Table of Contents |
Figure 2.1 - Short description: Pie chart showing time-limit policies by type
Long description: This pie chart indicates that 30 percent of families receiving TANF assistance live in states that have a 60-month time limit after which benefits are terminated, and another 25 percent live in states with shorter termination time limits. Thirty-eight percent of TANF families live in states with a 60-month time limit after which benefits for the whole family are replaced using non-TANF funds or benefits are reduced to cover only children. Finally, 4 percent of TANF families live in states with a time limit shorter than 60 months before benefits are reduced to cover only children, and another 4 percent live in states that do not impose any time limit. Each case is categorized according to the state's shortest termination time limit; if the state has no termination limit, it is categorized by its shortest reduction time limit.(back)
Figure 2.2 - Short description: Time-limit exemptions bar chart
Long description: This bar graph presents various grounds on which families with adults are exempted from state time limits and the number of states that offer exemptions on each of these grounds. The total number of states offering exemptions is 34, and the exemption criteria shown are the eight used by the largest numbers of states. Twenty-six states exempt families if the head of the case is disabled or is caring for a disabled family member; 16 do so if the head of the case is elderly; 15 do so if the head of the case is a victim of domestic violence; 12 do so if the head of the case is caring for a young child; 10 do so if the head of the case is pregnant; 10 do so if the head of the case is a parent under age 18; seven do so if the head of the case is employed; and seven do so if no child care is available to the head of the case.(back)
Figure 2.3 - Short description: Common criteria for time-limit extensions bar chart
Long description: This bar graph presents various grounds for extending assistance for TANF families who reach state time limits and the number of states that offer extensions on each of these grounds. The total number of states offering extensions is 47, and the extension criteria shown are the eight used by the largest numbers of states. Thirty states exempt families if the head of the case is disabled or is caring for a disabled family member; 29 do so if the head of the case is a victim of domestic violence; 27 do so if the head of the case is making a good-faith effort to find employment and leave welfare; 13 do so if the head of the case lives in an area with high unemployment or limited job opportunities; 12 do so if the head of the case lacks child care or other support services; 11 do so if the head of the case faces significant other barriers (such as a low literacy level, substance abuse, or homelessness); nine do so if the head of the case is completing an education or training program; and seven do so if the head of the case has a child at risk of foster care, abuse, or neglect.(back)
Long description: This flow chart diagrams the relationship of three types of funding - federal or commingled funds, segregated funds, and separate state program - and lists the program requirements associated with each type of assistance they offer. For federal and commingled TANF assistance programs oblige states to impose work requirements, to collect data, provide child support assignment, and limit benefit receipt to a maximum of 60 months. Segregated funds that provide TANF assistance have all of the same program requirements, though they are not limited to 60 months. Services and benefits, such as child care assistance for working parents and Earned Income Credits, provided as "TANF nonassistance," whether funded by segregated funds or through a separate state program are not subject to program requirements.(back)
Long description: This bar chart shows the number of states that target various types of families with segregated TANF funds as opposed to separate state program funds. Segregated funds are used by a total of 12 states: six for noncitizen families, six for families with earnings, four for exempt families, and two for other families. Separate state funds are used by a total of 27 states: 19 for two-parent families, 10 for noncitizen families, four for families in which the head of the case is in postsecondary education, three for exempt families, and seven for other families.(back)
Figure 3.1 - Short description: Federal time limit pie chart
Long description: This pie chart shows that 55 percent of TANF and non-TANF assistance cases combined were subject to the federal time limit during the period from September 2001 through December 2001. The rest were not subject to the federal time limit for the following reasons: 32 percent were child-only cases; 7 percent were excluded under a state waiver policy; 6 percent were supported only by MOE funds; and 0.2 percent lived on an Indian reservation.(back)
Figure 3.2 - Short description: Post-time-limit status flow chart
Long description: This flow chart shows the status of the 54,000 cases that reached the federal time limit by December 2001. During the following month, about 17,000 (31 percent) continued to receive TANF assistance. Of the 37,000 (69 percent) that did not continue to receive TANF assistance, 29,000 (78 percent) received alternative benefits, while the other 8,000 (22 percent) had their case closed. (The chart does not include all California cases for all months or Alaska, Michigan, and New York cases for December 2001.)(back)
Figure 3.3 - Short description: Reasons for granting time-limit extensions pie chart
Long description: This pie chart presents the grounds on which the benefits of families who were granted extensions when they reached a state time limit were extended. In 48 percent of families, the head of the case had made a good-faith effort to find employment and leave assistance. In 12 percent of families, the head of the case was disabled or was caring for a disabled family member. In 9 percent of families, the head of the case was completing education or training. In 5 percent of families, the family lived in an area with high unemployment. In 1 percent of families, the head of the case was a victim of domestic violence, and in another 1 percent of families the head of the case was unable to achieve self-sufficiency. The remaining 24 percent of families were granted extensions for other reasons.(back)
Figure 3.4 - Short description: Post-time-limit outcomes bar chart
Long description: This bar charts presents the total number of families who reached a time limit by late 2001 and the number who experienced various outcomes after the time limit. Of the roughly 231,000 families who reached any type of time limit, 93,000 had their TANF case closed and did not receive alternative benefits from a safety net program, 38,000 had their TANF benefits reduced, 29,000 transitioned to a safety net program, and 71,000 continued to receive TANF benefits. Of the slightly more than 50,000 families who reached the 60-month federal time limit, about one-fifth had their TANF case closed, about one-half transitioned to a safety net program, and some one-third continued to receive TANF benefits. Of the approximately 180,000 families who reached a shorter, state time limit, about 80,000 had their TANF case closed, some 40,000 had their TANF benefits reduced, and slightly more than 50,000 continued to receive TANF benefits.(back)
Long description: The top graph shows the percentage of program group members and the percentage of control group members in the Jobs First evaluation who received AFDC/TANF in each of the 16 quarters after random assignment. In quarters 1 through 8, the percentage was higher in the program group than in the control group, by about 8 percentage points. However, starting one quarter after the time limit (families began reaching the limit in quarter 7), the percentage in the program group dropped below that in the control group. The difference between the two percentages remained around 8 percentage points through quarter 16.
The middle graph shows the percentage of families in which the head of the case was employed. In all 16 quarters, the percentage in the program group was about 7 percentage points higher than in the control group.
The bottom graph shows average total income, which includes earnings, AFDC/TANF, and Food Stamps. In quarters 1 through 9, the average level in the program group was higher than in the control group. The difference between the two averages peaked at about $350 (in quarter 5). In quarters 10 through 16, the average level in the two groups was about the same.(back)
Long description: The top graph shows the percentage of program group members and the percentage of control group members in the FTP evaluation who received AFDC/TANF in each of the 18 quarters after random assignment. In quarters 1 through 8, the percentage was about the same in the program group as in the control group, declining from nearly 80 percent in quarter 1 to about 40 percent in quarter 8. In quarters 9 through 12 - after the 24-month time limit and before the 36-month time limit - the percentage in the program group exceeded that in the control group. The difference between the two peaked at approximately 12 percentage points (in quarter 12). In quarters 13 through 18, the difference between the two percentages peaked at about 15 percentage points (in quarter 13) and then dropped to fewer than 10 percentage points in quarter 18.
The middle graph shows the percentage of families in which the head of the case was employed. In all 18 quarters after random assignment except for quarter 1 and quarters 15 through 18, the percentage was about 5 percentage points higher in the program group than in the control group; otherwise the two percentages were about the same.
The bottom graph shows average total income, which includes earnings, AFDC/TANF, and Food Stamps. In quarters 1 through 4, the average level was about the same in the program group as in the control group. Starting in quarter 5, the average level in the program group began to exceed that in the control group. The difference between the two averages peaked at about $200 (in quarters 12 and 13). In quarters 14 through 18, the average income in the two groups was about the same.(back)
| Table of Contents |