89 131
Delaware................................ 625 338 338 627 58 85 428 40 58
District of Columbia.................... 1,317 420 420 750 69 102 510 47 69
Florida................................. 1,943 303 303 575 53 78 393 36 53
Georgia................................. 784 424 280 756 70 103 514 48 70
Guam.................................... 611 330 330 615 57 83 420 39 57
Hawaii.................................. 2,109 712 712 1,188 95 161 802 64 109
Idaho................................... 1,833 317 317 596 55 81 407 38 55
Illinois................................ 1,782 377 377 686 63 93 467 43 63
Indiana................................. 592 288 288 552 51 75 378 35 51
Iowa.................................... 1,571 426 426 759 70 103 516 48 70
Kansas.................................. 794 429 429 764 71 104 519 48 70
Kentucky................................ 973 526 262 909 84 123 616 57 84
Louisiana............................... 1,217 190 190 405 37 55 280 26 38
Maine................................... 1,023 553 418 950 88 129 643 59 87
Maryland................................ 956 373 373 680 63 92 463 43 63
Massachusetts........................... 1,045 565 565 968 89 131 655 61 89
Michigan (Washtenaw Co.)................ 1,086 489 489 854 79 116 579 54 79
Michigan (Wayne Co.).................... 1,019 459 459 809 75 110 549 51 74
Minnesota............................... 984 532 532 918 85 125 622 58 84
Mississippi............................. 681 368 120 672 62 91 458 42 62
Missouri................................ 1,565 292 292 558 52 76 382 35 52
Montana................................. 1,001 541 425 932 86 126 631 58 86
Nebraska................................ 673 364 364 666 62 90 454 42 62
Nevada.................................. 1,293 348 348 642 59 87 438 40 59
New Hampshire........................... 3,763 550 550 945 87 128 640 59 87
New Jersey.............................. 1,822 443 424 785 73 106 533 49 72
New Mexico.............................. 720 389 389 704 65 95 479 44 65
New York (New York City)................ 1,067 577 577 986 91 134 667 62 91
New York (Suffolk Co.).................. 1,301 703 703 1,175 109 159 793 73 108
North Carolina.......................... 1,006 544 272 936 87 127 634 59 86
North Dakota............................ 797 431 431 767 71 104 521 48 71
Ohio.................................... 1,709 341 341 632 58 86 431 40 58
Oklahoma................................ 1,193 307 307 581 54 79 397 37 54
Oregon.................................. 851 460 460 810 75 110 550 51 75
Pennsylvania............................ 1,136 421 421 752 69 102 511 47 69
Puerto Rico............................. 666 180 180 390 36 53 270 25 37
Rhode Island............................ 1,025 554 554 951 88 129 644 60 87
South Carolina.......................... 969 200 200 420 39 57 290 27 39
South Dakota............................ 938 507 430 881 81 119 597 55 81
Tennessee............................... 1,079 583 185 995 92 135 673 62 91
Texas................................... 1,389 188 188 402 37 55 278 26 38
Utah.................................... 1,051 568 426 972 90 132 658 61 89
Vermont................................. 2,124 650 650 1,095 101 149 740 68 100
Virginia................................ 555 240 240 480 44 65 330 31 45
Virgin Islands.......................... 727 354 354 651 60 88 444 41 60
Washington.............................. 2,316 546 546 939 87 127 636 59 86
West Virginia........................... 1,833 253 253 500 46 68 343 32 47
Wisconsin............................... 1,197 517 517 896 83 122 607 56 82
Wyoming................................. 1,247 590 360 1,005 93 136 680 63 92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These calculations assume no child care expenses. Disregarded earnings during the first 4 months of work are $120 monthly plus one-third; between 4
and 12 months, $120; after one year, $90. The breakevens for 5-12 months can be obtained by adding $30 to the breakeven for ``After 12 months.'' The
calculations are based on a 1996 poverty guideline of $12,980 ($1,082 monthly) in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia (higher in
Alaska and Hawaii) for a family of three, and a 1996 minimum wage salary of $8,840 ($737 per month).
\2\ Because of $10 minimum payment rule, actual AFDC benefit eligibility would end at a lower level ($15 lower during first 4 months, $10 lower
afterward).
\3\ This column also is the general earnings eligibility limit for an applicant.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Regulations require that if a State includes ``special
need'' items in its standard of need, it must describe them and
the circumstances under which they will be taken into account.
Work expenses and child care/dependent care costs resulting
from work, job search, or participation in a Community Work
Experience Program cannot be defined as special needs. Nor can
specified expenses, including tuition, books, and fees, arising
from participation in JOBS or any other education or training
activity be defined as special needs.
As of March 1996, according to the Department of Health and
Human Services, 26 jurisdictions included special need items in
their State standard. Examples of the special need items
specified by States follow: child care that was not related to
employment; training and/or educational expenses; special
transportation; pregnancy allowance; special clothing and
clothing replacement; expenses caused by catastrophe or
eviction; excess shelter, fuel, or utilities costs; repair of
property, appliances, or furnishings; special diets; telephone
or special telephone services; fees and/or deposits; funeral
and burial expenses; temporary shelter; and moving and/or
storage expenses. Excess cost of shelter, fuel, or utilities,
pregnancy allowance, and child care costs (not employment
related) were the most frequently cited special need items.
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING OF AFDC BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS
The Federal share of a State's AFDC benefit payments is
determined by the matching formula specified for Medicaid in
title XIX of the Social Security Act (States may choose an
alternate formula, but it sets a limit on matchable benefit
levels, and no State uses it). The Federal Medicaid matching
rate is inversely related to State per capita income squared;
thus, Federal matching for AFDC benefit payments varies from
State to State, ranging (1996) from 50 percent in States with
high per capita incomes to 78 percent in Mississippi, a State
with relatively low per capita income. Table 8-18 provides
Federal medical assistance percentages by State, which equal
the Federal share of AFDC benefit payments. It shows that 11
States plus the District of Columbia now receive the minimum
Federal share of 50 percent.
For the outlying areas--Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands--75 percent Federal matching is provided for AFDC
benefits, but the law imposes a ceiling on total Federal funds
for AFDC and several other programs, including aid for aged,
blind, or disabled adults. The ceilings are as follows: Puerto
Rico, $82 million; Guam, $3.8 million; and the Virgin Islands,
$2.8 million.
The Federal Government pays 50 percent of the costs of
administering the AFDC Program in all jurisdictions.
Some States require their localities to finance a portion
of the non-Federal share of benefit payments (see table 8-19),
and the non-Federal share of administrative costs (see table 8-
20).
TABLE 8-18.--FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGES, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1984-97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984-85 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 72.14 73.29 73.21 72.93 71.22 70.45 69.85 69.54
Alaska.......................... 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Arizona......................... 61.21 62.12 60.99 62.61 65.90 66.40 66.85 65.53
Arkansas........................ 73.65 74.21 74.58 75.66 74.46 73.75 73.61 73.29
California...................... 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.23
Colorado........................ 50.00 50.00 52.11 54.79 54.30 53.10 52.44 52.32
Connecticut..................... 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Delaware........................ 50.00 51.90 50.00 50.12 50.00 50.00 50.33 50.00
District of Columbia............ 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Florida......................... 58.41 55.39 54.70 54.69 54.78 56.28 55.76 55.79
Georgia......................... 67.43 63.84 62.09 61.78 62.47 62.23 61.90 61.52
Guam \1\........................ 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
Hawaii.......................... 50.00 53.71 54.50 52.57 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Idaho........................... 67.28 70.47 73.32 73.24 70.92 70.14 68.78 67.97
Illinois........................ 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Indiana......................... 59.93 63.71 63.76 63.85 63.49 63.03 62.57 61.58
Iowa............................ 55.24 62.75 62.52 65.04 63.33 62.62 64.22 62.94
Kansas.......................... 50.67 55.20 56.07 59.23 59.52 58.90 59.04 58.87
Kentucky........................ 70.72 72.27 72.95 72.82 70.91 69.58 70.30 70.09
Louisiana....................... 64.65 68.26 73.12 75.44 73.49 72.65 71.89 71.36
Maine........................... 70.63 67.08 65.20 62.40 61.96 63.30 63.32 63.72
Maryland........................ 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Massachusetts................... 50.13 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Michigan........................ 50.70 56.48 54.54 55.41 56.37 56.84 56.77 55.20
Minnesota....................... 52.67 53.98 52.74 54.43 54.65 54.27 53.84 53.60
Mississippi..................... 77.63 79.65 80.18 79.99 78.85 78.58 78.07 77.22
Missouri........................ 61.40 59.27 59.18 60.84 60.64 59.86 60.06 60.04
Montana......................... 64.41 69.40 71.35 71.70 71.05 70.81 69.38 69.01
Nebraska........................ 57.13 59.73 61.12 64.50 61.98 60.40 59.49 59.13
Nevada.......................... 50.00 50.25 50.00 50.00 50.31 50.00 50.00 50.00
New Hampshire................... 59.45 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
New Jersey...................... 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
New Mexico...................... 69.39 71.52 72.25 74.33 74.17 73.31 72.87 72.66
New York........................ 50.88 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
North Carolina.................. 69.54 68.68 67.46 66.52 65.14 64.71 64.59 63.89
North Dakota.................... 61.32 64.87 67.52 72.75 71.13 68.73 69.06 67.73
Ohio............................ 55.44 59.10 59.57 60.63 60.83 60.69 60.17 59.28
Oklahoma........................ 58.47 63.33 68.29 70.74 70.39 70.05 69.89 70.01
Oregon.......................... 57.12 62.11 62.95 63.55 62.12 62.36 61.01 60.52
Pennsylvania.................... 56.04 57.35 56.86 56.84 54.61 54.27 52.93 52.85
Puerto Rico \1\................. 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
Rhode Island.................... 58.17 54.85 55.15 53.29 53.87 55.49 53.84 53.90
South Carolina.................. 73.51 73.49 73.07 72.66 71.08 70.71 70.77 70.43
South Dakota.................... 68.31 70.43 70.90 72.59 69.50 68.06 66.66 64.89
Tennessee....................... 70.66 70.64 69.64 68.41 67.15 66.52 65.64 64.58
Texas........................... 54.37 56.91 61.23 64.18 64.18 63.31 62.30 62.56
Utah............................ 70.84 73.73 74.70 75.11 74.35 73.48 73.21 72.33
Vermont......................... 69.37 66.23 62.77 61.37 59.55 60.82 60.87 61.05
Virgin Islands \1\.............. 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
Virginia........................ 56.53 51.34 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 51.37 51.45
Washington...................... 50.00 53.21 53.88 54.98 54.24 51.97 50.19 50.52
West Virginia................... 70.57 74.84 76.61 77.68 75.72 74.60 73.26 72.60
Wisconsin....................... 56.87 58.98 59.28 60.38 60.47 59.81 59.67 59.00
Wyoming......................... 50.00 57.96 65.95 69.10 65.63 62.87 59.69 59.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal funds limited.
Source: Federal Register.
TABLE 8-19.--FINANCING OF NONFEDERAL SHARE OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS, FOR
STATES USING STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS, OCTOBER 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
State State funds local funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California \1\.............................. 95.00 5.0
Colorado.................................... 57.30 42.7
Indiana..................................... 60.00 40.0
Minnesota \2\............................... 85.00 15.0
Montana \3\................................. 77.50 22.5
New Jersey.................................. 75.00 25.0
New York \4\................................ 50.00 50.0
North Carolina \5\.......................... 50.00 50.0
North Dakota \5\............................ 75.00 25.0
Ohio \6\.................................... 36.07 4.0
Wisconsin \7\............................... 100.00 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Counties pay up to 100 percent of some types of emergency assistance
costs.
\2\ Counties finance 90 percent of the non-Federal costs of the
Emergency Assistance Program.
\3\ For all cases in State-administered counties and Indian cases in
State-supervised counties, State funds only.
\4\ For persons with State residence. For persons without State
residence, for persons eligible for public assistance and care under
AFDC and who are released from a State mental hygiene facility after a
stay of 5 or more years, and for Indians living on reservations, State
pays 100 percent of assistance.
\5\ State pays 100 percent for Indians living on reservations.
\6\ Percentage of total costs before deduction of Federal share.
\7\ State pays State costs and up to 100 percent of local costs.
Localities pay foster care and institutional costs in excess of State
appropriations.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Table 8-21 provides information on total Federal and State
benefit payments under the Single Parent and Unemployed Parent
Programs for fiscal years 1970-95, and HHS projections for
fiscal years 1996-2001 (for State-level data on benefit
payments, see table 8-23). Table 8-22 breaks these data down
into their Federal and State shares, and also includes
information on administrative costs for the AFDC Program.
AFDC CASELOAD DATA
Table 8-23 presents State-specific information on caseloads
and benefit payments under the AFDC Single Parent and
Unemployed Parent Programs. Average monthly benefits per AFDC
family were $377 in fiscal year 1995; among States they ranged
from $120 in Mississippi to $721 in Alaska and $649 in Hawaii.
Together, California and New York accounted for 28 percent of
AFDC families (19 percent and 9 percent, respectively); but
their share of total AFDC payments was 42 percent (28 percent
and 14 percent), reflecting their higher than average benefits.
The table also shows wide variation in administrative costs per
AFDC family, which averaged $724 per year ($60 per month).
Yearly administrative costs ranged from $230 in West Virginia
to $1,638 in Maryland and exceeded $1,000 in 10 States. Table
8-24 provides similar information for the Unemployed Parents
Program only.
TABLE 8-20.--FINANCING OF NONFEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION
FOR STATES USING STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS, OCTOBER 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Percent State funds Percent local funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas...................... 100% in 50 25 counties
counties; lesser participate in
proportion in 25 maintenance costs.
counties.
California \1\................ 100% of State 30% of local costs.
costs; 70% of
local costs.
Colorado...................... 60%................ 40%
Indiana....................... 100% of State 50% or more of
costs, plus up to specified local
50% of specified costs.
local costs.
Iowa.......................... 100% of State and 100% of local
district costs. costs.
Maryland...................... 100% of State 100% of local and
budgeted positions. nonbudgeted
positions.
Minnesota..................... Varies with Varies with State
appropriations. appropriations.
Mississippi................... Varies according to Varies according to
county population. county population.
Montana \2\................... 50%................ 50%.
Nebraska...................... Varies............. Local funds used
for some travel,
rent, and
equipment.
New Jersey.................... 100% of State costs 100% of local
costs.
New York...................... 50% (or 100% for 50%.
Indians living on
reservations).
North Carolina................ 100% of State costs Portion of local
and varying costs not covered
proportion of by State
local costs, based appropriation.
on prior actual
expenditures.
North Dakota.................. 100% of State costs 100% of local costs
if able.
Ohio.......................... 45.5% \3\.......... 4.5%.
South Dakota.................. 100% of State costs 100% of local
costs.
Virginia...................... 60%................ 40%.
Wisconsin..................... 100% of State costs Any costs in excess
and up to 100% of of State
local costs. appropriation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Counties pay 100 percent of non-Federal share of costs for emergency
assistance cases involving removal of a child from the home.
\2\ State pays all administrative costs in State-administered counties.
\3\ Percentage of total cost before deduction of Federal share (50.0
percent).
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-21.--FEDERAL AND STATE AFDC BENEFIT PAYMENTS UNDER THE SINGLE PARENT AND UNEMPLOYED PARENT PROGRAMS,
FISCAL YEARS 1970-2001
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Unemployed Child
Fiscal year parent \1\ parent support \2\ Total \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970............................................................ 3,851 231 0 4,082
1971............................................................ 4,993 412 0 5,405
1972............................................................ 5,972 422 0 6,394
1973............................................................ 6,459 414 0 6,873
1974............................................................ 6,881 324 0 7,205
1975............................................................ 7,791 362 0 8,153
1976............................................................ 8,825 525 286 9,064
1977............................................................ 9,420 617 423 9,614
1978............................................................ 9,624 565 472 9,717
1979............................................................ 9,865 522 597 9,790
1980............................................................ 10,847 693 593 10,947
1981............................................................ 11,769 1,075 659 12,185
1982............................................................ 11,601 1,256 771 12,086
1983............................................................ 12,136 1,471 865 12,742
1984............................................................ 12,759 1,612 983 13,388
1985............................................................ 13,024 1,556 901 13,679
1986............................................................ 13,672 1,563 951 14,284
1987............................................................ 14,807 1,516 1,071 15,252
1988............................................................ 15,243 1,420 1,197 15,466
1989............................................................ 15,889 1,350 1,287 15,952
1990............................................................ 17,059 1,480 1,416 17,123
1991............................................................ 18,529 1,827 1,603 18,753
1992............................................................ 20,121 2,119 1,822 20,418
1993............................................................ 19,988 2,298 1,963 20,323
1994............................................................ 20,393 2,404 2,060 20,737
1995............................................................ 19,820 2,212 2,165 19,867
1996 \4\........................................................ 19,068 2,051 2,301 18,818
1997 \4\........................................................ 19,562 2,079 2,461 19,180
1998 \4\........................................................ 20,094 2,104 2,660 19,538
1999 \4\........................................................ 20,627 2,128 2,878 19,877
2000 \4\........................................................ 21,130 2,152 3,114 20,168
2001 \4\........................................................ 21,643 2,175 3,362 20,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes payments to two-parent families where one adult is incapitated.
\2\ Total AFDC collections (including collections on behalf of Foster Care children) less payments to
recipients.
\3\ Net AFDC benefits--Gross benefits less those reimbursed by child support collections.
\4\ Administration projection under current law.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-22.--TOTAL, FEDERAL, AND STATE AFDC EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1970-2001
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal share State share Total
Fiscal year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits Administrative Benefits Administrative Benefits Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970.............................. 2,187 \1\ 572 1,443 186 4,082 \1\ 881
1971.............................. 3,008 271 2,469 254 5,477 525
1972.............................. 3,612 \2\ 240 2,942 241 6,554 NA
1973.............................. 3,865 313 3,138 296 7,003 610
1974.............................. 4,071 379 3,300 362 7,371 740
1975.............................. 4,625 552 3,787 529 8,412 1,082
1976.............................. 5,258 541 4,418 527 9,676 1,069
1977.............................. 5,626 595 4,762 583 10,388 1,177
1978.............................. 5,701 631 4,890 617 10,591 1,248
1979.............................. 5,825 683 4,954 668 10,779 1,350
1980.............................. 6,448 750 5,508 729 11,956 1,479
1981.............................. 6,928 835 5,917 814 12,845 1,648
1982.............................. 6,922 878 5,934 878 12,857 1,756
1983.............................. 7,332 915 6,275 915 13,607 1,830
1984.............................. 7,707 876 6,664 822 14,371 1,698
1985.............................. 7,817 890 6,763 889 14,580 1,779
1986.............................. 8,239 993 6,996 967 15,235 1,960
1987.............................. 8,914 1,081 7,409 1,052 16,323 2,133
1988.............................. 9,125 1,194 7,538 1,159 16,663 2,353
1989.............................. 9,433 1,211 7,807 1,206 17,240 2,417
1990.............................. 10,149 1,358 8,390 1,303 18,539 2,661
1991.............................. 11,165 1,373 9,191 1,300 20,356 2,673
1992.............................. 12,252 1,422 9,988 1,342 22,240 2,764
1993.............................. 12,270 1,518 10,016 1,438 22,286 2,956
1994.............................. 12,511 1,670 10,286 1,612 22,797 3,282
1995.............................. 12,018 1,770 10,014 1,754 22,032 3,524
1996 \3\.......................... 11,506 1,796 9,613 1,796 21,119 3,592
1997 \3\.......................... 11,760 1,852 9,881 1,852 21,641 3,704
1998 \3\.......................... 12,062 1,910 10,136 1,910 22,198 3,819
1999 \3\.......................... 12,365 1,967 10,390 1,967 22,755 3,934
2000 \3\.......................... 12,651 2,023 10,631 2,023 23,282 4,046
2001 \3\.......................... 12,943 2,081 10,875 2,081 23,818 4,162
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes expenditures for services.
\2\ Administrative expenditures only.
\3\ Administration projection under current law.
NA--Not available.
Note.--Benefits include AFDC-Basic and AFDC-UP expenditures; child support reimbursement is not included. Foster
care payments are included from 1971 to 1980. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of certifying AFDC
households for food stamps are shown in the food stamp appropriation, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Administrative costs include child care administration, work program, ADP, FAMIS, fraud control, SAVE and
other State and local administrative expenditures.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-23.--AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF AFDC FAMILIES AND RECIPIENTS, TOTAL BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND AVERAGE PAYMENT PER FAMILY AND
RECIPIENT, FISCAL YEAR 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Average Average Average monthly Total Admin.
assistance monthly monthly payment per admin. cost per
State payments caseload \1\ recipients \1\ ---------------------- cost \2\ AFDC
(mill.) (thous.) (thous.) Family Recipient (mill.) family \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... $82.6 47 118 $148 $58 $22.4 $482
Alaska.......................................................... 107.3 12 37 721 241 9.9 798
Arizona......................................................... 251.2 70 190 299 110 43.9 626
Arkansas........................................................ 48.8 24 63 168 64 12.7 525
California...................................................... 6,125.4 919 2,678 555 191 587.5 639
Colorado........................................................ 142.8 39 109 305 109 24.9 638
Connecticut..................................................... 383.1 61 170 520 187 32.7 533
Delaware........................................................ 36.4 11 25 268 119 7.5 664
District of Columbia............................................ 124.1 27 73 379 141 24.1 883
Florida......................................................... 763.8 229 618 277 103 153.0 667
Georgia......................................................... 414.4 139 382 248 90 58.1 417
Guam............................................................ 13.7 2 8 544 141 2.0 952
Hawaii.......................................................... 172.8 22 66 649 218 11.2 505
Idaho........................................................... 31.6 9 24 286 108 8.8 957
Illinois........................................................ 882.1 236 696 311 106 119.4 506
Indiana......................................................... 196.6 66 189 248 87 36.5 553
Iowa............................................................ 149.4 36 100 342 124 27.9 766
Kansas.......................................................... 113.6 28 80 336 118 11.1 394
Kentucky........................................................ 182.6 75 188 203 81 32.5 433
Lousiana........................................................ 151.1 80 251 157 50 19.2 240
Maine........................................................... 101.1 22 60 380 140 6.9 311
Maryland........................................................ 307.9 74 223 345 115 121.7 1,638
Massachusetts................................................... 646.1 100 271 537 199 88.5 882
Michigan........................................................ 999.8 201 597 414 140 166.2 826
Minnesota....................................................... 356.0 57 167 520 177 63.8 1,117
Mississippi..................................................... 75.1 52 143 120 44 14.6 280
Missouri........................................................ 275.6 89 254 257 90 30.3 340
Montana......................................................... 48.3 12 33 350 121 11.9 1,035
Nebraska........................................................ 56.7 15 41 309 114 25.0 1,634
Nevada.......................................................... 51.6 16 41 267 106 15.3 950
New Hampshire................................................... 56.9 11 28 420 167 10.9 965
New Jersey...................................................... 509.8 119 316 356 134 170.0 1,424
New Mexico...................................................... 154.1 35 104 372 123 25.3 733
New York........................................................ 3,042.3 457 1,255 554 202 587.2 1,284
North Carolina.................................................. 334.4 126 313 221 89 75.8 602
North Dakota.................................................... 22.6 5 14 362 131 8.3 1,596
Ohio............................................................ 849.1 228 612 310 116 92.0 403
Oklahoma........................................................ 152.0 45 123 280 103 36.3 803
Oregon.......................................................... 180.8 39 104 383 145 64.2 1,634
Pennsylvania.................................................... 904.7 205 596 368 126 125.4 611
Puerto Rico..................................................... 68.3 55 168 103 34 13.6 246
Rhode Island.................................................... 133.6 22 61 504 182 12.2 552
South Carolina.................................................. 107.1 49 128 181 70 20.0 407
South Dakota.................................................... 22.7 6 17 300 111 4.4 698
Tennessee....................................................... 198.7 96 255 172 65 38.0 394
Texas........................................................... 519.8 273 742 159 58 202.3 742
Utah............................................................ 69.7 17 46 340 126 17.6 1,029
Vermont......................................................... 61.9 10 27 511 190 6.1 604
Virgin Islands.................................................. 4.3 1 5 276 70 0.8 615
Virginia........................................................ 222.4 72 184 257 101 42.4 588
Washington...................................................... 605.7 102 286 493 176 82.9 810
West Virginia................................................... 108.9 38 104 238 87 8.8 230
Wisconsin....................................................... 389.4 74 213 439 152 85.6 1,157
Wyoming......................................................... 20.8 5 15 333 115 4.1 788
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total.................................................. 22,031.5 4,869 13,619 377 135 3,523.8 724
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
\2\ Administrative costs include child care administration, Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, fraud control, SAVE, and other State and local administrative
expenditures.
\3\ Average annual administrative cost per family.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-24.--AFDC-UP RECIPIENTS OF CASH PAYMENTS AND AMOUNTS OF PAYMENTS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UP money Average Average number Average payment per:
State payments number of of recipients -----------------------
(thousand) families \1\ \1\ Family Recipient
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... $184 137 570 $112 $27
Alaska...................................... 17,669 1,882 8,590 782 171
Arizona..................................... 5,292 1,166 5,017 378 88
Arkansas.................................... 976 276 1,118 295 73
California.................................. 1,292,749 163,960 670,225 657 161
Colorado.................................... 2,554 750 2,371 284 90
Connecticut................................. 21,297 3,013 12,571 589 141
Delaware.................................... 308 78 323 329 79
District of Columbia........................ 1,315 210 950 522 115
Florida..................................... 16,597 3,624 14,307 382 97
Georgia..................................... 2,025 562 2,247 300 75
Guam........................................ 1,312 189 1,022 578 107
Hawaii...................................... 14,346 1,484 6,836 806 175
Idaho....................................... 2,764 623 2,630 370 88
Illinois.................................... 46,715 11,257 47,741 346 82
Indiana..................................... 8,523 2,234 9,690 318 73
Iowa........................................ 14,926 3,429 13,955 363 89
Kansas...................................... 7,997 1,667 6,779 400 98
Kentucky.................................... 11,971 3,981 14,921 251 67
Lousiana.................................... 1,795 703 3,302 213 45
Maine....................................... 12,308 1,901 7,946 540 129
Maryland.................................... 3,113 1,069 2,917 243 89
Massachusetts............................... 26,129 3,401 14,320 640 152
Michigan.................................... 134,860 23,047 99,341 488 113
Minnesota................................... 33,551 4,784 22,668 584 123
Mississippi................................. 71 42 175 141 34
Missouri.................................... 9,161 2,365 9,339 323 82
Montana..................................... 5,424 972 4,262 465 106
Nebraska.................................... 3,471 746 3,245 388 89
Nevada...................................... 1,500 306 1,203 408 104
New Hampshire............................... 1,584 278 1,189 475 111
New Jersey.................................. 19,894 3,533 15,467 469 107
New Mexico.................................. 9,018 1,440 6,696 522 112
New York.................................... 130,642 20,033 81,462 543 134
North Carolina.............................. 8,197 2,696 10,428 253 66
North Dakota................................ 714 135 614 441 97
Ohio........................................ 73,860 16,551 64,535 372 95
Oklahoma.................................... 1,844 417 1,632 369 94
Oregon...................................... 17,001 3,040 12,256 466 116
Pennsylvania................................ 39,941 8,243 34,927 404 95
Rhode Island................................ 4,235 611 2,494 578 141
South Carolina.............................. 948 374 1,479 211 53
South Dakota................................ 101 21 108 400 78
Tennessee................................... 4,454 1,760 6,772 211 55
Texas....................................... 17,891 6,788 27,860 220 54
Utah........................................ 395 87 383 379 86
Vermont..................................... 8,143 1,386 5,510 490 123
Virginia.................................... 1,824 439 1,799 346 84
Washington.................................. 113,884 15,523 66,230 611 143
West Virginia............................... 18,444 5,320 20,795 289 74
Wisconsin................................... 37,842 6,059 29,330 520 108
Wyoming..................................... 262 67 286 325 76
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total.............................. 2,212,020 334,659 1,382,833 551 133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Table 8-25 presents data on the average monthly number of
families and individuals receiving AFDC benefits since 1970.
The U.S. caseload peaked in 1994 (but in half the States
numbers were below record levels of 1992 or 1993). The number
of two-parent families also set a national record in 1994;
however, these unemployed-parent families were a smaller share
of total AFDC enrollment (7.2 percent) than a decade earlier
(7.7 percent), before all States were required to operate AFDC-
UP Programs.
The number of AFDC families almost doubled (91-percent
increase) from 1970 to 1980, and the share of all families with
children who received AFDC climbed from 6.6 to 11.5 percent
(Table 8-1). In 1981, the AFDC caseload increased another 6
percent; and Congress enacted some eligibility cutbacks (OBRA
1981). From 1983 to 1988, the caseload remained relatively
stable, but in 1989 it began a sharp rise. Between July 1989
and August 1992, almost 1 million families were added to the
AFDC basic (one-parent) caseload, a 27-percent increase; and by
1992 about one in seven families with children was enrolled in
the program. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) undertook studies of recent
caseload growth. The CRS study (Gabe, 1992) found that never-
married mothers accounted for 71 percent of the increase in the
number of families receiving AFDC between 1987 and 1991 and
noted that the caseload expansion began a year before the 1990-
91 recession began. The CBO study (Peskin, et al., 1993)
concluded that just over half of the 1989-93 caseload growth
could be explained by the increase in the number of families
headed by women, and about a quarter, by the recession's effect
on employment and the weak economy before and after the
recession.
Table 8-26 presents State-by-State data on total AFDC
expenditures for the years 1989-95.
Table 8-27 shows the number of total AFDC recipients and
the number of child recipients for 1970 to 1994 (calendar year
data, unlike table 8-1, which presents fiscal year data). The
table shows total recipients as percentages of the total
population and (for 1979-91) as a percentage of the number of
persons in families with children whose prewelfare, pretax cash
incomes fell short of the poverty threshold (column 6). AFDC
recipients have ranged from 4.1 percent of the total population
in 1970 to a peak percentage of 5.4 in 1993 and 1994. The
percentage of children (column 5) receiving AFDC remained
relatively constant at around 11 percent between 1972 and 1989,
but climbed above 12 percent in 1990 and reached 14 percent in
1993. As a percentage of children in poverty (column 7), child
AFDC recipients have fallen from a high of 80.5 percent in 1973
to a low of 49.6 percent in 1982, but since have climbed to
61.7 percent in 1995.
TABLE 8-25.--HISTORICAL TRENDS IN AFDC ENROLLMENTS AND AVERAGE PAYMENTS, 1970-2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average monthly number of: (in thousands) Average monthly
-------------------------------------------------------------------- benefit
Fiscal year Unemployed Unemployed ------------------
Families \1\ Recipients \1\ Children \1\ parent parent
families recipients Family Recipient
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970............................................................. 1,909 7,429 5,494 78 420 $178 $46
1971............................................................. 2,532 9,556 6,963 143 726 180 48
1972............................................................. 2,918 10,632 7,698 134 639 187 51
1973............................................................. 3,123 11,038 7,965 120 557 187 53
1974............................................................. 3,170 10,845 7,824 95 434 194 57
1975............................................................. 3,342 11,067 7,928 101 451 210 63
1976............................................................. 3,561 11,339 8,156 135 593 226 71
1977............................................................. 3,575 11,108 7,818 149 659 242 78
1978............................................................. 3,528 10,663 7,475 127 567 250 83
1979............................................................. 3,493 10,311 7,193 113 504 257 87
1980............................................................. 3,642 10,597 7,320 141 612 274 94
1981............................................................. 3,871 11,160 7,615 209 881 277 96
1982............................................................. 3,569 10,431 6,975 232 976 300 103
1983............................................................. 3,651 10,659 7,051 272 1,144 311 106
1984............................................................. 3,725 10,866 7,153 287 1,222 322 110
1985............................................................. 3,692 10,813 7,165 261 1,131 339 116
1986............................................................. 3,747 10,995 7,294 253 1,101 352 120
1987............................................................. 3,784 11,065 7,381 236 1,035 359 123
1988............................................................. 3,748 10.920 7,326 210 929 370 127
1989............................................................. 3,771 10,935 7,370 193 856 381 131
1990............................................................. 3,974 11,460 7,755 204 899 389 135
1991............................................................. 4,375 12,595 8,515 268 1,148 388 135
1992............................................................. 4,769 13,625 9,225 322 1,348 389 136
1993............................................................. 4,981 14,144 9,539 359 1,489 373 131
1994............................................................. 5,046 14,226 9,590 363 1,509 376 134
1995 \2\......................................................... 4,869 13,619 9,275 335 1,383 377 135
1996 \3\......................................................... 4,618 12,941 8,796 308 1,273 381 136
1997 \3\......................................................... 4,684 13,111 8,922 309 1,275 385 138
1998 \3\......................................................... 4,750 13,284 9,048 309 1,274 389 139
1999 \3\......................................................... 4,817 13,459 9,175 309 1,272 393 141
2000 \3\......................................................... 4,876 13,612 9,288 309 1,271 397 143
2001 \3\......................................................... 4,935 13,765 9,400 309 1,269 402 144
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes unemployed parent families.
\2\ Preliminary data.
\3\ Administration projection under current law.
Note.--AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-26.--TOTAL AFDC EXPENDITURES BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1989-95
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
States -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... $61.1 $61.5 $67.5 $85.1 $95.5 $91.9 $82.6
Alaska...................... 54.8 59.5 76.8 96.3 110.6 112.5 107.3
Arizona..................... 117.0 138.4 177.8 242.6 268.7 265.9 251.2
Arkansas.................... 55.4 57.0 60.0 61.1 59.8 57.4 48.8
California.................. 4,436.5 4,954.9 5,519.8 5,828.3 5,855.0 6,088.3 6,125.4
Colorado.................... 131.0 136.7 149.9 162.5 164.0 158.2 142.8
Connecticut................. 241.4 295.2 347.2 376.9 386.3 397.0 383.1
Delaware.................... 25.1 28.7 32.6 37.3 39.7 39.7 36.4
District of Columbia........ 77.5 84.0 97.5 102.4 112.6 126.3 124.1
Florida..................... 354.6 417.5 515.1 733.1 804.7 806.2 763.8
Georgia..................... 289.3 320.7 376.4 420.3 432.1 427.9 414.4
Guam........................ 3.1 5.0 7.1 7.8 9.2 12.1 13.7
Hawaii...................... 89.1 98.8 107.9 125.3 143.4 163.0 172.8
Idaho....................... 18.4 19.5 22.2 24.0 28.5 30.3 31.6
Illinois.................... 786.5 838.7 892.2 882.6 882.9 913.5 882.1
Indiana..................... 162.2 169.9 193.2 218.2 224.8 228.2 196.6
Iowa........................ 149.0 152.4 160.2 164.3 163.3 169.2 149.4
Kansas...................... 104.3 105.1 108.7 119.2 125.9 123.1 113.6
Kentucky.................... 155.4 179.1 204.1 213.1 210.0 198.3 182.6
Louisiana................... 184.8 188.0 188.1 181.8 176.9 168.4 151.1
Maine....................... 86.1 101.3 113.2 118.3 117.1 107.5 101.1
Maryland.................... 265.5 295.8 330.4 333.3 316.5 313.8 307.9
Massachusetts............... 592.2 630.3 665.6 750.9 749.9 729.7 646.1
Michigan.................... 1,226.4 1,211.3 1,184.1 1,162.0 1,190.1 1,132.2 999.8
Minnesota................... 343.4 355.0 370.7 387.0 384.0 379.4 356.0
Mississippi................. 84.9 86.3 87.9 88.8 86.9 81.7 75.1
Missouri.................... 220.0 228.0 250.6 273.9 283.8 286.9 275.6
Montana..................... 40.6 40.4 42.0 45.7 49.1 48.9 48.3
Nebraska.................... 56.6 58.6 61.2 65.3 65.6 61.6 56.7
Nevada...................... 24.2 27.2 32.1 41.0 44.0 48.1 51.6
New Hampshire............... 24.3 31.8 45.3 54.5 56.0 61.9 56.9
New Jersey.................. 440.1 451.4 488.7 515.0 538.2 531.3 509.8
New Mexico.................. 55.0 60.6 86.2 105.9 119.1 143.9 154.1
New York.................... 2,153.7 2,254.4 2,480.9 2,944.4 2,658.4 2,913.1 3,042.3
North Carolina.............. 220.5 246.7 303.6 335.3 353.4 352.5 334.4
North Dakota................ 24.0 24.3 25.0 27.5 28.1 25.6 22.6
Ohio........................ 826.6 877.2 935.1 984.0 980.5 1,015.8 849.1
Oklahoma.................... 124.3 132.1 152.2 169.2 172.0 165.2 152.0
Oregon...................... 137.5 145.2 177.2 200.1 202.4 196.7 180.8
Pennsylvania................ 738.5 798.3 827.3 906.1 917.7 934.8 904.7
Puerto Rico................. 70.6 71.5 75.2 76.9 76.8 73.9 68.3
Rhode Island................ 85.8 99.0 117.2 128.4 134.2 136.0 133.6
South Carolina.............. 91.3 95.7 107.4 119.2 118.0 115.1 107.1
South Dakota................ 21.6 21.7 23.6 25.2 25.0 24.6 22.7
Tennesee.................... 142.0 167.9 196.6 205.8 219.8 215.1 198.7
Texas....................... 367.5 415.9 473.3 516.5 532.3 544.3 519.8
Utah........................ 63.5 64.1 70.7 75.5 78.0 77.3 69.7
Vermont..................... 41.4 48.1 54.6 67.0 65.7 64.9 61.9
Virgin Islands.............. 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.3
Virginia.................... 168.4 177.4 199.6 224.8 231.2 253.0 222.4
Washington.................. 420.7 437.9 485.8 605.9 605.5 609.9 605.7
West Virginia............... 110.0 110.0 113.6 120.1 121.6 125.9 108.9
Wisconsin................... 454.2 440.4 447.1 453.3 441.2 424.7 389.4
Wyoming..................... 18.8 19.3 24.9 27.2 26.5 21.4 20.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total.............. 17,240.0 18,538.5 20,356.2 22,239.7 22,286.0 22,797.4 22,031.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-27.--NUMBER OF AFDC RECIPIENTS AND RECIPIENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF VARIOUS POPULATION GROUPS, 1970-94
[In thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFDC
recipients
AFDC child as a percent AFDC child
Total AFDC recipients of recipients
Total AFDC AFDC child population recipients as as a prewelfare as a
Calendar year recipients \1\ recipients \1\ ages 0-17 a percent of percent of poor percent of
\2\ total total population children in
population \2\ child in families poverty \4\
population with
children \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970................................................. 8,303 6,104 69,759 4.07 8.75 NA 58.5
1971................................................. 10,043 7,303 69,806 4.86 10.46 NA 69.2
1972................................................. 10,736 7,766 69,417 5.13 11.19 NA 75.5
1973................................................. 10,738 7,763 68,762 5.08 11.29 NA 80.5
1974................................................. 10,621 7,684 67,984 4.98 11.30 NA 75.7
1975................................................. 11,131 7,952 67,164 5.17 11.84 NA 71.6
1976................................................. 11,098 7,850 66,250 5.10 11.85 NA 76.4
1977................................................. 10,856 7,632 65,461 4.94 11.66 NA 74.2
1978................................................. 10,387 7,270 64,773 4.68 11.22 NA 73.2
1979................................................. 10,140 7,057 64,106 4.52 11.01 54.5 68.0
1980................................................. 10,599 7,295 63,684 4.66 11.45 49.2 63.2
1981................................................. 10,893 7,397 63,212 4.75 11.70 47.1 59.2
1982................................................. 10,161 6,767 62,812 4.39 10.77 40.6 49.6
1983................................................. 10,569 6,967 62,566 4.52 11.14 41.9 50.1
1984................................................. 10,643 7,017 62,482 4.51 11.23 43.6 52.3
1985................................................. 10,672 7,073 62,623 4.49 11.30 45.0 54.4
1986................................................. 10,850 7,206 62,865 4.52 11.46 46.6 56.0
1987................................................. 10,841 7,240 63,056 4.47 11.48 46.7 56.4
1988................................................. 10,728 7,201 63,246 4.39 11.39 47.7 57.8
1989................................................. 10,798 7,286 63,457 4.37 11.48 47.6 57.9
1990................................................. 11,497 7,781 63,923 4.62 12.17 47.1 57.9
1991................................................. 12,728 8,595 65,110 5.05 13.20 49.1 60.0
1992................................................. 13,571 9,165 66,162 5.32 13.85 NA 60.0
1993................................................. 14,007 9,440 67,110 5.43 14.07 NA 60.0
1994................................................. 13,974 9,440 68,018 5.37 13.88 NA 61.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual numbers from Health and Human Services. In calculating the number of AFDC recipients, data for Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was
subtracted from the total AFDC population. Data for these territories were not available for 1970-76, so an estimate was used based on the ratio in
later years (1977-87) of the number of recipients in these areas to the total number of recipients.
\2\ Population numbers represent U.S. resident population, not including Armed Forces overseas.
\3\ Based on the number of persons in families with related children whose prewelfare, pretax cash income (including Social Security) falls below the
appropriate poverty threshold. This information for 1970-90 can be found in appendix J, table 20, 1992 Green Book; for 1991, in table 15 of appendix J
of the 1993 Green Book.
\4\ Column is based on the U.S. Census count of all persons under age 18 (including unrelated children) with income below the poverty threshold.
NA--Poverty population data are not available for this time period.
Note.--These data are for calendar years, unlike table 8-1, which relates to fiscal years.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC FAMILIES
National Data About AFDC Families
This section describes the characteristics of AFDC
families, using two main sources of data. For years 1967-79,
the sources were individual sample surveys of similar design
conducted to gather information from agency case files. For
1983 and later years, data were derived from information
collected from cases within the National Integrated Quality
Control System's (NIQCS) monthly sample of cases.
Table 8-28 shows that the share of AFDC families with
earnings fell 30 percent from March 1979 to 1994, from 12.8 to
8.9 percent (but was 20 percent higher than in 1992). The share
of families with no reported income other than AFDC climbed
from 80.6 percent in 1979 to 86.8 percent in 1983, and fell to
77.5 percent by 1994. The decline since 1979 in the percentage
of AFDC families with reported earnings probably resulted from
the 1981 repeal by Congress of a financial work reward:
disregard of a fraction of every dollar earned.
Some studies suggest that the actual percentage of AFDC
mothers with other income is higher than Table 8-28 shows. The
Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) studied data for
mothers from four panels of the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), those for 1984, 1986, 1987, and 1988. The
data set comprised women who were single mothers for at least
12 out of 24 survey months and who received AFDC benefits for
at least 2 of the 24 months. On average, women in the sample
received AFDC for 18 months and were single for 23 months. The
study found that 43 percent of the mothers worked at least 300
hours during the 2 years: 20 percent combined work with welfare
part of the time (on average, for 9 out of 24 months), and the
remaining 23 percent ``cycled'' between work and welfare. In
all, 57 percent did not work: 26 percent were totally dependent
on means-tested benefits and 31 percent ``packaged'' AFDC with
income from other family members (Spalter-Roth et al., 1995).
Other research has found that many welfare mothers make
ends meet by supplementing AFDC with unreported earnings and
contributions. In a study of single AFDC mothers in four sites
(Chicago, Boston, San Antonio, and Charleston), Edin (1995)
found that 46 percent engaged in covert work to meet their
expenses, and that 86 percent received covert contributions
from family or friends, boyfriends, absent fathers, or from
other sources. They obtained covert earnings by working for
cash or under a false identity in the informal economy (39
percent of the sample) or by selling sex, drugs, or stolen
goods (8 percent). This research relied on intensive interviews
with a broad range of AFDC recipients who were identified
through a trusted third party.
TABLE 8-28.--AFDC CHARACTERISTICS, SELECTED YEARS 1969-94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May January May March
Characteristic 1969 1973 1975 1979 1983 \1\ 1986 \1\ 1988 \1\ 1990 \1\ 1992 \1\ 1994 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average family size (persons)........................... 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8
Number of child recipients (percent of AFDC cases):
One................................................. 26.6 NA 37.9 42.3 43.4 42.7 42.5 42.2 42.5 42.6
Two................................................. 23.0 NA 26.0 28.1 29.8 30.8 30.2 30.3 30.2 30.0
Three............................................... 17.7 NA 16.1 15.6 15.2 15.9 15.8 15.8 15.5 15.6
Four or more........................................ 32.5 NA 20.0 13.9 10.1 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.1 9.6
Unknown............................................. ....... NA ....... ....... 1.5 0.8 1.7 1.4 0.7 2.1
Basis for eligibility (percent children):
Parents present:
Incapacitated..................................... \2\ 11.
7 10.2 7.7 5.3 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.9
Unemployed........................................ \2\ 4.6 4.1 3.7 4.1 8.7 7.4 6.5 6.4 8.2 8.7
Parents absent:
Death............................................. \2\ 5.5 5.0 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7
Divorce or separation............................. \2\ 43.
3 46.5 48.3 44.7 38.5 36.3 34.6 32.9 30.0 26.5
No marriage tie................................... \2\ 27.
9 31.5 31.0 37.8 44.3 48.9 51.9 54.0 53.1 55.7
Other reason...................................... \2\ 3.5 3.6 4.0 5.9 1.4 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.0
Unknown........................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1.7 ........ ........ ........ 0.9 1.4
Education of mother (percent of mothers): \3\
8th grade or less................................... 29.4 NA 16.7 9.5 NA 4.8 5.5 5.8 4.9 4.0
1-3 years of HS..................................... 30.7 NA 31.7 20.8 NA 14.3 14.7 16.5 18.8 17.6
High school degree.................................. 16.0 NA 23.7 18.8 NA 17.3 17.5 19.3 22.4 24.1
Some college........................................ 2.0 NA 3.9 2.7 NA 3.4 3.9 5.7 6.8 7.7
College graduate.................................... 0.2 NA 0.7 0.4 NA 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5
Unknown............................................. 21.6 NA 23.3 47.8 NA 59.7 58.3 52.3 46.6 46.0
Age of mother (percent of mothers): \3\
Under 20............................................ 6.6 NA 8.3 \4\ 4.1 \4\ 3.6 \4\ 3.3 \4\ 3.4 7.9 7.6 6.3
20-24............................................... 16.7 NA (\5\) \6\ 28.
0 \6\ 28.6 \7\ 33.6 \7\ 32.2 23.8 24.5 24.6
25-29............................................... 17.6 NA (\5\) 21.4 23.8 \8\ 20.0 \8\ 19.4 24.6 23.3 22.6
30-39............................................... 30.4 NA 27.9 27.2 27.9 30.1 31.5 32.0 32.7 34.9
40 or over.......................................... 25.0 NA 17.6 15.4 15.7 13.0 13.4 11.7 11.8 11.5
Unknown............................................. 3.6 NA 3.0 4.0 0.3 ........ ........ ........ 0.1
Ages of children (percent of recipient children):
Under 3............................................. 14.9 NA 16.5 18.9 22.5 21.9 21.1 24.2 24.6 23.8
3-5................................................. 17.6 NA 18.1 17.5 20.1 21.1 21.0 21.5 21.7 22.1
6-11................................................ 36.5 NA 33.7 33.0 31.5 32.4 33.3 27.5 32.4 31.7
12 and over......................................... 31.0 NA 30.9 29.8 25.5 24.3 22.4 21.3 21.2 22.2
Unknown............................................. ....... NA 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Mother's employment status (percent): \3\
Full-time job....................................... 8.2 9.8 10.4 8.7 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.3
Part-time job....................................... 6.3 6.3 5.7 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6
Presence of income (percent families):
With earnings....................................... NA 16.3 14.6 12.8 5.7 7.5 8.4 8.2 7.4 8.9
No non-AFDC income.................................. 56.0 66.9 71.1 \9\ 80.
6 \9\ 86.8 \9\ 81.3 \9\ 79.6 \9\ 80.1 \9\ 78.9 \9\ 77.5
Median months on AFDC since most recent opening......... 23.0 27.0 31.0 29.0 26.0 27.0 26.3 23.0 22.5 22.8
Race (percent parents): \10\
White............................................... NA 38.0 39.9 40.4 41.8 39.7 38.8 38.1 38.9 37.4
Black............................................... 45.2 45.8 44.3 43.1 43.8 40.7 39.8 39.7 37.2 36.4
Hispanic............................................ NA 13.4 12.2 13.6 12.0 14.4 15.7 16.6 17.8 19.9
Native American..................................... 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3
Asian............................................... NA NA 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.9
Other and unknown................................... 4.8 1.7 2.0 0.4 NA 1.4 1.9 1.5 2.0 2.1
Incidence of households (percent):
Living in public housing............................ 12.8 13.6 14.6 NA 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.2 8.3
Participating in food stamp or donated food program. 52.9 68.4 75.1 75.1 83.0 80.7 84.6 85.6 87.3 88.6
Including nonrecipient members...................... 33.1 34.9 34.8 NA 36.9 36.7 36.8 37.7 38.9 46.4
Father's relationship to youngest child (percent):
No father........................................... NA NA NA 84.7 89.8 91.2 91.6 92.0 89.4 89.4
Natural father...................................... NA NA NA 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Adoptive father..................................... NA NA NA 0.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Stepfather.......................................... NA NA NA 5.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data are for the Federal fiscal year October through September. All percentages are based on the average monthly caseload during the year. Hawaii
and the territories are not included in 1983. Data for 1986 include Hawaii, but not the territories. Data after 1986 include the territories and
Hawaii. \2\ Calculated on the basis of total number of families. \3\ For years after 1983, data are for adult female recipients. \4\ Under
age 19. \5\ The percentage for 20 to 29 year olds was 43.1. \6\ The ages were 19-24 in 1979, 1983 and 1990. \7\ In 1986 and 1988 this age
group was 19-25. \8\ In 1986 and 1988 this age group was 26-29. \9\ State collected child support directly beginning in 1975, removing one
source of non-AFDC income. \10\ For 1983, 12.6 percentage points where race was unknown were allocated proportionately across all categories.
NA--Not available.
Note.--In 1994, 0.7 percent of AFDC cases had zero children (they were expectant mothers).
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Table 8-28 shows that from 1969 to 1994, the average size
of AFDC families decreased from 4 to 2.8 persons; the
percentage of AFDC children with unwed parents almost doubled,
from 27.9 to 55.7 percent; the percentage of AFDC mothers with
some college education climbed from 2 to 7.7 percent; and the
percentage of AFDC children whose parents were divorced or
separated dropped from 43.3 to 26.5 percent. The table also
shows a marked increase in the share of AFDC households that
include a nonrecipient of AFDC, suggesting an acceleration in
the trend to double-up to reduce housing costs. In 1994, almost
half (46.4 percent) of AFDC households included a nonrecipient.
This compares with 33.1 percent in 1969, 34.8 percent in 1975,
and an average of 37.4 percent in 1983-92.
Table 8-29 presents data about the work status of AFDC
mothers (or other caretaker). It reports that the share of
mothers needed at home or not actively seeking work climbed to
72 percent in 1994, compared to a recent low of 56 percent in
1988. Table 8-30 provides information about various sources of
non-AFDC income received by AFDC families. In 1994, 1.3 percent
of AFDC families received SSI and 8.5 percent, other public
assistance or State SSI supplements. Non-AFDC income averaged
$282 monthly per family among families with such income. For
selected years, table 8-31 shows disregarded income of AFDC
families, by type.
The AFDC recipient population is a diverse group of
families and individuals. Table 8-32 divides the 1994 AFDC
caseload into seven mutually exclusive groups. Column 1
contains data on the entire caseload. Column 2 describes AFDC
units with no adult recipient. They represent 17.2 percent of
the AFDC units and 12.5 percent of total payments. The average
payment per case was $269 per month. These children-only cases
comprise needy children with nonneedy or otherwise ineligible
adult caretakers. They include children born in the United
States to illegal alien parents and children whose caretaker is
not one of 14 relatives specified in the law.
Columns 3 through 6 present characteristics of more typical
AFDC units--one adult with children. The one-adult caseload is
split into four groups based on the reason for deprivation of
the youngest child. Column 3 shows the most numerous group,
unwed parents (usually mothers) with children. They account for
45 percent of all AFDC units and expenditures. Column 4 shows
cases of a divorced or legally separated parent, 13 percent of
the total.
Columns 7 and 8 present characteristics of cases with two
adult recipients. Column 7 presents data on the unemployed
parent (AFDC-UP) Program caseload; column 8 contains other two-
parent cases, most of which have an incapacitated parent. AFDC-
UP cases represent 6 percent of the total caseload and receive
about 9 percent of total payments. The cases in which one
parent is incapacitated tend to be older, as demonstrated by
both the age of the mother and the age of the youngest child.
The table indicates that white parents constitute a
majority of the AFDC-UP caseload (57 percent). Hispanic parents
represent 20 percent and blacks, 9 percent, of these cases.
Half of the unwed parent cases are black. Of the overall
caseload, 37 percent of parents are white, 36 percent black, 20
percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian, and 1 percent Native
American.
TABLE 8-29.--EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF AFDC MOTHERS AND TENURE OF AFDC FAMILIES, \1\ SELECTED YEARS 1979-94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of total caseload
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment status March
1979 \2\ May 1982 1983 \3\ 1986 \3\ 1988 \3\ 1990 \3\ 1991 \3\ 1992 \3\ 1994 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment status of mother (or other caretaker): \4\
No mother (caretaker)............................ 8.3 12.2 8.7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Full-time work, 30 or more hours per week........ \5\ 8.0 \5\ 1.3 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.2
Part-time work, fewer than 30 hours per week..... \5\ 5.0 \5\ 4.3 3.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.5
Incapacitated.................................... 6.0 NA 4.1 3.4 3.8 ......... ......... ......... 4.1
At school or training............................ 2.6 NA 2.0 1.9 2.2 11.5 12.5 16.1 13.8
On layoff........................................ 0.5 NA 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Seeking work..................................... 9.1 NA NA 27.3 27.6 \6\ 10.5 \6\ 11.2 \6\ 11.8 1.7
Other--needed at home or not actively seeking
work............................................ 60.5 82.2 64.8 58.3 55.5 \7\ 68.6 \7\ 68.8 \7\ 65.1 71.7
Unknown.......................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.6 0.8 0.6 0.7
Number of months on AFDC since most recent opening
(percent of cases):
1-6 months....................................... 16.4 20.0 18.9 17.2 18.2 19.8 20.4 19.0 19.5
7-12 months...................................... 12.5 12.4 13.1 12.6 13.2 14.4 14.8 15.2 13.8
13-24 months..................................... 16.7 16.2 16.6 17.2 17.3 18.4 19.2 19.3 18.0
25-36 months..................................... 11.4 12.6 12.0 11.8 11.2 11.9 12.2 12.8 11.8
37-60 months..................................... 15.3 14.2 15.4 14.9 15.0 13.7 12.8 14.1 15.4
61+ months....................................... 26.9 23.5 23.7 25.9 24.9 21.7 20.5 19.6 18.6
Unknown.......................................... 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See text about difference in data sources for 1979 and 1983 and later years. Note: 1982 data are from interim study.
\2\ Source: Committee staff tabulation of March 1979 AFDC recipients' data base.
\3\ Fiscal year average monthly. 1983 does not include Hawaii or the territories. 1986 data do not include the territories. 1988-92 data include the
territories and Hawaii.
\4\ Since 1986, the data are percent of female adult recipients.
\5\ Full-time work, 35 hours or more per week; part-time work, fewer than 35 hours per week.
\6\ For 1990-92, unemployed, not on layoff or strike.
\7\ For 1990-92, not employed, not participating in any educational or training activities.
NA--Not available.
Source: Based on National Integrated Quality Control System's monthly sample of cases surveyed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-30.--PERCENTAGE OF AFDC FAMILIES WITH VARIOUS SOURCES OF NON-AFDC INCOME, \1\ SELECTED YEARS 1979-94
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of caseload with income type Average amount for those with income type
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income source Fiscal year Fiscal year
March May -------------------------------------------------- March May -------------------------------------------------
1979 \2\ 1982 1986 \3\ 1988 \3\ 1990 \3\ 1992 \3\ 1994 \3\ 1979 1982 1986 \3\ 1988 \3\ 1990 \3\ 1992 \3\ 1994 \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earned income:
Mother (or caretaker relative).......................... 12.0 5.3 6.2 7.0 6.9 6.1 7.0 $382 $261 $264 $276 $318 $330 $379
Father (or spouse of caretaker relative)................ 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 323 244 271 316 332 325 434
Children (14 or older).................................. 0.1 (\4\) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 206 398 323 299 301 358 300
Other adults............................................ 0.1 NA 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 265 NA 420 450 285 252 392
Public service.......................................... 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 246 NA NA NA NA NA NA
OASDI..................................................... 3.1 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.3 134 145 207 211 235 226 248
Veterans' benefits........................................ 0.4 NA 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 128 NA 139 122 135 182 352
Other government income................................... 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.9 143 134 131 109 105 96 129
Unemployment compensation................................. 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 238 255 289 285 310 354 349
Workmen's compensation.................................... 0.1 (\4\) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 237 200 299 267 396 348 360
Deemed income............................................. 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 63 159 153 143 132 186 349
Contributions from other persons.......................... 0.6 0.9 NA 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.0 72 79 NA 92 105 109 349
Other cash income:........................................ 1.9 2.5 \5\ 2.0 \5\ 2.0 \5\ 2.0 \5\ 4.2 9.6 81 251 128 83 105 162 410
SSI (Federal)........................................... NA NA 3.0 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 NA NA 334 369 442 436 742
Other public assistance or State SSI.................... NA NA 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.3 8.5 NA NA 374 299 299 315 352
In-kind income............................................ 0.4 NA NA NA \6\ 0.0 NA NA 71 NA NA NA \6\ 125 NA NA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 19.4 NA 18.7 20.4 19.9 21.1 22.5 299 NA 228 ........ 239 246 282
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See text about differences in data sources for 1979, 1983, and later years (1982 data are from interim study).
\2\ Source: Committee staff tabulation of March 1979 AFDC recipients' data base.
\3\ Fiscal year average monthly. 1986 data do not include the territories. 1988-94 data include both Hawaii and the territories.
\4\ Less than 0.05 percent.
\5\ Includes Federal SSI, State SSI, general assistance, income from assets and property and other unearned income.
\6\ EIC.
NA--Not available.
Source: Based on National Integrated Quality Control System's monthly sample of cases surveyed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-31.--DISREGARDED INCOME FOR AFDC FAMILIES, \1\ SELECTED YEARS 1979-94
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of caseload with disregard Average amount for those with disregard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disregards Fiscal year Fiscal year
March May ------------------------------------------------------------ March May -----------------------------------------------------------
1979 \2\ 1982 1986 \3\ 1989 \3\ 1990 \3\ 1991 \3\ 1992 \3\ 1994 \3\ 1979 1982 1986 \3\ 1989 \3\ 1990 \3\ 1991 \3\ 1992 \3\ 1994 \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional $5 disregard.................... 1.1 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) $6 (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\)
$30 and one-third of earned income \5\... 12.5 2.5 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 5.7 147 $62 $76 $83 $92 $89 $89 $130
Child care............................... 3.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.5 101 86 106 119 128 132 153 154
Other work expenses...................... 8.4 5.2 6.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.3 7.1 95 54 76 77 89 92 92 98
Cases with child care and other work
expenses \6\............................ 3.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Child support............................ 0.1 (\7\) 3.0 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.7 5.1 93 NA \8\ 47 \8\ 48 \8\ 48 \8\ 48 \8\ 48 48
Other.................................... 1.6 0.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 77 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 13.8 NA 6.3 7.0 6.8 7.0 6.4 12.6 250 NA 146 153 171 172 177 152
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See text about differences in data sources for March 1979, 1983 and later years. Note: 1982 data are from interim study.
\2\ Source: Committee staff tabulation of March 1979 AFDC recipients' data base.
\3\ Average monthly for fiscal years.
\4\ Repealed by 1981 law.
\5\ Limited to 4 months' duration by 1981 law; 1984 law extended $30 disregard to 12 months.
\6\ In these cases, there was insufficient information in the data file to distinguish between child care and other work expenses.
\7\ Less than 0.05 percent.
\8\ Average amount of $50 child support passthrough.
NA--Not available.
Note.--The child support passthrough is not included in the total amount disregarded. It is part of unearned income rather than earned income.
Source: Based on National Integrated Quality Control System's monthly sample of cases surveyed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-32.--1994 AFDC CHARACTERISTICS BY UNIT TYPE \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One adult Two adult
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not
Characteristic Total No Divorced legally Unknown
adult Not or separated Other Unemployed Other
married legally or reasons parent
separated divorced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of units (in thousands)............................ 5,046 868 2,254 646 525 332 310 111 1
Percent of total.......................................... 100.0 17.2 44.7 12.8 10.4 6.6 6.1 2.2 0.0
Average monthly payment................................... $369 $269 $368 $379 $394 $361 $567 $484 $378
Percent of total dollars paid out......................... 100.0 12.5 44.5 13.1 11.1 6.4 9.4 2.9 0.0
Average number in assistance unit......................... 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 1.0
Food stamps:
Percent participating................................. 88.8 70.1 93.1 92.3 92.9 87.2 96.3 91.1 94.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of recipients:
One................................................... 11.2 54.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Two................................................... 36.4 28.4 49.9 32.2 29.4 26.9 (\2\) 11.6 0.0
Three................................................. 26.5 11.1 29.2 36.2 33.9 20.6 22.7 26.5 0.0
Four.................................................. 15.3 4.0 13.5 21.1 22.1 13.8 31.8 28.9 0.0
Five.................................................. 6.5 1.2 4.7 7.4 9.4 7.4 22.6 17.0 0.0
Six................................................... 2.5 0.7 1.5 2.1 3.5 2.0 12.4 9.0 0.0
Seven or more......................................... 1.7 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.5 10.5 7.0 100.0
Number of nonrecipients:
Zero.................................................. 57.6 1.2 67.8 66.6 71.1 41.2 80.8 80.2 .........
One................................................... 19.8 43.6 14.4 17.7 13.8 33.9 10.9 11.5 .........
Two................................................... 10.7 24.2 8.3 9.2 7.9 13.1 4.5 3.5 .........
Three................................................. 5.3 12.2 4.5 3.5 3.8 5.7 1.5 1.2 .........
Four or more......................................... 6.5 18.8 5.0 3.0 3.4 6.2 2.2 3.6 .........
Shelter:
Owns or buying........................................ 4.2 5.4 1.9 6.4 3.4 6.3 8.3 13.8 0.0
Homeless/emergency shelter............................ 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0
Public housing........................................ 8.3 5.7 10.3 6.6 7.9 9.5 4.0 8.2 47.2
HUD rent subsidy...................................... 12.0 6.9 14.0 15.0 11.1 10.1 10.7 8.7 0.0
Other subsidy......................................... 2.0 1.1 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.8 0.8 1.4 0.0
Private housing....................................... 64.2 67.5 61.5 62.5 66.9 65.3 73.2 63.2 47.2
Rents free............................................ 7.0 11.0 7.1 5.4 7.1 4.7 2.4 3.1 0.0
Group quarters........................................ 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.2 5.7
Number of child recipients:
Zero.................................................. 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 27.8 0.5 13.9 .........
One................................................... 42.6 54.4 49.9 32.2 29.4 26.9 23.3 25.3 .........
Two................................................... 30.0 28.4 29.2 36.2 33.9 20.6 31.2 28.7 .........
Three................................................. 15.6 11.1 13.5 21.1 22.1 13.8 22.2 16.4 .........
Four or more.......................................... 10.6 7.0 7.2 10.5 14.6 10.9 22.8 15.8 .........
Race of caretaker:
White................................................. 37.4 28.0 28.4 66.6 40.9 39.3 56.6 47.5 0.0
Black................................................. 36.4 38.0 50.1 15.3 28.7 26.5 8.6 15.0 47.2
Hispanic.............................................. 19.9 28.1 16.1 14.4 25.2 23.2 19.5 29.8 0.0
Asian................................................. 2.9 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.2 6.5 11.9 4.1 0.0
Native American....................................... 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.7 5.7
Unknown............................................... 2.1 2.7 2.2 0.9 1.7 3.2 1.9 2.9 47.2
Age of youngest child in AFDC unit:
Under 3............................................... 40.8 33.0 49.5 23.0 39.2 37.6 48.5 25.5 .........
3-5................................................... 21.8 19.1 22.8 23.6 25.2 15.4 21.5 16.7 .........
6-11.................................................. 22.9 25.3 18.5 34.0 24.2 23.5 21.1 26.1 .........
12-15................................................. 10.0 15.9 6.7 14.9 8.3 12.0 5.2 15.0 .........
16-18................................................. 3.6 6.6 2.1 4.4 3.0 5.3 3.1 4.5 .........
Unknown............................................... 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 6.3 0.6 12.3 .........
Number of months continuously on AFDC:
6 or less............................................. 22.3 20.3 19.4 23.4 27.0 29.0 28.9 28.8 0.0
7-12.................................................. 13.8 14.5 13.7 13.6 15.0 11.7 14.3 11.9 0.0
13-18................................................. 9.8 9.9 10.2 9.1 10.0 7.3 9.8 10.6 0.0
19-24................................................. 8.2 8.9 8.2 9.2 7.3 7.6 7.9 5.2 5.7
25-36................................................. 11.8 11.5 12.3 12.4 11.5 9.3 11.7 10.2 0.0
37-48................................................. 9.0 9.0 9.6 8.5 8.1 9.2 8.1 6.4 47.2
49-60................................................. 6.4 6.3 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.8 5.0 6.2 0.0
61-120................................................ 13.2 13.5 13.8 12.9 11.1 13.8 10.5 13.7 47.2
121-180............................................... 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.0
181 and up............................................ 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.3 3.4 0.0
Unknown............................................... 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.0 3.1 2.7 2.3 0.0
Age of female adult recipient:
11-18................................................. 2.6 ...... 3.7 0.2 0.7 3.7 1.4 1.7 .........
19-21................................................. 12.8 ...... 17.6 2.9 6.4 13.3 9.1 11.0 .........
22-25................................................. 19.6 ...... 23.6 11.9 17.5 14.2 18.0 9.1 .........
26-29................................................. 17.7 ...... 17.9 19.2 20.5 13.9 16.1 10.6 .........
30-34................................................. 20.4 ...... 18.3 27.6 23.9 16.2 22.6 14.0 .........
35-39................................................. 13.9 ...... 10.2 22.2 17.4 15.5 15.7 17.7 .........
40 and up............................................. 12.9 ...... 8.7 16.1 13.5 23.2 17.2 35.9 .........
Unknown--............................................. (\2\) ...... (\2\) 0.0 0.0 0.0 .......... ......... .........
AFDC female adults employment status:
Employed full time.................................... 3.2 ...... 2.9 5.0 3.4 1.9 3.2 2.2 .........
Employed part time.................................... 3.4 ...... 3.2 4.9 2.9 2.3 4.1 3.0 .........
Employed other........................................ 1.1 ...... 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.7 1.4 0.6 .........
Not employed.......................................... 80.3 ...... 81.3 74.6 80.6 85.6 79.6 79.5 .........
Unemployed............................................ 11.1 ...... 11.0 13.3 11.7 9.0 10.6 8.0 .........
Percent with non-AFDC income.............................. 22.5 3.9 22.2 37.9 23.2 26.6 36.9 29.7 .........
Average monthly amount of income.......................... $280 $179 $252 $249 $270 $309 $443 $431 .........
Percent with earned income................................ 8.9 0.7 8.4 13.4 9.3 7.6 25.9 11.7 .........
Average monthly earned income............................. $394 $248 $376 $374 $393 $351 $471 $457 .........
Percent of earned income disregarded...................... 0.0 22.9 52.3 48.6 49.0 40.6 40.7 34.4 .........
Percent with unearned income.............................. 15.1 3.3 15.2 27.9 15.6 20.1 13.3 20.1 .........
Average amount of unearned income......................... $183 $159 $157 $157 $169 $273 $297 $367 .........
Percent with countable assets............................. 17.6 6.7 14.3 30.6 18.2 19.9 39.5 25.9 .........
Income of persons not in assistance unit:
Percent with income................................... 37.5 54.2 23.0 28.8 22.7 45.6 24.1 25.4 100.0
Average monthly amount................................ $489 $481 $491 $581 $485 $493 $505 $444 $469
Percent with earned income............................ 9.3 9.8 9.1 11.9 10.2 5.3 6.7 5.3 0.0
Percent with public assistance income................. 26.7 45.3 11.1 12.9 9.2 36.8 13.9 19.2 100.0
Percent with other unearned income.................... 7.7 11.3 4.2 6.6 6.1 9.8 4.0 1.4 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Characteristics information was not always available for 100 percent of cases. The number of missing cases, to the extent there were any with
respect to a particular characteristic, was small as a percent of the AFDC family caseload (usually below 3 percent).
\2\ 0.05 percent or less.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
State Data About AFDC Families
Tables 8-33 through 8-36 present selected 1994
characteristics of the AFDC population by State. Table 8-33
presents selected demographic characteristics, including the
number of persons in the AFDC unit and household, the percent
of units with household members not in the unit, the percent of
units with no adult recipients and with one adult recipient,
and the percentage distribution of the units by age of youngest
child and race of parent. For some of these elements, there is
marked variation among the States. For example, the percentage
of cases living in households with nonrecipients ranges from 17
percent in Hawaii and 20 percent in New Hampshire to above 65
percent in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The percentage
of Native American cases, 1 percent for the United States as a
whole, exceeds 50 percent in South Dakota. Table 8-34 presents
selected income characteristics, including the percent of units
with earned income, unearned income, and various income
disregards. This table also supplies the average monthly amount
of these sources of income as well as information on the
percent of units participating in the Food Stamp Program. Table
8-35 gives a detailed percentage distribution of AFDC units by
shelter arrangement. Table 8-36 provides a detailed percentage
distribution of AFDC units by the reason for deprivation of the
youngest child. It shows that 58 percent of the children had
unwed parents (up from 56 percent in 1992) and that paternity
was established for only 39 percent of these children. However,
in some jurisdictions paternity was established for most of the
children of unwed parents (these include Alaska, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North
Dakota, Puerto Rico, Vermont, Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin).
THE AFDC QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM
Description of AFDC Quality Control System
The AFDC quality control system has two goals: correcting
faults in program administration that contribute to erroneous
payments and reducing the extent of misspent benefit dollars.
To these ends, it attempts to: (1) measure the extent and
dollar value of ``errors'' in administration; (2) identify the
types and causes of error; and (3) specify and monitor
corrective actions taken to eliminate or reduce errors.
Sanctions are also imposed on States that have error rates
above the national average. Table 8-37 provides a hypothetical
example of a State quality control disallowance computation.
The ``errors'' identified and measured in the quality
control system range from simple arithmetical mistakes to
incomplete or inaccurate reporting of income to recipient
fraud. Although quality control error rates and the information
behind them give a picture of the extent to which improper
payments are made and help pinpoint areas where improvement is
needed, only part of the error rate can be attributed to
recipient fraud. In fact, ``agency-caused'' errors make up
nearly half the errors typically identified in quality control
surveys, and ``recipient-caused'' errors may often be simple
mistakes in understanding what is required or failure to
provide correct information on a timely basis.
TABLE 8-33.--SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC UNITS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of units Percentage Percentage distribution by race of natural/
--------------------------------- distribution by age adoptive parent \1\ \2\
Average of youngest child ----------------------------------------------
Average number in With \1\
State number household household With no With one ----------------------
in unit of unit members adult adult 6 or White Black Hispanic Asian Native
not in recipient recipient 0-2 3-5 more American
unit yrs. yrs. yrs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................... 2.6 3.9 61.2 32.1 66.1 38.3 21.9 38.2 24.7 75.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Alaska........................ 3.0 3.6 33.0 6.6 76.9 33.6 29.6 35.9 51.9 10.0 2.6 1.1 33.9
Arizona....................... 2.8 4.4 63.3 21.0 75.9 42.1 23.2 33.1 39.5 9.3 35.7 0.5 14.6
Arkansas...................... 2.7 4.2 67.2 26.4 71.8 37.3 21.9 39.2 42.6 56.8 0.6 0.0 0.0
California.................... 3.0 4.5 58.1 25.1 62.3 45.4 20.7 31.9 25.9 17.4 41.5 9.0 0.7
Colorado...................... 2.9 3.3 27.6 15.3 81.4 43.6 22.3 32.4 43.1 16.6 37.8 1.7 0.8
Connecticut................... 2.8 3.4 35.6 11.0 84.6 39.1 21.1 38.9 32.0 31.1 35.0 0.9 0.1
Delaware...................... 2.7 3.3 35.7 24.3 74.9 38.3 22.9 38.0 30.6 64.0 5.1 0.0 0.0
District of Columbia.......... 2.7 3.8 55.5 16.5 82.1 43.2 22.6 31.5 0.6 97.1 1.3 0.4 0.0
Florida....................... 2.7 3.8 54.3 19.4 78.0 41.6 21.6 35.3 36.6 47.5 15.1 0.4 0.1
Georgia....................... 2.7 3.9 50.9 18.8 79.6 38.6 22.1 38.9 23.9 74.4 1.0 0.7 0.0
Hawaii........................ 3.1 3.3 17.3 8.8 79.9 40.5 21.8 37.1 24.8 1.0 0.8 68.2 0.3
Idaho......................... 2.8 3.4 35.3 16.7 75.0 40.0 21.1 36.4 82.5 1.1 10.8 0.6 5.0
Illinois...................... 3.0 3.9 47.2 13.4 80.8 44.6 20.0 34.5 30.7 57.6 11.0 0.6 0.2
Indiana....................... 2.8 3.6 43.9 14.1 80.5 36.5 23.3 35.5 60.9 35.1 3.2 0.2 0.1
Iowa.......................... 2.8 3.2 26.0 13.4 75.6 41.3 21.9 35.8 83.5 13.6 1.8 0.6 0.5
Kansas........................ 3.0 3.7 40.6 13.8 75.1 42.5 23.4 32.8 64.2 26.6 6.5 1.6 1.0
Kentucky...................... 2.6 3.7 54.9 18.5 73.1 33.1 20.2 45.1 79.6 19.6 0.5 0.3 0.1
Louisiana..................... 2.9 4.5 66.9 22.3 76.1 39.6 22.4 36.7 17.1 81.3 0.6 0.4 0.2
Maine......................... 2.9 3.5 35.5 6.8 79.7 31.8 22.8 44.9 95.2 0.9 1.1 1.8 1.1
Maryland...................... 2.8 3.6 49.3 15.1 82.6 33.2 23.9 38.6 24.1 72.1 1.1 0.6 0.0
Massachusetts................. 2.8 3.3 29.8 13.3 80.7 38.4 24.9 35.6 47.9 17.0 25.0 4.4 0.5
Michigan...................... 3.0 3.5 28.8 9.8 77.0 39.4 23.3 32.1 45.7 49.6 3.2 0.6 0.6
Minnesota..................... 2.9 3.5 33.7 10.2 80.5 39.0 21.8 37.9 62.6 20.8 5.3 6.1 5.1
Mississippi................... 2.8 4.5 68.0 26.3 73.4 40.7 19.6 39.0 16.6 82.7 0.2 0.2 0.2
Missouri...................... 2.8 3.7 46.3 13.3 81.0 39.4 22.1 37.1 55.4 42.9 0.8 0.8 0.2
Montana....................... 2.9 3.2 20.3 6.9 81.9 38.1 20.5 40.8 70.9 0.0 0.8 0.5 26.9
Nebraska...................... 2.7 3.6 49.1 25.5 69.2 49.6 19.1 31.2 62.9 20.9 7.5 2.7 5.6
Nevada........................ 2.6 2.9 27.0 24.6 72.2 44.1 21.4 33.0 56.5 28.1 11.1 2.2 2.2
New Hampshire................. 2.6 2.9 20.0 13.1 80.9 39.4 23.8 35.9 92.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
New Jersey.................... 2.8 3.0 22.0 16.4 78.4 35.2 24.5 39.4 21.4 51.1 26.4 0.9 0.2
New Mexico.................... 2.8 3.1 20.3 15.8 77.8 37.7 21.8 39.1 23.5 4.6 57.7 0.1 13.8
New York...................... 2.8 3.4 34.8 13.6 76.1 37.2 22.1 35.6 23.4 32.3 34.8 0.7 0.2
North Carolina................ 2.6 3.9 58.2 19.9 76.7 42.6 21.9 34.3 35.5 60.8 1.3 0.3 2.0
North Dakota.................. 2.9 3.2 21.8 9.0 85.6 45.2 20.2 34.3 55.8 1.0 2.2 1.9 38.8
Ohio.......................... 2.7 3.7 47.9 17.4 73.2 41.3 19.4 37.6 57.7 39.8 2.1 0.3 0.0
Oklahoma...................... 2.9 3.6 40.4 13.6 84.0 37.4 22.1 39.3 55.9 30.0 2.2 0.1 11.7
Oregon........................ 2.7 3.8 53.8 19.0 73.9 40.8 21.6 36.6 81.0 7.4 7.1 2.1 2.2
Pennsylvania.................. 3.0 3.4 26.2 11.7 76.9 38.5 21.8 38.2 45.9 42.9 9.3 1.3 0.3
Rhode Island.................. 2.8 3.2 25.3 10.6 84.8 38.1 23.8 37.7 58.9 15.6 14.7 10.0 0.4
South Carolina................ 2.7 4.0 62.0 29.5 68.8 37.9 21.6 39.5 23.5 72.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
South Dakota.................. 2.8 3.6 45.1 21.8 77.6 42.5 21.4 34.4 40.9 1.0 1.0 0.3 56.8
Tennesee...................... 2.7 3.8 53.1 17.6 79.1 35.6 21.8 41.5 49.4 49.8 0.3 0.4 0.0
Texas......................... 2.8 3.9 51.2 18.9 77.4 45.6 18.7 35.2 22.3 32.7 43.5 1.3 0.1
Utah.......................... 2.7 3.3 33.8 15.1 80.5 39.2 24.1 35.7 74.1 3.5 13.8 1.6 7.0
Vermont....................... 2.8 3.2 29.6 7.6 77.0 35.9 23.4 39.5 99.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0
Virginia...................... 2.6 3.9 62.9 21.7 76.1 37.9 23.6 37.8 30.7 65.1 2.7 1.4 0.1
Washington.................... 2.8 3.8 46.3 14.7 70.5 39.1 21.9 38.1 69.9 10.4 8.7 6.2 4.3
West Virginia................. 2.8 3.5 43.3 13.3 67.3 32.5 23.1 42.8 90.5 6.8 0.2 0.0 0.0
Wisconsin..................... 3.0 3.8 45.7 17.8 74.5 45.8 20.6 32.4 46.4 38.2 6.7 4.8 3.4
Wyoming....................... 2.7 3.3 36.3 11.5 87.0 32.3 27.7 38.9 75.5 1.4 12.1 0.0 11.0
Guam.......................... 3.6 5.4 53.3 4.1 81.5 59.7 18.3 22.0 3.7 0.9 0.5 94.9 0.0
Puerto Rico................... 3.1 4.0 43.1 11.4 78.1 20.7 20.8 58.3 0.3 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.1
Virgin Islands................ 3.6 4.3 35.0 9.4 89.5 27.4 26.4 45.4 0.0 37.0 22.8 0.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................ 2.8 3.8 46.4 17.2 74.5 40.5 21.6 36.0 37.4 36.4 19.9 2.9 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentages will not add to total as ``unknown'' and ``other'' not included.
\2\ All race categories are mutually exclusive.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-34.--INCOME CHARACTERISTICS OF AFDC UNITS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units with earned Units with unearned Units with child care Units with $30 + \1/3\
income income disregard disregard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of
State Percent Percent food stamp
of all Average \1\ of all Average \1\ Percent of Average \1\ Percent of Average \1\ participation
units dollars units dollars all units dollars all units dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ 3.2 $199.00 14.7 $103.29 0.5 $121.67 1.2 $71.27 89.8
Alaska................................. 21.1 452.78 20.8 679.15 1.4 144.40 13.1 137.00 72.6
Arizona................................ 6.0 378.70 5.9 135.71 1.1 124.14 4.1 100.46 92.0
Arkansas............................... 4.6 224.55 16.0 147.74 0.9 186.67 2.4 67.26 88.9
California............................. 12.8 494.28 12.5 346.41 2.0 172.40 9.5 125.31 87.2
Colorado............................... 9.9 385.55 10.9 144.74 1.5 150.03 3.9 101.25 90.9
Connecticut............................ 7.6 381.05 15.4 218.46 0.6 183.14 3.4 109.31 89.6
Delaware............................... 5.4 318.47 16.0 96.32 0 ........... 4.0 108.00 84.3
District of Columbia................... 0.6 350.67 3.1 337.06 0 ........... 0.4 58.50 92.5
Florida................................ 8.7 379.52 13.0 154.38 2.0 160.62 6.9 99.89 93.4
Georgia................................ 7.8 344.33 28.3 179.86 2.5 122.00 4.3 100.06 86.8
Guam................................... 3.9 328.73 8.0 136.47 0.9 162.50 2.1 140.35 86.8
Hawaii................................. 12.1 445.85 9.3 256.06 0.5 100.50 5.0 157.59 92.4
Idaho.................................. 11.4 386.10 19.7 87.90 2.8 144.60 8.9 100.34 81.9
Illinois............................... 7.3 499.40 10.7 208.30 0.7 165.10 6.0 339.13 93.8
Indiana................................ 6.8 315.03 22.5 120.03 1.4 172.95 4.3 76.18 93.3
Iowa................................... 18.8 524.67 20.3 125.37 5.1 184.12 15.7 193.64 89.4
Kansas................................. 10.3 274.75 10.7 94.18 0.5 99.67 5.7 94.87 90.3
Kentucky............................... 11.9 383.98 26.6 165.47 3.0 163.46 5.0 91.68 89.5
Louisiana.............................. 2.7 232.76 15.1 106.04 0.2 81.00 1.7 62.80 95.5
Maine.................................. 17.4 397.08 89.6 276.41 5.7 147.00 8.6 98.67 91.4
Maryland............................... 3.4 308.43 30.9 52.43 0.7 143.22 2.4 80.83 92.4
Massachusetts.......................... 6.2 321.58 19.8 160.79 0.7 56.25 3.5 107.64 78.0
Michigan............................... 19.3 396.98 13.7 149.19 3.8 144.01 13.0 208.64 94.1
Minnesota.............................. 12.2 335.06 27.0 207.90 2.8 160.06 5.5 100.83 91.6
Mississippi............................ 10.2 294.60 23.1 137.27 1.7 100.29 5.2 96.78 93.9
Missouri............................... 5.9 337.26 16.7 95.68 0.8 179.40 2.6 104.03 90.2
Montana................................ 15.7 306.81 33.6 110.29 4.3 151.19 10.1 89.76 87.2
Nebraska............................... 11.6 311.36 4.5 218.30 0.2 200.00 6.8 102.37 88.1
Nevada................................. 5.1 386.26 22.4 90.28 0.8 221.67 4.1 97.67 76.5
New Hampshire.......................... 8.8 394.64 27.2 139.08 0.6 229.00 6.6 126.81 87.5
New Jersey............................. 2.5 332.13 7.8 180.45 0.2 75.00 1.8 90.64 89.6
New Mexico............................. 8.0 281.22 9.0 180.45 1.1 101.56 4.7 82.34 89.0
New York............................... 4.9 390.17 10.8 197.43 0.5 226.50 2.1 111.15 94.3
North Carolina......................... 13.0 314.74 25.4 217.01 1.7 133.90 6.1 92.64 79.9
North Dakota........................... 18.9 308.80 22.4 84.03 6.1 128.37 11.5 80.44 91.0
Ohio................................... 7.8 288.94 24.9 85.84 1.0 97.50 3.5 94.29 92.9
Oklahoma............................... 7.0 329.22 7.9 223.73 0 ........... 4.8 101.20 92.1
Oregon................................. 11.9 283.82 19.9 126.62 0.1 22.00 7.0 79.92 92.7
Pennsylvania........................... 6.3 320.42 4.9 231.82 1.0 186.58 3.8 92.52 92.7
Puerto Rico............................ 1.0 154.19 4.0 101.15 0.2 67.33 0.3 30.00 0
Rhode Island........................... 8.6 396.87 22.1 243.53 2.0 145.45 3.9 47.19 95.5
South Carolina......................... 9.1 412.29 19.1 159.07 2.0 165.59 5.4 105.11 86.8
South Dakota........................... 15.6 362.17 42.9 142.98 4.9 114.80 9.4 94.48 85.1
Tennessee.............................. 10.8 395.81 17.0 211.03 1.9 150.48 5.2 89.38 94.0
Texas.................................. 4.5 189.79 5.9 101.10 0.9 114.27 2.9 52.61 97.0
Utah................................... 16.2 392.75 17.8 164.43 0.6 96.00 9.4 117.03 88.1
Vermont................................ 16.1 265.51 27.0 133.29 0 ........... 8.2 90.32 91.1
Virgin Islands......................... 2.3 278.29 4.7 108.47 1.0 133.33 2.0 55.83 92.6
Virginia............................... 4.8 316.20 14.4 120.98 0.7 183.28 2.4 93.41 84.9
Washington............................. 7.9 334.51 15.7 231.47 0.1 330.05 4.4 122.64 88.8
West Virginia.......................... 2.6 76.62 21.1 126.47 0.1 50.00 0 ........... 93.3
Wisconsin.............................. 15.2 392.33 23.3 147.42 5.6 172.46 10.2 81.66 85.9
Wyoming................................ 24.8 409.23 9.8 100.56 0.6 212.00 15.0 121.54 92.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total....................... 8.9 $394.14 15.1 $187.27 1.5 $155.49 5.6 $130.62 88.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average per unit with this item. Unearned income includes SSI.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Deparment of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-35.--AFDC FAMILIES BY TYPE OF SHELTER ARRANGEMENT BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1994
[In percent except total families]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent subsidy Rents in
Homeless Owns Rents in ---------------- private Shares
State Total shelter/ or is public housing group Rents Unknown
families emergency buying housing HUD Other with no quarters free
housing subsidy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... 50,340 0.1 6.2 20.2 10.7 0.7 36.6 3.2 22.3 0.0
Alaska................................................ 12,759 0.6 9.7 18.8 11.4 5.1 42.5 1.1 10.8 0.0
Arizona............................................... 71,948 0.2 2.7 6.9 9.3 1.0 69.0 0.2 10.6 0.0
Arkansas.............................................. 26,014 0.0 5.8 11.5 20.4 0.6 25.4 3.9 32.4 0.0
California............................................ 908,999 0.0 0.7 1.6 6.4 0.6 89.8 0.3 0.5 0.0
Colorado.............................................. 41,614 0.1 1.6 4.6 14.5 6.7 66.5 5.2 0.7 0.2
Connecticut........................................... 59,201 0.2 1.0 13.3 22.5 1.3 55.5 3.8 2.5 0.0
Delaware.............................................. 11,460 0.3 4.0 11.7 18.9 1.1 58.6 3.4 2.0 0.0
District of Columbia.................................. 27,117 1.0 1.2 24.8 23.2 2.7 37.8 6.5 1.2 1.7
Florida............................................... 247,087 0.2 1.9 5.9 9.9 0.3 75.7 1.4 4.3 0.2
Georgia............................................... 141,451 0.2 3.4 16.3 10.7 0.5 52.3 4.0 12.0 0.7
Hawaii................................................ 20,420 1.1 2.9 10.3 17.0 2.3 43.7 10.6 12.1 0.0
Idaho................................................. 8,676 0.0 8.6 5.3 26.9 4.7 39.4 4.7 10.0 0.3
Illinois.............................................. 240,319 0.0 2.4 10.5 8.0 1.4 70.5 1.4 5.8 0.0
Indiana............................................... 73,803 0.0 6.1 7.1 7.6 4.1 59.5 0.2 12.2 3.1
Iowa.................................................. 39,555 0.0 10.6 2.3 19.7 2.6 56.6 2.4 5.8 0.0
Kansas................................................ 30,102 0.0 4.9 7.0 11.2 0.3 67.1 0.9 8.5 0.3
Kentucky.............................................. 79,840 0.2 11.5 9.1 16.7 0.0 43.0 0.0 19.7 0.0
Louisiana............................................. 86,915 0.1 5.9 12.7 14.7 2.5 34.5 2.8 26.7 0.0
Maine................................................. 22,934 0.2 17.6 11.0 13.5 10.8 40.8 1.3 5.0 0.0
Maryland.............................................. 80,123 0.0 1.0 8.1 19.6 0.4 70.0 0.2 0.7 0.0
Massachusetts......................................... 111,783 0.7 1.1 15.3 20.2 8.9 51.4 1.9 0.5 0.0
Michigan.............................................. 223,950 (\1\) 9.3 2.7 8.3 0.9 71.2 (\1\) 5.6 2.0
Minnesota............................................. 62,979 0.1 10.9 10.8 18.8 9.4 45.0 0.6 4.2 0.4
Mississippi........................................... 56,785 0.1 7.9 4.5 15.7 0.9 28.9 0.2 41.8 0.1
Missouri.............................................. 92,110 0.6 5.6 4.9 19.8 1.2 57.6 0.9 9.5 0.0
Montana............................................... 11,908 0.3 5.9 16.3 25.3 5.6 41.6 4.3 0.8 0.0
Nebraska.............................................. 15,934 0.2 8.3 7.8 25.0 1.7 48.6 4.5 4.0 0.0
Nevada................................................ 14,047 0.0 0.8 0.0 22.2 0.0 53.0 0.3 23.8 0.0
New Hampshire......................................... 11,475 0.0 1.6 11.3 7.8 4.7 67.5 5.0 1.6 0.6
New Jersey............................................ 122,427 0.3 1.5 5.5 7.0 5.1 73.2 6.2 1.2 0.0
New Mexico............................................ 33,633 0.0 11.6 12.1 22.1 1.0 41.0 6.1 6.1 0.0
New York.............................................. 454,951 0.2 0.5 15.9 12.2 4.3 65.0 0.5 1.4 0.0
North Carolina........................................ 131,220 0.1 0.7 12.0 10.4 2.8 67.0 2.4 4.7 0.0
North Dakota.......................................... 5,877 0.3 4.8 3.8 42.6 9.3 26.0 7.1 6.1 0.0
Ohio.................................................. 250,208 0.5 5.8 6.8 15.1 3.1 59.7 2.0 7.1 0.0
Oklahoma.............................................. 46,971 0.1 4.6 3.1 28.0 5.0 37.7 3.1 18.3 0.0
Oregon................................................ 42,135 0.6 4.0 1.6 19.9 2.8 66.0 3.4 1.7 0.0
Pennsylvania.......................................... 210,155 0.4 5.2 12.7 6.6 0.0 69.5 4.3 1.3 0.0
Rhode Island.......................................... 22,654 0.4 1.5 9.7 19.0 2.6 59.3 5.8 1.9 0.0
South Carolina........................................ 51,925 0.3 5.7 8.8 19.9 0.2 39.7 1.4 24.2 0.0
South Dakota.......................................... 6,926 0.3 4.9 1.6 26.3 14.3 45.5 0.0 7.1 0.0
Tennessee............................................. 110,766 0.1 7.0 16.5 12.3 0.8 54.4 0.6 8.3 0.0
Texas................................................. 283,744 0.3 7.0 6.2 15.8 0.8 43.8 0.3 25.7 0.0
Utah.................................................. 17,801 0.3 2.4 1.3 19.7 1.7 67.9 3.2 3.5 0.0
Vermont............................................... 9,883 0.0 6.6 5.9 11.5 1.0 67.1 5.6 2.3 0.0
Virginia.............................................. 74,818 0.0 1.3 12.9 13.5 0.3 45.8 1.2 8.3 16.7
Washington............................................ 102,952 0.5 3.3 7.1 13.3 1.8 72.8 0.5 0.7 (\1\)
West Virginia......................................... 40,729 0.4 13.9 6.3 16.0 0.5 44.2 2.9 15.7 0.1
Wisconsin............................................. 77,188 0.2 4.8 5.2 10.8 2.4 67.2 5.9 3.4 0.0
Wyoming............................................... 5,739 0.0 10.1 13.0 19.9 3.5 49.0 3.2 1.4 0.0
Guam.................................................. 1,955 0.0 2.8 0.0 31.4 2.9 10.5 6.0 46.3 0.0
Puerto Rico........................................... 58,827 0.0 36.8 18.9 5.7 2.5 21.7 1.7 12.7 0.0
Virgin Islands........................................ 1,098 0.3 3.4 61.3 2.4 0.0 13.3 0.0 19.3 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total........................................ 5,046,263 0.2 4.2 8.3 12.0 2.0 64.2 1.6 7.0 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than 0.05 percent.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-36.--AFDC FAMILIES BY REASON FOR DEPRIVATION OF THE YOUNGEST CHILD, FISCAL YEAR 1994
[In percent except total families]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent absent
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Parent Parent Parent Divorced Paternity
State families deceased incapacitated unemployed or Not -------------------------- Unknown
legally legally Not Other
separated separated Established established
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................. 50,340 1.0 2.8 0.7 14.3 7.3 19.1 51.0 1.7 2.2
Alaska............................... 12,759 2.0 3.7 15.7 23.1 10.3 21.1 19.9 3.4 0.9
Arizona.............................. 71,984 1.5 3.1 1.7 12.3 17.5 17.8 42.6 1.9 1.7
Arkansas............................. 26,014 1.6 3.0 2.0 12.7 11.6 32.8 32.0 2.1 2.2
California........................... 908,999 2.4 4.2 16.9 9.7 8.8 14.2 36.8 4.9 2.0
Colorado............................. 41,614 0.6 3.6 2.0 16.2 8.2 19.8 42.0 5.7 1.9
Connecticut.......................... 59,201 2.0 2.0 7.1 8.4 10.4 38.6 27.2 3.3 1.0
Delaware............................. 11,460 1.4 0.6 0.9 14.3 6.9 39.1 32.9 2.6 1.4
District of Columbia................. 27,117 2.1 1.3 1.7 3.6 5.0 14.6 66.0 1.9 3.6
Florida.............................. 247,087 1.1 1.3 2.2 14.1 15.5 17.3 41.8 4.7 2.0
Georgia.............................. 141,451 1.9 2.4 0.8 10.4 13.1 63.7 6.2 0.9 0.5
Hawaii............................... 20,420 2.6 6.1 6.3 13.5 14.7 17.0 35.4 3.6 0.8
Idaho................................ 8,676 \1\ 5.3 6.1 21.9 18.6 20.8 20.3 4.4 2.5
Illinois............................. 240,319 0.7 2.0 5.2 7.8 11.4 16.9 52.1 2.8 1.1
Indiana.............................. 73,803 0.7 2.3 4.8 17.3 8.1 24.1 34.8 2.9 5.1
Iowa................................. 39,555 0.9 4.1 8.4 23.2 8.3 23.7 29.2 1.3 1.0
Kansas............................... 30,102 0.5 3.5 8.5 20.9 8.5 19.2 34.1 3.1 1.8
Kentucky............................. 79,840 0.8 10.5 7.8 17.9 12.2 17.1 30.8 1.0 1.9
Louisiana............................ 86,915 1.6 3.9 1.1 6.9 10.2 16.9 56.6 1.3 1.5
Maine................................ 22,934 0.9 4.7 10.1 23.3 14.4 27.3 17.1 1.6 0.7
Maryland............................. 80,123 1.9 1.2 1.4 4.3 9.7 31.4 31.0 10.1 9.0
Massachusetts........................ 111,783 1.7 3.6 4.6 9.3 13.6 28.2 35.7 2.1 1.2
Michigan............................. 223,950 1.1 1.7 11.8 12.4 6.2 27.4 29.9 3.6 5.9
Minnesota............................ 62,979 1.5 3.0 9.0 20.0 7.8 25.2 30.3 1.7 1.5
Mississippi.......................... 56,785 1.1 2.5 0.3 7.9 17.2 22.2 46.6 1.4 0.8
Missouri............................. 92,110 0.8 3.6 4.7 15.5 11.1 29.4 31.5 1.8 1.5
Montana.............................. 11,908 0.5 4.0 8.3 22.7 10.9 20.0 29.6 3.5 0.5
Nebraska............................. 15,934 0.3 2.7 5.3 12.1 11.3 19.6 43.0 5.7 0.2
Nevada............................... 14,047 1.9 1.9 3.8 12.4 13.2 13.8 47.6 3.0 2.4
New Hampshire........................ 11,475 1.3 3.1 4.4 21.3 15.0 28.4 22.8 2.8 0.9
New Jersey........................... 122,427 3.2 0.9 5.4 7.0 10.1 30.1 41.2 1.0 1.0
New Mexico........................... 33,633 1.2 3.1 5.4 14.3 14.5 21.9 35.0 1.6 2.0
New York............................. 454,951 1.4 2.5 4.8 7.6 14.8 31.6 24.0 3.7 9.7
North Carolina....................... 131,220 1.1 2.7 2.8 9.9 14.6 28.9 34.2 3.1 2.7
North Dakota......................... 5,877 0.3 3.2 4.2 26.3 4.8 34.6 22.8 3.5 0.3
Ohio................................. 250,208 0.8 3.3 8.4 16.7 9.3 18.6 35.4 5.5 2.0
Oklahoma............................. 46,971 0.9 3.4 1.1 20.7 19.7 11.7 40.4 0.7 1.4
Oregon............................... 42,135 1.0 3.3 7.8 17.9 14.3 24.7 27.6 2.2 1.2
Pennsylvania......................... 210,155 1.2 5.5 5.3 10.0 10.0 25.2 39.7 1.6 1.6
Rhode Island......................... 22,654 2.2 1.9 3.7 14.5 18.8 27.0 29.6 1.3 1.1
South Carolina....................... 51,925 1.0 1.9 1.0 9.3 17.3 25.2 42.1 0.3 2.0
South Dakota......................... 6,926 0.3 4.2 (\1\) 26.6 3.2 24.0 36.4 2.3 2.9
Tennessee............................ 110,766 1.6 3.4 2.6 14.5 13.4 20.5 38.1 4.5 1.5
Texas................................ 283,744 1.8 3.5 3.1 11.5 17.6 8.8 49.7 3.2 0.8
Utah................................. 17,801 1.7 5.7 1.4 25.9 17.3 15.6 26.2 5.1 1.1
Vermont.............................. 9,883 0.3 10.5 12.5 31.3 3.0 19.1 15.5 3.9 3.9
Virginia............................. 74,818 0.7 4.2 0.8 8.3 14.4 26.2 43.3 1.5 0.8
Washington........................... 102,952 1.2 3.4 13.8 19.0 12.6 21.1 23.1 4.7 1.1
West Virginia........................ 40,729 0.9 12.2 16.2 22.0 13.6 11.9 20.4 0.9 2.0
Wisconsin............................ 77,188 0.9 3.9 7.0 12.7 6.1 32.7 28.4 6.6 1.7
Wyoming.............................. 5,739 1.7 1.7 0.9 36.0 10.4 17.0 28.0 2.9 1.4
Guam................................. 1,955 0.7 3.0 10.1 10.1 7.7 29.1 36.6 2.8 0.0
Puerto Rico.......................... 58,827 3.4 10.9 (\1\) 12.7 17.3 46.2 6.2 2.8 0.4
Virgin Islands....................... 1,098 0.3 1.4 (\1\) 9.7 1.1 56.8 29.2 0.3 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total....................... 5,046,263 1.5 3.4 7.1 11.8 11.8 22.8 35.4 3.5 2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than 0.05 percent.
Source: Administration for Children and Families. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The AFDC quality control system, as revised under the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-239),
has these features:
1. Imposes penalties on States whose payment error rates are
above the national average.
2. Establishes penalties on the basis of a sliding scale that
reflects the degree to which a State's error rate
exceeds the national average.
3. Takes into account both overpayments and underpayments made
to AFDC recipients, and gives States an incentive to
improve their overpayment recoveries and AFDC child
support collection programs.
4. Establishes a Quality Control Review Panel to assure that
quality control review cases that are in dispute
between States and the Federal Government are resolved
in a uniform and fair manner.
5. Retains the Departmental Appeals Board to resolve all other
issues in dispute between the States and the Federal
Government.
Error measurement
The core of the quality control system is the quality
control case survey. The system annually compiles the results
of a statistically valid sample of cases. Each selected case is
subjected to a thorough review by quality control personnel,
including a full field investigation. This review identifies
payments to ineligibles, overpayments, underpayments, the type
of error made, the responsibility (recipient versus
administering agency) for the error, and, to a limited degree,
incorrect denials of aid. The sample of cases is then
extrapolated into error ``rates'' for that review period for
each State; ``caseload'' error rates indicate the proportion of
ineligible cases, overpaid cases, underpaid cases, and, in some
cases, improperly denied cases in the sample caseload;
``payment'' error rates indicate the extent of erroneous
payments as a proportion of total dollars paid out to the
sampled caseload.
Before the official error rate is determined, States may
challenge the Federal review decisions by requesting
reconsideration by a Quality Control Review Panel of any
decisions on cases that differ from their own (``difference''
cases). Decisions by the Quality Control Review Panel are on
the record and are not appealable to the Departmental Appeals
Board. Decisions on difference cases may not be appealed to
Federal court until and unless any disallowance becomes final.
A disallowance becomes final if a State does not appeal the
disallowance determination to the Departmental Appeals Board,
or, if the State does appeal, once the Board has made a
decision.
In establishing a State's error rate, certain types of
errors are excluded: (1) errors based on failure to properly
carry out changes in Federal legislation for a period of 6
months after the effective date of the legislation or the
issuance of interim final or final regulations, whichever is
later (however, States are not relieved of the obligations to
implement new legislation); (2) errors resulting from a State
agency's correct use of erroneous information received from
Federal agencies; (3) errors resulting from a State agency's
action based on written Federal policies (e.g., Federal written
advisories made in response to State inquiries); (4) errors due
to an event that results in a declaration of a state of
emergency or major disaster by the Governor or the President;
and (5) errors due to monthly reporting that do not affect the
amount of payment. Among counted errors: lack of a Social
Security number in the file (unless an application for a number
has been filed) and failure to assign child support rights.
The decision whether a case is in error is made by
comparison against permissible State practice (i.e., policies
consistent with the approved State plan). However, if the State
plan is inconsistent with Federal regulations and the Secretary
has informed the State of the inconsistency, Federal
regulations prevail. If a change in State law is required, the
Secretary may allow a reasonable time for the State to make the
change. A case that is at variance with Federal law and
regulations because of compliance with a court order is
reviewed against the court order.
In consultation with the States, the Secretary was required
by the 1989 law to establish regulations setting forth the time
periods in which: reviews must be completed and findings
reported; difference cases must be resolved; and error rates
must be issued. The Secretary was charged with issuing
regulations establishing the sample size necessary to obtain a
statistically valid error rate and required to report annually
to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on
Ways and Means as to whether the timetables have been met. If a
State fails to complete its reviews on a timely basis, the
Secretary may conduct the reviews on her own initiative and is
to charge the State for any costs incurred in making the
reviews.
Determination of disallowances
In general, the Federal Government provides matching funds
for all approvable State expenditures except those in excess of
the error tolerance level (see table 8-37). The error tolerance
level is the national average error rate or 4 percent,
whichever is higher, computed by determining the overpayment
error rate for each State and determining the average for all
States.
Disallowances for States with error rates above the error
tolerance level are assessed on a sliding scale, reflecting the
degree to which the State's error rate exceeds the tolerance
level. For example, a State with an error rate of 7.8 percent
is 20 percent above a 6.5 percent average tolerance level and
would owe 20 percent of the sanction on the entire amount of
overpayments above the tolerance level (20 percent
1.3 percent the Federal share of benefits). In no
case, however, is a State required to repay more than 100
percent of its overpayments above the tolerance level.
TABLE 8-37.--HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF QUALITY CONTROL DISALLOWANCE
COMPUTATION
[Assumes: State overpayment rate: 8%, underpayment rate: 2.8%; National
overpayment rate: 6%, underpayment rate: 3.0%]
1. Calculation of State error rate:
a. National underpayment rate.......................... 3.0%
(less) State underpayment rate......................... 2.8%
------------
Underpayment ``bonus''............................... 0.2%
============
b. State overpayment rate.............................. 8.0%
(less) Underpayment ``bonus''.......................... 0.2%
------------
``Error rate''....................................... 7.8%
============
2. Calculation of ``basic'' disallowance:
State's AFDC payments.................................. $10,000,000
(times) Federal match rate............................. 50%
------------
Gross Federal cost................................... $5,000,000
(times) Excess error rate (7.8% is 1.8 percentage
points above 6% national average)..................... 1.8%
------------
Excess erroneous payment............................. $90,000
(times) Percent by which error rate exceeds national
average. (7.8% is 30% above 6%)....................... 30%
------------
``Basic'' disallowance............................... $27,000
============
3. Adjustment for overpayment recoveries:
Overpayment recoveries (Federal share)................. $5,000
(times) State error rate above national average (1.8%)
as a percent of total State error rate (7.8%). (1.8%
is 23% of 7.8%)....................................... 23%
------------
Overpayment adjustment............................... $1,150
============
4. Adjustment for child support improvement:
a. Percent by which AFDC child support collection rate
(e.g., 16%) exceeds national AFDC child support
collection rate (e.g., 12%). (16% is 33% higher than
12%).................................................. 33%
b. Percent by which AFDC child support collection rate
(e.g., 16%) exceeds State average over 3 prior years
(e.g., 14%). (16% is 14% higher than 14%)............. 14%
============
c. ``Basic'' disallowance from step 2.................. $27,000
(less) Overpayment adjustment (step 3)................. $1,150
------------
Adjusted disallowance................................ $25,850
(times) Child support adjustment percent (higher of
4.a. or 4.b.)......................................... 33%
------------
Child support adjustment............................. $8,530
============
5. Final calculation:
Adjusted disallowance (4.c.)........................... $25,850
(less) Child support adjustment........................ $8,530
------------
Final disallowance amount............................ $17,320
============
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Any sanction amount owed by a State is due upon issuance by
the Secretary of the notice of a disallowance. The State may
pay immediately, or the Secretary and the State may negotiate
an agreement for repayment over a period of up to 2\1/2\ years.
Interest accrues beginning 45 days after the date the State
receives the notice of disallowance. If a subsequent appeal is
decided in the State's favor, the Federal Government repays all
payments with interest.
Before repayment to the Federal Government, several
adjustments must be made (see table 8-37):
1. If a State's error rate for underpayments is below the
national average, its repayment amount is reduced by
reducing its overpayment error rate. For example, if
the underpayment rate were 0.1 percentage point below
the national average, the overpayment error rate would
be reduced by 0.1 percentage point. This reduction
could be applied to any penalty due for the measurement
year or for either of the following 2 years. The
Secretary is required to conduct a study and report to
Congress on negative case actions--improper denials and
terminations.
2. A State's repayment amount also is reduced by a percentage
equal to the percentage improvement in its AFDC child
support collection rate (the number of AFDC cases for
which a child support collection is made over the total
number of AFDC cases) measured against the average
collection rate for the State in the preceding 3 years,
or the percentage by which the State's AFDC child
support collection rate exceeds the national average,
whichever is greater.
3. The amount to be repaid is further reduced to reflect
overpayments recovered by the State.
Appeal procedures
If a State decides to appeal its disallowance to the
Departmental Appeals Board, it must do so within 60 days of the
notice of disallowance. In deciding whether to uphold the
disallowance or any portion of it, the Board must conduct a
thorough review of the issues and take into account all
relevant evidence. With respect to difference cases, the
Departmental Appeals Board will adopt the decision of the
Quality Control Review Panel.
If an appeal is not completed by the Board within 90 days,
interest is suspended until the appeal is completed. A State
may appeal a decision by the Departmental Appeals Board
(including a decision adopted by the Board with respect to a
difference case) to Federal district court within 90 days of
the decision by the Board. Court review shall be on the record
established in the Departmental Appeals Board review in
accordance with the standard of review prescribed by section
706(2)(A)-(E) of title 5 of the U.S. Code.
Other features
The revised quality control system took effect beginning
with fiscal year 1991. All sanctions for error rates determined
for earlier years were waived permanently under the provisions
of OBRA 1989.
The AFDC system is operated by State quality control staff
under Federal instructions and guidelines. A State's error rate
is determined by using findings from both the State's full
sample and a Federal subsample. The cost of operating quality
control systems is treated as a regular administrative cost and
is shared equally by the States and Federal Government, like
any other administrative expense.
The basic goal of quality control systems is to reduce,
over time, the extent and cost of errors in program
administration. As part of the system, ``corrective action
plans'' for error reduction are regularly formulated based on
the findings of the quality control sample surveys. Corrective
actions can range from personnel policy changes or new computer
systems, to substantive changes in eligibility rules or
procedures for verifying information provided by recipients.
Very often, ``error-prone'' profiles are drawn up from the
results of quality control surveys to assist administrators in
identifying cases to which particular attention should be paid.
Quality Control and JOBS Performance Standards
In a 1994 report to Congress (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1994) on JOBS performance standards, HHS said
it had begun exploring expansion of the AFDC-QC system to
incorporate information needed to track participation in JOBS,
track receipt of AFDC and related program services such as
child care, assess the quality and ensure the accuracy of
State-reported JOBS data, and ensure that ``other'' performance
standards defined by the Secretary are met. In order to
accommodate extra data elements and performance measures data,
the report said that the current QC system would have to be
streamlined and that the Secretary in doing so would consider
collapsing categories of eligibility and payment and targeting
resources on information most crucial to payment accuracy and
eligibility determination. In the case of outcome-based
measures of performance, HHS said it planned to look at
potential data sources outside AFDC, such as earnings records,
State employment security records, State unemployment insurance
records, and Social Security records. (Note: this report
included a schedule for developing performance standards. The
schedule assumed passage in October 1995 of the Clinton
administration June 1995 welfare bill, which proposed to expand
JOBS funding.)
Recent Quality Control Statistics
Table 8-38 summarizes national overpayment error rates for
the AFDC Program over recent quality control review periods.
Table 8-39 provides a State-by-State comparison of payment
error rates in fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993. It also ranks
the States by payment error rate (number 1 signifying the
lowest rate) and provides an estimate of AFDC erroneous
expenditures in fiscal year 1993. Fiscal year 1993 payment
error rates ranged from a low of 0.65 percent in South Dakota
to a peak of 13.95 percent in Florida. Half the States achieved
a payment error rate below 5.43 percent, but the average was
6.08 percent. Erroneous AFDC expenditures were reported to
total $1.346 billion. Table 8-40 provides underpayment error
rates for fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993 by State. In fiscal
year 1993 these rates ranged from a low of 0.11 percent in
Alaska (and 0.12 percent in Rhode Island) to a peak of 2.29
percent in Guam. Nationally, the underpayment error rate
averaged 0.93 percent. Table 8-41 depicts the estimated
sanction amounts and estimated collection schedule, according
to the Department of Health and Human Services. Table 8-42
provides information on negative case actions, improper denials
and terminations of aid.
TABLE 8-38.--SUMMARY OF NATIONAL OVERPAYMENT DOLLAR ERROR RATES UNDER
THE AFDC PROGRAM, 1979-93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Error
Period rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1979 to March 1980..................................... 8.3
April 1980 to September 1980................................... 7.3
October 1980 to March 1981..................................... 8.3
April 1981 to September 1981................................... 7.0
October 1981 to March 1982..................................... 7.2
April 1982 to September 1982................................... 6.6
October 1982 to March 1983..................................... 6.2
April 1983 to September 1983................................... 6.8
October 1983 to March 1984..................................... 6.2
April 1984 to September 1984................................... 5.7
Fiscal year 1985............................................... 6.1
Fiscal year 1986............................................... 7.1
Fiscal year 1987............................................... 6.3
Fiscal year 1988............................................... 6.8
Fiscal year 1989............................................... 5.7
Fiscal year 1990............................................... 6.0
Fiscal year 1991............................................... \1\ 5.0
Fiscal year 1992............................................... 5.7
Fiscal year 1993............................................... 6.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is the lowest national overpayment error rate achieved under
the AFDC-QC system.
Note.--Overpayment errors include payments made to ineligible families
but do not include underpayments.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-39.--OVERPAYMENT ERROR RATES IN FISCAL YEARS 1991, 1992 AND 1993, AND ERRONEOUS EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL
YEAR 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Federal and State
--------------------------- amount of
1993 erroneous
State 1991 1992 1993 rank expenditures in
rate rate rate fiscal year 1993
(in thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................. 6.29 5.78 4.55 19 $4,342
Alaska................................................... 2.88 3.45 2.39 4 2,638
Arizona.................................................. 8.31 6.03 7.50 43 19,892
Arkansas................................................. 3.76 4.99 6.05 33 3,617
California............................................... 3.49 4.01 5.05 22 295,641
Colorado................................................. 2.67 3.19 6.30 37 10,245
Connecticut.............................................. 2.74 5.26 5.39 24 20,721
Delaware................................................. 6.68 6.33 8.95 50 3,557
District of Columbia..................................... 5.98 6.07 6.75 40 7,566
Florida.................................................. 9.66 14.53 13.95 54 112,279
Georgia.................................................. 3.37 5.71 5.91 30 25,542
Guam..................................................... 7.55 9.17 8.10 46 750
Hawaii................................................... 3.18 3.45 2.41 5 3,454
Idaho.................................................... 4.17 1.98 4.19 13 1,197
Illinois................................................. 4.99 4.71 5.43 26 47,957
Indiana.................................................. 5.80 7.67 9.59 51 21,550
Iowa..................................................... 5.22 7.61 6.25 35 10,159
Kansas................................................... 4.36 4.40 5.43 25 6,810
Kentucky................................................. 3.10 3.51 4.25 15 8,924
Louisiana................................................ 7.14 6.94 7.70 45 13,585
Maine.................................................... 3.27 3.46 4.52 18 5,289
Maryland................................................. 6.88 6.59 8.82 49 27,811
Massachusetts............................................ 3.99 3.55 2.89 7 21,666
Michigan................................................. 4.14 5.77 4.74 21 56,372
Minnesota................................................ 2.80 3.17 2.89 8 11,066
Mississippi.............................................. 7.47 5.79 6.75 39 5,860
Missouri................................................. 5.27 7.66 7.53 44 21,245
Montana.................................................. 4.36 3.08 4.27 16 2,098
Nebraska................................................. 6.89 5.56 5.71 27 3,698
Nevada................................................... 3.97 4.13 5.90 29 2,596
New Hampshire............................................ 3.74 6.42 6.84 41 3,836
New Jersey............................................... 4.69 6.53 4.68 20 25,194
New Mexico............................................... 4.92 6.40 5.26 23 6,181
New York................................................. 6.73 7.50 6.95 42 177,071
North Carolina........................................... 3.68 3.91 6.26 36 22,127
North Dakota............................................. 1.65 1.38 3.91 11 1,089
Ohio..................................................... 8.36 8.35 8.55 48 83,516
Oklahoma................................................. 3.86 3.21 4.19 14 7,184
Oregon................................................... 3.74 4.30 4.44 17 8,978
Pennsylvania............................................. 4.92 4.84 5.85 28 53,616
Puerto Rico.............................................. 6.10 5.40 5.92 31 4,540
Rhode Island............................................. 3.46 2.03 1.62 2 2,176
South Carolina........................................... 6.56 4.90 6.03 32 7,117
South Dakota............................................. 1.18 1.70 0.65 1 163
Tennessee................................................ 6.71 7.42 10.52 52 23,126
Texas.................................................... 8.02 8.69 10.57 53 56,256
Utah..................................................... 3.64 2.91 3.51 10 2,726
Vermont.................................................. 1.96 2.43 1.92 3 1,260
Virgin Islands........................................... 1.49 1.76 2.63 6 91
Virginia................................................. 3.39 4.66 6.37 38 14,734
Washington............................................... 5.83 5.57 6.21 34 37,604
West Virginia............................................ 8.17 6.58 8.48 47 10,289
Wisconsin................................................ 4.77 4.24 4.17 12 18,245
Wyoming.................................................. 4.27 2.90 3.14 9 828
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total \1\....................................... 4.96 5.65 6.08 ....... 1,346,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weighted average.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-40.--UNDERPAYMENT ERROR RATES, STATE RANKING, AND ERRONEOUS EXPENDITURES BY STATE IN FISCAL YEARS 1991,
1992 AND 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
State -----------------------------------------------
1991 rate 1992 rate 1993 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... 0.77 0.51 0.68
Alaska.......................................................... 1.31 0.50 0.11
Arizona......................................................... 1.18 0.96 1.20
Arkansas........................................................ 0.76 1.08 0.48
California...................................................... 0.54 0.65 1.11
Colorado........................................................ 1.72 0.44 0.20
Connecticut..................................................... 0.34 0.31 0.46
Delaware........................................................ 0.19 0.89 0.55
District of Columbia............................................ 1.01 0.75 0.58
Florida......................................................... 1.21 1.33 1.31
Georgia......................................................... 0.88 2.14 1.05
Guam............................................................ 1.88 1.97 2.29
Hawaii.......................................................... 0.68 0.26 0.36
Idaho........................................................... 1.50 1.05 1.06
Illinois........................................................ 0.54 0.63 0.47
Indiana......................................................... 0.42 0.59 0.84
Iowa............................................................ 0.44 0.71 0.60
Kansas.......................................................... 0.35 0.40 0.66
Kentucky........................................................ 0.72 0.57 0.69
Louisiana....................................................... 0.78 0.91 1.01
Maine........................................................... 0.06 0.47 0.37
Maryland........................................................ 0.54 0.32 0.95
Massachusetts................................................... 0.66 0.37 0.39
Michigan........................................................ 0.86 0.43 0.79
Minnesota....................................................... 0.56 0.43 0.45
Mississippi..................................................... 0.94 0.79 0.64
Missouri........................................................ 0.49 0.10 0.66
Montana......................................................... 1.08 0.52 0.27
Nebraska........................................................ 0.37 0.56 0.68
Nevada.......................................................... 0.45 0.33 0.57
New Hampshire................................................... 1.77 0.36 1.00
New Jersey...................................................... 0.29 0.32 0.51
New Mexico...................................................... 1.05 0.81 1.09
New York........................................................ 2.08 1.91 1.80
North Carolina.................................................. 0.86 0.71 0.94
North Dakota.................................................... 0.42 0.44 0.12
Ohio............................................................ 0.77 0.65 0.55
Oklahoma........................................................ 0.82 0.45 0.97
Oregon.......................................................... 0.37 0.40 0.46
Pennsylvania.................................................... 0.18 0.62 0.41
Puerto Rico..................................................... 1.25 1.09 0.81
Rhode Island.................................................... 0.16 0.09 0.12
South Carolina.................................................. 0.90 0.82 1.33
South Dakota.................................................... 1.05 0.72 0.44
Tennessee....................................................... 0.31 1.28 1.02
Texas........................................................... 0.63 1.56 1.16
Utah............................................................ 0.57 0.45 0.38
Vermont......................................................... 0.22 0.36 0.18
Virgin Islands.................................................. 0.00 0.32 0.25
Virginia........................................................ 0.31 0.70 0.44
Washington...................................................... 0.51 0.62 0.20
West Virginia................................................... 0.53 0.55 0.72
Wisconsin....................................................... 0.82 0.61 1.35
Wyoming......................................................... 0.68 0.72 0.94
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. total \1\.............................................. 0.80 0.83 0.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weighted average.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 8-41.--ESTIMATED AFDC SANCTION AMOUNTS AND COLLECTION SCHEDULE,
1991-2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS
projected
HHS HHS schedule
estimated estimated for
Fiscal year error rate sanction collecting
(percent) amounts (in sanctions
millions) (in
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991............................. 5.0 $32.6 $0.0
1992............................. 5.6 48.0 0.0
1993............................. 6.1 56.0 0.0
1994............................. 6.1 57.2 \1\ 17.2
1995............................. 6.1 54.6 0.0
1996............................. 6.0 51.1 40.7
1997............................. 5.9 51.2 52.0
1998............................. 5.9 52.3 56.7
1999............................. 5.9 53.3 55.9
2000............................. 5.8 53.3 52.8
2001............................. 5.8 54.3 51.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual amount collected.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
WELFARE DYNAMICS
The question of how long families receive AFDC has more
than one answer. The answer is affected by characteristics of
the parent, whether repeat episodes of enrollment are taken
into account, and whether annual or monthly data are examined.
But some general answers are possible (see Pavetti, 1993,
1995):
--Most episodes of AFDC enrollment end within 12 months, but
most who exit AFDC come back within 24 months.
--New enrollees can be expected to spend an average of 6
years, including repeat spells, on AFDC.
--For families on AFDC at any given moment, the average
length of AFDC receipt, counting repeat spells, is 13
years.
TABLE 8-42. DATA ON AFDC QUALITY CONTROL NEGATIVE CASE ACTIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negative case action error Total number of incorrect
rates negative case actions
Total -------------------------------------------------------
number of Advance Advance
State negative notice/ notice/
case Eligibility hearing Eligibility hearing
actions requirements requirements requirements requirements
only only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................... 45,769 1.00 1.50 458 687
Alaska..................................... 13,347 1.65 0.00 220 0
Arizona.................................... 101,729 1.14 0.95 1,156 963
Arkansas................................... 40,770 0.00 0.35 0 144
California................................. 746,946 2.03 2.63 15,153 19,610
Colorado................................... 89,066 0.24 1.08 213 958
Connecticut................................ 35,015 0.00 0.00 0 0
Delaware................................... 9,368 0.00 0.00 0 0
District of Columbia....................... 9,324 9.47 1.05 883 98
Florida.................................... 376,653 3.77 0.65 14,213 2,443
Georgia.................................... 143,558 3.88 2.48 5,564 3,561
Guam....................................... 810 2.60 2.16 21 18
Hawaii..................................... 14,554 1.43 2.38 208 347
Idaho...................................... 20,449 1.59 3.70 325 757
Illinois................................... 167,390 1.73 0.16 2,900 264
Indiana.................................... 35,856 0.76 4.20 274 1,505
Iowa....................................... 21,031 5.05 0.00 1,061 0
Kansas..................................... 21,891 0.41 0.83 91 182
Kentucky................................... 57,778 2.59 3.16 1,494 1,826
Louisiana.................................. 73,581 0.23 0.23 166 166
Maine...................................... 16,752 0.00 0.00 0 0
Maryland................................... 43,425 0.00 2.45 0 1,063
Massachusetts.............................. 59,158 0.28 1.69 166 997
Michigan................................... 154,978 3.86 1.23 5,987 1,905
Minnesota.................................. 66,830 0.00 0.00 0 0
Mississippi................................ 33,184 1.12 2.62 373 870
Missouri................................... 72,518 2.60 0.43 1,888 315
Montana.................................... 17,638 1.44 4.31 253 760
Nebraska................................... 7,406 0.98 0.00 73 0
Nevada..................................... 19,843 0.00 0.00 0 0
New Hampshire.............................. 15,475 2.04 0.51 316 79
New Jersey................................. 68,730 0.26 1.03 177 709
New Mexico................................. 40,725 4.91 0.38 1,998 154
New York................................... 285,795 2.63 0.13 7,512 358
North Carolina............................. 94,062 0.45 0.00 422 0
North Dakota............................... 8,607 0.44 0.44 38 38
Ohio....................................... 490,163 2.32 0.53 11,375 2,585
Oklahoma................................... 50,465 0.00 0.00 0 0
Oregon..................................... 39,173 1.39 2.08 544 816
Pennsylvania............................... 134,257 0.95 10.80 1,271 14,494
Puerto Rico................................ 24,482 7.41 2.47 1,813 604
Rhode Island............................... 13,421 0.00 1.49 0 199
South Carolina............................. 56,503 6.29 5.69 3,553 3,214
South Dakota............................... 8,339 0.00 0.57 0 47
Tennessee.................................. 385,219 0.70 0.28 2,679 1,072
Texas...................................... 399,947 3.62 2.42 14,491 9,661
Utah....................................... 24,119 0.97 8.74 234 2,107
Vermont.................................... 12,668 0.53 0.00 67 0
Virgin Islands............................. 661 0.00 0.65 0 4
Virginia................................... 79,377 2.58 1.55 2,046 1,227
Washington................................. 100,648 1.47 1.29 1,483 1,297
West Virginia.............................. 28,654 3.95 1.32 1,131 337
Wisconsin.................................. 79,267 1.76 0.00 1,394 0
Wyoming.................................... 9,599 1.10 0.73 105 70
--------------------------------------------------------------------
United States \1\...................... 4,966,973 2.13 1.58 105,789 78,551
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weighted average excluding the Virgin Islands.
NA--Data not available.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S Department of Health and Human Services.
--Almost half of the persons now on the rolls have received
benefits, counting repeat spells, for more than 5
years.
--Overrepresented among long-term recipients are parents who
entered the program before age 24, those with less than
12 years of education, and those with no recent work
experience.
Exits and Returns to AFDC
Movement on and off the AFDC rolls is frequent. Exits are
portrayed in table 8-43; and returns, in table 8-44. Both
tables are based on monthly caseload data. Table 8-43 shows
that 56 percent of episodes of AFDC end within 12 months; 70
percent within 24 months; and almost 85 percent within 4 years.
The table also shows that work exits from AFDC generally
account for slightly less than half of all exits within a 5-
year period.
Table 8-44 shows that many who leave AFDC return to the
rolls very quickly. Within 1 year of their exit, 45 percent of
ex-recipients return to AFDC; within 2 years, 58 percent;
within 4 years, 69 percent. Those who leave AFDC because of
employment remain off the program somewhat longer than those
who leave for other reasons.
Endings and Beginnings of AFDC Spells
A study by Ellwood (1986), based on annual rather than
monthly data, found that the most common route out of AFDC was
by way of a change in family structure (see table 8-45, column
1). Some 46 percent of endings occurred this way, 35 percent
when a female head became a wife and 11 percent when the
household no longer contained a child under 18. Increased
earnings were much more significant in ending AFDC than
decreased earnings were in starting it. Some 26 percent of
endings occurred this way, 21 percent when the female head
herself earned more money and 5 percent when another member of
the family increased earnings.
TABLE 8-43.--CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN LEAVING WELFARE BY DURATION
OF TIME ON WELFARE AND TYPE OF EXIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration (months) Work exits Other exits All exits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-12............................. 25.4 30.4 55.8
13-24............................ 31.7 38.3 70.0
25-36............................ 35.9 42.3 78.2
37-48............................ 39.0 43.6 82.6
49-60............................ 40.9 45.4 86.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pavetti (1993, p. 46).
TABLE 8-44.--CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN RETURNING TO AFDC BY
DURATION OF TIME OFF AFDC AND TYPE OF EXIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration (months) Work exits Other exits All exits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-12............................. 39.4 49.5 44.9
13-24............................ 52.5 61.8 57.6
25-36............................ 57.8 69.3 64.2
37-48............................ 62.5 74.3 69.1
49-60............................ 65.0 76.6 71.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pavetti (1995).
Pavetti's 1993 analysis, based on monthly data, found that
exits for work outnumbered all others (see table 8-45, column
2). Work exits represented 46 percent of all exits, and
accounted for more than three times as many exits as changes in
family structure (14 percent). The author of the 1993 study
said at least four factors could explain all or some of the
difference in the findings of the two studies: use of annual
versus monthly data; differences in time periods covered;
differences in data sources, and differences in population
studied. After scrutiny, Pavetti estimated that more than 70
percent of the difference could be attributed to the use of
monthly rather than annual data, just under 20 percent to an
increase in work exits over time, about 8 percent to
differences in data sources, and 3 percent to differences in
the behavior of young women.
Bane and Ellwood (1983, p. 55) found that about 40 percent
of those who left AFDC were poor after their exit. About 52
percent of those whose AFDC eligibility ended because they no
longer had an eligible child were poor in the following year.
For those who earned their way off AFDC, about 32 percent were
poor in the year after their welfare spell; their poverty
reflected the subpoverty gross income eligibility limits of
AFDC in many States.
The same study found that three-fourths of AFDC spells
began with a relationship change that created a female-headed
family with children (45 percent when a wife became a female
head; 30 percent when an unmarried woman acquired a child);
only 15 percent of beginnings were traced to reductions in
earnings (Bane and Ellwood, 1983, p. 18). Almost half (48
percent) of the families who entered AFDC had income below the
poverty threshold in the previous year (and 75 percent were
poor in the first year of AFDC receipt).
TABLE 8-45.--EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENDINGS OF AFDC SPELLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 study 1993 study
Event (annual (monthly
data) data)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage, remarriage, or reconciliation....... 34.6 11.4
No eligible child left in household........... 11.2 3.1
Increase in earnings of female head........... 21.3 45.9
Increase in earnings in others in family...... 4.9 ...........
Increase in transfer income................... 14.2 \1\ 7.3
Disability.................................... ........... 1.5
Move.......................................... 1.8 \2\ 6.9
Other, including unidentified................. \3\11.8 24.1
Total \4\................................. 100.0 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Increase in non-work-related income (assumed to be transfer income).
\2\ Move in with family, 2.5 percent; move in with nonrelatives, 2.4
percent; and move between States, 2 percent.
\3\ Includes decrease in number of eligible family members (other than a
child's reaching age 18), 2.4 percent.
\4\ Columns do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Ellwood (1986); Pavetti (1993).
A new study based on 168 months (14 years) of data about
AFDC receipt from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(NLSY) examines both a parent's first AFDC experience and any
subsequent reentry to the rolls after an exit (Cao, 1996). It
found that among females under the age of 21 as of January
1979, having a newborn was the most important reason for first
entering welfare and also for recidivism, other things being
equal. Highlights:
--The most common cause for first entering AFDC was having a
baby within the last 6 months (74 percent).
--Giving birth again appeared to be a major cause for
reentering AFDC after leaving the program (54 percent
among persons making a first return to AFDC; 45 percent
and 40 percent among those returning a second and third
time, respectively).
--A decline in earnings accounted for only about 4 percent of
cases first entering AFDC and between 8 and 10 percent
of those returning to the program after an exit.
--``Becoming unmarried'' accounted for less than 2 percent of
first spells of AFDC and for less than 4 percent of
first returns to AFDC after an exit. The study noted
that these low percentages might reflect the relative
youth of AFDC recipients in the sample, many of whom
became mothers as teens and never married.
Length of Time on Welfare and Turnover Within the AFDC Caseload
Annual data
A 1983 study by Bane and Ellwood (p. 55) of AFDC families,
based on annual data, found that although most ``spells'' of
AFDC are relatively short, most persons enrolled in the program
at any point in time are in the midst of spells that last at
least 8 years. As the first column of table 8-46 illustrates,
the study reported that 48 percent of AFDC spells lasted less
than 2 years and 62 percent lasted less than 4 years. At the
same time, the study reported (column two) that 50 percent of
the persons enrolled at a point in time were in the midst of
very long episodes (eight or more years) of AFDC receipt.
Column two can be used to estimate the proportion of all
person-years of AFDC accounted for by persons with single
welfare spells of different length. Because the study found
that the average amount of AFDC received did not vary
systematically by spell length, this column also provides the
distribution of program resources by length of time on AFDC. It
shows that 50 percent of resources are spent on persons with
very long single episodes of AFDC (at least 8 years).
TABLE 8-46.--DISTRIBUTION OF LENGTH OF TIME ON AFDC
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single spell Multiple spell
analysis analysis
-------------------------------------------
Persons Persons Persons
Expected time on AFDC Persons on AFDC beginning on AFDC
beginning at a first at a
a spell point in AFDC point in
time spell time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-2 years................... 48 14 30 7
3-4 years................... 14 10 20 11
5-7 years................... 20 25 19 17
8 or more years............. 17 50 30 65
-------------------------------------------
All................... 100 100 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bane & Ellwood (1983); Ellwood (1986).
Because the 1983 study understated the extent of long-term
welfare dependence by neglecting to take into account that
multiple spells of welfare receipt are common, Ellwood updated
the study in 1986. Accounting for multiple spells alters the
distribution of total expected time on welfare, as the last two
columns of table 8-46 illustrate. The fact remains, however,
that while a significant percent of all persons on welfare will
be enrolled for less than 2 years (30 percent) or less than 4
years (50 percent), almost two-thirds of persons enrolled in
AFDC at a point in time are in the midst of what will be long
periods of welfare receipt (8 years or more). Accounting for
multiple spells increases average AFDC duration for new
entrants to 6.6 years (from 4.7 years for single spells) and
for recipients at a point in time to 11.6 years (from 10
years).
This seemingly paradoxical finding that there are large
differences between point-in-time and ever-begun estimates of
welfare dependency highlights a crucial element of welfare
dynamics that is characteristic of the dynamics of spells of
poverty and unemployment as well. The differences in the
estimates occur because the probability of being on welfare at
a given time is necessarily higher for long-term recipients
than for those who have short welfare spells. The large number
of persons who use welfare for a short time come and go, but
the long-term users remain on the rolls.
Monthly data
More recent research has used monthly data to examine
length of AFDC receipt, including repeat spells. Results are
shown in table 8-47. Column 1 indicates that 35 percent of new
entrants (beginning cohort) can be expected over their
lifetimes to spend more than 5 years on AFDC. Column two
indicates that 76 percent of persons now on the rolls can be
expected to spend more than 5 years in the program, and column
three, that 48 percent of current recipients already have spent
more than 5 years on AFDC. Estimated average durations are 6.1
years over lifetime for new entrants, 13 years over lifetime
for current recipients, and 6.5 years already received by
current recipients. These estimates are based on behavior of
recipients under the current AFDC system. Policy changes might
alter the length of time spent on cash assistance.
TABLE 8-47.--DISTRIBUTION OF TIME ON AFDC FOR A BEGINNING COHORT OF RECIPIENTS AND FOR THE CASELOAD AT A POINT
IN TIME
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current recipients
Beginning cohort-- ---------------------------
distribution of Distribution
Time on AFDC (months) expected lifetime of expected Distribution
total lifetime of AFDC time
total to date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-12.......................................................... 27.4 4.5 16.4
13-24......................................................... 14.8 4.8 11.9
25-36......................................................... 10.0 4.9 9.5
37-48......................................................... 7.7 5.0 7.8
49-60......................................................... 5.5 4.5 6.6
More than 60.................................................. 34.8 76.2 47.8
Total..................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0
Average duration (years).................................. 6.1 12.98 6.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pavetti (1995).
Relationship of Personal Characteristics to Duration of AFDC
Some groups are likely to spend more time than average on
AFDC. As was seen in Table 8-47, 58 percent of first-time
recipients are expected to spend over 24 months and 35 percent
to spend longer than 60 months on the program over their
lifetime. Table 8-48 presents findings about personal
characteristics associated with long AFDC use. Likely to use
AFDC longer than average during their lifetimes are persons
who, when they enter the program, have less than 12 years of
education, have no recent work experience, are under age 24,
are Hispanic or black, are never married, have a child below
age 3, or have 3 or more children. For example, AFDC duration
longer than 60 months is expected for 40 percent of those with
fewer than 12 years of education (and 63 percent of those with
fewer than 9 years of education), 45 percent of those without
recent work experience, and 43 percent of those who never
married.
TABLE 8-48.--TIME ON WELFARE AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS FOR A BEGINNING COHORT OF RESIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
Percent of all expected to expected to
Characteristics at beginning of first AFDC spell first-time spend longer spend longer
recipients than 24 months than 60 months
on AFDC on AFDC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All recipients............................................... 100.0 57.8 34.8
Education:
<9 years................................................. 13.0 75.3 63.4
9-11 years............................................... 34.0 66.2 40.0
12+ years................................................ 53.0 48.2 24.3
Work experience:
No recent................................................ 38.7 67.1 44.9
Recent................................................... 61.3 52.0 28.3
Age:
Under 24................................................. 52.7 64.5 41.9
25-30.................................................... 24.9 51.9 25.6
31-40.................................................... 19.3 48.4 28.3
Over 40.................................................. 3.1 51.1 25.2
Race:
White/other.............................................. 55.6 50.9 26.7
Black.................................................... 28.4 66.4 41.4
Hispanic................................................. 16.0 66.9 50.7
Marital status:
Never married............................................ 58.2 65.5 43.1
Ever married............................................. 41.8 47.2 23.0
Age of youngest child:
<12 months............................................... 52.1 64.8 39.2
13-36 months............................................. 16.6 55.5 37.9
37-60 months............................................. 10.9 54.3 29.5
61-120 months............................................ 11.2 49.7 29.9
121+ months.............................................. 9.3 37.1 15.2
Number of children:
1........................................................ 57.2 57.0 35.8
2........................................................ 33.2 58.2 31.9
3........................................................ 7.5 58.7 35.9
Over 3................................................... 2.2 71.0 43.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pavetti (1995).
Table 8-49 presents data on the average number of years of
AFDC receipt expected over their lifetimes for groups with
various characteristics. The table shows that the most powerful
predictor of long-term AFDC use is marital status. Never-
married women average 9 years of AFDC, and 39 percent of them
are predicted to receive AFDC for at least 10 years. Other
groups with average AFDC duration of at least 8 years include
those who, when they first entered the program, were under age
22, were black, had a child under age 3, or had not worked in
the previous 2 years.
TABLE 8-49.--PERCENTAGE OF AFDC RECIPIENTS WITH VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS AND AVERAGE TOTAL DURATIONS OF AFDC
RECEIPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Average Percent
all first- Percent of expected expected to
time recipients number of have AFDC
Characteristic at beginning of first spell recipients at any years of spells of
(new point in AFDC 10 or more
beginnings) time \1\ receipt years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age:
Under 22.................................................. 30.0 35.9 8.23 32.8
22-30..................................................... 40.7 41.9 7.08 25.8
31-40..................................................... 11.8 8.8 5.15 15.0
Over 40................................................... 17.6 13.4 5.23 15.8
Race/ethnicity:
White..................................................... 55.2 47.7 5.95 19.6
Black..................................................... 40.1 47.4 8.14 32.0
Other..................................................... 4.8 4.8 6.94 25.5
Years of education:
Under 9................................................... 9.7 9.6 6.81 24.5
9-11...................................................... 37.6 41.9 7.65 29.2
Over 11................................................... 52.7 48.5 6.33 21.8
Marital status:
Never-married............................................. 29.5 40.0 9.33 39.3
Divorced.................................................. 28.1 20.2 4.94 13.7
Separated................................................. 32.3 31.9 6.80 24.4
Widowed................................................... 8.4 5.3 4.37 10.2
Number of children:
0-1....................................................... 43.4 48.7 7.71 29.7
2-3....................................................... 42.8 37.3 6.04 20.1
Over 3.................................................... 13.8 13.7 6.83 24.5
Age of youngest child:
Under 3................................................... 51.3 60.4 8.09 31.9
3-5....................................................... 22.5 22.3 6.79 24.2
6-10...................................................... 19.7 12.9 4.51 11.3
Over 10................................................... 6.5 4.4 4.71 12.4
Work experience:
Worked in the last 2 years................................ 65.8 59.6 6.53 23.0
Did not work in the last 2 years.......................... 34.2 39.8 8.00 31.2
Disability status:
No disability............................................. 81.6 81.4 6.85 24.8
Disability limits work.................................... 18.4 18.6 6.97 25.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures assume that the AFDC caseload is a ``steady state.''
Note.--For each individual who began a first spell on or after the third sample year of the longitudinal study,
probabilities are predicted for exiting from first spell, for recidivism, and for exiting from later spells,
based on logic models.
Source: Ellwood (1986, p. 57).
Welfare Dependency
Table 8-50 examines the proportion of certain population
groups that received any AFDC during the decade of the 1980s,
and for how many years. The table shows that 88 percent of the
population received no AFDC (93 percent of whites and 66
percent of nonwhites). Among children age 0-5 in 1980, 80
percent received no AFDC (88 percent of whites and 42 percent
of blacks). Of persons who lived in households in which some
AFDC was received (at least $1), 5.5 percent were enrolled for
1-2 years, 4.3 percent for 3-7 years, and 2 percent for 8-10
years.
TABLE 8-50.--WELFARE DEPENDENCY BY TWO DEFINITIONS OF DEPENDENCY, 1980-89
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction living in Fraction living in
households in which at households in which the
least $1 of AFDC was sum of AFDC and food
received by head or wife stamps received by either
---------------------------- head or wife was at least
50 percent of total family
Years on welfare income
Children Women, ---------------------------
All age 0-5 age 18- Women,
in 1980 55 in Children age 18-
1980 All age 0-5 55 in
in 1980 1980
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All races:
0 years............................................. 88.2 80.2 86.3 93.6 87.7 92.8
1-2 years........................................... 5.5 8.1 6.2 3.1 5.6 3.4
3-7 years........................................... 4.3 6.3 5.6 2.3 3.6 2.8
8-10 years.......................................... 2.0 5.4 2.6 0.9 3.1 1.1
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
=======================================================
White:
0 years............................................. 92.6 88.2 92.2 96.1 92.3 96.0
1-2 years........................................... 3.9 5.1 4.1 2.2 4.6 2.1
3-7 years........................................... 2.6 3.8 2.7 1.3 2.1 1.4
8-10 years.......................................... 0.9 2.7 1.2 0.3 1.0 0.3
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
=======================================================
Nonwhite:
0 years............................................. 66.3 41.8 65.7 81.2 65.2 81.3
1-2 years........................................... 13.8 22.4 13.5 7.6 10.8 7.5
3-7 years........................................... 12.6 18.1 13.0 7.4 11.1 7.5
8-10 years.......................................... 7.2 17.7 7.7 3.7 12.8 3.7
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table reads: 88.2 percent of the population lived in households in which no AFDC income was received during the
1980-89 period.
Source: Special tabulation of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics by Greg J. Duncan and Kavitha Sitaram.
The table also examines the proportion of certain
population groups for whom AFDC plus food stamps represented at
least 50 percent of total family income for some years during
1980-89. This degree of AFDC/food stamp dependence was found
among 6.3 percent of the total population (3.8 percent of
whites and 18.7 percent of nonwhites). Moreover, 3.1 percent
were enrolled in AFDC for 1-2 years; 2.3 percent for 3-7 years,
and 0.9 percent for 8-10 years. Among children aged 0-5 in
1980, 12.3 percent were in households that depended on AFDC and
food stamps for at least 50 percent of income during some years
during the decade (7.7 percent of whites and 34.7 percent of
nonwhites).
A comparison of similar data for the decade of the 1970s
shows an increase in the 1980s of long-term enrollment in AFDC
by persons in households that received half their income from
AFDC and food stamps. For children, the fraction with this
degree of welfare dependence for 8-10 years rose from 1.6
percent in the 1970s to 3.1 percent in the 1980s (from 6.8 to
12.8 percent for nonwhite children). For women (age 18-55 at
the start of each decade) the comparable fraction rose from
0.07 to 1.1 percent. A major factor in the increased AFDC-food
stamp dependence in the 1980s probably was the elimination of
the food stamp purchase price requirement at the very end of
the 1970s. That change in law dramatically increased enrollment
in food stamps among persons already eligible.
Intergenerational Transmission of AFDC Receipt
Several researchers have examined the question of
intergenerational transmission of receipt of AFDC. In general,
using panel data, they have measured AFDC income in parental
families and then examined its correlation with later behavior
of their daughters, either through simple cross-tabulations or
multivariate statistical analyses. A 1990 review of seven
studies made between 1986 and 1990 (Moffitt, 1990) concluded
that their results provide consistent evidence of strong
correlations between parental welfare receipt and later
behavior of the daughters. Moffitt concluded that the research
showed that daughters from welfare families are much more
likely to participate in the welfare system themselves at a
later date, and are more likely to have births in general and
premarital births in particular. Evidence was weaker for the
one study that examined the effect of parental welfare receipt
on later work effort by sons.
The studies do not answer the question of whether growing
up in a family that receives AFDC ``causes'' a daughter to
later become an AFDC mother. Many omitted variables, such as
the human capital characteristics of the parental family, could
be responsible for the observed correlation. Children from
AFDC-dependent homes generally have fewer parental resources
available to them, live in worse neighborhoods, and go to lower
quality schools. All of these factors could have an independent
effect on the probability of their receiving AFDC in adulthood.
Further, if there is any transmission of AFDC receipt from one
generation to the next, it could operate in a number of ways:
for example, by lowering the stigma of welfare, by acquainting
the AFDC child with rules of the system, by affecting the work
effort of the AFDC family or its investments in human capital
(Moffitt, 1990).
Table 8-51 presents findings from a 1984 study, based on
data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. The table shows
that 58 percent of daughters in families that received some
welfare later received welfare themselves as young adults,
compared with 27 percent of daughters who grew up with no
welfare. On the other hand, only 19 percent of black daughters
and 26 percent of white daughters in ``highly dependent''
welfare families became ``highly dependent'' themselves.
Table 8-52 summarizes findings from a 1988 study that
surveyed a sample of daughters whose economic status was
observed when the daughters were between the ages of 13 and 15
and later when they were between the ages of 21 and 23. For
each of the periods, AFDC dependence was defined as: no
dependence--no AFDC income reported; moderate dependence--AFDC
reported in 1 or 2 years; high dependence--AFDC in all 3 years.
Daughters from highly dependent homes were several times more
likely to become highly dependent themselves (20 percent) than
were daughters from nonrecipient homes (3 percent). At the same
time, 64 percent of the daughters from highly dependent homes
received no AFDC as young adults.
A more recent study (Gottschalk, 1992) distinguished
between parents who were eligible for AFDC and those who were
not, noting that some of the positive correlation found between
mothers' and daughters' AFDC use might reflect the low
probability that adult daughters of high-income parents would
meet the AFDC income test. Gottschalk also controlled for
differences between parents who, though AFDC-eligible, did not
participate, and those who did. Finally, he used event history
analysis to lengthen the observation period (since a short
period is likely to miss many mothers and daughters who at some
point receive AFDC).
The study showed that daughters raised in AFDC households
had different economic and demographic characteristics from
those raised in nonrecipient households. They were
disproportionately nonwhite and came from more disadvantaged
backgrounds, as measured by family income, mother's education,
or the proportion of disadvantaged students in their school.
Households eligible for AFDC that did not enroll in the program
also were more disadvantaged than recipient households.
This study reached three broad conclusions: (1) parental
enrollment in AFDC is correlated with daughters' later
participation in AFDC; (2) the parents' participation does not
seem to be capturing solely the effects of low income; the
intergenerational correlation seems to reflect more than a
simple statistical artifact; and (3) the loss of income if the
parent does not receive AFDC, even though eligible, raises the
probability that the daughter will receive AFDC; the effect of
this income loss offsets nearly half of the participation
effect for whites.
Daughters who grew up in AFDC had a higher overall
probability of giving birth by the end of the survey than
daughters of eligible parents who did not participate in AFDC
(53 percent versus 33.4 percent). Further, more than half (55.8
percent) of the young mothers who were raised in AFDC families
also received AFDC for their children. In comparison, the
probability of a daughter's receiving AFDC for her own child
was less than one-third (32.9 percent) if her eligible parent
had not participated in AFDC.
TABLE 8-51.--INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF WELFARE DEPENDENCY
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of daughters as young adults
------------------------------------------------ Some welfare Number of
Parental welfare status Received no Low welfare High welfare dependence observations
welfare dependence dependence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received no welfare:
Black....................... 53 33 14 47 108
White....................... 79 19 2 21 354
All women................... 73 22 5 27 462
Low welfare dependence:
Black....................... 31 49 20 69 130
White....................... 63 31 5 36 75
All women................... 42 42 15 57 205
High welfare dependence:
Black....................... 42 39 19 58 92
White....................... 27 47 26 73 25
All women................... 41 41 21 61 117
Some welfare dependence:
Black....................... 36 45 19 64 222
White....................... 54 35 11 45 100
All women................... 42 42 16 58 322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--``High welfare dependence'' is defined as receiving at least 25 percent of average family income as cash
welfare payments. ``Some welfare dependence'' accounts for all women with either low or high welfare
dependence.
Source: Reanalysis by Committee on Ways and Means staff based on data from Hill & Ponza (1984).
TABLE 8-52.--INTERGENERATIONAL PATTERNS OF AFDC RECEIPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence of daughters (percent) Unweighted
Dependence of parents (percent) -------------------------------------------- number of
No Moderate High Total cases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No...................................................... 91 6 3 100 811
Moderate................................................ 62 22 16 100 127
High.................................................... 64 16 20 100 147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Duncan, Hill, & Hoffman (1988).
ADOLESCENT AND OUT-OF-WEDLOCK CHILDBEARING AND USE OF AFDC
Trends Over Time
Adolescent pregnancy, declining marriage rates, and
increased childbearing among unmarried women have contributed
to the rising share of children being born to unwed mothers.
Out-of-wedlock birth rates, slowly but steadily moving upward
since at least the 1940s, took a sharp upward turn in the mid-
1980s. The diminishing fertility of married women coincident
with the growing fertility of unmarried women has increased the
likelihood that children born today will be born outside
marriage. These trends have placed children at increased risk
of being poor and have placed increased demands on the Nation's
welfare programs. Among children whose mother has never
married, 64.3 percent were poor in 1993. Nearly half of never-
married mothers reported receiving AFDC (47.5 percent) in 1993.
The rate of childbearing by unmarried women age 15-44
increased by 54 percent from 1980-91, but has remained stable
at about 45.3 births per 1,000 unmarried women over the last 3
years. As chart 8-2 depicts, the birth rate of unmarried
adolescent women closely tracks that of all unmarried women of
childbearing age. Almost one-third (31 percent) of all births
in 1993 were out of wedlock (the most recent year for which
fertility data are available).
Most teen births were out of wedlock. Specifically, 71.3
percent of the 501,093 births to adolescents in 1993 were out
of wedlock (Wasem, 1995). On the other hand, the age group that
comprises the largest portion of out-of-wedlock births in 1993
was women in their early twenties (35.4 percent). While these
two statistics imply that adolescent childbearing is only an
overlapping portion of nonmarital births, the following
analysis of the birth order patterns (e.g., how many previous
births the mother has had) reveals a more complex relationship.
Although adolescent childbearing should not be viewed as
synonymous with out-of-wedlock births, adolescence appears to
be the time in life that most unmarried women start having
children.
CHART 8-2. BIRTH RATES FOR ALL WOMEN, ADOLESCENTS, UNMARRIED WOMEN, AND
UNMARRIED ADOLESCENTS, 1940-93
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of National
Center for Health Statistics natality data.
First Births to Unmarried Women
Not only has the sheer number of births to unmarried women
increased sharply over the past 25 years, but the birth order
patterns of unmarried women have changed as well. As chart 8-3
depicts, 60 percent of the 318,100 births to unmarried women in
1967 were their first child. By 1993, just under half (48.3
percent) of the 1.2 million births to unmarried women were
their first child. In other words, more than half of the
unmarried women who had a baby in 1993 had given birth
previously. Some of these unmarried women, however, may have
been previously married.
When the birth order patterns of unmarried women are broken
down by age in chart 8-4, it becomes clear that many of the
young women in the largest category (20-24 age group) had
previously given birth before they had this child out of
wedlock. Only 45 percent of these births are the first births
these young women have had, suggesting that many of these
unmarried mothers began their families as adolescents. Although
births to adolescents are only 30 percent of the 1.2 million
births to unmarried women, they make up almost half of all
first births to unmarried women (47.9 percent).
CHART 8-3. BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN IN 1967 AND 1993: FIRST BIRTHS AND
PREVIOUS BIRTHS
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of National
Center for Health Statistics natality data.
CHART 8-4. BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN IN 1993: LIVE BIRTHS BY AGE OF
MOTHER AND PREVIOUS BIRTHS
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of National
Center for Health Statistics natality data.
Links to AFDC Use
The Congressional Budget Office (Adams & Williams, 1990)
analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
and found that almost half of all adolescent mothers began
receiving AFDC within 5 years of the birth of their first
child. Over three-fourths of unmarried adolescent mothers began
receiving AFDC within 5 years of the birth of their first
child. Moreover, CBO found that observed differences in receipt
of AFDC by age and race were largely explained by the marital
status of the adolescent mother.
In addition to the role of adolescent childbearing, the
links between out-of-wedlock childbearing and AFDC use are also
being documented. Analysis of Current Population Survey data by
the Congressional Research Service found that perhaps as much
as half of caseload growth in recent years could be attributed
to the increased number of mother-only families (Gabe, 1992).
Similarly, an analysis of data from the Survey of Income
and Program Participation (SIPP) done by Amara Bachu and Martin
O'Connell (1995) of the Bureau of the Census found that nearly
half (47.5 percent) of AFDC mothers have never been married. As
shown in chart 8-5, this study, which compares the demographic
traits of AFDC mothers with non-AFDC mothers as of 1993, found
further that the percent of AFDC mothers who had never been
married was double the percent of non-AFDC mothers who had
never been married (23.6 percent).
CHART 8-5. MARITAL STATUS OF AFDC MOTHERS AND NON-AFDC MOTHERS, 1993
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of data
from the March 1995 Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP).
As chart 8-6 depicts, an analysis of the SIPP by Nicholas
Zill of Westat (1996) revealed that 68 percent of AFDC mothers
were unmarried at the time their first child was born, while
only 27 percent of non-AFDC mothers were. Over half (55
percent) of AFDC mothers were adolescents at the time of their
first birth in comparison with just under one-third (31
percent) of non-AFDC mothers. Zill also found that 44 percent
of AFDC mothers were unmarried adolescents at the time of their
first birth while only 17 percent of non-AFDC mothers were
unmarried adolescents at the time of their first birth.
CHART 8-6. MARITAL STATUS OF AFDC MOTHERS AND NON-AFDC MOTHERS AT THE
TIME OF THEIR FIRST CHILDBIRTH, 1993
Source: Zill (1996).
Preliminary NCHS data indicate that the number of teenage
mothers was 907,368 in 1983, of whom 652,678 were unmarried.
The differences in the welfare recipiency patterns of
adolescent mothers of different ages could be due to a number
of factors. In particular, they are likely to be partially due
to marital status differences between the two groups--the
younger mothers in this sample were much less likely to be
married than were older mothers. Other factors that might play
a role include differences in living arrangements and in the
likelihood of having a subsequent birth.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
[Legislative History Since 1980.]
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981,
signed into law on August 31, 1981 made extensive changes in
AFDC. The law imposed a gross income limit for AFDC eligibility
(150 percent of a State's need standard), capped the deduction
for child care costs ($160 monthly per child), set a standard
deduction for other work expenses ($75 monthly), and ended the
work incentive disregard for working recipients after their
first 4 months on a job. These provisions affected AFDC parents
with jobs by reducing or ending their benefits. They also had
potential effects on welfare mothers without jobs by reducing
the gains possible from work, and on nonwelfare mothers with
low earnings. Under previous law, a person in the latter group
could increase total income by decreasing
or ending earnings, enrolling in AFDC, and then resuming work.
OBRA also required States to count part of the income of a
stepparent as available to an AFDC child.
Former HHS Assistant Secretary Rubin reported in testimony
that 408,000 families lost eligibility and 299,000 lost
benefits as a result of the OBRA changes.
GAO evaluation of the 1981 amendments.--At the request of
the House Committee on Ways and Means, the U.S. General
Accounting Office conducted an in-depth evaluation of the
effect of the 1981 amendments on individual AFDC families in
five cities: Boston, Dallas, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Syracuse.
GAO examined case records, analyzed 10 years of HHS program
data, and interviewed former working AFDC recipients more than
1 year after their termination from AFDC due to the 1981
amendments.
Findings include:
--Once the declines in caseload and outlays stabilized, OBRA
had decreased the national AFDC-basic monthly caseload
by 493,000 cases and monthly outlays by $93 million.
However, because the caseload rose faster than
predicted after this point, long-term effects are less
certain.
--Working AFDC recipients who lost eligibility due to the
OBRA cuts were more likely to be nonwhite, younger than
those who remained on AFDC (28-33) and had been working
for their current employer between 1.7 and 3.4 years.
--Recipients who lost AFDC eligibility suffered a substantial
loss of income which they could not make up by
increased earnings or other means. The average monthly
income loss for working single-parent families who lost
AFDC eligibility was $186 in Memphis, $229 in Dallas,
$180 in Milwaukee, $151 in Syracuse, and $115 in
Boston.
--Lack of health coverage was common among these former AFDC
recipients. In Dallas, 59.2 percent of those families
who lost AFDC did not have any health coverage. In
Memphis, 45 percent, in Boston, 27.5 percent, in
Syracuse, 17.1 percent and in Milwaukee, 13.9 percent
had no health coverage at all. Private health insurance
coverage was more common in high AFDC benefit States.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA)
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369),
signed into law on July 18, 1984, includes 22 AFDC amendments
and an income and asset verification amendment that affected
several programs. They are summarized below:
1. Gross income limitation.--The act increases the gross
income limitation for AFDC from 150 to 185 percent of the State
standard of need.
2. Work expense deduction.--The act requires States to
disregard the first $75 monthly for full- and part-time
workers; previously, a lower disregard applied to part-time
workers.
3. Continuation of $30 disregard.--Under prior law, the $30
plus one-third of remaining earnings disregard was limited to 4
months. The act retains the 4-month limit on the one-third
disregard but extends the $30 disregard for an additional 8
months for a total of 12 months.
4. Work transition status.--The act provides that families
who lose AFDC because of the termination of the (4-month)
earnings disregard will be eligible for 9 months of Medicaid
coverage. At State option, an additional 6 months of Medicaid
coverage can be provided. In addition, families who lost AFDC
eligibility before enactment of the work transition will also
be eligible for Medicaid under certain specified circumstances.
5. Clarification of earned income provisions.--The act
clarifies that the term ``earned income'' as used in the AFDC
Program means the gross amount of earnings, before payroll or
other deductions.
6. Burial plots, funeral agreements and certain property.--
The act exempts burial plots and funeral agreements from the
$1,000 AFDC resources limitation. An AFDC policy on real
property that is similar to SSI policy is also established.
7. Federal matching for Community Work Experience Program
(CWEP) expenses.--Under prior law, States were required to
reimburse a CWEP participant for necessary transportation and
other expenses. Federal matching for this reimbursement was by
regulation, limited to $25 per month. The act requires States
to reimburse a CWEP participant for costs incurred if the State
is unable to provide directly any transportation or day care
services. Reimbursement of day care expenses is limited to
those determined by the State to be reasonable, necessary and
cost effective up to $160 per month per child.
8. Retrospective budgeting and monthly reporting.--The act
mandates retrospective budgeting for cases filing a monthly
report. Monthly reporting is required when cost effective;
cases with earned income and recent work history must report
monthly.
Previously, monthly reporting and retrospective budgeting
were required for all AFDC cases; however, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services could waive the reporting requirement
if it was not cost effective.
9. Earned income credit (EIC).--The act requires States to
count the EIC only when actually received. Prior law required
States to assume that an individual was receiving the earned
income credit on an advance basis regardless of when or if it
was received.
10. Demonstrations of one-stop service delivery.--The act
authorizes from three to five federally-assisted demonstration
projects designed to test the effectiveness and efficiency of
integrating the delivery of human services.
11. Work requirements for pregnant women.--The act exempts
from work registration a woman who is in the third trimester of
pregnancy.
12. Recalculation of lump sum income.--Under prior law,
States could recalculate ineligibility caused by receipt of
lump sum income only if a life-threatening circumstance
occurred. The act allows States to recalculate the
ineligibility period under three specified circumstances: (1)
an event occurs that would have changed the amount of AFDC
paid; (2) the income becomes unavailable for reasons beyond the
family's control; and (3) the family incurs, becomes
responsible for and pays medical bills which offset the lump
sum income.
13. Overpayment recoupment.--The act permits States to
waive recovery of benefit overpayments when it is not cost
effective. States will be permitted to automatically waive
overpayments of less than $35. Larger overpayments must be
collected unless the State determines, after attempting to
collect the overpayment, that the cost to collect would exceed
the amount owed. Previously, States were required to attempt to
recover all benefit overpayments.
14. Protective payments.--Under prior law, States were
required to make protective payments to a third party when a
parent on AFDC failed to meet certain statutory procedural
requirements. The act permits States to make the payment to the
parent if, after all reasonable efforts have been made, a
suitable protective payee cannot be found.
15. Eligibility requirements for aliens.--Under prior law
the income of an individual who sponsors a nonrefugee alien was
deemed to be available to the alien for 3 years after entry
into the United States. The act establishes a similar policy
for aliens who are sponsored by organizations or agencies.
16. Fugitive felons.--The act permits States to disclose
the current address of an AFDC recipient if a law enforcement
agency provides the correct Social Security number and
demonstrates that the recipient is a fugitive felon.
17. Payment schedule for back claims.--The act establishes
a payment schedule for court-ordered reimbursements and certain
other back claims owed by the Federal Government to the States
that have been allowed or are pending.
18. Work Supplementation Program.--The act modifies the
existing Work Supplementation Program to provide additional
flexibility to States in operating grant diversion programs in
which all or part of the AFDC grant can be used to subsidize a
job.
19. Disregard of in-kind income.--The act extends, until
October 1, 1987, the disregard of certain in-kind assistance
provided on the basis of need.
20. Standard filing unit/child support payments.--There was
no requirement in prior law that parents and all siblings be
included in the AFDC unit. The act requires States to include
in the filing unit the parents and all minor siblings (but not
any SSI recipient) living with a dependent child who applies
for or receives AFDC. In addition, a monthly disregard of $50
of child support received by a family is established.
21. CWEP work for Federal agencies.--The act permits
Federal agencies or offices to serve as Community Work
Experience Program (CWEP) sites under the same requirements as
apply to other sites.
22. Earned income of full-time students.--For purposes of
applying the gross income limitation, the act allows States to
disregard the income of an AFDC child who is a full-time
student.
23. Income and eligibility verification procedures.--Public
Law 98-369 provides for the IRS to disclose return information
with respect to unearned income to Federal, State, or local
agencies administering AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, food stamps, and
the cash assistance programs administered in Puerto Rico, Guam,
and the Virgin Islands.
Disclosure can be made only to agencies that meet the
requirements to safeguard this confidential information against
disclosure, and verification of the unearned income information
is required prior to taking action to reduce or terminate
benefits.
Under previous law, IRS wage information furnished by
employers to IRS was available to State welfare agencies for
use in their AFDC and Food Stamp Programs, and to the Social
Security Administration for administering the SSI Program.
However, IRS unearned income information (filed by a financial
institution or corporation with respect to payments to
individuals in the form of interest, dividends, etc.) was not
available to Federal and State agencies for use in the
administration of these programs. Quarterly wage information
from the Unemployment Compensation Program was available to
State welfare agencies in most States.
The new law also amends provisions about use (for AFDC
purposes) of return and other wage information and use of
Social Security numbers, by adding a new section to the Social
Security Act requiring States to have in effect an income and
eligibility verification system for use in administering the
AFDC, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, and Food Stamp
Programs (and the adult assistance programs in the
territories). State agencies must request and make use of: (1)
wage and other income information available under the Internal
Revenue Code; and (2) quarterly wage information. Each State is
required as of September 30, 1988, to maintain a quarterly wage
reporting system, although not necessarily through its
unemployment compensation system.
The income and eligibility system requires use of
standardized data formats to facilitate exchange of
information, for the purpose of identifying and reducing
ineligibility and incorrect payments.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law
100-203), signed into law on December 21, 1987, made four AFDC
amendments, summarized below:
1. Fraud control under AFDC Program.--Effective April 1,
1988, authorizes 75 percent Federal funding for the costs of a
State's fraud control program.
2. Assistance to homeless families.--Prohibits the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, before October 1, 1988,
from taking any action that would have the effect of
implementing the proposed regulations published in the Federal
Register on December 14, 1987. These regulations would have
restricted the use of AFDC emergency assistance funds for
homeless families and would have limited States' authority to
make payments for special needs of AFDC recipients. The
moratorium on promulgation of regulations is intended to give
Congress an opportunity to determine whether and how the
current AFDC statute should be amended to respond to the
problems of homeless families.
3. Washington State Demonstration Program.--Allows the
State of Washington to conduct a demonstration of its proposed
Family Independence Program.
4. New York State Demonstration Program.--Allows the State
of New York to test a child support supplement demonstration
program as an alternative to the present AFDC Program.
The Family Support Act of 1988
Summary of provisions.--The Family Support Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-485), signed into law on October 13, 1988,
makes extensive changes to AFDC. The major elements of the
JOBS, Child Care Transition, and Medicaid Transition Programs
are summarized in table 8-53. CBO estimated at time of
enactment that the new law would increase Federal costs by $3.3
billion and State/local costs by $0.7 billion over 5 years,
1989 through 1993 (for detailed cost estimates, see 1994 Green
Book, pp. 433-435).
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-508), signed into law on November 5, 1990, made these AFDC
changes:
State option to require monthly reporting and retrospective
budgeting.--OBRA 1990 gives States the option of specifying
from which categories of families, if any, monthly reports will
be required. States also may choose to apply retrospective
budgeting procedures to any category from whom it requires
monthly reports.
TABLE 8-53.--IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF JOBS AND THE TRANSITIONAL CHILD CARE
AND MEDICAID PROGRAMS
Important elements of JOBS:
Funding provisions.......................... Federal match rates:
90 percent for $126
million (equal to
1987 WIN funding);
AFDC benefit match
rate with a floor of
60 percent for most
expenditures (the
highest State benefit
match in 1993 will be
79 percent); AFDC
benefit match rate
for child care; 50
percent for most
administrative costs
and other services.
Entitlement caps
(excluding child
care).
[fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
1989............ 600
1990............ 800
1991............ 1,000
1992............ 1,000
1993............ 1,000
1994............ 1,100
1995............ 1,300
1996 and after.. 1,000
Work-related activities..................... States must include
these activities:
education, job skills
training, job
readiness, job
development and job
placement.
States must include
two of the following
activities: group and
individual job
search, on-the-job
training, work
supplementation,
community work
experience or other
approved work
experience.
Priority groups............................. States must spend 55
percent of their
funds on:
(1) Recipients or
applicants who have
received AFDC for
any 36 of the
preceding 60
months.
(2) Parents under
age 24 who have not
completed high
school or had
little or no work
experience in the
preceding year.
(3) Members of
families whose
youngest child is
within 2 years of
being ineligible
for AFDC.
States must give
priority to
volunteers within
these three groups.
Participation requirements:
[fiscal year, in
percent]
General:
1990 \1\.... 7
1991........ 7
1992........ 11
1993........ 11
1994........ 15
1995........ 20
AFDC-UP:
1994........ 40
1995........ 50
1996........ 60
1997........ 75
1998........ 75
Important elements of the Transitional
Child Care Program:
Funding provisions................... Uncapped
entitlement at
AFDC benefit
match rate (50
to 79 percent).
Eligibility.......................... Families who
leave AFDC
because of
increased
earnings, hours
of work, or
loss of the
earnings
disregards.
Families must
have received
AFDC in at
least 3 of the
preceding 6
months. No
income limits.
Benefits............................. Direct child
care services,
vouchers, cash,
reimbursements,
or other
arrangements
adopted by
State agency.
Care must meet
State and local
standards. Last
for 12 months.
Maximum payments..................... Reimbursements
are limited to
actual costs,
up to local
market rates.
States may set
payment
maximums below
market rates.
These caps may
not be less
than the AFDC
child care
disregards of
$175 a month
for children 2
years and older
and $200 a
month for
children under
age 2 unless
local market
rates are lower
than these
levels.
Family copayments.................... Vary with
family's
ability to pay
as determined
by States in
sliding scale
formulas.
Effective dates...................... Program begins
April 1, 1990.
Program ends
September 30,
1998.
Important elements of the Transitional
Medicaid Program:
Funding provisions................... Uncapped
entitlement at
Medicaid match
rate (50 to 79
percent).
Eligibility.......................... Families who
leave AFDC
because of
increased
earnings, hours
of work, or
loss of the
earnings
disregards.
Families must
have received
AFDC in at
least 3 of the
preceding 6
months.
Families whose
average gross
monthly
earnings (less
necessary child
care expenses)
are below 185
percent of the
poverty
thresholds.
Benefits............................. Last for 12
months. Second
6 months are
contingent on
payment of a
premium, which
is at State
option.
Premiums............................. States allowed
to charge a
premium after 6
months to
families whose
average gross
monthly
earnings (less
necessary child
care expenses)
are above the
poverty
thresholds.
Premiums
limited to no
more than 3
percent of a
family's
average gross
monthly
earnings.
Effective dates...................... Program begins
April 1, 1990.
Program ends
September 30,
1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no penalty for failing to meet the 1990 requirements.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
``At-Risk'' Child Care Program.--OBRA 1990 establishes a
matching grant program ($300 million annually) for subsidized
child care for low-income persons who need child care in order
to work and who would be at risk of becoming eligible for AFDC
without it.
Treatment of foster care maintenance payments and adoption
assistance.--OBRA 1990 requires that State and/or local foster
care maintenance payments not be counted in determining the
family's income or resources. Similarly, State and/or local
adoption assistance payments are not to be counted, unless the
family would benefit from their inclusion.
Eliminating the term ``legal guardian.''--OBRA 1990 deletes
all references in AFDC law to legal guardians.
Reporting of child abuse and neglect.--OBRA 1990 mandates
State agencies to report to an appropriate agency known or
suspected instances of child abuse and neglect of children
receiving AFDC, foster care, or adoption assistance.
Permissible uses of AFDC information.--OBRA 1990 allows
title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Programs to
access information about AFDC applicants and recipients.
Moratorium on final regulations for emergency assistance.--
OBRA 1990 extends the prohibition of issuance of final
regulations, and the prohibition on modifying current policy to
October 1, 1991.
Allow good cause exception to required cooperation for
child care transition benefits.--OBRA 1990 corrects an
oversight of previous law by adopting a good cause exception to
the requirement that a parent cooperate in establishing and
enforcing his/her ``child support obligations'' as a condition
of eligibility for transitional child care benefits.
Technical correction to the JOBS Program regarding failure
to participate.--OBRA 1990 repeals penalty language that denied
AFDC to children of a principal earner who fails to participate
in the JOBS Program without good cause. Thus, the children of
such parents continue to receive benefits.
Technical correction regarding AFDC-UP eligibility
requirements.--OBRA 1990 amended previous law to allow
participation in WIN and CWEP before October 1, 1990 to count
toward the quarter of work requirement for AFDC-UP eligibility.
Technical correction to community development
demonstration.--OBRA 1990 amends previous law to specify that
DHHS can enter into agreements with up to 10 nonprofit
organizations each year.
GAO study of JOBS funding for Indian tribes.--OBRA 1990
directs GAO to conduct a study of the implementation of the
JOBS Program with respect to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
organizations.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1993
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-66), signed into law on August 10, 1993, made these AFDC
changes:
Limit all AFDC administrative cost matching rates to 50
percent.--OBRA 1993 reduces the 90-percent matching rate for
automated systems to 50 percent, reduces the 75-percent
matching rate for fraud control programs to 50 percent, and
reduces the 100-percent matching rate for immigration
verification systems to 50 percent.
Increase in disregard of stepparents income.--OBRA 1993
increases the earnings disregard for stepparents to $90
monthly, from $75 monthly. This amount of earnings is not to be
counted in determining the eligibility or benefit amounts of
AFDC applicants and recipients.
The Social Security amendments of 1994
The Social Security amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-
432), signed into law on October 31, 1994, included these
provisions affecting AFDC:
Retrospective budgeting.--Permits States to decide whether
to apply monthly reporting requirements, retrospective
accounting rules, or a combination of the two to a category of
families. Previous law allowed retrospective budgeting only for
families required to provide monthly reports.
Delay in AFDC-UP mandate for outlying jurisdictions.--
Delays the requirement for implementation of AFDC-UP in Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands (and American Samoa, should it
choose to offer AFDC) until Congress has repealed the funding
limits on Federal matching payments to these areas for AFDC
benefit payments. Makes this amendment effective as if it had
been included in the original provision of the Family Support
Act that set a deadline of October 1, 1992 for AFDC-UP in these
areas.
Verification of status of citizens and aliens.--Allows one
adult member of an AFDC family to sign, under penalty of
perjury, a declaration as to the citizenship or satisfactory
immigration status of all family members. Previously, each
adult member had to sign on his own behalf and the adult
caretaker had to sign for a child.
Welfare indicators and predictors.--Requires the Secretary
of HHS, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
develop predictors of welfare receipt and indicators of the
rate at which families depend on income from welfare programs
(and, to the extent possible, their degree of dependence), and
the duration of welfare receipt. Requires interim report by
October 1, 1996, to include assessment of needed data.
Establishes an advisory board on welfare indicators (12
members, to be chosen equally by the House of Representatives,
the Senate, and the President). Requires the Secretary to
submit annual reports on welfare receipt (first report due on
October 31, 1997) covering AFDC, food stamps, SSI, and programs
of State/locally funded general assistance. Reports are to
include trends in indicators, causes and predictors of welfare
receipt, patterns of multiple program receipt, and
recommendations for legislation (other than cuts in eligibility
levels or barriers to program access) that the Secretary finds
necessary or desirable to reduce the rate of welfare receipt
and its duration.
New Hope Demonstration Project.--Requires the HHS Secretary
to provide for a demonstration project to be operated by The
New Hope Project, Inc., offering low-income residents of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin employment, wage supplements, child care,
health care, and counseling and training for job retention or
advancement. For up to 5 years, Secretary is to pay the
operator an amount equal to aggregate Federal funds that
otherwise would have been payable to the State on behalf of New
Hope participants for AFDC benefits, administration, and child
care and for Medicaid. Requires an evaluation design.
REFERENCES
Adams, G., & Williams, R.C. (1990). Sources of support for
adolescent mothers. Washington, DC: Congressional
Budget Office.
Bachu, A., & O'Connell, M. (1995). Mothers who receive AFDC
payments: Fertility and socioeconomic characteristics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census.
Bane, M.J., & Ellwood, D.T. (1983). The dynamics of dependence:
The routes to self-sufficiency (Department of Health
and Human Services Contract No. HHS-100-82-0038).
Cambridge: Urban Systems Research and Engineering.
Burke, V. (1995). Cash and noncash benefits for persons with
limited income: Eligibility rules, recipient and
expenditure data, fiscal years 1992-94 (96-159 EPW).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Cao, J. (1996, March). Welfare recipiency and welfare
recidivism: An analysis of the NLSY data (Discussion
Paper No. 1081-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin,
Institute for Research on Poverty.
Duncan, G.J., Hill, M.S., & Hoffman, S.D. (1988). Welfare
dependence within and across generations. Science, Vol.
239.
Edin, K.J. (1995). The myths of dependence and self-
sufficiency: Women, welfare, and low-wage work. Focus,
17(2), pp. 1-9. Madison: University of Wisconsin,
Institute for Research on Poverty.
Ellwood, D.T. (1986). Targeting would-be long-term recipients
of AFDC (Department of Health and Human Services
Contract No. 100-84-0059). Princeton, New Jersey:
Mathematica Policy Research.
Freedman, S., & Friedlander, D. (1995). The JOBS evaluation:
Early findings on program impacts in three sites.
Executive summary. New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation.
Gabe, T. (1992). Demographic trends affecting aid to families
with dependent children (AFDC) caseload growth (93-7
EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Gabe, T., & Falk, G. (1995). Welfare: Work (dis)incentives in
the welfare system (95-105 EPW). Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service.
Gottschalk, P. (1992). The intergenerational transmission of
welfare participation: Facts and possible causes.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(2), pp.
254-72.
Hagen, J.L., & Lurie, I. (1994). Implementing JOBS: Progress
and promise. Albany, New York: Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government.
Hill, M.S., & Ponza, M. (1984, Fall). Does welfare dependency
beget dependency? Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Levine, L. (1994). Jobs for welfare recipients (94-457 E).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Moffitt, R. (1990, March). Incentive effects of the U.S.
welfare system: A review (Special Report Series No.
48). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for
Research on Poverty.
Neisner, J. (1995). State welfare initiatives (94-183 EPW).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Pavetti, L. (1993). The dynamics of welfare and work: Exploring
the process by which women work their way off welfare.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Pavetti, L. (1995, September 11). Questions and answers on
welfare dynamics. Paper presented at a research meeting
on welfare dynamics, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
Peskin, J., Tapogna, J., & Marcotte, D. (1993, July).
Forecasting AFDC caseloads with an emphasis on economic
factors [CBO Staff Memorandum]. Washington, DC:
Congressional Budget Office.
Solomon-Fears, C.D. (1995). Emergency assistance for children
and their families under the Social Security Act (95-
1052 EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service.
Spalter-Roth, R., Burr, B., Hartmann, H., & Shaw, L. (1995).
Welfare that works: The working lives of AFDC
recipients. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's
Policy Research.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). Report to
Congress: Recommendations on performance standards for
the JOBS program. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995).
Characteristics of State plans for the job
opportunities and basic skills [JOBS] training program:
1995-96 edition. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Welfare to work: JOBS
participation rate data unreliable in assessing states'
performance (GAO/HRD No. 93-73). Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995). Welfare to work: Most
AFDC training programs not emphasizing job placements
(GAO/HEHS, 95-113). Washington, DC: Author.
Wasem, R.E. (1995). Adolescent childbearing: Fact sheet on
trends and consequences (94-983 EPW). Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service.
Zill, N. (1996). Tabulation of unpublished data from the Survey
of Income and Program Participation. Rockville, MD:
Westat, Inc.