|
|
|---|
|
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | |||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
 |
 |
Trends in AFDC/TANF
Characteristics
Child-Only Families
Employment Rate
TANF Families
TANF Adults
TANF Children
Financial Circumstances
Reliability of Estimates
Standard (Sampling)
Errors
Non-sampling Errors
Standard Errors of
Subsets
Statistically Significant
Differences
Appendix
States are now spending considerable proportions of their Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds on families who receive benefits and
services other than traditional assistance.
The data discussed in this chapter are limited to those who received
assistance at some time during Fiscal Year (FY) 2006.
The FY 2006 data referenced
in this report were obtained from a statistically valid sample of TANF and
Separate State Program-Maintenance of Effort (SSP-MOE) cases within the
national TANF/SSP-MOE database. Data are
presented for all States, the
States are required to
collect monthly TANF data and report them to the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) quarterly. These data
include disaggregated case record information on the families receiving
assistance, families no longer receiving assistance, and families
newly-approved for assistance from programs funded by TANF funds.
Tables 10:60 through 10:74
in the Appendix contain data on SSP-MOE recipient characteristics for the 32
States that reported on their SSP-MOE families.
SSP-MOE eligible families may be quite different among the 32 States, as
well as within a State where there are multiple SSP-MOE programs. For example, a State may have a two-parent
SSP-MOE cash assistance program as well as an SSP-MOE program that provides
transportation assistance to other families.
However, multiple SSP-MOE programs are reported as a single combined
program. Because of this, it is not
possible at the national level to compare characteristics of SSP-MOE recipients
with those of TANF recipients.
Under the TANF data
reporting system, States have the option to submit either sample data or universe
data to HHS. Thirty States submitted
universe data, from which HHS randomly selected approximately 275 active cases
and 100 closed cases each month from each State to analyze. The remaining 23 States submitted sample
data. A total sample of 204,680 active
cases and 58,097 closed cases was used to compile 59 tables of TANF recipient
characteristics. The statistical data
are estimates derived from samples and are therefore subject to sampling and
non-sampling errors, and because of this they may differ from data presented in
other parts of the report. Statistical
specifications can be found under the section titled "Reliability of
Estimates."
Implementation of the final
rules of TANF/SSP-MOE data collection requirements posed significant initial
challenges to States and HHS. In cases
where a few States submitted questionable data, the data from those States were
eliminated. In cases where numerous
States reported questionable data or unusually large numbers of “unknown” or
“other” categories, HHS urges caution in drawing conclusions on the basis of
the data.
Because of the rapid decline
in the caseload beginning from a record high of 5.0 million families in FY 1994
to 1.8 million families in FY 2006, the question has been raised as to whether
the current caseload has changed significantly since the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was
enacted. An examination of longer-term
trends is helpful in understanding how the welfare recipient population has
been changing.
The number of child-only
families (those where no adult is receiving assistance) increased steadily
throughout the mid 1990s, reaching a peak of 978,000 such families in FY
1996. In FY 2000, the number of
child-only families decreased to 782,000, but their proportion of the caseload
increased significantly to 34.5 percent from 21.5 percent in FY 1996. In the early 2000s, however, both the number
of child-only families and their proportion of the caseload continued to
increase (see Figures A and G). In FY
2006, there were about 851,000 child-only cases, which accounted for 47.2
percent of the total caseload.
A number of other major
changes in the characteristics of welfare recipients occurred in the 1990's
including the racial composition of welfare families, the age of adult
recipients, the age of the youngest child, and the employment rate of
adults. The trends in AFDC/TANF
recipient characteristics since 2002 are presented in Figure B through Figure D.
The employment rate of adult
recipients has increased significantly since the early 1990’s. The employment rate went from seven percent
in FY 1992 to 28 percent in FY 1999.
Since this peak in FY 1999, the rate has declined to 21.6 percent. However, this rate is still twice the rate
achieved in FY 1996. It is important to
note that the employment data presented here is somewhat different from those
presented in the “Work Participation Rates” and “Work and Earnings” sections of
the report. The data presented here
represents the labor market status of adult TANF recipients and classifies
individuals as employed, not employed, or not in the labor force. Data presented elsewhere displays the type of
work activities TANF adults are participating in using additional activity
categories.
The average monthly number
of TANF families was 1,802,600 in FY 2006.
The estimated average monthly number of TANF recipients was 996,300
adults and 3,203,600 children. The average
monthly number of TANF families decreased in 50 States and reflects an overall six
percent decrease from 1,914,000 families in FY 2005.
The average number of
persons in TANF families was 2.3, including an average of 1.8 recipient children. One in two recipient families had only one
child. One in 10 families had more than
three children. The average number of
children in closed-case families was 1.8.
Nearly one in two closed case families had one child, and only six
percent had more than three children.
About 47 percent of TANF
families had no adult recipients. About
50 percent of TANF families had only one adult recipient, and only six percent
had two or more adult recipients.
Over 47 percent of TANF
families were child-only cases, up about two percentage points from FY
2005. Although the percentage of
child-only cases on the welfare rolls has increased in the past several years,
the total number of child-only cases has actually declined by about 127,000
since FY 1996. Of the total families
with no adult recipients, half had a parent living in the household but not
receiving benefits. Of these families
with a parent present (not including those with non-recipient adults due to
sanctions), about 41 percent had a parent receiving SSI and 38 percent had a
parent in unknown citizenship/alienage status.
Only 11 percent of all families with no adult recipient had a parent
removed from the case (sanctioned) for failure to comply with work
requirements, attend school, or cooperate with child support. Figure H illustrates the reasons parents
living in the household are not included in the assistance unit.
Eighty percent of TANF
families received Food Stamp assistance, which is consistent with previous
levels. These families received average
monthly Food Stamp assistance of $275.
Of closed-case families, 79 percent received Food Stamp assistance in
the month of closure. In addition,
almost every TANF family was eligible to receive medical assistance under the
State plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
Figure I illustrates the
reasons for case closure in FY 2006.
However, understanding the reasons for case closure is limited by the
fact that States reported 28.9 percent of all cases as closed due to “other”
unspecified reasons. For example, while
independent studies of the reason for families leaving welfare typically find
that somewhat over half leave as a result of employment, States reported only
20.9 percent of cases closing due to employment, clearly an understatement of
the true rate. Many closures due to
employment are coded as failure to cooperate or as some other category because
at the point of closure, the agency often is unaware that the client became
employed.
There were about 2.0 million
adults living in TANF households in FY 2006.
Of all those adults, 52 percent were TANF recipients and 48 percent were
not. Of those not receiving assistance,
63 percent were parents, 32 percent were caretakers, and 5 percent were other
persons whose income was considered in determining eligibility (see Appendix
Table 10:9).
Most TANF adult recipients
were women, as men only represented 10 percent of adult recipients. Nearly 95 percent of adult recipients were
the head of the household. There were about
74,000 teen parents whose child was also a member of the TANF family,
representing about 9 percent of recipients aged 13-19. Only 11 percent of adult recipients were
married and living together. However,
the number of married adult recipients decreased because many States recently
moved two-parent families to SSP-MOE programs.
Two of three TANF adult
recipients were members of minority groups.
Thirty-eight percent of adult recipients were white, 37 percent were
African-American, 20 percent were Hispanic, 1.7 percent were Asian, and 1.5
percent were Native American. Most TANF
adult recipients were
Of TANF adult recipients, an
average of 21.6 percent were employed in the reporting month. There was little difference of the employment
rate between male recipients and female recipients. Employment decreased when compared with the
23.2 percent who were employed in FY 2005.
In closed-case families, 30.0 percent of adults were reported to be
employed in the month the case was closed.
Work participation was
mandatory for three of every five adult recipients, and 11 percent of TANF
adult recipients were deemed to be engaged in work activities. About 11 percent were disregarded from work
participation because they were single custodial parents with a child less than
12 months old. Three percent were exempt
because of a sanction, because they were part of an ongoing research
evaluation, or because they were served under an approved welfare reform waiver. Thirteen percent were exempt from the work
participation requirements because of a good cause exception (e.g., disabled,
in poor health, or other). Only two
percent were single custodial parents with a child under age six who did not
have access to child care.
Overall, 45 percent of all
TANF adult recipients participated in some type of work activity during the
reporting month. Twenty-one percent
worked in unsubsidized jobs, seven percent did job search, and another 19
percent were engaged in subsidized employment, job skills training or work
preparation activities. Some TANF adults
did two or three work activities. Those
participating worked an average of 25 hours per week, and some adults
participated although they were work exempt.
Of TANF adult recipients,
about 30 percent were disregarded or exempt from work participation, and 40
percent participated in work activities.
Therefore, it appears that almost 30 percent of adult recipients who
were required to participate did not participate in mandatory work activities.
TANF recipient children were
on average 7.8 years old. Fifteen
percent of recipient children were under two years of age, while 40 percent
were of preschool age under six. Only nine
percent of the children were 16 years of age or older.
Most recipient children were
children of the head of the household in TANF families, and only 10 percent
were grandchildren of the head of the household. Of all recipient children in TANF families
with no adult recipients, 66 percent lived with parents and 21 percent with
grandparents who did not themselves receive assistance. Most TANF recipient children were
The racial distribution of
TANF recipient children has not significantly changed when compared with FY
2005. African-American children
continued to be the largest group of welfare children, comprising about 36
percent of recipient children. Almost 29
percent of TANF recipient children were white, and 29 percent were Hispanic.
Of TANF families, 99.5 percent
received cash and cash equivalent assistance, with an average monthly amount of
$372. Monthly cash payments to TANF
families averaged $314 for one child, $390 for two children, $465 for three
children, and $558 for four or more children.
Some TANF families who were not employed received other forms of
assistance such as child care, transportation and other supportive services.
Less than one in every five
TANF families had non-TANF income. The
average monthly amount of non-TANF income was $587 per family. Ten percent of the TANF families had earned
income with an average monthly amount of $707, while seven percent of the TANF families
had unearned income with an average monthly amount of $351. Of all closed-case families, 33 percent had
non-TANF income with an average monthly amount of $915.
Of TANF recipient adults, 20
percent had earned income with an average monthly amount of $703. Six percent of adult recipients had unearned
income averaging about $352 per month.
Three percent of recipient children had unearned income with an average
monthly amount of $294.
As in FY 2005, one in ten
TANF families received child support with an average monthly amount of
$182. Eleven percent of TANF families
had some cash resources (e.g., cash on hand, bank accounts, or certificates of
deposit) with an average amount of $236.
Such family cash resources were defined by the State for determining
eligibility for and/or amount of benefits.
The statistical data are
estimates derived from samples and, therefore, are subject to sampling errors
as well as nonsampling errors. Sampling
errors occur to the extent that the results would have been different if
obtained from a complete enumeration of all cases. Nonsampling errors are errors in response or
coding of responses and nonresponse errors or incomplete sample frames.
For FY 2006, the average
monthly caseload, annual sample sizes, average monthly sample sizes, sampling
fractions and the percentage points by which estimates of the total caseload
for each State might vary from the true value at the 95 percent confidence
level are shown in Table 10:75 and 10:76.
Table 10:77 indicates the
approximate standard error for various percentages for the
For example, national
estimates of 50 percent should not vary from the true value by more than plus
or minus 0.8428 percentage points (0.43 x 1.96) at the 95 percent confidence
level. To obtain the 99 percent
confidence level, multiply the standard errors by a factor of 2.58.
Every effort is made to
assure that a list of the universe or the sample frame is complete. It is possible, however, that some cases
receiving assistance for the reporting month are not included. There is no measure of the completeness of
the universe.
Data entries are based on
information in the case records. Errors
may have occurred because of misinterpretation of questions and because of
incomplete case record information.
Errors may have also occurred in coding and transmitting the data. There are no measures of the reliability of
the coded information. For some data
elements, obviously incorrect or missing information was recoded as unknown in
the data processing.
For tables based on subsets
of the populations (e.g., one adult or two adult families), the approximate
standard errors can be computed by the following method: (a) determine the assumed sample size of the
subset by multiplying the number of cases in the subset by 0.0074977690; (b)
divide the sample size of all families (13,515) by the assumed sample size of
the subset; and (c) take the square root of the result and multiply it by the
standard errors of the total caseload shown in Table 10:77.
For example, for TANF
families with no adult recipients, the approximate standard errors of
percentages can be found by multiplying the data in Table 10:77 by the square root
of 13,515/6,038 or 1.4961. The sample
size of 6,038 is determined by 850,881 x 0.74944690.
The method used above can be
adapted to calculate the standard errors of State estimates. First, divide the national sample size of all
families (13,515) by the State sample size shown in Table 10:75. Then take the square root of the result and
multiply it by the standard errors shown in Table 10:77. For example, for
Table 10:78 shows the
percentage values at which differences between national and State estimates
become significant at the five percent confidence level based on annual State
samples of 3,000 active cases.
Table 10:79 shows the
percentage values at which differences between State estimates become
significant at the five percent confidence level based on annual State samples
of 3,000 active cases.
