THE JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND BASIC SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM (JOBS)
The Family Support Act of 1988 established a new
employment, education and training program for recipients of
AFDC. Called the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
Training Program, this program replaced the Work Incentive
(WIN) Program. The law required most able-bodied AFDC parents
whose youngest child was at least 3 years old to participate in
JOBS. The WIN Program had exempted parents of preschoolers. (As
noted earlier, JOBS was repealed by Public Law 104-193, which
established TANF.)
Purpose and Administration
The purpose of JOBS was to assure that needy families with
children obtained education, training and employment that would
help them avoid long-term welfare dependence. Each State was
required to operate JOBS in every subdivision where it was
feasible to do so. According to the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (1995a), 12 States 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) met a regulatory standard
by offering a complete JOBS Program (see below for definition)
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 lived. The other
three States without a statewide program were Idaho, New
Mexico, and Texas, which made JOBS available in certain
counties and political subdivisions. JOBS was administered at
the Federal level by the Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families in DHHS, and at the State level by the State welfare
agency. The State welfare agency could offer services and
activities through its own staff and facilities, 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). For a summary of JOBS Programs from State
plans for fiscal years 1995-96, see the 1996 Green Book.
Employability Plan and Case Management
JOBS required States to develop an employability plan for
each participant, based upon an assessment of the person's
needs, skills, past work experience, and employability. The
agency could require the participant to enter into an agreement
specifying her obligations and the activities and services to
be provided by the State. As of August 1996, six States
required this kind of agreement. Further, all but two States--
Iowa and Oklahoma--assigned a case manager to each participant
to assist the family in obtaining needed services.
JOBS Activities
States were required to offer supportive services and
these four ``mandatory'' activities: (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. In addition, States were
required to 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. Further, States were allowed to 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) offered postsecondary education
under JOBS.
A complete JOBS Program contained the four mandatory
components above and at least two of the four optional
activities. A minimal program included high school or
equivalent education and information and referral to available
non-JOBS employment services. Some details about the JOBS rules
for job search, CWEP, and work supplementation programs follow.
Nondisplacement
JOBS law contained nondisplacement rules; a JOBS assignment
could not displace a worker or position, or infringe upon
promotional opportunities of a worker; a JOBS participant could
not fill a position from which a worker had been laid off.
Job search
States could require up to 8 weeks of job search for
applicants and up to 8 weeks of job search for AFDC recipients
each year. However, States could not require a person to engage
in more than 3 weeks of job search before assessing the
person's employability.
Community work experience
JOBS law required that CWEP Programs be designed to improve
the employability of participants through actual work
experience and training and restricted them to projects serving
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. Maximum hours of
required CWEP activity during the first 9 months were
determined by dividing the participant's AFDC benefit (less any
AFDC amount for which the State received reimbursement through
child support collection) by the Federal minimum wage (or, if
greater, the State minimum wage). After 9 months in a CWEP
position, a participant's required weekly hours were to be
recalculated 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. The law specified that it was not to
be construed as authorizing payment of AFDC as ``compensation
for work performed'' and said that CWEP participation was not
to entitle a person to ``a salary or any other work or training
expense.''
Work supplementation
JOBS law permitted a State to ``divert'' all or part of a
family's AFDC grant to an employer for use as a wage subsidy.
The State welfare agency could itself be the employer who
provided a ``supplemented'' job. To carry out a work program,
States could adjust the level of their AFDC standard of need,
vary benefit amounts paid to different categories of
participants, and reduce or eliminate the amount of their
earned income disregards. On the other hand, States could treat
participants' earnings more liberally (extending duration of
the earned income disregard), and the law made work
supplementation wages eligible for the earned income credit.
Federal funding under the program was limited for each
participant to the aggregate of 9 months' worth of the maximum
AFDC grant that the family would have received if it had no
income. JOBS law was explicit about the ``worker'' status of
persons in supplemented jobs: those whose job was provided by
the welfare agency were not to be given ``employee'' status;
nor, for the first 13 weeks of a job provided by any other
entity was employee status to be required.
Exemptions, Child Care, and Participation Requirements
Exemptions
To the extent resources were available, States were obliged
to require nonexempt AFDC recipients to participate in JOBS.
Exempt applicants and recipients could participate as
volunteers. Exempt were persons who were: (1) ill,
incapacitated, or of advanced age; (2) needed at home because
of the illness or incapacity of another family member; (3) the
parent or other caretaker relative of a child under age 3 (or,
at State option) any age 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 pregnant woman (in at least the second
trimester); or (7) residing where JOBS was not available. As of
August 1996, 37 jurisdictions exempted the parents of a child
under 3; 3 lowered the age threshold to age 2 (Connecticut, New
Jersey, and the Virgin Islands); and 14 lowered the threshold
to age 1 (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).
Child care for welfare parents
JOBS law required States to ``guarantee'' child care (by
direct provision, reimbursement, vouchers, etc.) for JOBS
participants who needed it, and for other AFDC parents already
in school, training, or work. States were required to continue
child care benefits for 1 year to families who left AFDC for
work (transitional care), charging them an income-related fee.
In general, the parent of a child under age 6 could be required
to participate no more than 20 hours weekly and, then, only if
child care were ``guaranteed.'' In the case of an AFDC-UP
family, the exemption relating to age of child applied to only
one parent, unless child care were guaranteed. (For more
information on child care, see section 9).
Minimum participation standards
JOBS law set minimum participation standards 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 rose from 7
percent (of the nonexempt caseload, not the entire caseload) in
fiscal years 1990-91 to 20 percent in fiscal year 1995 (none
thereafter). Special participation rules applied to the
unemployed-parent caseload. One parent in these families was
required to participate at least 16 hours a week in one of
these work activities: work supplementation, community work
experience or other work experience program, on-the-job
training, or a State-designed work program approved by the
Secretary. However, in low-benefit States, fewer than 16 hours
of weekly CWEP participation were required since work hours
calculated at the minimum wage could not exceed the number
needed to yield the family's AFDC benefit. The percentage of
nonexempt AFDC-UP families required to meet this work rule rose
from 40 percent in fiscal year 1994 to 75 percent in fiscal
year 1997.
The prescribed penalty for failing to meet the general
participation rate was a reduction in the Federal matching
rate, but the penalty always was waived, as allowed under
certain conditions.
Definition of JOBS participant
The law did not define ``participant,'' but Federal
regulations required that JOBS participation rates be measured
by a 20-hour-per-week standard. Welfare agencies were directed
to count as participants the largest number of persons whose
combined and averaged hours in specified JOBS activities
equaled or exceeded 20 per week. Creditable activities included
any component of the State's JOBS plan except job development
and job placement. Persons who entered a job were 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
The JOBS Program included a financial penalty--a reduced
Federal matching rate--for failure to spend at least 55 percent
of JOBS funds on certain populations, namely: (1) families in
which the custodial parent was under age 24 and had not
completed high school or had little or no work experience in
the preceding year; (2) families in which the youngest child
was within 2 years of being ineligible for assistance because
of age; (3) families that had received assistance for 36 or
more months during the preceding 60-month period; and (4)
applicants who had received AFDC for any 36 of the 60 months
immediately preceding application.
Funding of JOBS and Supportive Services
Federal matching for JOBS was available as a capped
entitlement, limited to $1 billion annually in fiscal year
1996. The Federal matching rate was 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 was
at the Medicaid rate (between 50 and about 78 percent), but
with a minimum Federal match of 60 percent for
nonadministrative costs and for full-time JOBS personnel costs.
The match for other administrative costs was 50 percent.
However, the law provided for a reduction in the JOBS Federal
matching rate to 50 percent unless: (1) 55 percent of funds
were spent on target populations listed above; and (2) the
States met participation rate requirements.
The entitlement cap for JOBS was allocated as follows:
States received an amount equal to their WIN allotment for
fiscal year 1987 ($126 million across all States) and the
remainder was allocated on the basis of each State's relative
number of adult AFDC recipients. Federal program funds could
not be used to supplant non-Federal funds for existing services
and activities, and States were required to spend on JOBS, from
State/local funds, at least as much as they did for comparable
activities in fiscal year 1986.
AFDC/JOBS child care and transitional child care were
reimbursed as a separate, open-ended entitlement at the
Medicaid matching rate. Transportation and other work-related
expenses were reimbursed at a rate of 50 percent and were among
expenditures subject to the JOBS entitlement cap.
Table 7-33 provides information on fiscal year 1996
Federal allocations to the States for JOBS, along with
information on the amount of these funds States had expended
and obligated. Authorized for JOBS was $1 billion; the Federal
share of JOBS expenditures claimed by States as of April 2,
1997, however, was only $870.4 million. The table also includes
information on federally reimbursed expenditures for child
care. For AFDC/JOBS and transitional child care, States claimed
Federal reimbursement of $1.189 billion in fiscal year 1996,
compared with $893 million in fiscal year 1995.
Table 7-34 displays the percentage of JOBS allocations,
after Indian set-asides, used by each jurisdiction in fiscal
years 1990-96. The number of States that used their full
allocation rose to 22 in fiscal year 1996. Four States spent
100 percent of their JOBS allocation in each year since 1990:
Alaska, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Table 7-35 shows the average monthly number of JOBS
participants reported by States during fiscal year 1995 (data
not reported by Alaska, the District of Columbia, Virgin
Islands, and Guam) and their percentage distribution by program
component. In the 50 reporting jurisdictions a monthly average
of 632,054 persons were active JOBS participants, up 9 percent
from the previous year. However, more than 20 percent of these
participants were not ``countable'' for purposes of calculating
official participation rates (see table 7-37). More than 40
percent of JOBS participants were in five States: California,
New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
TABLE 7-33.--FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE JOBS PROGRAM, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV-A
States JOBS total Indian set- Awarded to Total Total child care
authoriz.\1\ aside \2\ States \3\ obligated \4\ expended \5\ \6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... $7.3 0.0 $7.3 $7.3 $7.3 $16.6
Alaska........................... 3.1 $1.1 2.0 3.1 2.0 3.4
American Samoa................... 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
Arizona.......................... 12.9 1.8 11.2 12.9 11.2 22.7
Arkansas......................... 4.3 0.0 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.9
California....................... 186.2 0.7 121.9 122.6 28.3 83.3
Colorado......................... 9.3 0.0 9.2 9.2 9.3 10.2
Connecticut...................... 13.1 0.0 9.2 9.2 11.4 25.1
Delaware......................... 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.2
District of Columbia............. 5.6 0.0 5.6 5.6 4.9 4.5
Florida.......................... 39.8 0.0 25.4 25.4 14.1 47.1
Georgia.......................... 24.8 0.0 24.8 24.8 24.4 46.1
Guam............................. 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0
Hawaii........................... 5.2 0.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.5
Idaho............................ 2.6 (\7\) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.1
Illinois......................... 49.8 0.0 42.0 42.0 36.9 78.6
Indiana.......................... 13.5 0.0 13.5 13.5 10.3 27.9
Iowa............................. 8.3 0.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 6.9
Kansas........................... 5.9 (\7\) 5.9 5.9 5.9 10.7
Kentucky......................... 13.6 0.0 13.6 13.6 7.8 16.9
Louisiana........................ 16.5 0.0 16.5 16.5 16.5 13.2
Maine............................ 5.2 (\7\) 5.1 5.2 5.1 3.5
Maryland......................... 16.6 0.0 13.1 13.1 8.8 21.3
Massachusetts.................... 23.6 0.0 23.0 23.0 22.8 50.0
Michigan......................... 49.0 0.6 48.4 49.0 48.4 30.3
Minnesota........................ 13.5 1.0 12.5 13.5 12.5 24.0
Mississippi...................... 8.6 (\7\) 8.6 8.6 8.6 6.2
Missouri......................... 17.5 0.0 16.1 16.1 15.1 26.1
Montana.......................... 2.9 0.4 2.5 2.9 1.9 3.3
Nebraska......................... 3.0 0.1 2.9 3.0 2.9 8.6
Nevada........................... 2.8 (\7\) 2.1 2.1 1.5 2.9
New Hampshire.................... 2.2 0.0 2.2 2.2 1.3 4.3
New Jersey....................... 25.3 0.0 25.3 25.3 24.6 40.9
New Mexico....................... 7.8 0.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 8.7
New York......................... 99.5 (\7\) 99.5 99.5 70.2 52.2
North Carolina................... 22.2 0.1 22.1 22.2 22.1 61.2
North Dakota..................... 1.4 0.4 1.0 1.4 0.5 1.9
Ohio............................. 46.3 0.0 46.3 46.3 38.4 65.0
Oklahoma......................... 8.4 0.2 8.1 8.4 8.1 25.7
Oregon........................... 10.2 0.1 10.1 10.2 10.1 25.7
Pennsylvania..................... 44.3 0.0 44.3 44.3 36.2 55.8
Puerto Rico...................... 11.6 0.0 11.6 11.6 11.1 0.0
Rhode Island..................... 4.8 0.0 4.8 4.8 4.1 6.5
South Carolina................... 7.5 0.0 7.5 7.5 7.3 12.1
South Dakota..................... 1.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.7
Tennessee........................ 18.5 0.0 6.8 6.8 5.9 41.0
Texas............................ 47.2 0.0 40.7 40.7 33.1 66.7
Utah............................. 4.1 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 13.2
Vermont.......................... 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.6
Virgin Islands................... 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0
Virginia......................... 13.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 18.7
Washington....................... 25.5 0.8 24.7 25.5 22.3 39.9
West Virginia.................... 9.3 0.0 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.7
Wisconsin........................ 17.5 0.4 17.1 17.5 17.1 27.8
Wyoming.......................... 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.2 0.8 2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total................. 1,000.0 8.5 870.4 878.9 684.7 1,188.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ JOBS total authorization: Total Federal funds available for the JOBS Program for fiscal year 1996.
\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\ Total obligated: The amount of funds obligated by the State by September 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994. 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 service
is actually paid.
\5\ Federal share of expenditures claimed by States for the JOBS Program. Preliminary data.
\6\ Federal share of expenditures claimed by States for AFDC and transitional child care. Does not include child
care administrative costs.
\7\ Less than $50,000.
Note.--Data as of April 2, 1997, and based on best available data reported by States.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 7-34.--FEDERAL SHARE OF JOBS EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENT OF JOBS ALLOCATION, FISCAL YEARS 1990-96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................. 9.3 42.9 64.9 96.3 100.0 85.1 100.0
Alaska................................................... 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Arizona.................................................. 0.0 35.2 41.9 53.8 55.2 74.2 94.3
Arkansas................................................. 97.6 100.0 99.1 100.0 67.5 78.4 87.2
California............................................... 77.0 67.5 61.2 63.5 66.3 91.6 23.3
Colorado................................................. 25.2 51.7 65.3 77.3 83.0 86.3 100.0
Connecticut.............................................. 99.0 83.8 62.9 50.5 71.9 61.9 87.1
Delaware................................................. 76.1 71.8 82.9 76.3 99.0 100.0 100.0
District of Columbia..................................... 49.1 69.0 75.5 100.0 93.4 76.8 86.8
Florida.................................................. 64.3 50.0 46.8 41.2 33.3 32.9 93.4
Georgia.................................................. 36.4 35.4 42.0 60.6 62.1 75.8 98.6
Guam..................................................... 0.0 60.5 73.5 95.1 43.6 32.8 69.2
Hawaii................................................... 0.0 40.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Idaho.................................................... 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0
Illnois.................................................. 19.0 35.8 40.0 49.5 61.9 59.2 77.8
Indiana.................................................. 0.0 29.3 47.1 61.6 64.5 62.5 76.1
Iowa..................................................... 63.1 58.4 65.6 70.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
Kansas................................................... 72.7 67.1 88.9 100.0 96.2 100.0 100.0
Kentucky................................................. 0.0 55.4 66.0 78.0 84.4 70.3 97.0
Louisiana................................................ 0.0 38.9 85.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Maine.................................................... 0.0 65.3 58.2 64.2 60.2 85.7 100.0
Maryland................................................. 99.2 84.2 86.9 80.5 87.6 64.0 53.2
Massachusetts............................................ 67.9 80.6 76.3 86.7 77.5 72.1 99.5
Michigan................................................. 41.6 33.6 50.2 63.6 71.0 75.7 100.0
Minnesota................................................ 67.8 58.6 75.3 77.9 87.1 89.8 100.0
Mississippi.............................................. 0.0 11.4 81.4 91.7 94.0 100.0 100.0
Missouri................................................. 4.7 16.8 34.3 51.9 55.3 63.9 86.4
Montana.................................................. 10.0 67.2 100.0 100.0 93.5 100.0 74.6
Nebraska................................................. 56.5 63.0 90.2 78.0 75.2 69.5 100.0
Nevada................................................... 30.9 36.6 49.4 50.2 43.5 42.0 53.0
New Hampshire............................................ 75.3 100.0 97.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 59.9
New Jersey............................................... 99.0 93.6 90.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1
New Mexico............................................... 17.6 27.9 22.7 25.5 29.1 24.3 29.8
New York................................................. 0.0 60.2 100.0 94.7 92.6 94.8 75.9
North Carolina........................................... 0.0 42.9 71.8 79.2 81.9 93.6 100.0
North Dakota............................................. 49.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ohio..................................................... 48.7 75.6 85.4 100.0 100.0 85.8 83.1
Oklahoma................................................. 68.3 63.8 85.6 78.1 97.9 83.3 100.0
Oregon................................................... 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pennsylvania............................................. 70.0 61.7 67.5 64.9 91.5 95.3 95.3
Puerto Rico.............................................. 0.0 11.5 51.1 73.3 53.1 74.2 95.9
Rhode Island............................................. 92.4 80.7 89.7 100.0 99.0 79.5 85.2
South Carolina........................................... 50.1 46.3 53.2 54.7 64.8 66.6 96.9
South Dakota............................................. 87.0 76.1 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tennessee................................................ 0.0 15.0 30.0 32.6 46.1 79.7 96.9
Texas.................................................... 0.0 49.6 69.5 77.8 68.9 57.7 70.0
Utah..................................................... 89.0 83.5 100.0 98.7 99.8 100.0 100.0
Vermont.................................................. 0.0 69.6 80.6 93.1 99.9 95.3 90.2
Virgin Islands........................................... 11.7 100.0 NA 100.0 84.4 80.7 68.6
Virginia................................................. 0.0 46.5 55.4 72.1 72.4 64.8 100.0
Washington............................................... 0.0 51.0 85.7 86.3 76.9 88.7 96.4
West Virginia............................................ 35.3 40.5 78.0 88.3 78.2 69.1 91.0
Wisconsin................................................ 98.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wyoming.................................................. 1.4 72.0 95.7 90.1 94.3 86.4 68.9
Number of States at maximum allocation............... 0 8 9 17 13 15 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not available.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). JOBS expenditure data are as of August 20, 1997.
The U.S. distribution of JOBS participants by activity:
--Educational activities--39.4 percent of participants
(22.7 percent in high school, GED, remedial
education, or English as a second language; 16.7
percent in higher education).
--Training--16.2 percent (8.0 percent in job skills
training, 7.8 percent in vocational training; and
0.4 percent in on-the-job training).
--Job entry (in survey month or preceding month)--12.3
percent.
--Assessment and employability plan--11.1 percent.
--Job readiness--6.2 percent.
--Job search--6.1 percent.
--Community Work Experience Program (CWEP) and work
supplementation--4.1 percent.
--Job development--0.8 percent.
--Other--3.9 percent.
State variations were large. For instance, the share of
participants in higher education ranged from 0.3 percent in
Florida to 38.0 percent in Oklahoma. Among reporting States,
JOBS participants in job entry ranged from zero percent in
Kentucky to above 30 percent in Iowa, Montana, Oregon, and
Utah. Although 21 States placed no one in CWEP, more than 15
percent of JOBS participants in Missouri and West Virginia were
in CWEP.
Table 7-36 summarizes State JOBS participation rates for
fiscal year 1995. The table shows that nationwide 1.9 million
persons, 43 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
15 percent in Indiana and 18 percent in Florida to 77 percent
in Utah. As noted above, the 1995 minimum JOBS participation
standard was 20 percent of nonexempt adults (roughly equivalent
to 8 percent of all adults that year). Column 6 of the table
gives a rough approximation of ``countable'' participation
rates achieved by States in 1995; official calculations are
more exacting. The table indicates a U.S. participation rate of
26.8 percent, with variations among States.
TABLE 7-35.--AVERAGE MONTHLY PERCENTAGE OF JOBS PARTICIPANTS BY STATE AND COMPONENT, FISCAL YEAR 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Self
Total Job school Assigned init. Vocational Job Job Job Assess Job Work
State participants entry and other higher higher training skills readiness development emp. search OJT supp. CWEP Other
\2\ ed. ed. training plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................... 6,183 14.1 39.5 8.8 7.2 0.0 9.7 1.3 0.5 5.7 8.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.3
Alaska........................................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Arizona....................................... 5,222 13.4 23.7 8.5 3.2 0.2 8.2 4.9 0.1 20.9 9.2 0.1 0.0 7.4 0.3
Arkansas...................................... 6,591 7.7 13.2 1.5 0.8 1.4 2.2 14.7 0.4 44.2 8.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 5.6
California.................................... 80,070 15.4 30.4 5.0 4.7 5.2 1.9 10.0 0.7 15.8 4.3 0.2 0.1 4.8 1.4
Colorado...................................... 5,680 10.3 21.2 9.9 9.7 0.0 11.5 4.8 0.1 13.8 8.5 0.2 2.7 7.2 0.2
Connecticut................................... 6,997 8.4 28.0 18.5 6.9 13.5 4.0 3.9 2.0 2.2 7.4 2.0 0.0 3.2 0.0
Delaware...................................... 944 9.2 16.5 1.1 13.8 1.8 7.7 0.2 0.5 27.3 12.1 0.2 0.0 5.1 4.6
District of Columbia.......................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Florida....................................... 27,630 19.5 29.6 0.3 0.0 32.1 1.8 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Georgia....................................... 17,306 27.1 26.3 11.1 10.0 1.3 1.9 4.0 0.1 7.1 0.9 4.5 0.0 0.0 5.9
Guam.......................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Hawaii........................................ 1,449 11.5 16.0 26.8 4.1 0.0 3.1 6.7 0.1 1.2 14.4 0.0 0.0 14.4 1.6
Idaho......................................... 1,014 13.0 18.5 3.6 10.6 8.5 11.3 5.2 0.0 7.8 7.0 0.1 0.0 14.2 0.2
Illinois...................................... 31,096 3.7 18.9 18.5 0.2 0.2 12.2 5.9 0.0 5.1 8.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 25.8
Indiana....................................... 9,245 12.0 42.7 15.5 0.8 0.0 12.0 7.8 0.0 0.3 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Iowa.......................................... 12,782 36.7 12.4 7.4 2.5 1.3 7.8 2.6 0.0 20.6 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4
Kansas........................................ 4,928 19.0 15.0 15.3 7.5 1.6 6.6 5.0 0.5 3.7 9.5 0.1 0.0 10.5 5.8
Kentucky...................................... 9,478 0.0 30.0 13.7 16.6 4.4 7.7 1.7 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 22.4
Louisiana..................................... 8,650 12.6 37.7 1.4 3.0 9.3 13.3 4.8 0.0 9.5 4.0 0.1 0.0 4.3 0.0
Maine......................................... 3,477 19.4 13.4 10.6 3.9 1.2 8.1 8.1 0.2 5.8 15.6 1.0 0.0 0.3 12.5
Maryland...................................... 7,432 8.9 14.4 4.9 8.7 2.4 11.9 11.8 3.9 12.5 6.5 0.3 0.7 0.0 13.1
Massachusetts................................. 18,524 16.0 19.8 5.4 3.0 25.8 17.0 1.6 0.0 0.6 7.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.0
Michigan...................................... 41,986 14.7 16.5 0.3 20.0 2.1 6.5 8.3 1.6 17.8 10.6 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.2
Minnesota..................................... 6,227 13.4 14.6 15.4 0.0 0.0 32.0 5.6 0.1 1.6 8.1 0.4 0.4 8.4 0.0
Mississippi................................... 5,887 1.9 33.5 15.3 1.7 0.6 9.3 4.4 0.5 18.0 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.8
Missouri...................................... 7,194 2.7 18.6 6.4 19.3 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.4 13.8 3.1 0.2 0.9 16.0 3.7
Montana....................................... 1,648 32.4 11.7 16.3 0.2 0.0 5.6 10.5 0.0 1.1 9.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.3
Nebraska...................................... 5,778 0.4 26.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 9.0 0.0 10.1 21.5 0.2 0.0 0.9 6.2
Nevada........................................ 742 14.3 13.8 0.8 10.4 0.8 10.5 1.8 0.8 25.7 13.1 0.3 0.0 7.8 0.0
New Hampshire................................. 1,991 2.2 24.5 33.1 1.2 0.6 6.0 17.0 0.0 1.0 7.9 0.1 0.0 1.1 5.4
New Jersey.................................... 15,401 10.2 36.8 13.8 0.0 20.8 7.7 6.0 0.1 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
New Mexico.................................... 8,251 7.5 25.8 30.9 5.4 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.6 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.0
New York...................................... 52,332 3.0 23.6 3.5 14.9 30.8 3.9 5.9 2.4 0.5 3.7 0.0 1.2 6.4 0.0
North Carolina................................ 12,789 9.1 21.5 0.0 17.5 0.0 23.2 8.5 0.0 15.8 2.1 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.0
North Dakota.................................. 1,398 21.1 8.3 8.4 14.5 9.4 11.7 14.6 0.0 6.1 2.9 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.9
Ohio.......................................... 45,288 10.1 17.1 17.8 5.1 0.1 2.0 0.2 1.3 26.0 3.1 0.0 0.1 14.9 2.1
Oklahoma...................................... 6,577 10.4 22.0 17.2 20.8 4.8 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5
Oregon........................................ 2,725 37.5 11.5 0.0 3.3 0.0 5.3 5.9 0.0 9.8 21.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.3
Pennsylvania.................................. 35,119 6.5 12.9 3.0 9.1 11.5 39.8 6.7 0.0 0.8 3.3 0.1 0.0 5.8 0.6
Puerto Rico................................... 6,326 13.8 19.1 14.3 8.1 3.3 20.6 2.2 0.1 8.8 7.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.5
Rhode Island.................................. 4,051 13.0 17.2 2.9 11.4 0.1 13.5 3.8 0.0 2.7 7.3 0.0 4.8 4.8 18.7
South Carolina................................ 7,013 15.5 23.2 7.8 2.7 0.4 8.6 1.8 3.7 11.3 16.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.4
South Dakota.................................. 1,453 20.7 10.6 3.9 32.5 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 10.5 12.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.9
Tennessee..................................... 11,163 2.2 24.5 16.7 5.9 0.8 3.7 3.6 0.9 37.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.8
Texas......................................... 23,148 15.2 22.5 7.0 6.6 7.1 1.8 5.9 0.0 25.7 7.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Utah.......................................... 6,377 41.1 7.7 8.5 0.9 0.0 9.0 1.6 0.0 15.1 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2
Vermont....................................... 2,175 9.7 12.9 27.3 0.5 0.0 6.1 5.1 0.0 7.7 21.3 0.1 0.1 9.1 0.0
Virgin Islands................................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Virginia...................................... 6,994 8.7 18.0 17.9 2.2 1.6 9.8 5.1 5.4 7.8 13.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 9.7
Washington.................................... 22,229 5.2 27.3 25.8 11.8 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.4 17.8 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
West Virginia................................. 9,377 23.1 33.0 11.0 1.0 11.8 0.0 2.2 0.2 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 15.1 0.0
Wisconsin..................................... 14,731 21.2 12.2 5.6 11.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.3 6.7 22.6 0.3 1.6 5.2 8.7
Wyoming....................................... 986 7.0 22.5 4.4 0.0 4.6 3.2 12.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total.............................. 632,054 12.3 22.7 9.2 7.5 7.8 8.0 6.2 0.8 11.1 6.1 0.4 0.3 3.8 3.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data not reported.
\2\ Includes high school, GED, remedial education, and English as a second language.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
TABLE 7-36.--JOBS PARTICIPATION BY STATE, AVERAGE MONTHLY DATA, FISCAL YEAR 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total adult recipients Total JOBS participants Countable JOBS
--------------------------------------------------------- Percent of participants,
State JOBS AFDC adults as a percent
AFDC (1) mandatories Active \1\ Countable \2\ mandatory for of mandatories
(2) (3) (4) JOBS (5) (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................ 30,782 9,251 6,184 5,429 30.1 58.7
Alaska......................................................... 13,326 3,520 0 1,390 26.4 39.5
Arizona........................................................ 60,370 12,406 5,222 3,678 20.5 29.6
Arkansas....................................................... 17,809 4,298 6,590 864 24.1 20.1
California..................................................... 846,450 359,182 80,073 83,480 42.4 23.2
Colorado....................................................... 34,776 23,396 5,681 4,826 67.3 20.6
Connecticut.................................................... 56,511 26,840 6,997 7,399 47.5 27.6
Delaware....................................................... 8,021 3,068 947 693 38.2 22.6
District of Columbia........................................... 22,272 8,702 0 1,309 39.1 15.0
Florida........................................................ 189,872 34,103 27,632 16,258 18.0 47.7
Georgia........................................................ 114,012 45,658 17,307 15,849 40.0 34.7
Guam........................................................... 2,273 797 0 22 35.1 2.8
Hawaii......................................................... 22,210 9,356 1,450 1,828 42.1 19.5
Idaho.......................................................... 7,643 1,627 1,013 780 21.3 47.9
Illinois....................................................... 218,495 125,058 31,095 31,192 57.2 24.9
Indiana........................................................ 59,551 8,642 9,242 1,542 14.5 17.8
Iowa........................................................... 34,523 16,403 12,782 5,101 47.5 31.1
Kansas......................................................... 24,905 14,717 4,930 5,515 59.1 37.5
Kentucky....................................................... 61,809 32,401 9,478 8,200 52.4 25.3
Louisiana...................................................... 77,825 26,187 8,652 7,277 33.6 27.8
Maine.......................................................... 22,343 12,764 3,496 4,028 57.1 31.6
Maryland....................................................... 71,196 27,563 7,431 5,724 38.7 20.8
Massachusetts.................................................. 97,191 47,286 18,526 12,685 48.7 26.8
Michigan....................................................... 200,112 121,797 41,986 26,802 60.9 22.0
Minnesota...................................................... 59,380 21,230 6,227 4,493 35.8 21.2
Mississippi.................................................... 38,313 13,642 5,888 2,790 35.6 20.5
Missouri....................................................... 78,685 31,076 7,192 8,369 39.5 26.9
Montana........................................................ 11,685 5,476 1,646 1,701 46.9 31.1
Nebraska....................................................... 12,778 5,532 5,777 3,979 43.3 71.9
Nevada......................................................... 12,071 4,288 745 888 35.5 20.7
New Hampshire.................................................. 9,898 3,937 1,991 2,042 39.8 51.9
New Jersey..................................................... 102,858 66,115 15,400 15,062 64.3 22.8
New Mexico..................................................... 36,597 11,369 8,250 3,534 31.1 31.1
New York....................................................... 444,093 200,167 52,327 46,375 45.1 23.2
North Carolina................................................. 102,151 43,955 12,848 11,161 43.0 25.4
North Dakota................................................... 4,796 1,678 1,399 465 35.0 27.7
Ohio........................................................... 196,557 97,040 45,290 32,795 49.4 33.8
Oklahoma....................................................... 38,101 15,742 6,581 3,579 41.3 22.7
Oregon......................................................... 33,470 19,335 2,724 8,906 57.8 46.1
Pennsylvania................................................... 193,502 93,900 35,119 21,861 48.5 23.3
Puerto Rico.................................................... 54,009 19,796 6,324 3,933 36.7 19.9
Rhode Island................................................... 20,644 14,216 4,052 3,062 68.9 21.5
South Carolina................................................. 33,231 9,150 7,013 3,012 27.5 32.9
South Dakota................................................... 4,719 2,262 1,451 1,500 47.9 66.3
Tennessee...................................................... 86,374 21,333 11,164 6,527 24.7 30.6
Texas.......................................................... 223,589 57,816 23,149 13,833 25.9 23.9
Utah........................................................... 15,081 11,580 6,376 5,187 76.8 44.8
Vermont........................................................ 10,408 5,368 2,178 1,102 51.6 20.5
Virgin Islands................................................. 1,195 738 0 183 61.8 24.8
Virginia....................................................... 56,106 20,296 6,993 4,859 36.2 23.9
Washington..................................................... 102,255 36,849 22,229 17,185 36.0 46.6
West Virginia.................................................. 37,859 17,237 9,377 5,177 45.5 30.0
Wisconsin...................................................... 62,922 35,580 14,843 12,617 56.5 35.5
Wyoming........................................................ 4,530 2,879 986 1,340 63.6 46.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total............................................... 4,382,134 1,864,602 632,253 499,388 42.6 26.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of active participants is based on monthly reports.
\2\ The number of countable participants is based on quarterly reports.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Table 7-37 gives comparable data for the AFDC-UP caseload,
for which the 1995 minimum JOBS participation rate was 50
percent. Column 4 shows that ``countable'' participation rates
among the 50 States ranged from 6 percent in Hawaii to 80
percent in Kentucky.
Although some States in some years failed to meet
participation standards, none has been penalized by a reduced
matching rate. The DHHS 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.
TABLE 7-37.--PARTICIPATION OF AFDC-UP ADULTS IN JOBS, BY STATE, AVERAGE MONTHLY DATA, FISCAL YEAR 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total AFDC- No.
UP adult required to No. meeting
State recipients participate participation Participation
(1) in JOBS rules (3) rate \1\ (in
(2) percent) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. 243 116 37 32
Alaska.................................................. 3,788 791 384 49
Arizona................................................. 2,282 512 274 54
Arkansas................................................ 514 277 50 18
California.............................................. 257,171 143,160 49,705 35
Colorado................................................ 915 292 86 29
Connecticut............................................. 5,632 2,555 1,518 59
Delaware................................................ 131 50 9 18
District of Columbia..................................... 391 207 6 3
Florida................................................. 6,657 1,384 475 34
Georgia................................................. 988 541 308 57
Guam.................................................... 378 198 3 2
Hawaii.................................................. 2,819 1,410 85 6
Idaho................................................... 1,117 355 136 38
Illinois................................................ 21,021 9,706 5,436 56
Indiana................................................. 4,134 2,206 272 12
Iowa.................................................... 6,259 3,325 2,059 62
Kansas.................................................. 2,919 1,665 585 35
Kentucky................................................ 6,912 3,027 2,429 80
Louisiana............................................... 1,366 582 224 38
Maine................................................... 3,667 1,905 1,143 60
Maryland................................................ 1,311 533 205 38
Massachusetts........................................... 6,503 3,070 2,012 66
Michigan................................................ 40,729 19,251 9,641 50
Minnesota............................................... 8,749 4,209 973 23
Mississippi............................................. 79 41 3 7
Missouri................................................ 3,971 1,392 642 46
Montana................................................. 1,793 588 370 63
Nebraska................................................ 1,417 292 125 43
Nevada.................................................. 652 254 131 52
New Hampshire........................................... 550 247 28 11
New Jersey.............................................. 6,908 3,321 949 29
New Mexico.............................................. 2,699 697 376 54
New York................................................ 38,245 15,646 6,114 39
North Carolina.......................................... 4,783 2,696 251 9
North Dakota............................................ 263 72 44 61
Ohio.................................................... 28,031 15,423 5,177 34
Oklahoma................................................ 638 157 97 62
Oregon.................................................. 5,065 2,224 611 27
Pennsylvania............................................ 16,051 7,122 4,281 60
Puerto Rico............................................. 0 0 0 0
Rhode Island............................................ 1,164 611 348 57
South Carolina.......................................... 625 214 107 50
South Dakota............................................ 41 12 8 67
Tennessee............................................... 3,263 1,462 879 60
Texas................................................... 14,735 4,056 1,035 26
Utah.................................................... 179 76 60 79
Vermont................................................. 2,642 1,026 550 54
Virgin Is............................................... 0 0 0 0
Virginia................................................ 835 292 59 20
Washington.............................................. 28,662 14,630 3,601 25
West Virginia........................................... 9,920 5,747 1,872 33
Wisconsin............................................... 9,917 4,980 2,788 56
Wyoming................................................. 135 41 19 46
------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S.......................................... 569,859 284,646 108,580 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Participation rate calculated by dividing number of adults meeting participation rules (3) by the number of
required participants (2).
Source: DHHS Office of Family Assistance. Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Indian Tribes and JOBS
More than 80 Indian tribes and Alaska Native Organizations
in 24 States conducted their own JOBS Programs. These programs,
which were 100 percent federally funded, did not have to meet
participation rules of the regular JOBS Program. Allocation of
JOBS funds for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Organizations
was based on the percentage of AFDC adult recipients within the
State who lived in their service area, and their grants were
subtracted from the State's allocation. In fiscal year 1996,
$8.5 million (0.85 percent of total authorized JOBS funds) was
set aside for them. (The 1996 welfare reform law appropriates
$7.6 million for each of six fiscal years to Indian tribes that
were JOBS grantees; this is in addition to any TANF funds they
may receive for operating tribal family assistance programs.)
Welfare-to-Work Efforts: Some Assessments
JOBS Programs differed across States. The Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) has identified and
analyzed two basic approaches taken by States: the labor force
attachment approach and the human capital development (HCD)
approach. The labor force approach used job search, short-term
education or training and other services to move parents
quickly into jobs; the human capital approach encouraged people
to postpone work so as to build skills. Among 2-year findings
of impacts at three sites: The labor force 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 labor force treatment group remained on
AFDC, and the group's earnings averaged only $285 monthly. Of
the labor force attachment control group, 68 percent remained
on AFDC, and the group's earnings averaged $226. MDRC said the
human capital 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 mid-1994 survey made by the General Accounting Office
(GAO) concluded that county JOBS Programs nationwide lacked 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, 1995a).
Another GAO study found that most adult AFDC recipients did
not participate in JOBS because of the law's allowable
exemptions and minimum participation standards. Noting that the
program reached only about 13 percent of single female-headed
households receiving AFDC each month in 1992, GAO questioned
whether a program serving relatively few persons could bring
about a widespread transformation of the culture of welfare
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995b.).
Another study of JOBS implementation concluded that the
program held 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 by the earned income credit. 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
recipients to earn their way out of poverty (Levine, 1994).
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
Before enactment of TANF, the Social Security Act (title
IV-A) offered States 50 percent Federal matching funds for
emergency assistance (EA) to families with children if the aid
were needed to avoid destitution of a child or to provide
living arrangements in a home for him. The law made 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 interpreted the
statute 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 allowed funding to meet needs that
arose before the 30-day authorization period, such as past-due
rent, or needs that extend beyond it. In effect, this
controversial interpretation of the statute meant that there
was no 30-day limit on benefits.
State EA plans were required to specify eligibility
conditions, which might be more liberal than those for AFDC,
and to specify what emergencies they would meet and what
services they would provide. The law allowed EA for migrant
families and for those excluded from AFDC because they lived
with both parents and neither was 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 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 fiscal year 1990 to $1.6
billion in fiscal year 1994 and $3.2 billion in both fiscal
year 1995 and 1996. In 1996, as shown in table 7-38, more than
one-half of all EA expenditures were made by three States: New
York, 32 percent of the total; Pennsylvania, 15 percent, and
California, 9 percent. Table 7-39 presents the growth in total
State and Federal EA expenditures for selected fiscal years
1970-96.
EA funds were 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 expanding the
types of activities supported by EA funds; the new activities
included child protection, family preservation, juvenile
justice, mental health, counseling and referral, parenting
education, case management, in-home family services, homemaker
support, legal referrals, crisis intervention, and employment
counseling (Solomon-Fears, 1995). As a result, EA spending
exploded.
TABLE 7-38.--CASELOAD AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BY STATE, FISCAL YEARS 1994-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload Total fiscal year expenditures \2\ Average monthly expenditure/
--------------------------------- (dollars in thousands) family
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 \1\ 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ 0 0 0 $7,525 $14,871 $18,327 0 0 0
Alaska......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona........................................ 114 150 184 13,541 23,396 23,696 $9,870 $12,998 $10,732
Arkansas....................................... 0 0 0 3,103 6,167 10,896 0 0 0
California..................................... 9,116 13,898 8,548 292,035 486,231 270,958 2,670 2,915 2,642
Colorado....................................... 0 1,505 2,772 25,799 65,500 101,158 0 3,627 3,041
Connecticut.................................... 0 0 0 19,076 117,689 64,296 0 0 0
Delaware....................................... 141 134 138 555 21,602 9,308 328 13,434 5,621
District of Columbia........................... 805 358 191 16,085 8,912 1,145 1,665 2,074 500
Florida........................................ 1,860 2,967 2,489 11,300 58,329 101,180 506 1,638 3,388
Georgia........................................ 1,436 732 1,018 14,784 17,195 21,835 858 1,958 1,787
Guam........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii......................................... 0 0 0 723 6,446 3,560 0 0 0
Idaho.......................................... 0 0 0 4,647 7,695 7,857 0 0 0
Illinois....................................... 1,263 4,380 7,928 23,378 111,147 157,022 1,543 2,115 1,651
Indiana........................................ 0 0 0 60,115 33,021 4,243 0 0 0
Iowa........................................... 421 415 405 1,758 16,506 42,918 348 3,314 8,831
Kansas......................................... 177 331 342 12,122 23,782 22,595 5,713 5,987 5,506
Kentucky....................................... 0 0 0 0 2,231 14,461 0 0 0
Louisiana...................................... 0 0 0 0 6,260 10,278 0 0 0
Maine.......................................... 326 344 390 738 1,689 5,030 188 409 1,075
Maryland....................................... 2,141 2,063 1,841 10,194 17,425 23,076 397 704 1,045
Massachusetts.................................. 2,025 1,765 1,676 48,524 44,464 46,906 1,997 2,099 2,332
Michigan....................................... 1,135 1,100 936 18,313 22,697 22,083 1,344 1,719 1,966
Minnesota...................................... 1,883 1,927 1,853 15,229 25,037 35,844 674 1,083 1,612
Mississippi.................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Missouri....................................... 0 1,687 1,834 15,085 31,634 57,364 0 1,563 2,607
Montana........................................ 33 19 19 386 3,331 3,911 980 14,610 17,154
Nebraska....................................... 151 154 1,009 912 20,203 21,526 505 10,932 1,778
Nevada......................................... 174 1,597 1,582 675 16,060 17,191 323 838 906
New Hampshire.................................. 389 189 316 1,568 2,247 5,919 336 991 1,561
New Jersey..................................... 7,909 6,225 4,897 41,230 66,242 60,058 434 887 1,022
New Mexico..................................... 0 0 0 2 1,386 14,004 0 0 0
New York....................................... 15,911 12,526 11,521 837,710 1,232,551 1,008,984 4,387 8,200 7,298
North Carolina................................. 3,211 5,407 3,111 7,977 79,481 130,997 207 1,225 3,509
North Dakota................................... 549 1,028 1,074 3,004 9,906 12,961 456 803 1,006
Ohio........................................... 3,641 2,715 2,857 7,709 16,174 19,194 176 496 560
Oklahoma....................................... 574 2 0 1,027 4,729 18,671 149 197,042 0
Oregon......................................... 1,583 1,527 867 9,007 19,340 32,705 474 1,055 3,144
Pennsylvania................................... 801 622 650 5,749 390,088 492,332 598 52,263 63,119
Puerto Rico.................................... 491 190 468 171 246 413 29 108 74
Rhode Island................................... 0 269 568 2,011 15,763 10,861 0 4,883 1,593
South Carolina................................. 0 0 0 774 9,204 9,074 0 0 0
South Dakota................................... 227 199 208 1,803 2,965 4,815 662 1,242 1,929
Tennessee...................................... 0 0 0 1,913 43,850 45,592 0 0 0
Texas.......................................... 0 10,937 3,947 3,529 17,170 94,288 0 131 1,991
Utah........................................... 120 182 2,481 506 13,541 12,633 351 6,200 424
Vermont........................................ 267 184 168 963 3,828 4,978 301 1,734 2,469
Virgin Islands................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia....................................... 39 34 35 72 56 64 155 137 152
Washington..................................... 594 533 459 5,816 34,998 70,393 815 5,472 12,780
West Virginia.................................. 1,160 1,079 1,028 5,545 4,607 6,380 398 356 517
Wisconsin...................................... 778 418 666 3,356 3,366 8,783 359 671 1,099
Wyoming........................................ 231 242 144 5,216 4,249 2,112 1,886 1,463 1,222
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total............................... 61,675 80,034 70,620 $1,563,262 $3,185,507 $3,184,875 $2,112 $3,317 $3,758
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
\2\ Represents total expenditures claimed by States and may include prior year claims and amounts deferred.
Note.--Based on best available data reported by States.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 7-39.--TOTAL FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES UNDER THE EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1970-96 \1\
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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....................................................... 3,186
1996....................................................... 3,185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block
grant, administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services, for State-designed programs of time-limited and work-
conditioned aid to families with children. Enacted on August
22, 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (Public Law 104-193) repealed Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Emergency Assistance
for Needy Families, and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training (JOBS) Program, replacing them with TANF. The TANF law
combines recent Federal funding levels for AFDC, EA, and JOBS
into a single grant ($16.5 billion annually through fiscal year
2002). It entitles each State to the sum it received in a
recent year for the replaced programs. Outlying areas also are
entitled to TANF grants. Further, Indian tribes, defined to
include Alaska Native Organizations, may apply to operate their
own tribal family assistance plans. The 1996 welfare law also
provides an average of $2.3 billion annually in a new child
care block grant (about double the recent Federal funding level
for AFDC-related child care; see section 9).
TANF has greatly enlarged State discretion in operating
family welfare and ended the entitlement of individual families
to benefits. Under TANF, States decide what categories of needy
families to help (AFDC law defined eligible classes and
required States to aid families in these classes if their
income were below State-set limits). Under TANF, States decide
whether to adopt financial rewards or penalties to induce work
and other desired behavior. They set asset limits (AFDC law
imposed an outer limit). Moreover, States continue to set
benefit levels. TANF explicitly permits States to administer
benefits and provide services through contracts with
charitable, religious, or private organizations.
Attached to the TANF Block Grant are some Federal
conditions. For instance, to receive full grants, States must
achieve minimum work participation rates and spend a certain
sum of their own funds on behalf of eligible families. The
latter is known as the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) rule.
Moreover, States must impose a general 5-year time limit on
TANF-funded benefits and cannot use TANF funds to assist unwed
mothers under 18 unless they live in an adult-supervised
setting.
States were required to commence TANF by July 1, 1997, but
most did so earlier. The block grant offered most States more
funds than the expiring programs would have because the TANF
grant is based on funding during years with larger caseloads.
For full State grants, TANF requires participation in
specified ``work activities'' by 25 percent of all beneficiary
families with an adult parent or caretaker or a teen parent in
fiscal year 1997; this all-family participation rate rises to
50 percent by fiscal year 2002. (States may exempt a single
parent with a child under the age of 1 from the work
requirement and from the calculation of work participation
rates for up to 12 months.) However, the law directs DHHS to
lower the required rate if a State's caseload is smaller than
in fiscal year 1995 (which is the case in most States). For
two-parent families, higher participation minimums apply; the
minimums start at 75 percent and climb to 90 percent in fiscal
year 1999. Work activities that count toward a State's
participation requirement exclude education, except for high
school dropouts and a limited amount of vocational educational
training.
In 1997, Congress enacted a program of welfare-to-work
grants for the benefit of TANF recipients, administered by the
Department of Labor, and revised some provisions of the
original TANF law. The description below applies to the
program, as amended by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-33).
Basic Outline of Program
Purpose
The purpose of TANF is to increase State flexibility in
operating programs designed to: (1) aid needy families so that
children may be cared for in their homes or those of relatives;
(2) end dependence of needy parents upon government benefits by
promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and
reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish goals for
preventing and reducing their incidence; and (4) encourage
formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Eligible families
A State may give cash TANF benefits to a family it finds
needy if it includes:
--a minor child (under 18 or under age 19 if a full-time
student in a secondary school or the equivalent
level of vocational or technical training) who
lives with his/her parent or other caretaker
relative;
--a pregnant person.
Ineligible persons
A State may not use Federal dollars to provide benefits
for:
--Unwed mothers under 18 (and their children) unless they
live in the home of an adult relative or in another
adult-supervised living arrangement;
--Unwed mothers under 18 without a high school diploma
unless they attend school;
--Aliens who enter the United States after August 22, 1996;
they are barred from TANF for 5 years, after which
TANF eligibility is a State option. TANF benefits
for aliens legally in the United States on August
22, 1996 are a State option;
--A child who has been (or is expected to be) absent from
home for 45 consecutive days, or, at State option,
for 30-180 days. States may make ``good cause''
exceptions to this rule;
--Persons convicted after August 22, 1996 of a drug-related
felony (unless State opts out by State law);
--For 10 years, persons who fraudulently misrepresented
residence to obtain food stamps, TANF, SSI, or
Medicaid in two or more States.
Conditions for eligibility
TANF may not be paid to a person who fails to assign to the
State child support or spousal support rights. If a parent
fails to cooperate with the State in establishing paternity and
in establishing, modifying, or enforcing a child support order,
her benefit must be ended or reduced, unless she qualifies for
a good cause or other exception established by the State.
Time limit: benefit cutoff
Federal TANF funds may not be used for aid to a family
that includes an adult who has received 60 months of TANF
benefits while an adult, a minor household head, or a minor
married to a household head. States must disregard months
during which the adult lived in Indian country or in an Alaska
Native village with 50 percent of adults unemployed. A State
may exempt up to 20 percent of its caseload from the 5-year
time limit on grounds of hardship or the family's inclusion of
a battered woman. State funds used to aid persons ineligible
for TANF because of the 5-year time limit or new alien rules
may be counted toward the maintenance-of-effort requirement.
Also, States may use TANF funds transferred to title XX social
services for aid to the ex-TANF family.
The above rules apply to TANF Programs funded by Federal
grants or by commingled State funds and Federal grants.
According to a January 31, 1997 guidance from DHHS, if States
operate TANF Programs in which Federal grant and State funds
are segregated, the 5-year time limit and the requirements for
teen school attendance and teen parent living arrangements do
not apply to families aided with State funds only. Nor do they
apply to a wholly separate State program.
Time limit: work trigger
States must require parents and other caretakers to engage
in ``work'' after 24 months of aid and, unless the State opts
out, to participate in community service after 2 months of aid.
Work requirements
After a maximum of 2 years of TANF benefits, parents and
other caretakers must be required to engage in ``work,'' as
defined by the State. Not later than August 22, 1997, unless
they opt out by notice to the Secretary, States must require a
parent who has received TANF for 2 months to participate in
community service employment, with hours and tasks set by the
State (not applicable to a single parent of a child under 6 who
is unable to obtain needed child care for a specified reason).
In their TANF plans, almost 20 States said they planned to opt
out of this requirement; some said they were deferring a
decision, and Massachusetts noted that it requires work, which
can include community service, after 60 days of benefits. The
law imposes no exemptions from the work requirement on States,
but permits States to exempt a single parent caring for a child
under age 1 and provides that if these parents are exempted,
they will not be counted in calculating a State's work
participation rate. If a State has chosen to certify that it
will ``screen for and identify domestic violence,'' it may
waive work requirements, time limits, and other TANF rules for
victims of domestic violence, although such States remain
obligated to meet overall work participation and time limit
requirements.
Creditable work activities
The law defines ``work activities'' that count toward a
State's participation rate as: unsubsidized employment,
subsidized private or public sector employment, work
experience, on-the-job training, job search and job readiness
assistance for a maximum of 6 weeks, including only 4
consecutive weeks (the maximum rises to 12 weeks under any of
the following conditions: if the State unemployment rate is 50
percent above average, if the State's seasonally adjusted
unemployment rate for the most recent 3 months is at least 6.5
percent and at least 10 percent above the comparable rate in
either of the past 2 years, or if its food stamp caseload over
the most recent 3-month period is at least 10 percent higher
than the food stamp caseload would have been in the
corresponding period of fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995,
if Public Law 104-193 had been in effect throughout those
fiscal years), community service programs, vocational
educational training (12 months maximum), job skills training
directly related to employment, education directly related to
employment for recipients without a high school diploma or
equivalent), satisfactory attendance at secondary school, and
provision of child care services to a TANF recipient who is
participating in a community service program. Not more than 30
percent of all families and of two-parent families may be
credited with work activity by reason of vocational educational
training or, only in fiscal year 2000 or later (if teen
household heads or married teens without high school diploma)
by reason of secondary school attendance or education directly
related to employment. For fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year
1999, no limit applies to the number of teen high school
dropouts who can be counted as participating in a work activity
through education.
A study by GAO (1997) of three States' experience under
waivers found that they succeeded, through policy changes, in
increasing the percentage of their AFDC recipients who
participated in work activities. However, State officials told
GAO that as employable recipients found jobs, the remaining
caseload would consist of persons with substantial barriers to
employment, ``making the higher future target rates difficult
to achieve.''
Required weekly hours of work activity
To be counted as a work participant, a person must be
engaged in a work activity for at least a weekly minimum
average of 20 hours in fiscal years 1997-98, 25 hours in fiscal
year 1999, and 30 hours in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter. For
a single parent or caretaker relative of a child under 6,
weekly hours remain at 20. Of required hours, at least 20
generally must be spent in these specified ``priority''
activities: employment, work experience, on-the-job training,
job search and job readiness, community service, vocational
educational training, or provision of child care to a
participant in community service. However, a single teen
household head or married teen without diploma is credited with
work if she maintains satisfactory high school attendance or,
for an average of at least 20 hours weekly, engages in
schooling directly related to work. Special rules apply to two-
parent families: (1) they must work at least 35 hours weekly
with at least 30 hours in the priority activities specified
above (the two parents may share the work hours); (2) if the
family receives federally-funded child care aid and an adult in
the family is not disabled or caring for a severely disabled
child, the shared work requirement rises to 55 hours, of which
50 hours must be in a priority activity. If the second parent
in a family is disabled, the State must treat it as a single-
parent family.
Nondisplacement
A TANF recipient may fill a vacant position, but may not be
assigned to a position from which a worker has been laid off.
Minimum work participation rates
To receive their full TANF Block Grant, States must achieve
minimum work participation rates. The share of all families
that must participate in a work activity (except single-parent
families with an infant, if States exempt them) begins at 25
percent in fiscal year 1997 and rises by 5 percentage points a
year, reaching 50 percent in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter.
Included within the all-family group are two-parent families,
for whom higher participation rates are required, namely, 75
percent in fiscal years 1997-98 and 90 percent in fiscal year
1999 and thereafter. However, the DHHS Secretary is to issue
regulations for reducing required participation rates each
fiscal year by the number of percentage points by which a
State's caseload in the preceding fiscal year is smaller than
in fiscal year 1995 unless she finds that the decrease was
required by Federal law or results from changes in State
eligibility criteria, a relationship to be proved by the
Secretary. Because caseloads generally have been shrinking, the
actual required participation rates in the near future, at
least for most States, will be smaller than the statutory ones.
During the first 9 months of fiscal year 1997, the national
average monthly AFDC/TANF caseload (4.056 million families) was
16.9 percent smaller than its fiscal year 1995 counterpart
(4.881 million) (see table 7-48). These statistics on caseload
declines suggest that the average State could fulfill its 30
percent all-family work requirement in 1998 by having 13.1
percent of its caseload in work activities (30 percent minus
16.9 percent). However, actual caseload reductions varied
widely among the States, and two jurisdictions had caseload
increases rather than declines. The law does not state whether
adjustments in minimum participation rates are to be calculated
separately for all families and two-parent families.
A State's monthly participation rate, expressed as a
percentage, equals: (1) the number of all recipient families in
which an adult or minor head of household is engaged in work
activity for the month, divided by (2) the number of recipient
families with an recipient adult or teen household head (but
excluding families subject that month to a penalty for refusal
to work, provided they have not been penalized for more than 3
months, whether or not consecutive, in the preceding 12; and
excluding families with children under 1, if the State exempts
them from work). The same method is used to calculate
participation rates of two-parent families.
Penalties against States for failing participation rates
If a State falls short of the required participation rate
for a fiscal year, its TANF Block Grant for the next year is to
be reduced by 5 percent (first failure to meet the standard).
For subsequent years of failure, annual penalties rise by 2
percentage points (thus, 7 percent in second year, 9 percent in
third, etc.) with a maximum penalty of 21 percent in any one
year. However, the law says that grant reductions shall be
based ``on the degree of noncompliance,'' and the Secretary may
reduce the penalty if noncompliance is due to ``extraordinary
circumstances, such as a natural disaster or regional
recession.'' In the latter case, the Secretary must justify the
penalty reduction to Congress in writing.
Penalties against individuals for refusing work
If an adult recipient refuses to engage in required work,
the State must reduce aid to the family ``pro rata'' (or more,
at State option) with respect to the period of work refusal, or
shall discontinue aid, subject to good cause and other
exceptions that the State may establish. However, a State may
not penalize a single parent caring for a child under age 6 for
refusal to work if the parent has a demonstrated inability to
obtain needed child care for a reason listed in the law. The
law does not define ``pro rata'' reduction. It could be
interpreted to require that the benefit reduction expressed as
a percentage, equal the percentage of required hours that are
not worked.
Treatment of income
TANF has no provision about treatment of earned or
unearned income (except one requiring States to disregard
interest accruing to a recipient in an individual development
account). States set their own income limits and make their own
rules governing treatment of earnings and other income.
Treatment of resources
TANF has no provision about resource limits. However, it
permits States to subsidize individual development accounts
(IDAs) established by TANF recipients to save funds for
specified purposes (postsecondary educational expenses, first
home purchase, or business capitalization).
Client contracts/agreements
States must assess the skills, work experience, and
employability of each adult recipient (at least age 18) who has
not completed high school and is not attending school. In
consultation with the recipient and on the basis of the
assessment, the State may develop an individual responsibility
plan (IRP) that sets forth obligations of the recipient and
describes services to be provided by the State. The law
explicitly allows the IRP to require a recipient to undergo
appropriate treatment for substance abuse and provides that
States cannot be prohibited by the Federal Government from
testing welfare recipients for use of controlled substances and
sanctioning those who test positive.
Child care for TANF families
TANF ended the requirement that States ``guarantee'' child
care for welfare recipients needing it to work or study, but
entitles States to an average of $2.3 billion annually for
child care under title IV-A for 6 years (fiscal years 1997-2002
total: $13.9 billion). This total consists of $1.2 billion per
year in 100 percent Federal grants and an average of about $1.1
billion yearly in matching grants. The 1996 law entitles
individual States to what they received for AFDC work-related
child care, transitional child care, and at-risk child care in
a recent year. States that maintain the higher of their 1994 or
1995 spending on these programs are entitled also to extra
funds at the fiscal year 1995 Medicaid matching rate. The law
earmarks 70 percent of entitlement child care funds for
recipients or ex-recipients of TANF or persons at risk of TANF
eligibility and states that a substantial portion of the
remaining entitlement funds should be used for low-income
working families not on welfare. It also transfers these IV-A
child care funds to the lead agency under the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and makes them subject to rules
of CCDBG (see section 9).
Privatization of administration
The 1996 welfare law authorizes States to administer and
provide TANF services (and those under Supplemental Security
Income) through contracts with charitable, religious, or
private organizations. States are authorized to pay recipients
by means of certificates, vouchers, or other disbursement forms
redeemable with these organizations. Any religious organization
with a contract to provide welfare services must retain
independence from all units of government. However, States must
ensure an alternative provider for a beneficiary who objects to
the religious character of the designated organization.
Penalties against States
Penalties against a State for any quarter must not exceed
25 percent of the basic grant; unrecovered penalties are to be
carried forward. In the case of all penalties, States must
replace Federal funds with their own so that the amount of TANF
funds spent for the benefit of recipients is not diminished by
penalties.
Other than the penalty for failing to meet the work
participation rates discussed previously, States are subject to
13 penalties. In the case of five of these penalties, the
Secretary has no discretion and must, in most cases, impose the
full penalty each year the States are out of compliance. In the
case of the remaining eight penalties, the Secretary may not
impose penalties if the State corrects the violation or if the
Secretary finds reasonable cause for the violation. The five
penalties that the Secretary must impose are:
--Failure to maintain 100 percent of historic State
spending under the State TANF Program during a year
in which the State received contingency funds. The
Secretary must reduce the next year's TANF grant by
the total amount of contingency funds paid to the
State;
--Failure to maintain a certain level of historic State
spending--generally, the sum equal to 75 percent of
spending from State funds on replaced programs
(including AFDC-related child care) in fiscal year
1994. The Secretary must reduce the following
year's TANF grant by the shortfall in MOE spending.
In addition, if the State received welfare-to-work
grant funds for the year, the Secretary must reduce
the following year's TANF grant by the amount of
those welfare-to-work funds;
--Failure to timely repay a loan from the Federal loan fund
for State welfare programs. The Secretary must
reduce the TANF grant for the next quarter by the
outstanding loan amount, plus the interest owed;
--Failure to comply substantially with child support
enforcement requirements (see section 8), including
performance measures and data reporting. The
Secretary must reduce the TANF grant for each
quarter of noncompliance as follows: first finding
of noncompliance, by 1-2 percent; second
consecutive finding, 2-3 percent; and third and
later findings, 5 percent;
--Failure to replace Federal penalty funds (TANF grant
reductions) with State funds. The Secretary must
reduce the next year's TANF grant by the sum of 2
percent of the grant and the amount of State funds
equal to the earlier grant reduction.
The penalties for which the Secretary may allow States to
enter into corrective compliance plans or for which the
Secretary may find reasonable cause are:
--Failure to comply with the 5-year TANF benefit limit;
reduction of 5 percent in the TANF grant for the
next fiscal year;
--Failure to enforce penalties required by the child
support agency against TANF recipients who fail to
cooperate in establishing paternity or in
establishing, modifying, or enforcing a child
support order (good cause exceptions allowed);
reduction of up to 5 percent in TANF grant for the
next fiscal year;
--Failure to submit a required report; reduction of 4
percent in TANF grant for the next year, to be
rescinded if the State submits the report before
the end of the next fiscal quarter;
--Failure to participate in the income and eligibility
verification system; reduction of up to 2 percent
in TANF grant for the next fiscal year;
--Use of TANF funds in violation of the law; reduction of
the next year's TANF grant by the amount of funds
wrongfully used; if the violation is found to be
intentional, the Secretary must reduce the next
year's TANF grant by 5 percent;
--Misuse of competitive welfare-to-work funds; the State
must pay the Secretary of the Department of Labor
an amount equal to the misused funds;
--Failure to maintain aid for a single parent who cannot
obtain care (for specified reasons) for a child
under 6; reduction of up to 5 percent in the TANF
grant for the next fiscal year;
--Failure to reduce TANF aid for recipients who refuse
without good cause to work; reduction of not less
than 1 percent nor more than 5 percent in the next
year's TANF grant.
Interaction of TANF with other major benefit programs
Medicaid.--Although the 1996 law ended AFDC, it retained
AFDC eligibility limits for Medicaid use. States must provide
Medicaid coverage and benefits to children and family members
who would be eligible for AFDC cash aid (under terms of July
16, 1996) if that program still existed. For this purpose,
States are allowed to lower AFDC income and resource standards
to those in effect on May 1, 1988 and to increase them by the
percentage rise since July 16, 1996 in the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The law permits States to end
Medicaid for adults who refuse TANF work requirements, but
requires continued Medicaid for their children. State plans
must ensure Medicaid for children receiving foster care or
adoption assistance, provide 12 months of medical assistance to
those who lose eligibility for cash aid (TANF) because of
increased earnings, and provide 4 months of extended medical
benefits to those who lose eligibility because of receiving
payments of child or spousal support. Public Law 105-33,
enacted in August 1997, authorizes a new program called the
State Children's Health Insurance Program. This law provides
Federal matching funds, starting in fiscal year 1998, to enable
States to expand health care to targeted, uninsured, low-income
children, generally, those with family income below 200 percent
of the Federal poverty income guidelines.
Food stamps.--TANF recipients not living with others
automatically are eligible for food stamps, but States can opt
to operate a ``simplified Food Stamp Program'' under which they
may apply many of their TANF rules to determination of food
stamp benefits for TANF families, so long as the program does
not increase Federal costs. TANF recipients disqualified for
noncompliance with TANF rules may be disqualified also for food
stamps; persons whose TANF benefits are lowered for
noncompliance or fraud will not receive an increase in food
stamps. Food stamps can be merged with TANF cash benefits in
work supplementation programs (jobs subsidized with welfare
benefits) and in workfare programs, where a person may receive
food stamps as compensation for certain hours and cash welfare
for other hours of employment (and where total compensation
must equal or exceed the minimum wage for each hour worked).
Child nutrition.--TANF children automatically are eligible
for free school meals and other child nutrition programs.
Women, infants, and children enrolled in TANF automatically are
income- eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
Earned income credit (EIC).--The TANF law has no provision
about treatment of EIC payments. Thus, States decide whether to
count or disregard EIC payments as income and/or a resource.
Public or assisted housing.--If a TANF family living in
public or assisted housing is penalized with a cash benefit
reduction for an act of fraud under TANF, its rent may not be
decreased in response to the loss of income.
Foster care and adoption assistance.--Although the 1996 law
ended AFDC, it retains AFDC eligibility limits for foster care
and adoption assistance. Foster care and adoption assistance
matching funds are available for children who would have been
eligible for AFDC cash aid under the income and resource limits
that were in effect in the respective States on July 16, 1996.
TANF Funding
Capping of Federal payments
The 1996 welfare law severed the link between State and
Federal spending on cash benefits and work-related services for
needy families with children. Before TANF, the Federal
Government reimbursed States for a share of expenditures in
their AFDC, EA, and JOBS Programs. Federal payments rose with
increased caseloads and declined with falling ones. In
contrast, TANF provides a fixed basic grant, $16.5 billion
yearly through fiscal year 2002 (plus expanded child care
funding in a new block grant).
The TANF Program provides all States with a basic block
grant based on past Federal expenditures on the programs it
replaces. It also entitles qualifying States to five additional
grants: a supplemental fund for certain States with low TANF
grants relative to poverty and high population growth; a bonus
fund for States that reduce out-of-wedlock birth rates without
increasing abortion rates; a bonus fund for ``high
performance'' States; a contingency fund for States that
experience high unemployment and/or increased food stamp
caseloads; and welfare-to-work grants. The basic grants and the
five additional grants all are capped.
The basic block grant: the State Family Assistance Grant--$99 billion
(fiscal years 1997-2002)
TANF's basic block grant entitles the 50 States and the
District of Columbia to a total of $16.5 billion annually
through fiscal year 2002. Each State's basic grant equals
Federal payments received for AFDC, EA and JOBS in recent
years. States are given the most favorable base: Average fiscal
years 1992-94 payments; fiscal year 1994 payments (increased by
85 percent of the fiscal year 1995 increase over fiscal year
1994 in EA payments if the State amended its EA plan in fiscal
years 1994 or 1995); or fiscal year 1995 payments.
Table 7-40 shows the annual State family assistance grant
for each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, through
fiscal year 2002. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands
also are eligible to operate TANF and receive a family
assistance grant, but they are not shown in the table, as
special funding rules apply to them (see section 12 for
information on the territories). The amounts shown in table 7-
40 are ``gross'' amounts; as under AFDC law, States are to pay
the Federal Government for its share of child support
collections made on behalf of TANF families.
TABLE 7-40.--ANNUAL STATE FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR
2002
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family
State assistance
grant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................... $93,315
Alaska..................................................... 63,609
Arizona.................................................... 222,420
Arkansas................................................... 56,733
California................................................. 3,733,818
Colorado................................................... 136,057
Connecticut................................................ 266,788
Delaware................................................... 32,291
District of Columbia....................................... 92,610
Florida.................................................... 562,340
Georgia.................................................... 330,742
Hawaii..................................................... 98,905
Idaho...................................................... 31,938
Illinois................................................... 585,057
Indiana.................................................... 206,799
Iowa....................................................... 131,525
Kansas..................................................... 101,931
Kentucky................................................... 181,288
Louisiana.................................................. 163,972
Maine...................................................... 78,121
Maryland................................................... 229,098
Massachusetts.............................................. 459,371
Michigan................................................... 775,353
Minnesota.................................................. 267,985
Mississippi................................................ 86,768
Missouri................................................... 217,052
Montana.................................................... 45,534
Nebraska................................................... 58,029
Nevada..................................................... 43,977
New Hampshire.............................................. 38,521
New Jersey................................................. 404,035
New Mexico................................................. 126,103
New York................................................... 2,442,931
North Carolina............................................. 302,240
North Dakota............................................... 26,400
Ohio....................................................... 727,968
Oklahoma................................................... 148,014
Oregon..................................................... 167,925
Pennsylvania............................................... 719,499
Rhode Island............................................... 95,022
South Carolina............................................. 99,968
South Dakota............................................... 21,894
Tennessee.................................................. 191,524
Texas...................................................... 486,257
Utah....................................................... 76,829
Vermont.................................................... 47,353
Virginia................................................... 158,285
Washington................................................. 404,332
West Virginia.............................................. 110,176
Wisconsin.................................................. 318,188
Wyoming.................................................... 21,781
------------
U.S. total............................................. 16,488,667
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based
on allocations from DHHS. Allocations are revised as of January 7,
1997. DHHS revised its allocations to account for corrections in the
AFDC and related program expenditure data available as of the dates
specified in law.
Table 7-41 shows that total family assistance grants under
TANF exceed grants made in fiscal year 1996 for the replaced
programs of AFDC, EA, and JOBS by $1.6 billion, or 10 percent.
TANF grants in several jurisdictions exceeded comparable fiscal
year 1996 funding by 30 percent or more: Indiana, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming, and the
District of Columbia. However, in some States family assistance
grants were smaller than fiscal year 1996 Federal funding for
the pre-TANF Programs: Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Supplemental grants to States with high population growth and/or low
Federal grants per poor person--$800 million (fiscal years
1998-2001)
For 4 years, certain States will qualify for supplemental
funds based on their population growth and/or low fiscal year
1994 grant amounts per poor person (with poverty counts based
on the 1990 census). Some States will qualify automatically for
each year from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001. The law
makes a State eligible for a supplemental grant if:
(1) fiscal year 1994 Federal expenditures for AFDC and
related programs per poor person in the State were 35 percent
below national average Federal spending on these programs per
poor person; or
(2) the State's population grew by more than 10 percent
from April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1994.
Based on Congressional Research Service (CRS)
calculations, 11 States automatically qualify for supplemental
funds: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas met
the criterion of low Federal welfare spending per poor person
criteria; Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah
met the criterion of high population growth.
TABLE 7-41.--COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEAR 1996 FUNDING FOR AFDC AND RELATED PROGRAMS AND ANNUAL FAMILY ASSISTANCE
GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Annual State Increase from
State grants for AFDC, Family Assistance fiscal year 1996
EA and JOBS \1\ Grant level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... $75,908,850 $93,315,207 $17,406,357
Alaska................................................ 58,664,824 63,609,072 4,944,248
Arizona............................................... 197,753,945 222,419,988 24,666,043
Arkansas.............................................. 51,853,908 56,732,858 4,878,950
California............................................ 3,622,756,184 3,733,817,784 111,061,600
Colorado.............................................. 158,311,240 136,056,690 (22,254,550)
Connecticut........................................... 215,259,386 266,788,107 51,528,721
Delaware.............................................. 35,190,385 32,290,981 (2,899,404)
District of Columbia.................................. 70,813,403 92,609,815 21,796,412
Florida............................................... 497,539,038 562,340,120 64,801,082
Georgia............................................... 288,409,702 330,741,739 42,332,037
Hawaii................................................ 97,907,577 98,904,788 997,211
Idaho................................................. 31,296,914 31,938,052 641,138
Illinois.............................................. 601,058,735 585,056,960 (16,001,775)
Indiana............................................... 133,118,506 206,799,109 73,680,603
Iowa.................................................. 128,852,537 131,524,959 2,672,422
Kansas................................................ 89,752,672 101,931,061 12,178,389
Kentucky.............................................. 157,237,976 181,287,669 24,049,693
Louisiana............................................. 114,252,276 163,971,985 49,719,709
Maine................................................. 74,785,593 78,120,889 3,335,296
Maryland.............................................. 214,291,797 229,098,032 14,806,235
Massachusetts......................................... 353,059,715 459,371,116 106,311,401
Michigan.............................................. 632,231,649 775,352,858 143,121,209
Minnesota............................................. 220,838,750 267,984,886 47,146,136
Mississippi........................................... 70,340,945 86,767,578 16,426,633
Missouri.............................................. 195,387,537 217,051,740 21,664,203
Montana............................................... 40,390,953 45,534,006 5,143,053
Nebraska.............................................. 56,014,025 58,028,579 2,014,554
Nevada................................................ 41,357,154 43,976,750 2,619,596
New Hampshire......................................... 34,677,119 38,521,261 3,844,142
New Jersey............................................ 383,177,479 404,034,823 20,857,344
New Mexico............................................ 132,128,581 126,103,156 (6,025,425)
New York.............................................. 2,160,652,011 2,442,930,602 282,278,591
North Carolina........................................ 312,629,857 302,239,599 (10,390,258)
North Dakota.......................................... 25,659,754 26,399,809 740,055
Ohio.................................................. 543,665,551 727,968,260 184,302,709
Oklahoma.............................................. 118,234,490 148,013,558 29,779,068
Oregon................................................ 142,045,360 167,924,513 25,879,153
Pennsylvania.......................................... 770,098,137 719,499,305 (50,598,832)
Rhode Island.......................................... 89,478,850 95,021,587 5,542,737
South Carolina........................................ 94,400,660 99,967,824 5,567,164
South Dakota.......................................... 20,241,648 21,893,519 1,651,871
Tennessee............................................. 137,444,809 191,523,797 54,078,988
Texas................................................. 419,020,833 486,256,752 67,235,919
Utah.................................................. 64,694,728 76,829,219 12,134,491
Vermont............................................... 42,378,331 47,353,181 4,974,850
Virginia.............................................. 121,386,081 158,285,172 36,899,091
Washington............................................ 415,384,424 404,331,754 (11,052,670)
West Virginia......................................... 87,683,489 110,176,310 22,492,821
Wisconsin............................................. 276,357,058 318,188,410 41,831,352
Wyoming............................................... 14,968,548 21,781,446 6,812,898
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total........................................ $14,931,043,974 $16,488,667,235 $1,557,623,261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections in order to
be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
To qualify otherwise, States must meet each of two
conditions:
(1) fiscal year 1994 Federal spending per poor person on
AFDC and related programs below the fiscal year 1994 national
average, and
(2) the State's population growth rate for the most recent
fiscal year greater than that of the Nation.
In order to qualify for supplemental funds on these dual
grounds, States must meet the qualification criteria in fiscal
year 1998. CRS calculates that six additional States will
qualify on these grounds: Florida, Georgia, Montana, New
Mexico, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
For a qualifying State, the supplemental funds provide
approximately an annual 2.5 percent addition to TANF funding.
For fiscal year 1998, the supplemental grant is computed as 2.5
percent of Federal payments to the State for AFDC and related
programs in fiscal year 1994. In subsequent years, the grant is
computed as 2.5 percent of the prior year's supplemented grant
(basic grant plus supplement) plus the prior year's
supplemental grant.
If the $800 million appropriation is insufficient to pay
the full supplemental amounts, grants are to be proportionately
reduced. CRS estimates that $800 million will be sufficient to
pay the full supplemental grant for the first 3 years only.
Table 7-42 shows CRS estimates of supplemental grants.
Seventeen States are estimated to receive supplemental funds.
Florida and Texas account for 34 percent of the total; Georgia
and North Carolina, for another 22 percent.
TABLE 7-42.--ESTIMATED SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS TO STATES WITH HIGH
POPULATION GROWTH AND/OR LOW FEDERAL WELFARE SPENDING PER POOR PERSON,
FISCAL YEARS 1998-2001
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... $2,671 $5,410 $8,216 $10,603
Alaska...................... 1,659 3,359 5,102 6,583
Arizona..................... 5,762 11,667 17,720 22,867
Arkansas.................... 1,497 3,032 4,606 5,943
California.................. 0 0 0 0
Colorado.................... 3,268 6,617 10,051 12,970
Connecticut................. 0 0 0 0
Delaware.................... 0 0 0 0
District of Columbia........ 0 0 0 0
Florida..................... 14,547 29,457 44,740 57,735
Georgia..................... 8,978 18,181 27,614 35,635
Hawaii...................... 0 0 0 0
Idaho....................... 842 1,706 2,591 3,343
Illinois.................... 0 0 0 0
Indiana..................... 0 0 0 0
Iowa........................ 0 0 0 0
Kansas...................... 0 0 0 0
Kentucky.................... 0 0 0 0
Louisiana................... 4,100 8,303 12,611 16,274
Maine....................... 0 0 0 0
Maryland.................... 0 0 0 0
Massachusetts............... 0 0 0 0
Michigan.................... 0 0 0 0
Minnesota................... 0 0 0 0
Mississippi................. 2,176 4,406 6,692 8,636
Missouri.................... 0 0 0 0
Montana..................... 1,133 2,294 3,484 4,496
Nebraska.................... 0 0 0 0
Nevada...................... 899 1,821 2,765 3,568
New Hampshire............... 0 0 0 0
New Jersey.................. 0 0 0 0
New Mexico.................. 3,236 6,553 9,953 12,844
New York.................... 0 0 0 0
North Carolina.............. 8,696 17,609 26,745 34,514
North Dakota................ 0 0 0 0
Ohio........................ 0 0 0 0
Oklahoma.................... 0 0 0 0
Oregon...................... 0 0 0 0
Pennsylvania................ 0 0 0 0
Rhode Island................ 0 0 0 0
South Carolina.............. 0 0 0 0
South Dakota................ 0 0 0 0
Tennessee................... 5,193 10,516 15,973 20,612
Texas....................... 12,693 25,703 39,039 50,378
Utah........................ 2,096 4,245 6,447 8,320
Vermont..................... 0 0 0 0
Virginia.................... 0 0 0 0
Washington.................. 0 0 0 0
West Virginia............... 0 0 0 0
Wisconsin................... 0 0 0 0
Wyoming..................... 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------
Annual total............ 79,447 160,881 244,350 315,322
-------------------------------------------
Cumulative total........ 79,447 240,328 484,678 800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data from DHHS and the Bureau of
the Census. Population growth that qualifies the State is based on
information consistent with the July 1, 1995 and July 1, 1996 Census
estimates of State population issued in Department of Commerce Press
Release CB96-224, December 30, 1996. CRS obtained this data from the
Census Bureau internet site (www.census.gov). For fiscal years 1999-
2001, estimates assume that States that qualify in fiscal year 1998
also qualify in subsequent years.
Grants to States that reduce out-of-wedlock birth rates--$400 million
(fiscal years 1999-2002)
The 1996 welfare reform law provides up to $400 million
over 4 years for bonuses to States that reduce their out-of-
wedlock birth rates and abortion rates below fiscal year 1995
levels. The five States with the greatest annual decline in
out-of-wedlock birth rates are to receive a bonus of $20
million, provided they also reduce the abortion rate. If fewer
than five States qualify for these funds, the bonus would
increase to $25 million per State.
Bonus to reward ``high performance'' States--$1 billion (fiscal years
1999-2003)
The 1996 legislation contains additional funds for States
that are successful in meeting the goals of the TANF Program.
The law directed the Secretary of DHHS, in consultation with
the National Governors' Association (NGA) and the American
Public Welfare Association (APWA), to develop a formula by
August 22, 1997, for measuring State performance under the
program. The Secretary is required to set a performance
threshold that States must meet in order to receive a payment
on grounds of being a ``high performance'' State. Total bonuses
for the 5 years are set at $1 billion. In July 1997, DHHS
indicated that it was considering four performance measures:
employment, job retention, earnings progression, and birth
rates of females aged 15-17.
Contingency fund--$2 billion (fiscal years 1997-2001)
TANF provides matching grants for States that experience
high and increasing unemployment rates or increased food stamp
caseloads. To qualify for contingency funds, a State must spend
from its own funds on TANF an amount equal to at least 100
percent of the amount it spent on AFDC, EA, and JOBS in fiscal
year 1994. It must also meet one of two criteria of need:
--its seasonally adjusted unemployment rate averaged over
the most recent 3-month period must be at least 6.5
percent and at least 10 percent higher than the
rate in the corresponding period in either of the
previous 2 years; or
--its food stamp caseload over the most recent 3-month
period must be at least 10 percent higher than the
food stamp caseload would have been in the
corresponding period of fiscal year 1994 or fiscal
year 1995 if Public Law 104-193 had been in effect
throughout those fiscal years, as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture.
Qualifying States are entitled to advance payments from
the contingency fund. They may request up to one-twelfth of 20
percent of the State family assistance grant for each month
that they qualify as a needy State (and for 1 month after they
cease being ``needy''). A State's full year entitlement to
contingency funds cannot be determined until after the close of
the fiscal year because it is based on its expenditures, the
number of months it qualified, and its matching rate during the
fiscal year. An annual reconciliation is performed in this way:
Countable expenditures are computed as those made under the
State TANF Program on TANF-eligible families, including
spending from contingency fund advances, but excluding spending
on child care. ``Historic'' State expenditures are subtracted
from countable expenditures. For contingency fund purposes,
``historic State spending'' is fiscal year 1994 State spending
on AFDC, JOBS, and EA. The result of the subtraction is a
measure called ``reimbursable expenditures.'' The amount to
which a State is entitled under the contingency fund equals
reimbursable expenditures multiplied by its Medicaid matching
rate times the number of months during which the State was
eligible. The State must remit to the Secretary any contingency
funds that exceed its share of reimbursable expenditures.
Further, if a State that received contingency funds is
determined to have failed to meet the maintenance of effort
requirement for those funds, its next year's family assistance
grant must be reduced by any contingency funds that it
received.
Welfare-to-work grants ($3 billion, fiscal years 1998-99)
Added to TANF in 1997 were special welfare-to-work grants
to help States achieve work participation rates. Most grants
must focus on long-term recipients with specified barriers to
work (for details, see below).
Maintenance of effort (required State spending)
The 1996 welfare reform bill established block grant
programs to replace the Federal-State cost-sharing that existed
under AFDC, EA, JOBS, and AFDC-related child care programs.
Before TANF, the Federal Government reimbursed States for about
55 percent and the States paid the other 45 percent of total
expenditures on these activities. In fiscal year 1994, the
State share of expenditures for them totaled about $13.9
billion. The 1996 law converted the Federal share of
expenditures for these programs into the TANF grants and a
child care block grant. It also established some requirements
and incentives for States to maintain some fiscal effort in
assisting families with children.
TANF penalizes a State that does not spend a specified
amount of its own funds on families eligible for TANF and those
who would be eligible but for the program's 60-month time limit
or prohibitions for aiding immigrants. The specified level is
75 percent of ``historic State expenditures'' for States that
meet TANF work requirements, 80 percent of historic
expenditures for States that fail to meet the work
requirements. The required State spending levels are known as
maintenance-of-effort (MOE) thresholds. Historic State
expenditures are the State share of fiscal year 1994 AFDC, EA,
JOBS, and AFDC-related child care expenditures. Table 7-43
provides historic State expenditures and the State maintenance-
of-effort thresholds (75 percent and 80 percent). As noted
earlier, the penalty for failing to meet the MOE requirement is
reduction of the next year's family assistance grant by the
amount of the State spending shortfall; further, if the State
received welfare-to-work formula grant funds in the year of the
MOE shortfall, the next year's TANF grant is to be further
reduced, by the amount of those welfare-to-work funds.
TABLE 7-43.--TANF MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT LEVELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 percent 80 percent
Historic State of historic of historic
State expenditures \1\ State State
expenditures expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................... $52,285 $39,214 $41,828
Alaska............................................................ 65,257 48,942 52,205
Arizona........................................................... 126,704 95,028 101,363
Arkansas.......................................................... 27,785 20,839 22,228
California........................................................ 3,643,208 2,732,406 2,914,566
Colorado.......................................................... 110,495 82,871 88,396
Connecticut....................................................... 244,561 183,421 195,649
Delaware.......................................................... 29,028 21,771 23,222
District of Columbia.............................................. 93,932 70,449 75,146
Florida........................................................... 494,559 370,919 395,647
Georgia........................................................... 231,158 173,369 184,926
Hawaii............................................................ 97,309 72,981 77,847
Idaho............................................................. 18,238 13,679 14,591
Illinois.......................................................... 572,027 429,021 457,622
Indiana........................................................... 151,367 113,525 121,093
Iowa.............................................................. 82,618 61,963 66,094
Kansas............................................................ 82,333 61,750 65,866
Kentucky.......................................................... 89,891 67,418 71,913
Louisiana......................................................... 73,887 55,415 59,109
Maine............................................................. 50,370 37,778 40,296
Maryland.......................................................... 235,954 176,965 188,763
Massachusetts..................................................... 478,597 358,948 382,877
Michigan.......................................................... 624,691 468,518 499,753
Minnesota......................................................... 239,660 179,745 191,728
Mississippi....................................................... 28,966 21,724 23,173
Missouri.......................................................... 160,161 120,121 128,129
Montana........................................................... 20,919 15,689 16,735
Nebraska.......................................................... 38,629 28,971 30,903
Nevada............................................................ 33,985 25,489 27,188
New Hampshire..................................................... 42,820 32,115 34,256
New Jersey........................................................ 405,274 303,956 324,219
New Mexico........................................................ 49,934 37,450 39,947
New York.......................................................... 2,281,060 1,710,795 1,824,848
North Carolina.................................................... 205,568 154,176 164,454
North Dakota...................................................... 12,092 9,069 9,674
Ohio.............................................................. 520,734 390,551 416,588
Oklahoma.......................................................... 81,667 61,250 65,334
Oregon............................................................ 123,006 92,255 98,405
Pennsylvania...................................................... 542,834 407,126 434,267
Rhode Island...................................................... 80,489 60,367 64,392
South Carolina.................................................... 47,786 35,839 38,229
South Dakota...................................................... 11,699 8,774 9,359
Tennessee......................................................... 110,413 82,810 88,331
Texas............................................................. 314,300 235,725 251,440
Utah.............................................................. 33,721 25,291 26,977
Vermont........................................................... 34,205 25,653 27,364
Virginia.......................................................... 170,898 128,173 136,718
Washington........................................................ 362,748 272,061 290,198
West Virginia..................................................... 43,601 32,701 34,881
Wisconsin......................................................... 225,638 169,229 180,511
Wyoming........................................................... 14,220 10,665 11,376
---------------------------------------------
U.S. total.................................................... 13,913,282 10,434,961 11,130,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Historic State expenditures: 100 percent of fiscal year 1994 State expenditures on all IV-A programs and IV-
F.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). State expenditure data are as reported by the States to DHHS and are as of
May 1995.
Countable toward the TANF maintenance of effort requirement
are expenditures on behalf of TANF-eligible families (including
those who have reached TANF's 5-year time limit but have income
within TANF limits) for these activities: cash aid, including
child support collected for TANF recipients and distributed to
the family without reducing their benefit; child care
assistance; education, job training, and employment services;
administrative costs; and other activities that a State is
authorized to use TANF grants to finance. Administrative costs
are capped at 15 percent of the total expenditures counted
toward meeting the spending requirement. Expenditures for
educational activities exclude public education for services or
assistance available to the general public.
State expenditures for these families made under any State
program are countable toward the TANF-MOE rule. A State could
use its own funds to supplement Federal grants within the TANF
Program, or use them in a separate State program of assistance.
Expenditures that qualify for MOE must be made from State funds
and cannot be used to obtain Federal matching funds from
another program. A special limitation also applies to child
care spending. According to DHHS guidelines issued January 31,
1997, a State may not count toward the MOE requirement spending
that exceeds the amount it spent on AFDC-related child care
programs in either fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995.
Also, a special condition restricts MOE-countable State
spending for activities other than those the State was
authorized to provide under its AFDC, EA, JOBS, or AFDC-related
child care programs as of August 21, 1996. For these other
activities, States can count only spending above fiscal year
1994 levels toward the TANF-MOE requirement.
Loan fund
TANF provides a $1.7 billion revolving loan fund. States
may receive loans for up to 3 years, which must be repaid with
interest. The interest rate for the loans is the current
average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of
the Federal Government. Any State that is not subject to a
penalty for misspending TANF funds is eligible for a loan.
Transfer and reservation of TANF funds
States may transfer up to 30 percent of TANF grants (except
contingency funds) to the Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) and the Title XX Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG), but no more than 10 percent to the SSBG. Funds
transferred to SSBG must be used to assist families with
children that have incomes below 200 percent of the poverty
income guidelines.
TANF for Indians
The welfare law gives federally recognized Indian tribes
(defined to include certain Alaska Native organizations) the
option to design and operate their own cash welfare programs
for needy children with funds subtracted from their State's
TANF Block Grant. The law also authorizes direct Federal
funding to recognized Indian tribes for operation of Child
Support Enforcement Programs, and it sets aside a share of new
child care funds for them. The repealed program of AFDC made no
provision for tribal design or administration of cash aid,
although it did allow some tribes to operate JOBS. The Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which established a
program of welfare-to-work (WTW) grants for TANF recipients,
sets aside 1 percent of funding ($30 million over 2 years) for
Indian WTW programs. Unlike State WTW programs, Indian programs
do not require any State matching funding.
Recognized tribes and tribal organizations may operate TANF
family assistance programs in their service areas. A tribe's
grant equals Federal AFDC payments to the State for fiscal year
1994 attributable to Indians in its service area, and tribal
grant funds are subtracted from the grant of the State(s)
containing the tribe's service areas. Tribal TANF plans are for
3 years (rather than 2, as for States) and contain many fewer
required elements than State plans.
The Secretary of DHHS, with participation of the tribe, is
to establish work participation rules, time limits for
benefits, and penalties for each tribal family assistance
program. In general, Indian tribes in Alaska must operate plans
in accordance with rules adopted by the State of Alaska for its
TANF Program (but waivers are allowed). The State Governor, in
submitting a TANF plan, must certify equitable access from the
regular TANF Program to Indians not eligible for help from a
tribal family assistance plan.
The law gives explicit permission for State TANF Programs
to use money from a new loan fund for aid to Indian families
that have moved out of the service area of a tribe with a
tribal family assistance plan. The law also appropriates funds
each year ($7.6 million) to those tribes that operated JOBS in
fiscal year 1994. The appropriation is in addition to any
tribal assistance TANF grant made to them.
The law exempts from the 60-month TANF benefit time limit
any month of aid during which the recipient lived in Indian
country (or in an Alaska Native village) of at least 1,000
persons in which 50 percent of adults were unemployed.
As of early August 1997, 11 tribes had submitted plans to
operate tribal family assistance programs: Red Cliff Band of
Lake Superior Chippewas (WI), Osage Nation (OK), Forest County
Potawatomi (WI), Citizen Potawatomi Nation (OK), Klamath Tribe
(OR), Sokogon Chippewa (WI), Stockbridge-Munsee (WI), Sisseton-
Wahpeton (SD), Pascua Yaqui (AZ), White Mountain Apache (AZ),
and Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (OR).
State TANF Plans
The law requires TANF plans to outline how the State
intends to conduct a program that provides cash aid to needy
families with (or expecting) children and that provides parents
with job preparation, work, and support services. State plans
must indicate whether the State intends to treat families who
move into the State differently from others, and, if so, how;
and whether it intends to give aid to noncitizens. State plans
must certify that the State will operate programs of child
support and foster care and adoption assistance, provide
equitable access to Indians; and establish and enforce
standards against fraud and abuse.
Table 7-44 summarizes selected major provisions of State
TANF plans. These include the maximum time before mandatory
work, the time limit on benefits, whether the State imposes a
family cap, whether the State provides benefits for
noncitizens, and whether the State has special rules for
interstate migrants. Additional details concerning State plans
are summarized and analyzed in a document written by Vee Burke
and her colleagues (1997) at the Congressional Research
Service.
TABLE 7-44.--TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT: SUMMARY OF SELECTED MAJOR PROVISIONS IN STATE PLANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum time before Benefits for Special rules for
State mandatory work Time limit on benefits Family cap? noncitizens? interstate migrants?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... No................... No
Alaska............................ 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Arizona........................... 24 months............. 24 months within a 60- Yes.................. Yes.................. No
month period for
adult recipients.
Arkansas.......................... Did not say........... 24 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. No
California........................ Immediate............. 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
Colorado.......................... 24 months............. 60 months for adults.. No................... Yes.................. No
Connecticut....................... Did not say........... 21 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. No
Delaware.......................... Immediate............. 48 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. No
District of Columbia.............. 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. Yes
Florida........................... Immediate............. 24 months in a 60- Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
month period.
Lifetime total of 48
months as an adult.
Georgia........................... 24 months............. Did not say........... Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
Guam.............................. 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... No................... No
Hawaii............................ 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Idaho............................. With few exceptions, 24 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
adults will be
expected to
participate in work
activities
immediately,
including a job
search requirement
for all adult
applicants.
Illinois.......................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. No
Indiana........................... 24 months............. 24 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. No
Iowa.............................. Did not say........... Individualized. TANF Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
funds will not be
used for an adult
beyond 60 months
unless the family
meets criteria for
extending assistance.
Kansas............................ 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Kentucky.......................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Louisiana......................... Did not say........... 24 months within a 60- Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
month period.
Maine............................. 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Maryland.......................... Did not say........... 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
Massachusetts..................... 60 days............... 24 months within a 60- Yes.................. Yes.................. No
month period.
Michigan.......................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Minnesota......................... 6 months; counties 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. Yes
have the option of
requiring work sooner.
Mississippi....................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Yes.................. No................... No
Missouri.......................... 24 months............. 60 months generally. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
JOBS mandatory
recipients subject to
self-sufficiency
limit of 48 months.
Montana........................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Nebraska.......................... Immediate 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. No
participation in Job
Support Program;
earned income
required within 2
years.
Nevada............................ 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
New Hampshire..................... Immediate job search 60 months............ Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
for 26 weeks followed
by 26 weeks of
community work
experience (cycle
repeated each year).
New Jersey........................ 24 months............. 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
New Mexico........................ 60 days............... 36 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
New York.......................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. Yes
North Carolina.................... Did not say........... 24 months at a time; Yes.................. Yes.................. No
lifetime maximum of
60 months.
North Dakota...................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
Ohio.............................. 24 months............. 36 months plus a Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
possible renewal of
24 months after 24
months of
ineligibility (60
months over an 84-
month period).
Oklahoma.......................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Oregon............................ Did not say........... 24 months within 84- Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
month period.
Pennsylvania...................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. Yes
Puerto Rico....................... 24 months for Did not say........... Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
participants
determined not ready
to work (lack high
school diploma or
equivalent).
Participants who are
ready to work will be
engaged in work
within 6 months.
Rhode Island...................... Participate in work or 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. Yes
work-readiness
activities within 45
days; work within 2
years.
South Carolina.................... 24 months............. 24 months out of 120 Yes.................. Yes.................. No
months; no more than
60 months in a
lifetime.
South Dakota...................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Tennessee......................... Immediate............. 18 months in a 60- Yes.................. Yes.................. No
month period. 60-
month lifetime time
limit.
Texas............................. Did not say........... Did not say........... Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Utah.............................. Immediate............. 36 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Vermont........................... Did not say........... Did not say........... Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Virgin Islands.................... Did not say........... 60 months (for adult). Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Virginia.......................... 90 days............... 24 months within a 60- Yes.................. Yes.................. No
month period.
Washington........................ Immediate job search 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. Yes
required.
West Virginia..................... 24 months............. 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
Wisconsin......................... Immediate............. 60 months............. Yes.................. Yes.................. Yes
Wyoming........................... Did not say........... 60 months............. Did not say.......... Yes.................. No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Information is from TANF State plans submitted to DHHS, supplemented by provisions in new State statutes of Arizona, California, New York, and
Ohio. Some provisions may not be fully phased in. Some, notably, family caps and differential rules for interstate migrants, have been challenged in
State courts. The family cap provision either prevents a family receiving welfare from getting additional benefits or provides the family with reduced
benefits if they have additional children. Table is from CRS Report 97-380.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
State TANF Data
Caseloads under AFDC/TANF
Both 1996 and 1997 were transition years during which
States moved from the AFDC Program to the new TANF Program.
Four States (Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont, and Wisconsin)
replaced AFDC with TANF at the earliest possible time, in
September 1996, and another 14 started TANF in October 1996.
Only 12 jurisdictions waited until the mandatory July 1, 1997
deadline to make the change (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Guam,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).
Table 7-45 shows that the total number of AFDC/TANF
families declined throughout the fiscal year 1997 transition
period, from 4.301 million in October 1996 to 3.546 million in
September 1997. This reduction in the number of families
receiving AFDC/TANF continued a decline underway since March
1994 when AFDC numbers peaked at 5.098 million. Compared with
September levels in earlier years, the September 1997 caseload
was down 19 percent from 1996, 25 percent from 1995, and 29
percent from 1994.
TABLE 7-45.--NUMBER OF AFDC/TANF FAMILIES BY STATE FOR SELECTED MONTHS, FISCAL YEAR 1997
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month and Year
------------------------------------------------------
State September
October December March June 1997
1996 1996 1997 1997 (preliminary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................. 40.5 38.0 36.1 32.0 27.2
Alaska................................................... 12.0 11.9 12.8 12.0 11.0
Arizona.................................................. 60.6 58.3 55.0 52.5 50.0
Arkansas................................................. 22.0 21.6 21.5 20.7 16.7
California............................................... 861.0 846.5 829.6 789.9 757.0
Colorado................................................. 33.1 32.2 31.1 28.7 24.6
Connecticut.............................................. 56.9 56.4 55.7 55.5 55.2
Delaware................................................. 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.5 9.2
District of Columbia..................................... 25.2 25.0 24.4 23.7 22.4
Florida.................................................. 197.0 186.6 177.1 160.6 140.9
Georgia.................................................. 120.2 116.6 112.5 98.2 90.7
Guam..................................................... 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.6
Hawaii................................................... 21.8 21.5 23.0 23.4 23.5
Idaho.................................................... 8.2 8.0 7.8 6.7 2.1
Illinois................................................. 213.1 209.6 201.2 191.6 189.2
Indiana.................................................. 49.5 45.8 45.7 42.4 41.2
Iowa..................................................... 30.4 29.7 29.1 28.4 27.3
Kansas................................................... 22.8 21.9 21.3 18.2 16.9
Kentucky................................................. 69.9 68.1 66.5 62.5 59.5
Louisiana................................................ 65.9 62.6 56.8 51.7 50.0
Maine.................................................... 19.6 19.1 19.0 18.2 16.6
Maryland................................................. 67.4 63.4 59.9 55.0 53.4
Massachusetts............................................ 83.4 81.3 78.9 76.0 72.4
Michigan................................................. 166.2 159.6 152.0 145.8 140.9
Minnesota................................................ 56.2 55.3 54.1 52.3 48.8
Mississippi.............................................. 43.9 42.1 40.3 36.4 31.1
Missouri................................................. 78.2 76.4 73.3 67.6 65.5
Montana.................................................. 9.7 9.7 9.5 8.8 7.8
Nebraska................................................. 13.7 13.4 13.6 13.3 14.0
Nevada................................................... 12.9 12.6 12.2 11.7 11.2
New Hampshire............................................ 8.7 8.4 8.3 7.9 6.7
New Jersey............................................... 105.8 103.7 100.9 97.6 93.8
New Mexico............................................... 32.4 30.6 28.6 25.9 17.8
New York................................................. 411.1 399.2 387.2 371.0 359.7
North Carolina........................................... 107.8 104.5 101.0 95.6 89.0
North Dakota............................................. 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.7
Ohio..................................................... 201.4 196.2 190.3 180.5 160.2
Oklahoma................................................. 34.9 33.5 31.0 28.3 26.9
Oregon................................................... 27.5 26.0 25.2 22.7 20.6
Pennsylvania............................................. 178.1 172.4 166.3 157.0 147.2
Puerto Rico.............................................. 49.0 48.6 47.8 47.3 45.9
Rhode Island............................................. 20.4 20.0 19.8 19.5 19.6
South Carolina........................................... 43.7 38.1 33.8 30.3 28.4
South Dakota............................................. 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.0 4.4
Tennessee................................................ 87.5 79.0 70.1 64.4 60.4
Texas.................................................... 237.5 228.3 221.6 204.0 166.9
Utah..................................................... 13.7 13.1 12.5 11.6 11.3
Vermont.................................................. 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.2 7.8
Virgin Islands........................................... 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
Virginia................................................. 59.5 57.2 54.8 50.9 47.5
Washington............................................... 95.9 95.1 95.4 91.4 86.8
West Virginia............................................ 37.6 36.2 34.4 28.7 28.1
Wisconsin................................................ 50.7 46.9 43.4 38.1 31.3
Wyoming.................................................. 4.1 4.1 2.6 2.0 1.6
------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................... 4,301.0 4,166.4 4,026.7 3,788.6 3,545.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Research Service based on data from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Benefit levels under TANF, July 1, 1997
Table 7-46 shows State-by-State trends in AFDC/TANF family
numbers since fiscal year 1994 when national enrollment reached
a historic peak of 5 million. The national caseload declined
3.3 percent in fiscal year 1995, 6.7 percent in fiscal year
1996, and another 13.3 percent in 1997. The cumulative result
was that the average caseload in 1997 was down 21.8 percent
from the 1994 average and down 16.9 percent from its fiscal
year 1995 average level.
TABLE 7-46.--AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND TANF FAMILIES: FISCAL YEARS 1994-97 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Percentage change to fiscal year
(monthly 1997 from
State 1994 1995 1996 average, -----------------------------------
first 9 fiscal fiscal fiscal
months) year 1994 year 1995 year 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ 50.3 46.0 42.4 36.7 -27.1 -20.3 -13.4
Alaska......................... 12.8 12.4 12.3 12.3 -3.5 -0.9 0.5
Arizona........................ 72.0 69.6 63.4 56.0 -22.2 -19.5 -11.7
Arkansas....................... 26.0 24.3 22.7 21.4 -17.8 -12.0 -6.0
California..................... 909.0 919.5 896.0 832.2 -8.5 -9.5 -7.1
Colorado....................... 41.6 38.6 35.4 31.2 -25.1 -19.2 -12.1
Connecticut.................... 59.2 61.0 58.1 56.0 -5.4 -8.1 -3.6
Delaware...................... 11.5 10.8 10.4 9.9 -13.7 -8.2 -4.8
District of Columbia.......... 27.1 26.8 25.7 24.5 -9.6 -8.5 -4.7
Florida........................ 247.1 230.8 212.0 179.2 -27.5 -22.4 -15.5
Georgia........................ 141.5 139.1 130.4 111.8 -20.9 -19.6 -14.2
Guam........................... 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 21.2 8.6 6.6
Hawaii......................... 20.4 21.7 22.0 22.5 10.1 3.8 2.4
Idaho.......................... 8.7 9.1 9.0 7.8 -10.3 -14.2 -13.6
Illinois....................... 240.3 236.2 224.1 202.0 -15.9 -14.5 -9.9
Indiana........................ 73.8 65.6 52.9 45.7 -38.0 -30.3 -13.5
Iowa........................... 39.6 36.5 32.8 29.3 -25.8 -19.6 -10.5
Kansas......................... 30.1 28.2 25.1 21.1 -30.0 -25.4 -16.2
Kentucky....................... 79.8 75.4 71.8 66.5 -16.7 -11.8 -7.4
Louisiana...................... 86.9 79.8 70.6 58.7 -32.5 -26.5 -16.9
Maine.......................... 22.9 21.7 20.5 19.0 -17.3 -12.6 -7.3
Maryland....................... 80.1 80.4 74.1 60.9 -23.9 -24.2 -17.8
Massachusetts.................. 111.8 100.9 88.4 79.0 -29.3 -21.7 -10.6
Michigan....................... 224.0 201.7 178.0 154.7 -30.9 -23.3 -13.1
Minnesota...................... 63.0 61.3 58.3 54.2 -13.9 -11.6 -6.9
Mississippi.................... 56.8 52.5 48.0 40.6 -28.6 -22.8 -15.4
Missouri....................... 92.1 89.3 82.7 73.6 -20.1 -17.6 -11.0
Montana........................ 11.9 11.5 10.8 9.1 -23.7 -21.0 -16.1
Nebraska....................... 15.9 14.8 14.2 13.5 -15.4 -9.1 -4.9
Nevada......................... 14.2 15.7 14.8 12.1 -14.9 -23.2 -18.7
New Hampshire.................. 11.5 10.8 9.5 8.3 -27.6 -23.1 -12.9
New Jersey..................... 122.4 118.9 112.0 102.0 -16.7 -14.2 -8.9
New Mexico..................... 33.6 34.4 33.9 29.3 -13.0 -15.1 -13.6
New York....................... 455.0 456.9 433.3 391.0 -14.1 -14.4 -9.8
North Carolina................. 131.2 125.5 113.1 101.8 -22.4 -18.9 -10.0
North Dakota................... 5.9 5.2 4.9 4.3 -26.4 -17.0 -11.5
Ohio........................... 250.2 228.2 206.7 191.4 -23.5 -16.1 -7.4
Oklahoma....................... 47.0 44.8 38.8 31.7 -32.4 -29.1 -18.2
Oregon......................... 42.1 39.3 33.4 25.3 -39.9 -35.5 -24.3
Pennsylvania................... 210.2 204.8 190.3 167.9 -20.1 -18.0 -11.8
Puerto Rico.................... 58.8 54.8 50.9 48.1 -18.2 -12.1 -5.4
Rhode Island................... 22.7 22.2 21.2 19.9 -12.2 -10.4 -6.3
South Carolina................. 51.9 49.0 45.8 35.8 -31.1 -26.9 -21.8
South Dakota................... 6.9 6.3 6.0 5.3 -24.1 -16.3 -12.3
Tennessee...................... 110.8 104.0 99.1 73.6 -33.5 -29.2 -25.7
Texas.......................... 283.7 274.5 255.0 222.0 -21.7 -19.1 -12.9
Utah........................... 17.8 16.6 14.8 12.6 -29.2 -24.3 -14.6
Vermont........................ 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.4 -15.1 -13.0 -7.3
Virgin Islands................. 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 18.2 -0.8 -7.2
Virginia....................... 74.8 72.1 64.9 55.2 -26.2 -23.4 -14.9
Washington..................... 103.0 101.9 98.9 94.6 -8.1 -7.2 -4.4
West Virginia.................. 40.7 38.4 36.6 34.7 -14.7 -9.5 -5.0
Wisconsin...................... 77.2 72.4 60.1 44.3 -42.6 -38.7 -26.2
Wyoming........................ 5.7 5.2 4.7 3.1 -46.3 -40.7 -34.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. totals.............. 5,046.3 4,880.5 4,553.3 4,055.8 -19.6 -16.9 -10.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Monthly averages in thousands; fiscal year 1997 data are monthly averages of the first 9 months of the
fiscal year.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). Fiscal years 1994-96 data are from quarterly reports (ACF Form 3637) filed
by the States. October 1996 through March 1997 data are from quarterly reports. April through June 1997 data
are from AFDC flash reports. These reflect data on October 17, 1997.
As noted earlier, caseload decreases from 1995 levels will
lower required work participation rates of States. Caseloads
fell below 1995 levels in all jurisdictions except Hawaii and
Guam, where numbers rose. Declines ranged from 2 percent in
Alaska to 47 percent in Wyoming.
Table 7-47 presents State maximum TANF benefits by family
size on July 1, 1997. Benefits were unchanged from their year-
earlier levels in most States. Six States reduced benefits for
some recipients, and five States increased benefits for some.
TABLE 7-47.--MAXIMUM TANF BENEFITS BY FAMILY SIZE, JULY 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum TANF benefit by size of filing unit
State -----------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... $111 $137 $164 $194 $225 $252
Alaska.................................................... 514 821 923 1025 1127 1229
Arizona................................................... 204 275 347 418 489 561
Arkansas.................................................. 81 162 204 247 286 331
California \1\ \2\........................................ 279 456 565 673 767 861
Colorado.................................................. 214 280 356 432 512 590
Connecticut \1\........................................... 402 513 636 741 835 935
Delaware.................................................. 201 270 338 407 475 544
District of Columbia...................................... 239 298 379 463 533 627
Florida................................................... 180 241 303 364 426 487
Georgia................................................... 155 235 280 330 378 410
Guam...................................................... 420 537 673 776 874 985
Hawaii \2\................................................ 334 452 570 687 805 922
Idaho..................................................... 276 276 276 276 276 276
Illinois \1\.............................................. 212 278 377 414 485 545
Indiana................................................... 139 229 288 346 405 463
Iowa...................................................... 183 361 426 495 548 610
Kansas \1\................................................ 267 352 429 497 558 619
Kentucky.................................................. 186 225 262 328 383 432
Louisiana \1\............................................. 72 138 190 234 277 316
Maine..................................................... 198 312 418 526 632 739
Maryland.................................................. 167 295 377 455 527 579
Massachusetts \2\......................................... 383 474 565 651 741 832
Michigan: \1\
Wayne County.......................................... 276 371 459 563 659 792
Washtenaw............................................. 305 401 489 593 689 822
Minnesota................................................. 187 437 532 621 697 773
Mississippi............................................... 60 96 120 144 168 192
Missouri.................................................. 136 234 292 342 388 431
Montana................................................... 266 358 450 542 633 725
Nebraska.................................................. 222 293 364 435 506 577
Nevada.................................................... 229 289 348 408 468 528
New Hampshire............................................. 414 481 550 613 673 754
New Jersey................................................ 162 322 424 488 552 616
New Mexico................................................ 231 310 389 469 548 627
New York: \1\
New York City......................................... 352 468 577 687 800 884
Suffolk County........................................ 446 576 703 824 949 1038
North Carolina............................................ 181 236 272 297 324 349
North Dakota.............................................. 228 340 490 528 604 667
Ohio...................................................... 203 279 341 421 493 549
Oklahoma.................................................. 190 238 307 380 445 509
Oregon.................................................... 310 395 460 565 660 755
Pennsylvania \1\.......................................... 215 330 421 514 607 687
Puerto Rico............................................... 132 156 180 204 228 252
Rhode Island.............................................. 327 449 554 634 714 794
South Carolina............................................ 119 159 200 241 281 322
South Dakota.............................................. 304 380 430 478 528 578
Tennessee................................................. 95 142 185 226 264 305
Texas..................................................... 78 163 188 226 251 288
Utah...................................................... 246 342 426 498 567 625
Vermont \1\............................................... 449 554 656 737 824 882
Virgin Islands............................................ 120 180 240 300 360 420
Virginia \1\.............................................. 220 294 354 410 488 534
Washington................................................ 349 440 546 642 740 841
West Virginia............................................. 149 201 253 312 360 413
Wisconsin \1\ \3\......................................... 248 440 517 617 708 766
Wyoming................................................... 195 320 340 360 360 360
-----------------------------------------------------
Median State \4\.................................... 215 310 379 463 528 590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These States (like Michigan and New York) have regional or urban/rural benefit schedules. Amounts shown are
for highest benefit area.
\2\ These States pay higher amounts than those shown above for persons exempt from work. See benefit schedule
below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum TANF benefit by size of filing unit (exempt from work)
State -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.................................... $311 $509 $631 $750 $855 $961
Hawaii........................................ 418 565 712 859 1,006 1,153
Massachusetts................................. 392 486 579 668 760 854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Effective September 1, 1997, Wisconsin scheduled statewide implementation of its W-2 (TANF) plan, which pays
$555 monthly to all-size families in community service jobs and $518 to all-size families in ``transitional''
activities. Each missed hour of required activity reduces benefits by $4.25 per hour.
\4\ Median State among 50 States and the District of Columbia, ranked by benefit size.
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service on the basis of a telephone survey.
Idaho adopted a flat benefit of $276 for all-size families;
and effective September 1, 1997, Wisconsin scheduled adoption
of two flat benefits, $555 monthly for persons in community
service jobs and $518 for those in ``transitional'' activities.
California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts offered higher benefits
to families exempt from work than to others: California, $631;
Hawaii, $712; and Massachusetts, $579, $14 above the year-
earlier maximum (amounts are for three-person families). South
Carolina increased benefits for families of four or more
persons.
WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTS
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33)
provides $3 billion in grants to States and localities for
welfare-to-work (WTW) activities over 2 years, fiscal years
1998-99, by adding welfare-to-work grants to the TANF Block
Grant Program. Most WTW funds require State matching funds.
The law says funds are to be used ``to move individuals
into and keep individuals in lasting unsubsidized employment.''
Funds must be spent on work or work-readiness activities,
including job creation through wage subsidies, postemployment
and job retention services, and on-the-job training. The list
of WTW-eligible activities includes many activities countable
as TANF ``work activities,'' but it excludes vocational
educational training and secondary school attendance.
The Department of Labor (DOL) administers the welfare-to-
work program at the Federal level, and, generally, private
industry councils administer the program at the local level.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is
responsible for evaluation of the program.
Funding of Welfare-to-Work Grants
The new law provides $1.5 billion in each of fiscal years
1998 and 1999. From the $3 billion total, $100 million is set
aside for bonuses to States achieving ``successful
performance.'' The law also sets aside 1 percent ($30 million
over 2 years) for Indian tribes, 0.6 percent ($18 million) for
evaluations of WTW programs, and 0.2 percent ($6 million) for
evaluation of abstinence education programs.
Funds remaining after set-asides are divided 75 percent
for formula grants, which require State cost-sharing (at a one-
third State matching rate), and 25 percent for competitive
grants.
Formula grants
The law provides $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $1.0
billion in fiscal year 1999 for welfare-to-work formula grants,
allotted among the States on the basis of their shares of the
national TANF adult population and the national poverty
population, equally weighted. A small State minimum (0.25
percent of the amount left after set-asides) applies to
jurisdictions other than the Virgin Islands and Guam. To be
eligible for formula grants, States must submit to DOL an
addendum to their TANF State plan that describes how the State
will use the funds and specifies the formula for distribution
to sub-State entities. Other required elements of the WTW plan
include: an agreement that the State will negotiate with the
DHHS Secretary on evaluation of the program, an estimate of
State funds to be spent on welfare-to-work activities, and a
certification that the State will meet the TANF maintenance-of-
effort requirement. Formula grants are capped entitlements, but
require State cost-sharing. States receive $2 in Federal funds
for every dollar of their own funds spent (above the TANF
maintenance-of-effort level) on welfare-to-work activities.
Formula funds must be spent within 3 years, but unobligated
fiscal year 1998 formula funds (including 75 percent of funds
set aside for Indians but not obligated) are to be added to
fiscal year 1999 formula grants.
Table 7-48 shows Congressional Research Service (CRS)
estimates of allotments to States for welfare-to-work formula
grants for fiscal years 1998-99. Seven States benefit from the
small State minimum: Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Within-State administration and distribution of funds
States are required to pass through 85 percent of formula
funds to service delivery areas (SDA) set up under the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The law requires that the
State develop a formula for this allocation, and that half the
formula be based on the incidence of ``high'' poverty (above
7.5 percent of the population) in each SDA, relative to the
State as a whole. The other half of the formula may be based on
the number of long-term welfare recipients and/or unemployed
persons in the SDA.
TABLE 7-48.--ESTIMATED ALLOTMENTS TO THE STATES FOR WELFARE-TO-WORK
GRANTS: FISCAL YEARS 1998-99
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
State 1998 1999 total
allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................. $13,978 $13,029 1.3
Alaska................................ 2,927 2,728 0.3
Arizona............................... 17,418 16,235 1.6
Arkansas.............................. 8,490 7,914 0.8
California............................ 190,417 177,490 17.2
Colorado.............................. 9,879 9,208 0.9
Connecticut........................... 12,006 11,191 1.1
Delaware.............................. 2,762 2,574 0.3
District of Columbia.................. 4,646 4,331 0.4
Florida............................... 50,757 47,311 4.6
Georgia............................... 28,409 26,481 2.6
Hawaii................................ 5,086 4,740 0.5
Idaho................................. 2,794 2,604 0.3
Illinois.............................. 48,663 45,359 4.4
Indiana............................... 14,552 13,564 1.3
Iowa.................................. 8,332 7,766 0.8
Kansas................................ 6,668 6,216 0.6
Kentucky.............................. 17,723 16,520 1.6
Louisiana............................. 23,707 22,098 2.1
Maine................................. 5,156 4,806 0.5
Maryland.............................. 14,941 13,926 1.4
Massachusetts......................... 20,692 19,288 1.9
Michigan.............................. 42,226 39,360 3.8
Minnesota............................. 14,503 13,519 1.3
Mississippi........................... 12,991 12,109 1.2
Missouri.............................. 19,767 18,425 1.8
Montana............................... 3,194 2,978 0.3
Nebraska.............................. 4,022 3,749 0.4
Nevada................................ 3,384 3,154 0.3
New Hampshire......................... 2,762 2,574 0.3
New Jersey............................ 23,257 21,678 2.1
New Mexico............................ 9,716 9,056 0.9
New York.............................. 96,886 90,309 8.8
North Carolina........................ 25,332 23,612 2.3
North Dakota.......................... 2,762 2,574 0.3
Ohio.................................. 44,608 41,580 4.0
Oklahoma.............................. 11,742 10,944 1.1
Oregon................................ 8,637 8,051 0.8
Pennylvania........................... 44,296 41,289 4.0
Rhode Island.......................... 4,420 4,120 0.4
South Carolina........................ 12,006 11,191 1.1
South Dakota.......................... 2,762 2,574 0.3
Tennessee............................. 21,644 20,175 2.0
Texas................................. 76,059 70,895 6.9
Utah.................................. 4,628 4,314 0.4
Vermont............................... 2,762 2,574 0.3
Virginia.............................. 16,549 15,425 1.5
Washington............................ 22,675 21,135 2.1
West Virginia......................... 9,806 9,140 0.9
Wisconsin............................. 12,886 12,011 1.2
Wyoming............................... 2,762 2,574 0.3
Puerto Rico........................... 34,566 32,219 3.1
Virgin Islands........................ 554 516 0.1
Guam.................................. 585 546 0.1
---------------------------------
U.S. totals....................... 1,104,750 1,029,750 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Estimated allotments for
fiscal year 1998 are from the U.S. Department of Labor, and reflect
their final estimated allotments released October 15, 1997. Estimated
fiscal year 1999 allotments were computed by CRS assuming that States
receive the same share of total allotments as they received in fiscal
year 1998.
JTPA private industry councils (PICs) are to administer
formula grants in the SDA and to have sole authority, in
coordination with the chief elected official of the area, to
spend the grant funds for the benefit of the SDA, unless the
Governor receives a waiver from DOL to permit another agency
designated by him to administer the funds. The addendum to the
TANF State plan must include assurances that the PIC (or
alternate agency designated by the Governor) will coordinate
expenditure of WTW funds with that of TANF family assistance
grants.
The remaining 15 percent of formula funds are to be made
available to the Governor for distribution for projects to help
long-term recipients enter unsubsidized employment.
Maintenance of effort
To qualify for WTW formula grants, States must meet TANF
maintenance-of-effort requirements (MOE). That is, they must
spend from their own funds on TANF-eligible families at least
75 percent of ``historic expenditures'' (80 percent if a State
fails to meet TANF's work requirements). If a State that
receives WTW funds fails to meet the TANF-MOE, the WTW funds
are to be deducted from the next year's TANF grant. This
penalty, added to the one imposed by TANF itself for MOE
failure, enforces the requirement that States first meet the
TANF-MOE and then spend additional funds on welfare-to-work
activities in order to receive formula grant funds.
Targeting of funds
The law requires that 70 percent of Federal welfare-to-work
funds (both formula grants and competitive grants) be spent on
long-term TANF recipients, or noncustodial parents of minors of
long-term TANF recipients, who have at least two out of the
following three barriers to employment: (1) lack of a high
school diploma or equivalent and low reading or math skills;
(2) poor work history; and (3) substance abuse. These targeted
recipients must have received assistance under AFDC/TANF for at
least 30 months or be within 12 months of losing eligibility
for benefits because of a durational time limit, without regard
to a hardship exemption. States may spend the remaining 30
percent of Federal WTW funds for welfare-to-work activities by
other TANF recipients, including the noncustodial parents of
minors whose custodial parents are recipients, who have
characteristics associated with long-term welfare receipt, such
as school dropout, teen pregnancy, or poor work history.
Competitive grants
The welfare-to-work grant program provides $368.25 million
in fiscal year 1998 and $343.25 million in fiscal year 1999 for
``competitive'' grants, to be awarded by the DOL Secretary.
Eligible applicants are private industry councils, political
subdivisions of States, and private entities applying in
conjunction with the PIC or political subdivision. Their
proposals must be developed in consultation with the Governor.
In making awards, the DOL Secretary must take into account the
needs of rural areas and cities with large concentrations of
poor persons. Competitive grants are to be used for the same
activities and targeted toward the same recipients as formula
grant funds.
Successful performance bonuses
The WTW law sets aside $100 million of fiscal year 1999
funds for performance bonuses, to be paid in fiscal year 2000.
To be eligible for one of these bonuses, a State must qualify
for welfare-to-work formula grants in fiscal years 1998 and
1999. The DOL Secretary, in consultation with the DHHS
Secretary, the National Governors' Association (NGA), and the
American Public Welfare Association (APWA), is required by
August 5, 1997 to develop a formula for measuring successful
performance. The performance formula must include: job
placements, duration of job placements, increases in earnings,
and other factors deemed appropriate by the DOL Secretary. The
formula may take into account general economic conditions on a
State-by-State basis.
Use of Welfare-to-Work Funds
Allowable activities
The law says WTW funds must be used to move TANF
recipients into lasting unsubsidized employment and to keep
them there, by means of:
--The conduct and administration of community service or
work experience programs;
--Job creation through public or private sector employment
wage subsidies;
--On-the-job training;
--Contracts with public or private providers of readiness,
placement, and post-employment services;
--Job vouchers for placement, readiness, and postemployment
services; Contracts or vouchers for job placement
services must require that at least one-half of the
payment be withheld until a person had been in a
job for 6 months;
--Job retention or support services if these services are
not otherwise available.
TANF time limit ``exemption''
Adults who lose TANF eligibility because of reaching the
60-month limit are permitted to receive assistance through the
welfare-to-work program. Months in which a recipient receives
only noncash aid from WTW funds are not counted toward the TANF
time limit.
TANF requirements applicable to WTW programs
All TANF requirements other than the time limit apply to
welfare-to-work recipients. For example, they must cooperate in
paternity establishment and must assign support rights to the
State. They are counted when determining work participation
requirements. State WTW programs are subject to data reporting
requirements.
Workplace rules
Participants in activities funded by WTW may fill a vacant
employment position unless another person is on layoff from the
same or a substantially equivalent job, the employer has caused
an involuntary reduction in the work force with the intention
of filling the vacancy with the welfare participant, or the
employer has reduced to less than full time the hours of a
worker in the same or a substantially equivalent job. A work
activity that would violate an existing contract for services
or a collective bargaining agreement cannot be undertaken
without the written concurrence of the labor organization and
employer concerned. Health and safety standards otherwise
applicable to working conditions of employees apply to working
conditions of participants in WTW work activities. The law
forbids discrimination by reason of gender (adding this
requirement to other antidiscrimination provisions already in
TANF law). States must establish and maintain a procedure for
grievances or complaints, including opportunity for a hearing
and appeal to an agency other than the agency administering the
WTW program.
WELFARE DYNAMICS
Duration on Welfare
The question of how long families receive cash welfare 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, based on studies of
families' use of the repealed AFDC Program:
--New enrollees could be expected to spend an average of 6
years, including repeat spells, on AFDC (table 7-
49).
--For families on AFDC at any given time, the average
expected length of AFDC receipt, counting repeat
spells, was 13 years (table 7-49).
--Almost half of the persons on the rolls at a given time
had received benefits, counting repeat spells, for
more than 5 years (table 7-49).
--More than half of welfare spells associated with a first
birth to a never-married mother lasted longer than
5 years (table 7-51).
--Most episodes of AFDC enrollment were found to end within
12 months (table 7-52), but most families who
exited AFDC came back within 24 months (table 7-
53).
TABLE 7-49.--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).
Table 7-49, based on monthly data and prepared by LaDonna
Pavetti (1995), examines the distribution of expected lifetime
total time on AFDC, including repeat spells. It shows that for
a beginning cohort, 34.8 percent could be expected to spend
more than 60 months on the program. The picture was different
for persons who already were enrolled: 76.2 percent of them
were expected to spend more than 60 months on AFDC, and 47.8
percent of them already had done so. The expected duration of
welfare for the point-in-time caseload is much longer than for
a beginning group of recipients 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.
The estimates in table 7-49 are based on behavior of recipients
under the AFDC system. Policy changes, such as the 5-year time
limit on TANF-funded aid in the 1996 welfare reform law, might
alter the length of time spent on cash assistance.
Expected duration on AFDC varied with personal
characteristics and with the event that appeared to precipitate
the use of welfare. As was seen in table 7-49, 57.8 percent of
first-time recipients could be expected to spend more than 24
months on AFDC, counting repeat spells, over their lifetimes.
But, as table 7-50 shows, the comparable percentages were 66
percent and above for groups with one of the following
characteristics at time of AFDC entry: no high school diploma,
no recent work experience, black or Hispanic; never married;
and more than three children.
Boisjoly et al. (1996) examined events associated with
initial welfare spells and duration of those spells. As shown
in table 7-51, Boisjoly and her colleagues found that 27
percent of first welfare spells beginning in 1973-82 and 21
percent beginning in 1983-91 were associated with a first birth
to a never-married woman. Of these spells, 71 percent lasted at
least 2 years and 51 percent at least 5 years. Initial AFDC
spells associated with divorce or separation were shorter; 48
percent lasted at least 2 years and 26 percent at least 5
years. Of initial spells associated with a fall in the mother's
work hours, 65 percent lasted at least 2 years, and 30 percent
at least 5 years.
Exits and Returns to Welfare
Movement on and off the AFDC rolls was frequent. Exits are
portrayed in table 7-52 and returns in table 7-53. Both tables
are based on monthly caseload data. Table 7-52 shows that 56
percent of episodes of AFDC ended 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 accounted
for slightly less than half of all exits within a 5-year
period.
Table 7-53 shows that many who left AFDC returned to the
rolls very quickly. Within 1 year of their exit, 45 percent of
ex-recipients returned to the program; within 2 years, 58
percent; within 4 years, 69 percent. Those who left AFDC
because of employment remained off the program somewhat longer
than those who left for other reasons.
A study based on 168 months (14 years) of data about AFDC
receipt from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY)
examined both a parent's first AFDC experience and any
subsequent reentry to the rolls after an exit (Cao, 1996). The
study 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. Other notable findings were that:
--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).
TABLE 7-50.--TIME ON WELFARE AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS FOR A BEGINNING COHORT OF RECIPIENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------
All recipients....................................... 100.0 57.8 34.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pavetti (1995).
TABLE 7-51.--EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH WELFARE SPELL BEGINNINGS--TRENDS AND
DURATIONS OF RECEIPT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of all Percentage of
beginnings spells lasting at
Event associated with beginnings associated with least:
of first spell of AFDC the event -------------------
--------------------
1973-82 1983-91 2 years 5 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First birth to never-married
mother......................... 27 21 71 51
First birth under other
circumstances.................. 14 14 53 28
Second or later birth........... 18 17 60 39
Divorce/separation.............. 23 23 48 26
Mother left parental nest....... 5 7 68 NA
Fall in mother's work hours..... 26 23 65 30
Fall of work hours of others in
family......................... 32 24 52 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data are from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
NA--Not available.
Source: Boisjoly (table appears in article, Welfare Dynamics, by G.H.
Duncan and G. Caspary, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public
Policy, 1997).
TABLE 7-52.--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 7-53.--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).
--A decline in earnings counted 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 recipients in the sample, many of
whom became mothers as teens and never married.
Meyer and Cancian (1996), in another study based on 14
years of NLSY data, analyzed the poverty status of women in the
5 years after their first observed exit from AFDC. They found
that more than half (55 percent) of former recipients were poor
1 year after first departing from AFDC, and about 40 percent
after 5 years. Almost one in five (18 percent) was poor in each
of the 5 years; more than one-fifth (22 percent) were never
poor in the first 5 years. The researchers said that in each of
the 5 years, about 60 percent of the women had earnings, and 40
percent income from a spouse or partner. The other major income
sources were AFDC, received by 30-40 percent of the women each
year (60 percent of the women returned to AFDC), and food
stamps, received by 40-50 percent. Child support or alimony was
received by 17-19 percent.
Intergenerational Patterns of Welfare Use
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, transmission of AFDC receipt from one generation to
the next 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 or by affecting the work effort of the
AFDC family or its investments in human capital (Moffitt,
1990).
Table 7-54 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.
Another 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).
TABLE 7-54.--INTERGENERATIONAL PATTERNS OF AFDC RECEIPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence of daughters
(percent) Unweighted
Dependence of parents --------------------------------- number of
No Moderate High cases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No................................................................. 91 6 3 811
Moderate........................................................... 62 22 16 127
High............................................................... 64 16 20 147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Duncan, Hill, & Hoffman (1988).
The Gottschalk study showed that daughters raised in AFDC
households had different economic and demographic
characteristics from those raised in nonrecipient households.
More specifically, 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 was correlated
with daughters' later participation in AFDC; (2) the parents'
participation did not seem to be capturing solely the effects
of low income; the intergenerational correlation seemed to
reflect more than a simple statistical artifact; and (3) the
loss of income if the parent did not receive AFDC, even though
eligible, raised the probability that the daughter would
receive AFDC.
Daughters who grew up on 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.
A recent review of the research (Duncan and Caspary, 1997)
concluded that the evidence on the question of
intergenerational linkage of welfare use, although not
definitive, ``does indeed suggest'' such a linkage, even after
adjusting for the conditions associated with welfare-recipient
families.
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, 59 percent were poor in 1996. About one-third of
never-married mothers reported receiving AFDC (34 percent) in
1996.
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 for several
years. It dropped slightly to 45.1 births per 1,000 unmarried
women in 1995. As chart 7-2 depicts, the birth rate of
unmarried adolescent women closely tracks that of all unmarried
women of childbearing age. Almost one-third (32.2 percent) of
all births in 1995 were out of wedlock (and preliminary data
for 1996 indicate that 32.4 percent of births were to unmarried
women).
CHART 7-2. BIRTH RATES FOR ALL WOMEN, ADOLESCENTS, UNMARRIED WOMEN, AND
UNMARRIED ADOLESCENTS, 1940-95
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of National
Center for Health Statistics natality data, 1997.
Most teen births were out of wedlock. Specifically, 69.8
percent of the 512,115 births to adolescents in 1995 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 (34.5 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 who bear children
have their first child.
First Births to Unmarried Women
Not only has the sheer number of births to unmarried women
increased sharply over the past few decades, but the birth
order patterns of unmarried women have changed as well. As
chart 7-3 depicts, 60 percent of the 318,100 births to
unmarried women in 1967 were their first child. By 1995, just
over half (50.1 percent) of the 1.3 million births to unmarried
women were their first child. In other words, almost half of
the unmarried women who had a baby in 1995 had given birth
previously. Some of these unmarried women, however, may have
been previously married.
CHART 7-3. BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN IN 1967 AND 1995: FIRST BIRTHS AND
PREVIOUS BIRTHS
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of National
Center for Health Statistics natality data, 1997.
When the birth order patterns of unmarried women are broken
down by age in chart 7-4, 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 50.4 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 31 percent of the 1.3 million
births to unmarried women, they make up almost half of all
first births to unmarried women (49.1 percent).
CHART 7-4. BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN IN 1995: LIVE BIRTHS BY AGE OF
MOTHER AND PREVIOUS BIRTHS
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis of National
Center for Health Statistics natality data, 1997.
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 7-5, 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 7-5. MARITAL STATUS OF AFDC MOTHERS AND NON-AFDC MOTHERS, 1993
Source: March 1995 Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP).
As chart 7-6 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.
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.
CHART 7-6. MARITAL STATUS OF AFDC MOTHERS AND NON-AFDC MOTHERS AT THE
TIME OF THEIR FIRST CHILDBIRTH, 1993
Source: Zill (1996).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
For detailed legislative history of AFDC from 1980 to 1994,
see the 1996 Green Book.
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.
Boisjoly, J., Harris K.M., and Duncan, G.J. (1996). Initial
welfare spells: trends, events and duration, with
implications for welfare reform (1996). Paper prepared
for the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management Annual Research Conference, Oct. 31-Nov. 2,
1996, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Burke, V., Gabe, T., Falk, G., Reintsma, M., Solomon-Fears, C.
and Spar, K. (1997; updated: November 24, 1997).
Welfare reform: State programs under the block grant
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. (97-380
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.
Duncan, G. J. and Caspary, G. (1997), Welfare Dynamics, Notre
Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 1997.
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.
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.
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.
Levine, L. (1994). Jobs for welfare recipients (94-457 E).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Meyer, D. and M. Cancian (1996). Life after welfare: the
economic well-being following an exit from AFDC.
Discussion Paper No. 1101-96. Madison: University of
Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty.
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.
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.
Quern v. Mandley, 436 U.S. 725 (1978).
Social Security Administration. Social Security Bulletin,
Annual Statistical Supplement, 1970.
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, Education, and Welfare. Expenditures
for public assistance payments and for administrative
costs, by program and source of funds: Fiscal years
1936-70. NCSS Report F-5 (FY36-70). Mimeo. 1971.
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.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1996a). Income of households from
specified sources, by poverty status: 1995. Unpublished
table.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1996b). Program participation
status of household, by poverty status of persons:
1995. Unpublished table.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995a). Welfare to work: Most
AFDC training programs not emphasizing job placements
(GAO/HEHS, 95-113). Washington, DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1995b). Welfare to work:
Participants' Characteristics and Services Provided in
JOBS. (GAO/HEHS-95-93). Washington, DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1997). Welfare reform. Three
States' approaches show promise of increasing work
participation. (GAO/HEHS-97-80). Washington, DC.
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.
Go to the Green Book table of contents.