Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter 3
How Many Families Are Reaching Time Limits?
This chapter provides information on how many families had reached a time limit as of December 2001 and on whether they continued to receive assistance after reaching the limit. It first focuses on how many families have reached the federal time limit and then provides information on how many have reached a shorter state time limit. Information presented in this chapter is based on responses to the state survey conducted in early 2002.
Key Findings
-
Nationwide, just over half of all families receiving welfare are subject to the federal 60-month time limit. Of the families who are not subject to the federal limit, three-fourths are child-only cases in which no adult is part of the assistance unit.
-
By the end of 2001, approximately 231,000 families had reached either a federal or a state time limit. The majority of them had reached a state time limit of fewer than 60 months.
-
Only about 54,000 families had reached the federal 60-month time limit by the end of 2001. Of this total, 81 percent were in New York State, which allows families to receive state and locally funded benefits after reaching the federal time limit. Families had begun to reach the federal time limit in less than half the states.
-
Approximately 93,000 families have had their benefits canceled because of a time limit, and another 38,000 have had their benefits reduced. The vast majority reached state time limits of fewer than 60 months, and most case closures were concentrated in a few states. Many of the families whose cases have been closed can return to welfare under certain conditions.
Accumulating Months of Federal TANF Assistance
Reasons Why Months May Not Count
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, there are four reasons why a family can receive assistance for a given month without it being counted toward the federal time limit: (1) it is a child-only case; (2) the family is living on an Indian reservation that is experiencing an unemployment rate greater than 50 percent; (3) the family is exempt from having months counted under a state waiver policy; or (4) the state is funding the assistance exclusively with state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds. Figure 3.1 shows that, nationally, 55 percent of all TANF and non-TANF assistance cases were receiving TANF assistance that counted toward the federal clock in the fall of 2001. Appendix Table A.8 presents the proportions for each state, which vary substantially and range from no cases (in Indiana, where all TANF recipients were exempt because of a state waiver) to 88 percent (in Iowa).1 In Arizona, only 6 percent (families living in Mari-copa County and participating in Arizona Works, a pilot program) had months that counted toward the federal clock due to the state waiver.
[D] |
Nationally, about one-third of all TANF cases were exempt from the federal time limit because they were child-only cases in the fall of 2001; that is, only the children, and not the adults, were included in the assistance unit. In some of these cases, there was no parent living with the children, and the caregiver had chosen not to be included in the assistance unit. In other cases, the parent was living with the children but was ineligible for TANF personally, although the children remained eligible. The parent might have been ineligible because she or he was receiving Supplementary Security Income (SSI), was a qualified or unqualified noncitizen, or had been sanctioned for not complying with TANF program requirements.
Seven percent of families were exempt because they were living in a state that was operating under a state waiver. About 6 percent of the families were exempt because their assistance was paid for with state MOE funds exclusively. Some of these cases — primarily the noncitizen and two-parent family cases — were subject to state time-limit policies.
Less than one-half of 1 percent of all TANF families were exempt because they were living on an Indian reservation experiencing high unemployment. These cases were concentrated in three states — Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota — which exempted between 20 percent and 30 percent of their caseloads for this reason. It is important to note that most states had no system in place to keep track of who met this criterion.
Accumulating Months Over Time
The discussion above focuses on what was happening in a given month. In understanding the effects of time limits, it is also important to examine the extent to which individuals accumulate a substantial number of months of assistance over time. States’ TANF programs were certified between September 1996 and July 1997. Therefore, the federal clock began in Sep-tember 1996 in a handful of states, and the first month in which recipients in any state could have accumulated 60 months under the federal clock was in August 2001. These cases would include only individuals who had received 60 cumulative months, with no break in assistance. By December 2001, families in 22 states had begun to reach the federal time limit.2
Table 3.1 shows the number of families nationwide who reached month 60 of assistance in each of the three months, September to November 2001. As this table shows, nearly 4,000 families received 60 months of assistance by September. By October, another 2,000 families had accumulated 60 months. The number jumped dramatically to 46,000 families in November 2001, largely because New York State had started the clock in December 1996. In November 2001 — the earliest that any recipients could receive 60 months of assistance — about 44,000 New York families had accumulated their 60th month. These families were typically long-term recipients who had been receiving welfare benefits for some time before the clock started.
Although it is difficult to estimate the number of new families who will reach the federal time limit in future months, it is estimated that, in each month in 2002, the number will be in the thousands. In February, families in the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania will begin to accumulate 60 months of assistance, potentially adding 5,000 families to the total between the two jurisdictions. In the summer of 2002, several states with relatively large TANF caseloads, including Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington, will reach the federal time limit.
While the numbers who reached the time limit in the fall of 2001 are significant, the proportion of TANF families who had accumulated 60 months is low relative to the entire TANF caseload (which was over 2 million in March 2001). States noted that welfare has always been a program that offers temporary assistance for most recipients — most of whom cycle on and off or leave welfare due to changes in life circumstances (and thus could not have reached the time limit by the fall of 2001.) Other states indicated that important factors preventing a large proportion of families from reaching the federal time limit were exemptions that stopped the clock for many families (for example, for child-only cases), state waivers, shorter time limits, and full-family sanctions for noncompliance. Several states mentioned that their own strong work programs coupled with a strong economy had helped families leave welfare for employment.
| Number of Months Accumulated |
September 2001 |
October 2001 |
November 2001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 14,705 | 7,372 | 6,794 |
| 51 | 10,112 | 14,748 | 6,981 |
| 52 | 5,006 | 10,135 | 14,095 |
| 53 | 8,059 | 5,498 | 9,657 |
| 54 | 6,302 | 8,516 | 5,344 |
| 55 | 12,349 | 7,056 | 8,336 |
| 56 | 7,163 | 11,724 | 6,826 |
| 57 | 12,572 | 7,297 | 10,965 |
| 58 | 46,180 | 11,953 | 6,965 |
| 59 | 2,182 | 47,526 | 11,277 |
| 60 | 3,974 | 2,113 | 45,866 |
| NOTE: aSeveral states California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, and West Virginia could not supply this information, so this table underestimates the number who have accumulated months toward the federal time limit.(back) |
What Happens to Families Who Reach the Federal Time Limit?
By December 2001, about 54,000 families had reached the federal time limit. Figure 3.2 shows their status in the following month: about 17,000 families (31 percent) continued to receive TANF assistance, while 37,000 families (69 percent) left TANF assistance, although most continued to receive some benefits. Appendix Table A.9 presents similar information for each state.
In some states, families who exit TANF are eligible for non-TANF cash assistance or other benefits designed to provide basic income support. Overall, 78 percent of all families who left after reaching the 60-month federal time limit were receiving some type of alternative benefit in the following month. This relatively high percentage was driven primarily by New York’s policy of providing safety net assistance to all cases that have been terminated, apply for assistance, and remain eligible. In addition, Hawaii provides an employment subsidy to about half the families who reach the federal time limit, using state funds. The subsidy is provided for each month that recipients remain employed 20 hours per week, when there is at least one categorically eligible child in the home and the family’s gross income does not exceed 185 percent of the standard of need. Families are eligible for this supplement for a maximum of 24 months after month 60. Hawaiian families who have a continuing need for cash assistance at the end of their 60-month time limit may apply for safety net assistance, which includes vouchers for rent and utilities as well as a cash component. At least three other states (Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland) provide alternative benefits for some families who leave TANF, although either these states could not provide estimates of the number of families receiving these benefits or had no families that reached the federal time limit.
States may also provide TANF nonassistance to families after they have left welfare, typically to provide them with such support services as child care and transportation while they are working. Unfortunately, states were generally unable to provide information on the extent to which support services or job search assistance was provided to individuals who reached the federal time limit.
[D] |
| NOTES: aFigures do not include California for all months and Alaska, Michigan, and New York for December 2001. (back) |
Families Who Continue to Receive TANF Assistance
Close to one-third of all families who reached the 60-month time limit continued to receive TANF assistance in month 61. States were able to provide continued TANF assistance using federal funds because only a small share of their caseload had reached the time limit, so these cases fell almost exclusively within the 20 percent permitted to receive federal assistance beyond 60 months. A very small percentage of families (less than half of 1 percent) received an extension based on domestic violence. Some states noted that because they were not approaching the 20 percent cap, they were not recording domestic violence exemptions and extensions. Regarding this category, one state noted that its system records an extension but does not supply the reason, in order to protect clients’ confidentiality.
Child-only TANF cases are exempt from the federal time limit and thus will never reach it. Some states have implemented policies that remove the adults’ needs from the grant at or approaching the time limit but continue to provide assistance to the children. They might use state MOE funds or their federal block grant funds for these child-only cases. So far, only half of 1 percent of cases that have accumulated 60 months of TANF assistance are child-only cases. This percentage may grow, however, as families begin to reach the federal time limit. California, the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Washington all have plans to remove adults from the assistance unit, although they might transfer these cases to a segregated or separate state program.
States have the option of using segregated funds to pay for TANF assistance after the federal time limit is reached, although only California has exercised this option. Other states may reexamine it and the other options allowed under PRWORA when more families reach the limit and states are at risk of exceeding the 20 percent cap.
What Happens to Families Who Reach a Shorter State Time Limit?
Families on welfare have been reaching time limits of fewer than 60 months since 1996, when some families began reaching shorter limits prescribed under state waivers to the AFDC program. Other states established shorter time limits when they implemented their TANF programs. In all, 20 states have either termination or reduction time limits that are shorter than 60 months.3 In addition, although Wyoming implemented a 60-month time limit, it counted up to 36 months of assistance that was provided before February 1997; as a result, families in Wyo-ming began hitting the state’s 60-month time limit before the fall of 2001.
In these 21 states, approximately 176,000 families have reached the state time limit.4 Twelve of the 21 states have “periodic time limits,” whereby the family loses benefits for a fixed period of time after which they can begin receiving assistance.5 For example, in Nevada, families receive assistance for 24 months and then are ineligible for 12 months. In Louisiana and Massachusetts, families are eligible for 24 months in a given 60-month period. Seven states have no periodic time limits, but a lifetime limit that is shorter than 60 months. Of the remaining two states, Connecticut imposes a 21-month time limit, but grants renewable six-month extensions to qualifying families (discussed in more detail in Chapter 4); it imposes a lifetime limit of 60 months. Wisconsin imposes a 24-month time limit associated with each of the four program “tiers” (tiers entail different levels of cash assistance services and requirements, depending on the type of service a client needs). Some individuals may move from one tier to another and thus may be eligible for more than 24 months of assistance.
Families Who Leave TANF After Reaching a State Time Limit
Of the roughly 176,000 families who reached a state time limit shorter than 60 months, at least 85,000 families had their TANF cases closed (without receiving an extension), and about 38,000 families had their benefits reduced.6 These are rough approximations based on inconsistent state reporting. The figures likely underestimate the number of case closures in several states and overestimate the number in a few others. For example, in most states with shorter time limits, the number of case closures was calculated by subtracting the number of extensions granted from the number of cases reaching the time limit. This captures the number of cases closed without an extension, but undercounts total closures because it omits cases that were closed because of the time limit after receiving an extension. A few states were unable to report the number of extensions, so the figures reflect the total number of cases closed because of the time limit. This method results in an overestimate if the case closure figures are not undupli-cated (that is, if families who exit because of the time limit, return to welfare, and then exit again because of the time limit are counted twice). This is a common occurrence in some of the states that only provided duplicated counts of case closures.
Families Who Continue to Receive Assistance
Of the 176,000 families who reached a state time limit shorter than 60 months, at least one-quarter of the families received an extension. As Figure 3.3 shows, nearly half the extensions were provided because the families were making a “good-faith effort,” meaning they were complying with program requirements but were unable to find employment that would enable them to become self-sufficient.
Appendix Table A.11 presents extension information by state. As this table shows, the reason for extension varied widely across the states. Making a good-faith effort was the primary reason that Connecticut provided extensions (see Chapter 4). Across the 21 states, about 12 percent of all families who received an extension were disabled or caring for a disabled family member; this was the primary reason why Idaho and Utah granted extensions. Another 5 percent of benefits were extended due to high unemployment, the primary reason for extensions in Texas. Other reasons for extensions include completing an education or training program (9 percent) and being unable to achieve self-sufficiency (1 percent). About three-quarters of all extensions granted by Arkansas were provided to protect the child from risk of abuse or neglect (categorized under “other” in Figure 3.3). Ohio’s TANF program is county-administered, and counties are allowed some latitude in establishing their own criteria for extensions. Besides the reasons already mentioned, possible criteria include involvement by Child Protective Services, age, homelessness, pregnancy, substance abuse, teenage parenthood, and barriers related to transportation, dependent care, or criminal history.
[D] |
Reapplying After Being Terminated
Families whose benefits have been terminated because of a state’s shorter time limit might be able to return to the welfare rolls under various circumstances. As discussed earlier, several of the shorter time limits are periodic limits that allow families to return to welfare after staying off assistance for a specified period. In many other states, families whose cases are closed because of the time limit can return to welfare if they subsequently meet the criteria for an extension or exemption. For example:
-
Connecticut allows families to reapply for assistance if they have income below the payment standard, as long as they had made a good-faith effort to obtain and retain employment while they were on assistance. Even if they had not established good faith, some can return to the rolls if they are experiencing “circumstances beyond their control.” These rules apply to a first, second, or third extension. To obtain a fourth or subsequent extension, the family must also be experiencing domestic violence, or be working at least 35 hours per week (fewer than 35 hours if there is a documented medical condition), or be experiencing at least two other barriers to employment.7
-
In Nebraska, families can reapply for assistance if they experience an “economic crisis.” Generally, this means that they have lost their job through no fault of their own.
-
In South Carolina, families can reapply for assistance if they meet specific criteria like the following: an adult is determined to be mentally or physically disabled; an adult is providing full-time care for a disabled family member; the parent of the child is a minor under age 18 and has not completed high school; child care or transportation is not reasonably available to permit participation in work requirements; the adult caretaker relative is not the parent of the child and is not included in the assistance unit; an adult member of the assistance unit is providing a home for and caring for a child whom the state has determined to be abandoned and for whom the alternative placement is foster care.
How Many Families Have Lost TANF Benefits Due to Time Limits?
By December 2001, approximately 231,000 families had reached the federal or a state time limit (Figure 3.4). Of this total, about 93,000 cases were closed at the time limit, without an extension or safety net benefits, and another 38,000 had their benefits reduced.8 Nearly 29,000 cases (most of them in New York) had their TANF case closed but were receiving alternative benefits through a state or locally funded program. The remaining 71,000 cases that reached either a state or the federal time limit received assistance in the following month. Some of these families received an extension and were later terminated; some left TANF voluntarily; and others continued to receive assistance.
[D] |
While national estimates of case closures are important, they do not reveal the diversity that exists across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. National estimates are driven in part by a few states in which large numbers of welfare recipients have reached time limits. In addition, because families in 16 states have not yet reached any time limit (as of January 2002, when the survey was administered), the proportion of cases terminated is likely to change.9
Of the 231,000 families who reached any time limit, 19 percent were in New York, 18 percent were in Connecticut, 9 percent were in Louisiana, and 8 percent were in both Indiana and Ohio. Thus, the five states with the most families reaching a time limit account for 62 percent of all cases reaching a time limit, while 64 percent of the cases that reached a shorter state time limit are concentrated in the top five states. Also noteworthy is that, of the 54,000 families who have reached the 60-month time limit, 81 percent are located in New York State.
By considering states where at least 100 families had reached a time limit, it is possible to categorize the states as belonging to one of three groups: (1) states that continue to provide child-only or non-TANF assistance; (2) states that liberally grant extensions to families who have reached the time limit; and (3) states that have terminated the benefits of most families who have reached the time limit.
-
States that continue to provide child-only or non-TANF assistance: Two states — Arizona and Indiana, both of which have a 24-month time limit — continued to pay reduced benefits to cover the children’s needs but not the adults’ (in Arizona, the adults become eligible again after three years of ineligibility). Hawaii and New York continued to pay non-TANF assistance to families who reached the time limit, although Hawaii paid a reduced benefit and only to those working 20 hours per week (increasing to 30 hours per week in July 2002). Half of the families in Hawaii were eligible for this benefit. Texas also has a short time limit that resulted in a reduced benefit for the children’s needs. However, the state plans to close the TANF case once the family reaches the 60-month time limit.
-
States that liberally grants extensions: Several states extended most families’ benefits at the time limit. Kansas, Maine, and Mississippi continued providing benefits to virtually all recipients who reached the time limit. Maryland continued to provide assistance to all individuals who were complying with the program requirements. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Ne-braska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Utah gave extensions to the majority of families who reached the time limit. These families may later have been terminated.
-
States that have terminated most families’ benefits: The time limit resulted in case closures for most families in Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Most of these states had provisions that allowed families who later qualified for an extension to apply for benefits, although it is unknown to what extent this occurred.
For several states, only a small number of families have reached the time limit, and the state is still developing policies and processes for determining which families will be granted extensions and what other types of assistance might be available to families whose case closes as a result of the state or federal time limit. In the coming year, it will be important to monitor the experiences of these states and the states where families have yet to reach the time limit.
1Oregon also reported that no cases were subject to the federal time limit because of a state waiver. Oregon’s waiver policy is such that only a few months would count toward the state and federal limits. (Compliant families are not subject to either time limit under the waiver and noncompliant families are subject to full-family sanctions.) The state could not provide information on the small number of families whose assistance counted toward the federal clock.(back)
2This does not include five states where a limited number of families reached the federal time limit because they moved from states that had a state plan certified by December 1996 or California and Delaware, which could not supply estimates of the number of families reaching the federal time limit. Families in Califor-nia began accumulating 60 months of federal assistance by November 2001, but will not reach the state 60-month time limit until January 2003. The state provides assistance to families who reached the federal but not the state time limit using state MOE dollars. Also, several of the states in which no families had reached the federal time limit have shorter state time limits. Thus, families have reached either the federal time limit or a shorter state time limit in 35 states.(back)
3Chapter 2 categorizes 19 states as having a termination or reduction time limit of fewer than 60 months. The total of 20 also includes Texas, which has both a 60-month termination time limit and shorter reduction time limits.(back)
4This total does not include the number of families who reached shorter time limits in Delaware and Nevada. These two states could not provide this information.(back)
5This does not include Delaware, which had implemented a periodic time limit prior to January 2000 (a 48-month limit after which families were ineligible for 96 months) but currently has a fixed lifetime limit of 36 months.(back)
6Data on case closures and terminations were unavailable for Wisconsin.(back)
7The additional criteria for a fourth or subsequent extension did not take effect until late 2001. Families began reaching Connecticut’s time limit in 1997.(back)
8These are rough approximations based on inconsistent data reporting. Four states with shorter time limits could not provide an estimate of the number of case closures without an extension; instead, these estimates reflect the number of case closures. Two states had only duplicated counts of the families reaching the shorter time limit and having their cases closed.(back)
9In this estimate, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and Montana are considered as not having had any families reach a time limit; however, as indicated in Appendix Tables A.9 and A.12, a minimal number of families have reached the federal time limit in these states. This is because they moved into those states from a state that had implemented its TANF program earlier.(back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |