Policies across Time, 1996-2004

V. Policies across Time

This chapter of the Databook includes longitudinal tables for selected areas of policy from the years 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2004 (as of July of each year).21 Although not every policy from the previous sections has a companion table here, data for every year from 1996 through 2004 for each policy can be found in the WRD.

To help users more easily identify changes in policies across time, the changes from one year to the next have been bolded in all of the longitudinal tables. Note that because the tables do not represent every year, the changes may have occurred in a year before the bolded year. Information on the when specific changes occurred is available in the WRD.

The following discussion provides more information on the policies included in this section and the specific policies discussed in the tables.

Formal diversion: Table L1 indicates which states have a formal diversion program that diverts eligible applicants or recipients from ongoing TANF receipt by providing a one-time cash payment directly to the family or to a vendor for expenses incurred by the family. Other strategies that states may use to divert applicants from ongoing receipt of cash benefits (such as requiring an applicant to participate in job search or resource and referral services) are not identified as diversion programs in the table.

States did not have the option to divert units under AFDC. However, a few states experimented with diversion through waivers. Generally, diversion programs began as demonstration projects in a few counties, and, after TANF, were expanded statewide.22

Two-parent eligibility: Table L2 describes states’ deviation from the prior federal AFDC rules for two-parent, nondisabled units over time. The key AFDC policies were the 100-hour rule for both applicants and recipients, a 6-out-of-13-quarter work history test, and a 30-day waiting period. “Standard AFDC” describes the states that impose the AFDC rules. “Modified” describes the states that no longer impose all the former AFDC requirements on units but still impose some additional requirements. The specific combination of modified rules is footnoted. States that no longer impose any special requirements on two-parent units are denoted by “None.”

Many states began modifying or removing special requirements for two-parent units under waivers. This process continued under TANF, which does not require states to impose any special requirements on two-parent units.

Initial eligibility at application: Table L3 calculates the amount of earned income a three-person unit can receive and still be technically eligible for assistance. “Technically eligible” means that the unit is eligible for assistance but may not actually receive a cash benefit. Most states will not pay out a benefit for less than a specified amount (usually $10), but as long as the unit’s potential benefit is positive, it is technically eligible. The calculations in this table are based on the states’ income eligibility tests, earned income disregards, benefit computation, and eligibility and payment standards.

Earned income disregards for benefit computation: Table L4 describes the earned income disregards allowed in determining the net income used for benefit computation. The disregards in this table apply to recipients.23

Earned income disregards for benefit computation under AFDC were a standard $120 and 33.3 percent for the first four months, $120 for the next eight months, and $90 thereafter. Through waivers, many states began changing their disregard policies, which often allowed units to keep more of their income and remain eligible for aid. This broadening of disregards continued under TANF, which allows states to determine their own disregard policies.

Maximum monthly benefit for a family of three with no income: Table L5 indicates the benefit that a family of three will receive if it has no income. The benefits are calculated assuming the assistance unit includes one parent and two children, contains no children subject to a family cap, has no special needs, pays for all shelter costs with no subsidies, and is subject to the benefit standard that applies to the majority of the state’s caseload.

Maximum benefits have always varied across states. Benefit computation formulas and payment standards were two policies that states were able to determine under AFDC. The wide variation in states’ benefits still exists under TANF, but benefits have changed relatively infrequently across time.

Work-related exemption when caring for a child under X months: Table L6 indicates what age a child must be under for the unit head to be exempt from work-related requirements. The unit head is assumed to be a single parent age 20 or older with a high school diploma or GED.

Under AFDC, parents were exempt from the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program if they had children less than 36 months old.24 Under waivers, many states began reducing the age of the child exemption. Then, with the passage of TANF, the federal government reduced the maximum age for the exemption to 12 months for the state’s participation rate calculation. States can exempt units with children younger or older than 12 months, but units with children over 12 months old will be included in their work participation rate denominator. States with waivers also can continue their previous exemption policy under TANF until the waivers expire.

Most severe sanction policy for noncompliance with work requirements for single-parent adults: Table L7 describes the most severe sanction policy for noncompliance with work requirements.

Under AFDC, the worst-case sanction for not complying with work requirements was the removal of the adult for benefit computation purposes. The unit was sanctioned for six months or until compliance. By 1996, a few states had begun to impose more severe sanctions on noncompliant units. These policies continued and expanded under TANF. The federal government requires that all states sanction individuals for not complying with work requirements, but the states are allowed to determine the severity of the sanction.

Asset tests: Tables L8 and L9 describe the asset limits and vehicle exemptions for recipients, respectively. If the tests are different for applicants, they are footnoted.

States have liberalized asset tests over the past several years. Under AFDC rules, the federal government set the maximum amount of assets a unit could retain and still remain eligible at $1,000 of countable assets, with an exclusion of $1,500 of the equity value of a vehicle. During the early 1990s, states began experimenting with higher asset limits and vehicle exemptions through waivers. Under TANF, states determine the maximum allowable level of assets.

Family caps: Table L10 indicates which states have implemented family cap policies. States did not have the option to cap additional children under AFDC. However, a few states experimented with family caps through waivers.25 TANF neither requires nor prohibits family cap policies.